need a drop-in long range rear sight for your H&R buffalo classic?

[rfd]

arguably, the best long range rear barrel sight for the H&R buffalo classic is still the smith wesson-harrington w/peep. it's a no-brainer drop in retrofit. i checked all around and NO ONE has one, it's been out of stock forever with no clue as to when they'll become available. i got an email this morning from ron smith and just got off the phone with him. he *machines* these sights out of solid bar stock and offers them for $175/shipped in the USA. he produces about 100 per year. i ordered mine and he has but two left if yer interested, contact ron at 480 964-1818

http://i.imgur.com/eu2SZMZ.jpg

[bruce drake]

Does he make them with regular rear sight profile versus that buckhorn design? For close in work, I'd prefer a different leaf sight but the long range slide sight is awesome.

[rfd]

Does he make them with regular rear sight profile versus that buckhorn design? For close in work, I'd prefer a different leaf sight but the long range slide sight is awesome.

dunno, worth a call to ron!

[Taylor]

I have one,good sight.

[leftiye]

The design uses the leaf sight as a support when the ladder is raised. Perhaps a thicker flat top leaf sight that protruded to the rear might work.

[brad925]

Williams makes a "Longer Range Sight" specifically for the H&R BC. Its like the one for the Model 94 Win. Look on the Williams sight. You can also get it with the target knobs.

[rfd]

if you mean this ...

http://media.midwayusa.com/productimages/880x660/primary/572/572292.jpg

... imho it just doesn't have the classic look of a ladder sight, and from what i've read and heard the williams sight isn't legal for cas and sass shoots, and may not be able to reach out as far as the smith wesson-harrington.

[EDG]

A $175 sight on a $250 rifle isn't going to happen.

[rfd]

A $175 sight on a $250 rifle isn't going to happen.

diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks. my bc cost me $400 new. any rifle that requires special gear to realize special potentials can be worth the added dollar$. has for me and that's all that matters.

[EDG]

In my mind $175 is much better spent toward another - better rifle.

[rfd]

it's all a matter of wants and needs and requirements and disposable income. for my dollars, and for so far, all that boils down to a buff classic w/good long range sights, for starters. i reload, so that adds in money for 45-70 brass and bullets - i already have the primers and powder and press, etc. when i add it all up, it fits my budget and needs. i want to cast lead, so there's hundreds more to spend as well. it's not like the buff classic is a *bad* gun, either. if big bore long range becomes something i really like to do, then saving up for a shiloh sharps might be the next goal. life is still good. :)

[gandydancer]

A $175 sight on a $250 rifle isn't going to happen.

BC H & R 45/70 for $250.00 Hey EDG ol Buddy order me a couple of em I can't get them at that price. Thanks. Pal. GD

[EDG]

Gandy
How about a matched pair of 38-55 and 45-70?

[EDG]

Agreed


it's all a matter of wants and needs and requirements and disposable income. for my dollars, and for so far, all that boils down to a buff classic w/good long range sights, for starters. i reload, so that adds in money for 45-70 brass and bullets - i already have the primers and powder and press, etc. when i add it all up, it fits my budget and needs. i want to cast lead, so there's hundreds more to spend as well. it's not like the buff classic is a *bad* gun, either. if big bore long range becomes something i really like to do, then saving up for a shiloh sharps might be the next goal. life is still good. :)

[Starvnhuntr]

I just paid 400.00 for a buffalo classic. tell me if I am stupid, I can take it. my cat just jumped in my lap so I cant search and peck any more.

[Nobade]

I have one of those sights on backorder with Brownell's. As for the price, it comes down to the fact that this sight will work for shooting at long range for my 38-55, no other available sight will, and I don't want to put a scope on this rifle until my eyes demand I do so. You pay the money, cry briefly, and move on. I have one of his sights on my Browning '92 levergun, and like it a lot. Again it is expensive but once you have it you can go shooting and hit things, rather than wishing you could.

-Nobade

[John Boy]

A $175 sight on a $250 rifle isn't going to happen.EDG, few shooters know that the H&R BC 45-70 barrel is match grade with lead bullets!
It has been discussed that if the NRA was to allow the H&R to be an of the era replica rifle for LR target matches - folks at the national matches would be afraid that their $3000 Shilohs would be put to shame.

I shoot mine at 1000yds with accuracy. And the 1st time I took it to the range: 600yd target had 5 bullet holes on it ... 2.5" x 7.25" in the 7 ring with 3 holes one could covered with a silver dollar using a vernier rear sight on the stock

Plus, for folks wanting to initially get into the sport of shooting long range without spending a fortune, out to 1000 yds - there is no better rifle

If a better POI could be obtained with a $500 sight - one would be a damn fool not to put it on the H&R

[Buckshot]

..............Other then the base (which may be needful for the H&R?) and the full buckhorn rear blade, it's very similar to the ladder sights Winchester used on their M86 and 92 carbines. As on the pictured sight in the OP's post, the flat spring has a dovetail which fits directly into the female dovetail on the barrel. I just got one from Buffalo Arms (Parts Unknown) and put it on my Japchester M92 in 45 Colt, which I bought used @ $350, so the sight cost about half that :-)

..............Buckshot

[Windflag]

John Boy, may I ask what your favorite load is?

