Peep sight

[big D]

Does anyone know where I can find out just how far back in time the peep sight was used.

I would also like your oppinion on the use of peep sights at rondys. Like do you think the shooter of a peep has an unfair advantage over other shooters.

 

[Bountyhunter]

Any of the rondys that I ever went to in the Western part of the state of KS did not allow peeps. The consensus of opinion is that the peep allows an unfair advantage over those who follow the rules, in that it essentially provides a zero power scope effect. You can get some gain from full buckhorn sights, but peeps are not considered legal or fair where I shoot.

B

 

[CoyoteJoe]

Peep sights actually predate firearms, having been used on crossbows. Peep sight, though not common, can be found on very early flintlocks. While modern micro-adjustable target peeps look out of place on a muzzleloader, the simple one piece "lollypop" tang sight looks like it belongs on a ML rifle. However, they are not allowed at any rendezvous shoot I have attended. Why not? Just because that's the rule, open sights only.

 

[tg]

This is one of the many items that draw heat from the PC/Traditional side, while peeps sights and other things can be traced back to the past, the use of their modern counterparts on old type guns does not bode well with those who feel that to be traditional or PC the item should be of the same type as used in the past not just share the same name.

 

[bpbrs]

BULL on PC sights :cursing:

Jap matchlocks had peeps on them! Which pre-date any North american "eastern and for sure western mountainman".
Just because it was not present and in use here, does not mean it was not common in another country of the same time period.
Natives here were using stone and bone.
Japan,China and India had developed powder charged weaponary, rockets at the same time.

 

If the person shooting a peep sight knows how to use it he has a definite advantage over the person using open sights. Especially as the range increases.

Vic

 

[tg]

"Jap matchlocks had peeps on them! Which pre-date any North american "eastern and for sure western mountainman".
Just because it was not present and in use here, does not mean it was not common in another country of the same time period."

Such well thought logic is hard to refute...NOT.
We were talking about peeps in a particular place and time and type as to be PC for that period and place....not to hard to understand if one trys just a bit.... the "PC bull" thing was a real winner also, it is intersting how so little in the way of factor twisting of facts can be put forth to bash a PC exchange.

 

[BS]

"Jap matchlocks had peeps on them! Which pre-date any North american "eastern and for sure western mountainman".
Just because it was not present and in use here, does not mean it was not common in another country of the same time period."

Such well thought logic is hard to refute...NOT.
We were talking about peeps in a particular place and time and type as to be PC for that period and place....not to hard to understand if one trys just a bit.... the "PC bull" thing was a real winner also, it is intersting how so little in the way of factor twisting of facts can be put forth to bash a PC exchange.

So how do you really feel! :v

 

[Pork Chop]

TG,

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I do have a question. I have seen arguments for and against several things - peep sights being one of them - when it comes to PC events. Underhammers are almost universally shunned it seems. My perspective from the peanut gallery is that the PC folks are driving the boat based on what was popularly used. If something may not have been in vogue at the time, but was available and is documented as such, why is it cast out as unacceptable? I mean, here in the 2000s, flintlocks, handgonnes, matchlocks and even caplocks are not in vogue with the rest of the mainstream (hard to believe, I know, but it is true - I read it in the Enquirer), yet there are plenty in use and a cottage industry supporting them. Certainly back in the Mountain Man era, there were fringe folks that used peep sights, underhammers, and other stuff (maybe even peep sighted underhammers...), so why would they not be acceptable?

 

[shmrck1]

Pork Chop,
Your out of here!!!!!You make way to
much sence :rotf:
snake-eyes :applause:

 

[rabbit03]

Pork chop you said a mouth full!

AMEN

rabbit03

 

[TANSTAAFL]

With these three score plus eyes of mine, I need all the help I can get. I have put this rear fixed peep (AKA a closed buckhorn) at link on a couple of rifles & love it. It is designed to be used in same position as a regular rear sight, without a close look, one would not suspect it for such.

On one sight I took a thin blade in the jeweler's saw and cut a slit in the top center, viola, open sight. If desired, the thin slit can be reclosed with just a bit of hard beeswax, but one still gets the aperture effect even with the thin slit.

