Open sights system or scope for Pedersoli 45-70 for long range shooting?

[JimGnitecki]

As I have described in another less-specific thread, I have just recently bought a brand new Pedersoli Sharps “Hunter” model:
- in 45-70 caliber,
- with 30” barrel,
-with sight dovetails on the barrel, with front and rear .375” dovetails about 21-1/4 inches apart
- with 2 threaded holes atop the barrel, just under approximately one inch apart.

My Pedersoli’s tang has TWO pairs of screws on the top.
The 2 LARGE screw heads are maybe about 2.05” c-t-c.
The 2 SMALL screw heads are maybe about 2.25” c-t-c.

I want to be able to shoot at up to at least 600 yards, and ideally (if my eyes can do it) maybe 1000 yards. The sights must be legal for SASS, BLCR, etc.

I want to put together either a midrange or long-range open ladder and tunnel front sight package, OR a within-the-rules optical scope package.

I would prefer to use the existing dovetails if possible for a scope-based solution, but if drilling and tapping new holes in the barrel would create a “better” solution. I could have a gunsmith do that.

The scope idea was suggested to me as POSSIBLY a better idea given my 72 year old eyes with slowly progressing inherited macular degeneration (I already have a bit of difficulty driving at night).

With this wider perspective that considers a scope OR open sight system:

What are my options on both open and scope solutions? I realize neither will be cheap, but being a retiree I cannot spend a fortune. But no point buying a cheaper solution if it won't really do what I have described above.

Is a scope a good idea at all given my eyesight situation, or should I stick with an open sight tang-mounted ladder solution with vernier adjustments?

IF I go with a scope, should it "slide" with recoil or be “fixed” in its mounts? (I can understand there are arguments for both. "Slding" sounds like it might be easier on the mounts, scope, and rifle, but maybe lose some precision because of the clearances needed to slide?)

Do scope mounts from one manufacturer sometimes work with other brands of scopes as well?

Also, important to note that I live in Canada, and importing firearms parts in in general not allowed for individuals, only for licensed importers. So, I need solutions that can be bought from Canadian importers or manufacturers,

Any experienced advice would be appreciated. Also, any leads on good used open sight or scope packages.

Jim G

 

[PistoleroWadcutterGANG]

For scoping your Sharps. Your two best quality scope with match grade mounts are: DZ Arms or MVA. You can squeak by with the Hi-Lux "Malcombs" but they have reported durability issues after a years or two of shooting. The mounts from DZ Arms are nice for aged eyes with large numbers to read. If you think your vision prescription is going to change more often with the shooting years you have left, go for a scope. If your thinking of putting a "BORE RIDER" - sliding Flecker / Unertl / Lyman / Redfield: you'll probably have to have the barrel D/T for the proper mount bases. I think the scope option is your best bet. Just going to take a little research and reaching out to mfc. for technical help or info on base mounting hole spacing. For mid-range shooting do yourself a favor. Go with a MVA Schuetzen tang. I suggest the DZ Arms optics. *** Mea Culpa SORRY, just read that you're in Canada. That is a problem sorry man. ***

 

[JimGnitecki]

For scoping your Sharps. Your two best quality scope with match grade mounts are: DZ Arms or MVA. You can squeak by with the Hi-Lux "Malcombs" but they have reported durability issues after a years or two of shooting. The mounts from DZ Arms are nice for aged eyes with large numbers to read. If you think your vision prescription is going to change more often with the shooting years you have left, go for a scope. If your thinking of putting a "BORE RIDER" - sliding Flecker / Unertl / Lyman / Redfield: you'll probably have to have the barrel D/T for the proper mount bases. I think the scope option is your best bet. Just going to take a little research and reaching out to mfc. for technical help or info on base mounting hole spacing. For mid-range shooting do yourself a favor. Go with a MVA Schuetzen tang. I suggest the DZ Arms optics. *** Mea Culpa SORRY, just read that you're in Canada. That is a problem sorry man. ***

Thanks Pistolero. MY Canadian location IS indeed a limitation. I can get Hi-Lux here in canada from a Canadian dealer or 2, and I THINK I can get MVA, but have emailed MVA to ask to be sure. But, yes, a lot of choices open to U.S. shooters are a not-legal for me.

