• You are using the old Black Responsive theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

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

MEHavey said:
My general suggestion will be Tang-Sight/Aperture.

My specific suggestion as Best-Buy-for-the-Money and 99.99%
Best-Utility out to/past 600 for a 45-70 is that #101 Soule.

.
Click to expand...

Would that be an entire solution on its own? Don't i also need a Globe front sight, preferably with a spirit level, or is the rear sight usable with a plain Pedersoli OEM blade that has the following dimensions:

OEM tapered blade front sight = 0.800” wide at the very top

Top tip is = .369” above the top of the (.938”diameter) barrel.

I'm asking because the height of a blade front sight relative to the height of the ladder aperture rear sight significantly affects the true number of MOA available in actual usable adjustment.

Also, note that the cost of this sight = $481 US = $677 Canadian. IF I also need to buy the globe sight, which for one with spirit level and adjustable windage is anoth $325 US = $458 Canadian. So, if i need it, that makes the MVA tang aperture solution cost $1135 plus Canadian 5% sales tax + shipping + any duties applied at the border. That's a lot fo money for an open sight solution.

Jim G
 
JimGnitecki said:
Don't i also need a Globe front sight, preferably with a spirit level, or is the rear sight usable with a plain Pedersoli OEM blade that has the following dimensions:
Click to expand...
I'd start there....
Simple post front sight is most flexible/amazingly precise.

I had/still have a Farmington (Wolfgang Droege) Long-Range Sharps back since `80, wind gauge/spirit level and all the whizbang.
Simple post/Soule rear now.
 
ms6852 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Jim, totally agree with ms6852 here. Get a long-range vernier sight with a Hadley cup and globe sight with level. I don’t have the greatest vision, especially in low light and I can see well enough to hit my targets. It is actually somewhat of a good challenge to get your eyes with glasses or not to properly sight your target and focus on the front aperture to hit the target well.
 
Well, I took the Pedersoli rifle to the range this morning - and I'm very glad I did, because I learned something very important: I need a scope.

I had put together a target array that had some much larger targets on it than I normally use with my scoped "modern" rifle, figuring they would be large enough to use with the OEM open front blade and rear leaf sight system on the Pedersoli. But that's not the way it turned out.

I started shooting at only 100 yards, as I needed to found out first how far off the factory sights might be. The rifle turned out to shoot pretty close to POA on elevation, but about 4" to the right. The rather small open sights (front tapered post about .080" wide at its top tip and .369" tall) and the rear elevated leaf with tiny "v" notch) worked surprisingly well for me. No trouble seeing and lining up the sights.

BUT, the target image was something else. I had constructed large targets hat had large white crosses (about 14" high by 14" wide) with arms that were individually 4.5" wide, on a brown background (packing paper). I could not see them well enough to sight consistently enough on them, even with my eyeglass progressive lenses Rx that is only 9 months old. Just not enough contrast for my eyes.

I found that the "best" target for me was a pure black triangle about 8" across by 8" high pointing downward on a pure white background. I aimed for the bottom point, but could actually see the entire triangle better than I could see the other targets, even those other targets were much larger.The triangle was easier on my eyes than any of the larger targets, but still not good enough. My best 3-shot groups were a bit over 2 inches, which is pretty disappointing when I shoot 0.25 MOA, at THREE HUNDRED yards (i.e. 0.75" FIVE-shot groups), with my modern SCOPED 6.5 Creedmoor rifle using my handloaded ammunition.

It seems pretty eivdent to me now that there is no way I am going to be able to shoot open sights, even high quality MVA aperture sights, at 600 yards. It won't be because the SIGHTS are not good enough. It'll be because I cannot see the TARGETS well enough. Based on today's 100 yard experiment, I am pretty sure I would have trouble seeing the steel animal profiles I want to be able to shoot at longer ranges, because there simply will not be sufficient contrast for my eyes.

I cannot get over just how dramatically better my modern scoped rifle TARGET IMAGE (not the scope crosshair) is compared to what I saw today with the open sights.

I think I need to take a pretty serious look at historically semi-authentic rifle scopes that would at least LOOK like they belong at a Single Action Shooting Society side match. I have limited options only, being in Canada. MVA tells me they ship to Canada, and Leatherwood Hi-LUX actually has Canadian dealers. But that's about it. Apparently there are too many U.S. export and Canadian import restrictions and red tape that the other don't want to have to understand and deal with. (I'm speaking here about BOTH scopes and high quality open aperture sights)

Jim G
 
JimGnitecki said:
Well, I took the Pedersoli rifle to the range this morning - and I'm very glad I did, because I learned something very important: I need a scope.

I had put together a target array that had some much larger targets on it than I normally use with my scoped "modern" rifle, figuring they would be large enough to use with the OEM open front blade and rear leaf sight system on the Pedersoli. But that's not the way it turned out.

