Ruger Forum banner

1 - 20 of 38 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
460 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Proper head, neck & torso posture using iron/fiber optic sights w/ sight options

This is not a question about how to form a proper sight picture by lining up front and rear sights. I know that part.

Instead it's a question about ... proper torso, head, neck and arm positions and posture while gaining that sight picture. I know it's not easy to describe that using words -- pictures or videos would be much better -- but thought I'd ask.

Some background. I've been shooting rifles for over six decades, but have rarely used iron sights ... for long. In the past, I've either scoped a rifle or used ghost rings.

But I've recently purchased a new Ruger 10/22 Compact -- so far only with the short LOP stock module. I bought the rifle mainly for the short (16"+ barrel), and to try out the fiber optic sights, not so much the short LOP. I'm 5'9" with fairly long arms, and usually use a standard LOP comfortably, but I thought maybe with winter clothing on (see my location) the short LOP could be workable. It's not. So I'm planning to add a standard LOP, low comb module from ShopRuger (they're out of stock now), and eventually a Hogue overmolded stock for the 10/22 (which it appears may have a slightly larger comb drop than the stock stock) -- I'd get the latter now if it was in my budget, but I must wait to see what Christmas brings.

I think the fiber optics are made by Williams, but regardless, I really like them. They make lining up the sights correctly very easy -- those light tubes glow like little neon points of light even in the fading light of dusk.

But here's the problem: I'm having trouble getting my head low enough on the stock comfortably to get that good, lined-up sight picture without doing some yoga contortionist thing with my head and neck -- and I have a tiny bit of arthritis in my neck adding to the challenge. It appears that the rear sight on the fiber optics are ... lower than more typical iron sights, say three-dot. I've got it raised a bit -- seems that it's shooting good groups now at 25 yds, which I want -- but it's not high enough for the sight picture.

Adding to the difficulty, my glasses are not tall enough above my eyes -- I need some of those big round frames (which I plan to get soon) instead of these more rectangular frames. So I not only have to push my glasses up on my nose, but do yoga with my head and neck to get my line of sight low enough.

I'm also finding that if I raise my right elbow to a point roughly level with my right ear -- sort of exaggeratedly high -- it helps get my head flatter.

I suspect that going to a standard LOP will help -- a comb drop of 3/4" will be a larger drop on a longer LOP than the compact, and my head will be a bit further back. But even so ...

I may decide to go with different irons eventually. I like the look of the Tech Aperture Sights for the 10/22, but I wish they had a larger, more ghost-ring-like aperture, but they are taller.

So, I'm looking for tips from you experts who use iron sights more often and are experienced with it. I've searched a bit about proper posture using iron sights, but find only articles about how to line up front/rear sights. I've got that part fine.

Any help, tips, suggestions, etc will be appreciated.

PS: I LOVE the 10/22. This is my first 10/22 ever, and right now, my only gun. It's already moved into my top 3 favorite rifles group, and could eventually take the top spot.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
29,620 Posts
You could try one of the slip on or lace on cheek pieces available. They are made in several sizes and lengths. They were popular years ago when some people used see thru scope mounts. This enabled the shooter to shoot iron sights as well as use a scope. It placed the scope high however.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
460 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Bwinters, my problem is not getting my head high enough, but getting it low enough. It's like I need a bigger comb drop on the stock. Sorry if I didn't make that clear in my OP.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
460 Posts
Discussion Starter #4 (Edited)
Wow! This thread is really taking off! At this rate, it'll make 10 pages in no time. :rolleyes: :D

Guessing there aren't many iron sight shooters around these parts. (Although I did get a thoughtful pm from one member.)

Anyway, it's mostly a moot point, because I think I know what I'm going to do: I'm going to change the sights out to the Tech Sights Aperture Sights for 10/22, TSR 200. I like the fiber optics for the light tubes, but the rear sight is just too low for me, sticking up above the front of the receiver only 1/4".

Aside from a brief walk across the highway yesterday during a light snow squall to shoot one target with my new CCI Velocitor ammo that arrived yesterday (I got out too near dark to do more; heading out after lunch in this sunshine and low 30F temps), I spent the afternoon and evening plus this morning reading reviews and watching videos looking at sight options. The ones that get strongest positive reviews are the Tech Sights.

Plus they are much more rugged than the fiber optic sights, and if I understand correctly, designed after AR sights. (I've never owned an AR, so I may be wrong, but at least one of the battle rifles.)

