1896 rear sight

[mhb]

I recently acquired a very nice '96 rifle, and it shoots extremely well, but about 6" high and 2 1/2" left of POA at 50 yards.
I can easily solve the elevation problem with a taller front sight blade, but there is no windage adjustment possible with the '96 rear sight. I could shim the base and tilt it a bit, but the available adjustment would be small.
What I'd prefer to do is acquire another, less pristine, '96 sight staff assembly, or a complete rear sight, and alter the location of the notch in the battle sight blade. I have another '96 sight, but it is in even better condition than the one on the rifle (as in:brand new), and I'm not willing to operate on either one.
I do have a good selection of other types of Krag rear sights ('98, '01 and '02) and some other parts for potential trades...


What have you got?

Thanks;
mhb - Mike

[jon_norstog]

Mike, I would go with the 1901 sight if you are going to be shooting this rifle. It's legit, a lot of earlier rifles ended up with different sights as field or arsenal replacements. Keep the original. And good luck!

jn

[mhb]

jn:

Thanks for the input!
I agree that the 1901 sight is the best choice for shooting, since it has good windage adjustment (which can be locked in place), and I can use the O'Hare sight micrometer for the 1905 sight of the 1903 rifle for accurate elevation adjustment.
In fact, that's exactly how my '98 Krags are set-up.
But this '96 is in truly excellent condition (one of the best Krags I've seen), and absolutely correct as to parts, having none of the '98 type modifications. In addition, it shoots as well as any Krag I've had (a fair number over the years), in spite of the open battle sight and my old eyes - in fact, it will put 5 of the 220gr. Sierra RNSP bullets (at just under 2000fps) into less than a half-inch at 50 yards, though the group is, as I said, misplaced.
I'll certainly keep the original sight, unaltered, but really want to correct the windage problem in a workmanlike manner, which, to my thinking, would be with an altered sight staff.
So, I'm still hoping to turn-up another '96 rifle rear sight staff or complete assembly.

mhb - Mike

[psteinmayer]

You could bend the front sight blade slightly to correct the windage. That is the normal "fix." If it truly shoots well and you prefer to not modify anything, just use your sighters to locate the POA, and then use Kentucky windage to compensate during competitions. It's not a perfect solution, but it's been done that way for centuries!

My personal preference is to the 1902 sight, FWIW.

[mhb]

Yes:

I could bend the front sight (a taller one, to solve the elevation problem), but 2 1/2" at 50 yards is 5MOA, and would require about .035 or a bit more 'tweak' to the front sight blade, which would look peculiar, to say the least.
I could use Kentucky windage (and elevation, I suppose), but won't unless there is no other option at all. And, in this case, I have an option and know exactly what I want to do: all I need is the '96 sight staff, and there IS one out there, somewhere.
And, yes, 'Kentucky windage' has been in use for centuries, but so have rifles, and even flintlock Kentuckies and European Jaegers have adjustable sights (for windage, and in the case of the Jaegers, often for elevation as well), and I'd bet the old-time rifleman went to the trouble of making sure that the sights were properly zeroed for both windage and elevation at one distance, at least, and used Kentucky windage and elevation for all other ranges - which is what I do with my fixed-sight ML rifles.
The search goes on!

mhb - Mike

You could bend the front sight blade slightly to correct the windage. That is the normal "fix." If it truly shoots well and you prefer to not modify anything, just use your sighters to locate the POA, and then use Kentucky windage to compensate during competitions. It's not a perfect solution, but it's been done that way for centuries!

My personal preference is to the 1902 sight, FWIW.

[Mark Daiute]

the front blade for the 96 sight is shorter than the blade for the 1898 sight so theres a solution for elevation. All joking aside, maybe at 100 yards or 200 yards the elevation would be right on anyway. Shoot at 100 yards?

I take it this rifle is so beautiful you don't want anything but an 1896 rear sight on it? As already stated a 1901 or 1902 rear sight will solve all your problems and would be perfectly legit and cause no harm to the rifle.

Meantime 1896 rear sights, if you want to alter one, are on ebay every day.

Post photos and it will be fun to see how you solve this.

[Dick Hosmer]

Another suggestion would be to modify an 1896 in the same manner as Freeman Bull did to the M1879 sight for the long-range trapdoors - reduce the width of the hinge knuckle and substitute a screw for the pin. Here is a picture of one that was done by a friend of mine, for target shooting:

[mhb]

Mark and Dick:

Thanks for the further thoughts!
I think I covered the front sight blade solution in my original post.
The rifle really is that nice: every single part which can be identified as such is correct for the '96, and I wanted to work with one having the '96 sight, having already used the '98, '01 and '02 types enough to know what I prefer for target shooting (the '01, by a long margin).
Actually, in digging through my parts and pieces, I came upon a '92 sight base which has a 1905 staff (altered) in-place: while this does nothing for windage, per-se, it does work for elevation.
I don't really want to make major changes to the original rear sight, , and the one spare complete '96 assembly I have is too good to mess-up, but I do intend to re-locate the battle sight notch to give a correct windage zero, and will install a taller front blade.
And I posted my problem here because I thought SURELY one of the regulars would have the spare part (or parts) I need, and would be willing to trade for something I have that he needs.
Later bulletins to follow...

mhb - Mike

[madsenshooter]

If you put that taller blade in, it will take less bending of the front blade to get the zero you're looking for. I found it takes less than what you've calculated, I use a small crescent wrench.

[mhb]

madsen:

If you put that taller blade in, it will take less bending of the front blade to get the zero you're looking for. I found it takes less than what you've calculated, I use a small crescent wrench.

Thanks for the input.
I will have to put the taller front sight blade in to get a useable elevation zero, in any case. But the measured battlesight radius (staff down) on the '96 rifle is 22 5/16" (22.3125), which, multiplied by the sine of 1MOA (.00029), gives the value of a 1MOA change as 22.3125" x .00029 = .006471", or roughly .0065", which, then multiplied by the approximate 5MOA change desired in the windage gives a sight movement of .03235", or a little more than 32 thousandths, which is necessary whatever the front sight height may be. I'd much prefer to alter the location of the rear sight notch than bend the front sight that far.
I have bent front sight blades on other rifles (and handguns, more often), but really don't like to.

mhb - Mike

[madsenshooter]

It dawned on me later that I was thinking about a rifle's sight radius. Only took a little tweak of it.