Optimum Font Sight Blade Width

[Christophero]

The current sights that came on the Lyman GPR I recently purchases are these: 16AML and 37ML Hunting Sights | Muzzle Loader Sights

Eventually I'll change them out as I am not pleased with how tall they stand and how large the front bead is. My measurement shows .087" wide. At any distant that takes up a large portion on a deer chest. Preferring a more precise sight picture means a thinner front post. Too thin is hard to see in low light, but too wide isn't helpful in selecting my target spot, either. In years past I've used the fat partridge sight on the 50 Renegade well enough, but it was my first deer rifle and I was determined to make it work. The T/C Hawkin bead is better, yet I've been known to file the Skinner front blade on my Marlin to obtain what I want to go with the aperture rear sight.

My question for you fine gentlemen, and ladies, is what do you prefer in width for a thinner front blade? Opinions welcomed.

 

[tenngun]

I like wide and a six o’clock hold

 

[doubleset]

I just hated the original GPR rear sight.

This response kind of dodges/replaces your original question, but provides an alternative answer to it. I think my direct answer to it would be "a blade that almost fills the rear sight slot, but remains distinct in it -- whatever that takes ." But that said ...

I replaced my GPR rear sight with a Marble full buckhorn rear. I think I also replaced the front with a TOW FS-LYMAN-GPR, but I may have left the original on. I never thought I'd like a buckhorn sight, but I have them on both of my BP rifles. They're very easy to use, give you much of the advantage of a rear peep sight for fast shots, and are otherwise quite accurate (at least I find them so, and I shoot primarily in matches from 25yds to 100 yds.) TOW also has a couple of other (non-adjustable) buckhorn rear sights that are quite good. One is now on my Crockett .32 rifle.

If you do go to replace your GPR sights, you'll discover that unless you're willing to file sight bases in order to fit the Lyman dovetails, your selection may be quite limited.

 

[Christophero]

Taking time during lunch I put the calipers to the T/C Renegade (1987) with the large Partridge front sight. That measures .15" wide. The saving grace about this huge squared off sight is that the rear sight cut out is very wide, which allows the front blade to center well in the slot for aiming. 25 years ago I would practice at 200 yards on metal gongs with MaxiHunter slugs prone and hit consistently. Took quite a while to line up before touching off, though.

The T/C Hawkin's front bead measures .72". Though it isn't svelte I like this configuration considerably better between the two. Again, T/C created a generous slot for the bead to sit in and still have room to center the bead without overly crowding it. I would be perfectly pleased with this set up on the GPR.

The T/C Cherokee (1987) also has a .72" front bead. The caveat is that the sight radius is shorter and the bead appears larger on this barrel and the rear sight. Still, way back then, I would knock squirrels out of the tops of beech trees regularly. Fun little shooter.

The Cabela's Blue Ridge long rifle (mid 90's vintage) has a .62" front blade on that long barrel with a fixed, trim buckhorn rear sight. The slot isn't generous, and I've had to pass a shot in the dark of the early morning woods before, yet it is worlds ahead of the after market Lyman sights in the link above. If motivated enough I could always file the slot a touch wider.

The Marlin Lever action 1895 CB's front blade is .7" with a large ghost ring Skinner aperture rear sight. I would prefer that front blade thinner, but it works for the time being.

Revisiting these sights on the other rifles, if I don't go with a tang peep sight on the rear (something that is appealing, not the RS66 hanging off the side unit) then an appropriate buckhorn in the slot with the .62" blade TOW offers may be the solution.

Yes, Doubleset, I am willing to file bases if necessary. Appreciate the input. Prompted me to go take measurements shown above.

 

[hanshi]

It really comes down to how good your eyes are. Thin is more precise but I have more and more trouble seeing the thin ones these days.

 

[sheriff john]

Whatever front sight I use with the exception of "globe" covered sights is silver or white. Hunting, I've found a bright front sight is easier to see against foliage. Some target shooting may have a light-colored target - in which I can blacken the front sight (old trick from bullseye pistol shooting days). Many of the original ML rifles I've owned had silver or brass front sights, but not all.

 

[Tom A Hawk]

It really comes down to how good your eyes are. Thin is more precise but I have more and more trouble seeing the thin ones these days.

