Great peep sight alternative for Weihrauchs

[MDriskill]

Ron: Thanks for the follow-up! If the sight will fit an arched-top receiver, I'm guessing it will also fit a flat surface like the Diana rail. But even if it doesn't...there are plenty of needy Weihrauchs at my house LOL.

Phoebeisis: Again, part of the secret is that the small hole forms a sort of lens. Light doesn't just come straight through the small opening, but is refracted into a clearer image.

The only problem I've had with aperture sights was with cataracts, which made a nasty little black spot in the middle of the sight picture, if I used too small an opening. Increasing the aperture size over about 2 mm helped (this is using an old match sight with an adjustable iris eyepiece), and after cataract surgery I'm happy to say the problem vanished.

Cementing my reputation as a peep sight slut...I just order the Tech-Sight, complete with tool and interchangeable aperture package...!

[phoebeisis]

Mike

I can't find anything that supports  your comment that

-2. Air, like any fluid, has surface tension. This creates a sort of "lens" at a small opening - the "pinhole effect" which you described. This is most noticeable at an opening size of 1mm or less (which is why target sights have such itty bitty apertures), but still useful for larger openings.



Below by some anon. person-  apparently "do gases have surface tension?" is a frequent question


Do gases have surface tension?
Essentially, if it's a gas, it's doesn't have surface tension. Surface tension derives from the persistent attractive forces between molecules. Gases are defined by their complete lack of intermolecular forces, at least in the ideal case.May 24, 2016


Now your removing one focal plane-makes sense-

I give up

Charlie

[MDriskill]

I am no physicist and probably used the wrong term. The Wikipedia article explains it better than me:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diopter_sight

The point is...most people can see the target a lot better, and aim more precisely, through an aperture sight. Which is why they are almost universally used on military rifles as well as target guns.

[phoebeisis]

Mike Great article-thanks!!

I wish I had seen it 24 hrs ago

Before I spent  $31.50 on 3 "hole" sights for my 1322   1377

I have LOTS of trouble getting a remotely clear picture with the stock sights on the pistols-the rear sight and the front get lost one in the other-I can't quite see the top of the front sight

The article you posted made it clear that diopter and aperture sights need to be CLOSE to your eye-with the pistols the sights will be waaaay away-so they will be useless I think-

Slight aside-the sights on the article look much like the sights the women were using in the olympics in the 50 meter   rifle  3 position competition-the sights were obviously "diopter"

but really fancy-probably zillion dollar sights

Thanks for the tip

Charlie

PS Well I will figure a way to put an aperture  sight on the TX 200- 10 3/4 LBS is just too much to shoot standing- with no rest

The 460 is 8.4 lbs-not bad at all- the  HW77K about 8.9 lbs-but feels no heavier that the 460-the TX with scope- 10 3/4lbs-a PIG-I feel like I am weight lifting!!

[MDriskill]

Thanks Charles!

It is an interesting article, but I'm not sure their explanation of WHY the small opening clarifies the view, makes any more sense than mine, LOL. It's a question that I will research further. I was intrigued by what distinguishes a "diopter" sight though; it sounds like there is certain optical magic that is lost if one goes above the 1.2mm opening.

That being said, there is still benefit to bigger peep sights IMHO, and you may just like those pistol sights. The human eye is incredibly good at locating the center of a round opening, and another advantage compared to a "notch" sight is simply a better view - you aren't covering the bottom half of the target.

[phoebeisis]

Mike

Yeah the exact magic of it-I don't quite get.

I "think" it has something to do with mechanically "blocking" photons that would have bounced off the image at a slightly different angle-so they would hit perhaps 1mm from dead center of

an aperture-those would hit and be blocked-but those that hit dead center in the aperture would be allowed through

Both photons would make it through our 4-8 mm retinal opening-but the ones farther toward the periphery not make it through the tiny 1mm (.5mm radius) peep.

Now OUR eye's lense WOULD bend  those "perimeter photons" so they would hit the same spot  of our retina as the dead center photons-

BUT if OUR eye's lense is DEFECTIVE it won't be able to bend the perimeter photons properly and our image will be blurred


BUT BUT if we have a PEEP- tiny hole- only very favorably angled photons will make it through-(almost parallel)  and they will pass almost DEAD CENTER THROUGH

our eye's lense(since they are going through a tiny hole-1mm vs 4-8mm)-

Our lense's defect won't matter since it does not involve the center of our lense-(much)

Ok-reading my explanation-I don't really buy my own explanation-which is a "fuzzy" distillation of what I read.(fuzzy world's worst pun-I can never resist a pun)

Well I appreciate your optimistic take on the 3 "hole sights" I am going to put on the little pump pistols-I love those little pistols-cheap and fun and one shoots BBs meaning all but free ammo=

[phoebeisis]

Unlike lenses, pinholes use the reduction of light to focus instead of relying on optics. The reduction of light causes light to focus at one particular point from any distance. This is what happens when we close down the aperture in our lens; we prevent the stray points of light from defocusing our images.

