Best Rear Open Sight?

[L_Kilkenny]

I was on another site and saw a post concerning Smith Enterprises Buckhorn/Ladder sight. I was intrigued by it. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that I didn't want the ladder sights enough to justify the cost (Smith price = $119, Brownells = $169?). But it did get me a thinkin about trying some different sights on the rear of my 94. I'll probably pick up a Williams receiver sight but I also want to try some other rear open sights (no tangs). Now, I've never had/used full buckhorn sights and generally have thought them too tall for my taste. But I'm wanting to retain much of the original looks and, in doing so, want to stay away from modern looking express and fiber optic sights.

What, in your opinion, is the best "traditional" looking sight?
What is the advantages and disadvantages of the different styles (buckhorn, semi-buck, etc etc)?

LK

[awp101]

I would suppose your eyesight would play a part in "the best".

[L_Kilkenny]

Eyesight is good, not as good as 10 years ago but still good.

Thought I'd add that I'd like tool-less adjustment for my different loads and am not opposed to spring tensioned/held elevator plate.

[Lastmohecken]

I am assuming that you have a post 64 Winchester model 94. IMHO, one of the best open rear sights I have used is the pre-64 Winchester model 94 semi-buckhorn rear sight, and the stock bead up front. I personally can see that sight combination better then most. But the rear sight on the post 64 Winchester were cheaper pieces of bent sheetmetal junk.

I do have one sight that is better, and I do not know for sure who made it, but I think it was a Lyman, that had been filed flat on top, to create a flat topped rear sight. It's on my old 1937 Custom Model 71, 450 Alaskan. My old eyes can see that better then about any open sight I ever used.

I don't care much for the Williams open sights, and I don't like any of the fire sights, etc. They might be ok right at dark, but are darned near worthless for accurate shooting in the sunlight.

A top quality wide shallow V, like they used on some african rifles, can be really good, but they are not all good, some are definately better then others.

On trappers with the post front sight, I have sometimes taken a pretty decent semi-buckhorn sight like one sometimes seen on an older marlin, or some of the Browning or Winchester Reproduction 95's, and 86's and filed a square notch in it. Then I would try to shoot these ,with the front post level accross the top of the notch.

[44magHunter]

I beleive Lyman makes some reciever sights that fit that era real well. They are pretty pricy though.....

[Lastmohecken]

Most people on here, will opt for a recevier sight, with the Williams Foolproof being about the most popular, and not without good reason. They do work pretty good, although I think it has often been a love hate relationship for me. I usually prefer the ghost ring method, and I rarely use an insert of any kind.

But on a good pre-64 Winchester model 94, with the original sights and the top quality elevator, too, I never change to anything else, as I am quite happy with those. Those rifles were still made when, the consumer was expected to rely on the issued open iron sights, and the gun manufactures gave them a pretty good one, unlike to day.

[Don McDowell]

"best" is strictly a personal choice.
Having said that , I like a good semi buck horn sight, and I'm also really fond of the One Ragged Hole sight. www.oneraggedhole.com

[Pete44ru]

I'll tell you............. I used to eschew full buckhorn rear sights, preferring modern open sights or a peep.

That was then - this is now.......... AFTER I lucked into a BP Hawken flintlock rifle that had the full buckhorn.

I decided to give it a try, and took it to my club;s range for sighting-in.

Boy, was I ever surprised !

That full bucky performed exactly like a good peep sight - which is how I zeroed and used it.
Usually, a peep that far from the shooter's eye doesn't work well, but the full buckhorn's ID is much larger than any aperture, even any ghost ring - which makes the difference at that distance from the shooter's eye.

I intend to install a full buckhorn rear on my next open-sights-only rifle.

Currently, my open-sights-only rifles carry fiber-optic sights, front and rear.



.

[AJMD429]

I always wanted to try one of THESE (MidwayUsa - Marble's "Bullseye" sights")

[Sixgun]

As you know, nothing beats a good receiver/tang sight but,..............I have found this sight to be a pleasure to use, even with my 55 yo eyes. Its an antique and the only one I have ever seen in 40 years of gun gathering. I currently have it mounted on a 14 and 1/2 Remington in 38-40.------Sixgun

[L_Kilkenny]

Think what I'm gonna do is run over to the gun shop next week and pick up both a semi-buck and full buckhorn sight. Trade em around and see what works for me. Might even try em on my old Marlin 25 .22 first. That way I'm not have to burn up 30/30 ammo every switch on the 94.

As for the One Hole sights I have mixed feelings. I hear some say they work good, others say it's too far away from the eye to work well. I do know this, unless I don't like the semi-buck or full buck I am, more than likely, never gonna try em. Hard to swallow $32 for an unknown when Marbles sights are 1/2 that. Just seems wrong.

AJMD, I saw those tonight on Midway myself. Looks interested but I think it may work better for target shooting than field work. I'm only interested in field work with this gun. (Albeit, 10-200 yard field work )

[pokey]

I always wanted to try one of THESE (MidwayUsa - Marble's "Bullseye" sights")

wow, may have to try one of those.

[L_Kilkenny]

I always wanted to try one of THESE (MidwayUsa - Marble's "Bullseye" sights")

I ordered one of these today long with a Lee factory crimp die. Should be in Thurs or Fri. I figured for $15 I couldn't go wrong. I'll let you know what I think and try to get pics.

