What are Ghost Ring Sights?

[jaycee]

Ahh where to start . . . . Well if we visit page 112 of "To Ride, Shoot Straight, and Speak the Truth" we find that open pistol sights can almost be held in one focus because the sights are close together , but held far from the eye. One might expect when all we can see is the rifle's front sight on the target it could only be sharper.

Yes,...... where to start......

Did you notice in the passage you quoted above, that it says "we find that open pistol sights can almost be held in one focus because the sights are close together , but held far from the eye. One might expect when all we can see is the rifle's front sight on the target it could only be sharper"; almost does not equal "Both front and rear sights are in focus when pistol shooting at a blurred target" as you have stated. As close together as pistol sights are, when focusing on your front sight, the rear sight will still be somewhat blurred - focused enough to accurately guage equal daylight on both sides of the front sight, but not in the same focus as the front sight.

"One might expect when all we can see is the rifle's front sight on the target it could only be sharper." Yes, with a longer sight radius, the front sight may tend to look sharper (you can achieve the same effect with a smaller ocular aperture such as what is used in full bore long range competition), but again "it could only be sharper" does not equal both front sight and target in focus at the same time as you have been stating.

I suspect you have some training as an optometrist, or at the very least you have put the question to some one with that training, but let's play a little game. We generally estimate distance by the size of an object against it's background, or compared to another object of a known size in our view. A front sight out on the end of a rifle barrel is far enough away from our eye that it not in near range focus. Once an object is in far range focus it does not matter how far it it - for example the tree you see in front of the mountain is in focus just as the mountain is. But when a mosquito flies close to your face, if you focus on it, both the tree and the mountain loose their focus. The front sight on a rifle is far enough away that your brain does not say oh, it's only half an inch high so I must not be able to see it in focus. No - if you look through your aperture at the front sight your brain cannot range it because it cannot differentiate between it and the background. For all your brain knows, that front sight is a gigantic post 100 feet high out in the distance - or thousands of miles tall if put against the moon.

Nope, not an optometrist. Just a life long student of shooting and someone that's a competitor, instructor and coach as well; and along the way I've also been lucky enough to receive coaching from coaches with national standing. You're right that I've talked with several optometrists though, and have consulted with two that specialize in optics for competitive shooters. Unfortunately you're confusing yourself. Your analogy of "Once an object is in far range focus it does not matter how far it it - for example the tree you see in front of the mountain is in focus just as the mountain is. But when a mosquito flies close to your face, if you focus on it, both the tree and the mountain loose their focus." is way off:

If you're looking at a tree against a mountain across a valley, then ya, it will appear to be in the same focus; the eye won't be able to discern the difference in focus of a tree at 5 miles superimposed against a mountain thats 5 miles and 10 yards away, or 5 miles and 100 yards away for that matter. Now go and stick a front sight three feet in front of your face and focus on it, and I'm sorry, but it won't appear in the same focus as the mountain you are peering at - if by some blessing one is gifted with the eyes of an eagle, they may possibly appear closer in focus than to the average person, but they still won't be equally in focus as you have been stating all along.

For all your brain knows, that front sight is a gigantic post 100 feet high out in the distance - or thousands of miles tall if put against the moon."

You're comparing apples to oranges here; describing the apparent hight of two objects at different distances is perspective, not focus.

I'm sorry, but it seems like you are taking approximations and adopting them as absolutes. This is what concerns me about your posts - there are a lot of very experienced shooters that frequent this forum, but there are also a lot of beginners here as well, and posts like yours are often a frequent source of confusion to a beginning shooter - one I've often witnessed.

 

[Boomer]

It is obvious you did not look up the passage I referred to because I did not quote the passage - I only made reference to it.

The reason the focus is not quite sharp is that, as with open rifle sights, there are 3 focus points which we cannot manage. This does infer however, that a front sight on a target when viewed through an apreture - both of which are in your far field of focus, are thus in focus. You don't have to read a book, just take your rifle or shotgun out and try it.

 

[nairbg]

Ahh where to start . . . . Well if we visit page 112 of "To Ride, Shoot Straight, and Speak the Truth" we find that open pistol sights can almost be held in one focus because the sights are close together , but held far from the eye. One might expect when all we can see is the rifle's front sight on the target it could only be sharper.

