Peep sight to replace irons on 308?

[ChileRelleno 7,071]

Dude, no cliche.

You bought a cheap product, turned a screw and bent it, and it wouldn't fit your MAK-90.

Ya got what ya paid for, a cheap product.

 

Well, if I'm a snob, so are you...

" I like two sight solutions on the 308 or really any Saiga, the kebbs for those that just want a peep for increased speed and accuracy or the TWS Dogleg with optional peep sight for those wanting a greatly increased sight radius and an excellent light wieght low profile scope mount. If money is good go with the TWS."

 

Shit man, I was a cheapskate miser and refused to pay out $300. for the Krebs as nice as it is... I looked, I drooled... I checked my funds.

However, the well designed/constructed TWS fit the budget nicely, was well reviewed and now, my personal experience with has me singing it's praises.

[mav 459]

 

As earlier in this thread was noted, DO NOT crank down on the set screw! I bent the first rib a bit, thinking it was supposed to be a lock. It's really more of a stop to keep the rib from being bent down on the dust cover. That's okay, the MAK-90 was too long between the front sight and the tang screw, so I'll have to find another solution for it. Screwed right on to the Saigas, .308 and the X39.

 

Brand new and ya already fucked it up

 

There ^^^ are three reasons why the TWS is superior to the DPH.

It is length adjustable and will therefore fit more makes/models with all the variances.

Apparently much stronger, minimal flex & it sits/lays practically on the dust cover, no room to bend.

 

Ya get what ya pay for.

 

And how much did you pay for that Saiga again now?

 

The AR and M1A snobs are that way ----> Its their favorite saying too as it makes em feel better about spending way too dam much.

 

The whole point of a Saiga is getting a lot more than you paid for, thought that was obvious.

 

If the thing works fine if not oh well, either way repeating cliches doesnt mean a whole lot.

.

 

 

 

Demanding a solid mount is not being snobbish, its being smart.

[fflincher 8]

Well, truth can be hurtful to pride and, yes, I did bend one of the rails. I could have hid my embarrassment but decided to report fully and truthfully in the common cause. My thanks to so many of you who didn't rub my nose in it. Maybe I can whack it with a hammer and straighten it out.

 

Before I found the "included aperture sight", I had planned on AR takeoffs for peep backup. They would have been REALLY HIGH! Had some real problems today (and suspected that might be the case yesterday, when I couldn't get as good a sight picture through the apertures in my workroom. Sadly, my aged eyes need more light than I can get through most apertures, and I had best sight pictures with the "included aperture" mounted as far back on the receiver as it would go and the MAK90 open rear sight than with the forward mounted Williams aperture that replaced the original open iron. I was able to return the .308 front sight to the center of the sight guards by setting the aperture slightly off center, but required so much elevation that the tip of the post extends beyond the tops of the protective ears.

 

Left one rail with included aperture on the .308, was VERY happy with off the bench Silver Bear 150 grain soft points at 50 yards. I was too worn to hike out to the 100 yard targets for iron sights. I'll put a scope on the .308 and further investigate the SB SPs.

 

The MAK90 really has a (comparatively) great trigger. Put one of CSS' AK slip on butt pads on it, and I'll find a way to attach it more firmly. I'm surprised at how well it feels with that one inch elongation. The X39 feels good with the Tapco T6 butt and pistol grip, thank you Icefire. Shooting with it installed IS better than shooting the factory Saiga configuration.

 

Got 100% performance with Wolf Military Classic 124 grain hollowpoints (I expected that) and acceptable accuracy but didn't test for groups against any other ammo in any of the rifles. Acceptable accuracy, reliable ignition and, hopefully, enhanced expansion will serve me well, and I'm still waiting for J&G to ship off a couple of thousand more rounds.

 

Br*wn*lls box was waiting when I got back from the range, gonna try the KNS Precision duplex, the Kensight tritium dot and and XS Stripe (all front sights) to see (pun intended) if any or all can improve my sight picture.

 

Thinking about an IR scope for the X39. Would an illuminated front sight interfere with the IR sensors?

 

 

As earlier in this thread was noted, DO NOT crank down on the set screw! I bent the first rib a bit, thinking it was supposed to be a lock. It's really more of a stop to keep the rib from being bent down on the dust cover. That's okay, the MAK-90 was too long between the front sight and the tang screw, so I'll have to find another solution for it. Screwed right on to the Saigas, .308 and the X39.

