See All Open Sight

[TruthTellers]

I have astigmatism, which is worst in my shooting eye. As such, I don't care much for optics, but recently I came across this... thing:



It's a sight system that uses a block of fiber optic with a crosshair or triangle blacked out and a glass magnifier to enhance the image of the crosshair/triangle.

I've been looking at getting something for a few guns I have, but the issues people who have astigmatism have had with red dots has turned me off from that. I like that it doesn't require batteries and is small and looks quite robust.

Guns I'm looking to use this on are a shotgun and possibly a .308 bolt rifle (Savage Scout or Ruger Predator.) Cost is about $100 and there's a tritium option that I don't have any interest in.

Does anybody have any experience with this?

[10-96]

Truth- I hope you get some informative feedback posts. I'm quite interested in those too. I have no idea what, but I'm bound and determined to put one on something!

[Pinky Carruthers]

I have one on my Ar-180B, but I haven't shot with it yet.
Here's a write up
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...ll-open-sight/

[zukiphile]

Does anybody have any experience with this?

I had a short experience with one.

This gizmo does everything it is advertised to do. I was drawn by the battery free operation, durability and light weight.

I mounted it to an AR. My best group at 50 yards was four inches. The claim that it is parallax free could be true, but it takes greater precision to evaluate parallax.

You can't look through it as you would an ordinary rifle sight and in part it is supposed to function like an old armison sight, meaning that your view of the target is occluded in your dominant eye.

I found it slower and much less accurate than a steel aperture sight and I found the loss of the reticle when the point of aim wandered above the lense less than satisfactory. Perhaps I'd have gotten more proficient with more practice, but I wasn't willing to put the time in to learn how to use a new kind of sight when scopes and steel sights cover my existing needs.

[JohnKSa]

Looks very neat. I would buy one if they were about $30--maybe even if they were $50. Not interested enough to try a $100 experiment.

[tangolima]

Don't have any experience with this product. But from what I can tell, it is a reflector (reflex, red dot) sight with optical fiber light collector as light source.

Neat, but for the asking price, I would rather to have a LED reflex sight instead. Good and bad things about battery power. Being able to adjust the reticle intensity is a good thing. Sometimes I want to see the target through the dot.

-TL

[zukiphile]

But from what I can tell, it is a reflector (reflex, red dot) sight with optical fiber light collector as light source.

Unfortunately, it isn't. If it were a reflex sight, I would still have it. I still have the old Weaver Qwik-Sight was just that, a red dot one power reflex sight with fiber optic light gathering. It's brilliant, and the greatest improvement to it would be a smaller dot. If memory serves it's 24 MOA.

The SeeAll is effectively a very compact iron sight with a light gathering front sight. You see nothing but the sight itself, though a lense changes your impression of where the front sight is located.

The website for this product describes it fairly.

[tangolima]

I stand corrected. I was guessing by reading the picture, and of course factoring in the asking price.

As a super compact iron sight, I doubly won't buy it. What the design gains cannot offset what it loses.

-TL

Edit. I went to their website and read the descriptions. I do think it is a reflex sight, at least very close to.

The reticle is at the focal point of the convex lens, so that the reticle appears at infinity to the eye. It superimposes with the target.

That's pretty neat. Sorry about the flip flop. My mind has changed again.

But, given the price, I still like a good set of conventional reflex sight better. This is compact and neat. But like an open sight, it blocks half of the target, unless you 6 o'clock hold.

[bamaranger]

I became aware of the SEE ALL sight maybe 3-4 years ago, and may have started a thread here on same. The fact that it ran w/o batteries, and was relatively compact was attractive. I saw the price equal to an affordable red dot, which needed batteries, and some of those affordable dots were larger than the SEE ALL. I was having trouble running the iron sights on my clunker MISR AK. I cruised E-bay for about a yr, and ended up buying the sight much as pictured in the OP. I took that sight and attached it to an Ultimak rail on the gastube of said MISR . I positioned the sight as far rearward on the rail as possible....the sight ended up just ahead of the factory rear.

