Front sights

[WESTbury]

Hi Guys---I have a question about the front sights I see on the great majority of Contemporary rifles that I see on this site and auctions. Why do the front sights have blades that appear to quite high?

I have several books showing hundreds of original rifles, including Kindig's "Thoughts" book, and I have not found any rifles having such high front sight blades. Granted the antique rifles in these books are 200 or more years old and I understand that the soft brass sight blade may have had its height reduced by wear over the years.

I'm quite positive there is a very good reason for the blades to be so high, and I look forward to being enlightened.

Thanks in advance for your answers.

[Mike Lyons]

I’ll take a stab.  Eyesight. Most of the people who enjoy these rifles now are older.   I doubt 70 year olds with a large family were dependent upon.  I doubt life expectancy wasn’t much over that. 

[WESTbury]

If the builder uses one of these high blades, does he have to compensate in some way with the sighting aperature in the rear sight?

[EC121]

High front sights leave room to be filed down for sighting in the rifle.  If you see a rifle with a high front sight it probably hssn't been shot a lot. Low sights work OK until the barrel heats up. 
      High sights will still get heat waves, but not as bad as the low ones.  I don't believe the average rifleman in the old times shot a 20- 30 round match.  They mostly shot at game with the occasional rifle match thrown in.  It was probably a single shot center-X match.  Also it is easier to cheek a stock if the sights are higher.
         Plus we are all getting older. 

       Plus you can also figure in the amount of sight height to compensate for the swamp.
     
       All sorts of reasons.  Pick the one you like.   

           

[WESTbury]

      All sorts of reasons.  Pick the one you like.   

I like em all! Makes sense about filing down when sighting in the weapon especially when not having an adjustable rear sight.

Many thanks to all for your replies.

[Mike Brooks]

It's all about the heat waves.

[Hungry Horse]

 Many of these high sights are this way because, the builder left the new owner material to adjust the sights to their liking, and the new owner never filed them down. Also, in the sixties, and early seventies, some older shooters remembered shooting an M1 in WWII, or Korea, and decided that a big blocky sight combination was just the thing for a muzzleloader. And, boys, and girls, thats how the sights sold as “Patridge”, or “California sights” were born. You virtually never see this style of sight on an intact antique muzzleloader.
  Heat waves off the barrel is a problem, when shoots are in locations that are very hot, and or target are so close together that barrels don’t have time to cool off. But, these are event problems, not sight problems. It takes fine sights that limit excessive light around them to shoot small targets, and long range targets. When you take these two type of targets out of most shoots, you find little advantage to big square sights.

  Hungry Horse

[hanshi]

In the Deep South it's not the shooting that causes mirage since guns aren't fired at a quick pace.  In that jungle heat it's the sun, if you don't have shade, or just the blasted ambient hellish temperature.

[Mike Brooks]

Many of these high sights are this way because, the builder left the new owner material to adjust the sights to their liking, and the new owner never filed them down. Also, in the sixties, and early seventies, some older shooters remembered shooting an M1 in WWII, or Korea, and decided that a big blocky sight combination was just the thing for a muzzleloader. And, boys, and girls, thats how the sights sold as “Patridge”, or “California sights” were born. You virtually never see this style of sight on an intact antique muzzleloader.
  Heat waves off the barrel is a problem, when shoots are in locations that are very hot, and or target are so close together that barrels don’t have time to cool off. But, these are event problems, not sight problems. It takes fine sights that limit excessive light around them to shoot small targets, and long range targets. When you take these two type of targets out of most shoots, you find little advantage to big square sights.

  Hungry Horse

Right....

[WESTbury]

  some older shooters remembered shooting an M1 in WWII, or Korea, and decided that a big blocky sight combination 

We trained with M14 Rifles in August and Sept '68 at Fort Jackson in Columbia, SC. The heat of the barrel from putting rounds down range really played tricks with my eyes.

[Daryl]

It's all about the heat waves.

The higher the sights, the lower the amount of heat wave problems, thus most makers
make the sights higher to start with.
Front sights are automatically higher to start with, when modern swamped bls. are used.
Modern swamped barrels have muzzles smaller than the barrels dimensions where the
 rear sights are normally mounted.
Front and rear sights are usually pretty much even on the smaller calibres, with more difference
the larger the bore size (due to lower velocities with normal loads)  With smaller muzzles, the
front sight is naturally higher than the rear sight- above the surface of the barrel, but not higher
than the rear sight, compared to the centre line of the bore.

[Marcruger]

I personally think the period sights were appallingly small, and the original makers just went with tradition.  Those tiny bumps masquerading as front sights didn't help anyone.

If those tiny sights were so darned good, why wouldn't you see them on target ranges today? 

