Question about buckhorns

[lovedogs]

Something I've been wanting to know for years and now that I have a rifle with buckhorn sights I just have to ask. I've been shooting for 52 yrs. and have never had them on a rifle before. Now my new Marlin has them and I'm curious. With my aging eyes I can't see the notch in the bottom of the rear sight so I may not get much use out of them. I'm probably going to wind up with a set of receiver sights with apertures anyway. But this all prompts the question... what's the idea behind buckhorn sights? They aren't anywhere near anything precise. I can see if you were in a hurry and trying to catch up to a fast-moving deer at short range you might be able to use the buckhorn or the semi-buckhorn rear sight kind of like a big aperture. Can any knowledgable shooter give me some history? Pointers? Advice?

[Dale53]

Advice - trash them. Townsend Whelan "panned" these 75 years ago and they haven't got one whit better. A good receiver sight (or scope or red dot) are WORLD's better.

Dale53

[grumpy one]

As I understand it buckhorn sights were supposed to help with versatility. In the brush, or any time you had to take a snap shot, target acquisition was quicker. On the other hand set-piece shots were slightly impaired because the buckhorns reduced the field of view around the target. Hence you should only find them on rifles intended for regular snap-shooting, probably in the woods, possibly in poor light.

I personally dislike receiver sights in the woods - I have to lose sight of the quarry while I find the aperture, and that is an experience that feels lousy. If the quarry were capable of hurting me, it would be unacceptable in fact. Way back when I occasionally pursued feral pigs I had a Lyman receiver sight as well as the battle sights on my K98. When I went into the lignum I just pressed the release button, lifted off the Lyman sight, and put it into my shirt pocket. When I came back out into the open I put the Lyman back on again. I suppose this is an argument for having the scope (if you use one) in scout position so you can see the quarry while you are shouldering and setting up the shot - you never need lose sight of it. However scout-positioned sights are less convenient for set-piece shots.

You could try experimenting, with an unloaded rifle of course, with how easy it is to shoulder the rifle and take snap shots using open sights with and without a buckhorn at fairly short range. I don't think the difference amounts to much, but I've never actually used one.

[Dale53]

Using an aperture sight for "quick action" is merely a matter of training. It IS important to use a large enough aperture for serious work. The "ghost ring" is ideal and much quicker than using a conventional open sight.

I won a number of SERIOUS matches in Rifle IPSC at ranges up to and including 300 meters including some VERY fast work using the issued peep sight on a HK 91 (.308 German battle rifle). Like I said, just a matter of training.

Dale53

[NVcurmudgeon]

For quick target aquisition and good enough precision at woods ranges, take out the aperture and use the fuzzy outer ring.

[Char-Gar]

Grumpy ol Pal, obviously you have never had a woods rifle that fits you, or else you have never been instructed on how to snap shoot with a receiver sight.

There is no sight faster than a receiver with a generous apeture. Your eye never leaves the game. When the rifle comes up and is on your shoulder, your are looking through the apeture.and the front sight is where you want it to be. All that is left is to follow though while pressing the trigger.

All it takes is a rifle that fits and practice. A snap shooting rifle is altogether different from most rifles as it must fit like a fine shotgun.

I have made several snap shooting/woods/brush rifles in my life and am working on one now, but a standard Winchester 94 carbine with a good receiver peep works as good as any for me. I also have a Krag with the barrel shortened to 22 inches and the forend wood shortened accordingly that is also a fine snap shooting rifle. All our bodies are different and what works for one, might not work for another.

When game is sighted you take a half step forward with your off side foot and point your foot at the game. You don't have your elbows in the high 90% military offhand, but drop them into shotgun postion. With your eye on the game, the rifle comes to the shoulder and when it hit the shoulder, you should be ready for the shot.

If the game is running, you can point your foot at where you intend for the rifle to go off and swing and follow through just like skeet shooting. All of this is more like shotgun shooting than rifle shooting. If you are a decent wingshot, you can catch on pretty quick once you learn how to adjust your leed.

All of this was know to hunters in the days or yore, but seems to have passed from the knowledge of today's hunters.

[Uncle R.]

There is no sight faster than a receiver with a generous apeture.

When game is sighted you take a half step forward with your off side foot and point your foot at the game. You don't have your elbows in the high 90% military offhand, but drop them into shotgun postion. With your eye on the game, the rifle comes to the shoulder and when it hit the shoulder, you should be ready for the shot.