A few minutes ago I called the company -- they were open on Saturday morning luckily -- and talked with them again about it. The 200 is the way to go for me since I'll be shooting most from 10 to 50 yds (the 100's are better for 50 - 100), and the rear sight is adjustable for both elevation and windage with their $5 tool.

I asked the rep to measure the height from the top of the receiver to the top of the aperture: 0.92". That's over 1/2" taller than the fiber optic rear sight, and 8" further back for a better sight radius.

I think with a set of those, I can even use the short length of pull stock for a while longer -- at least during winter -- and add a Hogue next spring.

Now, where am I going to get $75 for this purchase? :confused: :rolleyes:

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,816 Posts
75 bucks sounds like a pretty good deal for the TSR 200 sights. I paid $89 for the TSR 100 about 6 years ago. I have since swapped them out for an inexpensive red dot. By mounting a picatinny rail and a Bushnell TRS 25, it raised the line of sight nearly a full inch from the OEM sights. The rail and the TRS 25 combo may cost a few bucks more than the TSR 100 tho, depending on where you buy from. I have seen them priced from $59 to $79. The picatinny rail I think I had to get from the Ruger store for about $10.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
If the rifle in your avatar is yours, then that stock is a relatively straight stock. I have the same, and I like it, it works for me. You may need a drop comb stock, and they're not hard to find, as lots of people change out their stock. Just look on Ebay, there's a Charcoal Synthetic Rifle Stock on there now that may fit you a lot better.

Note that you don't have to pay a lot for these. Good luck with your search for proper fit (for you).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
460 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Thanks for your suggestions, guys.

Bozz, I'm trying to stay old school and away from optics ... for now, at least. I've been a scope guy for most of my life, but want to experiment with iron sights for a while. Maybe I should say again, since I've used a ghost ring (XS) on a .30-30 and loved it. The apertures are not ghost rings, but similar. This is especially since most of my shooting is in thick woods and swamps, so distances here are pretty short. I've sighted it in now at 25 yds, and that feels pretty good.

Still, I take your point about the extra height with the rail.

Rascally, yes, that's my rifle in my avatar. (I need to do a better photo.) And it is a very straight stock comb, not drop. Here's Ruger's photo of my rifle. There's just not much comb drop. And you can see how low that rear sight is. I've got mine elevated a bit, but the top of the sight is only 1/4" above the front edge of the receiver.



I found your suggested stock on eBay. $30 really is a good price. So if these new sights don't remedy the problem, I may indeed try that.
 

·
Emperor
Joined
·
885 Posts
I have used the Tech Sights TS200 on one of my Ruger 10/22s. Mine is the TS200 RL rail-mounted version that mounts on the central 3/8" dovetail of the Ruger 10/22 accessory rail, but it functions the same as the TS200 rear sight that mounts on the receiver top.

The Tech Sights work pretty well. The elevation adjustment on the rear sight is a little tricky at first, but once you get the hang of it, it works quite well. The sights are similar to A1 style AR sights with a rear peep/front post arrangement. M16A1 sights use a threaded front sight post with post that has a circular, rather than square cross section. the post has a flange between the post itself and the threaded base. The A1 flange has five spaced notches cut in it and there is a spring loaded detent that engages one of these notches, allowing the sight to be adjusted to 5 different heights per one complete revolution.

The tapered cylinder front sight post was found by some to be yield less accuracy than one with a square cross section, so with the M16A2 rifle the Army switched to a square post. But that allows only 4 spaced notches in the post flange so the elevation adjustment with an A2 type post is somewhat coarser with only 4 different height adjustments per revolution. The threading on the Tech Sight front sight post is of the same diameter and thread pitch as is found on AR A1 and A2 front sight posts, so you can use any of these to replace the existing post on the Tech Sight front sight if you wish. Some people shoot better with thicker posts and some don't. You can also buy A2 front sight posts with fiberoptic inserts if you wish.

I would check with Tech Sight and/or Ruger to be certain that the dovetail cut on the 10/22 compact is the same as that for the carbine and sporter models. I don't see any reason it wouldn't be, but I have no experience with the compact. The Tech Sight front sight is made to fit the dovetail on the sight band of the carbine/sporter barrels. You might find that you have to destroy your front sight to get it out of the dovetail. Some people have found that the front sight comes off fairly easy, but many have not. On my carbine barrel, I clamped the barrel in a sturdy bench vise with padded jaws and tried using nylon, brass, and steel drifts with progressively larger hammers and the sight would not budge. I tried again a day later after soaking the sight with a couple of different penetrating oils, again with no luck. I finally cut through the front sight vertically with a hack saw almost all the way through the sight base before I could loosen it enough to get it free. Once you get the stock front sight off, installing the Tech Sight front sight is a breeze.