I think modern makers are producing sights people can actually use.  If you want one to hang over the fireplace, who cares if the sights are tiny.  If you are going to shoot it, and all light conditions, you need something you can see. 

Rant over.   Marc

[Levy]

I have an old gunsmiths book by Steel/Steele, I think and it addresses the fact that low front sights keep the hunter from shooting high (in excitement and dim light).  I think the book was written in the early 1900's or late 1800's.  James Levy

[flinchrocket]

If the original style sights were so useless it makes the shooting skills of Morgan's Riflemen even more amazing.

[WESTbury]

I personally think the period sights were appallingly small, and the original makers just went with tradition.  Those tiny bumps masquerading as front sights didn't help anyone.

If those tiny sights were so darned good, why wouldn't you see them on target ranges today? 

This is a great conversation. There are more different and sometimes opposing opinions than I would have thought.

I would call everyone's attention to a study by Ed Flanagan, published in the Spring 2001 ASAC Bulletin, of gunsmith Anthony Fricker who worked in Womelsdorf, Pa. Flanagan studied Fricker's production records for the period 1814 through 1821. These records contained info on what type of longarm Fricker was producing, guns (fowlers), smooth rifles, and rifles. Also, he details all of the repair work he performed. Some of the conclusions reached by Flanagan are surprising relative the numbers of each type of arm produced. Flanagan also compares Frickers production to Leonard Reedy's and to that of George Schreyer which was published by Shumway.

Flanagan provides his personal analysis of the production records and the reasons the numbers resulted in his conclusions. One of these surprising facts, at least as related to Fricker, Reddy, and Schreyer, that smooth bore guns and smooth rifles out number rifles by a considerable number. Flanagan also gives his personal analysis of what the rifles were actually, in most cases, used for, which is somewhat related to Marc's sentences, quoted above. I recommend that all interested parties read Flanagan's paper.

I have no opinion on this based on my very limited antique longrifle collecting experience. I'm 90% obsessed with smooth bore muskets.

Many thanks to all that have responded so far. Hopefully this conversation will continue.

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

Having your sights a low on the barrel as possible increases the point blank range of the rifle.  That is the point at which the ball will strike at the point of aim, and not drop below it.  Having a hunting rifle that will put the ball on target at 75 yards is more useful than one with which you have to hold over, or show front sight over the notch to strike a mark at longer ranges.  And this works perfectly well for a rifle that fires only one shot, perhaps a couple times a day.  We, on the other hand, need a set of sights that will keep performing during a string of 20 - 70 shots in succession.  The low barley corn front sight and shallow "V" back sight are no god for that kind of shooting.

[Marcruger]

Taylor, a question if I may please?

In modern flat-shooting guns I can see mounting the sights low to the bore.  Keeps the sighting plane close to the bore axis. 

Are sights 1/10th", versus one at say 1/16" really that much of an issue with the high arching trajectory of a BP roundball?  I am seriously asking, and know you and Daryl have shot more BP than I will ever be able to.

God Bless,   Marc

[WESTbury]

"Front sights are automatically higher to start with, when modern swamped bls. are used.
Modern swamped barrels have muzzles smaller than the barrels dimensions where the
 rear sights are normally mounted."

The above quote from Daryl begs another question. Do the swamped barrels used by modern Contemporary builders have greater "swamp", for want of a better term, than the swamped barrels used in the 18th & 19th Centuries? If so why?

[Elnathan]

The above quote from Daryl begs another question. Do the swamped barrels used by modern Contemporary builders have greater "swamp", for want of a better term, than the swamped barrels used in the 18th & 19th Centuries? If so why?

My very limited collection of data indicates that original profiles varied tremendously depending on when and where - they could be very tapered with a minimal to moderate flare at the muzzle, to mildly swamped with very little flare at the muzzle (no more than a 1/32-1/16") to having a muzzle as large or larger than the breech. Generally speaking I'd expect an earlier barrel to have a fairly pronounced taper at the breech and a Golden Age or later barrel to be only mildly swamped, with the two styles coexisting throughout the 1780s and into the 1790s. Again, very limited data, mostly virtually all of which is from southern rifles of various pedigrees.

Generally speaking most of the modern profiles being produced are on the curvy side of average, with bigger muzzle flares for a given waist dimension, I think. As for why, it is because most folks today don't want a 10+ lbs rifle and like having the balance right in their hand when shooting....Also those dramatic curves just look good.

[WESTbury]

The above quote from Daryl begs another question. Do the swamped barrels used by modern Contemporary builders have greater "swamp", for want of a better term, than the swamped barrels used in the 18th & 19th Centuries? If so why?

 As for why, it is because most folks today don't want a 10+ lbs rifle and like having the balance right in their hand when shooting....Also those dramatic curves just look good.

Okay, that's a good practical reason. Thanks for your insight.