scope versus peep sights [Archive] - Jouster2 Shooting Forums

View Full Version : scope versus peep sights

aintright

07-22-2012, 10:01

I finally got me a set of peep sights for my Super Exclusive CZ yesterday . So I zeroed it this morning and found out there is quite a difference if you're not used to sights . I have been practising standing shooting with the 22 L.R. to cut back on costs . I had a Weaver 2.5X scope on the rifle thinking this was close to peep sights as the magnification was slight . Well I guess that isn't true , I usually shoot 4 five shot groups at 100 yds with the rifle at the SR-1 targets and average has been around 40 points out of a possible 50 for each string of groups . Today using peep sights , one string was 32 the other 37 , so it looks like I got a lot of practice ahead of me , LOL . I was wondering if I was B.S.ing myself by using the scope and looks like I was . Oh well , just means more fun learning the sights . Kenneth

dave

07-22-2012, 11:58

With a scope, target and sight (cross hair) are on one focal plane, so your eyes need not focus back and forth on objects at different distances. With peep sights you have two objects, the front sight and target. You should look "thru" the peep, ignore it, and look at the front sight and your eye will center the front sight at the 'point of strongest lite' which is the center of the peep. The bull should just remain a blur---don't try to bring that in focus or you eye will be going 'back and forth', so to speak. That was the advantage of a peep over open sights. Peeps should be close to the eye, allowing for recoil!
You may have been concentrating on centering the front sight in the peep hole and front sight on target, etc. Peep sight are very good for quick shots in the field. For hunting larger holes are called for.

aintright

07-22-2012, 04:50

Yep I was doing exactly that, trying to make sure I had the front sight hood centered in the rearpeep and aligning the front post 6 o'clock on the bull . I will take your advise and keep practising, thank you, Kenneth

NMC_EXP

07-31-2012, 06:08

When using iron sights there are three main factors:
1. Sight alignment - the relationship between the rear sight and front sight.
2. Sight picture - the relationship between the front sight and bull.
3. Focus - should be on the front sight when you start applying trigger control.

When you settle into position do a quick check of sight alignment (and check your target number board) then let this run on auto pilot. Your brain will take care of it in your subconscious.

In the beginning you do need to consciously work on sight picture - with enough practice sight picture will be handled at the subconscious level.

Focusing on the front sight is counter-intuitive and will require some work to transition to focusing on the front sight rather than the target.

With enough practice the executing the fundamentals becomes automatic. No more running thru a mental checklist each time you prepare to fire a shot. When that happens, your scores will go up.

Like somebody said: "All you have to do is point it at the middle of the target, then release the trigger such that it is still pointing at the middle when the bullet leaves the muzzle."

The .22 rimfire is less forgiving than centerfire calibers regarding follow through, natural point of aim and how the rifle is held.

If you check the records of the long range matches where they shoot irons and scopes, the scopes generally win, but not by much.

Regards

Jim

Maury Krupp

08-01-2012, 08:16

There are two items of "conventional wisdom" on iron sights that, while not necessarily 100% wrong, may not be 100% right either.

Item 1: "The human eye can only focus at a one distance at a time."

There are two definitions of "focus." One is the amount of optical blur on an image; how sharp an object looks. The other is where attention is directed; what you're looking AT.

I believe somehow or somewhere these two definitions got mixed up and the result has been the root of much frustration on the part of many shooters.

Every lens, whether it's in the human eyeball or a pair of glasses, has a focal distance. That is the distance where the smallest amount of optical blur exists; where things are "in focus."

There is also an area in front of and behind that focal distance where all other objects also have that minimum optical blur. This area is known as Depth of Field. Everything between the near and far limits of that depth of field will be "in focus" in the optical sense. How large or small that depth of field is, where the near and far limits are, is controlled by aperture size. That aperture can be either on the sights or the pupil of the eye. Either way, the smaller the aperture the greater the depth of field (ie, the more distance in front of and behind the focal distance where everything is in optical focus). That's why turning up the lights makes reading the fancy restaurant menu easier; more light constricts the pupil increasing depth of field which brings the menu into focus.

It's possible, by using the right combination of lens to set the proper focal distance and adjusting aperture size to obtain the necessary depth of field around that focal distance, for the human eye to see both the front sight and target in equal optical focus. We see similar results in photographs every day; the same optical principles that apply to a camera apply to the human eye.

So the idea that it's impossible for the human eye to see both the target and front sight with equal optical clarity is simply wrong.

But if the other definition of "focus" is used the conventional wisdom works better.

What the human eye/brain CAN'T do is LOOK AT more than one thing at a time. Regardless of whether a group of things are all the same or different distances you can only really look at one of them. Only that one thing is in the center of the image being projected on the retina. You still see the other things but you're not looking AT them.

Line up several objects all at the same distance and try to move your eyes smoothly down the line. You can't do it. Your eye (your "focus") will jump from object to object. The one you're looking AT will seem clearer than the others on either side. Even though all the objects are at the same distance so there's no question that they're all in optical focus, the objects you're not looking AT will appear less distinct.

