Question on shape of original Rear Sight Notches

[Artificer]

Wasn’t sure if this question belonged here on in the Antique Rifle Section. 

I’m looking for information on Rear Sight Notch shapes of 18th century rifles circa 1740 – 1770’s.  I realize that can encompass European as well as ALR’s. 

I went through both Volumes of RCA, other books and the Virtual Library on this forum and either the Rear Sights are not pictured or I can’t see what is the shape of the notch.

I’m wondering if they are tight “V” shaped such as would be done with a knife edge file, or a square bottom “U” that could have been done with a Hacksaw or File, or a round bottom “U” that could have been started with a hack saw and finished with a file as well?

If all these shapes were used, were one or more shapes more common on Virginia or Pennsylvania Rifles? 

I realize this is an almost unbelievably nit picky question, but I ask because I am interested in how they preferred their sights in this time period.

Any information would be greatly appreciated.
Gus

[Stophel]

From what I have seen, generally VERY SMALL, and "V" shaped.  With the front sights a "barleycorn" shape (usually), rounded or even pointed on top.

I only have one old American rifle (Massachusetts, ca. 1820-30) and the rear sight V is tiny, and the front sight post is an incredibly small little flat topped pin... but that's something that seems pretty limited to that region.

[smylee grouch]

I have one mid 19th century gun with a fairly large V shaped notch.

[Artificer]

From what I have seen, generally VERY SMALL, and "V" shaped.  With the front sights a "barleycorn" shape (usually), rounded or even pointed on top.

I only have one old American rifle (Massachusetts, ca. 1820-30) and the rear sight V is tiny, and the front sight post is an incredibly small little flat topped pin... but that's something that seems pretty limited to that region.

Thank you for that information, Chris.  The tiny bit of information I had been able to glean agrees with that, but since the information I had was so sparse, I did not know if it was even somewhat common.

I have read that screw head slots on gun screws during this period tended to be slim "V" shaped as well, rather than parallel sided slots that became common later. 

John Wyke's catalogue of clock making tools shows two files for cutting screw head slots and they are diamond shaped to cut "V" head screw slots, No.'s 27 and 40, though as the folks at Colonial Williamsburg explained it, the original Catalogues did not have the descriptions of the tools.  Taking the descriptions of the tools as accurate, that means finer screw head slots for clock screws were also made "V" shaped during the period.   I do not know if "V" shaped screw head slots were traditional or if parallel side screw slots were not seen as advantageous or if parallel sided screw head slot files were seen as too difficult to make or some other reason?  Still, Wyke's Catalogue shows files were commonly available to make thin "V" notches in Rear Gun Sights. 

I wonder if the pointed top of the Barleycorn Front Sights was meant as a fine point to get the front sight centered in the "V" notch for windage when aiming?  (It sort of reminds me of the thin front sight blades for NM shooting.)  A Barleycorn shape would have been very hard to bend or break off in case of accidental damage and perhaps that is at least one reason they used it?   (Just speculating here as I don't know.) 

Again Chris, thanks for the info.
Gus 

[Artificer]

I have one mid 19th century gun with a fairly large V shaped notch.

Thanks for the info, Smylee.  I appreciate it.
Gus

[smart dog]

Hi Gus,
You ask a good question.  I've handled only a very small number of 18th and early 19th century American rifles.  There are certainly some builders and collectors on this board that that have handled many original guns and should be a wealth of knowledge about old sights.  In Mullen's book on F & I war weapons and in the KRA book on Moravian gunmaking, there are some useful photos showing rear sights.  Based on my experience and those photos my impression is that the shallow "V" described by Chris was the most common.  One gun in Mullen's book may have a rectangular notch but I cannot say for sure.  Most front sights are the barly corn style and all sights have very shallow dovetails.  Not one original rifle I've seen or handled had front sights shaped like we usually make them today.  In addition, on every gun I actually handled and shouldered, I had a lot of trouble getting a good sight picture even with much younger eyes.  I had to do a lot of squirming around to get low enough on the stock to line up the sights. I could never have shot one of those original guns I handled very well.

Take care friend,

dave

[Dphariss]

In an interview of Sam Hawken he said no matter what he put on for sights the owners often changed them. I took some photos of Hawken rear sights last time I was at the BBHS Firearms Wing.










Sorry they are not better but taken through the display cover. They are typical of the a notch in many "American" rifle sights of the 18th and 19th C.

Dan

[Dphariss]

The fastest way to many the sharpest "notch" is with a small tool, cold chisel type perhaps, shaped as the notch is meant to be. Set it on the sight and strike with a light hammer. Instant sharply defined  notch.

Dan

[Artificer]

Dave,

Thank you for your comments.  I appreciate them.

My best friend in life had one extremely plain original Flint Rifle (no patchbox or carving or engraving) and another 6 or 7 original Percussion Longrifles (mostly Ohio and Midwest Guns), but since they fit his much shorter arms – they were too short for me to shoot and I don’t remember what the sights were like.  He passed a few years ago and the collection was sold, so I can’t check those rifles anymore.

