I have, for the last few years, simply presumed aperture sights were superior to open sights. But then I was reading a book about German rifle development during WWII where a fair amount of testing was done and it was determined at medium-short range the open sight was faster and wasn’t as sensitive to lighting.
Since it looks like most combat rifles are set up for 200 yards and end. And most hunting surely takes place at those ranges–is there any reason for aperture sights on anything other than target rifles?
I have peep sights on three hunting rifles. If you want to hunt, it helps to have a ghost ring aperture. The larger opening lets in more light. Target apertures don’t work for hunting.
I don’t know if it is more accurate than open sights, for hunting tolerances. Probably not at 100 yards. But I think they are more accurate at 200 yards.
I believe the apeture sights are more accurate and faster. The key to this is having the hole large enough for speed. Also I’ve seen some shooters wanting to get their heads too far away from the aperture, when closer is better.
Does a shroud around the front sight post still count as open sights? Because the later issue Mausers (the shorter carbines) had an enclosed shroud around the front sight post. I personally don’t care for my Mauser’s iron sights; I think they’re just too low for me. Aperture sights tend to be a little taller and easier for me to aim with.
They are more precise, at the compromise (imo) of speed. For close in <100 yds I think open or express sights are much faster. Like the sights on a double rifle for example.
A rear aperture sight combined with a front post can match the speed of any V or notch sight mounted on the front receiver ring simply by choosing the size of the aperture correctly.
When it comes to precision marksmanship, no metallic sight system can match a front and rear aperture system.