 

fflincher

 

Brand new and ya already fucked it up

 

There ^^^ are three reasons why the TWS is superior to the DPH.

It is length adjustable and will therefore fit more makes/models with all the variances.

Apparently much stronger, minimal flex & it sits/lays practically on the dust cover, no room to bend.

 

Ya get what ya pay for.

 

And how much did you pay for that Saiga again now?

 

The AR and M1A snobs are that way ----> Its their favorite saying too as it makes em feel better about spending way too dam much.

 

The whole point of a Saiga is getting a lot more than you paid for, thought that was obvious.

 

If the thing works fine if not oh well, either way repeating cliches doesnt mean a whole lot.

.

[Rhodes1968 1,638]

Ok sorry it took so long to post this but was supposed to be at an Appleseed shoot this weekend and instead spent some time at the hospital with a sick family member so today was the first chance to get to the range. I have some issues that can be easily resolved with the rear sight some of which mentioned above, but since Aluminum is very forgiving unlike high tinsel steel, a dremel can do most any chore with the stuff. I must talk to Scott at DPH first to get permission to do so but if he allows me I can make this rail exceed expectations I believe. Pretty sure I can drop the height of that sight a good bit and resolve a couple other things I would prefer done.

 

As for the performance as a scope mounting it performed flawlessly with 200 rounds though it using medium aluminum rings and an old Bushnell 4x32 scope. I would not use steel rings on an aluminum rail though that's just me. There was enough room for that scope to use low rings sans rear sight if desired but measure before purchasing. I have a few ideas on improving fit against the dust cover with nothing more complex than a thin strip of gasket material though not sure its needed. The product has potential but like I said if DPH wont allow me to attempt it I may just return the unit since I dont use a scope on this rifle. I don't mind this kind of thing in fact I am kind of excited about it but thats up to Scott at DPH.

 

Recap:

Rear Sight too high for my tastes, may well be easy to vastly improve. Ive a idea that any rail of this type will have this issue to some degree.

Rear Sight set screw is off center when and when tightened hits a ridge on the rail forcing the sight off center towards the ejection side of the rifle but easily fixed. Right now I am very very glad the rail is Aluminum, it adds virtually zero weight to the rifle.

 

Installation was easy but caution on the size of the pins used to secure the rail.

 

Scope mounting was flawless after 200 rounds and one test to check for zero when lifting rail and re-securing showed no drift. This is a nice rail to perform this function if that's what you are after.

 

So as it stands now the rear sight is the only real issue of concern, I think I can easily find a fastener to make the rail lift without tools.

Edited September 14, 2010 by Rhodes1968

[Rhodes1968 1,638]

Ok I got the rear sight issue solved will post some drawings and pic of end product. The front sight is dropped almost 3/8 of an inch from where it was and bore sighting brought the front post back to its protected position. I will take it to the range next week hopefully but bore sighting has been pretty close with this rifle. Besides the cutting and filling to get the front post issue solved it now has enough clearance for the scope to use shorter rings, always a good thing.

 

Will give em this much the aluminum is not a cheap grade its pretty stout stuff more like aircraft quality than I expected. DPH has not responded but they are investigating this issue and sure they will fix it being the good folks they are so all is not lost by a long shot. Actually I am real glad the thing wasn't made of steel, small favors.

 

EDIT: One other thing the set screw on the rsb end I think causes more issues than solved. I removed it and the rail sits much more evenly, I am planning to add a strip of gasket material to the bottom of the rail to give it support across the entire length without any twisting force from a screw. Only issue there is getting the right thickness but hey that just makes this stuff fun.

Edited September 19, 2010 by Rhodes1968

[Rhodes1968 1,638]

*********************

Summary:

Range results of the rail and sight was excellent.

Sight is anchored to the now flat rail surface with a light coat of JB - will make it perm now that it tested well.

Thin strip of valve cover gasket material makes a perfect fit to dust cover.

Aluminum aperture sight apparently the exact same sight TWS uses on their Dogleg.

KNS Ball Sight Post for the front sight.

Pics to hopefully follow.

Looking into getting a spare sight from DPH if possible.

