• 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

Original English 1790-ppep sight!!!

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
That was my thoughts very dangerous game up close ,early morning or at last light .
 
Old Ford said:
Muzzleloader Building Supply ?
Great, I will try to find it.
That sight will fit well on a new rifle that I am working on.
Thank you for the pictures
Fred
It's item #21110; and just to give you a heads up, this sight requires an extra tall front sight, approximately 1/2" above the barrel flat. You also need to pay attention to the screw on the barrel tang as the sight will fit right over the top of it.
 
Just some thoughts on rifle sights in general. As some have said, there can be no doubt that peep sights existed even before gunpowder and at least some early rifles no doubt wore them. Some people still believe that peep sights are not good for dim light shooting, I guess they think the military of the world don't fight at night. A large aperture peep sight set close to the eye, which the one of this gun is NOT, is far better than an open rear sight for shooting under any conditions of light or dark. On the other hand, a peep sight set out on the barrel is about the worst rear sight you could invent. The one on this rifle is a bit too far forward but not so bad as some which are supposed to replace the open rear sight.
The open sights on most original muzzleloaders are very poor. They had the idea that fine shooting required fine sights and ignored the fact that one must be able to see the sights to shoot with them. A tiny pointed front blade which glimmered and reflected light, set 1/8" above the barrel where it would be totally obscured in heat waves was to be aligned with a tiny scratch of rear V notch. A person with exceptional eye sight could do OK with such sights under ideal conditions of light, neither too dim nor too bright, but even that person could do better with better sights. Our muzzleloaders today wear much better sights, high enough to be above the haze of heat waves and of a design which permits a consistent hold. I'm 70 years old, have worn specs all my adult life and I can still do OK with good open sights on the target range. If I had to shoot the sights found on original antique rifles I'd be strictly a shotgun man. :haha:
 
The raising of hackles over the Historical Correctness of peep sights and the comment about the sights on original rifles brings up the question, why don't the modern reenactors and other modern historians complain about the sights used on almost all of the currently made rifles?

No, I'm not speaking of those ugly boxy adjustable sights on the factory made guns. No one likes those things.

I am speaking about the front sight blades that stick up more than 1/8 of an inch tall and the fixed rear sights that are often 3/16" to 1/4" (or more) high.

If folks really want to talk about being HC or PC, they should be making negative comments and stating that these tall sights were almost never seen back in the days. They are NOT historically correct or period correct.

Now, most of us will gladly overlook this little fauxpas , but someone who gets upset about the presence of a peep sight should (I would think) also be upset with the tall sights on almost everyone's rifles and pistols. :stir:
 
" If folks really want to talk about being HC or PC, they should be making negative comments and stating that these tall sights were almost never seen back in the days. They are NOT historically correct or period correct"

This comparison comes up very often when folks compare the "replicas" and the originals as do many other "compromises" and it is all about the level of accuracy individuals strive for, no one is trying to make anyone do anything they do not wish to do....only to look to a consistant standard of terms and acceptable designations of sorts, many just want to be very loose in their terminology and acceptance of things but toss around the terms and norms of the more studied level of players.
 
Zonie said:
The raising of hackles over the Historical Correctness of peep sights and the comment about the sights on original rifles brings up the question, why don't the modern reenactors and other modern historians complain about the sights used on almost all of the currently made rifles?

No, I'm not speaking of those ugly boxy adjustable sights on the factory made guns. No one likes those things.

I am speaking about the front sight blades that stick up more than 1/8 of an inch tall and the fixed rear sights that are often 3/16" to 1/4" (or more) ifolks really want to talk about being HC or PC, they should be making negative comments and stating that these tall sights were almost never seen back in the days. They are NOT historically correct or period correct.

Now, most of us will gladly overlook this little fauxpas , but someone who gets upset about the presence of a peep sight should (I would think) also be upset with i tall sights on almost everyone's rifles and pistols. :stir:

There are many serious reenactors that do pay attention to that feature...its just that very few frequent this website
 
"There are many serious reenactors that do pay attention to that feature...its just that very few frequent this website'

Good obsevation Capt...I wonder "why" it seems there used to be quite a few of that level (various levels not meant to be "better or worse" just different levels of historical interest)of folks here as I recall,...another mystery, I do not have a clue where or why they went. Maybe aliens and anal probes?
 
tg said:
"There are many serious reenactors that do pay attention to that feature...its just that very few frequent this website'

Good obsevation Capt...I wonder "why" it seems there used to be quite a few of that level (various levels not meant to be "better or worse" just different levels of historical interest)of folks here as I recall,...another mystery, I do not have a clue where or why they went. Maybe aliens and anal probes?
And why do all you complainers stay here? If you don't like the level of user knowledge, why not go someplace where you will feel more at home? Find an "historical experts" forum and join. :confused:
 
Maybe its attitudes like yours that chase them away Jack.
I like knowing the history, whether I choose to use it or not, I like knowing, and those guys that are WELL versed in it should be welcomed and thanked for their knowledge. So what if they chime in and remind us of what the truth of any situation. Whats the harm? Its the willing to be ignorant that have got....... never mind.
Robby
 
Zonie, those original rifles were not used for target shooting 15 or 20 shots in a 30 minute period. They were used for hunting and occasionally in warfare. I have read a first person account of a shooter at an over the log contest "laying his gun in the grass to get rid of the heat waves". That is a slow paced shoot with 15 shots in 3 or 4 hour period and yet he was having trouble seeing his sights.