Hi-Lux offers a 6x full length Malcolm scope with a selection of different length "sunshades" that thread on to enable it to be mounted on any rifle with 28" to 34" barrels that has front and rear sight dovetails in a slection of standard sizes. Itmounts tot he dovetails, and is set up to "slide" on recoil. I THINK the scope itself is regarded by at least some shooters as being of reasonable quality, but the mounts are described by at least some shooters as "not adequate" in terms of quality and ease of use. It is unclear to me if a set of betetr mounts, from DZ or MVA, would work with that scope. That scope IS available to me here in Canada from 1 or possibly 2 Hi-Lux dealers. I am still Googling to find other potential scope solutions.

The MVA solutions, both open and scope, look like very high quality, but availability to me in Canada is a question they have not yet replied to, and the pricing is VERY high after conversion to Canadian dollars (currently $1.00 CDN = $.74 US.

Still gathering facts and opinions . . .

Jim G

 

[MEHavey]

I'd not scope it.
Stay within your ability to scope the range/dope the football trajectory drop using a tang sight.
Well-made Tang will give you 1/4 - 1/2 MOA precision (if not even tighter)

I suggest MVA medium range sight
https://montanavintagearms.com/product/101-mid-range/
(below)

https://www.marlinowners.com/threads/miroku-1892.576619/post-7699611

Lyman 405gr/1,400fps/zeroed at 150 is point blank +/- 5" (heart/lung) out to 180... drops like a rock after that.
Minus 360" at 600yds, or 60MOA. A scope's not going to much help you there even if it can adjust that far.
Whereas that "Mid-Range" Tang Sight won't even break a sweat.

And you can easily/repeatably adjust to reset to exact settings.

 

[PapaG]

Aperture, front and rear. I shot several sub 4” groups at 200 yards with my Rolling Block, front aperture with a hole that just left a ring of light around the bull. Rear was some old Lyman or Redfield aperture.

 

[JimGnitecki]

I'd not scope it.
Stay within your ability to scope the range/dope the football trajectory drop using a tang sight.
Well-made Tang will give you 1/4 - 1/2 MOA precision (if not even tighter)

I suggest MVA medium range sight
https://montanavintagearms.com/product/101-mid-range/
(below)
View attachment 1153234
https://www.marlinowners.com/threads/miroku-1892.576619/post-7699611

Lyman 405gr/1,400fps/zeroed at 150 is point blank +/- 5" (heart/lung) out to 180... drops like a rock after that.
Minus 360" at 600yds, or 60MOA. A scope's not going to much help you there even if it can adjust that far.
Whereas that "Mid-Range" Tang Sight won't even break a sweat.

And you can easily/repeatably adjust to reset to exact settings.

You raise a good point about a scope potentially not having an MOA range wide enough to handle some cartridges loads. In fact, the scope manufacturers warn you that you may need "riser blocks" on some rifles and scope configurations, because otherwise the scope mounts might have the raw MOA range, but the objective lens end of the scope can start to be partially or fully "blocked" at long range settings by the top of the barrel because the angle between the scope and barrel becomes too great (since all the historical scopes use EXTERNAL elevation and windage adjustments, not internal)!

It's probably accurate to say that a good "Creedmoor" (long range) elevator sight with vernier elevation adjustment scales can enable you to sight further than your rifle can actually deliver a bullet.

Something I had not considered.

The question though then becomes: As my eyes' macular degeneration becomes worse with time, would a scope allow me to still shoot, when shooting long range with an open sight becomes too hard.

Jim G

 

[MEHavey]

The aperture itself collimates the light to accommodate gradual vision loss/sharpness from age.
Let someone you might know/encounter at the range who has a rear "peep' sight show you how well it does that.
https://rangerpointstore.com/news/rifle-peep-sights-how-to-improve-your-vision/

 

[JimGnitecki]

I do not see how an aperture sight can "collimate" light. It's just a "hole". It has no built-in power or tooling to change light.

