Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Muzzleloaders Front FO sight on my TC Triumph is too big...

Any suggestions? The fiber optic sight is just huge and covers a lot of the target at 100 yards. I would like to go with a finer sight.

Do I have any options? Any suggestions?

I found the samething.I don't know who ever thought of those monstrosties ,but they ought to be hung. Plus they work like crap in low light

Here is what I did for my TC Black Diamond.
Most of the new ML iron sights are intended to be used for 150 gr loads so getting one to shoot at 100 yards is a challenge getting the sights set if using an after market peep sight.

I bought a Wiliams peep sight, but could not set it high enough to get it sighted in using the FO front sight.I bought another FO front sight that was taller from TC, but you can buy them from Brownells.

I removed the rear FO sight.POS anyway with that spring loaded mechanism

Then I cut the FO part off of the new front sight ,and filed the remaining steel to what I wanted,which is a 1/16" thick blade and the proper height so that my Williams Peep was settting midway in the elevation adjustment range.

Ball park figures. My barrel under the front sight is .886 dia.Top of new blade is .396 tall.

Using a 6" black bull at 100 yards. I use a 6'0clock hold with just a sliver of white between the front blade and the bottom of the bull. I sight it is so that the POI is right at the bottom of the bull.Essentialy right on top of the black blade.

I ran into same problem with the Williams peep sight for my TC Omega. It will not work when mounted on the rear of the barrel where a peep should be mounted. FWIW, TC also has the proper front sight to use with a rear mounted peep.

One option is using a 6'0clock hold for sighting in. I like the sight picture better than covering the bullseye. I also prefer the sight picture using a rear peep.

Or ... use a large diameter paper plate as a bullseye if you're not using a 6'0clock hold.

Go with what saddlesore suggested and use a blade front sight.

One thing I thought about doing was replacing the large diameter fiber optic (FO) with a smaller diameter FO that's found on bow sights. You can buy sections of small diameter FO at a bow shop or on ebay. You'd have to slice the front sight and decrease the size of the hole the FO fits in. It's probably more trouble than what it's worth and I never did do it.

I ended up sticking with monstrous FO front sight with a rear peep. IMO, it's not as bad in the field when holding on hair as it is trying to sight in. For sighting in at a 100 yards I used sheets of black paper on a white background to form an inverted U about 8" wide. It gives you a sight picture with a white center section that's bordered by black on three sides. It helped me a bunch. I sighted in placing the group at the top of the front sight/ bottom edge of the black/ a 6'0clock hold.

This! I don't think the large front bead is a handicap at all in the field, at least at the ranges I shoot. I've had no problem holding dead on elk and deer out to 130 yards, it just hasn't been a problem for me. And to my eyes anyway, the stock FOs are far superior in low light than anything else I've used. I tried a Williams peep on the rear, and went back to the stock FO's.

Shooting for groups can be a challenge though. I solved it by getting the large "shoot-n-see" round black stick-on targets for my muzzleloader range work. I like to hold the bead covering the target, and with the large 12" bull you can center the bead inside the large black target fairly easiy and shoot decent groups.

It's interesting that you didn't like the rear peep. I prefer it. What I like about it is the unobstructed view on the front sight vs only being able to see the top half of the sight picture with the stock FO rear sight.

To each his own, there is no right or wrong, it's all a matter of preference.

I found that in early morning low light conditions that removing the rear aperture (basically a ghost ring) worked out fine. Trying to see through the aperture in low light was definitely a handicap.

Yes, I typically remove the rear aperature while hunting.
As my eyes aged,it is extremely difficult seeing the rear sights clearly. About the only plus I see for the FO is lineing up the two in back with the one in front, but then you have the problem of covering the target, I don't see how covering a 12" bull and then having that correspond to putting a spot on an elk. I guess you just cover up a 12" dia spot on thelk and let her fly.

I have no doubt you don't see how it works, most likely because you've never tried it. And I didn't say "cover a 12" bull," I said center the front bead inside it. Of course, this assumes that you then shoot a tight group at the center of the bullseye.

The front sight translates to about 10" at 100 yards, and like I said, I've had no problem centering that on the vitals of elk and deer.

If you prefer a finer sight, that is OK with me but to imply that anyone else who doesn't is just "letting her fly" is a crock of bullshit.

I agree. Centering the bead in the kill zone is completely different than shooting at a small bullseye. Target shooters need fine sights. Not so much for hunters.

If the bead can't be centered in the kill zone? Get closer.

Get closer anyway.

I have tried it with FO sights. If they were so damn good the military would not have put reciever sights on all thier battle rifles for the last 100 years. After shooting competively for well over 20 years,I know what works and what doesn't. You won't find any competitive shooters using a center of the bull hold. Me thinks that maybe someone else here is full of bullshit.
You pick a spot on an animal and shoot at that spot.You don't center it on a kill zone.

Go back and read the OP's original post.He isn't asking how to use the FO sights,he is complaining that they are too big and wants to know different options and how to fix them.

Really? The spot I pick is the center of the lungs. I'm pretty sure that the center of my kill zone.

I thought we were talking about the size of the front bead? Not FO, or receiver sights.

Don't say someone is full of bullshit until you understand what they're saying.

I will admit FO sights are too big. I'm not a fan of them.

MH.Here is what the OP stated in the 1st post.

"The fiber optic sight is just huge and covers a lot of the target at 100 yards"

My last reply was not directed at you. Aplogies if you thought that.

I fully understand what was being discussed.I'm not sure others do.

