Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game Peep sight accuracy and range

This year my CZ 9.3x62 will be wearing NECG peep sights for hunting elk. I needed to mix things up a little bit.

I watched an Army team compete in a 1K match with peeps on their M14's. The range officer said they could shoot possibles with their set-ups so I guess the limiting factor is you as the shooter. Practice, practice, practice.
I shot possibles out to 500 yards with a M1 when I was in the service. (for the young'uns, the M1 had peep sights)

Thank you all for your feedback on the topic. As I said in my original post, I wasn't sure what would be realistic to expect from a sight like that. I've noticed that some people prefer a red dot type sight; since these typically don't provide magnification, it seems to me that the would work comparably well to a peep. Does anyone know how these would compare to a Williams sight as far as precision..would they be better at longer ranges? Aimpoint makes some extremely small light weight models that I've heard are exceptional in quality..not cheap though.

I'll start a different thread to ask this question if no one finds it here

I don't yet have a dedicated pure "woods rifle" but that may be next on My list and really like the idea of a small sight rather than a scope for that type of rifle. Right now the main contenders are: Marlin 336C .35 Rem, 336BL (18.5"bbl).30-30, Ruger M77RSI .308, Browning BLR .308 or .358.

On a lever gun.... That's part of the question right? My buddy has a Williams on his Winchester .32-20. It will group 3 or 4 inches at 100 yds and he's shot deer with it. I'd be thrilled if I could do the same.

The ONLY possible every shot at 1000 yard bullseye matches( I don't know if there are other types that i"m not aware of) as of 2005 (I'm not up that much on newer happenings....) was fired with an Army M16 and 90 jlks.... I used to say the next one would be fired by me, as I gave them the loads of mine that were working so well at 1000.... but then I quit competition....

But yes peeps are very good. And Ghost rings are much better than you'd think.

BTW there usually is not much different score wise between irons and optics scores when they both shoot the same match, BUT there is an X count difference in favor of the optics... IE they are shooting a tighter group... but not that much tighter.

Well Jeff, I doubt the critter could tell the diff in the degree of dead. I like irons. I did VERY well with the barrel sights (ladder) on my Sharps at 508 yards. One ranging shot then I put the next 2 on an 18" steel gong. Didn't even use the aperture tang sights. If our man practices and uses a blade front, he may surprise himself.

Yeah, he may "surpise himself" with a WOUNDED ANIMAL..

Let's not confuse shooting a GAME with on steel or paper with shooting in the real world AT GAME.

There is a heck of a big difference in missing a shot on an inanimate target during a match or plinking session and missing one on a live game animal.

Miss a shot on a steel ram or bullsye and you drop a few points. Miss a shot on the vitals of a game animal and you probably wound it , most likely never to be found.

Also, last time I checked, the deer and elk in most parts don't stand around for "sighter shots"..

Like I said, most folks don't have the eyesight of Superman or Chuck Yeager.

Even given precisely adjustable rear peeps and fine front sights(and the shooting light to use them) most folks cannot put a shot IN THE VITALS of a deer or elk consistently much past 200 yards. Heck, under most hunting conditions (light and time constraints) most of them cannot even do it at 100.

First of all, the sighter was required because I had just put on a new front sight and had yet to regulate it to the rear sight. I have seen MORE wounded critters from scope sighted rifles because the shooters are either in to much of a hurry or didn't zero(regulate?) the telesope. It still boils down to practice and learning what one's own limitations are and staying within the limit whether it is range or personal capability..

Irons are pretty easy out to about 300 or so. And given time they are still pretty easy out to around 500... and the statement(not by you) of a FINE front sight shows the ignorance of irons... you don't want a fine one, you want one big enough to see, your eye does the rest of the centering, how else can the army (and me) take a sight that covers roughly 6 feet at 1000 yards, and drop almost all the rounds inside of20 inch circle... And at taht, not even really aiming at the black, holding sub six....