[Junior1942]

John Boy, may I ask what your favorite load is?I have two favorite loads for my H&R 45-70 BC. (1) a slightly compressed load of Pyrodex RS, a lubed felt wad on top, and a Lee 450 FP or 5003R in nearly pure lead; and (2) same as above except WC860 and a good crimp. With peep sights, a Lyman target front and a Williams rear, it's a 1MOA to 2.25MOA 5-shot shooter. Average is ~1.75MOA. It will outshoot the average scoped deer rifle of any configuration.

[Windflag]

Thanks Junior, are you using the Lee 450 as cast?

[49Reo]

Hi all, new to this forum,(not to shooting though). Lots of good info here. Quick question: I have been shooting a slightly compressed load, 405 grain rnfp hard-cast bullets with no felt wad, on top of FFG black powder. Accuracy is decent, but having never used them, am wondering what the benefits are with using a felt wad. Also what thickness of wad, how much it cuts down on powder capacity. Do you use the Lyman bp lube?.

Thanks in advance for your answers...
Regards,
49Reo

[Texantothecore]

EDG, few shooters know that the H&R BC 45-70 barrel is match grade with lead bullets!
It has been discussed that if the NRA was to allow the H&R to be an of the era replica rifle for LR target matches - folks at the national matches would be afraid that their $3000 Shilohs would be put to shame.

I shoot mine at 1000yds with accuracy. And the 1st time I took it to the range: 600yd target had 5 bullet holes on it ... 2.5" x 7.25" in the 7 ring with 3 holes one could covered with a silver dollar using a vernier rear sight on the stock

Plus, for folks wanting to initially get into the sport of shooting long range without spending a fortune, out to 1000 yds - there is no better rifle

If a better POI could be obtained with a $500 sight - one would be a damn fool not to put it on the H&R

That is one sweet rifle. It is worth a good set of sights. I expect to have on mine, at some point, a set of sights which are far more costly than the rifle was.

[EDG]

John Boy
I think the barrel on the H&R BC is pretty lousy for cast bullets due to the shallowness of the rifling.
The air heads at H&R showed lack of engineering skills when they did not specify barrels with deeper grooves. It would have all been the same cost.
Your reference to Shilohs does not hold much validity to me. I certainly do not think it holds much validity to the Browning 1885 BPCR rifles with the Badger barrels. I have shot those rifles quite a bit.

They also messed up the chamber on the .38-55 Target resulting in it being discontinued.
I think one would be the worst kind of fool to put a $500 sight on a BC.


EDG, few shooters know that the H&R BC 45-70 barrel is match grade with lead bullets!
It has been discussed that if the NRA was to allow the H&R to be an of the era replica rifle for LR target matches - folks at the national matches would be afraid that their $3000 Shilohs would be put to shame.

I shoot mine at 1000yds with accuracy. And the 1st time I took it to the range: 600yd target had 5 bullet holes on it ... 2.5" x 7.25" in the 7 ring with 3 holes one could covered with a silver dollar using a vernier rear sight on the stock

Plus, for folks wanting to initially get into the sport of shooting long range without spending a fortune, out to 1000 yds - there is no better rifle

If a better POI could be obtained with a $500 sight - one would be a damn fool not to put it on the H&R

[Catshooter]

Such bile, my goodness.

I can easily see that sort of accuracy. The very first group out of my twenty two inch H&R (with oh how sad, shallow) rifling was an inch and an eighth at 100 yards. I haven't tried out my BC barrel yet. But I'm looking forward to it.

Nice looking sight. Thanks for the data.


Cat

[45 2.1]

EDG, few shooters know that the H&R BC 45-70 barrel is match grade with lead bullets!
It has been discussed that if the NRA was to allow the H&R to be an of the era replica rifle for LR target matches - folks at the national matches would be afraid that their $3000 Shilohs would be put to shame.

It's good to see some other folks have figured out it can be a very accurate rifle. The major problem is one of a decent sight attachment on the rear.

As far as the Shiloh quote above, all the applicable rifles can shoot very well.... and that depends on just what you put in them. Conventional wisdom isn't the best at times either.

[EDG]

No bile. Just the facts and the truth. The rifling is shallow. The 38-55 chamber diameter is a poor match to the groove diameter. I probably have more 45-70s and have been shooting them longer than most here.

>>>It has been discussed that if the NRA was to allow the H&R to be an of the era replica rifle for LR target matches - folks at the national matches would be afraid that their $3000 Shilohs would be put to shame.<<<

The "it has been discussed" quote sounds like what?
Heresay, gossip, cynicism, resentment?
All you have to do is show up and shoot against them.





Such bile, my goodness.

I can easily see that sort of accuracy. The very first group out of my twenty two inch H&R (with oh how sad, shallow) rifling was an inch and an eighth at 100 yards. I haven't tried out my BC barrel yet. But I'm looking forward to it.

