Aperture sights: Differences and Advantages

Status
Not open for further replies.

earlthegoat2

Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
9,993
Location
SE GA
I am pretty sure no one has tested and compared all the different ones side by side but was curious to know the practical differences and advantages and disadvantages of the different ones out there.

This pertains specifically to a Marlin 336 30-30 rifle but can apply to any firearm really. Shots expected are 100 yds and less.

Namely between Lyman, Williams, XS, Skinner, Cloverleaf, and NECG.

My questions relate to durability, ease of use, ease of adjustment, whether an additional front sight is required or desirable regardless.

Also, how a receiver sight compares to a low power scope such as a 2.5x fixed scope or 2.5x scout scope setup. I have used 2.5x scopes in the past but never a scout setup or a receiver sight.
 
I have the Williams set on my 336. I tried to get by with the aperture sight, and keep the existing (lower) front bead. The Williams aperture sits too high to allow this, I had to also install the fiber-optic front that was included with the rear. The fiber-optic front bead is quite a bit larger than the Marlin bead. VERY easy to pick up, and easy for deer-sized game at 50 yards, but takes a little bit of "centering the bead" at 100 yards.
 
A lot of folks seem to suggest these sights to people but I guess not many actually use them.

I went with a Skinner Reliable with .125 aperture and a Bear Buster front sight. I will probably get a Williams FP for my next one.
 
I have experience of Lyman, Williams, and Skinner sights. Not on your list, I also use a Lee Shaver Vernier tang sight on a 45-70 RB and have an unknown brand aperture tang sight on a Marlin 1892.

I have a Williams FP aperture sight on my Marlin 336. It is not the knob adjustable version. I wish it were. It is less easily adjustable than I would like. The availability of different size apertures is relevant, though hog hunting with it last weekend, removing the aperture disk and using the housing as a ghost ring was much more effective. They are aluminium and feel a little tinny. I had to put a taller front sight on the 336 to use the aperture sight correctly.

I used a Skinner large aperture sight on a Rossi R92. I didn't like it at all. However, in fairness, that reflected on the placement of the rear sight in the location of of the rear buckhorn sight, effectively making it a "scout aperture". it was not a good set up and I replaced with a Marbles Bullseye rear sight. Skinner sights are high quality but I would not use again. I prefer the large disk aperture to the smaller one used by Skinner.

I use a Lyman aperture sight on a Krag sporter and a Savage 340. It is far and away my favorite aperture sight. Both are old models. They are well made of excellent materials and easy to adjust. The aperture disks are removable for use as a ghost ring. These are, in my opinion, the best of the receiver mounted aperture sights. I had to put a taller front sight on the 340 to use it correctly.

The Lee Shaver Vernier tang sight on my RB is equipped with a multiple aperture disc. It's fantastic. It cost a fortune. It's really only relevant for shooting BP cartridges at long ranges.

I do not know what brand the tang aperture sight is on my 1906 manufactured Marlin 1892. It is an exquisite piece of early 20th century manufacturing. It provides and excellent sight picture.

I have no experience with the NECG or Cloverleaf sights. Were I buying an aperture sight for a 336, I would try to find a Lyman sight and, if not convenient, would use a William FP.
 
Interesting thoughts. My initial impression with the Skinner was also unfavorable. I will probably remove the aperture for hunting.

Really, something closer to the eye would be more ideal.
 
I "grew up" using an M1 Carbine for target shooting, and have recently added aperture (peep) sights to both my 10/22 and Henry .357. Luckily for the Henry I was able to find a folding tang-mounted sight, but for the 10/22 I had to make my own, because NONE of the aftermarket ones put the aperture close enough to the eye. And that's the key: the aperture (peep) must be as close to the eye as recoil safety and mechanics will allow. The human eye automatically (unconsciously) aligns the round hole with the eyeball, and then the only thing left to think about is centering the front sight (almost a no-brainer) and placing the target correctly relative to the front sight.
 
Ive used Lyman, Williams, and XS sights on a number of Winchester lever guns and a couple of bolt guns, and the Skinner on my Marlin 1895G. Ive also used the NECG on my Ruger 77/357. I also have a set of XS sights on my Ruger #3.

The Lyman/Williams type sights, as well as the XS Ive used on the lever and bolt guns, did not require a new front sight. The XS on the #3 did, as did the Skinner. The NECG on my 77/357 just barely got by without the front sight change, and really probably should have had a different one.

With most all of them, I used the sights without the aperture disk in the sight, as I wanted the "ghost ring". With the XS sights, that is what the rear sight is, a ghost ring.