LK

[Don McDowell]

As for the One Hole sights I have mixed feelings. I hear some say they work good, others say it's too far away from the eye to work well. )

By and large when the folks that say those ORH's aren't any good, get queeried a bit further they haven't ever tried one.
The folks that get past the naysayers, generally report they like them.

[L_Kilkenny]

As for the One Hole sights I have mixed feelings. I hear some say they work good, others say it's too far away from the eye to work well. )

By and large when the folks that say those ORH's aren't any good, get queeried a bit further they haven't ever tried one.
The folks that get past the naysayers, generally report they like them.

Here ya there Brother! But with the Marbles sight being less than 1/2 the cost vs the ORH's (for the same principle) I don't see a reason to spend the extra dough.

LK

[1886]

If the receiver of the rifle in question is D&T, most will probably opt for the receiver sight. If one does not want to D&T the receiver of the gun in question, a full buck will work well for closer range quick shots. Please let us know how you fare, 1886.

[L_Kilkenny]

I actually got on Midway to order a Williams FP but didn't want to invest the $80 right now. It would cut to deep into my fund for a .22 Mag. Plus, I don't really care for the looks of the Williams hanging off the side (with a gap) on the AE models. I'll get one someday but.......

LK

[Don McDowell]

Looking forward to seeing how that Marbles sight treats you. It looks a bit "busy" but it very well could work good.

[AJMD429]

A less easily (but fully) adjustable option that is also low cost is this:



$14.29 from MidwayUsa - Ruger Rear Sight Assembly Complete Mini-14 Ranch Only, Mini-30, Deerfield Carbine 99/44 (Link below)
Product #: 186476 | Manufacturer #: MS25501

Since they FOLD DOWN out of the way if desired, I use them as backup sights for 'see through' rings and 'quick release' scope mounts...





They have a small aperture, but I find that if I keep both eyes open, that once I put the brass bead in that hole, and on target, the target WILL get hit. You could drill out and open up the aperture if desired, but I've seen no need.

I just ordered the "Marbles" one like you did, so it will be interesting to see how they work. We'll see...! (...literally...)

[O.S.O.K.]

For a "rear sight" on a 94 Winny, I'd go with Marbles tang sight. Elevation and windage adjustable - stretched sight radius... hard to beat...

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

I prefer a Marbles Semi-Buckhorn sight on all my lever guns. I shoot a lot of Cowboy, and we have to aquire the target quickly, but pinpoint accuracy is not needed. I find that with a Full Buckhorn too much or the target is obscured by the horns of the sight. A Semi-Buckhorn does not obscure as much of the target, so I can aquire multiple targets in sweeps nice and fast. I like a Marbles .093 gold circle up front. Easy to see, but not so big that it obscures a lot of the target. I actually use the Semi-Buckhorn like a Full Buckhorn or a peep sight. I allow the front sight to 'float' up to where it naturally wants to be in the rear sight. I do not keep it down low in the little, tiny notch. I have my '73 and my '92 sighted in that way. All I have to do is place the front sight anywhere on the target, and I will hit it.

[moosemike]

I like the Marble's full buckhorn. I'm not sure if they still make it.

[Don McDowell]

Here's a view of the ORH on my long barreled 94ae.

[JerryB]

I bought a Marble's full buck horn from Midway for my grandson's 94 30-30 and he really likes it. I believe they are still listed, check their site for the sight.

[AJMD429]

I finally got my Marble's "Bullseye" sight - here are a few photos. Got home too late to shoot so maybe next week. Anyhow, I thought I'd post the photos anyway. It looks durable and is just the right size, I think.

I wound up messing up the adjustment screw on the NECG sight I'd intended to try also, so looks like the Marble's may be "it". We'll see...

[madman4570]

For hunting(mostly in the woods)= Semi Buckhorn, For target .046 Dia.Peep! Of course on different guns!

[L_Kilkenny]

Good pics AJMD and thanks. Now I don't have to take pics of mine. Just got my new Bullseye sight today and got it installed. Like you, it was too late to do any shooting with it.

First impression is good. If you look at AJMD's 3rd photo you will see that the Bullseye sight is just a blur. That's what you see in real life too. IMO, it wouldn't hurt to have the shoulders of the inner ring a little thicker but it still works great. But the small blur the inner ring creates is also a plus. The front sight is about all you see and the Bullseye sight doesn't block any downrange view in the least. Should be very fast for snap shots.

When compared to the ORH sight (or about any other) this one is very tall. It seems durable but I imagine it will more susceptible to damage in the field. But it also blocks much much less of the downrange picture than any other open sight I've used.

More later....

LK

[MrMurphy]

I use XS ghost rings, but if I had to go to a more "traditional" sight it'd be a Williams aperature.

[SJPrice]

I am a fan of the Smith ladder with full buckhorn. They do work like a peep for fast close work and you can use the notch for precision wok as well. The Smith is a very well made product and maintains the traditional look.

[L_Kilkenny]

As stated in my OP, I looked at the Smith ladder. But after I thought about it I decided the ladder was cool but I'd never use it. So then I was thinkin about a full buckhorn which cost much much less. Ended up with the bullseye. We'll see how happy I am.

LK

[Griff]

Outside of tang peeps, I've found I really like this setup:

Rear:


Front:


A good source I've found for sights: Jeff's Outfitters