Actually, I believe that the biggest benefit of an aperture sight is that it removes the need to focus at all on the rear sight when establishing a sight picture. This is because when a human looks through a "small hole", his/her eye naturally centers itself within that hole. No conscious alignment effort is needed to do so. So, now the eye can focus ONLY on the front sight, which is a lot easier and less fatiguing than jumping back and forth on fusing the front sight and the rear sight to ensure accurate alignment. It's also a lot faster than trying to focus on both sights, flitting back and forth, even though the front sight is where the vast majority of the focusing effort should go.

But with a scope, you also need to only focus on one thing: the crosshair. So, while I think an aperture sight is a big advantage over a typical open sight like a leaf buckhorn for example, or a slotted plate of any sort, unless I hear from an expert on glass lenses that says different, I am inclined to think the scope and the aperture are equally effective in relieving the shooter of any need to try to keep 2 separate sights, a front and a rear, in precise alignment.

But another important issue is the amount of LIGHT being delivered to the eye. I don't know much of anything about optical glass and magnification systems, but I do suspect that you don't get something for nothing. A scope image of the target that is magnified obviously reduces the field of view, but does it also darken the image because of the magnification? I suspect maybe yes, because I do see that scopes that offer higher magnifications also require larger objective lenses, and larger lens are not allowed in historical scopes because they did not exist in that time period. Am I right or wrong about this? IF the amount of light presented to the shooter's eye is lower for a scope than with an aperture sight, that would be an advantage for the aperture sight.

Finally, there is the SIZE of the target image being presented to the shooter'e eye. There, a scope has an obvious BIG advantage. When I tried to shoot my pistol caliber lever action rifle with OEM open sights (blade front and buckhorn rear, with the front blade and the rear buckhorn "slot" both being ridiculously small), at 200 yards, I could not even SEE the target! An experienced long range buddy (who unfortunately shoots only MODERN rifles with modern optics) told me that with open sights I would likely need at least 30" x 30" target background and a "cross" targets whose legs would need to be several inches wide! And the front sight itself "covering" the aimpoint due to its own size being proportionately too large compared to the target at 200 yards is another issue. A scope takes away both of those problems.

So, this is why i am asking for experienced advice. ALL things considered, which would work better for me: a good "historical" (not modern) aperture ladder sight, or a good "historical" (not modern) scope, when trying to play the "Old West" side match game?

Jim G

 

[ms6852]

I would recommend you purchase the long range vs the mid-range. The extra 100 moa of elevation will be greatly appreciated should you desire to shoot beyond 600 yards. Also allows for more variations in shooting heavier bullet weights that may require more moa adjustments due to velocity and weight. When I first bought my sharps I was only interested in shooting 300 to 405 grainers. That quickly changed to 565 postells and distances to 1500 yards. You just don't know what is around the corner.

 

[MEHavey]

I do not see how an aperture sight can "collimate" light. It's just a "hole". It has no built-in power or tooling to change light.

Basic physics.
Any/all light passing through any aperture becomes increasingly parallel (instead of all-angle) as the aperture size decreases.
That reduces the amount of human eyeball "accommodation" (change in shape) required to bring everything into focus.
Human eyeballs become more difficult to change shape w/ age.
Using an aperture does that for them up front.
Increasing depth of field.
Burma Shave.....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As to seeing a small target at great distance -- yep, scope has advantage.
Differentiating another hunter from a deer in late-late twilight -- scope again.
(you don't want to go there)

Shooting prairie dogs 600 yards -- scope again.
(w/ a 45-70?)

But practical targets under practical situations in practical circumstance for that 45-70?
Aperture.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

postscript: I routinely shoot hanging clay pigeons at 150 w/ that Sharps in Post#4
(The art of GoodEnuf in practice -- if not a bit of admitted overkill)

 

[JimGnitecki]

I would recommend you purchase the long range vs the mid-range. The extra 100 moa of elevation will be greatly appreciated should you desire to shoot beyond 600 yards. Also allows for more variations in shooting heavier bullet weights that may require more moa adjustments due to velocity and weight. When I first bought my sharps I was only interested in shooting 300 to 405 grainers. That quickly changed to 565 postells and distances to 1500 yards. You just don't know what is around the corner.

