Aperture sights on American longrifles - again

[Dphar]

Is a Hawkin an "American Longrifle" or just an "American Rifle"? Seriously, when I think of a Longrifle I think of a long rifle. Not a Plains Rifle with relatively short barrel.

Is a short barreled Kentucky a longrifle?
Not all Kentucky's even of the 1760-1770s had barrels over 38".

Dan

 

[Dphar]

Find one, or find a reference to one. Find even a passing mention of one. Good luck with that.

Find a period reference to a Hawken with a peep sight. There is a reference to one using a bullet 1" long...
Besides the pistol grip rifles there is at least one more with what appears to be a base held by the rear tang screw.
I would also point out that the survival of flintlock rifles of 1770-1790 is less than rifles of the 1830s-40s. Heavy match rifles may have a lower survival rate than hunting weight rifles.

There are heavy match rifles that are originally flint. But I don't have enough photos to show if any of these have holes for a lollipop tang or screw holes in the barrel for a strap type sight.
Nor do we have photos of the tangs and barrel breech ends on HUNDREDS of rifles. There are hundreds in "Kentucky Rifles and Pistols 1850-1750" that are photographed in a manner that would allow see this in the book.
Then we have usefulness and survivability of the sights. They are less useful for hunting and the lollipop especially is more prone to damage.
Being prone to damage is why some many original Sharps rifles that were shipped with "peep" sights or target sights no longer have them.

Its a very complex undertaking, trying to find these things.

I shoot in matches that allow "period" peeps but I don't use them though I have a lollipop made for the my swivel breech.
Dan

 

[ihuntsnook]

My take here is much ado about nothing. There's plenty of stuff that wasn't documented, or photographed, or even written about. It is the nature of shooters to experiment. Sorry Wick, I can't prove it with a photograph or a written account, but if you tell me there wasn't a guy looking through a little hole in his rear sight between 1580 and 1830, I can't buy it.

 

[Semisane]

Find one, or find a reference to one. Find even a passing mention of one. Good luck with that.

It's like finding a historical reference to the wiping of one's butt with Sycamore leaves. We all know someone did it somewhere. But I can't find documentation. :haha:

 

[Number19]

For an early reference on this subject I would refer you to The Kentucky Rifle, by Captain John Dillion, and published in 1924. Chapter Eleven, Triggers and Sights of Flint-lock Days, mentions that although hunters "invariably used plain open sights", match guns had "a variety of devices being used for rear sights"

Plate 68 shows a "late flint-lock" with peep sights as well as a globe front sight. Plate 118 shows a flintlock made by William Pannabecker of Lancaster, PA, circa 1800, with globe front sights and peep rear sights.

 

[Viking78]

Number 19, this is highly interesting. Could you possibly scan of photograph the pages in question? It could be just the reference I need.

 

[Number19]

Here you go; the captioned text is barely readable, but I think it's OK:

 

[fishspike]

This thread died when this evidence was presented. Does that mean all we agree that some original american long rifles even Pennsylvania Rifles had aperture sights?

Bob

 

[LRB]

Dillons book is very out dated. The sights I see appear to be 19th c., especially the tube sight, and I would strongly question a piston type mechanical bullet starter used on an 18th c. longrifle. If 19th c., then I yield. I would believe the aperature sights to have been a later addition to the guns.

 

[ihuntsnook]

I don't doubt that peep sights appeared on 18th century longrifles used for match shooting. Dillin seems to think they were original.

 

[Okwaho]

I would be very skeptical as to the accuracy of Dillin's work from 1924.One question would be whether the illustrated examples had peep or globe sights installed by the original maker or whether they were later additions.I then looked at Kindig {Joe Kindig Jr.,THOUGHTS on the KENTUCKY RIFLE in it's GOLDEN AGE {1960}.
He refered to a number of open iron sights some with forged moldings and one rear leaf sight on a Martin Fry rifle{#142}. He also showed a sliding tin tubular cover probably intended as a sun shade to reduce sun glinting on a Kliendinst rifle {#139}and commented that with a slightly heavier barrel the gun was likely used for match shooting. I may have seen another sun shade illustrated but don't remember where.
As always I invite responsible opposing comment
Tom patton

 

[Number19]

The rifles in Dillion's collection were attributed to the late-flintlock period, with the Pannabecker rifle possibly made around 1820. William Pannabecker was born in 1784 and died in 1868. The rifle shown in plate 118 appears to be a classic example of the Allentown-Bethlehem school of the period 1793 - 1800, the period when Pannabecker would have begun apprenticing. The rifle is a 45 caliber with a 43" full octagon barrel, is hand carved with brass mountings and brass patchbox. It is a beautiful piece, but with a weight of 13 pounds, clearly designed for competitive shooting. There is no visible dovetail forward of the lock for an open sight, so it appears that the aperture sight is original.