I suspect you have some training as an optometrist, or at the very least you have put the question to some one with that training, but let's play a little game. We generally estimate distance by the size of an object against it's background, or compared to another object of a known size in our view. A front sight out on the end of a rifle barrel is far enough away from our eye that it not in near range focus. Once an object is in far range focus it does not matter how far it it - for example the tree you see in front of the mountain is in focus just as the mountain is. But when a mosquito flies close to your face, if you focus on it, both the tree and the mountain loose their focus. The front sight on a rifle is far enough away that your brain does not say oh, it's only half an inch high so I must not be able to see it in focus. No - if you look through your aperture at the front sight your brain cannot range it because it cannot differentiate between it and the background. For all your brain knows, that front sight is a gigantic post 100 feet high out in the distance - or thousands of miles tall if put against the moon.

Boomer you are mixing your optic physiologies here. Depth perception (and size estimation is part of that) is a result of binocular vision. It is the brain's ability to use the separate information coming from to separated images and to calculate angles into size or distance. The reason that this abilty decreases with distance is that the angles get to small for useful calculations.

As far as focus is concerned, if you have a camera that has manual focus, look at the numbers on the focus ring of the lens. You will see that the lens has to be focused from 0' out to about 30', and past that, there is no longer any need to change focus. This is precidely how the lens in the eye works, since the physics of light and lenses is no different in the eye and in the camera lens. This means that for each distance from 0'-30' the focus must change.

That said, the brain is a wonderful thing, and it can do amazing things with the information it gets. For instance, ask a non-shooter to look at their finger tip held at arm's length. Tell them to "see" something small (a light switch) that is a 10' from them, while looking AT their finger tip. They will tell you that they see 2 light switches (slightly out of focus), or they will experience a vision-shift and tell you that they see the light switch perfectly, while they now see 2 finger tips, slightly out of focus. Yes, this is a mix of accomodation and focus, but it is an example of what the "untrained eye" really sees, as opposed to what you fellows are talking about, which is part optic physiology, and part shooting training/experiance.

 

[Striker]

. You don't have to read a book, just take your rifle or shotgun out and try it.

That's what I based my comments on. It is impossible for you to focus on a front site and a target and have them both in focus.
I've been shooting a long time (not as long as you) and I've got 14 years as an instructor under my belt and I've never heard anyone say they can focus on the front site and the target with any kind of open or iron sites.
I shoot with one of the best service rifle shooters in Canada and spent many many hours talking with him about everything from ammo to reading wind, site pictures to position and not once has he ever mentioned this.
I'm not implying you are lying, just commenting on the fact you aren't seeing what you think you see.

 

[jaycee]

It is obvious you did not look up the passage I referred to because I did not quote the passage - I only made reference to it.

The reason the focus is not quite sharp is that, as with open rifle sights, there are 3 focus points which we cannot manage. This does infer however, that a front sight on a target when viewed through an apreture - both of which are in your far field of focus, are thus in focus. You don't have to read a book, just take your rifle or shotgun out and try it.

I didn't need to look up the passage in the book, Boomer. I was making reference to your reference

And just so you know, like Striker, actually taking one's rifle/shotgun out and proving your front sight can't be in focus with your target is exactly what I was referring to. Maybe you've convinced yourself that you can see two different objects at two different distances in forcus at the same time, so you now actually believe it - the mind is a powerful thing.

The art of shooting has been studied for hundreds of years, and much has been written by much better shooters than both of us. The only thing I find dumbfounding about this whole discussion, is that you seem to disregard practically all of what has been written X, much of it by Cooper himself, and is accepted common knowledge.

I'm sorry, Boomer, but most of what you have written so far just contradicts itself.

 

[Boomer]

You guys are making my head hurt.

OK let's talk about camera lenses. A 50 mm lens is referred to as a normal lens, meaning that what you see through a 50 mm lens is the same magnification as our eye sight. A 200 mm lens is 4X and a 500 mm lens is 10X, etc. I was thinking about using this as part of my argument, but there’s a problem. My wife’s fixed 300 mm Nikkor Lens has a minimal focal length of 2.5 meters - or just over 8'. Dividing 8 by 6 gives us a minimal focal distance of 1.3', which should be the minimal focal distance of our normal lens. She also has a 28-105 which has a minimal focal distance of less than 2', so I think we are close. The problem is that the human eye can focus much closer than can a normal camera lens, therefore I believe that any given focal distance marked on a camera lens, between the minimum and infinity has little or no correlation with what the human eye sees. This is why I did not use a camera lens in my argument, nor try to take a picture looking through the sights at a target.

Is it possible that I can’t distinguish between a coarse and fine focus at distance? Sure it is. But as a test I took my ghost ring sighted shotgun out and aimed it at the written warning sign on the side of a bear trap that was placed in a handy location. Looking at the sign from 25 yards I could make out the printing clearly. Aiming with the sign sitting on top of my front post sight I could still read it. Covering the sign with the front sight, I could still read the lettering which was not blocked out by the sight. I maintain by this little experiment, that IF there is a difference of focus between my front sight and the target, it is minimal to the point of being inconsequential.

