Sight possibly

[Crow#21957]

I went in my Local gun shop just being curious. I picked up a lever 22 Henry. The sight on that gun was so easy to see. So I'm thinking the same style on my ML.
With my ML square notch and blade I get a lot of fuzz and can't find the real top of front sight. When with a peep. With the Henry the rear small half round notch cradles the front round bead on a short post. No fuzz. What's your thoughts? I'm thinking a semi buck horn with small round groove filed in
And take a made sight and make a bead on it. Pics below. I might use the fron sight but get a TOW semi buckhorn.
Tap on pics below the sight is hiding.

 

[aussie pete]

Crow. I have a flat-topped buckhorn on the rear of my Pedersoli Tryon - the front is a silver blade. I like that combo for competition where we are required to have open sights.

Pete

 

[necchi]

If fiber optics are what you need too see, then that's the way to go.
I'm just wondering why you need to "mix" old and new??
Where do you shoot? What do you shoot for? Do you compete? Are you hunting? Are your just selling?
Honest.
What's up with discovering fiber optics?
My son is 30, I taught him at 5 using fiber optics.

Did ya know sighting bow pins are exactly opposite of a rifle?

 

[ETipp]

Whatever it takes to work for you. I found that the buckhorn sight that came with my GPR is the next best thing after a peep sight. Still a no go for me but it was much better than blade sights.

Whatever front sight it takes to accommodate the rear sight and your particular vision is a must.

 

[#blackpowderbill]

Better make sure the height is correct!

 

[Col. Batguano]

Better make sure the height is correct!

Amen. Take lots of measurements first before you start changing things. What you're after in the measurements is the (sight height) differential between the front and back sights.

Ex;
If your current front sight is .200" above the barrel flat, and the rear is .300", you can install a new front sight at .300" and a new rear at .400" and still hit in the same place. (I defy ANYONE to tell me they shoot a ML'er so well that the additional .100" in sight height shows up in their groups hitting that much lower!)

If you are changing LOCATIONS for the rear sight (with a swamped or tapered barrel) then you have to do the calculation of sight height above the bore centerline and adjust accordingly.

 

[Crow#21957]

Amen. Take lots of measurements first before you start changing things. What you're after in the measurements is the (sight height) differential between the front and back sights.

Ex;
If your current front sight is .200" above the barrel flat, and the rear is .300", you can install a new front sight at .300" and a new rear at .400" and still hit in the same place. (I defy ANYONE to tell me they shoot a ML'er so well that the additional .100" in sight height shows up in their groups hitting that much lower!)

If you are changing LOCATIONS for the rear sight (with a swamped or tapered barrel) then you have to do the calculation of sight height above the bore centerline and adjust accordingly.

That part doesn't bother me. Raise or lower front sight and maybe rear. It's the being able to see them is my thing. That little henry rifle I picked up was like those sights just flat out work. If I get the right picture then it's just raise or lower one or both sights. Never had dovetailed rear. I was using peep mounted with tang screw

 

[ETipp]

Amen. Take lots of measurements first before you start changing things. What you're after in the measurements is the (sight height) differential between the front and back sights.

Ex;
If your current front sight is .200" above the barrel flat, and the rear is .300", you can install a new front sight at .300" and a new rear at .400" and still hit in the same place. (I defy ANYONE to tell me they shoot a ML'er so well that the additional .100" in sight height shows up in their groups hitting that much lower!)

If you are changing LOCATIONS for the rear sight (with a swamped or tapered barrel) then you have to do the calculation of sight height above the bore centerline and adjust accordingly.

It doesn't take any measuring "IF" one is using a peep sight. Just center the front sight regardless and you will be accurate. The eye will automatically center the front bead. Try as I have I have yet to understand why anyone would use any other iron sights than a peep sight. Just boggles the imagination.

Yes, peep sights are that good.