I started shooting at only 100 yards, as I needed to found out first how far off the factory sights might be. The rifle turned out to shoot pretty close to POA on elevation, but about 4" to the right. The rather small open sights (front tapered post about .080" wide at its top tip and .369" tall) and the rear elevated leaf with tiny "v" notch) worked surprisingly well for me. No trouble seeing and lining up the sights.

BUT, the target image was something else. I had constructed large targets hat had large white crosses (about 14" high by 14" wide) with arms that were individually 4.5" wide, on a brown background (packing paper). I could not see them well enough to sight consistently enough on them, even with my eyeglass progressive lenses Rx that is only 9 months old. Just not enough contrast for my eyes.

I found that the "best" target for me was a pure black triangle about 8" across by 8" high pointing downward on a pure white background. I aimed for the bottom point, but could actually see the entire triangle better than I could see the other targets, even those other targets were much larger.The triangle was easier on my eyes than any of the larger targets, but still not good enough. My best 3-shot groups were a bit over 2 inches, which is pretty disappointing when I shoot 0.25 MOA, at THREE HUNDRED yards (i.e. 0.75" FIVE-shot groups), with my modern SCOPED 6.5 Creedmoor rifle using my handloaded ammunition.

It seems pretty eivdent to me now that there is no way I am going to be able to shoot open sights, even high quality MVA aperture sights, at 600 yards. It won't be because the SIGHTS are not good enough. It'll be because I cannot see the TARGETS well enough. Based on today's 100 yard experiment, I am pretty sure I would have trouble seeing the steel animal profiles I want to be able to shoot at longer ranges, because there simply will not be sufficient contrast for my eyes.

I cannot get over just how dramatically better my modern scoped rifle TARGET IMAGE (not the scope crosshair) is compared to what I saw today with the open sights.

I think I need to take a pretty serious look at historically semi-authentic rifle scopes that would at least LOOK like they belong at a Single Action Shooting Society side match. I have limited options only, being in Canada. MVA tells me they ship to Canada, and Leatherwood Hi-LUX actually has Canadian dealers. But that's about it. Apparently there are too many U.S. export and Canadian import restrictions and red tape that the other don't want to have to understand and deal with. (I'm speaking here about BOTH scopes and high quality open aperture sights)

Jim G
Click to expand...
You mentioned contrast and I think that is key here. At my range, any steel painted black I cannot see past 300 or so. Paint it white or put a white bullseye on it and then I can see it easily up to 1000 yds. If you can see the target even if it is not clear, you can use a front aperture in your globe sight to line up the holes You want your focus to be on the front sight and the target to not be clear even with perfect eyes. If you enjoy shooting with scopes, then do what is fun for you but I must say shooting with vernier sights is a lot fun in my opinion.
 
Chief TC said:
You mentioned contrast and I think that is key here. At my range, any steel painted black I cannot see past 300 or so. Paint it white or put a white bullseye on it and then I can see it easily up to 1000 yds. If you can see the target even if it is not clear, you can use a front aperture in your globe sight to line up the holes You want your focus to be on the front sight and the target to not be clear even with perfect eyes. If you enjoy shooting with scopes, then do what is fun for you but I must say shooting with vernier sights is a lot fun in my opinion.
Click to expand...

At SASS side matches, they don't paint the steel targets because that would be too non-period. If I had trouble with white symmetric crosses on brown background at just 100 yards, I think I'd be in big trouble with non-symmetric targets at long ranges.

Jim G
 
Too many steel shoots don’t paint because it is too much trouble.
Metallic Silhouette requires painting.

I’ll see if I can find an original Creedmoor target description, they did things different in 1876.

While I think you will be happier with a scope, don’t think the Lawrence pattern open sight and bare blade compare with a peep and globe.

Field of view of a 3/4” 6X scope is 10 feet per 100 yards, which isn’t much. Calls for care to avoid cross firing.
 
Last edited:
Jim Watson said:
Too many steel shoots don’t paint because it is too much trouble.
Metallic Silhouette requires painting.

I’ll see if I can find an original Creedmoor target description, they did things different in 1876.

While I think you will be happier with a scope, don’t think the Lawrence pattern open sight and bare blade compare with a peep and globe.

Field of view of a 3/4” 6X scope is 10 feet per 100 yards, which isn’t much. Calls for care to avoid cross firing.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have been educating myself on the pluses and minuses of historically semi-authentic 3/4" full barrel length scopes. That 10' at 100 yards becomes 20 inches at 600 yards and 12" at 1000 yards. I'm pretty sure that the 1000 yard targets are much larger than 12", so yeah, the narrow field of view at 1000 yards would be a real negative. The 20" view at 600 yards is ok given the likely sizes of the 600 yard targets. I THINK those creedmoor 1000 yard targets, if true to the historical ones, are around 2 feet in diameter.