My far irons shot was 565 so far, on a small hillcountry doe. Probably not more than 80 pounds dressed.. I had NO problem seeing her, holding and killing her with one shot.

IM IMPRESSED

jim62, I share your concerns about wounding and losing animals. But, I believe your condemnation of peep sights to be un-warranted. I could go into a long discussion of the pros and cons of peeps verses scopes, but I don't think it would sway your opinion.

I did what to respond to your comments regarding eyesight. I for one can't read anything without glasses. But, I can shoot peep sights just fine.

I've had three Marlin lever actions with peep sights. All of which killed game. Still have two and a new 30'06 with a custom set of peep sights.
About low light hunting, there can be a few problems. The problem of too small an aperature has been addressed. I'm another that took Jack O'Connor's advice and has hunted w/o the flanged "target" or even the hunting size aperatures, just the straight ghost ring.
The other is the front sight. For big game, in deep forest, Francis E. Sell used and liked the large white bead. So do I. Surprising how well that works even on the target range.
BTW, I've seen lots of problems associated with the fiber optic front sights. Not for me. E

jim62,

Most hunters with SCOPES can't consistently kill deer or elk past 200 yards.

The people I know who hunt with iron sights, and in particular aperture sights, are better shots than the average scope user. This is because they practice a lot more, and not just on paper but varmints. I shoot prairie dogs and ground squirrels with iron sights a LOT every year.

Aside from doing one caribou hunt with iron sights (and killing a bull with a clean lung shot at 350 yards), and hunting varmints and big game here in Montana with irons, I went on a 10-day safari in Botswana in 2003, for Cape buffalo and 5 species of plains game with two iron-sighted rifles. One had an aperture sight, but the other had open express sights.

I took all six animals in six days, and only missed one, an impala where I hurried the shot at about 175 yards because some giraffes had spotted me and were making the impala nervous. I pulled the shot low and knew it immediately, and the same thing could have happened with a scope.

Otherwise I hit all six animals in the vitals with the first shot at ranges out to 225 yards. They were not all big animals, as four were deer-sized. The longest shot was on a red lechwe, about the size of a mature whitetail buck. My PH said I shot better than the majority of his clients with scoped rifles.

Oh, and I was three months shy of my 51st birthday. I am very near-sighted and have worn glasses since I was 10 years old, and have been wearing progressive bifocals since about 45.

My experience is that probably 99% of hunters who use iron sights are much less likely to wound game than the average hunter with a scoped bolt rifle--a rifle he may or may not have even shot that year before the season started.

aj,

I can only echo the statements of the other experienced shooters in this thread.....that sight will suffice for anything that rifle is capable of.....and provide a lighter, better balanced, nice to carry rifle.

About 40 years ago, I bought a pre 64-70 SG in 375H&H for brown bear hunting....a quality Lyman 48 receiver sight with aperture removed and sourdough patridge front sight made my favorite hunting rifle for 30 years....I've moved toward something lighter in my old age but the aperture sight still groups well for old eyes...... no worries about snow, rain, scope failure.

That's probably the biggest thing; practice until you are confident.





The front aperture really changes what an "iron sight", peep sighted rifle can do. But that they work well is more target dependent.




It's more important than ever, with irons of any type, to "get off the paper" during practice and shoot a variety of target types under various light conditions so that you "know" your sights. For lower light conditions, Williams makes a "twilight" aperture in various aperture sizes which, because of the contrast of a metallic insert in the outer ring, helps your eye to find the aperture. They can be a good thing.



This is a lousy pic but it shows the gold ring of the twilight aperture. It also shows the flats you see if you put too large an aperture on the NECG sight made for Ruger rifles.

Further to MD and Eremicus posts.....I would consider building a new lightweight rifle with aperture sights if the synthetic stock makers offered a low comb stock so the sights don't have to be mounted rediculously high ruining the natural pointing characteristics. High mounted sights [ala AR rifles] are especially cumbersome for me.