 

[Col. Batguano]

Ok then get your calipers out and measure the dimensions of the sights. Then measure how far they are from your eye when you mount the gun. The calculation you're after is how many minutes of angle (MOA) is the width of both the notch and the front blade at those relative distances.

Do that calculation on sights that work for your and you will know what width blade (in MOA) works for you and as a front sight on any gun you use. The rear notch width can be adjusted accordingly by you in deciding how much white you like on either side of the blade after you know your preferred front blade width. Target offhand shooters typically like a 1-1-1 ratio (white-black-white) to help cut down on eye strain, but might prefer a 1-2-1 ratio for prone shooting. It's all a matter of application, personal preference, and, to some extent, how young you are and how good your eyes are.

And yes, if you anticipate using the sights in lower light level conditions you're going to need coarser sights.

For a baseline reference in doing your calculations a standard 8.3" bull at 100 yards is 8 minutes of angle. The very fine front sight of a 1903 Springfield is about 4 MOA. I find for myself, about a 5.3 MOA front sight is about right for fine paperwork. 8 is too coarse, and 4 is too fine. As an FYI, an AK-47 front sight is around 12!

The French in their Berthier rifles (of WW I fame) used a sort of a "duplex front sight". The front was very very wide and coarse but also incorporated a very thin slot in the middle of it for finer precision shooting. I think it wasn't a great success for the trenches of that conflict (it filled up with mud) so we don't see that any more, but rifles and sights of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were selected by ordnance boards and how well those guns (and sights) did on the range more so than in tactical conditions.

 

[ETipp]

And yes, if you anticipate using the sights in lower light level conditions you're going to need coarser sights.

No disrespect intended and I realize the OP did not mention a peep sight, but why would anyone want to go trough all that necessary work? All one needs to do is install a peep sight. For a peep sight, a smaller/finer front bead is so easy, yet even more accurate than any blade sight. Courser sights are what one does not need for better accuracy, finer is better especially in low light conditions. A peep sight ,or even a ghost ring all the horse hooey and is superior especially for hunting.

What's it going to take for folks to understand this?

 

[Crow#21957]

Thankyou guys

 

[ord sgt]

If you are worried about seeing your rifle sights, and you are not worried about being traditional, try this.
I put a set of Williams fiber optic sights on a caplock. The red front sight and the green rear sights are easy to see. Take some measurements of sight height, both front and rear sights. Call Williams and work with one of their technicians. They will help with the choice of sights.
The fiber optic sights are easily seen. I use them to teach new shooters how to line up the sights.

 

[Crow#21957]

Thans Ord Sgt I really don't care about pc and all that but don't like rear fiber optic but font is not bad. I'm weird I know. I'm 66 eyes going fuzzy on me. I just want to be able to hit a squirrels head at 30 to 30 yards.

 

[Col. Batguano]

There are times when peep sights are more difficult to use than open sights. Of course that's a function of how much black is around the rear peep hole, but by design they DO limit your field of vision.

Anecdotally, I have a FWB 300S air rifle I use for shooting bullseye targets in my basement. It's great for that, but the rear peep blacks out a lot of area. When I try to use the same gun to eliminate tree rats in my back yard it becomes very difficult to even find the little rascals in the sights unless they. are silhouetted on the skyline.

Yes, I realize a larger aperture or "ghost ring" can help with that, but that would cut down on the precision part on the range.

That said, the US Ordnance boards made the switch to full time aperture sights when they introduced the 1903A3, but they still use open sights when field of view is more important than precision (on things like machine guns).

 

[Crow#21957]

Col Batguano I use to be into airguns slot. Pcp and springers. Most were over $1000
For the gun a d usually high end scopes at least half tat cost. It's funny though the springers were a lot of fun. Gas Rams were cool too.

 

[ETipp]

There are times when peep sights are more difficult to use than open sights. Of course that's a function of how much black is around the rear peep hole, but by design they DO limit your field of vision.