[url] http://trackofthewolf.com/cat...subId=167&styleId=768&partNum=RS-CA-PEEP[/url]

 

[CoyoteJoe]

I think there is no doubt that some rifles, in America, wore peep sights two hundred years ago. I see no reason to believe than none of them ever made to the Rocky Mountains. If you show up at a fur trade Rendezvous with a simple, primitive style peep on an underhammer rifle, as I did last weekend, you should not be kicked out since peeps were certainly around and "could" have made it to a rendezvous, BUT-- You can't shoot it in competition since you would have an advantage over all those fellers shootin open sights. That rule is not about being PC but about being fair to the other shooters. Of course I need that advantage just to be fair to me! :grin:

 

[BS]

Looks like they need to add a 'peep' competition, that you can shoot open sights, if you choose.

 

[Gary]

crossbows had peep sights. I've seen old Turkish guns with multiple peepsights. Think of a pyramid with holes drilled with holes at four different heights such that the higher the sight, the further the distance to shoot.

Sometimes the "peep" sight wasn't so much of a sight as it was a focusing sight to help the shooter see the rear sight. Go to the Frazier Arms Museum in Louisville, KY and you'll see a wheellock jaeger rifle that has a open rear sight but a tang peep to help the shooter. History has no absolutes and it's a matter for the hysterian to help identify when and where it was valid.

BTW, if in Louisville, go to the Filson Historical Society to see the painting of Daniel Boone. Then go to the Speed Art Museum to see the other painting of Boone by the same artist.

 

[tg]

"so why would they not be acceptable?'

I would think they should be...If they were of the type of gun and peep sights that were available at the time in history the event represents.To put a modern high tech peep on a 1750 flintlock because "they" had peeps in China in 600 AD is a horse of a different color from a PC perspective, it is the same as trying to argue a modern ML into the PC world by pointing out the non-typical types of ignition from the past, apples and oranges.

 

[Pork Chop]

TG,

I absolutely agree. If the items were available during or prior to that era, then they would be fine in my nonPC opinion. If they were of a later style/vintage, then they would violate the spirit of the event and should not be allowed.

 

[gmww]

:applause: :applause:

 

[faw3]

It seems to me.. The PC people just want what they belive is PC it has nothing to do with facts, truth or anything else that may get in the way, Bill Large if Ive read right out of a old MB pulled makeing a sight that ws correct but unfair to the pc shooters "gawd" as with the underhammers you'll find ads for them in newapapers that has ads for the Hawken bros rifle in 1838 but the Pcs still go nuts on that one. Its never going to stop, if it wasnt used by EVERYBODY they should outlaw it, then everybody can just stay home. Fred :thumbsup:

 

This argument goes on eternally and usually turns out being what it has become here, a dispute between the PC and non PC factions.

The restriction of using open sights has nothing to do with history. It is simply an exercise of tradition and the rule making process.

Oddly, the persons that made this rule were not reenactors or historians. They were simply the old dudes that owned old guns that revived this muzzleloading sport.

Their old guns had open sights, and not very good ones. In addition, there were a limited supply of these old guns. When people began making NEW OLD GUNS they sometimes put peep sights on the new creations. The people that were shooting the old origional guns thought this was unfair and wrote a rule to stop the use of peeps sights.

The old guns had open sights for the same reasons that modern guns still come with open sights: they are cheap, easy to install, and most shooters never bother to sight them in or line them up when they shoot anyway!

The overall clad "gods of the muzzleloading revival" also wrote rules allowing "any sight" in some catagories. Most clubs simply do not have a group of competators in those catagories, so you do not see them.

If you do not like the peep sight rule then complain to the sanctioning bodies. Us historians had nothing to do with this one!!!

The NMLRA wrote the origional and most followed rules. That organization has only 18,000 members world wide. They have no control over international shooting. Chances are they have no control over the rules of your local club or rondy. If you do not like the rules your own club uses then take direct action in your own circumstance. Vote to change the rules at your next club meeting.

Either way, quit blaming us historians and reenactors for a rule that originated with a bunch of old time, overall wearing, rifle swapping, chunk shooters back in the 1930s! The rule was not made in the 1630s, 1730s or 1830s, it was from the 20th century 1930s!!!!

It's probably time for us historians to stop promoting the arguement by taking the blame for something we did not do and rationalizing the history retroactively.