I prefer a post for a front sight rather than a bead and have wondered about having a tritium insert installed in the top of post.....has anyone tried it?

It seems that a Kimber Montana in 338 Federal with receiver sights would be a very handy, light rifle for knocking around this neighborhood. Again, the comb is too high.

I've considered buying a Savage 99 in 308 and having it rebored to 338 Federal and installing a tang peep....but getting the rotor to work right may just screw up a good rifle.

There was an old sheep hunter here that for years hunted with a 99 300 Savage with aperture sight and he was tremendously succesful.

In hunting with aperture sights I can only remember once or twice that I wished I had a scope and that was when I had an animal in thick brush and wanted to slip a bullet between twigs and branches....but I can remember many instances when I was very gratified to be unencumbered by a scope.

With today's emphasis on lighter rifles, the easiest method of reducing weight is removing the scope.

I shot my way into NRA Master class in NRA BPCR Silhoutte using "peeps". I have spent serious $$ putting them on my owning hunting and match rifles.

I do not condemn peeps at all. I just know their limitations in the hunting field.

If you go back and thoroughly re-read my posts here you would see that.

They are great sighting systems but like any ohter tool an eithical hunter usees them within their mintiations.

MW406, answer this for me. Of all of the game animals you've posted pics here taken with your peep sighted rifles , how many of them do you take at over 200 yards?

I bet not that many.

jim62, to be honest, I have no idea what a NRA Master is, but it sounds like you have plenty of experience with aperture sights. If I misunderstood your comments, I apologize. Myself, I grew-up shooting aperture sights in the field hunting. I started with a peep sighted .22. My first big game rifle was a sporterized Springfield 1903 with a Williams sight. I took mule deer, whitetails, antelope and elk with that rifle. I didn't get a scoped rifle until I was 18 or 19 years old. But I continued to use aperture sighted rifles as well. As for distances that I shoot with peeps, I've always been more of a stalker than a sniper. I can usually get within a hundred yards of most big game animals I hunt. I've taken antelope out to about 250 yards with peep sights. I call coyotes so most shots are inside 150 yards. I've taken a few out to 250 as well. But again, I'm not a long range shooter, even when I've hunted with a scoped rifle. The reason I hunt with peep sights in the first place is because I like to get close. I'm also nostalgic for doing the things the old fashion way.

No need to appologize. I just wanted to make my frame of reffernce clear on the topic...

NRA Master class is the highest classification in pretty much any NRA match shooting discipline. I worked hard to get there and learned a lot. Actually, shooting Black powder Cartridge rifles has probably has made me even more conservative as to range I will take shots on live game with similar rifles.

In terms of both bullet drop and drift, BPCR rifles make a lot of demands on the shooter even if he knows the range and has the light and time to take the shot.
When you see very calculated shots taken from a solid rests drift all over a Ram Silhouette target at 500 meters (and feel fortunate to make them given the wind conditions), you damn sure don't recommend folks start plinking at live game with that equipment at those distances.

I think when taking any shot at game animal an ethical hunter should try to deal in outcomes that are PROBABLE with his skill level and his chosen equipment, rather than what is merely POSSIBLE. That goes whether he is shooting a longbow or a scoped magnum rifle with the latest tactical grade optic aboard.

As to the shots you describe in your hunting, with higher velocity rifles that shoot a bit flatter and buck wind a bit more due to their shorter flight times, those shots seem very reasonable with peeps under decent light conditions. And, your eyesight notwithstanding, you are probably a bit more disciplined and knowlegable than the average guy using iron sighted rifles. I am also certain you are deriving more satisfaction than most hunters using scopes.

FWIW, I have a little Uberti 1885 Low wall in 22 LR I have been shooting quite a bit lately.. It has got a Lyman no. 1 Tang sight on the back and a very fine bead insert 17A globe up front. It's accurate enough that I am leaving the scoped .22LR bolt guns at home the next time I go shoot some prairie dogs. I figure it will do fine out to about 80 yards or so.