If the folks of the time had enough powder and lead to just shoot round after round at targets, they would have had taller sights as well. So although we try to have our guns and gear as historically accurate as possible, the reality of trying to shoot accurately with the original sights after 4 or 5 shots leads us to raise the front and rear sights.

I also shoot with glasses that are better than were available 150 years ago and my Titanium knees are also not HC, but we do what we can do.

Many Klatch
 
I am one of those in the reenactment minority, I enjoy the strange and unusual historical items. However I do not try to pass it off as common place, I accept them for what they are.

Also, I follow the local rules, if the group I am shooting with wants to shun loading blocks and short starters, I will load thumb pressed balls with the rest of them. For my personal shooting I want the most accurate load I can develop.

I am also a fan of open sights but a few of my old shooting buddies have had to switch to peeps.
 
I am a member of a number of Muzzleloader clubs. We have never run anyone off that showed interest. The rules in most clubs are anything but inlines are allowed in competition. If all the new people have is an inline they could shoot it but their score wouldn't count. Most of us have spare guns that we would be glad to loan. Thompson Center Hawkens are OK. Most of us shoot flintlocks, but almost all of us started out with a TC Hawken.

If this is a club that attends shoots in period gear, then the new members have one year to assemble a passable outfit. That can mean as little as a pair of broadfall pants and a shirt. Total cost there is about $50. We stretch the rules as far as we can to accommodate a serious new member.

On the other hand, I have seen reenactors with a $1,500 outfit and a gun that has never been cleaned or shot with a lead projectile. So money isn't the problem there.

I don't know as we can make it much easier to join. Most new muzzleloader shooters are only interested in an extra week of deer season and couldn't care less about anything that we discuss on this forum.

Many Klatch
 
Many Klatch said:
Zonie, those original rifles were not used for target shooting 15 or 20 shots in a 30 minute period. They were used for hunting and occasionally in warfare. I have read a first person account of a shooter at an over the log contest "laying his gun in the grass to get rid of the heat waves". That is a slow paced shoot with 15 shots in 3 or 4 hour period and yet he was having trouble seeing his sights.

If the folks of the time had enough powder and lead to just shoot round after round at targets, they would have had taller sights as well. So although we try to have our guns and gear as historically accurate as possible, the reality of trying to shoot accurately with the original sights after 4 or 5 shots leads us to raise the front and rear sights.

I also shoot with glasses that are better than were available 150 years ago and my Titanium knees are also not HC, but we do what we can do.

Many Klatch

Quite right, the average 18th century guy really couldn't afford the time, much less the powder and lead, to do a great deal of shooting. In my own experience it really doesn't take a great deal of shooting to display the problems of a low sight line. I built myself a Bucks County smooth rifle and thinking that it won't be a tack driver anyway and I'll probably not use it in competition I decided to go with traditional very low sights, the front being just 1/8" above the top flat. My first shooting attempt was on a bright sunny winter day of about 40 degrees. Even the very first shot saw an image of the front bead swimming in shimmering waves. I returned home and replace those sights with a front blade 5/16" above the top flat and have had no more trouble since. That 5/16" sight line is still much lower than the sights on most factory built rifles and even many custom rifles have half inch tall sights. I'm just saying I found a tremendous difference between 1/8" and 5/16".
 
I think one reason we don't see more original guns with peep sights is the average mountain man was onlt about 25 years old. They never needed any vision aids. Same goes for frontiersman. 35 was old on the frontier. Go look at pioneer graveyards. Heck, most of us old fossils wouldn't last 3 days out there then.
 
"And why do all you complainers stay here?'

I do not see any complaints abput where people went and why just questions..To see a lot of complaints look at Mr Wlsons posts as a general rule of thumb, which is fine most folks do not drop a wad in their clout if someone does complain about something.
 
"I do understand the need for these rules, but I am left wondering if the rules are such that they are driving away people who might join otherwise."

Perhaps, but I think any MLer can find a group or place that is common to his/her level of understanding and operation of the hobby. Way to much in the way of a right or wrong is read into any discussion of the understanding of the definitions and such which define the various levels of the hobby, it is not a competition to see who is "more righter" about more stuff but a chance to share information as best we can using the best information available even if things do not work out to be some of the things or practices which we have come to be quite fond of. I do not see it changing much as for the most part the passion for the facts based on what historical evidence we have is the minority in this hobby and the "do what you want and call it what you want" faction is very strong indeed and by definition requires little effort in the way of study and knowedge of history...it is an easier way to play the game.
 
Number19 said:
Rifleman1776 said:
There is a supplier with a nice looking rear peeper that is very traditional in appearance. I have tried to find but no success. Anybody know who this supplier is?
Here is my "traditional" peep sight, which is available from Muzzleloader Builder Supply. You will notice that I do not have the aperture screwed into the sight in these photos.
ApertureSight_2.jpg
Great looking sight!
Old Ford
 
Back
Top