I realize that most old-time rifle makers mounted the rear barrel sights closer to the shooter's eye than I prefer.

Well, most old-time rifle (and especially shotgun) makers also made their buttstocks with much more drop than necessary or even usable in some cases. The styles and preferred dimensions have changed over the years, and we must also remember that, much like today, most gunmakers of that time DIDN'T have much actual hands-on experience with emergency close-range shooting.

IMO most of them, much like today's gunmakers, made their products to an already-generally-established style, with minor changes made in individual cases to please some particular owner or go with some particular accessory. The natural course of fashion evolution has made some of those changes become part of our modern style, but other things seem stuck in a rut.

My personal rule is to try to choose whatever dimension or style or shape that suits my own desires or needs, regardless of whether it fits the current thought trend. For example my face needs a Monte Carlo comb for good scope sight alignment so my own personal rifles often have one. Ugly? Sure, according to current fashion (!?), but it FITS!

Another example is the safety on bolt rifles. Most makers place the safety on the right side of the rifle, even though I and almost everyone I know places their thumb on the left side when stalking and shooting. Now I've always considered that particular right-side-safety practice to be rather short-sighted if not actually stupid, but many makers seem to have given it no thought at all. They just install whatever is available and don't even think about what's actually the best location.

A few realistic experiments will soon show which sight placement is quicker/more accurate, for each of us individually. I encourage each of you to try an actual experiment before forming an opinion.
Regards, Joe

Something else to ponder here, other than the exact placement of the rear sight is "the fit" of the rifle to the shooter, especially when the rifle is set up for both iron sights and a scope.

When I'm using the iron sights I don't look at the rear sight (i.e., try to focus on it) I look through it. It is a frame for alignment of the front sight with the target. If the rifle fits me properly then this sight alignment comes very quick (much like a shotgun). The real trick (in my opinion) is building the rifle, so it is useable with both a scope (usually the primary sighting system) and iron sights (usually the secondary or back up sighting system).

DMB, I don't like you!
Butch

SDH: Since the bolt action is featured here, I thought you'd pick up on my example being a bolt action. Fact is, I don't go by any rule, just make it fit the individual preference.

Once, the customer wanted the rear open sight on the ring....ahh...that's a bolt action!!!

I remember when making Kentucky Longrifles for people I always had them present (if at all possible) when I started to dovetail the rear sight into the barrel. With the front sight in place I would take the rear sight and slide it up and down the barrel until my customer had the front and rear sight in focus. Most of them ended up with the rear sight WAY up the barrel. I think the reason is that the eye needs to focus on both sights if you're using a "V notch" rear sight in order to place the front sight blade into the notch of the rear. If you're using a peep rear sight your eye can automatically center the blade into the fuzzy round aperature without it being in focus. The type of rear sight makes all the difference in placement. From memory, most of the notched rear sights ended up in the 13- 17 inches distance from the eye whereas on my match rifles I have the aperature rear sight about 2 inches in front of my eye. Stock design and how the shooter positions himself on it have a large influence on where to put the rear sight. I think that as scopes became more popular the makers just put the rear sight on the rifle "wherever looked good". But if it was fitted then you might find the rear sight a lot further up the barrel.

clowdis, that's exactly how I came by the 25" rule.
I've found iron sight placement to be an area where my experience can really help my clients make good choices.

SDH,

Did you take any pictures of the steel butt plate (at least it looks like it has one in the photo w/ the pig)? If so could you post a couple?

Thanks

No buttplate photos. It is a solid and smooth McFarland (I'm about sure, I had another right next to it).

I quite agree with Duane, there are no rules for how people spend their money, but personally I have rules for what I will not do - maybe why I never made money as a gunsmith.

But fact is, the closer the front and rear sight are, the better the sight picture. And this is the same for young and old eyes. If You have a rifle with the rear sight fastened with a srew, unscrew it and fasten it with tape a bit further foreward and see for your self.

SDH,
25" from the shoulder? Is that with an 18" barrel or a 26incher?

Personally I like my rear sights at least 6" in front of reciever, longer, as the barrel stretches.

This 21H has rear sight on front ring; http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas...20fine&cm_ite=netcon

Trax:

That is just plain stupid, showing no understanding for how open sights work.

So someone please explain the validity of a Ghost ring sight?...

Aperature sigths or, when the hole opens up, ghost-rings, are great sigths, but they are placed closer to the eye.
An open notch like the one on the custom CZ, placed were it is, is very hard to use and shoot straight. It is not fowl nor fish.
If it was a great idea, do you not agree it would be more common?

