As a relative newbie to BPCR and with my present learning curve moving forward a good Vernier sight was a big ? mark as to whether one would be in my future.

Jorge stepped up and offered to lend his for a trial run saving me a large outlay of initial cash just in case it shouldn't fit my comfort zone.

It's an MVA Buffalo Soule #101 mid range and quite pricey I may add.Having launched about 50 rounds downrange at 100-350 after correlating with the buck horns it gives me a much better sight pic than the barrel sights but as you all know too well is slow to acquire in most hunting scenarios.

I'll be 66 soon the ole peepers aren't what they used to be so I need all the help I can get without glasses..Hunting Nebraska winters with specks is an almost impossible undertaking. Further testing is eminent but this sight design is without a doubt in my near future.

Jorge thanks for the trial run my friend really appreciate it,gotta love the CF kindness that shows itself here time after time..

At least when you look at a sight like that you know why it is expensive.Nice

Outstanding!

What front sight do you currently have on your rifle, Woody?

Ed

Ed still using Sharpsguy's copper penny.

Thank you, sir.

When I finally get my Sharps, I will see if I can impose on Sharpsguy to help me switch mine out for a copper penny.
Thinking about finding one from my birth year.

My rifle had an "anticipated" delivery date of 5-21-14. Unknown when it will actually get here.

Ed

Have you considered the MVA Winchester scope? Not a whole lot more money than a soule sight and globe.

Mine should be coming with a #108 rear. I too am doing some eager anticipating...

A scope has never been on my radar or ever will be,think if it came to that I'd just quit altogether and put her on the wall..

Scope is more authentic on a hunting sharps than a target sight that didn't come until about the time the big guns went silent...

Thanks for the info guess I need to catch up on some history.ET sent me his copy of Getting a Stand by Miles Gilbert but it doesn't mention much about scoped Sharps rifles.

In the Buffalo Hunters Encyclopedia there are a number of accounts of those guys putting scopes on their rifles. One of those storie is from Charles Billinghurst who traveled and shot quite extensively in the last half of the big hunt. He tells of his entire outfit having their rifles fitted with scopes in Miles City.
Seller's Sharps rifle book has pictures of many of those old rifles that still wear the original Malcolm scopes.

Scopes are mentioned in The Buffalo Harvest by Frank Mayer. He says he had one on a .40/90 Sharps. Some readers don't like his book but he was about 100 years old when he was writing it. So, some dates get mixed up and he seemed to use straight cases a bit too soon. Forgive him on those details and he tells a real good story.

Woody a couple of years back I went shooting with a bud who had a 6x RHO scope on his Shiloh 45-70. In low light it made shooting possible, we were just plinking at left over chunks of clay pigeons on a public range. With iron sighted ones we had with us it was a no go. I have a penny frt sight and a buckhorn for my 45 2 7/8" for hunting yet the gun most of the time has a MVA#111 on it and a XLR Soule sight for targets to a mile. One only has to change frt sights about 1 time and you start thinking about another gun. While I believe most of the Sharps used in the 1870's were just equipped with barrel sights more than a few had sporting tangs also and some were scoped. Do what you need to to keep shooting. See MVA scopes at all the LR gong shoots I attend, no big deal, separate classes and the scope scores aren't allways the highest ones either. As we get older our needs change and we need new challenges too the a scope will be one of mine. Magnum-Man

There goes the neighborhood...

Now Sharpsguy it is aways down the road and it would really be cool to put a 28" MVA 6x on my 40-70 bn 26" barreled Saddle gun for prairie dogging. Retro PD'ing or what?

Yeah, I know, but it is even cooler to take them with barrel sights. I honestly think it is easier to get on them with barrel sights than with a scope unless they are sitting dead nuts on your scope zero point.

Case in point. Last week I was on my range with my Shiloh Rough Rider in 45-70 which currently carries a Lyman 17A front and a Red River Arms Mega Soule in the back. The wife and I were practicing our offhand on the chicken. She had finished shooting and I had my 200 meter zero on the tang sight to shoot the chicken. As she looked through the spotting scope, she saw a coyote walk out and stop right in front of my 410 yard gong. She said "Shoot it". I was trying to change my sight setting from the 200 meter setting to the 410 yard setting--52 points to 74 points,the wife is saying "Why arent you shooting him?" and I'm trying to get squared away. The coyote got tired of watching the circus and walked off out of sight just as I tightened the eyepiece. No shot, no joy. If I had been using barrel sights, I probably would have killed the coyote. I would have most certainly been able to get a shot off with time to spare.

Bottom line is you guys are going to screw around with these tang sights and scopes for hunting, and you may kill something from time to time. But you are going to miss out on a lot of shooting opportunities that present themselves that you would otherwise have if you stick to the buckhorn and blade. BTDT--last week, in fact.

I've hunted enuff stuff over the years with many different barrel sight combos but still as in days gone bye will pass on a crappy or fuzzy sight pic every time without exception as I feel all of us owe that same respect for the game we hunt.That's my present dilemma at longer ranges.

Jorge's MVA has cleaned up my sight pic very well and definitely falls within my comfort zone of target acquisition so now it's a matter of correlation and practice.

Number one is what works best for me however bizarre or half bubble off of SOP it may be.Kinda like baseball,some of the best hitters have the crappiest unorthodox stance in the box but manage to knock the hide off the old apple with relative ease and consistency.

At present I'm good to go with critter confidence to 250 yds with barrel sights but beyond is no man's land at the present state of the old peepers.Probably a trip to my optometrist would solve several issues just need to move that to the top of my bucket list.

If seeing the sights and or the target is a problem, the 457+75 for a soule sight with a Hadley, and 550 for that MVA Winchester scope copy, seems like an easy choice to me..

