Drilling out a peep sight
- Thread starter PAC 762
- Start date
- Status
Atlas Shrug
Member
I've not done this yet, but plan to soon. My advice:
-leave the 400m aperture alone, if you need to shoot that far, you'll need the precision (plus it's the only one of the left side of the disk)
-choose either the 200m or 300m to make "ghost ring" like
I plan to use the 200m aperture. If possible, I may open it up more "down" than "up" so as to create a large aperture that's actually on at 125 or 150 or so in stead of just doing it concentrically for a 200m aperture.
That's my thinking. I'd love to hear of any other ideas or experiences.
-leave the 400m aperture alone, if you need to shoot that far, you'll need the precision (plus it's the only one of the left side of the disk)
-choose either the 200m or 300m to make "ghost ring" like
I plan to use the 200m aperture. If possible, I may open it up more "down" than "up" so as to create a large aperture that's actually on at 125 or 150 or so in stead of just doing it concentrically for a 200m aperture.
That's my thinking. I'd love to hear of any other ideas or experiences.
Ohen Cepel
Member
FR8 Sight
I think Atlas has a good idea.
Not sure I'll drill mine yet or how to do it.
I do plan on filling the "cleaning tube" at the end of the barrel with lead shot though. That little rifle kickes like he11!!!!
Anyone noticed the kick or is it just me?
I think Atlas has a good idea.
Not sure I'll drill mine yet or how to do it.
I do plan on filling the "cleaning tube" at the end of the barrel with lead shot though. That little rifle kickes like he11!!!!
Anyone noticed the kick or is it just me?
Atlas Shrug
Member
Ohen,
The standard metal buttplate on the FR8 can smart. What I've done is to put the action into a RamLine plastic M98 stock. They have a Pachmayr Decellerator recoil pad that really tames things. It shoots like a pussycat now.
The only downside is that you either have to remove the front sight and work off the metal end cap or cut the end cap off. I'll admit that I cut mine off.
I do really like it though. This setup with a Ching Sling and Timney trigger is my rough and tumble walking around rifle.
I really, really like the FR8s.
The standard metal buttplate on the FR8 can smart. What I've done is to put the action into a RamLine plastic M98 stock. They have a Pachmayr Decellerator recoil pad that really tames things. It shoots like a pussycat now.
The only downside is that you either have to remove the front sight and work off the metal end cap or cut the end cap off. I'll admit that I cut mine off.
I do really like it though. This setup with a Ching Sling and Timney trigger is my rough and tumble walking around rifle.
I really, really like the FR8s.
I found this link where the guy does it to his M6: http://www.oldjimbo.com/survival/v-shrake/m6.html
He used a 7/64" bit. I think I'm gonna start there. (I'm only doing the 200m aperture)
BTW- I have a CW sling on mine and a butt-cuff. It's definitely the best milsurp out there for general use.
He used a 7/64" bit. I think I'm gonna start there. (I'm only doing the 200m aperture)
BTW- I have a CW sling on mine and a butt-cuff. It's definitely the best milsurp out there for general use.
Bad Flynch
Member
Actually, the size of the rear aperture is relatively unimportant if you are a consistent shooter. It goes like this: IF you are a consistent and practiced shooter, you will mount the rifle consistently the same way ead time, and if so, your eye will see the rear aperture from the same position each time. That means good shooting.
In another vein, the optimum size of an aperture sight is a function of the amount and quality of the lighting and atmosphere. The best sight pictures depend on the day, generally. Target shooters often use irid diaphragm sigght inserts to be able to match the size of the aperture to the conditions.
In another vein, the optimum size of an aperture sight is a function of the amount and quality of the lighting and atmosphere. The best sight pictures depend on the day, generally. Target shooters often use irid diaphragm sigght inserts to be able to match the size of the aperture to the conditions.
Well I guess I'm an inconsistent shooter than.
You ought to tell Jeff Cooper that he's an inconsistent shooter, too, since he advocates the large aperture "ghost ring" sight.
