Can somebody explain to me......

[Shreckmeister]

I just saw a beautifully executed longrifle on the blog today.  It was truly a piece of art, but shared the
same fatal flaw I see repeated on so many contemporary pieces.  A big clunky honkin front sight that looks
like it came straight from TOW and was stuck on the rifle.   Why do so many builders do this.  The vast majority
of originals I have seen have a delicate slender front sight.  Is it not important to recreate that as well?

[alyce-james]

I think the use of big clunky front sights today, on contemporary long rifle, is the primary use for use on the range for target shooting and older shooters. Have a great day. AJ.

[Shreckmeister]

Why don't we just put a scope on it then....  I don't know why that bothers me so much.  Could be because
I haven't slept in 2 nights and I have about a quart of cough syrup in me. 

[PPatch]

Why don't we just put a scope on it then....  I don't know why that bothers me so much.  Could be because
I haven't slept in 2 nights and I have about a quart of cough syrup in me. 

I prefer this route... a scope just wouldn't look right.



Blind dave

[WKevinD]

I have been looking for those strips of front sights usually brass but I've seen silver They are a nice low traditional sight after some clean up file work. Anybody know where to get them?

PS- Shrek I just got over that cough/ cold, plan on three weeks (didn't help with hunting season)

[rhbrink]

I just saw a beautifully executed longrifle on the blog today.  It was truly a piece of art, but shared the
same fatal flaw I see repeated on so many contemporary pieces.  A big clunky honkin front sight that looks
like it came straight from TOW and was stuck on the rifle.   Why do so many builders do this.  The vast majority
of originals I have seen have a delicate slender front sight.  Is it not important to recreate that as well?

I think that I saw that same rifle and the front did look out of place but maybe the builder was thinking that whoever purchased the rifle could file the sight down to the correct height for the range he intends to shoot. Sure would easier to file one down that to add on or replace?

RB

[Dennis Glazener]

I have been looking for those strips of front sights usually brass but I've seen silver They are a nice low traditional sight after some clean up file work. Anybody know where to get them?

Reeves Goehring normally has them, that's where I got mine.
Dennis

[BOB HILL]

I always make my front sight high and file it to suit the new owner. If the owner is older, they often request a wider blade. It's easier to hide adjustment to the front sight blade than the rear sight.

Bob

[James Rogers]

A few reasons I can guess are more friendly for multi shot target shooting, allows owner to sight in to his own sight picture and developed load, common practice these days like stainless vent liners.
I am this day pondering the use of low sights on a hunting rifle I am making for someone. Still undecided but for sure there will be no vent liner ; )
Everyone has their peeves and limits and they run all over the chart.

[Molly]

Good observation.  My one original has a very low sliver of a front blade that looks like it was inserted in a "cut" on the barrel. Every replica I have has a dove tailed "clunky" front sight.  I could not begin to see the front sight of the original if I were fight'n savages or run up against a bear.  The replicas are also said to be larger than normal so they can be filed down for better accuracy (presuming the need to be) for the individual shooter.

One guy in my group claims the thinking of the old days was that the total sight picture which would result in the best shooting was down hard on the barrel.  LOW rear and LOW front.  But he also claims that such a alignment can produce something of a mirage as heat rises off the barrel.  All it all it beats the heck out of me but the old style sure looks slick!

[smart dog]

Hi,
I think the difference is that original sights may be fine for hunting and shooting a few shots at a time but they don't work very well for the typical modern shooter who might shoot 25-50 or more rounds at a range.  The heat waves from the barrel so badly obscure the front sight that it would be unusable.  I built several guns for strictly historical correctness, including appropriate sights.  I found they were fine sights for no more than 5 shots at the range, and then they were useless.  If makers in the past wanted to make guns for shooting at ranges, they would (and did) make taller sights and some with hoods.

dave

[Molly]

Good point, Dave.  I saw several period firearms yesterday and many odd looking sight arrangements.  Clearly it is a good bet those novel arrangements suggest they were not used as the typical rifle was used.