*********************

 

Range results of the rail and sight was excellent as I expected based on the the bore sighting results. 25 yards was near dead on some minor tweaking at 50 and 100 yards was required. Groups were fairly tight in about 3 to 4MOA neighborhood and the difference between this and the Krebs I had on it previously was a noticeable improvement. Loosening, lifting, and re-tightening the rail did not change zero that I could tell.

 

Excellent sight picture and repeatability now that the rear sight no longer uses that set screw/dovetail method which only pushed the sight even higher. The sight is anchored to the now flat rail surface with a light coat of JB on the bottom of the sight dove tail surface and the newly lowered and flattened rail surface at the very rear. The sight sits a bit further back now, the front of the sight is butt up against what was once the forward portion of female dove tail. Wish my camera worked its really a very simple matter to correct.

 

I cut a very thin strip of valve gasket material (0.05?) that was in my junk bin and secured along the length of the bottom of the rail which gave a nice snug fit to the dust cover. I am not sure if it was needed but its tight without any warping at all.

 

CORRECTION - I thought the rear sight was hi-impact plastic, my bad it is aluminum in fact apparently the exact same aperture sight TWS charges you $35 to get is Free from DPH. Found this out when I flattened the bottom of the male dove tail to fit rail plane as level in all axis as possible.

 

The set screw on the sight may be used to lock the sight down if drilled and tapped at the proper place, no plans to do so as the sight is as secure as if welded to the rail. Yes the sight is exactly centered on the rail. My daughter took a few pics of the rail tonight with her phone and I will see if they turn out well enough to publish.

 

If I do anything else to the rail/sight that works out I will be sure to post but in general Im now very pleased with the mount. Im sure DPH will have a different solution as I don't have a machine shop at beck and call.

 

Going to pick up a KNS Ball Sight Post for the front sight as I suspect it would give faster centering being circular.

 

All in all nice little project with good results.

Edited September 23, 2010 by Rhodes1968

[TackDriver 1]

I was planning on keeping my Williams rear peep (which has served me well), my red Tapco front post, and adding a 1-4x illuminated reticule scope on a standard AK side rail mount.

 

After reading this thread, I think I would like the longer sight picture through the irons on one of these DPH rails, but I guess my main concern is which would allow me to get a 1-4x scope lower, the beryl rail or the side rail mount? My guess is the beryl rail, but then I was thinking that the eye piece on most 1-4x is the largest part of them, and with ultra low rings, I could get the eye piece below the rail surface of the side mount.

 

Maybe one of you guys has the same obsession about getting the scope as low as possible.........maybe I'm weird. The former will be more beneficial, but I can accept the latter.

[ChileRelleno 7,071]

TWS Dog Leg rail sits the lowest.

[Rhodes1968 1,638]

The difference between the DPH and TWS as far as height is less than about 1/20" or the width of a few sheets of paper. Were it that price difference was that small.

 

Now if you are thinking of the DPH it has been withdrawn temporarily to address issues with the height of the sight and other minor problems. It is not beyond anyone with simple tools to resolve these issues themselves but it be smart to wait and see what Scott ends up doing. The mount may still be obtained from other vendors for the time being. I really do like this mount now that I worked out a few problems.

 

There are several very good reasons to keep the scope as close to the barrel as possible. You are not alone at all.

[TackDriver 1]

How will I know when the issue has been resolved, and what did you do to get yours lower?

[Rhodes1968 1,638]

Still waiting on my daughter to post the blasted pic off her phone so much easier to describe then. Contact DPH via phone as th email is so hammered they will never get back to you. See item on DPH website for status.

[TackDriver 1]

Still waiting on my daughter to post the blasted pic off her phone so much easier to describe then. Contact DPH via phone as th email is so hammered they will never get back to you. See item on DPH website for status.

 

I talked to customer service over at DPH, and they are thinking that they will have a fix for it in thnext run, which they can't tell me when that will be. I am thinking that I might buy the rail, and then see what happens. I eventually want a 1-4x scope on it, but really for now, I just want the longer sight radius.

 

In the meantime, I think there are other sights out there that may sit lower. For example, what about this rear sight from a Kel-Tec SU-16? Do you think it sits lower than the included DPH peep?

 

[protected static 19]

The SU16 sight is very low - center of the peep is about 0.5" above the surface of the rail. It's also one of the most-complained about features of the SU16. OTOH, it's cheap, and if you don't like the peep, there's also a buckhorn version.

