Smallest Photo Escape aperture?

For those who use them, does anyone use the smallest hole?

It’s approximately 0.099 inch in diameter or a #39 wire drill.

What do you see, and can you recover fast enough in Rapid?

Could it be that you don’t really center the dot, you just see what you want to hit?

Or do you dim the dot first and center it.

I usually use a larger hole and the target and little else are visible.

No, I haven’t tried it yet but I have it.

What are some of your other tips snd recommendations for the aperture in general?

I use them on multiple guns but if left to themselves, the front ring and aperture jam up tight due to recoil while the rear tend to unscrew.

My solution was to stick 3/4 of a wrap of electrical tape on the aperture, ring, and scope tube.

Yes it leaves residue behind but I can get them off.

Discuss …

I use the .350 aperture on my 45 and the next workable size aperture seemed to be the .5” aperture that I use on my rimfire. I would like to try a smaller to play with it and see how it works but I use locktite on the threads to keep everything together and I have not felt like messing around with the locktited parts to swap them around. I have no idea how someone would use the smallest aperture in rapid fire without losing the target.

the next question i have; does everyone use both aperture on front and back of the red dot? has any one tries just using one  aperture ?
and what seems to work better small ape, up front of on the back
i have them and they both seem to work as well as the aperture on my shooting glasses.


?

Kevin,

No doubt the inventor and maker of those clever apertures, Alex Poltorak, will chime in. He is the best one to address your points.

Regarding the use of two apertures. I experimented quite extensively with that. A "rubber ring" at the back and whatever size you prefer at front is OK, if you like the red ring. Otherwise just one ring at the front is more common. I had this conversation with a couple of Elite shooters a year or two ago at Canton - that was their strong opinion.

One of the issues you will discover when trying two rings is that, depending on the brand/model of red dot, the "dot" maybe not be "located" in the concentric center of the tube - that create a very peculiar image and is not good. All of my UD 30mm units at the time had this problem and was one of the reasons why I moved on from UD's.

I use a large (3/4"?) aperture at the back of my Aimpoint H1's because the emitter housing in those dots protudes into the field of view and I found that distracting. The large ring just obscures that nicely.

But more recently I moved on to Aimpoint 9000's and, whilst I do use Photoescape shade tubes, I generally do not use aperture rings any more. I don't really know why.

I put aperture in front. Nothing in the back end of the sight because I want the largest field of view in the back to make it easier to find the aiming dot after recoil.

RoyDean wrote:Regarding the use of two apertures. I experimented quite extensively with that. A "rubber ring" at the back and whatever size you prefer at front is OK, if you like the red ring. Otherwise just one ring at the front is more common. I had this conversation with a couple of Elite shooters a year or two ago at Canton - that was their strong opinion.

One of the issues you will discover when trying two rings is that, depending on the brand/model of red dot, the "dot" maybe not be "located" in the concentric center of the tube - that create a very peculiar image and is not good. All of my UD 30mm units at the time had this problem and was one of the reasons why I moved on from UD's.

I use a large (3/4"?) aperture at the back of my Aimpoint H1's because the emitter housing in those dots protudes into the field of view and I found that distracting. The large ring just obscures that nicely.

But more recently I moved on to Aimpoint 9000's and, whilst I do use Photoescape shade tubes, I generally do not use aperture rings any more. I don't really know why.

Design of aperture rings was a further development of the Dr. Norman Wong's idea of providing concentric reference to the red dot by using lobster claws red rubber band placed on shooter's end of the scope.  That is the reason I call it RBR.  It is the ring with largest ID and very close to 30mm.  ID's of other rings were selected based on my testing and learning.  I wanted to provide two options for 50Y (two rings with smallest IDs), and two options for 25Y (0.500" and 0.350").  During testing I realized that my hold isn't good (still isn't!), so I needed larger ring for acclimation - 0.700".  Also, as I got better and on bright / sunny days I am able to use 0.200" ring at 25Y in sustained fire as it provides enough field of view on target.  However smallest ring doesn't and hence I do not recommend using it for 25Y.  As you can see from inserted picture, I "played" with rings IDs - smallest ID providing with enough field of view is ~0.160" - 0.180".  Now, it might not be enough for recovering dot in TF/RF - I learned not to look for dot on the target during recovery, but rather at the back of the ring while gun comes back to the center.

Answering Bruce's question - yes, I know several shooters using smallest ID rings for 50Y.  This ring is also usable for rifle shooting at 100 Y/M.  Otherwise Roy pretty much accurately outlined "things" about using rings.  Aimpoint addressed distraction by protrusion of emitter's housing by making ocular end smaller on H2 series dots.  However on H1 series it is really an annoyance.  0.700" ring takes care of it.  9000 series also has it.  However using Reduced Shade at the target side masks it.  To address tightening of rings under recoil I use very thin O-rings.  It was suggested by someone here on the forum, - sorry, I do not remember name, and it was a great suggestion.

So, remaining questions is why Roy isn't using apertures on 9000?  Elite shooters do. 
AP

Well said thank you all. I ran an experiment today, just 50 foot slowfire but with the smallest aperture. Field of view was well inside the bull and actually matched the dot size. So I couldn’t center up with one eye BUT with TWO eyes, I could. Master eye simply put dot in aperture hole, other eye had full view and allowed good centering and good shots. It certainly takes away any problem with looking around the scope and dot because you have to. Does it work in sustained and allow good recovery? Don’t know yet this work is just for fun but it’s interesting.
Thank you Alex.