Historical Correctness of Peep Sight?

[bigbadben]

It's a cold rainy Sunday morning. So I'm mostly sitting around teaching my 2-year-old son to yurp. ("Yurping" is the fine art of yawning and belching simultaneously. It's a good Sunday morning thing to do.)

Since I don’t seem to be doing anything all that important I figured I'd ask a question that’s been rolling around my head -whether to put a peep sight on my new Lyman GPH.

Let me give you some of the backstory. I bought this gun because I wanted to get something that had the look and feel of something a guy might have crawled around the woods with 200 years ago.

This has led me to kind of resist the urge to go for the latest greatest doodads. For example, last week I was in the local Muzzleloader shop and the guy was trying to sell me on some new replica powder and teflon patches. I was kind of thinking that if I went that route I should really just sell the GPH and get a stainless Sako in 300WSM with one of those new-fangled electronic drop compensating scopes. You see my point. If you start modernizing what's supposed to be a traditional gun where do you stop?

But since I really want to hunt with this thing I find myself thinking that I would kinda like to put the peep sight on it. But I'm concerned about making it a weird hybrid of old and new technology. (By which I mean more so than it already is.)

So that's the question: were guys 200 years ago putting peep sights on these things? Is it something that an astute hunter might have done in 1810? If it was unusual but not unheard of I guess I'd like to do it. But if there really was no such thing then I guess I wouldn't.

Oh, and I don't plan on doing historical reenactments or competitive shoots or that sort of thing. This will be for empty soup cans and things with horns. So I don't have to worry about spoiling the gun from a judging standpoint.

Thanks. Let the fun begin.

Ben

 

[roundball]

"...If it was unusual but not unheard of I guess I'd like to do it. But if there really was no such thing then I guess I wouldn't..."

"...Oh, and I don't plan on doing historical reenactments or competitive shoots or that sort of thing. This will be for empty soup cans and things with horns. So I don't have to worry about spoiling the gun from a judging standpoint..."

I'm a little confused by these two statements...one suggests you wouldn't do it unless it was done way back when, but the following statement suggests it doesn't matter.

I'll lean towards the comment that you aren't necessarily concerned about being precisely period correct and say, if you'd like to use a peep, go for it.

On the other hand, you also mention using it for hunting and they are not usually the best choice for deer hunting, given that most of the time, the best times to see a good buck are at very first and very last light times of day...peeps are virtually usless in those very low light conditions.

Occasionally some try getting around that by removing the aperature disk, or drilling it out to a much larger size hole, but then that raises the question of what benefit remains to use the peep at all...(maybe a ghost ring effect or something?)

Anyhow, it would be probably be great for targets, soup cans, etc...but IMO, if they were great for hunting they'd be on most everyone's rifles

 

[Wehrmacht]

There were a couple of flintlocks at the Kentucky Rifle Assoc. Show at Carlisle,Pennsylvania last June with receiver or peep sights. If my memory is correct both pieces were oriented toward target work and not necessarily hunting. And if there is anything counterfit about a piece or its accouterments the KRA would throw it out in a heartbeat :bow:.

The simple answer is yes, peep sights were around in the flintlock era. I have seen a number of Spanish pieces recovered from shipwrecks off our Florida Coast that had peep sights in the form of a short tube mounted on the tang aft the cock.

 

[bigbadben]

Thanks Roundball,

I guess that what I mean is that if the overall concept of a peep sight isn't out of character then I wouldn't be too worried about exact detail correctness. I'd probably just get the Lyman sight. From it's picture it doesn't look like something I would expect to see on a real 200-year-old rifle. But it would be good enough for my needs.

