Aperture Sites versus Buckhorn

[alexanderkidd]

Been doing some accuracy testing with a Chaparral 1873 .45LC and a Marlin 1894 .357. Both have buckhorn sights. Off sandbags, I'm not able to get much in the way of test data at 50 yards as I can't seem to hold a decent group. Is this a function of buckhorn/iron sights or is something else going seriously wrong with the ammo or the shooter? I mention the sights specifically because on other rifles with aperture sights I can usually hold a decent group at that range.

[NSB]

There is a big difference between buckhorn and aperture. Functionally, they are somewhat close, except.....the aperture can be tuned to your vision. The buckhorn cannot. The buckhorn may, I repeat may be right for your eyes but may not be. Apertures come in different sizes for a reason. You can get the aperture size you need or you can get something like a Merit that can be adjusted to your eyes as light conditions change. Older people, like me, need an aperture so that we can adjust the aperture size to suit our "old eyes" and get a good sharp focus on the front sight. I've rarely found a buckhorn that was right for my eyes. They are either too big (mostly the case) or too small (rarely the case). A Williams receiver sight with a Merit aperture will take care of your needs and allow you to do some testing with meaningful results. Another option is a Marbles or Marbles type tang sight with an adjustable aperture.

[missionary5155]

Good morning
If I was to do most of my hunting in close quarters (I do) as woods and river bottoms I would only use an appeture. Thay are fast and as accurate as you could need on largish targets (ground hog and larger).
If I was needing a sight for long range ( over 100 yards) a buckhorn can be fantastic if you learn the different levels already cut into the sight in relation to your front sight. By simply raising the front sight in the buckhorn and knowing what part of the front sight needs to line up with the various cut levels on the buckhorn large targets can be rapidly and accurately engaged out to 300 yards depending on the balistics of the load.
With the buckhorn sight I installed on my 50-95 1876 Repro, once I learned the proper alignment of the front to the buckhorn, it was not difficult to hit the 100, 200, 300 yard gongs using cross sticks. It was rapid work shifting from one range to the next as there is no need to "reset the rear sight" for elevation.
But you must practice and learn "what the alignment" looks like.
Granted it is no wheres near as accurate as a "vinier scale" tang sight. But for fast open country shots where you only have a few seconds to thump a moving target the Buckhorn really does its job withoiut any need to "reset a sight for range".
It always comes down to purpose.
Mike in Peru

[ironhead7544]

Many years ago I found and old gunsmithing book in a library. It described how to use the full buckhorn sight on a 44-40 lever gun. Lining up the top of the front sight down in the bottom notch was meant for 50 yards. Lining it up in the center (like a peep sight) was for 100 yards. Lining up between the top ears of the buckhorn was 200 yards. I had an early Marlin 1894 with original buckhorn sight and tried the 50 and 100 yard sight alignment. A factory type load was right on target.

I would suggest trying the center hold using the buckhorn opening like a peep. Works fine for me and is very fast.

[rondog]

I have a Winchester Trapper carbine in .44 mag. I was frustrated with the stock iron sights, so I bought a Williams receiver mount aperature. I'm cheap, so I bought the cheapest model. Then I learned what frustration is all about.

I won't say that Williams is a *********, but I'd rate it just barely above that. The adjustments are awful - loosen screws and slide things around, and hope you're close. I'd DEFINITELY recommend something with micrometer type adjusting. I got what I paid for, and it's not heavy enough for a paperweight.

I put the original rear sight back on, learned how to adjust the windage, and I can shoot circles around that stupid Williams sight now. I was making hits at 100yds that were blowing my mind, I'm not that good of a shooter - poor eyesight ya know.

FWIW - I cleaned up a really old Bushnell 4x Banner scope I have, and found it's in much better shape than I thought. Now I'm waiting for some Redfield scope mounts for the Trapper to arrive. I have high hopes to finally have an ideal 100yd deer gun now.

[Scharfschuetze]

My two cents? For tradition and cowboy action shooting, I guess the buckhorn is the sight, but for accuracy it's very hard to beat a good aperture sight. While not as common as they once were, a good Lyman (still available) or Redfield (no longer produced) just can't be beat on a lever action rifle. For any of you who served in the military, you can couple the peep sight with a good blade/post front sight and enjoy a similar sight picture to the one you had with the M-1, M-14 and M-16/M4, sans the sight wings of course.

With this set up, it's easy to maintain accurate sight alignment and to easily reduce sighting error in both deflection and elevation with the improved sight picture and thus reduce group size. The longer sight radius will also help reduce error for any given mis-alignment between the front and rear sight and the aperture also acts as a primitive lens that will help you focus on the front sight a little more clearly.

[Mk42gunner]

With any iron sight combo, seeing the front sight clearly is the key. If you cannot focus on the front sight, your group size will suffer.

Buckhorns can work well, but in my opinion they require the best eyesight of all sighting options. Everyone that I have seen has a miniscule notch for the shorter range option.

Plain open sights seem to work best (for me) if the sight picture resembles a Patridge sight picture -- level across the top with a square notch that is big enough to allow a strip of light on each side of the front sight blade. A U-notch and bead combo is only good for short range.

