Books on Buffington sights?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Sportsdad60
    Member
    • Jan 2015
    • 87

    #1

    Books on Buffington sights?

    I've had my 1873 out 3 times to the gun range and am getting pretty accurate at 75 yards with the irons sites (buff down).

    I need to push it to 100 then 200 yards.

    Is there any publications for using the buffington sights out there?

    Much appreciated!

    Brian
    Last edited by Sportsdad60; 03-02-2015, 06:45.
  • butlersrangers
    Senior Member
    • May 2012
    • 533

    #2
    U.S. Ordnance Department Manual, 1898 printing, is widely available as reprint.
    Attached Files
    Last edited by butlersrangers; 03-02-2015, 08:15.

    Comment

    • butlersrangers
      Senior Member
      • May 2012
      • 533

      #3
      Clearer copy:

      IMG_2943.jpg
      Attached Files
      Last edited by butlersrangers; 03-03-2015, 05:54.

      Comment

      • Mark Daiute
        Senior Member
        • Aug 2009
        • 654

        #4
        Also Spencer Wolfe's book covers the topic and, If I recall correctly, using the materials already sighted.
        "A man with a tractor and a chain saw has no excuses, nor does he need any"
        Me. "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" Emerson "Consistency is the darling of those that stack wood or cast bullets" Me.

        Comment

        • mr.j
          Senior Member
          • Feb 2012
          • 141

          #5
          I'am guessing this book has info on all four models of rear sight's used on the model 1873-1888 rifle and carbines? Am i correct?

          Comment

          • Dick Hosmer
            Very Senior Member - OFC
            • Aug 2009
            • 5993

            #6
            IIRC, the original stepped 1873 sight (and the very similar 1877) have been dropped by the 1898 edition, but it hardly matters, for a shooting discussion, since they are very simple and totally obvious in operation.

            Only the Buffington, with its' multiplicity of apertures and arrows, seems to confuse people.

            The one point common to ALL TD sights, unless you go to some lengths (Wolf) to duplicate the original load, is that the graduations will be off, and you will have to record what works for your load.

            Comment

            • butlersrangers
              Senior Member
              • May 2012
              • 533

              #7
              I am not sure whether Mr. J. is referring to the 1898 Manual or the Spencer Wolf Book. The 1898 Printing of the U.S. Ordnance Department Manual explains two rear sights, the 1879 'Buckhorn' sight and the 'Buffington' sight. I am sure that in 1898, these were the most prevalent sights on 'Trapdoor' Springfields being issued to State Troops mobilized for the War with Spain. Earlier models of Springfield sights were covered in earlier manuals and were probably considered obsolete in 1898.

              (p.s. The 'For Collectors Only' book, "The .45-70 Springfield", by Joe Poyer and Craig Riesch, gives a lot of detail on all the .45-70 'trapdoor' sights for very little money).

              IMG_2946.jpgIMG_2951.JPG
              Last edited by butlersrangers; 03-03-2015, 01:00.

              Comment

              • 11mm
                Senior Member
                • Dec 2010
                • 355

                #8
                I shoot my trapdoors a fair amount. I use the Buffington sights because the peep gives me the best results. Whatever you read, heed Dick Hosmer's advice above:"The one point common to ALL TD sights, unless you go to some lengths (Wolf) to duplicate the original load, is that the graduations will be off, and you will have to record what works for your load."
                It is difficult to exactly duplicate what the Army did in the 1890's. I am not sure it is worth trying. But as the Buffington sights are really quite adjustable, you can shoot well with many loads using them, but record your adjustments.

                Comment

                • Sportsdad60
                  Member
                  • Jan 2015
                  • 87

                  #9
                  All,
                  Thank you VERY MUCH! Love the information sharing!
                  My goal is to take an elk in Montana once I become proficient with this rifle. But it will be a couple years before I begin that hunt once I boot the youngest off to college in 2017.

                  Bulersrangers, I have that book! Been reading it...it explained a lot of information but wasn't very exact on setting sights.

                  Dick, I believe you're right. Pencil and paper pad with me next time at the range now that I have the correct front sight mounted.

                  Thanks all very much!

                  Comment

                  • Sportsdad60
                    Member
                    • Jan 2015
                    • 87

                    #10
                    Originally posted by 11mm
                    I shoot my trapdoors a fair amount. I use the Buffington sights because the peep gives me the best results. Whatever you read, heed Dick Hosmer's advice above:"The one point common to ALL TD sights, unless you go to some lengths (Wolf) to duplicate the original load, is that the graduations will be off, and you will have to record what works for your load."
                    It is difficult to exactly duplicate what the Army did in the 1890's. I am not sure it is worth trying. But as the Buffington sights are really quite adjustable, you can shoot well with many loads using them, but record your adjustments.
                    I have been using the peep sights as well. I'm also using 'repeatable' loads (Powder River low pressure loads) in order to be predictable.

                    I will publish my results once I finish dialing it in now that I have the 'era-correct' front sights.

                    I believe each one of the rifles most likely had their own little 'sweet spot' whereas the shooter knew what the mark was for a given distance target given the era!

                    Comment

                    Working...