low front sites

[lacerote]

I have a question . We have all seen the low front sites on the orriginal guns . Many want to be PC but put real tall front sites on their guns. While I understand the advantage to a taller site I wonder why the old timers did it ? Surely they also saw mirrage comming off the barrel and had, at times to replace a site that was to low BUT why are SO many like that ? Was it because they thought this put the site closer to the muzzle and so some how was more accurate and true , or because it did not catch on things like a tall site.? I have a Jaeger from 1686 I will be shootng and it has a really low front site and a tall but very shallow rear sit notch , so when you aim you are allmost just putting the small ball like end of the front site on the target as it sits low in the low wide v. The site picture picks up real fast . Any thoughts as to what they were thinking ? Bill

 

[Big John]

My guess is that it is low so that the rifle would be accurate at 100yds. or better, to give the shooter time to reload a couple of rounds in a battle. Alot of military rifles have 100,300 and 600yd. sights, the low front sight does the job for them.

 

[more powder]

eagles I have read that with the sight low it will not change the p.o.i if you put more powder in it shooting at 100 yds,i have read this more then once,also say the v with a bead is real good for hunting.I plan on puting this type of sight on my English Sporting rifle if i every get it done.

 

[CoyoteJoe]

I've pondered that myself and your speculations are as good as any. :grin: It is noticeable that with cartridge guns the sights became much more "user-friendly".

 

[riarcher]

I've heard this question kicked about a few times at "get-togethers".
Some of the ideas that I've heard were;
A low sight is more solid and less prone to getting bent or knocked out of alignment.
A low sight is faster to get on target in life threatening situations with man sized targets.
A rear sight was set to be on target at a set (longer) distance with the top of the muzzle, and the low sight was placed to be more mid-range accuate.
Low sights fetched up in the brush & scabboards a bit less.
Low sights are kinder to the hands when loading a front stuffer.

These are some of the things I've heard brought up on the subject. I think they were pure speculation,,,, but could of been right.
Sounds good to me. :hmm:

 

[jimeckersley]

Like Riarcher said, I suspect that it was a practical matter. The low sights weren't as easily bent. If you carried your rifle with you all the time, and relied on it for keeping your hair in place, you'd probably use a low sturdy sight.

 

[AZ-Robert]

Evolution?

First, you start with a smoothbore with no sights. Then you put a itty-bitty bead sized front sight up there. Then, with the advent of rifled guns, some genius suggests a notched sight at the back to get things lined up a little more squarely. Then they sort out the parallax bit and realize they can make them taller if they want.

 

[Swampman]

I have no use for tall sights. I like mine just like the originals. I'm not sure why modern shooters went to them.

 

I too like the short original sights. Tall ones have two things going for them: target shooters say it helps with heat waves off the hot barrel blurring the low sight; and builders put them on so that the shooter can adjust elevation by filing down if necessary (and most of mine needed it). Lowering the front sight raises impact point of the ball for a given load. If your installed tall sight is "on the money" with your pet load, you cannot reasonably lower it. If you insist on a short sight, you then have to reduce powder load to keep your ball on bull--or the hard way is to change the rear[url] sight....in[/url] some stroke of luck the first rifle I ever built scratch was sighted in perfectly as built for center bullseye at 50 yds with a 6 o'clock hold--I did not have to change anything (using a hunting load of 65 gr fffg, .445 ball and .015 patch). It has a 'moderate height sight'.

 

[nchawkeye]

They were short, so when you wounded that bear, it didn't hurt so much when she caught you and shoved that barrel where the sun don't shine... :rotf:

 

Another possibility for high rear sights and low front sights is to file the rear sight down. Instead of replacement.

 

[boar]

Ron has it right about the heaver powder charge not changeing point of impact. Dilly

 

[TN.Frank]

My front sight on my A&H Mt.Rifle started out "tall" but in sighting in it's now short in order to get the Point of Impact to where it should be with the load I use. Also, low sights wouldn't catch on things while you were hiking thru the woods like taller ones would and they just look "cleaner" to boot.

 

[Stophel]

I also, more often than not, see old front sights that are rounded or even pointed on top...now who does that today?

I see some REALLY small V groove rear sight notches on old guns. I've been making my own sights smaller and smaller. I make my rear sights about 3/16" high (which is about the height of many old sights), and upon sighting in, the front sight is usually less than 1/8" high.

 

[Kuckus]

I agree with the Dutchman... My sights on my Virginia "smooth" .62 match his perfectly :thumbsup: . This measurement puts my round ball right on the money at 13 yards and performs well up to 60 yards with no problems and quite a few deer taken. I guess over the years black powder declined and our modern rifles have spoiled all of us with taller sights... My eyes are still top-notch at 39, but I can see where someone that does have a visual impairment (such as my son) would have problems with the lower or more historical sights. Just my thoughts or ramblings...

 

[hack]

You have to remember that and old man back then was 35 years old, and the youth had the eye sight to make those low sights work. When I was in my late twenties to late thirties I had great eye sight and shot those low sights, now I'm 57 and need the tall sights. It all comes with age.

 

[reddogge]

I'd say it was so your were shooting right down the barrel so to speak and could get on target faster, especially moving targets. It was a more natural shooting position, kind of like pointing.

Also the catching on the brush and damage would be a factor.

 

[wjschieber]

I have a question . We have all seen the low front sites on the orriginal guns . Many want to be PC but put real tall front sites on their guns. While I understand the advantage to a taller site I wonder why the old timers did it ? Surely they also saw mirrage comming off the barrel and had, at times to replace a site that was to low BUT why are SO many like that ? Was it because they thought this put the site closer to the muzzle and so some how was more accurate and true , or because it did not catch on things like a tall site.? I have a Jaeger from 1686 I will be shootng and it has a really low front site and a tall but very shallow rear sit notch , so when you aim you are allmost just putting the small ball like end of the front site on the target as it sits low in the low wide v. The site picture picks up real fast . Any thoughts as to what they were thinking ? Bill

“The sights were set low on the barrel not only for the obvious reason that they were less liable to injury, but also to prevent the rifleman from "drawing coarse," that is taking in too much of the front sight and hence shooting too high.”
This quote was taken from the web site below that tells about Daniel Boones gun. It makes for some interesting reading. Hope it helps. Bill
[url] http://members.aol.com/illinewek/faqs/boonegun.htm[/url]

 

[riarcher]

Bill,
Thanks for anouther bookmark. Very interesting reading. I'll have to investigate the site further.
Thanks,
RIarcher