It improved my ability to shoot the AK better a good bit, and returned my iron sight group sizes with the AK (at 100 yds) back to my pre-50 yr old eyes results. The farther from your eye the sight is, the larger that black triangle appears. Out on the tube of the AK, scout style, it was pretty darn big and resultantly easy to see. The down side is, the bigger the aiming point gets, the more critical alignment becomes. The aiming point is plenty visible if there is any degree of light at all. There is no illumination in the sight.....total darkness, no sights. But that big wafer of green space plastic catches any ambient light about, and if you can see your target, there is enough light to shoot....which works for any of my uses.

As pictured, the early sights are square edged and needed some radius's on the corners to make them more sleek. I wrote an e-note to SeeAll suggesting same. Further, the exposed lense is open to impact, and after about a yr on the AK, I managed to slightly chip my lense at the top, very small, but proof the lense is vulnerable. I also suggested some type of arched housing to protect the lense as well. I did not like the "slide on" means of attachment either, they needed some type of clamp on affair to make the sight more compatible with more rail set ups. I doubt my little email effected the change, but the new versions of the SeeAll incorporate all those changes. I was on the right track at least.

Many who are critical of the SeeAll dislike the inability to see the whole target. These folks I suspect are accustomed to running a dot, where the the dot of a few MOA size is simply pasted on the target in an otherwise clear, circular FOV. The SeeAll does not work like that, and in use, functions much like a standard iron sight/leaf-blade arrangement as in traditional handgun sights or simple sights on a .22 rifle in that one cannot see the whole target, it is partially obstructed by the sights themselves. If you are a accustomed to traditional iron sights, the SeeAll should not give you trouble. If you have only shot a dot optic, or a 'scope, the SeeAll may be to your dislike.

I eventually pulled the SeeAll off the AK, not for any dislike or problem, I simpy found another sight system I wanted to run on the clunker for fun. My standard iron sights on the choked slug barrel of my turkey gun are giving me fits.....and the SeeAll is headed onto the old Rem 870 as soon as I get the mount situation resolved, (my old gun is not drilled and tapped for a rail) I intend to see if that will be a suitable aiming system for gobblers.........and indeed, I suspect the SeeAll may be at its best on the shotgun. No batteries, not susceptible to water damage, and any slight misalignment on my part will be compensated by the forgiving nature of a shotgun pellet pattern. The SeeAll is at its best at typical iron sight distances, at home with the so-so accuracy of the AK, and may well be an ideal gobbler sight. We shall see.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by TL

I went to their website and read the descriptions. I do think it is a reflex sight, at least very close to.

The reticle is at the focal point of the convex lens, so that the reticle appears at infinity to the eye. It superimposes with the target.

We may be using a term differently. I understand a reflex sight to allow the viewer to look through a surface onto which a reticle (usually a dot) is reflected. It involves a light source from off to one side bouncing off an angled reflective surface through which one sees the target so that one sees the dot on the target.

The SeeAll doesn't do any of that. Strictly speaking, the SeeAll doesn't even superimpose the triangle onto the target. One is supposed to view the reticle with the dominant eye and look at the target with the other eye so one's brain can conflate the two images and see a triangle on the target. The Armison sights completely blocked the view of the target for the dominant eye. This may explain why they weren't more popular.

Originally Posted by baramanger

Many who are critical of the SeeAll dislike the inability to see the whole target. These folks I suspect are accustomed to running a dot, where the the dot of a few MOA size is simply pasted on the target in an otherwise clear, circular FOV.

I think the SeeAll has some additional obstacles to use.

For me, one problem was the lack of an aperture. I didn't realise how much the aperture on an AR clarifies the target until I tried the SeeAll. It's fair to observe that this is a shortcoming of mine rather than of the sight.

However, a steel sight only obscures the portion of the target behind the front sight post, and one can see the front post if it is too high and make a correction. You can move the front post in a circle and see the point of aim move through all 360 degrees. On the other hand, the SeeAll obstructs all of the target below the horizon of the sight, and if the triangle is above that horizon it is simply lost, not visible but high.

I like all of your improvements, whether you had their ear or not. I might also suggest a single luminous point rather than an entire luminous slab onto which a dark reticle is impressed.

