Buckhorn Sights?

[arcticap]

I don't know either.
But let's put it into perspective.
Are we to believe that it took 350 years after 1450 to invent the full buckhorn rear sight when the first special telescopic sights were invented in the 1600's?
It took me only to a few minutes of searching to find photos of a 1640 flintlock long gun that had what was called a "semi-buckhorn" type of rear sight.
The little ears on each side of the rear leaf were small, but still, that was listed as being 1640 and not 1800, well after when telescopic sights had already been long invented.
Rifling was invented in 1498 and continued developing in the 1500's, with the telescopic sight not that far behind.
The world of invention is quite large, and advanced designs were not always immediately distributed world wide due to limited communications back in those days.
Maybe the definition of "period" or HC/PC needs to be better defined.
Does its definition necessarily include a geographical location in addition to a time period?
Is what is PC/HC defined according to a specific state, country, continent or hemisphere?
Does it also include the wealthy or only the poor and the middle classes?
Is there any room for independent individual improvisation, thinking, engineering and design, or does every aspect of what is HC/PC require photographic, artistic or physical evidence as proof that an item existed?
----
"The first gunsights appeared as early as 1450.
They consisted of a bead front sight and a notched standing rear sight.
Since then, other designs have allowed great accuracy in situations in which the shooter can take his time in preparing to fire.
Yet others, e.g., the open rear sight, allow for aiming and shooting quickly.
Special telescopic sights appeared in the 1600s.
In 1737, King Frederick the Great of Prussia told of a target shoot in which he used telescopic sights...." --->>> https://www.britannica.com/technology/gunsight#ref87005

 

[Coot]

I don't know either.
But let's put it into perspective.
Maybe the definition of "period" or HC/PC needs to be better defined.
Does its definition necessarily include a geographical location in addition to a time period?
Is what is PC/HC defined according to a specific state, country, continent or hemisphere?
Does it also include the wealthy or only the poor and the middle classes?
Is there any room for independent individual improvisation, thinking, engineering and design, or does every aspect of what is HC/PC require photographic, artistic or physical evidence as proof that an item existed?

I cannot speak for everyone but here is my take on the issue:
Re geographical location - yes, absolutely important along with time frame. There are countless examples of things known & used in some parts of the world and unheard of/unavailable in others. For example, firearms of any kind were completely unknown in the western hemisphere prior to the arrival of the Spanish.
The specific state, country question seems to be like the first geography question, perhaps narrowing things down a bit more - Technology and cultural norms can be widespread in some cases and much narrower in others. For example, many native tribes used the bow and arrow but the construction materials reflected what was available locally and things such as fletching feathers and colors varied from tribe to tribe enough that individual arrows could be identified with specific tribes.
Re the wealthy, in so far as there were wealthy individuals in the chosen time and location (and you are choosing to portray one), then upper class gear would be present, but not common. I recall one Confederate unit where all the members were armed with "captured" LeMatt revolvers when even one would have been quite rare.
Lastly, re independent improvisation/engineering/design, I would say very little and very minor. People today have seen countless images, movies, books, etc that give us a huge "but it is so simple" inventory of things that took hundreds if not thousands of years to develop. All of the materials and technology to make a pair of Levis existed in 1750 but no one had the inspiration to make any till 100 years later. So if you make a knife 1/2" longer or shorter than an original, fine - if someone wants to hand forge a Leatherman, just because it "could have been done", not so fine.

 

[SDSmlf]

I look at them like they are raw material, like a cast sideplate or a cast trigger guard so, I remove the "horns" and end up with a very nice, flat topped rear sight.

Sights are cheap. Easy to experiment with. Have a few that haven’t been dehorned as Zonie suggests, but only for playing with at the range as kind of a ghost ring. If you don’t like them, file them down. If that doesn’t suit your fancy, order a replacement and start process again.

 

[arcticap]

I cannot speak for everyone but here is my take on the issue:
Re geographical location - yes, absolutely important along with time frame. There are countless examples of things known & used in some parts of the world and unheard of/unavailable in others. For example, firearms of any kind were completely unknown in the western hemisphere prior to the arrival of the Spanish.
The specific state, country question seems to be like the first geography question, perhaps narrowing things down a bit more - Technology and cultural norms can be widespread in some cases and much narrower in others. For example, many native tribes used the bow and arrow but the construction materials reflected what was available locally and things such as fletching feathers and colors varied from tribe to tribe enough that individual arrows could be identified with specific tribes.
Re the wealthy, in so far as there were wealthy individuals in the chosen time and location (and you are choosing to portray one), then upper class gear would be present, but not common. I recall one Confederate unit where all the members were armed with "captured" LeMatt revolvers when even one would have been quite rare.
Lastly, re independent improvisation/engineering/design, I would say very little and very minor. People today have seen countless images, movies, books, etc that give us a huge "but it is so simple" inventory of things that took hundreds if not thousands of years to develop. All of the materials and technology to make a pair of Levis existed in 1750 but no one had the inspiration to make any till 100 years later. So if you make a knife 1/2" longer or shorter than an original, fine - if someone wants to hand forge a Leatherman, just because it "could have been done", not so fine.

Thanks for the thoughtful clarification.
I also read Zonie's sticky in another thread after I posted which explains how a geographic location is involved with reenacting. --->> https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/threads/the-modern-sidelocks-place-in-pre-1870-history.58617/

I did not interpret the question to be about reenacting, but rather to be a question about reality.
In the case of something as simple as a full buckhorn sight, there seems to be many possibilities for its appearance in reality.

It just seems more natural to me that if something existed anywhere during a time of history, then it could have existed here, there or just about anywhere else.
And since there's not always a record of any individual's attempt to experiment, I don't see how one can easily prove a negative such as that something could not have existed.
A civilian gun is not quite the same as a military gun that was made under contact with known design specifications.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but trying to be fair and objective with regard to what could have been and to the gun that TVM built.
I don't know when Appalachian or other gun makers stopped making originals of this particular style.
But I do support the buyer using his own judgement.

 

[BrownBear]

Sights are cheap. Easy to experiment with. Have a few that haven’t been dehorned as Zonie suggests, but only for playing with at the range as kind of a ghost ring. If you don’t like them, file them down. If that doesn’t suit your fancy, order a replacement and start process again.

That's where I'm at, but with a small twist. I don't even bother with the file because they're cheap to replace. For me buckhorn sights are drawer decorations rather than raw materials.