If the game is running, you can point your foot at where you intend for the rifle to go off and swing and follow through just like skeet shooting. All of this is more like shotgun shooting than rifle shooting. If you are a decent wingshot, you can catch on pretty quick once you learn how to adjust your leed.

All of this was know to hunters in the days or yore, but seems to have passed from the knowledge of today's hunters.

Chargar:
An excellent description of the proper technique for shooting deer in the brush. I would only quibble on one point - while big aperture receiver sights ARE much better than open sights I rate a proper scope the fastest of all.
After 39 years of Wisconsin deer hunting and well over 50 deer taken at ranges from 5 to 350 yards I have some pretty hard-headed opinions on the best equipment.
For my own deer hunting I like a 2-7 x 36 scope - it gives a huge field of view when set at 2x and enough precision for those 300 yard shots when you turn it up. A 3-9 x 40 works just about as well although it's more magnification than I like for close brush shooting. And please no range finder or ballisti-comp or Boone & Crockett reticules for me - when I have ONE SECOND to make the shot all I want to see in that scope is a single clearly defined and centered aiming point. I like a bold duplex just fine.
You're right about the practice requirement. Gun mounting and quick sighting practice can be done with dry firing or, er - "wet." :roll: One of my favorite range drills is using a plain piece of 8-1/2 x 11 paper set "landscape" at 25 yards. It's a target roughly the size and shape of the kill zone of a whitetail. Two shooters compete side-by-side with a third to referee. Start with loaded and locked rifles at port arms. "At the signal put a hole in your paper." First hole wins. It teaches fast mounting and sighting, trigger slapping without flinching, and the concept that "close enough" is good enough. All are akin to shotgunning, and sacriligeous to precision riflemen. Oh well - there's venison in my freezer...
:-D
Uncle R.

[felix]

Yep, that was very good, UncleR. I grew up thinking I wanted the most accurate gun in town. Well, it wasn't too long, say 15-20 years, that I learned what I really wanted is to have fun. Taking the most accurate gun in town out of the house became WORK after I learned, after another 5 years, that an accurate gun requires an accurate system. The back end portion of that system was me, and I finally realized what I really wanted was merely to pop shotgun shells that are hiding behind weeds, or seeing how high I can push beercans up into the air. ...
felix

[KCSO]

When I was young my great Grandfather showed me how to use buckhorn sights. This is some hard to do without an illustration but here goes...
First range is a fine bead with the silver blade held well down in the notch and should be dead on at say 75 yards. A full bead with the sight even with the top of the notch will be on at 20 rods (110 yds) The sight held in the center of the buckhorn like a big peep is on at 40 rods and is good for night hunting and close jump shooting. The sight helt level with the top of the horns is on at 50 or 60 rods depending on the gun. Therefore you have the advantages of a ladder sight with nothing to more or get out of order. This only really works for someone who has one rifle they use all the time. When I shot my Hawken for matches and demos and hunting regularly I found I could smack a cow pie at just about any range out to 300 yards by using this technique. After I got more rifles i couldn't remember the drill for each gun as each had a diferent trajectory. My father in law had a semi buckhorn on his M70 winchester and shot the same rifle from 1948 to 2000. He always shot irons and could hit anything out to 300 yards holding either a fine or course bead. He claimed that no one needed buckhorns anymore because modern rifles shot flat as far as a man needed to shoot at anything. I usually listend to Dad as he could throw a d battery into the aid and hit it with his 22 or pop off a running coyote at 200 yards. I have killed plenty game with a buckhorn so I don't feel handicaped and if I were shooting ONE low velocity rifle all the time i would not feel any need to change from a buckhorn. I sure wouldn't want to shoot highpower with a set though.

[rmb721]

One use for a buckhorn sight is on a muzzleloader where it is only legal (as in PA)to use open sights. You can use the buckhorn as a receiver sight and still be legal.

[lovedogs]

Thank all of you for your insights on this. It's helpful. I have already been out "discovering" some of the things mentioned by you guys. I think the buckhorn may well work for someone with good eyes. Mine aren't really bad but I do wear glasses and have a real hard time seeing the brass bead when it gets down into the really small notch in the rear sight. I've always been more of a precision shooter type than a shotgunner. I have done some shotgunning so do understand all the concepts presented here. In some of my competition shooting I've learned to use aperture sights effectively, too. And I can still use them well. I'm seriously considering a Williams Fool-Proof. We can change aprertures for different light situations and eye capabilities. And when I called them to ask questions they were very helpful and even offered to install a longer elevation adjusting screw at no extra cost for using in the silhouette games at longer ranges.