[TackDriver 1]

The SU16 sight is very low - center of the peep is about 0.5" above the surface of the rail.

 

That's good news. Do you have any experience with the included peep on the DPH rail? Is it low enough to make a difference?

 

It's also one of the most-complained about features of the SU16.

 

What do they complain about?

 

I'm a Kel-Tec guy, but don't frequent the SU-16 forums, as that is one of the few models I don't have.

 

 

OTOH, it's cheap, and if you don't like the peep, there's also a buckhorn version.

 

Yeah, I aughta' be able to get one for next to nothing, I would think.

[TackDriver 1]

 

 

Hmmmmmm.

[protected static 19]

I was going to buy the DPH rail, but then I saw the stuff about the height of the peep. My impression is that the SU sight would be low enough. That said... The SU's peep sight is sloppy. It's three independent pieces of polymer and a screw, so it's hard making good windage adjustments. Still - the buckhorn is $27 including shipping; the actual replacement parts for the peep (the sight itself and the sight lock) add up to $5 including shipping, so either one would be inexpensive enough to futz around with. (And the PLR-16's rear buckhorn-style sight is $11... go figure.)

[TackDriver 1]

I was going to buy the DPH rail, but then I saw the stuff about the height of the peep. My impression is that the SU sight would be low enough. That said... The SU's peep sight is sloppy. It's three independent pieces of polymer and a screw, so it's hard making good windage adjustments. Still - the buckhorn is $27 including shipping; the actual replacement parts for the peep (the sight itself and the sight lock) add up to $5 including shipping, so either one would be inexpensive enough to futz around with. (And the PLR-16's rear buckhorn-style sight is $11... go figure.)

 

Thanks for the info. I question the durability of a polymer rear peep on an AK top rail. Seems like a kink in the armor to me.

 

Now I am really torn.

 

I want a good set of irons, with a respectable sight radius, and the ability to later run a quickly detatchable 1-4x scope. I've got two options.

 

1. Tech sights for now, then adding a 1-4x on a side mount later.

 

My concern is that I will love the Tech Sights, then find out the hard way that a side rail mount will not co-exist with them. I am afraid the Tech Sight will take up the real estate needed to slide the scope mount on.

 

What I really like about this setup is that they are independent of one another. If the scope/mount/rings are damaged in an impact, the sight still has a chance of being zero'd.

 

2. A dog leg rail with the rear peep, a quick detatchable mount/rings, and the 1-4x. My dislikes are the cost of a setup like this. To do it properly, with the DPH rail's rear peep being unavailable (functioning properly), I would have to run the TWS, then I would need a super lo-pro detatchable scope mount, and since it's TWS, would have to buy the seperate peep. Also, if the rail gets tweeked from an impact, all my shit is outta' wack, and off zero.

 

Does anybody know if the Tech Sights will prevent me from using a quick detatch side rail mount?

[Rhodes1968 1,638]

The DPH sight is aluminum as I discovered filing the bottom to get a true flat surface. Mind is performing flawlessly since I lowered it a good bit. Sorry still waiting on my daughter to post the blasted pics so I can put em here.

[jgillaspy 24]

Does anybody know if the Tech Sights will prevent me from using a quick detatch side rail mount?

 

My understanding is that the Saiga uses a "universal" side rail that can use both the SVD mount (goes on from the front) or the AK mount (goes on from the rear). You might want to try an SVD-style mount although it may alter the eye relief a little.

 

JG

[TackDriver 1]

Sorry still waiting on my daughter to post the blasted pics so I can put em here.

 

I am not-so-patiently waiting for those pics. Don't forget about them, please.

 

 

Does anybody know if the Tech Sights will prevent me from using a quick detatch side rail mount?

 

My understanding is that the Saiga uses a "universal" side rail that can use both the SVD mount (goes on from the front) or the AK mount (goes on from the rear). You might want to try an SVD-style mount although it may alter the eye relief a little.

 

JG

 

If I can ever get my hands on a SVD style mount, I will try that. I might do a little digging into that, and if I can be reasonably confident in that, I'll just order one and try it.

[Rhodes1968 1,638]

Sorry still waiting on my daughter to post the blasted pics so I can put em here.

 

I am not-so-patiently waiting for those pics. Don't forget about them, please.

 

 

Does anybody know if the Tech Sights will prevent me from using a quick detatch side rail mount?