As I said above, it was not the oEM open sights that sabotaged me today. They actually worked quite well and would likely do so to maybe 200 yards even. It's my eyes' inability to see the TARGETS well enough to position the sight picture properly over them. I need magnification.

The way I "see" it, I think the scope is the better of the 2 paths I can take here. I suspect that because of my eyesight, big money put into a great aperture open sight system would be wasted.

Today's break-in of the Pedersoli also showed me that for the first time ever, I need a recoil pad. Per my Labradar, the 300g by 1850fps jacketed Federal cartridge load I used for the break-in came out of the 30" Pedersoli Sharps barrel at 1942 to 2007fps which made a PF as high as 602, which I really felt (I am usually immune to recoil). Even my planned load of 405g at 1300 fps will have a PF of 527. And the 500g+ bullet loads everyone tells me to somehow find a Canadian source for , or cast myself, will likely have a PF = 500 x 1100 = 550. That makes my CAS revolver handloads of 158g x910 fps / 1000 = 144 PF seem really wimpy, even though my fellow CAS shooters over on the SASS forum think I'm shooting a ridiculously fast handload (it was what both the revolvers and the rifle liked best by far).

This factors into my sighting system since to moderate that kind of recoil, I need a recoil pad that has a proper absorption layer at least half an inch thick. That will effectively lengthen my stock, whether I wear the recoil pad or mount it on the rifle. I plan to wear one, as that will enable me to use the same rear bag on the long shots as I use with my modern rifle. That will allow the stock to slide straight back on recoil without getting hung up on a stock-mounted pad, which is really important on the highest precision shots. In a match where I am allowed to use a rear bag, this will work well. Where I cannot under the rules use a rear bag, the recoil pad itself becomes an accuracy impediment, because its non-rigidity can allow the rifle to move sideways on recoil.

One advantage of the historical scopes is that they slide within their mounts on recoil, so long (safe) eye relief becomes less important, AND those scopes give a shooter a lot of leeway about their exact fore-aft position within their mounts' side radius, even when the mounts have deliberately been placed within the OEM dovetails on buffalo rifles. So, I can absorb the extra length of pull that the extra thickness of the recoil pad creates. To preserve the "old west" mystique, I'll wear the pad UNDER my shirt. :)

Jim G
 
JimGnitecki said:
because of my eyesight, big money put into a great aperture open sight system would be wasted
Click to expand...
au con·traire mon ami. The tang/aperture actually improves eyesight beyond all expectation.
Don't invest in anything, until you have tried one of your friends' rifles using one.

.
 
I use a pacmayr slip on recoil pad and it works great for my 45-70s. A lot of people use recoil pads on their guns these days. I can shoot 30-06 all day with nothing but I always appreciate a recoil pad on my 45-70s. Those big bullets make a difference. I shoot 180s in 30-06 and 500+ in 45-70. The fps is slow in 45-70 but you feel that big bullet.
As long as you are happy shooting with a scope then do it but if you have never used vernier sights extensively then I still recommend you try.
 
Jim Watson said:
I have used a strap-on recoil pad and it helps, but this ugly thing is better.
https://www.buffaloarms.com/pq-shooter-s-friend-recoil-pad-rol924.html

My CAS side match single shot was a .38-55 but the steel crescent butt was still uncomfortable because of its light weight. It got a shotgun butt and a pad for longer NRA matches.

Nothing I shot but solo load testing allowed a rear bag.
Click to expand...

I intend to do a lot of informal long range shooting, as our local club has a 600 yard range on site. I will want to be able to use that rear bag for sure for that.

One of the reasons I like this particular Pedersoli rifle is that it has a shotgun stock, versus a crescent stock. BIG difference on recoil effect on the shooter's shoulder!

Jim G
 
Here's an old posting by a BPCR shooter that really caught my attention:

"
Scope sight for my BPCR
Like many people over 50 my eyes are not what they used to be and my scores show it. I shoot every month a reduced silhouette match at my club at 200 yards and have been struggling with seeing the targets so I can hit them. So I recently bought a short Malcolm scope imported by Letherwood and had it mounted on my Pedersoli 1874 Sharps rifle. I finally got a chance to try it out at the weekly practice shoot we have at my club and I fired 10 rounds in very wet and dark conditions ( to say nothing of cold and windy. Not only could I see the targets but I hit 10 for ten. A buddy of mine borrowed it and knocked over two chickens with two shots also. We were both impressed by the fact that we could actually see the targets. I also fired my Shiloh fitted with tang sights and globe front sight and I had difficult seeing the targets and only hit six out of 10 with that rifle. I can see that I will be shooting in scope class and I can also see that I will have to get a long scope with long range mounts for full range silhouette matches in the future.
"

Note his comparison with his Shiloh Sharps that apparently had the aperture sight setup including front globe sight.

