Does anyone else prefer open sights to peep/aperture? I know that aperture sights are supposed to be more accurate, but I shoot noticeably better with open sighted guns, especially the type that have square rear sight openings. It's more difficult to properly align the post of the aperture sight because centering the post in a circle is more difficult than centering the post in the middle of a square, where you have an easy reference to line up the vertical axis.
i don't even ads
>is more difficult to properly align the post of the aperture sight because centering the post in a circle is more difficult
have you checked your eye dominance or eyesight?
No, although it's 20/20 wearing contacts.
Conceptually, open sights are superior for accuracy because once it's very easy to match the top of the front post with the rear. Once you do that, it's only a matter of centering the post between the notches. It's not as easy with a circle, since you have no easily marked reference for vertical or horizontal - you're relying on guesstimating lining up the post in the center.
>Conceptually, open sights are superior for accuracy
>every single match rifle that can have apertures has apertures
No, I think you just have no idea how to shoot.
>why does every match rifle have apertures
They have tiny microscopic ass sizes apertures. Which according to aperture theorists is unnecessary, because all you need to ensure perfect alignment on the target is a smaller aperture than x, x being related to your entrance pupil size. And if the standard AR type pattern rear peep is too big for matches, and a smaller peep is more accurate for alignment, why is that?
1. The AR peep sight works as described, but not at match ranges or due to some other parameter, which the smaller match peep corrects, or
2. The AR peep sight is too large to function as an aperture for a match shooter and provide the necessary optical effect, and therefore normal point geometry and angles become the mode of analysis, so having a smaller peep sight reduces the possible horizontal and vertical alignment error when aiming due to the smaller maximum distances and angles
I can't tell if you're shitposting or if you actually have never used iron sights before.
Don't really have a problem with either.
Buckhorn sights can go back to the level of hell they were conjured up from though.
>centering the post in a circle
That's not how aperture sights work. Aperture sights are parallax free due to the way they interact with the eye. You don't actually have to center the post in the aperture, just keep the post away from the blurry edges of the aperture and you're golden.
http://dougkerr.net/Pumpkin/articles/Aperture_Sight.pdf
forgot pic
I read the PDF. There's not definitive evidence there that apertures eliminate parallax, just that some authors have noticed it provides parallax suppression. I never took optical physics but he relies on assumptions. Mainly that the aperture is smaller than the entrance pupil of the eye.
Whether or not it's true, I shoot worse with aperture sights. On open sight milsurp I can do 2-3 MOA. I've never shot better than 5 with an aperture sighted rifle.
>Mainly that the aperture is smaller than the entrance pupil of the eye.
What a whopper.
Truly making an ass of u and mption.
You do you I guess. I've tested their claims myself at the range with my Colt SP-1 and verified that they're correct; there is no observable parallax error as long as the front post does not move into the blurry area at the edge of the aperture circle. This is much better than the experimental observations of parallax error in nominally "parallax-free" red dot sights (which also only suppress parallax as long as the dot stays away from the edge of the optical area)
https://www.greeneyetactical.com/2017/07/27/comparative-study-of-red-dot-sight-parallax/
>There's not definitive evidence there that apertures eliminate parallax
These are called your eyes anon.
Everybody can see it with their own eyes.
Mount rifle with aperture sight. Aim at far object centering post in the middle of the aperture. Now without moving rifle shift your head side to side so front posts moves around aperture circle. Front post stays on target just like red dot.
Stop arguing right now and see it with your own eyes, simple as.
P.S. for three hundred years shooters used aperture sights wrong, not making aforementioned experiment. It's shocking how stupid gun users and designers are....
>Stop arguing right now and see it with your own eyes, simple as.
He cant
He admitted his eyes are 20/20 with contacts aka they are fucked without some form of corrective lens. And even with that lens his eyes dont work the same as a normal person.
>And even with that lens his eyes dont work the same as a normal person.
It doesn't matter for apperture effect.
Like I said stop talking and do looking.
Not the guy you’re responding too, but how about you just look through your sights and test it. You do own a gun with irons right anon?