Aperture rear sights are supposed to be looked through, with the eye automatically aligning itself in the center (spot of maximum light). This centering action is subconcious and has been proven to be precisely repeatable within less than 0.005" (much less), without any thought or action taken by the shooter. The shooter's eye thus is faced with focusing on only two items, namely the front sight and the target, with the rear sight's alignment being assured by the eye's subconcious centering action.

An open barrel-mounted rear sight, OTOH, is supposed to be more-or-less precisely aligned with the front sight by a concious action taken by the shooter, namely focusing first on the one sight and then on the other, in turn, until the alignment appears satisfactory. This aligning action must be simultaneously coordinated with both the sights' alignment upon the target, IOW the shooter's eye must quickly switch focus between the front sight, the rear open sight, and the target.

This necessary switching of focus between (among) three things as opposed to two things is one reason that many folks find aperture rear sights to be more accurate as well as quicker than open barrel-mounted rear sights.

And, IMO, still another reason to have my express sight mounted further forward than sometimes considered fashionable. Quite simply, less work for these old eyes!
Regards, Joe

Not being very familliar with Mausers I thought I'd check something out with the only one I own. The unaltered Robt. Schlegelmilch 8mm has pre-1912 German proof marks. The measurement seem quite interesting. As I read the tape the one-fixed one-folding blade rear sight is almost exactly 25" from the butt, and the sight is just about 4 1/2" in front of the large ring receiver. The length of pull on this rifle is very close to 14".
So much for rules?!?

Interesting subject and one I have given a little thought to over the years. I once examined a nice half-stock cap-lock rifle that had about five dovetails in the barrel for the rear sight. Whatever town the owner lived in they had a gunsmith but no eye doctor. A friend brought a Lon Paul ( I hope I spelled his name right) rifle by the other day that had the express sights almost to the forend, it looked a little strange at first but one trip to the shoulder changed all that. I liked it a lot having both sights in focus.

I did not intend to hijack this thread, but it is an honor to incite a discussion that involved Weibe, SDH, and Michael Petrov.

I really like the rifle that started this thread. The only problem I see it the mixing of styles. I don't think the short forend looks right with the forward mounted rear sight. JMO

Kinda reminds me of the extra long quarter ribs I see from time to time. Can you still call it a quarter rib if it covers half the length of the barrel?

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Petrov:
..... that had the express sights almost to the forend, it looked a little strange at first but one trip to the shoulder changed all that. I liked it a lot having both sights in focus.

My point exactly!
Which is why I question SDH's rule about 25", which is decided from butt to sight rather than the distance between front and rear sight.
Keeping them closer gives close to same focus on front and rear, thus beeing faster for eyes at all ages.
I know this is not traditional thinking for gunmakers, but as Petrov did, try, and see what you think!

Further thoughts on 'rules' and 'traditional thinking'; I've used this scenario before, but it bears repeating (VBG).

Charlie Brown and Schroeder are playing a game when Lucy arrives and spectates.
Lucy, slightly upset: "You guys are doing that all wrong!"
Schroeder, calmly, without looking up: "We know."
Lucy, increasingly agitated: "Well then, what's wrong with you, why don't you change the way you're doing it?"
Charlie Brown, still calmly: "Oh, we can't change it."
Lucy, now about to have a fit: "WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU CAN'T CHANGE IT!?"
Schroeder, again calmly without looking up: "Oh, we couldn't possibly change it now, we've been doing it this way for way too long!"

This humorous little vignette isn't intended to offend or even irritate anyone, but rather it's a gentle reminder that 'the way it's always been done' isn't necessarily always the best way.

IMO it's A Good Thing to question and then investigate for oneself. Michael has investigated the sight question and now has some new colors available for his paintbox if he wishes; the DGJ series of articles by Sherman Bell entitled "Finding Out For Myself" is another prime example of questioning, and, IMO more importantly, actually investigating the validity of the traditional answers.

Some rules are considered rules for a valid reason, but other 'rules' may simply be the idle thoughts of the first person to write about it. IMO it's always better to emulate Michael and Sherman and find out for yourself.
Regards, Joe

I'm just glad to see good sights being put on rifles, as the manufactures are doing away with them to save a few bucks or go and put on some POS plastic set up.
I like custom rifles for the fact there are sights along with detach scope rings. When one is building / buying a DDR (Dangerous Deer Rifle) the sights should be to the customers liking. Most are shot with the scope mounted and iron sights are there for a goofed up scope as a back up system!
I agree with JBrown that the forend may be a bit short and gives the rear sight the apperance of being out of place. SHD"s Mauser (nice rifle)even at 25" from the butt looks more natural because the forend goes beyond the rear sight. The above rifle is what the customer wanted and I'd hunt with it at any given moment.
Why does the forend have to end 4" from the reciever ring? What happen to the half the barrel length forend... the "American Classic" and not the Euro copy of a DGR on a Dangerous Deer Rifle?
Times they are a changen...