Ben

 

[Blackfoot]

There is a picture of a long strap peep on a flint at the Track of the wolf that was for sale that I some day will put one like it on my flinter.
I saved the picture of it but am having a hard time posting it...Will keep trying.
[url] http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c96/blackfoot123/Blackfoot pics/640longstrappeep.jpg[/url]

If any of you know where I can get THIS rear peep let me know, Thanks

 

[szihn]

Peep sights were never common until they caught on in the age of military arms well into the cartridge era.
However, the peep sight itself has existed longer than the firearm. In my work over the years, doing restoration for various museums, I have seen and handeled crossbows that date from the dark ages and middle ages that had peep sights on them.
So it's safe to say that peep sights predate firearms.
Old Germanic, English and some American arms are seen with peep sights on them, but they were always rare.
I know of no available peep sights made today that are copies of those I have seen on the old flintlocks. I have hand made a few, but they do have to be hand made.
As far as them being "useless" in dim light, that's only true if they are the ones made for "target use" that had small apatures in them. If your sight has a hole in it of at least .080" or larger, it's faster and more presice than ANY open sight. That's a fact that's been proven now for many years, and it's why there are now large apertures on all military arms in the USA and on many military rifle made worldwide.
I was assigned to MTU (Marksmanship Training Unit) in 1981 when I was in the Marines, and I and some buddies of mine did some experiments with such things then.
We found a few things in testing militay and civilian arms in fast shooting, (with only hits counted. Misses counted agains us) and in light from very dark to bright sunlight, and at ranges from 10 yards to 500 yards, that were opposite of the "conventional wisdom" of the day.

#1 The fastest and most accurate sight in every instance on all long arms, with NO exceptions was a low powered scope.

#2 A large peep sight on EVERY long arm was the 2nd fastest in EVERY TEST.
#3 On handguns, a square notch with a square post ( what we used to call "target sights" ) was the fastest in every condition EXCEPT for very low light, in which the peep was fastest again.
(note: the "peeps" we used for those tests were huge. As I recall, the holes were about 7/16")
We'd file and machine them out of plastic and sometimes aluminum, and epoxy them onto the handguns just for the purpose of the test. We did the same thing on a few of the long arms too. Most looked like hell, but they would work for a box or 2 of ammo, before we lost them.

None of this was done "offically" It was just a group of us experimenting on our own time, with our own weapons and our own money. We did the shooting both on and off base. But it was VERY enlightening. We did this for about 5 weeks so it was not just a quick venture. In all we had about 35 shooters, including some civilians and about 6 ladies, some of whom had never hunted of done much shooting in their lives. We also had one 11 year old boy (son or a good friend of mine)

We used the AR-15, M-14, FN_FAL, M-94 Winchester, Ruger 10-/22 Mauser blot action in 270 winchester, 1911A1 45 , S&W M-39 9mm, H&K 9mm, Ruger 22 auto pistol, Walther PPK, Winchester M-12 shotgun, Remington 1100 shotgun, Ruger SuperBlackhawk, a Colt SAA 44-40, one man's full auto Uzi, several Colt and S&W revolvers, a Browning M-92 in 44 mag, an M-1 Carbine, an M-1 Garand, an old 30-40 Krag, and a bunch more weapons which I am sure I am just not remembering now. In all I would guess we probably did our drills over that 5 weeks with about 100 different firearms. It was a lot of fun.

If you doubt this, get out any modern rifle you have that has iron sights on it. Put some 5" "party paper plates" at ranges from 20 yards to about 400 yards and have some one time you. On the "go" you pick up the rifle from a table and make a hit. (only a hit! Keep shooting until you HIT!) When you hit, your friend shold record the time. Do it at every distance.
Then put on a peep sight, and make sure the hole is at least .070" in diameter. Drill it out if you have to.
Do the whole test again with new plates.
You will see what I mean, when you are all done.

Try it at first light, when you almost can't see your sights.
Do it all again about 2 hours later.
You'll see.

But, to come back from that rabbit trail, ........
Peeps are old, they work well, and there's nothing wrong with having one. I would recommend that if you want one on an authentic recreation of an early rifle, that you make one the way they were made then, and not buy some modern click adjustable sight. On a "modern gun" (even if it loads from the muzzle) I guess any sight is OK, including a scope, but it should be used in the modern rifle season. If you would do honor to the old ways, then you should keep them pure, and "old"
SZ

 

[szihn]

Yup
Call Bob Baxter Parts at 937 866 0432.
It's the Warnock peep sight
Tell Bob that Steve Zihn told you to call him. He'll treat you right
SZ

 

[roundball]

"...As far as them being "useless" in dim light, that's only true if they are the ones made for "target use" that had small apatures in them..."