I'm glad it worked for you, and applaud an outfit that tries something new rather than making a different version of something dozens of other places already make.

[tangolima]

It is not quite a reflex sight but it has some key features of one.

An open sight's sight picture has 3 components at different distances. It is impossible to have them all in focus. A reflex sight fixes that by having the reticle appear at infinity, same as the target, so that they are all in focus (infinite eye relief) with little or no parallax. The see all sight does that. At least to me, that's the "keyest" feature of all.

True that it doesn't present a "floating" reticle superimposed on a unobscured target. They trade that for compactness.

It is a half a$$ reflex sight; $$ as the price is as much as a full-feature one. I will get one if it is <$50. Half a reflex sight + compactness = good value.

-TL

[PlatinumCore16]

I like the idea, but personally I'd rather have regular irons which only block the size of the post. I think this would be even better if it were perhaps more similar to an archery sight. For those of you who have never used a modern archery sight, they usually consist of a round housing, with fiber optic string running around to gather light, truncating/ending with the end towards the viewer on multiple pins, one fiber optic strand per pin. That way they can be set to multiple distances/multiple zeros if you will, and you guesstimate your distance and use whichever one fits, or interpolate between two of them (if you have yours setup thusly). The newest ones are now switching to just one fiber optic with large knobs to adjust for distance/elevation.

That would be my preference, but very situationally. The other thing that you have to take into account is that usually there is a peep sight wrapped in the string that aligns with your eye that you use to center the fiber optic. Which brings us back to an iron sight with a rear aperture and front post.

So if I were to use a sight like this, I'd rather use an infinite eye relief, reflex sight due to the blockage of everything under the horizon or irons. It's a really creative design attempt to give the benefits of both, but I think a little more useful sight would be a fiber optic, light gathering device as a point reticle within this design.

[amd6547]

I'd sure like to try this sight. The price is the killer, though. I'd go $75.

[bamaranger]

I'll try and clarify my comment on sights blocking the target. What I am refering to in that instance is a traditional set of iron sights, with a front bead of post, AND A BLADE REAR . You cannot see through a rear blade. The blade obstructs the target, as does any portion of the firearm the blade is mounted on. Think rear sight on a revolver or autopistol. You cannot see through that material, and if one is zeroed so that the bullet strike is on top of the post, or under the bead, any portion of the target below that is not visible.

Those making comments regards a peep or aperature sight n a rifle or carbine are correct. The target is only obscured by the dimensions of the front blade/post. As long as ones eyes can resolve the front sight clearly, a peep ( or for that matter a rear blade) works just fine. But my comments were not comparing the SeeAll to an aperature sight set. There are a lot of folks who can no longer bring the front sight of a peep or blade arrangement into focus. Devices like the SeeAll, any dot sight, or conventional 'scope sights, can save our shooting.

[TruthTellers]

While I appreciate all the comments, I don't know how it pertains to my eyesight issue and whether or not the See All is a better option for me than a red dot.

[tangolima]

OP. The sight is no better than a red dot. I don't believe it would help much with astigmatism, unfortunately. If you find red dot not working, you probably will be disappointed if you switch to SeeAll.

I myself also have some degree of astigmatism. Correction lens is the only thing that helps.

Sorry as usual we lost sight, no pun intended, of your original question.

-TL

[zukiphile]

While I appreciate all the comments, I don't know how it pertains to my eyesight issue and whether or not the See All is a better option for me than a red dot.

I have an astigmatism and don't get a level of distortion that makes red dots unusable. The SeeAll reticle was always very clear for me; the target wasn't too clear though.

That distortion shouldn't be an issue with the SeeAll, which doesn't use a collimator. The sense that the aiming triangle is out near your target is illusory.

That doesn't mean that the SeeAll will work better for you than a conventional scope. If Bamaranger has an astigmatism, perhaps he could comment.

EDIT -I bought the basic one to try it, then sold it here or on AR15.com for $80. I think it sold the day I posted it. This thing has a lot of people curious, and shouldn't be a big loss if you decide to sell it.