Because you can only look at one thing at a time you need to pick something to look at right before breaking the shot.

Prior to around mid-1943 the conventional wisdom was to focus on the target. That means in 1921 Dad Farr shot his 71 consecutive 1000yd bullseyes by focusing on the target. Seems like it worked well enough for him at the time.

However, since 1943 shooters have been taught to "focus on" the front sight. This does seem to produce better results than the old technique of looking at the target (or anything else). I'm not sure exactly why; probably for consistency and because, being closer, the front sight is generally easier for most people to concentrate on.

Item 2: "Center the front sight in the rear aperture."

In a general sense it's necessary and in a general sense the human eye/brain will do it simply by looking through the aperture. No conscious effort on the part of the shooter is normally required.

But there's also an interesting phenomenon known as "parallax suppression" which practically eliminates the need to even try to center the front sight. It happens when the rear sight's aperture is smaller than the eye's aperture (ie, the pupil). The effect of parallax suppression is that it doesn't really matter where in the aperture the front sight is. Precisely centered or not centered at all, the total induced error will still be less than the size of the X-ring (1MOA). Apertures commonly used in competition shooting are all smaller than the normal human eye's pupil can constrict. The standard .069 aperture of the M1 is right around the point where parallax suppression may or may not occur depending on an individual's eye.

Bottom line, to shoot with iron sights you must see both the target and front sight with sufficient optical clarity to consistently align the two into the same relationship shot to shot.

Both the target and the front sight must be in reasonable optical focus.

The advice to "stick the front sight in the center of the blur" only works if "the blur" is still optically clear enough to allow consistent front sight placement. When the clarity isn't there the shooter can't tell where in "the blur" the front sight truly is. The resulting huge vertical swings are especially noticeable at longer distances where more scoring rings are black and the insufficient depth of field really stands out. The shooter can't tell if he's holding in the X-ring or the 7-ring at 12 o'clock or the 7-ring at 6 o'clock. They're all in "the blur" and they all look the same.

To get the necessary clarity back the optical math says you should focus at twice the distance from your eye to the front sight (photographers call this the "hyperfocal distance") and use the smallest aperture that still allows enough light to pass through for a sufficiently bright sight picture.

Then once you've got your optical issues sorted, you can just put the front sight somewhere in the rear aperture, line up the front sight on the target in the same place shot-to-shot, look AT the front sight, and most important of all, "focus" on executing a good shot from head to toe to trigger finger.

Sure sounds easy doesn't it :rolleyes:

Maury

NMC_EXP

08-01-2012, 11:12

Maury

There ya go, knocking conventional wisdom off it's pedestal (at least giving it a shove and causing it to wobble).

What the human eye/brain CAN'T do is LOOK AT more than one thing at a time. Regardless of whether a group of things are all the same or different distances you can only really look at one of them. Only that one thing is in the center of the image being projected on the retina. You still see the other things but you're not looking AT them.

Because you can only look at one thing at a time you need to pick something to look at right before breaking the shot.

I believe you are correct regarding only looking at one thing at a time. This fact evolved into focusing on the front sight for ease of training.

I never shot with a scope until this year when I started using one for smallbore prone. I recently realized I was trying to simultaneously "look at" both the crosshairs and the center of the X-ring.

From this I concluded that: (1) I cannot "look at" both the crosshairs and center of the target at the same time. (2) Both are on the same optical plane therefore the inability to "look at" two things simultaneously is brain, not eye related.

Last couple of times I've tried "looking at" the center of the X-ring while just being aware of the crosshairs wandering around. I think this is going to work much better, and it does not feel like my eye and brain are doing a tug-of-war.

Regards

Jim

Griff Murphey

08-01-2012, 11:21

Maury Krupp

08-01-2012, 12:35

...So I think our eye focuses back and forth, and it is a complex issue...
If your depth of field is insufficiently large then you do indeed focus back and forth.

You use your eye muscles to change the focal distance of the lens in your eye. When the focal distance is right to see the front sight the depth of field is too small to see the target and vice-versa. All the switching back and forth tires out your eye muscles until they can't do it anymore. That's part of the reason why many of us suck at 600yd; by the time we get back there our eye muscles are shot!

The goal is to have both the front sight AND the target within your depth of field so no switching back and forth (and no wearing out your eye muscles).

To do that you'll need your eye's relaxed focus to be at the "hyperfocal" distance. That's the happy medium between the front sight and target. For most eyes this distance is neither your distance nor your reading Rx so you'll need to see your eye quack to get the proper Rx.

Once that's done you create a sufficiently large depth of field by adjusting the aperture smaller and smaller. In normal light, most people will be able to get the aperture small enough to have a large enough depth of field while still having a bright enough sight picture.

It doesn't surprise me a bit that you can see and do well at short ranges and not do the same at longer distances. The same thing was happening to me.