Competitive shooting, today, is not limited to 18th century rifles. The use of peep sights on flintlock longrifles is certainly period correct for anything other than 18th century reenactment and are allowed by the NRA .

 

[Viking78]

I would have been interesting to know where the Dillin collection ended up when he died. I'm sure they are in a collection somewhere.

Whether the sights are 18th or 19th century doesn't matter to me, as the MLAIC rules say:

"Aperture sights (including modern made replica sights) are permitted providing their design is consistent with the period of manufacture and appropriate to the type of firearm. This applies to both rear and fore-sights. NB The periods of manufacture in relation to the pattern of sights are: up to 1750 for matchlocks, up to 1850 for flintlocks, and up to 1890 for percussion."

I guess my replica longrifle approximately belongs to the 1815 time frame.

 

[nkbj]

This thread died when this evidence was presented. Does that mean all we agree that some original american long rifles even Pennsylvania Rifles had aperture sights?

Bob

Today just as in years gone by peep sights are relatively uncommon as a percentage of the total.

 

[F.G. Ford]

Hello Viking
I enjoyed reading your article about your fine rifle.
Very impressive groups.
Best regards.
Fred ( Old Ford )

 

[rcbelding]

I don't doubt that peep sights appeared on 18th century longrifles used for match shooting.

Another current thread - 'French target rifles' by Dyemaker in this forum is very interesting. It appears to show honest-to-Goodness peep sights on 18th century rifles. Also, apparently 'diopters' (not peeps) with tiny holes were fairly common on 18th century jaeger rifles to sharpen the sight picture when target shooting.

Modern peep sights for target shooting have small holes, but not tiny like diopters, and for hunting use - the bigger the hole, the better. Generally, with traditional black powder and round balls I don't see any advantage when hunting for peep sights because of the relatively short ranges encountered. For older people like me,tho, the peep provides a way to accurately shoot while hunting or to stay competitive (or in my case just to hit the target) in club matches.

Because I like peeps, I have looked into their use in the 18th century. Years ago, I stopped by the Smithsonian. At that time, they had a very poor selection of early peep sights and as I remember it, all were on arab weapons or cross bows.

So ... if peeps had no advantage for hunting over open sights in the 18th century I find it unlikely few, if any, were made at that time in America. I gotta admit, tho, French peep sights, new to me, add some big unpredictables to this statement. I guess it just shows that we better not be too dogmatic on this subject.

Bottom Line - A peep sight on an 18th century American long rifle just don't look right.

+++++++++++++++++++

To extinguish residual embers, immediately after discharge always wet swab or blow down the barrel.

 

[Billnpatti]

For close work, (IMO) aperture sights don't have a significant advantage over open iron sights.
quote]

As we age, our eyes need a bit of help. The aperture helps to clear up our front sight and target. For younger eyes, this is less of an issue and your statement would have more validity. Us old farts need all the help we can get. :haha: :hatsoff:

Talk about old farts needing help, I still haven't figured out how to put a quote of an excerpt from someone else's post into my post. This whole thing is in a box and looks like a quote. Oh well, maybe one day.
:surrender: :surrender:

 

[Fred_Dwyer]

Today just as in years gone by peep sights are relatively uncommon as a percentage of the total.

Conversely; that means they were as common back then as they are today?

 

[fishspike]

It seems that the progression of rifle sights goes back and forth the early frech target rifles being a very interesting example. Closer to home the 18th century jaeger rifles is the predesesser of the long rifle.

A barrel is is or isn't accurate all the other parts help us or hurt us in acheiving the accuracy potential of the barrel. The long barrel and consiquent long sight radius make the americam long rifle is easy to shoot better with than rifles with a short sight radius. The jaeger with it's short barrel would clearly benefit more from the tripple benefit of of the peep.
1. longer radius
2. Automatic alignment
3. improved focus

I seems odd to me that Pennsyvanian Rifle Smiths of German extraction would not have been likely to have aperture sight cross over between long rifles and Jaegers in the 18th century.

The surviving examples or long rifles seem always to be very heavy on fancy expensive heirloom quality arms which only make sence, they survive and are protected and collected much earlier than the true working models of the same type. The commoner purchasing a rifle is not likely to pay for adorments which don't forward its function, and his rifle is much more a tool; used, abused, converted, parted out, and scrapped.

A purpose built target rifle is impractical as has been noted, kentucy widage with a peep is a pain and a heavy barrel isn't fun in the field. It is not graceful and it would not inspire most early collectors, it would also be very likely to be stripped of the peep and used with conventional open sights.

Bob

 

[tg]

Tom is very on the mark here and we do not know when many things we like were really used for the first time, and the benifit of the doubt goes to history in which there is a procedure for proving an issue which many seem to discard if it does not suit their needs, and this forum should be far enough along that the "if they copulda they woulda or surely did" realy should no raise its head any longer, it is quite a frustration in ignorance I suspect to many who are long time students of history and how it works