This kind of plays to exactly my eyesight issues.

Jim G
 
After much research, I made my decision. I have ordered a Leatherwood Hi-Lux Malcolm 6 power full barrel length "historical" scope, with the recently introduced CNC-made Sliding Mount system.

I carefully considered both the high quality MVA aperture sight systems and the MVA historical scope offerings, but in the end, the Leatherwood Hi-Lux Malcolm made the most sense for my needs and wants.

I was impressed by both MVA and Hi-Lux, but Hi-Lux prevailed due to a strong combination of:
- Good quality scope optics
- The recently introduced Sliding Mount system (which manages to look "period" despite its CNC birthing)
- The fact that this overall package installs into the OEM dovetails on my rifle - no gunsmith machining of more dovetails needed
- The precision sight adjustment features built into the sliding rear mount sight
- The overall impressive efforts to make modern improved technology appear to be "period" for the Old West time period
- The huge library of explanatory documents and videos that the Hi-lUx team has put together
- The way I found out that it was a senior manager (Director of Marketing) who had had a series of very technical email discussions with me before I realized I was speaking with a marketing, not engineering guy!
- The way that manager (Chris) calculated my MOA range, MOA steps, etc for me for my specific sight radius given my dovetail locations
- The way Chris answered ALL my questions, in great detail, usually the same day I asked them.
- The videos that show company staff members shooting rifles with their telescopes on them at 600 yards
- The fact that Leatherwood Hi-Lux has a couple of CANADIAN dealers, with actual inventory, so no import hassles and costs
- The scope installation process was demonstarted FULLY in a website video, and took about 15 minutes total. No kidding.
- The fact that the Leatherwood Hi-lux total system cost, for a Canadian, is just over HALF of the MVA system cost, and that eliminates the need for machining dovetails for the MVA solution, plus any import duties and taxes that Canada Customs would assess on an imported MVA package.

MVA was very impressive of course, but Hi-Lux has a nice overall package of goods and services and support, a personal touch that really shines, and a great cost vs value offering.

The scope with the upgraded sighting and sliding package, was shipped the day after I ordered it, shipping cost was trivial (cross-country versus international), and I should have the package in my hands within 7 days.

I'm making ammunition for ladder testing in the meantime! :)

Jim G
 
I did it! I bought a Leatherwood Hi-Lux full length scope for my Pedersoli, and also the new CNC-made precision rear sight mount which also supports the scope sliding upon recoil to reduce the load on the mount and optics.

This was an important experiment for me, and while I have only had the scope installed just a couple of days, and been out to the range just once with it so far, I am happy to report that it has exceeded my expectations so far in terms of brightness, clarity, ease and speed of use, precision and reproducibility of settings. More use and testing is needed of course, but so far so good!

I will shortly post a new thread that describes the scope, the new precision sight system, and the effects of optimizing the sight mount radius. And then I will subsequently update the forum as I use the scope more and learn its strengths and weaknesses.

Here's a teaser: It LOOKS really exotic mounted on the rifle:

Hi-Lux scope - overall appearance - 1.jpeg

Jim G
 
JimGnitecki said:
I did it! I bought a Leatherwood Hi-Lux full length scope for my Pedersoli, and also the new CNC-made precision rear sight mount which also supports the scope sliding upon recoil to reduce the load on the mount and optics.

This was an important experiment for me, and while I have only had the scope installed just a couple of days, and been out to the range just once with it so far, I am happy to report that it has exceeded my expectations so far in terms of brightness, clarity, ease and speed of use, precision and reproducibility of settings. More use and testing is needed of course, but so far so good!

I will shortly post a new thread that describes the scope, the new precision sight system, and the effects of optimizing the sight mount radius. And then I will subsequently update the forum as I use the scope more and learn its strengths and weaknesses.

Here's a teaser: It LOOKS really exotic mounted on the rifle:

View attachment 1158233

Jim G
Click to expand...
Cool and congrats! I look forward to reading about your experiences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

fireman 9731
  • Locked
Rear sight for H and R Buffalo classic
Replies
7
Views
4K
fireman 9731
fireman 9731
H
  • Locked
91/30 Mosin Nagant, how many are mounting scout scope on dovetail beneath rear sight
2
Replies
29
Views
5K
Tempest 455
T
J
Testing, Testing . . . My Pedersoli Sharps Buffalo Rifle now has a historically semi-authentic fully
2
Replies
39
Views
841
JimGnitecki
J
K
  • Locked
Scope mounts and eye relief
2
Replies
33
Views
6K
kac624
K
H
  • Locked
French Mas 1936 rifle scope mount, iron sights shooting high, quick solution
Replies
6
Views
2K
hang fire
H
Back
Top