Excellent point. The only DISadvantage I can see in a longer range ladder sight is more vulnerability to accidental damage if I am not careful in handling the rifle, since it sticks out more from the rifle.

Jim G

 

[JimGnitecki]

Basic physics.
Any/all light passing through any aperture becomes increasingly parallel (instead of all-angle) as the aperture size decreases.
That reduces the amount of human eyeball "accommodation" (change in shape) required to bring everything into focus.
Human eyeballs become more difficult to change shape w/ age.
Using an aperture does that for them up front.
Increasing depth of field.
Burma Shave.....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As to seeing a small target at great distance -- yep, scope has advantage.
Differentiating another hunter from a deer in late-late twilight -- scope again.
(you don't want to go there)

Shooting prairie dogs 600 yards -- scope again.
(w/ a 45-70?)

But practical targets under practical situations in practical circumstance for that 45-70?
Aperture.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

postscript: I routinely shoot hanging clay pigeons at 150 w/ that Sharps in Post#4
(The art of GoodEnuf in practice -- if not a bit of admitted overkill)

You make a good case! And a local friend with a collection of buffalo rifles with MVA aperture sights plans to let me shoot one of them sometime in the next few days to see how well an aperture sight would work for me!

Jim G

 

[bbqncigars]

You make a good case! And a local friend with a collection of buffalo rifles with MVA aperture sights plans to let me shoot one of them sometime in the next few days to see how well an aperture sight would work for me!

Jim G

I would advise to get a tang sight that has an adjustable aperture. Either with selectable apertures or one that can take a Merit adjustable. I have both installed on various rifles.

 

[Remington1911]

How are you doing with other irons? I would let that be what would sway your decision. Personally I just can't see them anymore, and I LOVED shooting irons. The last straw was a 1903 and trying to use that sight, it was just a non starter. I could just see the "V" and the front post, but anything else, looking through that little hole and seeing anything, hard no. There was nothing there.

I see the desire to shoot with irons, but old age catches us all at some point.

 

[JimGnitecki]

How are you doing with other irons? I would let that be what would sway your decision. Personally I just can't see them anymore, and I LOVED shooting irons. The last straw was a 1903 and trying to use that sight, it was just a non starter. I could just see the "V" and the front post, but anything else, looking through that little hole and seeing anything, hard no. There was nothing there.

I see the desire to shoot with irons, but old age catches us all at some point.

I think the aperture does make a BIG improvement over a reular "buckhorn leaf" rear sight, simply because you no longer need to ay any eye attention to the rear sight (your brain automatically centres your eye in it), so your eye's mission becomes much easier: you just need to focus on the front sight and let the target be visible but unfocused. Sure, letting the target become unfocused introduces some error, BUT THAT error has MUCH less impact on where the bullet goes than an unfocused front sight would have! (Do the math to see how dramatically larger an unfocused front sight has versus an unfocused target).

I have a lifelong shooter friend who owns and operates a oneman camera business. I am going to ask him about the aperture versus scope thing!

Jim G

 

[JimGnitecki]

Well I talked to my lifelong shooter friend who owns and operates a one man camera store and shoots both scoped and with open sights. I am going to repeat as best I can what i think he told me.

He tells me that a scope canNOT increase the apparent amount of light transmitted to the eye. He says the very best scopes, the ones costing thousands of dollars, have a light transmission efficiency measured in the ninety percents. Light transmission is important to me given my eye condition, so this is a negative for a scope system over an open sight system.

My friend says that a scope has 2 important attributes: it magnifies, and most importantly, it places the reticle and the target in the same apparent focal plane.

The advantage of the magnification is significant on very long shots where without it, you might not be adequately able to SEE the target simply because the target might not be huge.

