Double aperture sights?

[MatthewVanitas]

Greetings. Does anyone have any experience with any of the sights out there that involve looking through two sets of apertures? That is, an aperture sight where both the front and rear sights are apertures.

Mojo sights www.mojosights.com carries these, and one or two THRers seem to have purchased them. One stated that it was outstanding at 75-100 yards, but confusing beyond that.

Anybody else have any different experiences? Unfortunately, I don't have any of the rifles they make the double aperture sights for, but maybe that's a great excuse to buy a Nagant...

 

[swingset]

I have the tandem aperture sights on my K-31, and love them. For target shooting, they are incredibly intuitive and accurate - tho I've heard people complain they are hard to use (??). Nothing to it. Look through big ring, center small ring and target in it and shoot!

Tandem aperture sights have traditionally been designed and used in target shooting where the target has been a round circle at distance, and when you shoot these sights you realize that - but they are also good for regular plinking or hunting, tho centering an asymmetrical object in the two rings can be more problematic for some.

 

[Swampy]

Matthew,

As swingset has already stated.... using both front and rear aperture sights is a very good way to do things when you are shooting a bullseye game. It is very easy for the eye to align 3 circular shapes into a concentric form.

Highpower shooters in the Match Rifle category almost universally use this system. Very high scores are regularly shot by these competitors... with VERY high "X" counts.
Note: the "X" ring is the "tie breaker" ring in the center of the "10 ring" on the target.... and at 600 yds is only 6 inches across... i.e. 1.0 MOA.

What is not so easy for the eye to do is align an aperture front sight with irregular shaped targets, where you are actually aiming for a "spot" rather than using the entirety of a large black bull as your aim point.

When aiming for a "spot", such as when shooting tactical or hunting, a post front sight, crosshair (scope), or spot (optical "red dot" sight) is much easier for the eye to determine when the sight is aligned with the actual aiming point.

What seems to work the best for most military-tactical weapons these days is of course the aperture rear (placed as close to the eye as possible) combined with a post front sight. It is very easy for the eye to align two "points", i.e. the top of the front post and the aiming spot, in the center of the rear aperture.

The Americans and the Brits with their upgrades to the '03-A3 Spfld and the #4-MkI Enfield were the first to issue sights of this type to troops (note: not sure if the -A3 predates the first issue of the Garand or not) at the beginning of WWII. Post WWII, most every modern battle-assault rifle fielded around the world (with the notable exception of the AK & SKS series) have had a post front and aperture rear sight combo.

Conventional "notch & post" sights, such as is still found on most hunting rifles seems to be primarily a sop to tradition and-or keeping the top of the rifles action clear for a scope mounting. It's also cheaper than a good adjustable aperture rear sight.... and more convenient on rifles that don't have a solid mounting point on the rear of the receiver (AK & SKS).

Just more of my rambling thoughts...

Best to all,
Swampy

 

[Steve Smith]

I'll just say "ditto" to Swampy's post.

 

[BillL223]

I had the Lyman globe on the front of my "Target" Remington 511. The amber disc with the hole in it was very detrimental to the local bird and crow population.

 

[Grump]

What is not so easy for the eye to do is align an aperture front sight with irregular shaped targets, where you are actually aiming for a "spot" rather than using the entirety of a large black bull as your aim point.

I disagreem having use various aperature fronts to kill the ever-shrinking pile of glass on a hillside at 100 yards with a .22 on more than one occasion. The center of the irregular-shaped item is easy to center.

The problem with them is that the target gets obscured as you cross the aperature over it. Absent moderate contrast between your target and the background, you *can* lose the target a bit easier than with a post front.

__________________
When aiming for a "spot", such as when shooting tactical or hunting, a post front sight, crosshair (scope), or spot (optical "red dot" sight) is much easier for the eye to determine when the sight is aligned with the actual aiming point.
___________________

Again, I disagree, with regard to the spot & red dot. With the aperature, I can hit tiny targets which would be rather coarsely obscured by the dot--think 3 MOA dot vs. 1 MOA rabbit's eyeball. If all you can see of that camouflaged head is the glint of sunlight, how ya gonna find the target with a dot covering it?

For hunting and plinking (and targets, for that matter), I prefer the clear plastics with either no crossbars, or just a hairline. Not practical for combat because of the mud & dust problem on the plastic.

 

[sasnofear]

no doubt they're very great for target shooting, as they are very accurate. but i find them really hard to use they're the most accurate open sights there are; however i'd prefare to use the 'notches' thought the more sophiticated ones like on HK's. though dpnt knock it till u've tried it it may be perfect for you...or you may throw em in the bin.

 

[Bullet Bob]

You can try them out online - click here:

http://www.dahlberg-it.com/eurosimulator/shooting.asp?Languages=amerikansk

the top box on the left is for rifle - just follow the easy instructions, and "blaze" away!