 

My understanding is that the Saiga uses a "universal" side rail that can use both the SVD mount (goes on from the front) or the AK mount (goes on from the rear). You might want to try an SVD-style mount although it may alter the eye relief a little.

 

JG

 

If I can ever get my hands on a SVD style mount, I will try that. I might do a little digging into that, and if I can be reasonably confident in that, I'll just order one and try it.

 

I will get her to do this tonight I haven't forgotten though when you see it you will understand how simple it was to do. If it works here is a pic of the rail as it comes and a quick drawing of the mods I made. Its facebook so hope the links work.

 

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=39966&id=100000280893042#!/photo.php?pid=418944&id=100000280893042&ref=fbx_album

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=39966&id=100000280893042#!/photo.php?pid=418943&id=100000280893042&ref=fbx_album

Edited October 1, 2010 by Rhodes1968

[DrThunder88 912]

Does anybody know if the Tech Sights will prevent me from using a quick detatch side rail mount?

I've got a Tech Sights AK200S on my .308 Saiga. It has not interfered with the mounting of my cheapo, AK-style scope mount. That being said, the mount I have--ProMag, I think-- seems taller than it should be.

 

The Tech Sights sight itself is really quite nice. I had to stick a recoil buffer on it to keep the bolt from jumping its rails, but otherwise it seems pretty bulletproof.

Edited October 3, 2010 by DrThunder88

[TackDriver 1]

Does anybody know if the Tech Sights will prevent me from using a quick detatch side rail mount?

I've got a Tech Sights AK200S on my .308 Saiga. It has not interfered with the mounting of my cheapo, AK-style scope mount. That being said, the mount I have--ProMag, I think-- seems taller than it should be.

 

The Tech Sights sight itself is really quite nice. I had to stick a recoil buffer on it to keep the bolt from jumping its rails, but otherwise it seems pretty bulletproof.

 

Yeah, I went ahead and ordered the AK100S, and one of their BufferTech buffers because I know the .308 will jump the rails without one or the steel spacer in it from the factory. I don't like buffers, but it's a necessary evil on a .308, I think.

 

Thanks for the info on the scope mount. I think I may get the lowest one I can get to go over the Tech Sights, and then a cheek peice for my Tapco stock. to get a decent cheek weld.

 

I'm also kicking around the idea of a scout style setup with a scope on an Ultimak. Matter of fact, I'm off to search for a looonnngggg eye relief scope with a low magnification. I've never had a scout setup before.

[jimdigriz 580]

Does anybody know if the Tech Sights will prevent me from using a quick detatch side rail mount?

 

Yes it will, although you could still use a high rise mount, or a far left offset optic like the PK-AS.

 

The main drawback of the Tech Sights in my view is that it greatly slows down removal of the dust cover, which could hinder malfunction clearing. I've found that, with more practice, good accuracy can be obtained by the notch and post (especially if you buy a thinner front post).

[Rhodes1968 1,638]

Does anybody know if the Tech Sights will prevent me from using a quick detatch side rail mount?

 

Yes it will, although you could still use a high rise mount, or a far left offset optic like the PK-AS.

 

The main drawback of the Tech Sights in my view is that it greatly slows down removal of the dust cover, which could hinder malfunction clearing. I've found that, with more practice, good accuracy can be obtained by the notch and post (especially if you buy a thinner front post).

 

The problem with the blade sight is not that accuracy and speed cannot be had, its that aperture sights yield greater results from the same amount of practice due to the way the eye works.

 

If mounting a Rear aperture on a dogleg does not appeal to folks then grab a Krebs 1000m version that just replaces the blade and keeps BDC in tact. That sight is going to work better than any other iron type just that simple. You dont even have to think about centering the top of the post its all pretty automatic. A front post like these only helps the matter, KNS Ball Sight Posts. The mid-size would be a good compromise between speed and accuracy.

[Rhodes1968 1,638]

Ok these are the best I have but perhaps good enough if you run it though an editor. I hope this helps clear up things. One thing is to get the sight lowered at least by the distance from bottom of the sight to the wedge, hopefully you can see how to make it even lower just be sure all surfaces are flat and ready for the JB as I didn't use the set screw on the sight the JB forms a weld as strong as the sight itself no fancy over complications needed. Just insure sight is flat and centered before allowing the JB to set. These pics were taken before the JB was used just to get the idea across.

