I’m struggling getting consistency out of my groups with with stock sight I’m sure it’s a lot to do with me self not spending a lot of time behind iron sights but I’m wonder if anyone had any recommendations on a different sight option that might help me out a little
T/C Renegade sight help
- Thread starter BigHoss
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
More info needed. What caliber, what projectile, patch, lube, powder, distance . Then I’m sure you’ll get all the advice you’ll ned.
50cal. Just shooting patched pound balls with 80grs of pyrodex rs .015 patches
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 4,563
- Reaction score
- 8,141
I would highly recommend an aperture rear sight. Williams FP, Lyman 57, Skinner Peep, something along those lines. You can get fine accuracy from the Renegade with the standard stock sights. It’s just easier for almost everyone to use the aperture sights. There’s a reason they’re the standard for iron sights used on military rifles around the world.
At 50 yds, I’d try 40-45 gr, at 100 yds 60-70 grains. Check your patches, make sure you’re not burning thru the material. Establish and repeat your sight picture. Put a bright POA on your target to insure consistent aiming point. If you’re casting your own ball, sprue up, if swaged shouldn't matter. Large powder charges don’t necessarily mean accuracy.
I had a very hard time getting a consistent hold with the standard sight on my Renegade. I bought a T/C "peep" sight for it when I bought the rifle. I finally gave up on the stock sight late last year and had the "peep" sight installed by a local gunsmith this winter. I haven't tried it out yet, but I have experience with "peep" sights and for me this will correct my wondering sight hold.
With lots of practice and reduced range (inside our garage) dry firing I was good enough to pass the ML hunting test, but I did not feel confident in shooting at an animal with the stock sights. The stock rear sight was kind of a shallow V on top of a sharper V with flats on either side on top. It was not a natural sight picture for me and I was constantly overthinking my hold.
With lots of practice and reduced range (inside our garage) dry firing I was good enough to pass the ML hunting test, but I did not feel confident in shooting at an animal with the stock sights. The stock rear sight was kind of a shallow V on top of a sharper V with flats on either side on top. It was not a natural sight picture for me and I was constantly overthinking my hold.
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2020
- Messages
- 814
- Reaction score
- 1,199
I also have a .50 renegade. It is designed as a hunting rifle, and the sights reflect that....I hated them. I replaced the front sight with a high patridge style, and put a Lyman aperture on the back...I hate the round front sights. Much more difficult to hold a fine bead with. I prefer 60 grains FFF (league target shooting, but I certainly could/would hunt with it...NY white tails here.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 4,563
- Reaction score
- 8,141
It’s always been a curiosity to me that the “hunting sights” on “hunting rifles” would be so ill suited to their purposes…
Shooting 100 yards at a round bullseye target with the stock partridge front, square notch rear arrangement it’s possible to get fine accuracy from a bench. Which is fine but has almost nothing to do with field shooting. The bead/shallow vee is ok for close and or fast work, but an aperture with a flat post is better for all purposes, vary the aperture and post sizes as needed.