I like receiver sights the best, I just wish they were as easily adjusted as an M-14 rear sight.

I am not all that fond of tang sights, they seem to close to my eye for field use. The only mishap I can recall reading about with them came from Elmer Kieth, IIRC he reported on a lady losing her right eye from one mounted on a 99 Savage.

I haven't done very much shooting with aperture front sights, but there are a plethora of front inserts available for them.

rondog, you undoubtedly had the 5D; which is a decent hunting sight, i.e. set it for one load and leave it alone. The best way I have found to adjust the LAR (Looks About Right) sights is to use your dial caliper when adjusting the sight. I can't take credit for that idea, I found it in an article on Juniors website.

You do have to do a bit of math to figure out how much movement equals a minute of angle, but you only have to do it once.

One more thing, well blackened sights help more than you would think.

Hope this helps,

Robert

[Scharfschuetze]

Using that LAR method, about .007" for a 20" carbine with aperture sights should be about 1 MOA and for a longer barreled rifle a good figure would be .008." You could refine it down to a finer figure, but both those numbers will correct within the accuracy level (grouping ability) of your rifle by quite a margin.

[Win94ae]

Buckhorn sights will not affect your group size if you use them properly.
I know a few people that have a problem with keeping a consistent sight picture.
I'll have a problem if there is glare on my sights; Sight Black is one option to solve that, sight hoods are better... you may need to make your own.

[Lead Fred]

Mrs Fred has a 49 Winnie that came with both the pop down buckhorn & a tang peep.

Neither one of us has ever needed to use the peep.

But its there if we fancy to

[TXGunNut]

Days like today (very bright & clear) I can use buckhorn sights, in fact I used them to good effect with a new rifle and new load today! First time in years I've been able to use buckhorns. Most days I must use an aperture or a scope so my new levergun will be wearing aperture sights on it's next range trip.

[rondog]

rondog, you undoubtedly had the 5D; which is a decent hunting sight, i.e. set it for one load and leave it alone. The best way I have found to adjust the LAR (Looks About Right) sights is to use your dial caliper when adjusting the sight. I can't take credit for that idea, I found it in an article on Juniors website.

You do have to do a bit of math to figure out how much movement equals a minute of angle, but you only have to do it once.

One more thing, well blackened sights help more than you would think.

Hope this helps,

Robert

5D sounds familiar. My scope mounts arrived today, so the Trapper now has my dad's old 4x Bushnell Banner on it. That scope may be close to my age, I know he hunted with it when I was little. It's in great shape, so why not? Gonna sight it in tomorrow.

[Slow Elk 45/70]

Rondog, good for you and I hope it works for you. I have had to put some low power scopes on several of my levers, they work great for my old eyes, good shooting.. Semper Fi

[NSB]

82445

I got tired of trying all the different sights after my eyesight started to slip. I ended up with this and couldn't be happier.

[W.R.Buchanan]

The dot sights are hard to beat from a strictly utilitarian view point.

I have several mounted to my .223 carbines, but I am also going to mount one on my Ruger Scout for use in tactical match shoots. It is much faster to acquire a target with a red dot than any scope and at the ranges I shoot in these local matches it is just a better way to go.

I can hit a man sized target at 300 yds. off a rest most everytime, and every single time at 200 yds.

The idea of putting one on a levergun is hard to swallow for many, however if you are willing to put a scope on it, then a red dot sight is really a better choice.

Smaller, lighter, faster. The one in the pic above weighs less than 2 oz.

If you consider that the practical limit for just about any levergun is 200 yds. and more like 150yds. for a Pistol Caliber Carbine it starts to become more clear in favor of the dot sight. I wouldn't hesitate to put one on a Marlin Guide Gun since what you are going to use that gun for (IE close range woods type hunting or failing light) the dot sight is by far the most effective thing you can use.

The dot sights are BY FAR the fastest way to acquire a target there is. Isn't this exactly what you need with a levergun? I mean pigs don't just stand there and let you shoot them ,,, do they?

Here's the deal. You can buy a cheap red dot sight for $30 and try it. IF you like it you can buy a better one. If you don't like it you can sell or trade the one you have for something else or just toss it. You haven't lost anything significant.

I also realize that there is a "messin' with tradition" type of thing here. And that's fine, I fully understand. However if you haave failing eyesight like the rest of us, or are looking to upgrade the performance of your favorite lever popper then trying a Red Dot Sight might just get you where you want to go.. It's not like you can't take it off if you don't like it.

It works for me so well I have 4 of them now and plans for more. I like the Bushnell TRS-25's the best, and at $90 it is a great bargain and well worth the $,,, I get 'em from Dillon for $89.95+5.00 shipping.

Like I said, I have 4 of them. Oh by the way ,,, they weigh 3.2 oz!

Randy

[NSB]

There's no accuracy handicap with the red dot on my lever gun. Here's a couple of groups I fired at 114yds (my deck to the target)82546 82544

[mountainman]

I put williams sights on my marlin 336 .35 remmy and was so impressed with the accuacy that I got I put them on my winchester 94 .44 mag I have to agree with buck horn sights not being right for some folks eye sight. The difference was night and day.