My credentials are: I have spent time and money becoming an NRA Certified Instructor and I am certified to teach Rifle, Handgun, and Shotgun Marksmanship/Safety and I am darn good at it. I have taught in excess of 500 students in those subjects. All students in my CCW classes qualified to recieve thier CCW permit. The El Paso CO Sheriff Dept declared I had the best class they had monitored in Colorado Springs.

No where is it taught that one covers up the target that you are shooting at. That includes paper and animals.

I participated in 200-300-600 yard NRA sanctioned matches and using std. issue iron sights and placed very well for many years. I have also participated and won in Action Pistol and Cowboy Action matches.

Hunting wise I have 40+ elk kills ( many with iron sights)and many more deer and antelope.

I think I am qualified in instructing someone on what sights to use and how to use them.

I too, have hunting for elk zero'd to where at whatever yardage I desire, I put the elk on top of the front post, and basically hit about 8 inches above that....

Post size does not really make much difference, seeing what you have out there does make a HUGE difference.

Thats why FO may be fine for quick up close shots, they just don't work well for me for precise longer range shots. I need something I can try to focus on and FO don't allow that.

I wasn't doubting your qualifications. Maybe I should explain and maybe you already know, but I just still hunt timber, and my shots are close, and a lot of running shots too. No way for me to cover the target with the front sight. If I do. I'm too far away, and that rarely happens.

That's why I said.......Get closer!

Sonora, take a look at this set up:

http://www.ableammo.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=108305

Out to 100 yards, the rear ghost ring is more than adequate. I do that on my Omega. Use the front sight with a rear williams peep on my Knight LRH. Fine bead and VERY bright in low light due to wrapped fiberotic strand.

Kind of a challenge to use it on an Omega (and probably on a triumph) with a rear Williams peep as the williams won't go high enough. When I tried it on my Omega, had to shim the rear peep

Have never used a finer bead, brighter sight. Used to be $50, looks like the price has dropped.

That said, since I changed to the 6-oclock hold, the size of the front bead is less of a problem. And my groups shrunk from 5 inches to 3 inches at 100 yards.

Doesn't it block a lot of the animal/background?

No what he said was, they cover too much of the target and he wants to go finer. I take that to mean he can't get a good consistent hold on a target to shoot groups and check the accuracy of his loads. So, if he gets a different target that allows him to get a consistent hold every time, that is one way to solve the problem, albeit different than his finer sight option. I'm not the only one who suggested changing the target, BTW. Another way would be to use a six O'clock hold, but you can't tell me that a six O'clock hold is any more accurate than a center hold using the same sights.

And by the way, what competitive shooters or the military does has little relevance here. Competitive shooters do all kinds of stuff that hunters don't do. And FO's aren't even an option for military rifles due to durability issues. To use your own logic, if fiber optic sights were no good for hunting with muzzleloaders, why do all the major rifle manufacturers install them on their rifles? That would be more relevant than what competitive shooters or the military does.

So telling me I'm just "letting her fly" by usng a method you've never tried, or telling me I need to emulate competitive shooters or the military is where the bullshit is.

Why don't you ask how many animals I've missed using FO's and a center hold in the last ten years?



Now that's funny coming from someone criticizing a method he's never tried.

Yep,The OP asked how to get a finer sight,not a differnt target.Reread my post and I stated that I had tried the center of bull method, it is not as accurate.

I guess one does not have to be as accurate while hunting,as competition shooting methods are not required. The whole idea is to be able to kill an animal quickly with a precisely placed shot. Employing any and all methods to place that shot is what is important.

I don't have to prove that a 6 O'Clock hold is more accurate than covering the bull as it had been proven many times over in competitive shooting. Ever heard of Camp Perry? Shooting the NRA matches at 200,300,600yards using off hand, sitting/kneeling and prone positions is one of the better ways to become proficient at field positions while hunting.

Precisely.



Once again, competitive shooting at 200, 300, and 600 yards at Camp Perry has little relevance. And I don't believe the OP asked how to become more proficient at field positions.

If the OP had said he needed a better sight system for shooting out to 600 in competition, do you honestly believe I'd have recommended an FO sight with a large front bead?

I'm assuming he's shooting groups at 100 yards, not 200, 300, or 600. And using the rifle for hunting, when the best times are dawn and dusk and the light-gathering properties of FOs are an advantage.

Your argument is akin to saying a lever action .35 Remington is no good for deer hunting, because that's not what people who shoot competitively at 200, 300, and 600 yards at Camp Perry use.

Competitive shooting does have relevance as it lets one learn how to use sights properly and although the OP did not mention field positions,competitive shooting makes you better marksman to deliver the bullet to where it should go.

Once again, lack of knowledge shows some do not know much about competitive shooting.Many NRA matches are shot at 100 yards at clubs and ranges that do not have 200+ firing lines. They are shot with reduced sized targets that simulate what one sees in relation to the targets at longer ranges. When that occurs,being able to reduce the width of the front blade gives a more direct comparison to what one would see using a wider blade at longer ranges.

That corresponds directly to one deciding to use reciever sights and front blade vs FO sights.One might not see the difference when they are only trying to put a bullet in the black, but is totally significant when one needs the X ring. That is not going to happen by centering the sights on the bull.
How does this correspond to hunting? Many times the entire chest is not discernable for a lungshot. A straight on chest shot,or maybe a base of the neck shot may be required, or maybe only an 8 " wide window is available in tight timber and all one can target is a line running down the rear of the shoulder.
Finer sights will let that shot be taken. Larger FO sights that cover up that entire window won't.

I'd bet that is what Huntssonora is worried about.