Smoothbore sights?

[squirejohn]

Pappydean,
I don't know if this is going to help you or add to the confusion, but I have two smoothbores; one a NWTG and the other a "faux fusil" (advertised as Type D French trade gun). The fusil I can shoot quite well by using the technique described by Tansaafel (sp?). However I could never could get a constant elevation with the NWTG. To compensate for this (this is my primary hunting gun) I tied a carry strap around the ramrod pipe and by aligning the strap with the base of the front sight resulted in consistent and accurate elevation. Just two weeks ago I had a rear sight installed and hit 14 of 16 clanger targets on the "back 40" which is about the same as I do with my rifle. These clangers (except the two I missed 60+ yds.) were all within 50 yds. If your hesitant about putting on a rear sight don't. Try it without one - you can always put one on later.

 

[musketman]

Was this actually aiming in the true sense or just aiming at the large body of enemy troops as a mass target?

I believe it was the second one tg, volley shooting required you to put lead down range, not so much as to pick out individual targets...

 

[Keith]

Found this interesting tidbit:
***********
Orignally published in The Brigade Dispatch,
Volume Vol. XXIV, No. 2 (Spring 1993), pp. 8-10.

It is a common misconception that British soldiers did not aim their muskets, but rather were taught to simply "point and shoot." One needs only to read the manual of arms used to train soldiers during this time period to discern that this is not true. In describing how to bring the musket to the Present, or firing position, the manual reads in part:

"...raise up the Butt so high upon the right Shoulder, that you may not be obliged to stoop too much with the Head, the right Cheek to be close to the Butt, and the left Eye shut, and look along the Barrel with the right Eye from the Breech Pin to the Muzzel..."

This method of instruction clearly demonstrates that aiming was an explicit part of the firing exercise; it was also discussed in popular period military texts.1 We also know that British soldiers regularly prac

 

[akapennypincher]

Pappydean,

To be true to the style, and sanctioned NMLRA shoots, you would not have a rear sight. These are commonly called fowlers, or fusils (french). These usually have not cheekpiece like modern shotguns

Smallpatch is 110% about NMLRA Smoother Bore Rules. No Rear Sight are allowed in their

 

[Stumpkiller]

Correct me if I am wrong. However, I believe it was uncommon for the army to waste ammunition on target practice.

I'll have to dig around to find it, but somewhere I came across a figure like five rounds might be fired by a soldier in practice per year. The officers found many other uses for the budgeted funds and supplies. :redthumb:

American Militia were another story. Powder and lead were generally supplied by the town and shooting events and drills were encouraged.

 

[jh2oman]

Correct me if I am wrong. However, I believe it was uncommon for the army to waste ammunition on target practice.

I'll have to dig around to find it, but somewhere I came across a figure like five rounds might be fired by a soldier in practice per year.

I figured this would stir up a ruckus. I'm not endorsing the historical accuracy of this article, but here is a link to the complete text. As Stumpkiller points out, althought they may have been taught to "aim", they did not get much practice.

http://www.revwar75.com/library/hagist/safeguard.htm

JW

 

[musketman]

Correct me if I am wrong. However, I believe it was uncommon for the army to waste ammunition on target practice.

Ammunition was not the only thing conserved, they also used wooden flints to practice firing as a unit, saving the real flint for battle...

 

[lizardtrack11]

Is there a good reason no rear sights are allowed at a smoothy match? if the originals had them then this must be an arbitrary rule. why not prohibit left handed locks, slings or whatever. if you think you cannot compete with someone who has a rear sight you need more practice because it's very possible to outshoot the guns potential accuracy without a rear sight. a rifle is different, a good scope on most ml. rifles would amaze you at their potential accuracy which is beyond most open sights.
In my old age I forgot why I dropped out of NMLRA and sanctiond shoots, thanks for reminding why. If they'da had em they'da used em. lizardtrack

 

[Rat]

Methinks it would be mostly because then everyone would have to have rear sights, as the guys that did have them would have a substantial advantage...and most guys don't have sights on their smoothies. In other words, pretty soon you would HAVE to have rear sights on a smoothbore to be competitive with the guys that did.