Anecdotally, I have a FWB 300S air rifle I use for shooting bullseye targets in my basement. It's great for that, but the rear peep blacks out a lot of area. When I try to use the same gun to eliminate tree rats in my back yard it becomes very difficult to even find the little rascals in the sights unless they. are silhouetted on the skyline.

Yes, I realize a larger aperture or "ghost ring" can help with that, but that would cut down on the precision part on the range.

That said, the US Ordnance boards made the switch to full time aperture sights when they introduced the 1903A3, but they still use open sights when field of view is more important than precision (on things like machine guns).

With respect. No sir, "proper" size peeps do not limit ones vision. Its exactly the opposite.

Also, peeps do not cut down on precision at the range. If that were so then the military would not have outfitted them for so many years on their rifles. If what you contend is true, then why did they come out with precision target peeps? It is just the opposite of what you contend. Its as simple as this. Match the aperture with intended target/situation. Ask Idaho Lewis how well a peep works for long range shooting. He has one on a Renegade that he shoots 500 yards with, accurately. If memory serves me correctly he had several of his ML outfitted with peeps. That includes his hunting muzzleloaders.

Try as I have, I cannot get this across to people. A little larger peep with a proper size front sight is the next best thing to a scope. What people do is try a small target size peep and say "oh, those are too small, I cannot see through it". Yet they never even consider a larger peep that actually adds time to ones hunt both early morning and late evening.

Also, machine guns of the past were not precision weapons. They were not made to be so. I couldn't imagine a older machine gun with a precision sight on it like a rifle has. Nowadays its all optics.

 

[necchi]

I'm 66 eyes going fuzzy on me.

wow, a couple months back in a different thread, in a different section,, you where 88.
,,,,,,,,,

 

[Col. Batguano]

You won't get an argument from me that peep sights are more intuitive and natural to use, and, by and large more accurate / precise. And generally faster. Just the front sight and the target to line up. And yes, (appropriately powered) optics are superior to both.

It is the FRONT aperture on target sights is what can be so limiting of field of view, particularly apertures intended for round bull shooting. Many front apertures (the mounting part to the gun) even have a big skirt around them to limit field of view even further. When a rear peep is used with a blade (which is how they're used on military rifles and most sporting small arms) that becomes less of an issue however.

I still maintain that by the very nature of looking through a small hole that at least a PORTION of your field of view is going to be obscured, just like how on open sights the lower half of the target will be.

 

[aussie pete]

You won't get an argument from me that peep sights are more intuitive and natural to use, and, by and large more accurate. And generally faster. Just the front sight and the target to line up. And yes, (appropriately powered) optics are superior to both.

It is the FRONT aperture on target sights is what can be so limiting of field of view, particularly apertures intended for round bull shooting. Many front apertures (the mounting part to the gun) even have a big skirt around them to limit field of view even further. When a rear peep is used with a blade (which is how they're used on military rifles and most sporting small arms) that becomes less of an issue however.

I still maintain that by the very nature of looking through a small hole that at least a PORTION of your field of view is going to be obscured, just like how on open sights the lower half of the target will be.

Absolutely Col. Batguano (great name!), even traditional barrel mounted sights limit your field of view. Magnified optics, first (though not on muzzleloaders ), peep second, classic open sights third. Mind, I do prefer a peep, though standard sights provide a lot of enjoyment; I think it's the challenge of maintaining a consistent sight picture. My eyes turned 66 just over a week ago; I use a merit aperture disc on my glasses when shooting comp with traditional sights - clears up the fuzz. Peeps for hunting of course.

Pete

 

[appalichian hunter]

Actually, quite traditional, same as fiber optics. Just move the sights, the old boys done it as they aged. Some here get all riled up about things they see as not traditional but then take off on some wild tangent with issues such as this. The sight referenced is very similar to a stock Remington 740 or 760 rifle just missing the added ramp it sets on. If it was mine, I would just put a Lazer sight on it.