Exactly. My vision is still pretty good. However as previously noted those thin blades are hard to see against a snowy background. these days I have grown frustrated with squinting and raising up and down to get a good sight picture. I have widened my rear notch and gone to thicker front blades. About 0.080" but I may file them to an "A".

 

[dave951]

A lot depends on target and conditions. For range work on a sunny day, I like a thin square top front post. In the woods hunting in the early morning, I want a little thicker front post with a contrasting color or silver.

 

[rmark]

I just put a .120 width on my Pedersoli Tryon rifle but may change to a .09 width - I can't see a narrow blade anymore but may have over done it with the .120, as it totally fills the opening in the rear sight. But I can see it!

I'm using the Hawken style sights from Muzzleloader Builders Supply.

 

[Jim]

. . . . .as it totally fills the opening in the rear sight. But I can see it!. . . . .

How ‘bout making the rear notch wider?

 

[mcknight77]

Are you guys sure about your measurements? I think you maybe a decimal point or two off.

 

[Tom A Hawk]

Are you guys sure about your measurements? I think you maybe a decimal point or two off.

Mine was off. I corrected. Thanks.

 

[Christophero]

Good catch. I'd correct my numbers, too, but the edit function doesn't show up on my earlier posts.

 

[mcknight77]

The front sight blade on my Renegade is 0.100 thick. Works well for me paired with the peep sight.

 

[rmark]

'How ‘bout making the rear notch wider?'

I prefer just to modify the front sight, the factory Tryon sight is thin stamped steel with a notched ramp to adjust for height. But it is nice to have a front sight I can see, turning 60 hasn't helped my eyesight

 

[ohio ramrod]

Years ago I used a front sight 1/32 thick, now at 75 years young I have a 1/8 thick Ivory front sight. The thinner the front sight that you can focus on the better. But at my age I can't focus on the thinner sights.

 

[SwanShot]

I shoot a competition, ML, where we have 5 seconds To get our shot off from standing with the rifle at half cock held at waist height. I figured a second to full cock and shoulder, and if I now have to spend another two seconds trying to find the skinny front sight I'm running out of time. I thickened up the front and widened the rear slot. Problem solved, and I have no problem with shooting any other target.

 

[DuncNZ]

I shoot a competition, ML, where we have 5 seconds To get our shot off from standing with the rifle at half cock held at waist height. I figured a second to full cock and shoulder, and if I now have to spend another two seconds trying to find the skinny front sight I'm running out of time. I thickened up the front and widened the rear slot. Problem solved, and I have no problem with shooting any other target.

I shoot in an " Up 2-3-4-5 down " shoot and found the same thing with skinny sights , I prefer a flat top rear sight with a wide v not a slot . top of the foresight level with the top of the rear sight .

 

[SDSmlf]

For muzzleloaders shot at muzzleloader hunting appropriate distances, I prefer a .100” wide front sight with a wide enough rear sight slot to to allow for plenty of light on both sides of the blade. For practice I use a six o’clock hold on a 6” diameter bullseye at 100 yards, 3” at 50 yards, etc.

And just as a reference, I shoot Milsurp guns, and a M1 Garand has a .070” or .075” wide front sight. Would have to check, but believe width is limited to .100” max in competition. The 200 yard target has a black ring of about 12-3/4” with a 6–1/2” 10 ring, and folks shoot 10 shot clean targets on a regular basis from multiple unsupported positions with these guns. And many of the shooters are past the ‘full retirement’ age.

 

[necchi]

What your seeking isn't about a "measured" width that makes a good sight picture for you (or anyone as an individual).
It's about what you have already learned;

The saving grace about this huge squared off sight is that the rear sight cut out is very wide, which allows the front blade to center well in the slot for aiming.

As an example; if you put those Renegade Patridge sights on a barrel 32"s long instead of the 28", you cut a little light in the rear on each side for center.
My point is, it's a balance between the front and rear that lends the sight picture for each individual.
The Renegade sights work great for me, but so do those on a CVA Mountain Rifle, and those on an olde Jukar Kentucky.
And those 3(?), do not have the same "width" front blade.
I like a "post" front, that'll split light with the rear, a "bead",, not so much.
YMMV,