I own at least a dozen different longarms, with a dozen different stock combs, and a dozen different aperture sizes and heights. The FR8 is the only one I complain about..... but it must be my shooting, not the sight itself.
You ought to tell Jeff Cooper that he's an inconsistent shooter, too, since he advocates the large aperture "ghost ring" sight.
I own at least a dozen different longarms, with a dozen different stock combs, and a dozen different aperture sizes and heights. The FR8 is the only one I complain about..... but it must be my shooting, not the sight itself.
Atlas Shrug
Member
I am so, so pi$$ed. I just typed a long, detailed treatise covering how both PAC 762 and Bad Flynch are correct, along with (hopefully) useful observations and comment of my own. Then when submitting it the darned system made me log in again and I lost it all. I even copied my response first, but lost it due to a bad keystroke decision.
Too ticked and too tired to do it again. I'll try again tomorrow.
UGH.
Too ticked and too tired to do it again. I'll try again tomorrow.
UGH.
Atlas Shrug
Member
trying again....
OK, I'll try not to mess up this time.
Essentially, both PAC 762 and Bad Flynch are correct. Here's my perspective.
My background is in target shooting - smallbore (.22) three position and air rifle in particular. Thus I'm very, very familiar with aperture sights and diopters of many varieties. Regarding this and consistent cheek position and pressure, Bad Flynch is correct in that consistency here is everything. At least it's everything that is for a given combination of lighting, target, and sights. While apertures are forgiving in that a circle can be fuzzy and you can still find the center, the rear aperture MUST allow enough light to pass in order to get an excellent focus on the front sight and at least an acceptable but less precise focus on the target.
Add to this background the fact that I've read lots of Jeff Cooper's writings, tried many of his techniques, and been trained by him on these techniques, I'm very familiar with and rather fond of ghost ring sights. In essence, you can summarize many things by saying that for field shooting, ghost rings are the best iron sights for the vast majority of people in the vast majority of situations. Not all, but darn near it. Smaller aperture sights are surely more precise for specialized target shooting at fixed targets over known ranges with standard positions, but they are not as quick nor as forgiving as are ghost rings for any practical field use.
So I love my Anschutz match diopter sights, adjustable rear apertures with color filters, and acrylic front aperture sights on the target range, but I use ghost rings in the field whenever possible.
Back to the FR8 now. While it's three apertures are very good under static range conditions, the comparatively large amount of steel surrounding them can exacerbate the light transmission issue. They just blot out too much light and field of view around the target. This is where I think PAC 762 is correct in criticizing the FR8 rear sight as it compares to a ghost ring. Again, the limitations of the FR8 rear sight are no biggie on the range, but slower in the field. Due to this, I think that opening up the 200m aperture is a good thing. Not sure about the 300m one, likely not good for the 400m one, all for the reasons first stated.
Add to that the fact that one can utilize the front sight to essentially recalibrate the vertical zero of the rear sight and one has a good deal of flexibility in how the rifle is set up. Granted that if one changes the zero of say the 200m sight to be on at 100m, you've lost the relationship between the others (the 300m aperture now may be on at 250, while the 400m one may be OK at 325 or whatever the ballistic calculator tells you). While the system works just fine as is when set up per design, it clearly does lend itself to a fair deal of customization for the careful, thinking individual.
Note that I've not forgotten about the 100m open sight setting. I just see little use for it, especially if one has "ghostified" the 200m aperture. Yes, in very low light it could be useful, but otherwise it is far outclassed by the apertures.
Thus I see the FR8s are diamonds in the rough. They make very, very handy "tote around the farm iron sighted scout rifles" - especially when set up with a quality Ching Sling, Timney Sporstman or Bold equivalent trigger (so you can retain the original bolt mounted safety) and sitting in a decent polymer stock. Solid, robust, good sights, very hand, very good "hitability" factor, decent flash hider, very reliable - what's not to love? Don't say the straight bolt handle, as I've actually come to prefer them that way. (That's another story not limited to FR8 discussions.)
Now keep this quiet! Otherwise the whole shooting world will realize what gems these little rifle are and there won't be any left for us and those that we want to equip with them.