Generally speaking, most smooth bores and muskets did not have rear sights...and for a long time there was the mentality that smoothbores "never" had sights, so most smoothbores don't have them.

Perhaps as more people realise that it's "ok" to sight a smoothbore or musket, we'll see some matches for the smoothies with rear sights.

Another way to include rear-sighted smoothbores and muskets would be to have 25-40 yard matches, all long guns included. At that range the rear sighted smoothbores can compete with the rifles. ??

Just a thought.

Rat

 

[dodgecity]

I have an original .62 cal. German jaeger type smoothbore with wooden patch box, etc, and it's equipped with rifle sights, which I believe are original to the piece. I do some reenacting, and, for that purpose, I use a Charleyville without any modification. My other smooth bore flinters, however, are for informal shooting and hunting, and so, both my Tulle and Brown Bess carbine sport rear sights. They are very definitely period correct for a civilian modified arm.

 

[CoyoteJoe]

:agree: Riteon Rat. There is good reason why a fowler and a smooth rifle are two different guns. The smooth rifle was primarly a ball shooter, ment to be aimed like a rifle. The fowler was a shotgun ment to be pointed and swung, a rear sight on a shotgun really gets in the way.
The various smoothbore trade guns were light muskets and were rather like the cheap single barrel shotgun, sort of the H&R Topper or NEF Pardner of their time. I apologize if I have offended anyone by comparing their $2000 trade gun to an $89.95 Pardner, I only mean that they occupied a similar market niche. They probably also were "mostly" used with ball because for Indians and frontier farmers the cost of lead shot was too much to pay for a rabbit or a grouse. Small game could be trapped, snared, shot with arrows or even a well pitched stone. The expensive powder and lead was reserved for bigger game and for warfare.
But, getting back to sights, Use them if you like. As to match rules, I believe it is generally called a "Trade Gun" match, not a "smooth rifle" match. If you want to use sights you can always shoot with the rifles. :imo:

 

[FireMaker]

I think it is a rule that "we" came up with. There are a number of trade guns with rear sights. These guns were used both by Native and White, for bird or 4 legged, ball or shot. Museum of fur trade has examples of Dutch and French models late 1600 - mid 1700 that show rear sights, missing rear sights, etc. I would rather have a gun that is documentable than to abide by modern shooting rules.

 

[rifleshooter2]

At the risk of getting off the point there was a period where marksmanship was stressed with smoothbore. In the Legion of The United States General Anthony Wayne required his sentries to fire their muskets at a target each day at the end of their duty day. Also he organized shooting competition between the sub legions with an extra ration of whiskey for the winners. It was noted that occasionally the Infantry armed with Charleville's would out shoot the riflemen. Wayne was chastised by Knox for wasting ammunition but he continued the practice until his death in 1796. After that the army reverted to almost no marksmanship training until WW1. And to tie this in with the thread the Charleville's had no rear sight

Andy

 

[lizardtrack11]

I can imagine someone taking out their fine 100% original late 1600s trade gun and being told they can't compete with a bunch of recently built reproductions because " trade guns" aren't supposed to have rear sights and no one told the builder 300 years ago. where's my ak 47? great gun but very hard on flints.
I have a trade gun for which I made a rear sight out of a piece of coat hanger with a small notch filed in it bent into a half circle that fits into the "wedding band", by loosining the barrel in the stock I can adjust it by turning the ring. It is easily removed. I found that after a bit of shooting I could shoot just as well without it especially in low light - deep woods etc. the biggest advantage of a rear sight is it allows you to get your cheek off the stock a bit more if the gun is not fit exactly to you. Lizardtrack

 

