Marrakai, I accept that your critique might apply right at this instant to me and my rifles, range and the game you identify {discounting small varmints which I shoot a large amount per year with rifle, scoped and open-sighted, and iron-sighted pistol and where I find a bead of any sort a severe handicap}, but it doesn't apply to those I know quite closely who literally live or die by their guns, that is, those shooting truly dangerous game with them. Our service personnel.

And not just ours. No Army has gravitated to beads over the years and for good reason. To the contrary.

Are you saying that the precision and speed needed to shoot pigs and buffalo exceeds the precision and speed needed to shoot armed men? I beg to differ. Before anyone says that the Armies of the world are run by bureaucratic morons who punch paper and nothing else and who don't know a rifle from a crowbar, I might make the point that though that may be true in some instances, the final nail is being driven into the coffin of this whole discussion right now by large numbers of our own military who due to changing acquisition rules are able to play with, use and purchase equipment without going through the hobgoblin of standardization regulations that used to hamstring development of better "tools". Sighting systems, both iron and glass, have become something of an obsession, and though some companies produce them and you can find them for sale, V/Beads or bead fronts are essentially nowhere to be found in service.

Maybe it's because our fellows live in cubicles and have never heard of them... Or maybe because they shoot too much paper... Or maybe they shoot "target rifles" and don't understand "hunting rifles"... Or maybe their rifles don't kick enough...

I'm not one that believes that all things progress from crudity to perfection in the shooting world, but the truth is the V/Bead has been left behind not by paper punchers but by those whose lives truly depend on little bits of metal that sit on the tops of their guns and those folks are, in sheer numbers, many more than hunt big game in Africa or Australia. For those that can do anything about it, the open rear of any sort is a handicap and it is gone. That is partly due to a physiological reality; the human eye cannot focus on three planes at once. Granted, some rifles cannot be fitted with peep sights for a variety of reasons and thus we discuss open sights.

I've heard the argument put forth that the rear sight isn't actually used on a double if the double fits a man properly. That argument serves to make my point for me. If the gun serves the purpose of the sight it doesn't prove the value of the sight at all.

Next, that is, now, we see the last breath of the iron sight itself. I recently read a Lessons Learned report examining changed attitudes {based on shooting men, not paper} even within the organization of the US Marines who were the last to swear by iron sights in the US military. Just like the peep and post before it, the "scope" has won now over the peep and post.

Yes, the V/Bead was overtaken by sights more effective FOR MORE PEOPLE for both speed and precision shooting. And now irons of any sort are being overtaken by glass.

Look, I really do not mean to gore anybody's ox {or banteng} and I seriously do not mean to criticize anyone's favorite sight, particularly someone with your experience. I also grant that certain sights for traditional reasons or personal preference or both have become well-established in certain circles. For example, taking the beef away from V/Beads for a moment, I have read old accounts of "gun gurus" of the early 1900's who espoused the Buckhorn for general hunting and who did good work with it, but I think we would both agree to leave that one behind.

But to argue, for example, that the V/Bead is the best sight for the most people is an argument swimming upstream with its legs tied. It might have certain advantages for certain people who really and truly find it the best for them, and under the pressure of tradition it might suffice for others, but for speed and precision shooting of paper and living, moving things, it cannot be said to be a sure bet for most.

History has spoken, and now I'll stop.