I've used red dots on pistols and some on rifles. They have their place but it's not on MY lever rifle. Too awkward and bulky for my tastes. I've also used scopes on about everything one could be used on. Nothing is faster or better in my opinion. But, again, I don't like it on a bumper jack rifle. I had one on this .44 to do load development and testing. It works for that but doesn't look or feel right to me on this kind of rifle. Kind of like putting an overhead camper on a Volkswagen convertible in my opinion. It just ain't right.

May all your shots fly true... Mike

[9.3X62AL]

Lovedogs and KCSO expressed my views on buckhorns and sighting equipment pretty succinctly. I forget what the trajectory/sight scale is between rifles, and normally work with just one scoped and one iron-sighted rifle as deer season draws close for that particular year.

I'm bound to say here......most of my scoped deer rifles probably have "too much glass" on them, and the use of a Leupold 2x-7x on the CZ-550/9.3 x 62 has borne out Uncle R's recommendation for me in spades. Image magnification is a trade-off that favors lower powers and wider fields in the deer woods. To this day, none of the deer I've taken to date with glass sights could not have been taken as well or better with open irons. Alberta in 2005 had some ground that favored longer reach, but those conditions have been pretty infrequent for me.

[Char-Gar]

Uncle R... I don't have a issue with the fellow who snap shoots with a scope. If a fellow uses a low powered scope (2.5X or so), keeps both eyes open, and the rifle fits well, the target will jump out at him and be in the center of the cross hairs, although I prefer a post for such work.

I started shooting with receiver/peep sights and tried to make the transition to low powered scopes for snap shooting but just never could get comfortable with the scope, so I went back to the peep.

I doubt if either of these are better than the other for everybody. It does boil down to what works best for you.

I have very few scopes on hunting rifles, but the few I have are either 2.5X or 3X. That is plenty glass to snipe a deer at any reasonable range, but you can't convince todays crowd of shooters that is true.

I once had a 4X Redfield on a 300 Weatherby I used to snipe mule deer and antelope far, far away in the open spaces of far West Texas and New Mexico.

As others have noted, I am a crusty old fart, who distains change and feels the way it was done "in my day" is the way it should be done today...damn straight!!

[Char-Gar]

KCSO.. Thanks for the good over view on the use of Buckhorn sights. That was pretty much my understanding of their use, although I didn't have those ranges in my head.

I started target shooting years before I went hunting, so the click adjustable receiver sight was what I used. I still like a good Lyman 48 or Redfield 70 with target knobs on hunting rifles. When I got more than a couple of rifles, I had to start Scotch taping the clicks needed for various ranges on the rifles, so I could know what to do. Things started to get complicated.

There is something to be said for having one rifle and using it. If I had a time machine, I would go back to the mid 50-s and buy a good Model 70 Winchester in 30-06 and nail a Lyman 48 on it and forget the rest for hunting. The others would be range toys.

I was shooting Highpower in those day and had the 30-06 trajectory out to 600 yards burned into my brain.

[KCSO]

If you went back into the 1950's that M70 would cost you $126.50. This is per Lucian Carey's Modern Guns of 1952. That would represent about 1 weeks salary for the average worker. A B and L Balvor scope and mounts would run $80.00 and the Lyman sight would be about S12.00. After WWII my father in law bought a highpower a 22 and a shot gun and used those three for the rest of his life. He started reloading in 1955 so he could shoot coyotes and deer with his 270. His only regret is that in 1948 he got the Winchester rather than a Sako that was $10 more, he was a Norsky and thought the Sako was a little better rifle by he couldn't afford the extra $10.

[lovedogs]

I finally got over the "hesitation waltz" and ordered a Williams Fool-Proof from Williams. From the factory it'll have the longer elevation screw and target knobs. I was going to try to get by with the factory buckhorn but couldn't shoot well enough with it due to aging eyes. I didn't want to spend that much money. Man, they ain't cheap anymore! But something you'll probably all agree with is that you can only shoot as well as you can see. And I just can't see well enough with the buckhorn. And the buckhorn doesn't have hardly any height to it's adjustment and I need that for the silly-wets. Thanks for all your comments. Now I'm that much wiser!