>line up front post on center of the target and aperture
>move head slightly to right side without moving rifle
>front post is now slightly left of where it previously was in vision from the target center and aperture center
This is how we know you haven't actually done this. You would think the post would move - how could it possibly not? But it doesn't, it just stays on the bull until your head moves far enough that the post is in the blurry area near the edge of the aperture.
It actually does move. Maybe I have smaller pupils than you, and thus the effect of the aperture is lessened. I really wish peep sights were magick black holes of optics that instantly align your eyes, because I can't shoot as well with them.
My dude I think your eyes are either fucked up royal or you're just making shit up to justify a hot take you have
Maybe my eyes are fucked up in a way that hurts the use of peep sights, I don't know. But I'm curious. I am more accurate with most common open sights vs. peep sights and posted my understanding of why. Some posters in the thread have deferred to the expert opinion that peep sights are superior, my analysis was wrong because of reason, or that I was lying. I am trying to understand the expert theory and if it applies, is wrong, or wrong to an extent. Others seem to have a similar personal experience to my own. They could be lying, or peep sights could be inferior for them for some reason.
centering the front sight in the circle is something you just do if your eyes and mind is normal. you dont think about it you dont try to do it. it just is the default.
if you cant do this something is wrong with you. you could be using the non dominant eye, you could be holding the gun wrong, maybe your eyes are fucked.
youve admitted you have glasses/contacts. you arent alone plenty of people have shit wrong with them.
Nope, you're obviously bullshitting. Or maybe you're using a ghost ring sight and just don't know the difference.
>smaller pupils than you
You on opiods when you're shooting?
Because if not, your pupils are definitely not smaller than the 0.050"-0.070" apertures common on most military and target rifles.
If you're using the 0.200" ghost ring on the A2 sight, then yes, your pupil is quite likely smaller than this in daylight, because that's not what it's made for. That's only for low-light and/or snap shooting at short ranges, so flip it the other way.
>They have tiny microscopic ass sizes apertures.
This was already answered in
, they use smaller apertures to get a clearer sight picture by increasing DOF, not to fix accuracy problems.
>On open sight milsurp I can do 2-3 MOA. I've never shot better than 5 with an aperture sighted rifle.
I find it hard to believe as long as you keep the front post at least somewhat centered every shot. Maybe you have convinced yourself that you shoot worse with aperture sights, which makes you shoot worse, but due to other factors? Do you have a mantis to objectively measure the movement of the rifle as you pull the trigger?
Nta but I cannot hit shit with aperture sights either. I have been looking for some open sights for my mini 14. I have an aperture on my mini 14 and 10/22. Compared to any of my other guns with open sights like my sks or lever guns, its no contest. Im fact, flipping up the tang sight on my winchester 62 makes me a worse shot somehow.
Also NTA but for me i'll admit it's purely an issue of confidence and comfort. I know if I put in the time& effort to shoot with aperture sights, I'd probably shoot much better with them than with open sights. However at this point I'm too far gone and just have no confidence with them. Also I'm a big fan of old milsurp bolt guns with open sights so i really have no incentive to put the time in with apertures
>aperture sights are parallax free
No. They are close, but not free.
See the article linked in
, aperture sights are much more free of parallax than "parallax-free" red dot sights, and it isn't even close.
I'm with you OP. I learned to shoot on open sights so I'm just way more comfortable with them, and I have a real confidence issue with aperture sights
I'm with you OP, I find aperture sights hard to use. When shooting an AR with irons I can't really use the peephole sight at and I have 20/20 vision. I much prefer open style sights like on an AK
>not in any way referring to the actions of the firearms themselves, only the styles of sight
I'm fine with pistol open sights, but my eyes are fucked up and I can't use open sights on rifles. Apertures and diopters are much easier to use for me. I love the H&K diopter on the MP5.