As for the rear peep on the Tech Sight TS200, if you don't like the size you have a couple of options. It is a pretty easy matter to enlarge the hole with an appropriate sized drill bit. If you choose to do this, you might want to buy a replacement threaded aperture post for the rear sight. If you refer to the TS200 instructions, the rear aperture (which has a .062" diameter peep) is part 13 and is available for $8:

https://www.tech-sights.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/instruc-sheet-Rugers-3-14-rev-G.pdf

You could also consider the "insert ready aperture system" (IRAS) for the TS200 rear sight. This set replaces the rear threaded post with one with a much larger peep, and comes with three different urethane inserts which fit into the peep. The peep diameter without an insert is 0.125" in diameter, twice as big as the peep in the standard TS200. The inserts have diameters of .042", .062", and .086" allowing you to adjust the rear peep size to one of four different diameters.

https://www.tech-sights.com/aperture-inserts/

I have used the Tech Sight IRAS and it works reasonably well, but the inserts themselves are a flexible urethane material so you have to be careful not to deform them. This system is probably better for static target shooting than any type of field work. But the insert ready aperture is solid and provides a much bigger peep, if that is what you are looking for. Changing the threaded peep aperture on the TS200 series rear sight is a bit of a pain, but is not terribly hard for those with a bit of mechanical aptitude and patience.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
460 Posts
Discussion Starter #9 (Edited)
Pblanc, what a great, informative post! Thanks! I've read it once so far, but will do so again, either later tonight or Sunday -- it's Saturday night almost, and dinner is next. Netflix may win out after that.

I'm just back from my afternoon walk over to one of my spots in the woods across the highway, one just off the ATV/snowmobile trail. It's safer for me right now (even in full orange garb -- my avatar bandana included) -- November is deer season here, and I've seen a hunter near my other spot, but they stay away from the ATV trail. Only shot 9 rnds (3 groups of 3) of Velocitor at 15 yds (for second day), and am really happy with the groups. (Pics eventually, in another thread.)

But once again, I felt the limitations of these fiber optic sights. More and more, they're feeling like a mismatch for this rifle, at least for me; maybe not for a smaller, young person.

For now I'll say I'm so glad you typed out your treatise, because you save me from making some of the same points that I've learned in the last few days -- we even share a link (to the IRAS system, although mine is to an online seller of those other than Tech Sights itself).

But your rundown about AR sights -- especially front posts -- is totally new for me and very welcome -- saves me some reading. I did know that the AR front posts fit the TS, but didn't have the detail that you offered, especially round vs square.

One more point for now: I was on the phone with Tech Sights this morning, described my quandary with current sights, expressed an intention of getting a set of TSR 200's, and specifically mentioned that mine is a Compact. She didn't say, "Oh, sorry, front post won't work on that." She was very knowledgeable, and I think she'd have picked that up. But still, I'll double check.

OK, dinner is next. Tonight is going to be some good ramen with a pork (untrimmed pork butt) that i've been slow cooking (off and on) for three days, seasoned Carnitas (my favorite Mexican taco style of many).

I'll get back tomorrow, and I'm sure I'll have some questions.
 

·
Emperor
Joined
·
885 Posts
I can see no reason why Ruger would have a sight barrel band on the compact with a different specification dovetail than that on the carbine, unless the dimensions of the fiberoptic front sight required it.

Still, doesn't hurt to check. I'm sure Tech Sight has gotten the question before.

If you do choose to change the rear aperture post on the TS200 rear sight, exercise some caution. The elevation adjustment ring (dial) has little notches cut into its periphery that a spring loaded detent ball fits into to hold it in position and allow for repeatable elevation adjustments. These are parts 12 and 15 in the exploded parts diagram on the instruction pdf for the TSR200. You remove the aperture post by continuing to crank the elevation dial upward until the post is completely unthreaded, at which point you can lift it out of the holes in the dial (11) and the elevation adjustment spring washer (14). As you do so, the spring will try to push the dial and washer out. They are not under high spring pressure so they are unlikely to fly across the room, but you don't want to loose the dial, washer, spring, or ball. If they fall out, reassembly is easy.