[waksupi]

I have seen one real good use of a buckhorn. Another old fart I shoot ML's with, has one on his Pennsylvania. He has a wide front sight on the rifle, and uses the rear sight as a large aperture peep sight, centering the top of the front in the opening. this is one he made, with a round opening in the rear, but still split at the top, to keep within the rules of the game. I may see one of these in my future! He does pretty well with it.

[longhorn]

I hesitate to even bring this up, but Cooper's scout scope setup is faster for me than the British express v sights, a ghost ring, or a conventional scope. YMMV.

[ace1001]

KCSO is absolutely right, but if you have a good old winchester buckhorn sight to throw out, send it to Alan Maish 839 Vale Rd, Jamestown, KS 66948 and I will return your postage. Ace

[Four Fingers of Death]

I set my rifles, no matter what they are to maximum point blank distance. This means that I can shot within a 4" range at any range the rifle is capable of being shot at. When I have the rifle set up I leave it alone. I forgot when I forst posted this to acknowledge where i learnt this, it was from Nick Harvey, a long time aussie gun writer, very sensible guy.

Set it up right and you don't have to touch it. I prefer scopes generally, with reciever sights a close second (Army training on the FN-FAL). I try and stick to Leupolds and have only ever bought one other scope, that was an old Weaver 2.5x recently. The rest of the non Leupolds I have picked up in trades attached to rifles. When hunting with a reciever sight I remove the peep and put it in my fob pocket, in case a longer shot in good light with an unaware target presents itself.

I am tending to move towards more powerful variables for my alpine deer hunting, which is mostly in thick heavy timber with lots of undergrowth, set on 2.5-3 and using the higher powers for hillside to hillside long shots which occasionally present themselves.

In open well lit country I find any scope will just about do.

[Nardoo]

I am with you Mick. Set em up and leave em alone. I have Leupolds on all my rifles that need scopes. On my deer rifles I have detachable mounts so that I can use the open sights when the weather in the high country turns sour - which it frequently does.

My son is up there hunting today (with my .338) and just messaged that he now has a pair of 20" antlers. Little bastard has likely picked up some some last years cast. He is always pulling my leg.

Nardoo

[MT Chambers]

KCSO nailed it!

[lovedogs]

Just a quick follow-up in case anyone feels the need to go with the Williams sight like I'd mentioned earlier.

The Williams people were quick to supply me with one of their excellent Foolproof sights. It came with long elevation and windage adjustment screws and target knobs. I found that I couldn't use the long elevation screw though. It wouldn't let the sight go low enough to sight in at reasonable ranges. That was easily fixed by very carefully lopping about 1/8 in. off the end of the screw using a Dremel tool so the sight could be lowered to the correct height. It looks like it'll work well and I'll find out if we ever get any nice weather so's I can get to do some shooting. It's still snowing and blowing here in Mt. I can see well with this sight and it looks like it'll work real well.

[BAGTIC]

The FIRST thing I do when I get a new rifle with buckhorns is to take a file to them. I file the top flat and square up the notch till it resembles a patridge rear. I then file the little round bead off the front post, converting it to a blade.

If that doesn't do it for you get a receiver aperture sight. When you get old and everthing starts looking blurry you will want one anyway.

[Bret4207]

A couple guys mentioned having "too much glass" on a rifle. My opinion only, but around here if they limited scope power to about 4x it would save a lot of deer from the coyotes, either from wounding or because it's too far for Joe Magnum to waddle. I know my area isn't "the west", but I think too much scope encourages Hail Mary shots and that, IMHO, is not hunting. No offense to those who actually PRACTICE at long range intended.

[scrapcan]

Bret,

I agree with your whole heartedly. having that glass makes people think they can actullay hit that what they see. Very few people can judge distance. And even fewer can use their scope to help them do so. And damn it is so easy. How many have actually learned what scope tends mean? Why carry a range finder when you already have one.

You can do the same thing with the aperture diameter (especially if you ue a merit adjustable or use different sizes) and agiven target size. Sometimes we make things more difficult just to spend money on the latest gadget.

I would rather carry another sandwich or a meal for tomorrow instead of an extra pound of redundant equipment.

Anyway the above is probably suited to a thread of it's own but I do hope it creates duscussion that I can learn from.

[Uncle R.]

Bret,

I agree with your whole heartedly. having that glass makes people think they can actullay hit that what they see. Very few people can judge distance. And even fewer can use their scope to help them do so. And damn it is so easy. How many have actually learned what scope tends mean? Why carry a range finder when you already have one.