The original circa 1850 .36 cal. halfstock percussion rifle I owned 35 years ago seemed to have had a more modern style front sight blade, though I have to sheepishly admit I don’t remember what the Rear Sight notch looked like.  The blade could have been a very old replacement as it looked far from modern, but I did not know if it was original or not.

In more recent years, I have looked at more original rifles, but did not really pay good attention to the sights.  Of course most of them were not mid to late 18th century rifles.  Guess I should keep my eye out and look more carefully at original sights from now on. 

Thanks again for your comments.
Gus

[Artificer]

The fastest way to many the sharpest "notch" is with a small tool, cold chisel type perhaps, shaped as the notch is meant to be. Set it on the sight and strike with a light hammer. Instant sharply defined  notch.

Dan

Dan,

Thanks for showing those GREAT pictures of the Hawken Rear Sights.  Do you happen to know why those sights had the horns on them?  Was it meant to shade the sight in bright sunlight?

Gee, never thought about making the "V" notch with a sharp cold punch.  Thanks for adding that.  I do appreciate it.
GUs

[Dphariss]

The low sights kept the ball closer to the line of sight than taller sights will. More important for small game than large it also kept it closer to LOS for the 40-60 yard matches that were apparently common. We have to remember that especially in parts of the east there were a lot of rifle matches. I think more than people realize. The chunk matches of today are the remnants of this.  The sports super stars of the mid-late 1800s were rifle shooters and there was considerable money involved in Schuetzen shooting after the Civil War. In large matches the winner could take home several thousand in Gold by the 1870-80s.
In the west 1830s and onward it seems the sights were higher in relation to the bore at least in the west as the photos I posted seem to show. But these rifles were used in different conditions than the average eastern rifle was and generally the game was bigger and the ranges were longer.

Dan

[Dphariss]

Dan,

Thanks for showing those GREAT pictures of the Hawken Rear Sights.  Do you happen to know why those sights had the horns on them?  Was it meant to shade the sight in bright sunlight?

Gee, never thought about making the "V" notch with a sharp cold punch.  Thanks for adding that.  I do appreciate it.
GUs

I do not have the foggiest idea why this was done. But I am sure there was a reason though it may have been that they looked "cool". This carried over into open sights on breechloaders with names like "Rocky Mountain" "Buckhorn"  etc.  Most 1874 Sharps shipped west had "buckhorn" rear sights and more were installed by gunsmiths out here. Most Winchesters had a Buckhorn version too. There were various sometimes pretty extreme styles such as the "Full Buckhorn offered by Marbles to this day.
http://www.marblearms.com/rearSights.html.
All are direct descendants of the sights on the Hawken and other rifles of the past.
Dan

[Artificer]

Dan,

Thanks for showing those GREAT pictures of the Hawken Rear Sights.  Do you happen to know why those sights had the horns on them?  Was it meant to shade the sight in bright sunlight?

Gee, never thought about making the "V" notch with a sharp cold punch.  Thanks for adding that.  I do appreciate it.
GUs

I do not have the foggiest idea why this was done. But I am sure there was a reason though it may have been that they looked "cool". This carried over into open sights on breechloaders with names like "Rocky Mountain" "Buckhorn"  etc.  Most 1874 Sharps shipped west had "buckhorn" rear sights and more were installed by gunsmiths out here. Most Winchesters had a Buckhorn version too. There were various sometimes pretty extreme styles such as the "Full Buckhorn offered by Marbles to this day.
http://www.marblearms.com/rearSights.html.
All are direct descendants of the sights on the Hawken and other rifles of the past.
Dan

Thanks for the reply Dan,

I have read explanations that Buckhorn sights had the horns to use as a quick long range sight, but that never made sense to me as there is usually too much open space between the horns to aim well for windage and often the open space between the horns seem way too high.  I have also read where it might have been an attempt to get something close to an aperture sight to allow the eye to generally pick up the "hole" fast and then go to the fine aiming point.  Not sure if that holds water, but I don't know.

With your knowledge of western used flint and percussion rifles, I also wonder if you have ever seen or heard of "Express" sights used during the period.  I'm referring to a VERY shallow "V" notch and Barleycorn or Bead sight?

Again, thanks for the info.
Gus

[hanshi]

Though only an arguable possibility, a well defined buckhorn could be used as a sort of "peep" sight for longer range (I've tried it and it does work) and the gap between the horns could be used for truly distant targets.  I prefer simple "flat", low sights and consider the buckhorn a solution to a dubious problem.  I see no use whatsoever for a "semi buckhorn";  either _______ or get off the pot, I say.

