• This community needs YOUR help today. We rely 100% on Supporting Memberships to fund our efforts. With the ever increasing fees of everything, we need help. We need more Supporting Members, today. Please invest back into this community. I will ship a few decals too in addition to all the account perks you get.



    Sign up here: https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/account/upgrades

Going sightless?

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Runewolf1973

The Crown & Cutlass
MLF Sponsor
MLF Supporter
Joined
Oct 3, 2018
Messages
327
Reaction score
720
Location
Red Deer, Alberta, Canada
Somehow the front sight on my trade gun popped off...while inside it's blanket case. It must have got knocked just right from all the camping gear. Anyways, I still have the front sight, I didn''t lose it, but I shot the gun a few times with no sight at all and it shoots just as well without it. Now I'm thinking of just going completely without a front sight. Don't have a rear sight either. Just seems like something that's gonna fall off again down the road.

That brings me to my question... Is it really necessary to even have a front sight, or any sights at all?

Would it have been typical to find original guns that were missing the front sights?🤔
 
I grew up shooting a modern 16 gauge without a front sight…

But mostly shot , shot shells.
So it really didn’t matter that much..
 
Shooting flying stuff, your focus should be on the target, not a bead. Properly mounted, the muzzle will be out of focus but in the correct position. Shooting solid projectiles accurately, need some sort of front sight as that is the focal point - not the target nor rear sight.

Shoot that gun enough, you may not need a sight at all, but few do that as it takes a LOT of practice to do so. Seen it done, not often.
 
A good wingshot doesn't pay any attention to his sight. The "sighting" is accomplished in the gun mount. If the gun fits properly, and you mount it the same with each shot, you are, effectively, "aiming" the gun without realizing it. It is an acquired skill, thousands and thousands of repetitions, over and over, year after year. How do you think those AAA level trap shooters get that good? They weren't born that way, they learned it! If you're shooting as well as you say, you've learned it! Sights? You don't need no stinkin' sights! ( Isn't that what the guy said in the movie?).
 
There were a lot of “sightless” trade guns in native hands. I’m using a mobile device right now and I’m unable to post links or pictures, but there are a lot of them out there.

Maybe sometimes the sight got knocked off, as yours did, or the barrel may have been shortened and the front sight was simply not replaced. One apparent contradiction to this is in R. Stephen Dorsey’s “Guns of the Western Indian War,” in which he describes guns confiscated from the natives. Many of these arms had been shortened and Dorsey made a point of mentioning that most of these had some sort of replacement front sight installed, so the Indians must have appreciated the advantage. I have also seen several mentions of native shooting technique, which utilized a rest of some sort, either a natural feature, a wiping stick used as a monopod, or crossed “gun sticks.” However, most of these references deal with a period later in the 19th century than is of interest to many folks here.

The Earl of Southesk also documented one of his (Metis) men working on a new trade gun to get it shooting to his point of aim. This involved bending (or straightening?) the barrel in between the spokes of a wagon wheel. The point being that these men understood the importance of careful and deliberate aiming.

However, we still have those old guns without front sights. I own one. Mine is an 1864 Springfield that had the barrel cut back to about 24”, obviously with a three-cornered file. The stock was cut just ahead of where the middle barrel band would be, although the band is missing. There is a missing splinter of wood from the right side of the forearm, but the patina indicates this is a very old break. There are no tacks or rawhide repairs, but I am confident this gun spent some time in native hands, and it has obviously been shot a lot.

In my opinion, shooting muzzleloaders is like shooting archery in some respects. Shooting a rifle with fine sights and double set triggers can enable some very precise shooting. Much like shooting a compound bow with a front sight, string peep, and mechanical release. When I was shooting competitive archery ~30 or so years ago, eighty yard targets didn’t faze me with a setup like that. Shooting “barebow,” you don’t have sights, but you use other techniques to enable precision shooting. Instinctive shooting is a third and whole different method… you focus on the target and “become the arrow.” I have seen some fine shooting done by instinctive archers at reasonable distances. I think the main or possibly only limitation is range, although as with almost anything else, you can improve with practice. Native hunters, I believe, were probably pretty good at getting up close when hunting game, and they may have very well used instinctive techniques in shooting their “sightless” guns.

I would encourage you to experiment, maybe working out some “bare gun” sighting techniques as well as pure instinctive shooting. I would be interested in what you find.

Best regards,

Notchy Bob
 
Seen many trap guns missing front beads. 95% owners said didn't notice.

For shot you do not need one. For single ball You do and a rear sight will not hurt. Only the NMLRA says no rear sight on smoothbore. Rest of reality don't care IMHO.

My smoothy has a rear sight. I do not shoot in NMLRA shoots any more.
 
There were a lot of “sightless” trade guns in native hands. I’m using a mobile device right now and I’m unable to post links or pictures, but there are a lot of them out there.

Maybe sometimes the sight got knocked off, as yours did, or the barrel may have been shortened and the front sight was simply not replaced. One apparent contradiction to this is in R. Stephen Dorsey’s “Guns of the Western Indian War,” in which he describes guns confiscated from the natives. Many of these arms had been shortened and Dorsey made a point of mentioning that most of these had some sort of replacement front sight installed, so the Indians must have appreciated the advantage. I have also seen several mentions of native shooting technique, which utilized a rest of some sort, either a natural feature, a wiping stick used as a monopod, or crossed “gun sticks.” However, most of these references deal with a period later in the 19th century than is of interest to many folks here.

The Earl of Southesk also documented one of his (Metis) men working on a new trade gun to get it shooting to his point of aim. This involved bending (or straightening?) the barrel in between the spokes of a wagon wheel. The point being that these men understood the importance of careful and deliberate aiming.

However, we still have those old guns without front sights. I own one. Mine is an 1864 Springfield that had the barrel cut back to about 24”, obviously with a three-cornered file. The stock was cut just ahead of where the middle barrel band would be, although the band is missing. There is a missing splinter of wood from the right side of the forearm, but the patina indicates this is a very old break. There are no tacks or rawhide repairs, but I am confident this gun spent some time in native hands, and it has obviously been shot a lot.

In my opinion, shooting muzzleloaders is like shooting archery in some respects. Shooting a rifle with fine sights and double set triggers can enable some very precise shooting. Much like shooting a compound bow with a front sight, string peep, and mechanical release. When I was shooting competitive archery ~30 or so years ago, eighty yard targets didn’t faze me with a setup like that. Shooting “barebow,” you don’t have sights, but you use other techniques to enable precision shooting. Instinctive shooting is a third and whole different method… you focus on the target and “become the arrow.” I have seen some fine shooting done by instinctive archers at reasonable distances. I think the main or possibly only limitation is range, although as with almost anything else, you can improve with practice. Native hunters, I believe, were probably pretty good at getting up close when hunting game, and they may have very well used instinctive techniques in shooting their “sightless” guns.

I would encourage you to experiment, maybe working out some “bare gun” sighting techniques as well as pure instinctive shooting. I would be interested in what you find.

Best regards,

Notchy Bob
Not me. I need that front bead. On a flying clay or bird I definitely SEE that sight and it helps me lead and point. I envy those who don't need it.
For those who think they don't even see it I wonder how well they would do shooting PRB at a flying 12 inch target with
a 3 inch bullseye. Would those shots get as close to the bull as a gun with sights? I say there is nothing magic about a sightless barrel.
 
Back
Top