The reticle and target being in the same apparent focal plane is an advantage over the aperture sight. The human eye can only focus within one narrow distance range, not at multiple distances simultaneously. The aperture sight makes it unnecessary for the shooter to deliberately try (wrongly, because it is impossible) to focus on 3 things at once (rear sight, front, and target) by eliminating the need to focus on the rear sight. That's a HUGE advantage. But the scope takes that advantage further: It eliminate the need to try to focus on the front sight while keeping the unfocused target reasonably aligned. The shooter needs to focus on only ONE plane, and that makes things a LOT easier for the shooter's eye and brain.

So, as near as I can understand all this, choosing a scope makes focusing easier, but choosing an aperture sight actually transmits slightly more of the actual available light (i.e. up to 10% more of the available ambient light).

I seem to be able to focus well, because I can shoot handguns with simple blade front and notch rear sight systems very accurately.

But I have difficulty SEEING the front sight under less than good lighting conditions. In fact, I experience a noticeable degree of difficulty shooting on days where moving cloud cover, or less than optimal location fo The Sun in the sky, changes the ambient lighting while I am at the range. When the ambient light decreases, my accuracy degrades simply because I cannot adequately make out the edges of the front sight against a dark target.

So, maybe I should be favouring the aperture sight systems over a historically compliant scope system?

The "historically compliant" factor is important because of the type of shooting I want to do, and here the aperture sighting system again has an advantage. While both the scope and aperture systems "adequately superficially" appear to be reasonably authentic in appearance to the casual observer (as do the firearms being fired!), their PERFORMANCE capabilities are, I think, very different. The available CNC-made aperture sights systems are amazingly precise and accurate, while looking "old". The scopes I am not so sure about.

For starters, historical scopes use EXTERNAL, not internal adjsutments for elevation and windage. The elevation controlling masts are a lot shorter, than on aperture sights because they HAVE to be, because a scope lifted too high at the rear to take a long shot can cause the barrel muzzle to obstruct the view! The windage controlling systems have to be narrow because otherwise the consistency of the shooter's cheek weld is disturbed as the scope moves left or right. And, the scope has to be allowed to "slide" forward (relative to the rifle) on recoil, to limit the recoil forces put onto the mounts and the screws or dovetails securing them to the rifle. To slide, the scope system needs some clearance that the aperture system does not need.

Still researching and analyzing . . .

Jim G

 

[MEHavey]

a local friend with a collection of buffalo rifles with MVA aperture sights plans to let me shoot one

^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^
Rest EZ til after that

.

 

[ms6852]

I have a Hadley disc site mounted on my vernier sights and they make a great difference. Depending on conditions whether it is a bright sunny day or partial or a cloudy day the amount of light passing through the disc makes a difference. I shoot at targets at 200 yards with this sights.
https://montanavintagearms.com/product/eye-discs/

Here is one where I am finding loads that I like at 200 yards.

 

[ms6852]

OOps messed up putting up the target at 200 yards with the Hadley disc sight. The bullet is a 22 magnum in the middle of the group, before adjusting windage.

 

[JimGnitecki]

OOps messed up putting up the target at 200 yards with the Hadley disc sight. The bullet is a 22 magnum in the middle of the group, before adjusting windage.
View attachment 1153386

That's an impressive open sights 200 yard group! You and several others have talked about the Hadley disc. Apparently that shaoe and size are very beneficial.

Jim G

 

[JimGnitecki]

ms6852: I looked at the Hadley Disc "options" on the MVA website you linked to:



I don't know enough to understand the differences being offered. For example:
- Why are both of the Sharps options, Standard and Magnum, described with the word "windage" included?
- Is the Magnum version simply larger and has a broader aperture size rnage, or are there other differences?
- Is the Magnum version legal in all or most competition categories, or not legal in some?

Do you order the Hadley Disc in addition to, or instead of the disc that comes "standard" on a MVA sight?

Jim G

 

[Jim Watson]

From what I saw in BPCR, your concerns about clearances in scope mounts is misplaced. I looked up a random recent MS match and scope scores were substantially higher than iron sight. Bullseye results might be closer with the clearly defined black vs the irregular animal shapes. MIGHT.
The DZ scope mount is a Unertl design with adjustments by scale, US NRA BPCR does not allow click adjustment,.

