Yes. I am sure that is true of your experiences. I should note that I have owned and used doubles in 9.3x74R, 30-06, .375, 500/416, and .470 for thirty years. I currently own half a dozen. I am aware of what is normal in doubles.
We seem to have a fixation over the "proper" use and appearance of a double rifle. For instance, it is the primary reason the Blaser S2 was unsuccessful. The rifle is extraordinarily accurate, and designed to use a scope if desired. It's unique action will never shoot loose unlike every box or sidelock ever made. With mine, I have taken game from 25 to 250 yards. But writers like Terry Wieland derided it because it was different - simply not proper. If we are about to deal with an inbound bull at fifteen yards we certainly want to do that - how did you put it - aesthetically.
You are making the same argument with respect to a ghost ring (which technically is not a peep sight - one of which I do have on a between the wars 9.3). It is simply "not done" on a double rifle no matter how much more effective it might be. I just find it humorous that it is now generally grudgingly OK to skip the ghost ring stage of evolution of point and shoot and go straight to red dots on doubles. A smart move by the way. but still somewhat humorous.
Bailey Bradshaw builds a double that is every bit as non traditional as the S2. It is designed from jump street to be scoped, and due to its unique design, it can easily employ a ghost ring if the client wishes. The client can also equip it with a Z8i and take advantage of both its magnification for a difficult shot in the dark jess or dial it down and use it as a red dot for follow-up.
I think we are actually closer in agreement than it may appear.
My point was never that a ghost ring is ineffective on a double rifle. Quite the opposite,I agree that, from a purely practical standpoint, it can be an excellent sighting system for a fast, close-range shot. And I certainly understand the argument that tradition sometimes dictates what is considered “proper” on a double.
Where I was coming from is simply that, after looking at how doubles are actually used in the field, I have yet to come across a PH who routinely uses a ghost ring on a double. I have, however, seen a few PHs using red dots, albeit still very much in the minority. That tells me there is probably a practical reason why the red dot has gained some acceptance while the ghost ring has not.
And yes, aesthetics absolutely plays a role with double rifles. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. A double is one of the few firearms where the mechanical and visual character of the rifle are part of the appeal. We can argue about whether that matters from a purely functional standpoint, but I don't think we can pretend it doesn't matter to double-rifle owners.
Your Blaser S2 is actually a very good example of the broader point. The fact that something is technically superior or more versatile doesn't necessarily mean it will be embraced by the traditional double-rifle community. The S2 may have been exceptionally capable, but it departed so far from the established aesthetic and mechanical conventions that many traditionalists simply didn't warm to it.
That's really what I was getting at with the ghost ring. It's not that it doesn't work, it clearly does. It's that there is still a strong distinction between what
works and what the double-rifle community considers
appropriate.
And I agree with you on one thing completely: if we have a buffalo coming in at fifteen yards, I want the sight that lets me put the bullets where they need to go not the sight that wins an argument about what is aesthetically correct!
The Bailey Bradshaw design sounds particularly interesting for precisely that reason. If a rifle can accommodate a ghost ring, a red dot, or a conventional scope without compromising its basic character, then perhaps that is the direction the modern double should be heading,letting the owner configure the rifle around how he actually intends to hunt rather than around what tradition says he
should use.