If you want more precision, especially at longer distances, you will want the disk with the small aperture, or a sight that has that.

I also prefer a "blade" type front sight over a "bead". It gives a much cleaner sight picture, with, for me anyway, a more precise aiming point.

As far as getting things zeroed, the only one I had trouble with and got really annoyed with, was the NECG. Its a well made sight, just not well thought out. It also wont allow you to remove the aperture for a ghost ring, as that portion of the sight holds vertical zero. Getting them zeroed is also just WAY too fiddly.


I wasnt real impressed with the Skinners sights, or their customer service either. The sight I had was their smaller, less obtrusive sight and it seemed really fragile and subject to damage as it was when zeroed. I sent them a couple of emails, trying to get a second lock ring, to give it some more strength, and they never would reply. soon ditched it and went back to the factory leaf sight.
 
My questions relate to durability, ease of use, ease of adjustment, whether an additional front sight is required or desirable regardless.

My Marlin M1894. I put on a big wide, with a white stripe in the middle, front sight. I decided that if I was going to use the thing, I would be better off with a sight that I could pick up in an instant. The bead sights on Marlins, I don't know how good they are in actual hunting situations. The one deer I shot with irons, I used a M27 Finnish Mosin Nagant. It was less than 20 yards, and I only really had time to center the creature between the sight ears and pull the trigger. And it worked great!

I think these Russian battle sights would be just great in short distance, fast acquisition target engagement. Just put the ring on the animal and pull the trigger! Then, use the post if you have the time!

dK0UxRV.jpg

I installed a Williams rear, took it off, installed a modern Lyman, took that off, put the Williams back on.

n9pZMXy.jpg

GpKogWG.jpg

The problem with the modern Lyman was that the slide is as loose as a goose in the base. I can grab the slide and wiggle it.

When Lyman made a good rear sight, such as this Lyman WJS on my pre 64

8fYOZLT.jpg

That knurled screw in the back

uhMQ7NB.jpg

tightens the slide to the base and locks it in. I have shot enough irons to know, a slight bit of wobble translates to huge changes in point of impact. I found this out in spades, when I received back from the Gunsmith, a NM configuration Garand. All the match mods had been done. Load development was disappointing. It shot oval groups, regardless of load. Sent it back to the gunsmith, he said it "shot a group" and sent it back. What constitutes a group can be a point of argument. It was not shooting round, tiny groups. One day, I touched the front sight by accident, and the thing wobbled. Just an itty bitty, tiny amount of wobble. Neither I nor the gunsmith had noticed this, and it is a rookie mistake. I tightened up the lock screw on the bottom of the front sight and the rifle shot great. Lesson learned. A challenge, shoot a 20 shot group out of a Garand, prone with sling, at 200 yards, and do it better. This is with irons.

fpJjDDC.jpg

Now, whenever I am shooting irons, particularly Smallbore Prone, and the call is consistently different from the impact, I reach up and press on the front and rear sights. Ninety nine percent of the time, the sights are tight and the problem is me and my wind judgement. (the lack thereof). But, once a Blue Moon, something is loose. I do the same with my rifle scopes, and you know, I have discovered times when the scope base screws have backed out and the whole mount wobbled. I don't remember which rifles that happened to, but I when I am feeling frisky, I use two part epoxy glue between the scope base and the receiver! Locks the bugger down. The heck with wobbly sights! The screws that held the sight base on the slide of this Kimber backed out, even though I used blue locktite. I cleaned all the mating surfaces and mixed a two part epoxy, lets see how long this takes to come loose.

f4puGBb.jpg

The Williams sight, it has a standard slotted screw that locks the slide in place. It is a bit of a bugger, you have to have a screwdriver to loosen it, tighten it, because if you don't, the slide is loose in the base. But you know, once I sighted the rifle in, with one load, I did not need to monkey with the thing again.

I think this is an important issue with rear sights, that they are mechanically tight!
 
Last edited:
I used aperture sights a lot longer and more than I've used scopes because I am used to firing military rifles and ap sights have a long tradition in the U.S. military arms. In one rifle's case, I removed the scope it came with and put tech sights (another ap sight for some) on it. In my case, I find open sights the fastest and least accurate, ap sights a little slower depending on the size of the aperture (1902 Krag sight has an incredibly tiny aperture for example plus an open sight), and a scope to be the slowest but potentially the most accurate depending on the power of the scope. Accuracy is in reverse order unless something is wonky about the scope or its mounting. As I shoot most of my rifles off-hand instead at the bench and at ranges of less than 300 yards, a high powered scope is less useful to me than a good ap sight.