External adjustment scope or tang aperture, it doesn't matter much, it takes a lot of physical elevation for long range. Lots of us use strap on cheek pads to raise the effective comb height. You may still end up with more of a "chin weld" than a cheek weld, if any at all.

The MVA Magnum Hadley is substantially larger in diameter than the regular Hadley and has more apertures. I don't know of any rules limitation. I sure don't know what DCRA thinks.

A Soule tang sight has the windage adjustment at the base of the staff.
The Sharps Windage sight has adjustment in the aperture carrier itself. The eyepiece has to clear its little knob.

 

[JimGnitecki]

From what I saw in BPCR, your concerns about clearances in scope mounts is misplaced. I looked up a random recent MS match and scope scores were substantially higher than iron sight. Bullseye results might be closer with the clearly defined black vs the irregular animal shapes. MIGHT.
The DZ scope mount is a Unertl design with adjustments by scale, US NRA BPCR does not allow click adjustment,.

External adjustment scope or tang aperture, it doesn't matter much, it takes a lot of physical elevation for long range. Lots of us use strap on cheek pads to raise the effective comb height. You may still end up with more of a "chin weld" than a cheek weld, if any at all.

The MVA Magnum Hadley is substantially larger in diameter than the regular Hadley and has more apertures. I don't know of any rules limitation. I sure don't know what DCRA thinks.

A Soule tang sight has the windage adjustment at the base of the staff.
The Sharps Windage sight has adjustment in the aperture carrier itself. The eyepiece has to clear its little knob.

Thank-you, Jim! Your observation about the average scores of scope versus aperture shooters is VERY informative and compelling!

Does the DZ mount system work with ANY brand of 3/4" diameter scope?

Does the DZ mount attach via drilling and tapping or via using the rifle's OEM dovetails?

Whose SCOPES are used by most shooters? I am wondering if the much less costly Hi-Lux Malcolm scopes for example are good enough quality or not to persuade some shooters to use them versus the much costlier MVA scopes for example.

I would be unlikely to need the strap-on cheek pads. MY problem is that my cheekbones are rather low on my face, making it hard for me to get down low enough on a rifle stock! I had to get high mounts for my Vortex scope on my MDT-stocked PGW 6.5 Creedmoor in order to get my eye low enough to properly align with the scope!

It would seem that the Soule type sight (versus the Sharps Windage sight) would be less likely to not only avoid having the eyepiece interfering with the windage adjustment knob, but would also be a bit less vulnerable to damage. Does a Sharps replica like mine accept EITHER the Soule type or Sharps Windage type sight? (provided the screw spacing on the base is the right one of course)

I am finding that while MVA does ship to Canada, many of the other suppliers will not. But Hi-Lux does have 2 Canadian dealers by the looks of it.

Jim G

 

[Jim Watson]

DZ says their mounts work with all 3/4" tube scopes. They mount to Unertl blocks normally screw attached.

I have not been active in BPCR for a while, I do not know if the Hilux scopes are in regular use. Their main advantage seems to be lower price and a selection of dovetail mounts.

The Soule sight is the general favorite, it has more windage adjustment, a LOT more adjustment in the Buffalo models, is clearly graduated and ready to hand. Its only limitation is that it adds height to the sight. I did not have a 100 yard zero on one of my rifles. So what, the Chicken is at 200 meters, the closest bullseye is at 200 yards.
Some nitpickers say it isn't really Frontier Enough, not being designed until 1888 or so.

 

[JimGnitecki]

DZ says their mounts work with all 3/4" tube scopes. They mount to Unertl blocks normally screw attached.

I have not been active in BPCR for a while, I do not know if the Hilux scopes are in regular use. Their main advantage seems to be lower price and a selection of dovetail mounts.

The Soule sight is the general favorite, it has more windage adjustment, a LOT more adjustment in the Buffalo models, is clearly graduated and ready to hand. Its only limitation is that it adds height to the sight. I did not have a 100 yard zero on one of my rifles. So what, the Chicken is at 200 meters, the closest bullseye is at 200 yards.

Thank-you, Jim!