If you look at the aperture post itself, you will see two little flats machined onto the threaded part that faces your shooting eye at approximately the 5 and 7 o'clock positions. When you replace the post or install a new one, make sure these flats face toward the rear. The flats are what holds the post in the correct orientation as the spring and ball press it backwards.

What makes the post a bit tricky to install is that you must correctly align the hole in the dial and washer against spring pressure so that the threads in the sight base line up with the threads on the post and hold it in this position as you screw the post down. But you can't turn the dial with your fingers as there is not enough clearance. You need to use the elevation adjustment tool to lower the sight post one "click" at a time, and it does not provide any tactile feedback to ensure that the threads are properly mating without cross threading. Also, applying the elevation adjustment tool to the dial has a tendency to misalign it with the threads in the sight base.

So long as you are patient and do not force anything you will get it to go, but it may take a few tries.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
286 Posts
Good information here. Thank you both! If I might chime in, I put Skinner Sights on my 10-22 takedown, and using the "big" aperture, they work well for me out to 50 yards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
460 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Pasound, I really admire the Skinner sights -- like the XS ghost rings -- but dang, they're expensive: $90 for the blue. :eek: I'm not saying they're not worth it -- from what I've read, they're worth every penny -- but just not in my budget. The Tech Sights barely are. But I'm glad you mentioned them.

Pblanc, Tech Sights should hire you as a technical writer to write their directions. Thanks for those details! :thumbsup:

When I read your first post last evening about the difficulty of getting that Ruger stock front post off, it reflected what I've read from several (numerous?) reviewers of the Tech Sights on Amazon. At least one said he had to cut the sight off (but he used a Dremel tool instead of a hacksaw).

So I'm prepared for that one. :eek: I'm hoping that the fiber optic front post on my Compact may yield more easily so that I don't have to carry it to a gunsmith (some distance from me) for installation. I think I'll call Ruger on Monday to inquire.

I'm still looking at my finances to see if I can afford the Tech Sights this year. It's more expensive to live up here in winter months, so my purchase will depend on how well I do on a couple of eBay sales.

If I can't, then I may have to back up to Rascaly's suggestion of that inexpensive drop comb stock on eBay and use the fiber optics until spring. Not the end of the world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Pasound, I really admire -- like the XS ghost rings -- but dang, they're expensive: $90 for the blue. :eek: I'm not saying they're not worth it -- from what I've read, they're worth every penny -- but just not in my budget. The Tech Sights barely are. But I'm glad you mentioned them.

Pblanc, Tech Sights should hire you as a technical writer to write their directions. Thanks for those details! :thumbsup:

When I read your first post last evening about the difficulty of getting that Ruger stock front post off, it reflected what I've read from several (numerous?) reviewers of the Tech Sights on Amazon. At least one said he had to cut the sight off (but he used a Dremel tool instead of a hacksaw).

So I'm prepared for that one. :eek: I'm hoping that the fiber optic front post on my Compact may yield more easily so that I don't have to carry it to a gunsmith (some distance from me) for installation. I think I'll call Ruger on Monday to inquire.

I'm still looking at my finances to see if I can afford the Tech Sights this year. It's more expensive to live up here in winter months, so my purchase will depend on how well I do on a couple of eBay sales.

If I can't, then I may have to back up to Rascaly's suggestion of that inexpensive drop comb stock on eBay and use the fiber optics until spring. Not the end of the world.
You think that stuff's expensive? I just adopted an old Marlin 39A that needs some TLC. I'm going to try to restore it as best I can. Front sight hood missing, rear barrel sight missing, hammer buggered up to clear a scope, rear stock cracked. Fun times, I hope the end result will be worth it...

Why am I going to the trouble and expense? It was made the same year I was, 1951. We're practically kin...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
460 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
You think that stuff's expensive? I just adopted an old Marlin 39A that needs some TLC. I'm going to try to restore it as best I can. Front sight hood missing, rear barrel sight missing, hammer buggered up to clear a scope, rear stock cracked. Fun times, I hope the end result will be worth it...

Why am I going to the trouble and expense? It was made the same year I was, 1951. We're practically kin...
Ha!!! Yeah, the 39A's can be 'spensive, but so worth it, especially given that it's obviously an older one, thus, pre-Remlin.