 

[Striker]

You guys are making my head hurt.

Is it possible that I can’t distinguish between a coarse and fine focus at distance? Sure it is. But as a test I took my ghost ring sighted shotgun out and aimed it at the written warning sign on the side of a bear trap that was placed in a handy location. Looking at the sign from 25 yards I could make out the printing clearly. Aiming with the sign sitting on top of my front post sight I could still read it. Covering the sign with the front sight, I could still read the lettering which was not blocked out by the sight. I maintain by this little experiment, that IF there is a difference of focus between my front sight and the target, it is minimal to the point of being inconsequential.

Okay..when you were reading the sign, could you make out the edges of the front sight blade clearly or could you just "see" the front sight?

 

[jaycee]

You guys are making my head hurt.

OK let's talk about camera lenses. A 50 mm lens is referred to as a normal lens, meaning that what you see through a 50 mm lens is the same magnification as our eye sight. A 200 mm lens is 4X and a 500 mm lens is 10X, etc. I was thinking about using this as part of my argument, but there’s a problem. My wife’s fixed 300 mm Nikkor Lens has a minimal focal length of 2.5 meters - or just over 8'. Dividing 8 by 6 gives us a minimal focal distance of 1.3', which should be the minimal focal distance of our normal lens. She also has a 28-105 which has a minimal focal distance of less than 2', so I think we are close. The problem is that the human eye can focus much closer than can a normal camera lens, therefore I believe that any given focal distance marked on a camera lens, between the minimum and infinity has little or no correlation with what the human eye sees. This is why I did not use a camera lens in my argument, nor try to take a picture looking through the sights at a target.

Is it possible that I can’t distinguish between a coarse and fine focus at distance? Sure it is. But as a test I took my ghost ring sighted shotgun out and aimed it at the written warning sign on the side of a bear trap that was placed in a handy location. Looking at the sign from 25 yards I could make out the printing clearly. Aiming with the sign sitting on top of my front post sight I could still read it. Covering the sign with the front sight, I could still read the lettering which was not blocked out by the sight. I maintain by this little experiment, that IF there is a difference of focus between my front sight and the target, it is minimal to the point of being inconsequential.

Boomer, you didn't mention if you were focusing on the front sight during your experiment. It sounds to me like you are focusing on the target. This is one of things that make a ghost ring very forgiveable. Remember my post about this being the reason that the ghost ring sight works on pistols for those that can no longer focus on the front sight? You can focus on the target while having a slightly out of focus front sight, and still achieve acceptable accuracy.

A simple experiment might be to take some correction fluid and paint some very thin horizontal lines on your front sight - ie. human hair width, every mm or so. Now go look at the sign again. Focus on the front sight so all the thin lines are in focus - can you still read the lettering on the sign? Now, focused so you can still read the sign, can you still see the white lines in clear focus, or do they meld into a white "haze"?. Try it again looking at something 200 meters away.

 

[Boomer]

Front sight in a fight - always, always concentrate on the front sight. I used my 590 in the experiment, and as anyone with a similar model knows, there is a colored insert in the front sight. It is easy to see the black outline of the sight around the colored insert. For my eyes front against a target - regardless of range this makes no difference to "my" focus. I believe the reason for this is because as I said before, the brain cannot distinguish between objects which are in a far field of focus. Because the eye has a deeper field of view than does a camera lens, keeping the front sight and a downrange target in simultaneous focus is not mysterious.

 

[Striker]

. It is easy to see the black outline of the sight around the colored insert.

I can "see" the front sight when I focus on a target too but it isn't the same crisp clear sight I see when I focus on the front sight.

 

[jaycee]

Front sight in a fight - always, always concentrate on the front sight. I used my 590 in the experiment, and as anyone with a similar model knows, there is a colored insert in the front sight. It is easy to see the black outline of the sight around the colored insert. For my eyes front against a target - regardless of range this makes no difference to "my" focus. I believe the reason for this is because as I said before, the brain cannot distinguish between objects which are in a far field of focus. Because the eye has a deeper field of view than does a camera lens, keeping the front sight and a downrange target in simultaneous focus is not mysterious.

Boomer, you keep side-stepping the question: everyone can see the outline of the front sight when focusing on the target - nobody is aguing that. I can too. What we're arguing is that both objects cannot be in clear, crisp focus at the same time.

Your "Front sight in a fight - always, always concentrate on the front sight. quote; are you saying now that you should focus on the front sight only in a fight, but on the target for all other shots?

