Taller front sight

[Idaho shooter]

Hey guys, where is a good source for a new, taller front sight for my Pieta 1858 NMA, so I don’t have to aim at my toes to hit something?

 

[arcticap]

I don't know if there's any pre-made direct replacement.
It depends on what type of fix that you want to attempt.
The Pietta post is basically just a press fit and should come right off with a little persuasion.
From there a person has choices.

1. Make your own higher post by filing a screw to fit the hole which can be affixed with epoxy and filed down to suit your needs.
2. Add height to your existing sight by building it up with epoxy, solder material or a metal cover that fits over it such as a cartridge case, piece of brass to fashion a new blade.
Or cut a slot in the existing sight base and install the new blade affixed with epoxy or solder.
3. Make a dovetail in the barrel and fit a dovetail sight of your choice. Look at all of the dovetail sights on the Track of the Wolf website.
Uberti's have a factory dovetail sight but who knows if that will have the right height. Available from Taylor's Firearms.
4. Install a Pietta target model front sight with base which may require a simple drill and tap for a screw. A Pietta rear target sight is also available from Taylor's Firearms.
5. Install a Pietta shooter's model dovetail post front sight but who knows if it will be the right height. Available from Taylor's Firearms.
6. Bring it to a gunsmith and have him install any type of new front sight of your choice.
7. Sell your gun and buy a target model.

Taylor's Pietta & Uberti 1858 parts are listed on pages 2 & 3 under Parts on the Taylor's Home Page which brings you here. --->>> https://www.taylorsfirearms.com/accessories/parts.html?p=2

 

[TheOutlawKid]

You can get a replacement sight from VTI, you can ask them for their tallest sight and i know uberti 1858 sights will also fit and i think...not for certain..but i think they are taller. I know someone who puts the uberti 1858 sights into his pietta 1851 navies due to theyre taller and they have a hole in the center under the sight and he just slips it right over his 1851's post sight. They look slick. Also dixie gun works sells them if you call them. But VTI is ur best bet. If you want a dovetail sight then those companies i mentioned and also Track of the wolf has great options. Id get a tall sight and adjust by shaving down as needed

 

[arcticap]

Here's the formula to determine the minimum front sight height adjustment or replacement:--->>> https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/zouave-sight-height.603538/#post-7445024

 

[TheOutlawKid]

you can can get some steelsteel/brass rod the same diamter (or as close as possible) as ur current sight and then cut it down to a size a little taller than you think you need... Then use a sand paper tube or stone cylinder bit (like the ones used with dremel/rotary tools) and shave down the rod into a point with the rounded shoulders just like an original. Just a thought

 

[TheOutlawKid]

These tall dovetail sights are available from VTI. ita a uberti part but fits pietta if you cut the dove tail.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Howdy

TheOutlawKid:That photo with the red background is mine. It is not in public domain.

It would be nice if you mentioned where you got the photo.

Anyway, when I bought my EuroArms Remmie way back in 1975, it came with a short front sight. They all did back then. The gun always shot high because the sight was so low.

Before I decided to buy a cartridge conversion cylinder for it I wanted to install a taller front sight so it would shoot more to point of aim.

I bought an Uberti front sight for it. I don't remember where I bought the sight at this point, but you could probably buy it from VTI Gun Parts. Part # 15 on their schematic.

http://www.vtigunparts.com/store/shopdisplayproducts.asp?id=13&cat=Uberti+1858+New+Army

The sight was just what I needed, taller than the original. The original EuroArms Remmie was dovetailed in, but the dovetail was too small for the new sight.

I took it to a gunsmith and he cut a new dovetail and mounted the new sight.

Now my old Remmie shoots right to point of aim with close targets.

Here is a photo of my old EuroArms Remmie with the taller front sight and its cartridge conversion cylinder.






A couple of close ups.

 

[TheOutlawKid]

I got it off a google search and it was posted in a public forum. Sorry...i didnt mean to take it without permission. It was the best example of what i was trying to explain. I meant no disrespect sir.

 

[Old Stumpy]

Anyway, when I bought my EuroArms Remmie way back in 1975, it came with a short front sight. They all did back then. The gun always shot high because the sight was so low.

I owned one of the EuroArms Remingtons back in 1972, and I experienced the same issue.

The sight was just what I needed, taller than the original. The original EuroArms Remmie was dovetailed in

I ended up replacing the front sight with one that I filed out from some scrap steel. I did a pretty fair job as I recall, with the base matching the octagon barrel shape well. I filed it carefully to point of aim, cold blueing as I proceeded.

The thing I notice now with my Pietta Remington is just how much cleaner the machining is internally and on the base pin than that old EuroArms.
The EuroArms had better finished grips though.

As for the 1851 Navy sight problem, the OP might want to look at "duelist1954" videos on You Tube. Mike addressed the problem by deepening the sight notch in the hammer instead of installing a higher front sight.

 

[Old No7]

That photo with the red background is mine. It is not in public domain.

It is now...

In fact -- they ALL are now!