Using a reticule to judge range is only accurate if you KNOW how big your target is. Here in Wisconsin the whitetails range from tiny 60 lbs. (dressed) yearlings to over 200 lb. (dressed) bucks. Even worse, the longer the range the more critical the elevation allowance becomes, while at the same time your reticle ranging accuracy diminishes. Using a fast, flat cartridge like a .270 you can be off by 20% on your estimate at 300 yards without a problem. If you're off by 20% at 500 yards you've got real trouble. Can mature bucks vary in body size by 20% - absolutely!
If I HAD to shoot at hellish long (500 yard) ranges I'd consider a laser-accurate range figure a Godsend. Even then - the issue of wind allowance can be seriously difficult at such range. I'm a better-than-average rifle shooter but I wouldn't consider a shot much more than 300 yards on an unhurt deer - there are just to dang many things that can go wrong. If you aren't 95% SURE you have no business taking the shot - at ANY range. (I'd say 100% but there just ain't that kind of certainty in any endeavor!)
That said - even though most of my deer are taken at 100 yards or less I still place a big premium on accuracy, both in rifles and sighting systems. There've been dang few standing-broadside-in-the-open shots for me over the years, and a lot if threading-the-bullet-between-the-branches or shooting-the-little-part-that-you-can-see-over-the-rock shots. I consider a good scope on an accurate rifle a real advantage - even in the woods.
Uncle R.

[scrapcan]

Uncle R,

I agree with your post also. Too much good info.

You are correct that you need to know your target size to estimate range. But you don't always have to use your intended animal target as the range estimator. You can read up at what ranges and powers eye gloss is visible, or blades of grass, or who knows what else. If you can scout or have hunted an area more than once, you can use other things also. And also you should take into consideration as you have that if you have that range of target sizes, maybe you should be taking more time before you pull the trigger and if a range finder does that then use one.

The main thing all hunters need to keep in mind is that there are limitations. Address them ahead of time, not when you are trying to following a bloody trail and it is getting dark. And least we not forget how to actually hunt, sitting on a ridge with a long range rifle and a range finder is away to harvest, but you are dearly missing being in and part of nature. Being part of nature is something many do not appreciate. I could say more but I am sure I am in like minded company. If not things are better left unsaid.

Sorry guys, those are just my rants and I will gladly take comments criticisms and whatever else may be dished out.

I just enjoy being a part of this forum as a whole.

[jh45gun]

Uncle R. I will take a peep sight over a scope anyday for running deer in the woods and yea I am from WI too. I have shot a lot of deer with a scope and my current Swede 6.5 Wears a pistol scope as a scout rifle and it is fast. Still for running deer a peep is faster expecially at close range. I have lost deer in the scope at close range (3x) just because all you see is hair but do not know where on the deer that hair is. With a peep sight I do not have that problem and a scout scope is almost as good as you can see past the scope like a large peep sight. My Win 30/30 has a fiber optic front sight and a peep in the rear with the insert taken out. It is fast and that fiber optic is nice in the darker woods and dust and dawn. I have not many but a few more years than you do hunting. WI is a great state for deer hunting with a rich tradition. Fishings normally good too. LOL

[Uncle R.]

Uncle R. I will take a peep sight over a scope anyday for running deer in the woods... a peep is faster expecially at close range. I have lost deer in the scope at close range (3x) just because all you see is hair but do not know where on the deer that hair is.

I can't argue too hard about that. A 3-9 IS a bit too much for very close running deer, and I prefer a 2-7 just for that reason. I've never actually lost a deer because I was using a 3-9 but I did once lose a small (6 point?) buck that jumped up not fifteen feet away in thick brush. There should have been time for one shot but I had a straight 4X on the Ruger carbine I was carrying and I couldn't find him quickly enough. I'm convinced that a 2-7 on that day would've had venison hanging in the shed.
I believe a big part of success is being experienced and comfortable with whatever you're using. Years ago I hunted WAY up north with a gristly old woods runner. He carried the most beat-up decrepit model 94 I've seen in a long time, equipped with an Lyman tang sight. He was pretty fast with that old rifle and in those northwoods and swamps he seldom lost a deer.
I wouldn't bet heavy against a good man with a receiver sight although I still suspect I could shade him by a few tenths of a second with a proper scope. Differences of opinion make for horse races... :-D
Whereabouts in WI are you? PM me if you'd like to get together some time for a BS session and maybe an impromptu speed contest. Win or lose - I'll buy the libations afterwards!
:)
Uncle R.