As far as the commercial stuff goes, it is an interesting question and you might actually find answers by going back to the past when scopes were somewhat balky, fragile, and unreliable and a lot of military trained folks used ap sights instead of scopes. These were also easier to adjust for different ammo for sportsmen in the day which is not an issue with military rifles due to common ammo (at least for the military).

Gun Digest for example sells their collected back issues on a cd/dvd with an index at the end of each year. Guns and Ammo might also do the same as far as I know. Red dot sights are probably the future replacement for ap sights and work well when they work.
 
I've used Williams, Mojo, and Ruger ghost ring type.

I currently have 3 Williams, one on a Marlin 39. I do not have a 336. I have the basic Williams which have to be screw adjusted. In all cases, I have to remove the aperture in the Williams rear sight to make it a ghost ring so I can see the target and front sight in the woods.

The only time I can get away with leaving the aperture in the Williams is target shooting or in good lighting conditions. I have three sizes of Williams apertures, and they are good for everything but the woods or low light.

I had a Mojo and another Williams that mounted on the barrel of a milsurp. They could be used, but the advantage of having an aperture sight near the eye was gone. No help in focusing on the front sight or target, and seeing through an aperture that far from the eye . . . well, it might have been the same as looking through the eye of a needle. That gun now wears the original sliding elevation leaf sight.

The Ruger ghost ring works fine for low light, but loses precision for small group shooting. Small group shooting can happen with the ghost ring, but it's harder to do than with a small aperture.

The 2x scout scope? You have to go into it knowing that a low power scout scope is effectively a lensed aperture sight with crosshairs in it and you can focus those cross hairs to your vision needs. Shoot it with both eyes open to avoid the "looking through a straw" effect. With a good scout scope that has proper eye relief, the scope looks like a disc of light (with an aiming point) sitting on your barrel. It's works pretty well, but a traditional 1-4x scope with 3 to 4 inches of eye relief is a better all around solution, IMO.
 
Last edited:
What about the "lash" or "backlash" depending on which way you turn the screw?

Move sight 3 clicks, then 1 back to take up the "backlash" between the adjust screw and sight.

All I have are aperture sights. You must figure out the way to handle the lash adjustment for each sight.
 
Let me think here.

I have a Williams top-mount on my Marlin 336BL, since it isn't drilled and tapped on the side of the receiver. I can't remember if this model comes in a knob-adjustable version; mine is the version that requires you to loosen the screw and slide the elevation adjustment. I like it. It's an aperture sight, close enough to my eye, once set it hasn't moved on me. It did require a different front sight though. I didn't like the fiber optic front sight the set came with, so I found a gold bead front sight of an appropriate height and go with that. As a bonus, if you want a ghost ring type of sight for in the woods, just remove the aperture insert. Replace when done.

I had one of the Guide Reciever Sights (top mount) on a Marlin 1894 for a while, again because the side of the receiver wasn't drilled and tapped. I actually installed it "in reverse" so it could be at the back of the receiver and not overhang. Which meant my only option was to leave the insert out and use it as a ghost ring. That worked pretty well for me on that rifle, though it wasn't necessarily ideal.

My 336BL also wears a Leupold 2.5x IER Scout scope now. Just putting it through the paces on the range, I like it. Having been scope-eyed a couple of times, due to being an unrepentant stock-crawler, I really like having the scope way out in front of the receiver. (Side note: red dots are also great because of the unlimited eye relief.) But, as good as the IER scope is, you never forget you're looking through a piece of glass. The view through a standard Leupold FX-II 2.5x20mm scope is night and day clearer. Yes, I have one of those too, mounted on a CZ452 Lux.

The Skinner sights do not impress me, just based on handling rifles with them in the store. They seem insubstantial and fragile compared to a Lyman or Williams. The XS sights are marginally better, but sit high and seem to be begging to snag, grab and bash off of everything.

I've also done a fair amount of shooting with an A2-style AR-15 rear sight, the standard M-1 Garand sights and a Winchester Model 52 with what I think were Redfield Olympic sights on it. At the risk of being flamed and banned as a heretic, the adjustments on the A2 sight on the AR-15 are easier to work and more reliable than the rear sight on an M-1 Garand/M-14/M1A. I've witnessed the results when the elevation adjustment comes loose on those rear sights, and it isn't pretty from the 600 yard line.
 
The human eye automatically (unconsciously) aligns the round hole with the eyeball, and then the only thing left to think about is centering the front sight (almost a no-brainer) and placing the target correctly relative to the front sight.