[Boonetract]

if the gun is not fit exactly to you. Lizardtrack

Thats the bottom line. Fit. If you are paying someone to build you a gun, get it fit! If it fits, you don't need the rear site. Get yourself measured by a competent gunsmith. I have a good friend who can hit paper plate sized gongs at 120 yards off hand with his .62 consistently. His advise to me was this. Get the lock tuned by someone who just works on locks. Most gun builders slap a stock out of the box lock on a gun and send it out the door. Lock time is critical to accuracy, so is a hard frizzen and good spark. Then switch to fff (in my .62). It made all the difference in the world in my gun. There may have been some sights on smoothies back then, but why turn a shotgun into a rifle. There is no reason you can

 

[Rat]

Hmmmmmm....then why have a rear sight on a rifle?

Are you saying if a rifle fits you perfectly, you can take off the rear sight and shoot the same size groups as you could with a rear sight?

::

I hear what yer saying, and I'm not in TOTAL disagreement, but I don't think you can get the same size groups at 75 to 100 yards without a rear sight, rifle or fowler/smoothbore, as you can with them...but I've never actually performed that experiment and could be TOTALLY wrong.

But...if it were true that a fowler can be shot with equal accuracy with or without a rear sight...then why not a rifle?

My best guess is that any weapon is going to produce a smaller group with a rear sight, ESPECIALLY at 50 yards and beyond. And again, if not true, then why do rifles have rear sights?

Rat

 

[CoyoteJoe]

:agree: RITEON RAT :RO: :RO:

 

[Boonetract]

Rat I don't think I explained myself well. Sorry. You obviously can get better accuracy out of anything that has a front and rear site. But consistancy = accuracy. With a smoothie that you want to compete in trade gun or smoothe bore comps with, you can't have the rear site. For 100 yard shots, you don't need one if the gun fits correctly. When you mount the gun, and the cast is correct, length of pull correct, the drop is correct and, your stock weld is the same every time, your eye sights down the barrel the same way every time. Now add to this a tuned lock and a consistant trigger pull and you have a gun (including a rifle) that you will be able to shoot well at 100 yards. Even on guns with rear sites, if you are craning your neck to get a site picture, lifting your head off the stock, etc.... You will not get consistant group placement. Any well fit gun hits where you point it much more often than it doesn't. Knock the rear site out of the dove tail on your rifle and see if you can't hit a deer sized target at 70 yards without it. I bet if you are a guy who puts at least 200 balls a year through your rifle, you'll tear it up. :m2c:

 

[Mad Irish Jack]

:agree:with, and understand your point, Bob. I built my rifles, with help and by myself, for ME. The pull, cast, drop, (etc.) are specifically FIT for ME. My shooting buddies can shoot my rifle fine enough but not nearly with the speed I do. By speed, I mean the time I require to mount the gun and fire my round WITH accuracy. All my friend say I shoot way to fast for them and I'm lucky with the targets.
What Bob's saying is, if you consistently mount the gun the same each time and the Gun FITS you, it becomes an extention of everything, including your eyesight. I can close my eyes, mount my rifle to my shooting position on the shoulder and cheek in it's place against the stock. Image in my mind, the shot. Open my eyes and my sights are aligned. My sighting picture is perfect. So, if I fix my eyes concentration on the target (point of impact), mount the gun as always, the sights seem to align themselves. They just validate the eyes picture. Thus, if you remove the rear sight, do all the above, exactly the same and using only the front sight to verify your sight line, you WILL consistently hit your targets. And by applying all the same techniques to a Smoothbore, that is specifically fit to you, you WILL consistently shoot tight groups. And with practice comes tighter groups. That about it, BOB? :m2c:

 

[berickson]

with some help from the guys on this site (and lots of shooting) i have gotten to the point where i would not want to be a deer 30-40 yards away from me.(54cal/28ga)
70-80 yards?? maybe someday.
on the other hand i am looking for a good, small bar magnet. snap it on the back for a round ball shot - take it off for shotgun or a match shoot.
then i'll try those 70-80 yard shots... maybe even won't need it after i play with the gun some more at those ranges.