I bleieve this is what I said, quote:

"..peeps are virtually usless in those very low light conditions.

"...getting around that by removing the aperature disk, or drilling it out to a much larger size hole..."

:v

 

[Bountyhunter]

Thanks for the report on experience, Steve. I much appreciate the experience of others. This is a subject that I have been wondering about for a while as my eyes get weaker with age.

Practical experience has proven research/opinions wrong multiple times throughout history.

By any chance, do you have a pic of that Warnock sight?

Thanks again

Bill

 

[Blackfoot]

This should be it


[url] http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c96/blackfoot123/Blackfoot pics/640longstrappeep.jpg[/url]

 

[Blackfoot]

Thanks Steve I will call him when I am ready to do the peep.

 

[Wehrmacht]

Steve,
Thanks for posting all of this info :hatsoff:.
Never messed around on the range experimenting and testing as you have done, but probably put about a gazillion rounds down range through M-1 Garands :winking:. Absolutely love a receiver sight!

 

[szihn]

Ooops
Sorry Roundball. :redface:
I stand corrected.

 

[CoyoteJoe]

If any of you know where I can get THIS rear peep let me know, Thanks

Funny, you got the photo from Track and they also sell that very sight, I've mounted a couple for a friend. I do believe that one has an extra large aperture disk. They work OK but I wish they used a larger strap. When you countersink a 6x48 screw head into them it doesn't leave much steel on each side of the hole and being just mild steel they are not so strong as I would like.

 

[CoyoteJoe]

Complaints of peep sights for hunting come from people who are too hard-headed to try them. As others have said, a hunting peep should have a large aperture. That is no news, Williams has long listed their "twilight aperture" and they still work fine. Even with a 1/8" aperture you will still get better groups than with any open rear sight. Also as mentioned, if peeps were a liability in poor light the military would not use them. In fact the Army went to peeps with the m-1917 and never regretted it. The Britts also gave up the open rear in favor of a peep with the Mark 4 SMLE. I totally agree with and am not at all surprised by Steve Zihn's lengthy test. But of course, no amount of testing will ever convince some know-it-alls who have never tested it for themselves. :grin:

 

[tg]

Typicaly if you want to keep in the HC arena the peep would be a copy or similar to something documented to the time period of the gun, which could be done with the GPH (sorta)however this gun is set up to shoot modern high tech conicals so it is kind of a moot point unless you are using a bulet documented to the period of the gun as well, and since we are talking 1810 the gun style is out of place and the choice of a bullet would be very limited.

 

[trent/OH]

If I recall correctly, Alvin York wasn't a big fan of the peep sight on his 1917 rifle because it obscured his field of view through and around the sights. That's something of a different story than pure target work of course.
However, he grew up shooting a rifle with open sights, and was so good with them that however he felt about them was just fine with everybody who cared. He seems to have "done right well" with those peep sights when push came to shove though.

 

[Wehrmacht]

You are correct about Sgt. Alvin York's dislike of peep sights.

Those of us who compete in the annual York Chunkgun Match at Sgt.York's home every March get the chance to talk with Andy and Cletis York, the Sgt's youngest son and nephew, about these subjects. A few years ago Andy told me that in his Dad's daily diary,which he still had, that Sgt.York had made an entry that upon reaching France his outfit was given the option of retaining their issued Enfields or exchanging them for Springfield '03s. Sgt.York made a diary entry that he and many others quickly traded for '03s because they didn't like the peep sight on Enfields!

 

[Gary]

Peep sights were found on very early guns and even crossbows. Look at some of the early Arabic guns with one tapering pyramid with numerous holes drilled into it for varying distances. However, the reserveation should be made that some didn't serve as "peep" sights inasmuch as they assisted an aging eye to see the rear sight.

 

[Joel Lehman]

I ordered mine from the Log Cabin Shop. It is listed in their online catalog, but has a smaller disc.


Joel Lehman, Austin, TX