Nice looking sight. Thanks for the data.


Cat

[Catshooter]

So you think that the H&R 45-70 rifling is shallow. How deep is it? What are you comparing it to? That's what's called an opinion, and while you're certainly entitled to yours, that you hold such an opinion does not make it fact. Or truth.

So the engineers at H&R are air heads? What a fine broad paint brush you use. Obviously, your knowledge of the inner workings of H&R are very great. Maybe you work there? Maybe you know that the air heads actually asked for deep rifling but some air head in management nixed it. You sound like you might be in management?

Obviously, in your opinion all of the engineers at H&R are air heads.

Obviously, in your opinion it was the engineers fault that the rifling is shallow.

Obviously, in your opinion properly deep rifling is the same cost as shallow.

And finally, it is your opinion that the reason the 38-55 caliber rifle at H&R was discontinued because they didn't get the chamber/bore relationship correct.

Looks like a whole lot of bile and opinion. No facts I can see.

I am quite sure that you're right in your assertion that you own and have shot much more 45-70 that most here, certainly more than I. I bow to your awesomeness. But at least I can tell one of my opinions from a fact. Just because I think something doesn't make it fact. I ain't Jesus.


Cat

[MT Chambers]

I know nothing about H&Rs, however a good sight is required to compete at those long ranges and in today's world $400 is not too much, regardless of how much you spent on the rifle.

[nanuk]

regarding microgroove multiple lands rifling.....

have you ever wondered why a NF bolt can be torqued to a higher amount than a NC?

[NVScouter]

I haven't gotten my BC worked out yet but I do own a Handi Rifle 22" in 45-70 and the BC with 32" in 45-70. the rifling is noticeable deeper in the Handi rifle allowing me to use hotter loads more accurately so far. I got the BC to increase my range but when I saw the rifling I was disappointed.

Now that being said my Handi shoots great but leads big time while my BC only gets some leading the last 3-4" of barrel. I think a little hand lapping or more shooting will clear that out. The light weight Handi is only good for 25-30 shots before I quit so I don't worry about leading.

I shoot it scoped but really like the OP's sites, and mine was $450 out the door.

[NVScouter]

Cat,

The 38-55 chamber statement is pretty close. I've read it was an error to use the Winchester chamber model instead of a true 38-55 chamber model. I don't think it was bad just a mismatch that caused the company headaches so it was discontinued.

Anybody know if you can get one special order I'd love a matched set barrel for my BC in the common chamber model.

[Catshooter]

NV,

Without trying to be a smart aleck, can you say where you read that? My point is that almost all of corporate America is very, very tight lipped about issues. One see's posts quite commonly that ask "Why did such and such company do this or that?" with lots of responses. Most of which are made up from whole cloth.

As an example, when I was honchoing group buys here I was using Lee (this was before Miha and suchlike). At one point I had over $12,000 at Lee waiting for their production to catch up with their promises. Do you think I could get a straight answer out of anyone there as to when I might see some moulds? Ha. Ha.

I don't contest that H&R screwed the pooch with their 38-55s. But why? I doubt any but a small handful at H&R itself know. I've worked with management (using the term loosely) so I know how well some can cover their mistakes.


Cat

[NVScouter]

I've read it at multiple sources including here. Basically it wasn't released as old time 38-55 reloaders figured it out through chamber casts and such. Apparently Winchester had a time during the 38-55 resurrection they made stuff on a different spec.

It too bad I think a 38-55 in this would be sweet.

[NVScouter]

Now me passing on the findings of others sure doesn't make me absolutely possative. It seems legit to me considering g the number of BC classic 38-55 threads complaining about over working brass and accuracy.

[Nobade]

I am finding these comments about the 38-55 interesting since I have one and shoot it quite a bit. The main reason I bought it is because of the chamber design, it is absolutely perfect for shooting paper patched boolits and black powder. If you look at the SAAMI drawing for the 38-55, you will see that the chamber in these rifles is exactly like the drawing. Which was made a long time ago, when the 38-55 was strictly a black powder round. The case mouth is too small to accept a bullet of groove diameter, which leads to frustration for people using smokeless powder and hard lead bullets. It simply is not going to work that way. But, shoot it with black powder and soft lead bullets, so that they slug up to fill the grooves, and it is amazingly accurate. And in my case shoot it with slick bullets patched to bore diameter, you only need to kiss the case mouths with the sizer to get it to hold the bullets so the the cases last forever. With the absence of a step at the end of the chamber combined with the tight dimensions, it doesn't damage the patches, doesn't try to have gas blowing past the bullets to tear them up, and the cases seal the chamber perfectly. I really love it - I couldn't have designed a better chamber myself. So the trouble lies not in the rifle, but in the fact that people who own it don't want to load it with the correct ammunition. Feed it properly and it is an absolute joy. Try to make it something it is not and it will be about useless. If you want to shoot jacketed or hard cast bullets in a 38-55, buy something else. If you want to learn how to make black powder and paper patched bullets sing and don't have the bucks for a custom high dollar rifle, get one of these.

-Nobade