MinutePhysics-Aperture-Pinhole

What the video fails to mention is that at a certain threshold, reducing the aperture can help create tack sharp images; move past that threshold and you enter in the world of defraction. Light, being the wave that it is, will bend and spread around the edge of an object causing banding and spectrum change. What that means for us photographers is that it will make our once sharp image blurry.

THE ABOVE  is something I just "robbed" from somewhere-

The "stray points of light" are the ones that are blocked-and the ones I describe as going to hit farther from dead center of our retina-
If our eye's lense is good-don't need glasses- it adjusts those rays-if it is bad-but we use a tiny pinhole- it does not matter since they are mechanically blocked

But tiny hole means you need GREAT LIGHT-no free lunch

Oh well-I don't really understand it-

but I am going to get one of those fancy $60 for the TX 200 and glue a Daisy fiber optic front on the barrel-yeah it will look "funny" but it will be LIGHT(another pun) lighter than a  scope

Thanks Mike and Ron

Ron-you just cost me another $60 or so-but when  the TX 200 becomes less piggish-it is worth it  9.25 is a lot less than 10 3/4 lbs

[Hoosier Daddy]

Outstanding!!!

Posting for future reference

[Bayman]

Outstanding!!!

Posting for future reference

Thanks 

[jkingrph]

Mike Great article-thanks!!

I wish I had seen it 24 hrs ago

Before I spent  $31.50 on 3 "hole" sights for my 1322   1377

I have LOTS of trouble getting a remotely clear picture with the stock sights on the pistols-the rear sight and the front get lost one in the other-I can't quite see the top of the front sight

The article you posted made it clear that diopter and aperture sights need to be CLOSE to your eye-with the pistols the sights will be waaaay away-so they will be useless I think-

Slight aside-the sights on the article look much like the sights the women were using in the olympics in the 50 meter   rifle  3 position competition-the sights were obviously "diopter"

but really fancy-probably zillion dollar sights

Thanks for the tip

Charlie

PS Well I will figure a way to put an aperture  sight on the TX 200- 10 3/4 LBS is just too much to shoot standing- with no rest

The 460 is 8.4 lbs-not bad at all- the  HW77K about 8.9 lbs-but feels no heavier that the 460-the TX with scope- 10 3/4lbs-a PIG-I feel like I am weight lifting!!

The closer to the eye the better the rear diopter sight.  I do have a couple of military rifles on which I have installed dipoter sights in the normal rear sight position, which is quite a bit further from my eye.  You cannot use as small a diopter hole, but it is quite workable and better than a narrow leaf rear.  As far as on a pistol at arms length, forget it

[MDriskill]

(Withdrawn)

[LAalex]

Good post I have these on a marlin 795.  Had to do some filing but once fitted really good sights.

[subscriber]

I think the science of "peeps"

Works like a pinhole camera.   Don't need to focus on the rear sight; just center the front in it.

Peeps maximize the distance between front and rear sights, yielding the least angular error resulting from slight sight misalignment.

[Rich_B]

I just installed one of the rear sights on my Hatsan Torpedo 150 yesterday. Works great with the fiber optic front sight. Would’ve been better with a globe front, but it’s way better than the stock rear. Great people to work with and it got across the country in a short amount of time.

[cw308]

Hi Ron
    Haven't been online for awhile , hope things are going well.  That Remington peep was a great find. I'm pretty use to the Gehmann adjustable on the William mount but that military style peep for the HW looks perfrect. My have to buy another Springer to mount that bad boy. Wish you found it sooner. My setup is working well but the Williams base isn't as strong as your new find . May just buy one with the adjustment too. If your not working I know your in the basement shooting out this crappy day.  Take care pal.

Chris

[Bayman]

I think the science of "peeps"

Works like a pinhole camera.   Don't need to focus on the rear sight; just center the front in it.

Peeps maximize the distance between front and rear sights, yielding the least angular error resulting from slight sight misalignment.

Nope you don't even have to do that. I've played with moving the front sight all around the peep hole and the POI doesn't change. It's unexplainable. As long as the front sight is in the  peep and on the target you'll hit the target. There's a scientific reason for it that eludes my comprehension. I can tell you that at least at airgun ranges all you have to do is get front sight on the target anywhere through the peep hole and your good to go.

[Yogi]

Ron: Thanks for the follow-up! If the sight will fit an arched-top receiver, I'm guessing it will also fit a flat surface like the Diana rail. But even if it doesn't...there are plenty of needy Weihrauchs at my house LOL.

Phoebeisis: Again, part of the secret is that the small hole forms a sort of lens. Light doesn't just come straight through the small opening, but is refracted into a clearer image.

The only problem I've had with aperture sights was with cataracts, which made a nasty little black spot in the middle of the sight picture, if I used too small an opening. Increasing the aperture size over about 2 mm helped (this is using an old match sight with an adjustable iris eyepiece), and after cataract surgery I'm happy to say the problem vanished.