 

[Boomer]

I never said to focus on the target, I said the target was in focus. Absolute concentration must be made on the front sight to ensure a hit where you intend, this is a matter of shot placement, and has nothing to do with the target being in focus at the same time. If the target is something that can hurt me I will be paying attention to it as well, but when the trigger is pressed the front sight is my point of concentration or I miss. I am sure you guys have heard light down shoot high, light up shoot low. How can a marksman see that little streak of white between his front sight and the bull if his target is not in focus. If he can't clearly see his target to align his front sight, the shot will miss the mark.

 

[Striker]

I never said to focus on the target, I said the target was in focus. Absolute concentration must be made on the front sight to ensure a hit where you intend, this is a matter of shot placement, and has nothing to do with the target being in focus at the same time. If the target is something that can hurt me I will be paying attention to it as well, but when the trigger is pressed the front sight is my point of concentration or I miss.

We are on the same page here.

I am sure you guys have heard light down shoot high, light up shoot low. How can a marksman see that little streak of white between his front sight and the bull if his target is not in focus.

*sigh*..because he can see his target but it won't be in focus..it will be blurry. Due to it being black, blue whatever the white will be visible..if he is using a 6 o:clock hold.

If he can't clearly see his target to align his front sight, the shot will miss the mark.

No..if he isn't focused on his front sight and his point of aim changes he will miss. That is the whole reason for focusing on the front site and not the target just before you fire your shot. Yes you have to focus on the target during target aquisition, then it's all front sight.
You're going in circles Boomer and you still haven't answered my question.

 

[jaycee]

I never said to focus on the target, I said the target was in focus. Absolute concentration must be made on the front sight to ensure a hit where you intend, this is a matter of shot placement, and has nothing to do with the target being in focus at the same time. If the target is something that can hurt me I will be paying attention to it as well, but when the trigger is pressed the front sight is my point of concentration or I miss. I am sure you guys have heard light down shoot high, light up shoot low. How can a marksman see that little streak of white between his front sight and the bull if his target is not in focus. If he can't clearly see his target to align his front sight, the shot will miss the mark.

As Striker pointed out, the marksman is able to see that thin strip of white because it contrasts with the colour of the bull. The whole thing with focusing on your front sight is that you don't have to clearly see your target to get a center hit; if it's a bullseye and your using a 6 o'clock hold, it's easy enough to get a consistant "fuzzy" sliver of white or whatever colour background you're using. If it's a silhouette target, center of mass of the "blur" will do it every time.

Which brings us back to the original argument: if your front sight is in focus, your target won't be, and vis versa.

 

[Striker]

So jaycee..how ya been anyway?
ETA..damn I just wasted post 3000 making small talk!

 

[jaycee]

So jaycee..how ya been anyway?
ETA..damn I just wasted post 3000 making small talk!

I'm doing fine, thank-you

Looks like I've got a bit of catching up to do...... like 2665 posts!

Cheers!

 

[Striker]

I'm doing fine, thank-you

Looks like I've got a bit of catching up to do...... like 2665 posts!

Cheers!

you need to give up your life outside the computer room to do that...don't!

 

[Boomer]

I contend, that when aiming if you can see contrast between the bull and the paper over the front sight, then either the front sight is held too low resulting in a miss, or the target is in focus. Because the target is in focus you can minimize the amount of space between the front sight and the bull. If the front sight is a rectangular post, sitting the bull on top of the post is fairly easy. Because both the front sight and the target are in focus - again with an aperture rather than an open rear sight - the front sight and the bull does not blend into one another as they can with an open sight aiming system. No matter how hard you concentrate on the front sight the bull does not get fuzzy. At least this has been my experience, but I am not a competitive shooter. However the discussion is around ghost rings not target peep sights, which to my way of thinking are built backwards - small aperture large ring.

 

[tiriaq]

Everyone's eyes are different. What works for some will not work for others. I have middle aged presbyopia. If I use an aperture sight with a small enough aperture, the front sight is usefully sharp. If I use a ghost ring aperture, the front sight is blurred beyond use. Just this past Friday, as the afternoon light was fading, I could no longer see using the small aperture - too little light was passing through. I removed the disc, to create a ghost ring, passing more light. The front sight was now so indistinct as to be almost useless. I suppose that at very close range, I could hve circled the target with the front sight hood. Fortunately a shot did not present itself. For handgun shooting, I use 1.25 diopter glasses. The sights are in good focus, the target is a bit blurred, but I can still achieve a decent sight picture. You can aim at a slightly indistinct target, but blurred sights are useless.

 

[Striker]

I give up.
Boomer, you are talking in circles.