I could shoot cleans and 99s on the smallbore target at 50 and 100yd; mid-to high 90s on the 200yd reduced. I could usually call my bad shots. At 500 and 600 I stank on ice. All my shots seemed to look the same when they broke but one would be a center X, the next a 7 at 12, and the next a 7 at 6. I knew my hold and execution didn't suck that bad from my short range scores so it had to be my eyes.

After reading and doing some research (and spending a fair amount of money on various dead-end experiments) I tried this approach. It has proven to be the solution for me. My 600yd scores jumped from the mid-80s into the low and sometimes high 90s. Even better, I can now call my shots allowing me to concentrate on shot execution which is really critical.

Maury

NMC_EXP

08-01-2012, 05:02

"I tried this approach. It has proven to be the solution for me. My 600yd scores jumped from the mid-80s into the low and sometimes high 90s. "

Maury

Other than service rifle I use an adjustable rear aperture choked down to the minimum light will allow.

Does your approach include an aiming eye correction set at the hyperfocal distance?

I have a fresh eyeball Rx and a set of trial lens from I.S.S. for specing out a new lens for my shooting glasses.

Neal told me to set up a target, hold the lenses one by one in between the eye and the sight and pick out the one that gives the best view of front sight and target. This sounds like it ought to take care of the hyperfocal objective.

Regards

Jim

Maury Krupp

08-02-2012, 08:36

...Does your approach include an aiming eye correction set at the hyperfocal distance?...

Yes, it does.

I tried my near Rx, distance Rx, a Rx set at the front sight, even one of those drugstore reading stick-ons; this hyperfocal Rx seems to be the only one that really works.

I think using hand-held lenses to find the right Rx might be tricky; especially if you're doing it yourself. I know my problems don't really surface until the target's way out there so I had the Spousal Unit measure from my eye to the front sight and trusted the math. Kludged a binder clip to a camera tripod and take it to my eye quack's office. He clips an eye chart on, sets it at the hyperfocal distance for an M1, and we do the standard "better?" "worse?" drill.

The person who pointed me in this direction and did all the math is a guy named Art Neergaard. You may recognize him as ShootingSight. He's also the guy who came up with the rectangular aperture along with other gimmicks.

I know I probably sound like a reformed drunk on this subject but for me it really has made a night and day difference. I still have plenty of trouble with the wind and I'll buck or drag wood for 9s or worse but I can SEE all that now. Those out-of-nowhere-looked-good-to-me-WTF? shots are now just a bad memory.

Maury

NMC_EXP

08-02-2012, 09:23

Maury

Thanks for the reply. My up close vision went at 40 YOA. I've used Bob Jones lenses and corrected shooting glasses. Both are big improvements but still not like it was back when I was 20/10 & 20/15 and no presbyopia.

I am familar with Art N. from the NM Forum. Ive used Neal Stepp at ISS in the past and brand loyalty directed me back to him. I'll brush up on hyperfocal over at NM and ask Neal about it. I still shoot the M1A but and drifting towards match rifle and prone. Hopefully one size fits all.

I still have plenty of trouble with the wind and I'll buck or drag wood for 9s or worse but I can SEE all that now. Those out-of-nowhere-looked-good-to-me-WTF? shots are now just a bad memory.

That's me - wind is good, touch it off, looks right down the middle and it's a wide 9. That is frustrating to the point of taking the fun out of it.

Regards

Jim

Tom

08-05-2012, 08:17

This is interesting to me because as I have aged my right eye's nearsightedness has decreased. My uncorrected focal point is just about where you say it should be; about 4 1/2 feet away. I get a great sight picture, not counting the bull, uncorrected. And I see A GREAT sight picture dry firing indoors, uncorrected. The "bull" is maybe 5-7 feet away.

But when I aim in at an SR at 100 or 200, I do not see the bull well enough. So I think our eye focuses back and forth, and it is a complex issue. Basically, it's hades getting old(er).

Very, interesting to me also. Just like Griff, My right eye, now, clearly focuses on front sight but coyote or pig is a slight blur. I thought this was detrimental to shooting, so I have been transitioning to scope hunting (which I don't like for this short distance). The confusing part is that my left eye is better and I can focus on both the front sight and the target, Wish I was left handed. However Jim and Maury say I shouldn't be able to do this anyhow.

Tom

08-05-2012, 08:34

Maury Krupp

08-06-2012, 07:19

...However Jim and Maury say I shouldn't be able to do this anyhow...
There are laws of physics that control how light waves act and generalities on how parts of the human body work and age but there are no absolutes that describe how every individual will perceive things. What you see, what I see, and what a third person sees may not be (often aren't) exactly the same.

If you see better with your left eye (left eye dominant) the current conventional wisdom is you'll shoot better by switching.

But again that depends on the individual. I'm left or right eye dominant depending on which glasses I'm wearing, very right-handed, and an M1 is a right-handed rifle. So I shoot right-handed. It's easier and, if I execute a good shot, I see well enough to hold the 10-ring.

It depends on the situation too. For controlled shooting on a known distance range what I do works for me. In a different application such as hunting, it might not work out so well.

All theories and generalities and conventional wisdom aside, if something works for you that's the only thing that really matters.

Maury