Old No7

 

[TheOutlawKid]

Yeah...the pics i posted were on a puplic forum..i just did a search on google and up they popped. I believe any and all pics we post on the internet on public sites are up for grabs and for fair use...atleast thats the mindset i keep considering nobody can keep anyone else from saving them and sharing them elsewhere. I only believe its in bad form to say ur the original owner of the pic when you arent. Like i knew a guy who used to save pics of cars and girls posted online and say it was one of his cars and one of his new girlfriends he was dating. We knew he was full of it...cuz how many 68 camaros and swedish super models can a guy really have before u know hes full of it...12 maybe? But anyways...i always have the mindset that if i post something on these public forums then im under the understanding that i cant control who does what to it...and if im willing to post it then im willing to accept that fact. I meant no disrespect by using the pic and i didnt post where i got it or who owned it because well...i honestly didnt have time to do the research and i didnt think the owner would mind considering it was on a different forum in a post that was years old....and i found it randomly on a public google search and it was the best example i could find to help explain something to a fellow forum member who asked for help. I know if a fellow forum member used my pics to help explain something it would flatter me a bit and i would have been glad that my pics were being passed a along to help another. But thats me...i cant speak for anyone else. Again mr. Driftwood johnson...i meant no harm or disrespect, i just really liked your example picture of what i was trying to explain...of all that came up on the google search yours was best.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

It is now...

In fact -- they ALL are now!

Let's clear up a few things here.

It is often assumed that photos or other works posted on the internet are in public domain.

They are not.

If you do a google search for images, there is small print that appears under every photo that reads: "images may be subject to copyright"

Right behind that is a clickable link that says 'Learn More'.

If you click on the link, the first thing it says is: "Copyright ownership gives the owner the exclusive right to use the work, with some exceptions. When a person creates an original work, fixed in a tangible medium, he or she automatically owns copyright to the work."

Nothing about photos posted on the internet being automatically in public domain.

If you go to the Code of Conduct link at the bottom of the home page of The High Road, item #5 reads:

"5. You agree to respect the copyright of others. If you don't own the rights to something, do not post it unless you have received prior written permission from the owner. Absent that permission, please just link to it and provide a brief summary of the contents. This helps keep us all out of trouble."

Most forums such as this have similar wording somewhere.

When I first joined this board a number of years ago, I made the mistake of posting somebody else's photo.

My post got removed, because obviously somebody complained.

I did not make that mistake again (well, actually almost never).

If I did not take the photo myself, I provide a link to it, rather than posting the photo. That's how this board stays out of trouble.

I like taking photos, and I like posting them on boards such as this, being a firm believer that a picture is often worth a thousand words.

I will continue doing so, as well as posting my photos on a few other boards.

What really ticked me off was the time a guy used one of my photos to sell a revolver.

That is a clear violation of copyright law, but he too stated that photos posted on the internet are in public domain.

Not hardly, and if somebody is using somebody else's copyrighted content to make a profit, that is a clear violation of copyright law.

No, I did not pursue it, not worth the trouble.

TheOutlawKid: I hereby absolve and forgive you for posting a photo of mine.

No, I am not going to complain to the moderators of this board, I don't want to make a big deal out of it.

But it ticks me off when somebody states that photos, or other content, posted on the internet is automatically in public domain.

 

[TheOutlawKid]

Mr. Driftwood johnson...thanks for not holding a grudge toward me for posting the pic. Hmm although the whole copyright thing is pretty much a mess....cuz so many people can claim they are the rightful owner. It would be easy for someone to say "nope...its my photo...prove its urs". And in this digital age without negatives or actually copyrighting the photo through the proper legal means the way Getty Images does etc its hard to do prove ownership of any digital photo posted...unless its a photo of ur face etc. Id never be that sneaky or "low" to do such a thing...but theres always that one person who will. Old No. 7, i definately see where ur coming from...the internet has made it so that nothing is truely owned and controled from being shared once posted online especially in publically accessible sites open to everyone even non members of the porticular forum etc. Mr. Driftwood johnson..i see where u come from as far as being part of the better group of the general public that respects a persons rights, privacy, and personal propery. Its too bad more and more people are losing that code of ethics. Now...about that taller front sight mr. Idaho shooter...didja get that issue resolved?

 

[arcticap]

I've found some of my own photos from auction sites used by other posters and quite frankly I felt flattered.
It meant that I captured a very good, unique or worthwhile enough photo to re-post.
I have also taken the liberty of re-posting photos but have never used them for profit.
Sometimes I'm able to attribute them and other times not.
The copywrite rules seem to be pretty relaxed for student use.
I think that even a lot of teachers use copywrite material in classrooms now days for the benefit of teaching.
Many schools cannot afford to buy the books so they photocopy the learning material and use it as handouts.
If any of us played musical instruments for money then we would all need to be careful which songs we played.
I once received a warning from youtube because a patriotic song was playing in the background during my city's 4th of July fireworks display.
I took the video down even though they didn't insist on it, but it was the city's loudspeakers playing the music and the video was not monetized.

