How low can you go...

[Micah2]

Certainly this has been posted before:
With so many front sights on original guns very low in their profile, why are many contemporary pieces so much higher?  I only ask because we seem to take great efforts in other aspects such as architecture and adornment. 

[P.Bigham]

 Less heat waves coming off the barrel with taller sights for target shooters today. Many of the barrels today are also on the lighter side. You would get less heat waves on a thicker barrel. JMHO

[Dave R]

Correct answer Paul! I would like to add a majority of the hunting in the eastern part of our country back in the 1700's and 1800's was done in the deep dark woods with this lack of light which makes it exceptionally easy to see too much front sight and overshoot the game! Therefore front sights were made with easy to see shiny metal such as silver or brass and VERY SHORT in height !

[smart dog]

Hi Micah2,
I've built several guns recently with historically correct low sights.  They were for reenactors and living history participants.  I shoot all of my guns and get them mostly sighted in at 50 and 100 yards before passing them off to friends and clients.  On a sunny day, the low sights worked very well for no more than 2 shots and then heat waves completely obscure the front sight.  Under low light conditions and no direct sun on the barrel, the low sights function well for about 5 shoots before the barrel heats from shooting and heat waves obscure the front sight.  On woods walks, in which there are long intervals between shots, the low sights work fine as long as there is no direct sunlight on the barrels for very long.  None of the target shooters I've built guns for can stand HC sights.  They all want the front blade as high as possible.

dave
 

[David R. Pennington]

I read all the stuff about heat waves and thought it was hooey. That big heavy barrel and the time it takes between shots, no way it could heat up that fast, so I built my firstun with low sights like the originals. First trip out to sight it in on a cold day in February I found out they were right. There was no way I could shoot this thing in a match. The heat waves got me after about 3 shots. Back to the bench and make a new set of taller sights.

[Pete G.]

From what I have read 18th century target matches were fired with each shooter taking his turn, one at a time. They apparently did not fire strings of shots like we do in today's matches so the low sights were not a problem.

[Osprey]

In my case it's becuase I want to shoot the guns, my eyes are terrible and I need all the help I can get.

[54ball]

 My opinion......
 I don't want my front sight looking like a sloop of war out there behind the muzzle.

[Dphariss]

The rifle matches we shoot today did not exist when the original Flintlock rifles were built. They were one shot at a time as each competitor fired his shot. What we today call "chunk gun shoots" using a rest either prone or kneeling. Lots of time between shots. They did not do "woods walks" or shoot much offhand since it was "a poor test of a rifle". So when we look at shooting a shot every 5-10 minutes or more (depending on turnout) the low sights become less of an issue. If it was a Turkey match if someone killed the bird then they had to place another etc etc...
When we look at the later rifles like the St Louis Hawken we find higher sights in many cases as pictured here from a Hawken in the Cody Museum. 
So if you are building a 1830s-40s Western rifle then higher sights are HC.
Dan

[Acer Saccharum]

Dan, the wood is too low on your fore end. Next build, bring that up a little would ya? 

[conquerordie]

So what's the consensus on how HC sights were used? I dare say when rifleman were engaged in action during the revolution, they did not wait for the heat waves to leave before taking another shot. Maybe that is why they were not as dangerous as others believe. They couldn't see their targets through the heat waves.

[T*O*F]

During the flintlock era, most of the eastern US was covered with dense, old growth timber.  Most hunting was done in low light conditions and shots greater than 100 yards were uncommon.  Multiple shots were not fired in succession and sunlight penetration was rare.  Higher sights = greater elevation...therefore allowing greater range.  As civilization moved into the plains of Illinois and beyond the Mississippi, more open territory has to be had enabling shots at longer ranges.  In addition, back east, the great forests were being cut and 2nd growth and open spaces were to be had.  Taller sights started to become the norm.

[Elnathan]

Another thing to ponder...

Van Dyke, in The Still Hunter, advocates using a bead front sight and a flat rear sight with no notch, suggesting that the eye will automatically center the front sight in the middle of the rear bar. While not directly applicable to the 18th and most of the 19th century (he was writing in the 1880s), his ideas did make me start wondering if our ancestors may have used a quite different sight picture then we use today, using the rear notch for horizontal alinement only and raising the front sight above the plane of the rear sight ("fine bead, coarse bead") rather than keeping it level as is the practice today. I know some folks think that the buckhorn rear sights may have been used like a modern aperture sight at times, which would be similar to what I am suggesting. I don't have a gun with low sights to test my theory, but I suspect that used this way, those original sights would be a lot easier to use.

Bob Spencer, over at another forum, suggested that the low original front sights may have acted like a bead, so I think he may be thinking along the same lines.

[bgf]

I made a (to me) beautiful set of low sights with a silver front blade that barely topped 1/16".  My experience was similar to Smart Dogs and David R.  Distortion after a few shots in matches.

That said, they worked like a charm in woodswalks and times when the barrel wasn't getting shot continuously.  The low height from bore seemed to make them less finicky at varying ranges, more tolerant of cant, and more durable (less sticking out to catch things).  To be honest, I loved them but needed to shoot in matches where the main goal at times seemed to be to finish as quickly as possible...not my favorite shooting conditions, but mostly better than not shooting at all at least with company, so I made a set over 1/8" high...

[Micah2]

I think I am satisfied with these answers.  My naivety knows no bounds and I appreciate the responses.  I do catch myself skipping the carving and looking more at things like sights and cheek pieces when I see an original.  Everything seems so subtle yet suggestive.  Thanks again all.