Period Correct rear sight on my 1795 Springfield repro

[Stantheman86]

I know it's kinda hard to tell what it is, but I bought one of the Hews & Philips rear sight repros from Lodgewood , but used another rear sight on my 1816 percussion conversion.

So......I have this rear sight laying around and I rested it on top of the barrel of my Pedersoli 1795 Springfield that I bought from a forum member, to see how it looked.

I know it's not a Flintlock Rifle but with a rear sight it would become a......Flint Smooth-Rifle?

This musket has a really nice trigger and real accurate for what it is, and although the H&P rear sight was used for (usually) rifled 1816 Conversions , I thought it might be "historically possible" if not "historically correct" for a rear sight to end up soldered onto a 1795 . Even still, it's an Italian repro so I don't want to get too hung up on Historical Correctness, plus the sight is a repro of an 1850s period sight so its not too "farby". Also with the attempt at a laser engraved "Eagle" and the "Springfield" on the lock plate, this one definitely isn't passing for an original anyway

So what do you think ? Does it look good and if it will also make the musket more fun to shoot......might as well have my guy solder it on.

 

[Artificer]

OK, it is probably because I did War of 1812 reenacting many years ago and we did not have "correct" copies of period U.S. Muskets back then, I would probably not add the rear sight. It would also seriously detract from the value of the Musket should you ever wish to trade or sell it, but that's just my opinion.

Then I think of John Burns, who fought in the War of 1812 and then again at Gettysburg, didn't have a problem with modifying his War of 1812 Musket to suit himself during his lifetime.
https://www.mediastorehouse.com/p/497/john-l-burns-1793-1872-veteran-of-the-war-of-1812-7595135.jpg

The one thing that does come to mind is you are going to have to have a MUCH taller Front Sight added to actually use that rear sight, should you decide to add it to this musket.

It is your Musket, you do as you please.

Gus

 

[Stantheman86]

I was motivated by how well having this Harpers Ferry rear sight soldered onto my 1816 Springfield worked out, it's actually dead on at about 100 yards, a bit high at 50 , you just have to "half sight" the sight picture.

The H&P is a lower rear sight so it would work well.

I'll give it some thought and do more research.

 

[Griz44Mag]

It's not the first time I have agitated the HC/PC highbrows around here.
I glued this buckhorn insert onto the barrel of my Bess. Using the bayo lug on front, near perfect sight alignment.
With it, I can keep "minute of deer" at 70 yards with a tightly patched round ball (.735 and .010 mink patch) and 70gr of 2f.
I will kill a deer with it this season.
Rock on brother, it's your gun and if a sight on a smoothie makes you happy and gets you better accuracy and more time to enjoy the gun, so be it!

 

[Stantheman86]

If it works, it works

In my opinion as long as no one is defacing original, historic weapons you can do what you need to do , to enjoy the firearm. I can see if someone did some crazy stuff like put a scope on a Charleville musket but putting a Buckhorn sight on a repro Bess is just fine in my opinion.

Lots of original, period smoothbore muskets had rear sights installed on them during conversions, etc if the barrel was too thin to rifle, or the shop didn't have a rifling machine but had sights on hand, they soldered them on to complete the job and moved on to the next one. For my purposes I need the sight to at least be "historically possible". That's just me, everyone is different.



I think it makes them a lot more fun to use, some need to stay the way they are, some can use a sight. It just depends on what you need to do with it.

I can hit at 100 with my sighted and un-rifled 1816 repro, and I know I can shoot tighter than this.

 

[Rat]

I have a buckhorn rear sight on my Bess, same as you would find on a long rifle of the same period. There is a Bess in the NRA collection, from the revolutionary war, that has a rear sight on it. So, they did exist.

In a practical sense, it makes the gun much more useful for hunting, and probably eliminates an occasional wounded animal. To my eye, a buckhorn sight off a Long Rifle is what looks most "natural".

 

[Griz44Mag]

As a general rule of thumb,
If I can't keep my shots on a 8-1/2 x 11 piece of paper:
Option 1 - Use a different gun
Option 2 - Get closer before shooting

Exception - 200 yard challenge to see who buys the first round. For that we hang a B-27

 

[DaveC]

I've got the "best of both worlds" with a rifled and sighted original Model 1842 (1 of just 14k?) manufactured at Springfield, MA in 1851. I've got it re-lined by Bob Hoyt with a set up of three shallow rifling grooves for use with Miniés/Burton balls. I've also got a smooth-bore barrel. I can take both barrels and the single lock and stock to a skirmish and use it for smooth-bore and team rifle musket events.

 

[Stantheman86]

That's neat, I like that

I'd be ok with getting the Armi Sport rifled 1842 so I sit at the rifle range slinging those .69 Minie shoulder fired artillery rounds down range.

I love oddball stuff, and the strange conversions that were done.

I had read that a number of 1816's, 1840's. 1842's etc were converted and rifled with no rear sight attached. So you had pretty much what looks like and would be aimed like a smoothbore musket but with a rifled bore.

I guess when there's a huge war going on the machine shops/arsenals just got weapons out in whatever usable condition they could......no rear sights on hand? Oh well ......rifle em and get em out the door.

I'd love to get a rifled 1842 barrel out of Chiappa without the screw hole and dovetail for a rear sight, and shoot round ball cartridges in it.