[okieboy]

 I agree with Shreckmeister, no matter how practical they are for the modern shooter, they look crappy.

[smart dog]

Hi Okieboy and Schreckmeister,
I agree with you that I much prefer the look of the low sights.  However, except for reenactors, living history folks, and a few HC shooters, no one else wants them.  They want them high both front and rear and want the front tall so they can file it down as they work up their loads.  Don't blame the builders and also realize the market is small and if makers only used low HC sights the market would be smaller still.

dave

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

Over 100 rifles have gone out of my shop, and they all get sights that would offend  Mr. Schreck!  I tried PC sights on my Voluptuous Virginy, but found quickly I could not compete because of mirage.  Sooo, 100% of my rifles have sights that are minimum 1/4" over the top flat....exception - my Hawken, which has a 1/8" high front sight - it's stricktly for hunting (and trying to beat my brother at 200 yds)

A set of sights close to the bore, gives a point blank range a little farther out than a higher set.

[Shreckmeister]

 Well I certainly appreciate all that I have learned from posting this thread.   I'm curious how many shots in short succession it takes to create this mirage affect   I also had no idea that the majority of contemporary buyers are in the sport of target shooting.  I incorrectly assumed that most contemporary buyers were using their rifles to hunt with.  Still there has to be a way to make these high sites look more attractive and like originals.

[Dphariss]

I just saw a beautifully executed longrifle on the blog today.  It was truly a piece of art, but shared the
same fatal flaw I see repeated on so many contemporary pieces.  A big clunky honkin front sight that looks
like it came straight from TOW and was stuck on the rifle.   Why do so many builders do this.  The vast majority
of originals I have seen have a delicate slender front sight.  Is it not important to recreate that as well?

The rifle matches shot in the past were generally different than those shot today. If shooting a x center match with 10-30 shooters it may be quite a wait between shots. Today with a paper target and individual shooting points the rate of fire is such that mirage is a serious issue. Making it impossible to make the shot, a good one anyway, in some cases. So the sights are higher.

If the rifle is never shot except for hunting or shot in a traditional match then this is not much of an issue.

Note one firing point and the number of shooters. Note the plank rest and straw so that its not necessary to lay in the snow.
Dan

[PPatch]

If you do a lot of shooting such as match shooting you'll know why higher sights have the advantage over the low ones. When I had young eyes I shot a lot of open sight rifle matches using rifles that aren't allowed to be discussed here, even your modern rifle barrel heats up pretty quickly and the heat waves coming off of it will distort the sight picture. At 600 to a 1000 yards it makes a real difference to be able to see your sights clearly. At those ranges with open sights the cool morning was your best chance for bullseye's, after the sun rose higher and the ground heated up the haze become pretty bad and everyone's scores dropped.

I noticed when I did some preliminary sighting in with my son's 45 caliber SMR that the slim barrel heated very quickly after two or three shots. The sights on it were installed at 3/16th's above the top flat and you could plainly see the heat waves after a few shots.

dp

[Mike Brooks]

Why don't we just put a scope on it then....  I don't know why that bothers me so much.  Could be because
I haven't slept in 2 nights and I have about a quart of cough syrup in me. 

I'm in, lets put scopes on them! At least mine anyway.....

Sleepless nights and cough syrup, I'm with ya. Had the creepin crude for a week now.

[smart dog]

Well I certainly appreciate all that I have learned from posting this thread.   I'm curious how many shots in short succession it takes to create this mirage affect   I also had no idea that the majority of contemporary buyers are in the sport of target shooting.  I incorrectly assumed that most contemporary buyers were using their rifles to hunt with.  Still there has to be a way to make these high sites look more attractive and like originals.