Using this on a .308 bolt action suggests that you might like to realise 2MOA-ish accuracy. I can only tell you that I couldn't do that, and neither could the Mr. GunsnGear fellow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_-GPNTxiBo

[PlatinumCore16]

My apologies TruthTeller, got a bit sidetracked. I would ask, does your astigmatism eliminate aperture sights? I read your OP and what is it exactly which precludes scopes/reflex sights? Are you unable to resolve targets through scopes or unable to resolve targets with reflex sights?

My apologies to you as well bama. Yes I agree, a bladed/V-cut rear sight would do the same. I am a much larger fan of aperture/peep sights, personally, though pistols would be hard to make that work.

[TruthTellers]

^ No, aperture sights are okay. I don't like to consider scopes because that last few times I've tried shooting scopes, I can't hit for crap and I think it has to do with the astigmatism bending the light coming in through the scope and distorting/warping the picture causing me to be inaccurate.

[Venom1956]

Ive got one I really liked it the delta point is best. kinda make the stargate symbol with it and the target and u are good to go. It also doesnt seem to be bothered by heat either. I had a reddot cook on an AK gastube mount that it replaced.

[cslinger]

These have intrigued me as well. I always figured you would just set up for a six o'clock hold like the above poster noted.

[TruthTellers]

OP here. I never did get a bolt .308 or bother with putting an optic on the shotgun, but recently I was thinking about using the See All on handguns, specifically the Kel Tec CP33. I figure since it has a rail it'd be a waste not to try some sort of optic and I'm not willing to try a mini red dot given the astigmatism.

I looked on their website and saw that they also make sights with a dovetail to fit a select few different handguns as a replacement for the rear sight.



So I'm bringing this topic back up as last time my focus with the See All was on long guns, but now it's on handguns and I'm wondering if anyone has tried them on any pistols?

[weblance]

I bought one way back to try on a Buckmark My hands shake slightly, and that made the sight almost un-usable. It has since found a home on my 9mm Just Right Carbine, and shines in that roll.

I had no luck using the SeeAll open sight on a pistol.

[bamaranger]

Back when I first posted regards this sight (2017) I indicated I had initially run it on an Ultimak rail on an AK, and intended to move the sight over onto a shotgun for gobblers. I had the mounting issues resolved by Spring 2018 and used the See-All on my tightly choked 20" Remington pump for the gobbler season that year and into spring 2019 a bit as well.

Killed 4 gobblers with the old Remington and the new fangled See-All in 2018. Regretably, I must report, I missed one in 2018 at very close range, and another in 2019 at longish shotgun range. I can't say I really know what happened on those misses.......I though I was on'em......I may well have failed to follow thru with the shot......I still get a might excited when a gobbler comes in!!!

The good news is I found the See-All far more visible than the factory blade & bead iron sights as found on the short slug barrel of the Remington. Additionally, the sight was plenty visible in dim light, as in overcast dawn mornings or rainy days. I had no issues with durability, hunting it hard about 20 days in 2018 and about a week in 2019.

Final comments on the See-All: I found it superior when compared to a bead and blade sight for shooting at stationary or slow moving targets with a rifle or shotgun. I deem it superior as the large triangular aiming point was far easier to discern with my 60+ yr old eyes than the now hazy bead and blades. For me, wingshooting (clays) or vary fast snap shooting, at close range(carbine IDPA) the See-All was NOT as fast or easily applied as a red dot. The See-All does require some alignment when aimed at a target, ie, the tip of the triangle MUST come up to the "horizon' created by the green fiber optic wafer. Thus, it is not really any faster than a typical iron sight (if you can see'em, which I cannot) for me. But it does offer me more precision than factory bead and blade, as I can see the tip of the triangle easily. As I suspected, the sight worked well for gobblers at shotgun ranges, under 50 yds. I can also see it working well with buckshot or slug loaded shotguns for deer, coyotes or SD. A low powered variable scope was decidedly superior at distances past 100 yds. Under 50 yds, the See-All may be a bit faster and easier to use than a low power scope, but not as fast as a dot. The See-All does not need batteries (like a dot) and is far smaller and lighter than a scope.