Cementing my reputation as a peep sight slut...I just order the Tech-Sight, complete with tool and interchangeable aperture package...!

Mike,

I am wondering if you would mind writing a post about your cataracts and what lens you choose and your satisfaction level.
I bet most of the GTA readers are of "that age" where cataracts are a real probability.  Something I will have to deal with sooner rather than latter...

-Y

[jkingrph]

Ron: Thanks for the follow-up! If the sight will fit an arched-top receiver, I'm guessing it will also fit a flat surface like the Diana rail. But even if it doesn't...there are plenty of needy Weihrauchs at my house LOL.

Phoebeisis: Again, part of the secret is that the small hole forms a sort of lens. Light doesn't just come straight through the small opening, but is refracted into a clearer image.

The only problem I've had with aperture sights was with cataracts, which made a nasty little black spot in the middle of the sight picture, if I used too small an opening. Increasing the aperture size over about 2 mm helped (this is using an old match sight with an adjustable iris eyepiece), and after cataract surgery I'm happy to say the problem vanished.

Cementing my reputation as a peep sight slut...I just order the Tech-Sight, complete with tool and interchangeable aperture package...!

Mike,

I am wondering if you would mind writing a post about your cataracts and what lens you choose and your satisfaction level.
I bet most of the GTA readers are of "that age" where cataracts are a real probability.  Something I will have to deal with sooner rather than latter...

-Y

Not Mike here, but Jeff.

My wife and I both had cataract surgery over the last year and a half.  Hers covered via medicare and commercial insurance, mine by the VA, we used the same doctor, and we both used a "standard" lens.  It turned out that the specialty, bifocal or progressive lenses would have been and extra $2600 per eye, that's 4 eyes so you figure the math.  The main reason I got the surgery was to eliminate, or rather reduce the flare from bright lights and in that aspect I am pleased.

I went from near sighted to more far sighted or according to the after surgery refractions a little better than 20/20.  With the standard lens you do loose the ability to focus close.  One of the optometrists said initally to go to the dollar store and get some cheap reading glasses, which I did, some of the narrow ones I could perch on the end of my nose for close things like reading this computer on my lap, and look over them at say the TV across the room.  I used to read well without glasses but distant vision was a no no.  Now it's the opposite without glasses.   I got a set of progressive lenses simply because I am used to wearing glasses all the time, and especially doing work as a relief pharmacist I need to go back and forth quickly from distant to reading and do not want to constantly be taking glasses on and off.    We decided at our ages, 76 and 79, the fancy intraocular insert lenses were not worth the nearly $11,000 for both of us, we could buy a lot of glasses for that price, and the VA does provide me with a free pair yearly, not progressive but bi focal or tri focal. and that would leave a lot of money left over for things like persuing this air gun hobby.  We are both quite happy with the result using standard intraocular replacement lenses.
I admittedly could see my leaf rear sights better prior to the surgery, but some blurriness there does not really bother me.  I tried out a new HW77 with factory sights, and only firing about 7-8 shots, got a 3/8" group at 10 ten yards, then hitting a soda can at about 30  yards, including offhand shooting.  I am planning on a peep rear for it in the next week or so, as they are much easier to shoot. 

[Lt. Dan]

Thanks Jeff for clarifying a few things for me. I am like you use to be, I read well without glasses but distant vision is a no no.  I walk around the house without glasses and even watch television (about 15 ft away) without my glasses. I wear trifocals and I will need cataract surgery in a few years and I've been wondering about the regular lens and how I would adapt from near sighted to more far sighted.

[MDriskill]

Jeff covered about everything very well!

I too went with distance lenses after a lifetime of near-sightedness. The close-focus IOL's have a very narrow depth-of-field and one of my surgeon's own staff, who has them, recommended strongly against them! Multi-focus IOL's are not only much more pricey, but also physically a little thicker. If you have any pressure issues in your eyes, your surgeon will not recommend them.

My vision is now about 20/20 for anything farther away than my feet, LOL. Another pleasant surprise is that the world is a more pleasant color; cataracts have a slight brown cast so things now look more blue and fresh.

Before surgery I had progressive glasses lenses. I could read fine, but had issues with close-up work like model building.  My optometrist prescribed glasses specifically for that, which add a couple diopters of magnification to the "close" portion of my progressive prescription. (I'd recommend this for anyone by the way - VASTLY better than simple "drug store" magnifiers if you have any astigmatism, etc., at all.)

Also like Jeff, I did this all this again after surgery. The progressive lenses are still needed, now to handle not only reading, but to fill in that in-between, "arm's length" distance that straight readers don't cover (jobs like finding stuff on a shelf are frustrating without this). I also got another set of the extra-mag prescription readers for close work.

All in all I'm very happy with it all...and can now see iron sights again very well!