Hi Schreckmeister,
For me with HC low sights and on a cool day (<60 F or so) it takes 4-5 shots with a gun mounting a "C" weight 54 caliber swamped barrel before heat waves obscure my sight picture.  On a hot day (>60F), 2 shots.  I am sure a lot of guns made today by our best makers are sold to gun collectors wanting an HC piece right down to the sights.  For me, when I make a gun for someone else, only rarely is the owner interested in HC. They usually want a gun for hunting or target shooting, and one with sights that they are comfortable with.  Only in my efforts to assist Morgan's Rifle Corps and Lambs Artillery do I enjoy the privilege of making totally HC guns.  Even for myself, I want to shoot my guns well.  I want my guns to be functional as well as attractive, otherwise I would explore 15th-19th century decorative arts by making furniture.  Moreover, if we were in the 18th century, most of the folks frequenting this forum would already be dead.  Gun makers during those times were marketing to a younger clientele.  Who knows what sights they might have made if most of their buyers were over 50 or 60, with tired old eyes.

dave

[Marcruger]

Hi Shreckmeister, 

I can only speak for me.  I view my contemporary longrifle as both a piece of art as well as a fun, functional firearm. 

I am over 50, and my eyesight is slipping (not terrible, but not great).  I have to use a set of specific reading glasses to see any front sight.  I have a bag of glasses, and try various ones until I can see the sight.  I have done a lot of open sight handgun shooting over the years, and barrel length corresponds to eyeglasses strength for me. 

My rifle came from the respected builder with small, very low sights.  I am working with them, but it is a struggle.  Round topped front blade with very low rear with small round notch.  It looks HC, but is a real trial for this goober that grew up shooting with target handgun sights (a bold square post in a square notch with light to each side).  I couldn't get off a shot at an animal in the field with the small low sights.  It would take me way too long to draw a bead.

I am not sure if you have done open sight shooting with handguns?  Folks roundly ridicule sights on guns such as the standard Luger and original 1911 Government.  Those sights are way easier to use than a HC longrifle sight, IMHO. 

I am not promoting a historical longrifle with big Thompson Center adjustable sights.  However, if the rifle is going to be used, I think there needs to be a happy medium. 

I guess a lot of longrifles are bought, set in a safe or on display, and never shot.  The function of tiny, low sights really doesn't matter there.  Like a mint restored Bugatti, does it matter how it runs if it is on display only?

Me?  I want to shoot mine, so the sights make a HUGE difference.  The old days?  If you don't know what better sights look like, you work with what you have. 

Best wishes,   Marc

[Joe S.]

While I get it you want to have a historically correct rifle but you also need to hit what your aiming at.Being in the woods during hunting season is no place for historically correct if it's going to not make a clean kill.You want to dicker around the range putting different blades on and trying out different rears fine but get a set together that you know your going to make a clean kill with and who cares what they look like.

[rhbrink]

Something that I have often wondered about and nobody has mentioned it yet is that another reason the original sights are so low besides all the reasons above would be that they would be more protected by the width of the barrel flats. In the old days the rifles would have been carried around much more than today whether in a buggy, wagon, horse back or walking. Now days guys have nice padded cases and the rifle would rifle in a very well protected case carefully stored in a modern vehicle until at the range or hunting destination. In my mind the very low sights would offer a much less chance of getting damaged or bumped as opposed to the higher sights that most of us use today. Just a thought?

RB

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

Often, when Daryl and I are shooting our trail, and our turn to shoot rolls around almost as fast as we can load, the barrel heats up over ambient temperature, and the heat mirage obscures the sights/target.  So we plug the vent, and put the rifle barrel down and parallel with the ground, on the snow.  So you can clearly see the advantage to living up here in the Great White North.

[Molly]

"In my mind the very low sights would offer a much less chance of getting damaged or bumped as opposed to the higher sights that most of us use today. Just a thought?"

I think that is a very reasonable thought as well.  I don't know what's involved to set one in place like the originals but might it be an easier/faster/simpler process rather than cutting a dove tail in the barrel as on today's replicas?