[Artificer]

Though only an arguable possibility, a well defined buckhorn could be used as a sort of "peep" sight for longer range (I've tried it and it does work) and the gap between the horns could be used for truly distant targets.  I prefer simple "flat", low sights and consider the buckhorn a solution to a dubious problem.  I see no use whatsoever for a "semi buckhorn";  either _______ or get off the pot, I say.

LOL !  Thanks for your thoughts and good humour.
Gus

[Elnathan]

Something that may or may not be relevant:

In The Still Hunter , originally published in the 1880s, Theodore van Dyke suggests using a flat-topped rear sight without any notch at all - "You merely raise the rifle and look for the proper amount of front sight, or 'the right bead'". (page 357 on the electronic version on Google books)

I wonder if they were using a different sight-picture than we do today, using the little notch just to line up the sights on the horizontal plane and then drawing a "fine bead" or a "coarse bead" as necessary without trying to line up the top of the front sight with the top of the rear sight, which I believe is the usual procedure today.

Van Dyke is also a big fan of low sights, as he claims that they are easier to acquire quickly and less likely to catch on things. (chapter 32) He was writing after the muzzle-loading period, but he was a lot closer to the era in question than we are and he learned to shoot decades before he wrote the book...

[David R. Pennington]

The buckhorn can act as a rangefinder. Think of the rifle in the hands of the original user as a tool that he used every day and he would instinctively gauge the range by how much of the target was framed in that buckhorn, i.e. buffalo deer etc.,.

[Darrin McDonal]

I have thought about this question for a number of years now and wonder why, with new books showing up almost monthly now, a book on sites hasn't been published yet. Can you imagine the cool details it could unveil?
Darrin

[Dave B]

Here is one that I thought interesting

[Dave B]

Here are a couple more that are interesting.

[Curtis]

Dave, those first two pics you posted are of a Leman rifle I own.  I have often wondered how it might work as a longer range sight but I confess I have only shot at a few closer range stumps and squirrels, 50 yards and less.  Mostly less....

Curtis

[Artificer]

Something that may or may not be relevant:

In The Still Hunter , originally published in the 1880s, Theodore van Dyke suggests using a flat-topped rear sight without any notch at all - "You merely raise the rifle and look for the proper amount of front sight, or 'the right bead'". (page 357 on the electronic version on Google books)

I wonder if they were using a different sight-picture than we do today, using the little notch just to line up the sights on the horizontal plane and then drawing a "fine bead" or a "coarse bead" as necessary without trying to line up the top of the front sight with the top of the rear sight, which I believe is the usual procedure today.

Van Dyke is also a big fan of low sights, as he claims that they are easier to acquire quickly and less likely to catch on things. (chapter 32) He was writing after the muzzle-loading period, but he was a lot closer to the era in question than we are and he learned to shoot decades before he wrote the book...

Elnathan,

Interesting point on the possible difference in sight picture they used then compared to today. 

Perhaps those who have looked through original sights and especially 18th century sights can help out here.  Are the barleycorn front sights wider or thinner than the small “V” notch in the rear sight when the rifle is mounted and one looks through the sights?  If they appear thinner than the “V” notch, that would seem to suggest the front sight was centered in the notch for windage as we do today.  If the front sight is wider than the notch, then they would have been using at least a slightly different sight picture than we are used to.

I am also not sure what was “normally” meant when original accounts mention something on the order of  “ drawing” or “taking a fine bead” when sighting and that could have varied by the individual and time period.  In the account you mentioned, it seems to have been used as a way of adjusting elevation.  In other accounts it seems to mean they took a little more time to carefully aim than what one may have used in hunting, perhaps as we do when shooting targets in competition? 

Van Dyke’s comments about a low front sight not catching on things seems to have been extremely important on earlier front sights.  The rounded edges everywhere, at least in part seem to have been designed for just that purpose? 

Thanks for your reply and noting this information.
Gus

[Artificer]

The buckhorn can act as a rangefinder. Think of the rifle in the hands of the original user as a tool that he used every day and he would instinctively gauge the range by how much of the target was framed in that buckhorn, i.e. buffalo deer etc.,.

David,

Never thought about that.  Perhaps that is part of the reason the Hawkens mentioned sights were usually changed by the owners as Dan mentioned earlier?

Thanks,
Gus

[Artificer]

I have thought about this question for a number of years now and wonder why, with new books showing up almost monthly now, a book on sites hasn't been published yet. Can you imagine the cool details it could unveil?
Darrin

Darrin,

Interesting thought.  Not sure why more emphasis has not been placed on illustrating the sights on period guns, but perhaps folks are more interested in the rest of the details of the rifles and guns?
Gus

[Artificer]

Dave B,

GREAT pictures, thank you.  Wow, that rear sight shown in the first two pictures seems pretty unique.  Thanks for taking the time to share those!

Curtis,
Since you own the rifle with that rear sight and have shot it, do you have any thoughts on how it compares to other types of rear sights?  That would be very interesting.

Thank you both for sharing the info. 
Gus