
Thought it might be interesting to see what a difference the scopes made compared to the 1885 Low Wall 22 LR with a peep that I shot last time out.
First, the 17 HMR with the 4-12x Nikon

17 HMR group at 50yards, offhand

And the 22 LR with the 3-9x Nikon EFR

22 LR group. Should explain that Standing/Sitting no rest part. Was getting fatigued, so last 10 shots were with me seated, but not resting the gun on anything and no change in my hold on the rifle. I think I am a touch steadier this way, but it's mostly about giving these old bones a little rest.

My thoughts on scope versus peep.
Group size:
I don't think group size was significantly better with the scope, not at 50 yards, anyway. In the past, I've found the scope to be more of a group shrinker at 100 yards and beyond. At 50 yards, my eyes are still good enough to do just about as well with a peep.
Consistency:
Yes, slightly better consistency with the scope than with the peep, with fewer pulled shots with the scope. Not a huge difference, but I do think better target visibility aids in consistency.
Fatigue:
This was easily the biggest difference. With a peep sight or open sight gun, I'm good for a limited number of shots before things start to get a little blurry. That's why I always do any iron sight shooting, first thing, during a range session and save any scoped guns for last. Last time out with the peep sight Low Wall, my eyes were pretty tired by the end of the session. My eyes were still fresh, though, after today's much longer session.
All in all, at 50 yards, I do think a good peep sight setup can match up with a scope. For me and my aging eyes, though, the scope allows me to shoot more effectively over long range sessions. Have to say, though, that shooting that 1885 with its tang peep is somehow more special in a way that the scope can't match. I'm one lucky gal, indeed, to have a choice in what Low Wall I want to use on a given day. Will never take it for granted.