I owned a late model 39A. Bought it because I loved my 336 in .30-30, around ... what, 2007? Just didn't work for me. FTF and FTE was rampant. Rejected so much of what I tried to feed it, including CCI. After a gunsmith couldn't find anything wrong, I sold it. The buyer (local) seemed happy. It was too long for me, anyway. I like shorter barrels, carbine or shorter.

Anyway, I hope that the restoration is fun, and that it treats you well.

And I'm only 1 year older than both of you, and still trying to perform like the energizer bunny, but slower ... on purpose. :)

Speaking of expensive, I did a partial check out on eBay today for that charcoal synthetic stock you suggested. With shipping and tax, the price was jacked up to a few cents short of $50. Ouch. The Tech Sights are only $20 more.

One of my two eBay sales finished successfully today for $67. Hmm. We'll see what the other does, then I'll make a decision.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Well, if you do get that stock you can recoup some of the cost by selling the stock you have now. That should help some.

I already did a function check on the 39A, it feeds, fires, and ejects, so there's hope. It already taught me a couple of lessons. #1, pay attention to where your trigger finger is on the upstroke. That was exciting...

And #2, for proper ejection you have to work the lever like you mean it.

Oh, and if you're concerned about budget, stay away from Rimfire Central. Those people are all about spending piles of money. Take a perfectly good $200 rifle and turn it into a $1300 rifle...sheesh.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
460 Posts
Discussion Starter #16 (Edited)
Rascally, I'm glad you didn't shoot yourself in the foot with that 39A. :eek:

Maybe my problem with the 39A was that I wasn't being hard enough on the lever. Could well be.

Re recouping some value with the original stock as I upgrade, I've wondered about that and the value of the fiber optic sights, again, I think by Williams. They seem to be as described by the Williams Fire Sights.

I wonder what would be a fair price for each. Planning to do some research on that.
The Fire Sights go for about $28 new on the street. Not a lot, but even $10 would help.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
460 Posts
Discussion Starter #17 (Edited)
Well, I learned (what I think is) some good news today about how to solve my sights problem. I've pretty much decided to go first with a set of Tech Sights (TSR 200), but have been concerned about getting the front post off without cutting through it. The Fire Sights are nice, and someone could get some use with them (if I don't keep them, which is unlikely).

So I called Ruger, Williams and Tech Sights and asked if they'd had experience with that fiber optic front sight -- getting it off. Only Williams offered the answer I wanted to hear -- the others were equivocal. I asked the rep explicitly if Williams puts the same kind of little bump on the underside of the front post base that Ruger (allegedly) puts on its irons to help hold it in place. He knew exactly what I meant, and said, "No, the underside of our base is flat. No bumps. It may have a stamp indicating post height, but that's an indentation. So it should come out easy."

Then the rep at Tech Sights made a stellar suggestion. I noted to her that I was going to have to buy a set of brass punches for this job. "No you don't," she said. "Take a spent .22 casing and insert what ever metal punch you have into it, then use the bottom of the casing as your brass punch." I thought, that's brilliant and will save me at least $10 -- I don't need a brass punch for anything but this job.

So I tried one out, just for fit, with a live cartridge (no punching), and it fits perfectly where it should with a fraction of a mm on either side of it. It should spread the force out larger than a small punch, so should mar it even less.

I don't have a spent casing -- snowing today with freezing rain, so didn't go out a shoot one (all mine from shooting past days are covered with snow now) -- but I'm going to get one later this week and try drifting that front site out a bit. Maybe not all the way, but to see if it will budge.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Here is a good place to get new 10/22 take off parts. They have the polymer stocks for $25 plus $5 shipping. sapoutfitters.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
460 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Thanks to you both for that information. I'm glad to have the link -- looks like they could get some business from me in the future, or from others.

But as I mentioned yesterday (? -- time is flying right now), I've decided against buying that stock mainly because: 1) it's a drop comb and I think the Tech Sights will work well with my current and future straight stock; and 2) it's not a Hogue overmold in OD green, which I've had my heart set on (from even before I got the rifle).

I could be wrong. Maybe the Tech Sights are not even tall enough. But I suspect so. Last Saturday during a phone call to them, their rep kindly measured the height of the rear sight from top of receiver to top of aperture ring. Not top of aperture, but top of ring. Without going for the calipers, she used a ruler and estimated 0.92". That should be more than tall enough for me.
 
1 - 20 of 38 Posts
Top