 

[TheOutlawKid]

Ive never had my photos used...i must be a pretty bad photographer. I just dont have the eye for it. But yeah i would be flattered too if someone actually took the time to save a photo of mine because it was either that good or showed something they liked and later used it to show others the pics content. Maybe i should work on my picture taking skills...Hmm...i also wonder if the copyright rules mainly apply to selling or profiting from the borrowed content. Kinda like u can record and use things for personal use but u cant sell the copies.

 

[Driftwood Johnson]

Hmm although the whole copyright thing is pretty much a mess....cuz so many people can claim they are the rightful owner. It would be easy for someone to say "nope...its my photo...prove its urs". And in this digital age without negatives or actually copyrighting the photo through the proper legal means the way Getty Images does etc its hard to do prove ownership of any digital photo posted..

Which is exactly why this forum, just like most, requests that posters post a link to the original photo, rather than posting it themselves. The reason Getty images puts its brand on photos is so they can collect money. That has nothing to do with whether or not a work is copyrighted. If I you take a photo you own all the rights to it. Period.

Yes, musicians have had to pay royalties on songs they recorded for many, many years. I remember a story years ago of a folk group sitting with a secretary in a recording studio so she could write down who had written all the songs on a record. Every time they said it was 'traditional' she said thank you. Meaning that the song was in public domain and no royalties would have to be paid to record it. Only much later did the group find out that some of the songs were indeed copyrighted.

And there are very specific rules about how much printed material can be photocopied for use in classrooms.

Here is a link to a flowchart showing whether somebody may or may not use a photograph taken by someone else.

Notice it does not say anything about images on the internet being in public domain.

Notice I did not post a photo of the chart, which I could have very easily done.

Instead, I am providing a link to the website.

Notice too the first balloon on the chart, "When in doubt, the rule above all others is to obtain permission from the original creator or copyright owner or to create the image yourself".

https://thevisualcommunicationguy.com/2014/07/14/can-i-use-that-picture/

There are links to Fair Use, Creative Commons, and Public Domain on that website too.

 

[TheOutlawKid]

Problem is...how do u know who the original poster is? You cant just take someones word for it on the internet. For example...For all i know the pics arent yours and you are just saying they are...perhaps you got then from a different site or from a buddy etc. Although i dont think that at all about u...its just how it is online Without actually doing the proper ownership copyright mumbo jumbo like getty images which isnt just for making money but to prove and show legal documentation that they own something...when it comes to standard pics without docunentation then for all we know someone is lying about being an original owner. Sure you can own an image and say its copyright because you took it....but no one can just take a persons word unless its an obvious photo such as their face etc. Say someone did the "proper" or "respectful" and legal route and asked a person online if they could post of of their pics and that person says "sure! Post away!" Then later come to find out the pic belonged to someone completely different. So out of curiousity I went ahead and asked my uncle whos a lawyer...he asked his partner as well and both agreed that in court the arguement wouldnt fly for digital images posted online publicly with no warnings stating that the particular image was not for sharing and esepcially if the image was shared for non monetary gains and that the poster needs to not share their images and/or go the proper legal route to copyright the image, he offered a few routes but i wasnt interested in that info...i asked about the google info that states info about copyright and he explained theres a lot more to it than just saying the picture is urs and that they post that to make their users feel safer but inactuallity once posted on their servers that they own its fair game for sharing....which is why google will show all images if you search a keyword..which is how i found mr.driftwood johnsons pics. Basically google says you own it to make you feel better and safe...but once u share it online...youre sharing it with the world and they can do with it as they please and it is up to the owner of the picture to spend the money to file legal proceedings against people who use it without permission...which lawyers and judges will say .."why didnt you copyright it properly and legaly to begin with before you put it online publicly for anyone to take?". And of course surely someone can complain to a forum and say "hey thats my pic the other user posted! Remove it!"......but whats to keep the other person from saying "prove it." Is the forum to take a side? Or just go by the original word by the complaint issuer? Lawyer said bottom line...dont post pics you dont want shared by others other than yourself and if you dont want it passed around then copyright it by proper legal channels...saying your the owner doesnt cut it without proof (but stated proof of ownership isnt actually questioned unless theres another claim on it) . He also stated for the sake of arguement i could have edited ur pics by adding my name or a smiley face making it no longer the original picture, but had you legally had it protected it would have been protected from editing...which is why you always want to take the proper legal channels to copyright something. He also commented about how all these stars post their pics on social media and they get passed around and shared on other sites and even on the news etc and there is nothing the celebrity can do until they get the image protected legally and pay their lawyers to file against the users of the pic...and thats because the pic is known for a fact to be owned by the said celebrity...imagine if you still have to prove your the original owner?

 

[TheOutlawKid]

Going by the chart mr.driftwood johnson posted....i guess it falls under the fair use catagory under "yes" i can use the images due to using it for non profit, educational, sparingly etc...since it was to help explain and educate someone about a front site