Last edited by a moderator:
-
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 -
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
Original English 1790-ppep sight!!!
- Thread starter jerrywh
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
Many Klatch
69 Cal.
- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 3,498
- Reaction score
- 265
There were probably a few guns built with peep sights. There are cross bows that have peep sights from an earlier age. There are always shooters that are looking for an edge and have the money to experiment and there are always gun builders who will do what the customer wants. I am sure that there were thumb hole stocks.
The thing that we historically correct folks have to watch is "was this commonly used" and "when and who used it".
The Hessian Jaegers that were here as part of the British Army often carried their own weapons. So they were shooting short rifled firearms that were up to 90 caliber. That does not mean that all the troops in the British Army had one.
This is an interesting rifle, it did exist, it has been reproduced, it looks neat. If it shows up at an NMLRA shoot it would be disqualified because it is not an open rear sight. I would like to see how that sight does in the shade of a forest on a gloomy day.
Many Klatch
The thing that we historically correct folks have to watch is "was this commonly used" and "when and who used it".
The Hessian Jaegers that were here as part of the British Army often carried their own weapons. So they were shooting short rifled firearms that were up to 90 caliber. That does not mean that all the troops in the British Army had one.
This is an interesting rifle, it did exist, it has been reproduced, it looks neat. If it shows up at an NMLRA shoot it would be disqualified because it is not an open rear sight. I would like to see how that sight does in the shade of a forest on a gloomy day.
Many Klatch
why limit to that which was commonly available?
Thats borring.
Thats borring.
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Messages
- 11,996
- Reaction score
- 5,944
Very nice.
hoochiepapa
75 Cal.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2010
- Messages
- 5,853
- Reaction score
- 7
I'm with Cynthialee on this one. Just because it wan't quite common means that you can't be H/C?
They had peeps, the question is, what did they look like?
I've posted this before...
Circa 1670
I've posted this before...
Circa 1670
I grabbed the image from a museum web site a long time ago and can't find the info I saved with it. At the time, I remember thinking that the info was credible, but I can't really back it up. Sorry.George said:
kaintuck said:
is ya read the desciption its not a "day-glow" front site, its a piece of ivory.
i could see rifles like this existing in the latter part of the 18th century but they would have been very rare and custom.
-matt
I've glanced over the rules and it appears that this is only partially true. The general guide lines state that the sight is as allowed by the match. There are matches for traditional hunting rifles where only open sights are used; however there are also matches for traditional target rifles, schuetzen matches and open matches, all of which could allow other sights. The blackpowder club at my range allows any sight at our monthly shoots, which would be under the rules of the open match.Many Klatch said:
"I'm with Cynthialee on this one. Just because it wan't quite common means that you can't be H/C?"
It is just the way the serious PC/HC following plays the game (with respect and diligence to history) if one is not serious about it then the use of the terms PC/HC should not matter. and they should do whatever they please but be cautious of the "label" the apply out of respect to those who are serious about the sport/hobby.
It is just the way the serious PC/HC following plays the game (with respect and diligence to history) if one is not serious about it then the use of the terms PC/HC should not matter. and they should do whatever they please but be cautious of the "label" the apply out of respect to those who are serious about the sport/hobby.
Yes, I think everyone understands these photos are of a newly made rifle however, it professes to be a recreation of a 200 year old rifle.
I suppose we must assume this gun is an accurate recreation of the original ca 1790 gun and does not have additional "additions" added by the builder which were not present on the original.
As for the sight, I don't doubt that the original rifle had something similar.
I suppose we must assume this gun is an accurate recreation of the original ca 1790 gun and does not have additional "additions" added by the builder which were not present on the original.
As for the sight, I don't doubt that the original rifle had something similar.
Guest
HC/PC has been hashed over more times than there were guns built. If you like it and it works, great, use it. This one looks like it is both simple and effective with the "ivory" front bead.
Mark
Mark
Following the trend of replicas which we have no access to tye original which inspired them is pretty common. I think and all mos require, particularly if a questionable and popular item is evident, this will not change in a heavy historicaly liberal based venue.
Guest
:rotf: That's subtle TG speak for... "I don't think people care as much about historical accuracy as I do and it bothers me".jerry huddleston said:
Similar threads
- Locked
