Ghost Ring sights for handguns

A

arch308

New member
Just got back from the range to chk out a couple of new toys. These worked out so well I just thought you folks might be interested. I bought this sight from www.warrencustomoutdoor.com.
I found them to be quick and accurate. Also was pretty easy to install. The sights came in a set of two, the one you see here and a larger one which I tried on my GP100. Didn't care for the large one and have since replaced them with night sights. I really like this set up on my Blackhawk and can't wait to try it for hunting.
I hope the pictures do it justice.
 

Attachments

  • sights ruger 001.JPG
    sights ruger 001.JPG
    172.6 KB · Views: 170
  • sights ruger 002.JPG
    sights ruger 002.JPG
    193.1 KB · Views: 144
I liked the look of those online, but getting them on this side of the pond was next to impossible.

I made my own using a dremel and some 1mm-thick stainless sheet.

I want to do some more practice with them, but they seem to work out well so far.

I painted then at the 4-points of the compass with glow-paint as well as my front blade: poor man's tritium!!
 

I have had these Ghost Ring night sights on my Glock 36 for several years. I have found them to be accurate and easy to use (fast sight alignment).

Mark
 
It's a gimmick. The whole point of an aperture sight is that it is close to your eye. Your eye will automatically center the front post or bead in the aperture and all you have to worry about is the front sight. When held at arm's length, that is all moot. Give me a black post and standard square notch rear any day of the week.
 

Arch308, the night sight version of my Ghost Ring Sights were the only ones available to me at the time of purchase. I'm not a big fan of night sights because I trained and used a flashlight on the job (PD) to make sure of what my target was before shooting. This target was shot using the top of the front sight level with the outside horizontal cutouts in the rear sight. Most of the people that have shot my gun have been able to do about the same with Ghost Rings as they do with conventional Glock sights.

Mark
 
It's a gimmick.
Click to expand...

Except when it works well for the individual.

They are perhaps not being used in the way the initial design intended, but I personally find it a bit quicker to get on target with mine, than with the post and notch my Redhawk came with.
On top of that, they only cost me about €12 to make, including files, drill bits etc.

I've scrawled a couple of other designs that I'd like to try: I hope to have time to make them up.
One design I've always liked is the trapezium sights on the Steyr M9 pistols, but I'm not sure how I could get that to work on the Redhawk without butchering the front post.
 
It's a gimmick.
No, it’s not. I don’t find them to be that accurate for target but for action shooting where multiple target and time are a factor it’s the best sighting system I have ever used.
Since you don’t have anything covering either side of the front sight it’s extremely easy to see the target coming into the target picture and at the same time it’s easy to keep the front sight centered within the rear aperture sight.
Is a holographic sight a Gimmick? This works almost as well.
My 34 has one and it’s my competition gun.
 
Last edited:
"New" or "unique" sight designs are not for everyone. They are NOT a gimmick - as long as they work. A ghost ring or aperture sight does NOT need to be close to the eye to work. It works the SAME whether close to your eye or farther away. Your vision still works to centre the front post or dot, etc. in the aperture.

In fact, I have a fairly unique system in use, on my rifle....which I developed myself. I use an aperture - but the aperture is placed at the MUZZLE (the front sight position). The REAR sight is a half-aperture, that is, a U-notch - which is sized to visually "fit" the size of the front aperture. To use, I simply centre the front aperture over the target, then line up the rear U-notch so that it coincides with the lower half of the front aperture. Very quick and easy - and my eye works to centre the TARGET in the aperture. The advantage is that nothing subtends the target - no front post to cover the target - so I get a clear view of the target at all times. Further, instead of focusing my vision on the front sight, I focus my vision on the TARGET. It WORKS - and it works WELL.

But, this system may not be for everyone. Frankly, when I have reason to explain it to people, most behave as if I have three heads. "That can't possibly work", they say - But it DOES !

