TargetTalk

Ok, I am going out on the proverbial thin limb here.

If the the "concentricity ease" factor give an alignment advantage to the human eye, then why dont we see peep sights on handguns while shooting round black on white paper targets ?

Just for the hell of it I just put together a system with two bits of plastic on wood base 20 cm long; Front plastic "sight" had a 4 hole and the rear, 6mm.

One possible problem I could see was that the rear sight aperature must be large enough to allow the eye to focus on the front sight.

Just what frankensight have I brought to life?

schatzperson wrote:...then why dont we see peep sights on handguns while shooting round black on white paper targets ?

From the ISSF events point of view, because they're banned.

I think the basic problem as you have noticed is that peep sights work better when you have a much longer sight radius, like a rifle. Since many if not most international shooters hold sub six with a pistol, the advantage of putting a dot in the middle of a circle is lost unless you are using a center hold. If you are using a center hold, you will have the problem of the post washing out against the target, in essence offering no advantage over traditional iron sight. The problem with most gimmicks, is that they will seem to work in the short run, but in the long run, the only two things that matter are your hold and your trigger control. The sooner you stop screwing with the guns, and focus on the fundamentals, the better your scores will be.

Thought they would be illegal.

A bit of horsing about indicated that the would be the mother of all distractions; The black bobs about while you're trying to distinguish between front and rear aperatures ( too short distance differential to eye).

I suppose they might be attractive to the more "technical" shooter; Sort of the opposite approach to ethereal, sub 6 plus hold concept.

They might be perfect to atheist autistic shooters.

Jest apart, if they are illegal they might have some advantage.

Because on a rifle your cheek holds your eye in alignment with the rear sight.
We non-bullseye Philistines who shoot IZH 46s at little steel animals use a rear peep (in my case a Gehman). However, this setup is used only with the "taco hold" that mimics a rifle hold.
Scores are typically MUCH higher than traditional open sights held at arm's length.

Puts me in mind of the mfgs of replacement apertures intended to replace the rear blade on CZ sporting .22s. That's just not how aperture sights work.

frog5215 wrote:We non-bullseye Philistines who shoot IZH 46s at little steel animals use a rear peep...

I'm a silhouette shooter, too, though currently inactive. In the 200-meter freestyle pistol events, I've always used a rear peep and front circle. I find it much easier to shoot much smaller groups for long periods without fatigue using such sights. This is apparently now called "peep on peep" as if it were something new. Given that this was the default setup on Wichita unlimited pistols when they were first introduced some 30 years ago, it's hardly a new idea.

I can't imagine using this technique in a non-freestyle event, though. I'm just not that steady, taco hold or no.

As for the notion that peeps can't be used unless held close to the eye...that's not exactly true. But therein lies a lengthy off-topic discussion.

To stay on-topic in this forum, then, I tend to think that the ultimate answer to schatzperson's first question is "ISSF says no" and be done with it.

There's a way of doing something similar which I believe is legal.
I'm using it myself most of the time.

I believe it was March 14. 2009 when I wrote this in TargetTalk:

I've found a totally different solution, which is very traditional and also very radical: I'm using a bead frontsight and aim center.
Not the one that granpa used, but a big one! I prefer to call it a "ball" since it's big enough to fill most of the black. And it fills most of the rearsight notch as well. I keep the top of my rear sight at target center so it cuts both the black circles in two.

So what gives? I had to make this sight myself, no big deal after making a number of wide front posts. This sight was very easy for me to become accustomed to. I believe it is pretty accurate: when I do other things right, it produces tens with a good feeling of certainty. My whole sighting process is very much guided not by contrast and edges, but by symmetry. Humans are very good at judging symmetry.

I've shot this way for about half a year now, and feel no reason to quit.
It's so different from the other holds that old habits are very much "blocked" by a totally different sight picture. This also means that there's very little conflict if I try using sub-six for a change, they belong in "different worlds".