Faith and Begora, I checked the rear sight location on one of my Ky longrifles last night and measuring the same way that SDH measures his I came up with 24 3/4 inches. Within a half inch of the same dimension! Steven you must be about 62 years old just like me
Blair

I always thought that the peep sight had to be close to the eye until I saw a muzzle loader that had the rear sight replaced with a peep. In handling the rifle I was amazed how well it worked.
So, I bought one from Track of the Wolf and installed it on my Hawken. Groups shrunk instantly.
Smithson rifles have that special look to them. SDH, thanks for the pics

quote:

Originally posted by srtrax:

Why does the forend have to end 4" from the reciever ring? What happen to the half the barrel length forend... the "American Classic" and not the Euro copy of a DGR on a Dangerous Deer Rifle?
Times they are a changen...

I tend to agree. I personally like the short forend look, but I don't think it works with the forward mounted rear sight. If I were to go with such a set-up I would go with a forend that is one inch shorter than 1/2 the length of the barrel. JMO

Before anyone says it..... I know the owner is happy with the rifle, and yes, that is what is important.

These threads where I learn something are my favorite.

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:These threads where I learn something are my favorite.

And everyone's being civil!!!!

Express sights in about the normal place but on a rifle with a really short forend. The possibilities are endless, and interesting.

There never was any 25" Rule, it was just something I found that worked out well. Way back in the late 70's and early 80's I worked for Green River Forge LTD. building muzzleloaders in Oregon. We used to ask the local clients into the shop, put the knotched rear sight on the barrel and move it forward & back until he had the best sight picture, just like clowdis. I was in my 30's and building rifles for guys in their 40's-60's (just like clowdis).
We came up with 25" as a good distance for out of state clients because it worked. Measuring from the buttplate (as the British do) makes the distance relative to any type of rifle. These days building scope sighted centerfire rifles I find that relatively few clients have much experience with, or any idea were to place the rear sight.

I''ve never heard of a set-up like T.Hawk's and wonder if his cartridge rifles have similar sights?

I was as surprised as anyone when the old Mauser came up with my standard recomendation.
Also, as much as Joe Smithson values the good proportions and looks I'd bet dollars to doughnuts Mark Buchanan knows exactly where he wants his rear sight, because he shoots dangerous animals with them. Most of his DVD's show big mean critters shot with iron sights.

Michael, Here is another Gibbs I just finished doing some restoration work on. Odd Britsih proportions gone WILD!

The 1905 Gibbs rifle has a 1903 Steyr/Mannlicher/Shoenauer action fitted with a 26" brl (.256 Gibbs Magnum), with the rear sight 3 3/4" from the front of the action and forend 6" from same place.
The rear sight is 26" from the buttplate, but there is a 3/4"composition butt extension for a LOP of 15", meaning the original rear sight placement was about 25" from the original butt.
Whew!
It also has the only Windage Adjustable Lyman cocking piece sight I've ever seen, but it had a spring-loaded pop-up tang sight inletted into the rear tang that no longer works because of the Lyman sight.

quote:

I always thought that the peep sight had to be close to the eye until I saw a muzzle loader that had the rear sight replaced with a peep. In handling the rifle I was amazed how well it worked.

I would like to see a photo of this sight set-up. I have toyed with the idea of doing this to a centerfire rifle but just have not got around to it. Anyone out there that has tried and what is your thoughts on it...More highjacking!!!

Here's a modified T/C peep on my T/C Hawken. It's on the tang, not up on the barrel, however...

I love peep sights, but have never tried one farther up the barrel. I'm kinda curious, too!

For a quick-&-dirty view of a barrel-mounted peep, take any issue trapdoor Springfield of either the 1884 or 1888 models. These models had the Buffington rear barrel-mounted peep with a reasonably convenient and repeatable windage adjustment and built-in bullet-spin compensator. Perhaps the best of all the 19th-century issue military sights for match shooting.

If you've never looked through one of these sights, you'll get some new colors installed in your paintbox. I wager that you'll remember the experience (G).
Regards, Joe

Steve it looks like your Gibbs forearm is even shorten that the one on the 1903. The 1903 from the forward receiver ring to the tip of the forend is 6 1/2".