When it comes to using something other than a scope to hunt with, do not try to "center" the front sight with the aperture in a receiver sight; your eye will naturally do so (as I think beag_nut is saying). This reason alone makes the peep sight so much faster in attaining a good sight picture than are conventional "irons", which always require aligning the front sight with the rear and superimposing the sight picture over the target.

My favorite receiver sight is the Williams "Fool Proof" model, which I have used for several decades and have mounted on more than a few of my rifles.
 
I would go with either Lyman or Williams for a receiver mounted sight. They are durable and rugged as I have both and they have stood up to the test of time. Tang mounted, I would go with Marbles as they are windage adjustable. I have one Skinner and it's back in it's package and apparently unreturnable. It's quality is fine. I just don't like it. I use some peep sights as a nostalgia thing but really prefer scopes.
 
I am pretty sure no one has tested and compared all the different ones side by side but was curious to know the practical differences and advantages and disadvantages of the different ones out there.

This pertains specifically to a Marlin 336 30-30 rifle but can apply to any firearm really. Shots expected are 100 yds and less.

Namely between Lyman, Williams, XS, Skinner, Cloverleaf, and NECG.

My questions relate to durability, ease of use, ease of adjustment, whether an additional front sight is required or desirable regardless.

Also, how a receiver sight compares to a low power scope such as a 2.5x fixed scope or 2.5x scout scope setup. I have used 2.5x scopes in the past but never a scout setup or a receiver sight.

Of the brands listed, I'll comment on Lyman and Williams. I assume the Marlin 336 in .30-30 is to be used on deer anywhere inside 100yds.

Lyman is known as making good sight, but after 1974 they changed from all steel construction to aircraft aluminum. That's not necessarily a problem, but something to be aware of.

Williams is also a good serviceable sight. Regardless of whether it's a Foolproof or a 5-D, for hunting purposes, I'd consider a Williams Twighlight aperture an advantage... get one with a bigger opening as you get a better view of the deer.

Compared to a 2.5x optic, I'd say it depends on what you really need in your own situation. The aperture sight is like 1x in that you get no magnification, but by some accounts, the sights will fit your levergun better than a scope.

If your range rules allow, I'd say put a clay bird on the 100yd berm. Walk your shots in with the mud splash and sight adjustment. When you get set to bust clay birds on the berm repeatably, walk your shots back across the course so you understand how the sights and trajectory interact.
 
My questions relate to durability, ease of use, ease of adjustment, whether an additional front sight is required or desirable regardless.

I was just looking back at this... well, here's a couple more things...

Durability- These sights can either last a lifetime or several or they can get wrecked quick. About like anything else.

Ease of use- I've found them quite easy to use, but as I was saying, you have to understand the sight picture and trajectory.

Ease of adjustment- Lyman's micrometer with Stay-set coin slot screws is quite easy, as is Williams' Foolproof.

You must remember that the Foolproof, both hunter and target, has a set screw on both the windage and elevation adjustments. To adjust, you must loosen the set screw. Don't forget to tighten them afterward so they don't get lost.

For the Williams 5-D, the elevation adjustment is very easy. Simply loosen the set screw, raise or lower by turning the stop screw, and re-tighten the set screw. The windage can be a bit tedious, but once you have them set, you leave them alone. It's "set it and forget it".

Front sight- You may or may not need a different front sight... it depends. Some of us have better vision than others. In my previous post, I recommend the Williams Twighlight aperture in a wider, more open diameter for greater visibility. Someone mentioned Williams' fiber optic front. You might also consider adding a Marbles front sight with the "ivory" bead. I've found they really show up. By my way of thinking, which height of front sight will put you on the 100yd zero with the rear sight bottomed out. The height you'll need really depends on how much elevation you had to use on the rear. The object is to zero at 100yds, know that trajectory, and be able to take advantage of the range of elevation should you later wish to extend your range with this rifle.

Well, that was more than a couple. I hope all this helps.
 
how a receiver sight compares to a low power scope such as a 2.5x fixed scope
The accuracy would be about the same, off the bench, with a 22lr at 50 yards. The hole in the aperture sight needs to be small.
Lyman sights are on an old Mossberg 144. When i put the 12x scope on, groups are smaller. My limited experence.
 
For match target shooting, I would agree with using a small diameter aperture, but hunting ain't a target match.

Hunting- large diameter aperture and high viz front sight.

Target- small diameter aperture and fine front sight.

Two different sets of issues with visibility. Big difference... a deer in their normal environment vs a bullseye on a square range.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top