"On page 6 in post 103, I talked about how the vertical post sight,
as seen from the rear on the Bess, is the same sight picture as the M1903 through M16 rifles, so yes it was decades ahead of its time"
Dr. Dewitt Bailey wrote the dimension of the Sight
as manufactured was 1/4 long by 1/8 wide. Certainly not the lumpy square sight you keep posting, which no doubt was filed and worn that way in long service after it was manufactured.
As seen from the rear on the M16A2 below with the exception of the flared part at the very bottom of the front sight which no one actually uses even if they have good enough eyes to see it, you have a vertical post.
View attachment 122192
I cannot quickly find a picture of a M1903 Sight picture, but here is a pic of the side of the front sight, which also shows a vertical post when shown from the rear.
View attachment 122193
IOW, the
sight picture of the Bess front sight being a vertical post was decades ahead of these rifles.
Gus
Hi Gus,
The had a talk with the wife about English walnut, she said ok just as long as we get English walnut cabinets. So thats a no go.
Gus is comparing the sight on a modern military rifle equivalent to a Brown Bess ?
The Brown Bess had no rear sight, if it did it was something very crude and not ordinance issued.
The average Brown Bess barrel length from 1710-1820 was 42 1/2 inches, with a conservative weight of 10-12 lbs ‘not’ including the bayonet.
The crude square stud at the end of a long barrel, combined with the imbalanced weight of a Brown Bess with a bayonet, not considering battlefield circumstances and variables such as smoke and black powder residue.
I can’t see how it can be used in this argument of sight vs. lug or lug vs. sight.
An M14 rifle or an M16 rifle with a weight of 6.5 - 8.5 lbs, with a much shorter barrel and perfectly aligned rear and front sight make it far more deadlier and accurate weapon then a Brown Bess or even a fowler for that matter. And considering 18th century warfare vs. 19th century, in the civil war aiming was very relevant even in volley fire with a rifled musket rear and front sighted, the next generation of win the battlefield quickly turned over to the next generations of high casualty modern warfare.
At the range with by 20 and 12 gauges (both smooth), I never used the sight to aim, its point and shoot at the disc or down range with a slug.
I could imagine in the 18th century battlefield, aiming takes seconds in a string of commands, aimed shots with a smoothbore gives the opposing ranks with no aiming command an advantage at rate of fire, which is why the Brown Bess volley often out scored the Charleville and Springfields in the Seven Years War, Revolutionary Wars, and Napoleonic Wars (including 1812 War). That single command Present and fire vs. Present Aim and Fire made an incredible difference on the battlefield. In the revolutionary war British commanders would avoid direct assaults on American trenched positions after Bunker Hill, Howe was quoted as such, he would never do it again, as it gave the americans time to take down his officers with aimed shots as ordered by Warren, how many aimed shots did the British make, firing uphill ? Not many. Firing downhill with aimed smoothbore muskets at kings mountain,, same consequences.
Aside from all of that, the argument of sight vs. stud, I suppose call it what you will, its relevance to the securing the bayonet is far greater than its relevance for aiming. Especially when considering the British field strategies.
I shoot my Bess’s often, all of mine are in .77 with the exception of one pedersoli. My cartridges are perfectly prepared with a .725 ball in the .77 and a .69 in the pedersoli, I sighted my besses with a notch at the breech and lined it up with the stud which has a slight concave shape to it I did with a needle file, my groupings are on average pretty good to great at 50 and 100 yards, but only with the first 5-6 shots using 1F powder 5-10 using 2F.
The Pedersoli Bess is far more accurate then my .77 long lands. The musket while straighter than the 1742 is much lighter and the taper of the barrel is not nearly as broad, i often wonder if it will be even more accurate with a Dunlap stock.
Never fired it with the bayonet, illegal to do that in NJ at a live fire range.