With this system, I can shoot 2" groups @ 100 yards, with ease, from a rest. I used to be able to do better - often 1" or so - but 52 year old eyes and progressive lenses now make that difficult. Also, it is not necessary to use a nice round target face for these sights to work. Your eye/ brain will naturally centre whatever point of aim you use, in the aperture. I've taken a number of whitetail deer with this very system....and not one of them complained that my sights didn't work ! Because I had an unrestricted view of the target - and given that I have trained myself to shoot with BOTH eyes open - I have NO difficulty in lining up just behind the shoulder joint - even though the side of a deer seems a featureless expanse on which to aim. It was no problem to visually centre the sights vertically, between the top of the back and the bottom edge of the chest.

The point of all this being that, there are multiple possibilities for sight systems, which might work best for a given individual, but not for another. Something might SEEM like a "gimmick" - but the only REAL proof is in the shooting.
 
Is a holographic sight a Gimmick?
Click to expand...
Two completely different things.


I can shoot 2" groups @ 100 yards, with ease, from a rest.
Click to expand...
I'd like to know what firearm you're using to shoot those groups, with the sights in question, with "ease".


A ghost ring or aperture sight does NOT need to be close to the eye to work. It works the SAME whether close to your eye or farther away.
Click to expand...
Of course they do. :rolleyes:

No, I don't expect anyone who has bought them to agree with me.
 
New frontier, can you enlighten us as to why a faster sighting system is worse then the stock sights on or three dots on most guns now??

I for one find these to be much faster at acquiring my target. Typical sights, be them 3 dots or what have you, obscure much of the target. I find my self loosing them when I shooting for speed. Such as action shooting and oh kinda like Home defense...

You can not just focus on the front sight. I hear that crap all the time. The gun will not be correctly aligned with the target. Every time I try this front sight only crap, I end shooting either above my front sight or below it by a few inches.. Yet it is regularly espoused here...
 
I've added Williams Fiber optic ghost rings to several hand guns... BTW my sights are designed for rifle use, so the aperture is a little smaller

IMO...those that say they are getting better accuracy, probably could shoot better if they practiced more with a good conventional sight...

... so, why did I put them on my guns ??? I find they are much faster on target, with "acceptable" accuracy for speed shooting, self defense, both against 2 legged or 4 legged vermin...

I would suspect the further the sights are apart, the better accuracy could be attained ( just like conventional sights ) but one of the guns I have them on, is my Ruger Alaskan ( snubbie ) in 454 Casull & am quite happy, & confident I could more easily under stress shoot minute of grizzly bear if needed

BTW... I use bright orange for a front sight rod, & the standard Williams green for the rear sight rods... I find it gives me good definition between front & rear, & the orange appears brighter for low light use...

My Alaskan...

 
Last edited:
Fast is good if that's what you want. If you want faster than traditional sights, then use them more quickly. At ranges under 10yds in a self defense situation, I wouldn't use sights anyway. Beyond that, I need good sights. Not gimmicks.


I hear that crap all the time.
Click to expand...
If you think it's "crap", then maybe you need some instruction.
 
Prove it.
Click to expand...

Prove it? Prove what?

That one man's good sights are another's bad ones?

OK: I can aim with this "ring" sight faster than I can with the old notch design. Based on your posts, it's the opposite for you.

That is just about all the proof you should need.

In other words: YMMV - sight performance is subjective.
 
In other words: YMMV - sight performance is subjective.
Click to expand...
Not really but don't let me stop you. There's a reason why certain styles of sights dominate certain types of competition. Because they work better than others. If sight performance was subject then you'd see a little bit of everything. It's NOT subjective. Certain styles of sights simply work better than others and no amount of wishful thinking will change that.
 
All I can say is I like it on my Blackhawk. It is faster for me and every bit as accurate as the stock sights were for me.
If one doesn't like them, that doesn't mean they are junk. The prefered sight picture for people will vary as much as the guns people prefere. My eyes are pretty poor and getting worse with age. This ring and post set-up works very well for me.
Those sights of BubbaBlade's look good too. I just can't decide which Glock to try them on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top