 

Sight is made of aluminum so a good file and a vise makes the job easier.

 

I took the rifle out Sunday to try out a new scope and some Tula ammo. Before mounting the scope I put a few mags though the rifle using only the irons. The results were about 2-3 MOA at 100yds and no problems at all. I love the increased sight radius and speed of targeting. Think I will put a ball post on the front sight as to me it helps centering which is already easy. I mounted a 40mm scope with medium rings zeroed at 100yds. Easily 2+MOA with the Tula ammo, the rifle really likes the stuff.

 

Hope all this helps only took a couple of hours stop to finish just be careful with it. Ok Im tired yall have fun.

 

EDIT: Are these pics coming though? Not sure I have the permissions set properly, I'm not a facebook type.

Edited October 4, 2010 by Rhodes1968

[TackDriver 1]

Does anybody know if the Tech Sights will prevent me from using a quick detatch side rail mount?

 

Yes it will, although you could still use a high rise mount, or a far left offset optic like the PK-AS.

 

The main drawback of the Tech Sights in my view is that it greatly slows down removal of the dust cover, which could hinder malfunction clearing. I've found that, with more practice, good accuracy can be obtained by the notch and post (especially if you buy a thinner front post).

 

See, I've heard that.

 

I've also seen where some folks say it's not that bad, and then I found where soon after they came out, Tech Sights slightly altered their dust cover so that it would come off easier. Some folks say they can get the cover off with thier fingers, some say they need a bullet tip to push in the detents.

 

I've already pulled the trigger now, so I guess I will have to figure it out.

 

I've read some of your posts, Jim, and I see where you sold yours because it would no co witness with an Aimpoint Micro on an Ultimak. I'm not so much worried about co-witness, as I want a magnified optic, but I am curious how you got an Ultimak on a .308. My research has me believing that Ultimaks don't play well with .308 Saigas because the barrel is so heavy.....?????

[jimdigriz 580]

I've read some of your posts, Jim, and I see where you sold yours because it would no co witness with an Aimpoint Micro on an Ultimak. I'm not so much worried about co-witness, as I want a magnified optic, but I am curious how you got an Ultimak on a .308. My research has me believing that Ultimaks don't play well with .308 Saigas because the barrel is so heavy.....?????

 

I've had Ultimaks on rifles of 7.62x39, 5.45x39, and .223, but not .308. Supposedly the Ultimak people are working on one for the .308 though.

 

I sold the Tech Sights for a number of reasons. They are great sights, to be sure, but in my view a person running an AK will be better served by the notch and post, at least, if the rifle is meant as a fighting rifle rather than just a range or competition rifle.

Edited October 4, 2010 by Jim Digriz

[TackDriver 1]

I've had Ultimaks on rifles of 7.62x39, 5.45x39, and .223, but not .308. Supposedly the Ultimak people are working on one for the .308 though.

 

Well......shit. You know of any other good way to get a "scout" style setup on my S.308?

 

I sold the Tech Sights for a number of reasons. They are great sights, to be sure, but in my view a person running an AK will be better served by the notch and post, at least, if the rifle is meant as a fighting rifle rather than just a range or competition rifle.

 

I guess it's personal preference I guess. I can't stand notches. I'm much slower to get on target trying to line up a post in a notch rather than keeping my cheek weld and using the front sight through a peep. Where folks get apertures wrong is when trying to line them all up instead of letting them "ghost" and the brain doing the work without thinking about it. For some, that just doesn't work, and I understand that.

 

I have no range guns or safe queens. It will see hard use in training, and hopefully will never be fired in anger. It is intended to, and expected to perform that role, though.

Edited October 4, 2010 by TackDriver

[jimdigriz 580]

Well......shit. You know of any other good way to get a "scout" style setup on my S.308?

I would just wait for the Ultimak product.

 

 

I guess it's personal preference I guess. I can't stand notches. I'm much slower to get on target trying to line up a post in a notch rather than keeping my cheek weld and using the front sight through a peep.

It should be natural and instant with practice. I bring my rifle up and establish my cheekweld, and there is the post centered in the notch. There is no effort involved whatsoever.

 

If I were to use an aperture sight, I would go with the Krebs, since it does not interfere with rapid removal of the dust cover, nor does it cause any rattling.