I've seen the Lyman 103 cocking piece sight with windage but the one on the Gibbs looks different. I have a picture of 103's and when I find it , I post it.

Joe, I've shot many hundreds of rounds through a Buffington (when younger) and know just what your talking about.

For those of you who have a copy of "African Rifles and Cartridges" by Taylor I suggest the chapter on sights, very interesting reading. He started out with 24 1/2" and as he got older went to 26". A lot on aperture sights and good information on beveling the front sight bead as well as other information that's worth knowing.

This is the British look of a short forend and long barrel taken to the extreme. Looks like crap IMO!
6" of forend and 26" of barrel!

An early Lyman catalog said that a new cocking piece came with the sight, but the one on the Gibbs has an ovate windage knob on a very long stem. This pic shows the original tang sight that won't open when rifle is cocked because of the Lyman sight.

Best,
Steve

The old rule-of-thumb for forearm length taught to me at Trinidad was half the barrel length minus one inch, this was measured from the front of the receiver ring. IOW a 24" bbl would have a little more than 23" portruding from the ring, so half that would be ~11.5" and then minus one inch would total ~10.5" measured from the front of the ring for a 24" bbl. I personally consider this to be max, and have come to prefer lengths of 9.5"-10" depending upon the looks of the rest of the ensemble. For a rifle with a barrel-mounted front sling swivel I usually prefer an even shorter length, again depending.
Regards, Joe

The Gibbs-1903 looks a little out of place next to it's American counterparts but I kind of like the the work they did on the rifle, short forearm and all.

quote:

Originally posted by srtrax:

quote:

I always thought that the peep sight had to be close to the eye until I saw a muzzle loader that had the rear sight replaced with a peep. In handling the rifle I was amazed how well it worked.

I would like to see a photo of this sight set-up. I have toyed with the idea of doing this to a centerfire rifle but just have not got around to it. Anyone out there that has tried and what is your thoughts on it...More highjacking!!!

I've had an Ashly ghost ring mounted in a barrel island on my 550 Magnum since inception and I finally decided (recently) that it is too slow without any redeeming qualities to counter balance that fact. It started out as Brockman's Hex Sight which, no offence meant to Jim, was a waste of money for my uses. I modified it to a ghost ring rear, fiber optic front and tried my hardest to like it.

A good aperature on the rear bridge is just as accurate and much faster. For a slow course of fire, I think a barrel mounted aperature is serviceable but not of any particular advantage.

Conversely, I love the cocking piece aperature on my 375 H&H:



and the receiver peep on my Husqvarna 8x57:

quote:

A good aperature on the rear bridge is just as accurate and much faster. For a slow course of fire, I think a barrel mounted aperature is serviceable but not of any particular advantage.

Conversely, I love the cocking piece aperature on my 375 H&H:

Thank you for your reply, I also like the set up on your 375 H&H ( nice rifle). In all reality my thinking is... this is how a peep should be set or even on the rear bridge. That is the intent of an aperature sight.
I have a rear sight that I need to build for a project and at the moment I've got "writers block" on just what I think I want on this rifle.
I like Steve's idea of the rear sight being in the 25" neighborhood. I don't mind a shorter forend, but I do want the forend to pass the rear sight by a few more inches...Because that is what I am use to! I guess you wouldnt have to worry about a low mounted scope setting on the rear sight if its half way down the barrel.
Dont stop posting pictures you two, Hell, I'm haveing fun just looking...

For a look at some extremely nice examples of the sort of sight placement I'm coming to prefer, try to find a copy of Steve Hughes' book Custom Rifles in Black and White (currently sold out or close to it). Take a gander at some of Ed Webber's work on his Hagn and his 1877 Sharps sporter. These two single-shot sporters IMO are easily among the top half-dozen rifles in the book and are some of the best-looking customs I've ever seen anywhere. Please bear in mind that these are single shots and therefore may be hard for you the viewer to judge for actual inch dimensions, but your eye should tell you about their aesthetics. Ed's eye obviously told him about the sight placement. I won't reproduce the photos here since Steve holds the copyright, I strongly encourage all of you to buy his book!
Regards, Joe

Here is a pic of that rear sight. It is 11 1/2" out the barrel and 27" from the buttplate. I did some fine serrations and browned it before installation. This is the only rifle I've installed one of these on. This is a specialty application and works great for my 'old eyes'.

Beautiful!

What is the diameter of the aperture?

Thanks Tommy, that is a genuine first for me! I'd sure like to try it out before installing one.
BTW: I appreciate the traditional Hawken!