Well it's good to know I'm not crazy and some people prefer open sights. I wonder if an aperture with indexing references at each extremity of the circle would help, like pic related.
diamond hole sights exist and kinda suck. they arent horrible but not great either
>indexing references at each extremity of the circle would help
Nope, because the centeredness of the post and aperture matters even less than the centeredness of a red dot within its optical area.
Fuck no, I'll always shoot better with and prefer aperture.
> It's more difficult to properly align the post of the aperture sight because centering the post in a circle is more difficult than centering the post in the middle of a square, where you have an easy reference to line up the vertical axis.
Skill issue I'm afraid
I prefer left
Neither. I use a modern high quality red dot. I evolved.
From the moment I understood the weakness of my batter-powered optic, it disgusted me. I craved the strength and certainty of iron sights. I aspired to the purity of the Blessed Tangent. Your kind cling to your tritium, as though it will not decay and fail you. One day the crude beam you call the red dot will fade, and you will beg my kind to save you. But I am already saved, for the Iron Sight is immortal… Even in death I serve the Aperturesiah.
how about etched reticle prisms?
I just use a laser for the extra accuracy in hip fire, never been an issue cause they never hear me coming
It's down to your eyesight. I have astigmatism, so even when corrected peep sights do nothing but block my view completely. for people with good eyes tho, a peep sight is literally as effective as a scope if not better in some circumstances
buckhorns and 3 dot are my jam
3 dot is the bee's knees. Ever try glock's weird dot and U thing? I'm thinking about buying a glock& i haven't tried the sights yet
>Ever try glock's weird dot and U thing
Yep. shot a group with a G17 and it was high and to the left, so the sights are garbo.
went to do some backyard archery with a buddy and all my groups were high and to the left, so his bow+arrows is just as crap as the Glock was.
can't figure out how this bad luck follows me around
They’re fine for what they are but I switched mine out to a set of Trijicon 3 dots.
RK-62 has both
Had a boomer quartermaster teach us to flip the rear sights from the aperture to the open night sights in closer engagements, only for every zoomer NCO afterwards to instruct otherwise
>s. It's more difficult to properly align the post of the aperture sight because centering the post in a circle is more difficult than centering the post in the middle of a square, where you have an easy reference to line up the vertical axis.
Fun fact retarded boomers don't know: you don't need to allign post in the center of aperture sight, this is why it works...
>but boomers told me otherwise!
Forget everything boomers told you ...
>just like red dot
Peep sights are the analog version of red dots, it's where the red dot inventors got the idea originally
Is this why nobody could aim for shit in the world wars?
No, the reason for that is they were trying not to get shredded by machine guns and artillery.
Thanks for the thread, been trying to wrap my head around this, too.
bought this
https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1323188238?pid=498001
and put it on my AR-10. God-tier accurate with a rear peep.
The whole point of an aperture is once you can see the front post, it's lined up (assuming you're looking through the aperture). If you need a mod precise sight, you use a smaller aperture; that's why target rifles have tiny pinhole apertures
>that's why target rifles have tiny pinhole apertures
Nope, target shooters use smaller apertures to increase depth of field. With a small enough aperture you can simultaneously get the post and target bull in nearly perfect focus.
It also causes a weird apparent magnification effect. It's not much, but it can get up to like 1.4 or 1.5x. And that's desirable.
If you shoot irons on long guns in the year of our lord 2023 you are post-retarded and on into the reverse brain development.
>COUNTERPOINT
if you can't shoot a gun without a battery in it, you don't know what you're foing
>if you can't
It's not about ability, it's about preference (as with literally every aspect of firearms)
Okay, I PREFER iron sights.
OP is a worthless shitter that is allergic to superior technology as always, possibly an AKfag.
I prefer ARs for ergonomics/everything, and use optics on them so it's moot there.
You sound like a normie who wants to "trust the experts" in the face of contradicting evidence, and resort to illogic and hysteria instead of reason. That doesn't work in real life if you want to actually do things.
>in the face of contradicting evidence
you haven't provided any
>evidence
may we see it?
>You sound like a normie who wants to "trust the experts" in the face of contradicting evidence
nagger you cannot be serious about this