OK, I'll try not to mess up this time.
Essentially, both PAC 762 and Bad Flynch are correct. Here's my perspective.
My background is in target shooting - smallbore (.22) three position and air rifle in particular. Thus I'm very, very familiar with aperture sights and diopters of many varieties. Regarding this and consistent cheek position and pressure, Bad Flynch is correct in that consistency here is everything. At least it's everything that is for a given combination of lighting, target, and sights. While apertures are forgiving in that a circle can be fuzzy and you can still find the center, the rear aperture MUST allow enough light to pass in order to get an excellent focus on the front sight and at least an acceptable but less precise focus on the target.
Add to this background the fact that I've read lots of Jeff Cooper's writings, tried many of his techniques, and been trained by him on these techniques, I'm very familiar with and rather fond of ghost ring sights. In essence, you can summarize many things by saying that for field shooting, ghost rings are the best iron sights for the vast majority of people in the vast majority of situations. Not all, but darn near it. Smaller aperture sights are surely more precise for specialized target shooting at fixed targets over known ranges with standard positions, but they are not as quick nor as forgiving as are ghost rings for any practical field use.
So I love my Anschutz match diopter sights, adjustable rear apertures with color filters, and acrylic front aperture sights on the target range, but I use ghost rings in the field whenever possible.
Back to the FR8 now. While it's three apertures are very good under static range conditions, the comparatively large amount of steel surrounding them can exacerbate the light transmission issue. They just blot out too much light and field of view around the target. This is where I think PAC 762 is correct in criticizing the FR8 rear sight as it compares to a ghost ring. Again, the limitations of the FR8 rear sight are no biggie on the range, but slower in the field. Due to this, I think that opening up the 200m aperture is a good thing. Not sure about the 300m one, likely not good for the 400m one, all for the reasons first stated.
Add to that the fact that one can utilize the front sight to essentially recalibrate the vertical zero of the rear sight and one has a good deal of flexibility in how the rifle is set up. Granted that if one changes the zero of say the 200m sight to be on at 100m, you've lost the relationship between the others (the 300m aperture now may be on at 250, while the 400m one may be OK at 325 or whatever the ballistic calculator tells you). While the system works just fine as is when set up per design, it clearly does lend itself to a fair deal of customization for the careful, thinking individual.
Note that I've not forgotten about the 100m open sight setting. I just see little use for it, especially if one has "ghostified" the 200m aperture. Yes, in very low light it could be useful, but otherwise it is far outclassed by the apertures.
Thus I see the FR8s are diamonds in the rough. They make very, very handy "tote around the farm iron sighted scout rifles" - especially when set up with a quality Ching Sling, Timney Sporstman or Bold equivalent trigger (so you can retain the original bolt mounted safety) and sitting in a decent polymer stock. Solid, robust, good sights, very hand, very good "hitability" factor, decent flash hider, very reliable - what's not to love? Don't say the straight bolt handle, as I've actually come to prefer them that way. (That's another story not limited to FR8 discussions.)
Now keep this quiet! Otherwise the whole shooting world will realize what gems these little rifle are and there won't be any left for us and those that we want to equip with them.
Atlas Shrug
Member
PAC 762.
Sounds good. I look forward to your results from shooting it.
Sounds good. I look forward to your results from shooting it.
C.R.Sam
Moderator Emeritus
Atlas...
Thanks for taking the time to rebuild the lost post.
Tis a goodie.
Sam
Thanks for taking the time to rebuild the lost post.
Tis a goodie.
Sam
Sleeping Dog
Member
I unscrewed the front post on my FR8 about five turns, raising it so the lowest peep is zeroed at 100 yards. It makes the notch useless, but I don't like the notch sight anyway. That may be easier than trying to drill "down" on the peep sight.
And, yes, they kick like mules. Or at least like Russian M44 Mosins. I have a slip-on pad and that helps a lot.
Regards.
And, yes, they kick like mules. Or at least like Russian M44 Mosins. I have a slip-on pad and that helps a lot.
Regards.
- Status
Similar threads
