Marlin Firearms Forum banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
Finnwolf,I have a one hole sight on my 1895gs,I use it as backup to my leupold vxIII 1x-5x.I really like it for this use as I feel it is quicker and more accurate than the factory open sight. If I wanted a ghost ring as my primary sighting system I would go with a reciever mounted sight such as the brockman,xs sight or wild west guns ghost ring.I have an xs sight system on my 39a mountie,that works great. One thing to keep in mind is that the one hole sight while very rugged does not fold down like the factory blade, which could interfere with a low mounted scope.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
119 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Front Post Changes

Which of the iron sight systems does not require a changing of the factory front sight? I assume the One Ragged Hole sight does not. What about any of the others?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,697 Posts
Re: Front Post Changes

Finnwolf said:
Which of the iron sight systems does not require a changing of the factory front sight? I assume the One Ragged Hole sight does not. What about any of the others?
It depends on how much higher than the original sight it sits. Sometime you don't need another front sight, sometimes you do. Every rifle is different. I like the ORH on my 9422.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,145 Posts
In the field in low light the "one Ragged hole sight will be next to worthless. On the range in good light it probably works just fine. This concept for the sight is not new. It was on the Krag rifles, there is a flip up peep on the rear sight, you dont see it on any of the 1903 rifles for a reason. If you are going to go with a peep sight get a receiver sight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,697 Posts
big medicine said:
In the field in low light the "one Ragged hole sight will be next to worthless. On the range in good light it probably works just fine. This concept for the sight is not new. It was on the Krag rifles, there is a flip up peep on the rear sight, you dont see it on any of the 1903 rifles for a reason. If you are going to go with a peep sight get a receiver sight.
It's not that bad, Big M........having a bright front sight is more important.....you just look thru the back one and put the bead on target, you don't have to see anything......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
I agree with tubby,no ghost ring is good in poor light.If you want to shoot accurately in low light you need a quality scope with lots of exit pupil.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
23,798 Posts
Back in the 70s I had a .22 that was an ironsight only bolt gun. The rear sight was broken and I took it to work and brazed a #10 washer at the right level basically duplicating what I'm seeing here. I was very good for targets but when you were trying to sight on a moving target the hole was too far away and actually obstructed your field of view. This was a good close up sight but I removed the washer brazed up the original sight and refiled the notch in it. What big medicine said rang quite true for me, thank you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,697 Posts
bob1895 said:
I agree with tubby,no ghost ring is good in poor light.If you want to shoot accurately in low light you need a quality scope with lots of exit pupil.
:) Tubby didn't say that. I think it's a function of the front sight when you can't see very well with a peep/ring. You don't have to see the back one, just look thru it. :)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,145 Posts
I agree that a firesight post is a good thing. Most of my rifles that I hunt with have them. As far as a peep sight for hunting, a receiver mounted peep is great. I have used them for over 20 years and have shot a fair amount of game big and small with them. You have a longer sight plain and dont need to find your rear sight. With a barrel mounted sight you have to find the rear sight and front sight, and in low light or dark timber it is difficult, esp on a moving target as swany stated. Each to their own, but from my experience I will stay with the receiver mounted peep.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,697 Posts
I would never say ( and did not say) the ORH is better than a receiver mounted, I merely took issue with the "next to worthless" statement.........I have one and they are not next to worthless. All my hunting rifles now sport a receiver sight of some sort.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
205 Posts
I think you'll find the Brockman receiver-mounted sight to be a little more whack-proof than the XS or any Williams sights, but it won't beat the former by much. For me, the XS is sort of the "default" aperture sight for Marlins. The darned things are tough, compact and relatively smooth. I have used Williams Foolproofs on a couple of guns, and they usually work fine, but I found them to be "snaggers" in some situations, and I now have only one left- it a target-knobbed model mounted on a .22 Contender carbine, where it works quite nicely as a "semi-target" sight.

I'd take any of them over a tang sight, but that's not to say that some of the tang sights out there won't work just as well.

The ORH is the latest revival of a concept that reappears from time to time; some people really do manage to make something like that work for them, but it has never really caught on and stuck with most shooters. I used to cobble up homemade ones for my BB and pellet guns, thinking they'd have to improve my shooting, and later on, I tried them on .22's. I confess to having trouble finding the front sight when trying to shoot quickly with such a setup, but I've shot decent groups off the bench with them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
One ragged hole sights

I don't have the sights on an 1894, but I do have one ragged hole sight on my ruger super blackhawk 44 magnum. It is a very quick and accurate sight, for what my opinion is worth.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top