Seriously considering the MVA #133 Sporting Tang..should be the same resolution I'm getting with the Vernier but with the increased speed of elevation for faster target acquisition.

You're best bet is going to be go the the eye doc, and get some glasses that are going to let you shoot again.
That sight is not really made to change elevations in a hurry.
If you really think a peep is the answer to all your problems you might want to think about having someone build you a slide for the ladder that uses a peep instead of the notch.

How so,then what's its purpose? Still clears up my sight pic same as the Vernier,can't see where its much slower than raising the ladder if you know your zero for given ranges on the scale.

Ok go ahead and get the thing. Hands on experience is the best teacher.

Glad to be of help Woody. As another neophyte to this "bidness" and fortunate enough to still have good eyes, there is no question that every time I've changed from "V" type sights to peeps, my groups have at lease halved in size (1895s, Savage 99 and Mod 71 Winchester). I did not care for the vernier, because it got in my way when I aimed, shot and reloaded, yet ET's pretty good with his. The only thing I can bring to this conversation is that use what works for you. Enjoy it Woody. j

Thanks jorge.. I haven't decided on which way to go as there have been many suggestions posted by those way more edumacated on the subject than myself and I've looked at almost every conceivable sight combo in existence of late for a Sharps.

For all concerned a few things to clear up....I'm not Mr.Magoo just yet, nor do I have any aspirations for competitive target shooting.I'll hunt with this gun and only hunt so getting the sights right for me is #1 priority.

I appreciate all suggestions so feel free to keep em coming..

Folks, thank you for the open and frank discussion some of the practical characteristics of vernier sights and 19th Malcolm-style telescopic sights when used for hunting with BPCR rifles. I've learned a lot about various issues whose existence I had not even suspected.

Woody you'll likely need to drill out the aperature on a tang sight quite a bit to be able to see that front blade in low light hunting situations.
If you look at the second sight you posted , to adjust the elevation on the thing you'll need to loosen the eyecup and while looking at the left side of the staff move the slide to what ever setting you think you might need. This is not going to be fast, and doing it with a gloved hand is not going to be an exercise in precise sight movement.
If you must go with a tang sight at least go with the screw adjustments, so that way after with enough practice you can at adjust the elevation fairly precise according to the number of "twists" you give the knob. (hopefully you won't go the wrong way in the heat of the moment when that buck steps out).

Tnx Don,good points all I'll certainly archive those as this trial run moves forward.I do see inherent disadvantages of a Vernier vs barrel sights under adverse weather conditions but the extremes we hunt under almost every late season can and will render any barrel varieties useless as well.

Maybe we're just gluttons for punishment but I've been hunting these conditions since the middle 70's with irons and glass...snow,sleet,single digit temps nothing new just cover the sights the best you can and try to stay warm.Glass on board doesn't fair much better either.

Woody back in the bad old days Shiloh Long Range Express model were shipped std with what they called a sporting tang rear and had no rear barrel sight. They worked but not real good, no where near the quality of the one you are looking at but same principle operation. Problem was the staff was not plumb and only by shimming the base was I able to correct that somewhat. You would be better served with a #130, #134, or a #131 for what you want and the small Hadley Disc as well to tune for light conditions. I BTDT. Magnum Man

Ranch and Magnum Man--I think Woody is going through the "Tang Sight Infatuation Phase" with his Sharps. You guys have done it, I've done it, all of the old hands that actually hunt with their Sharps have done it. Your eyesight gets a little fuzzy, and you manage to get your hands on a tang sight, and put it on your rifle. It just LOOKS SO COOL on the gun, that's what the old buffalo rifles looked like, right? Then you look through the eyepiece, and the sight picture is so clear and sharp you can't believe it. This is THE answer, it's just gotta work, right?

Then you waste a whole hunting season trying to use the damned thing, lose several shooting opportunities because of the gadget sitting on the wrist of your rifle, and finally come to the realization that despite what some of the magazine articles say, the old timers really didn't use them on their buffalo guns. We've all BTDT, and Woody is just gonna have to get skinned up and find it out for himself. This is one of those deals where the lesson "If it's too good to be true, it probably is" comes to mind. I don't know of anyone who has been able to avoid the trap yet. Looks like Woody's next.

For whatever it might be worth, I purchased one of these for my Stevens 44 some time back. It is a #104 Schuetzen.



My intention was not for hunting applications but it could be used for that purpose without a lot of grief. I am not however a knob twiddler in the field. Within the viable range for that particular gun I would have it zeroed and know the intermediate POI elevations to include 25-50 yards beyond zero. I do not find the aperture difficult for finding the blade or target. My eyes are however not terribly successful with the original buckhorn sights.

My .02, FWIW

I'd enjoy proving you wrong my friend but not counting chickens just yet specially since you seem to be right 99.9 percent of the time. A good clear sight pic trumps infatuation anyday IMO,we'll see come November

Peeps on my smokeless rifles work great from 0-200 yards, I think the sight DD showed us should be no different?

Think again. It ain't the same ballgame. Not even close.

The only reason I bought into the tang sight bit was for a creedmoor shoot that didn't happen. If it hadn't of been for thinking about going to that thing, and then getting snookered into "getting serious about these matches" I probably never would of put one of the damn things on my gun.

There is a LOT of insight and wisdom in that post. And the thing is, as long as you have one on your rifle, that sight keeps you from learning how to really use the gun.

That's true , but it's dang hard to dial in the xring on a 1000 yd target with the ladder and blade. But I seriously don't think a person would be handicapped much by using the natural sights for most gong shoots and leave the fancy addons alone.

Aw crap, now I got to go murder a hog with that rig.

On the range an aperture sight works fine. This is a 98 from 1000 yds. shooting my .50:

50 2 1/2 Group by Sharps45 2 7/8, on Flickr

When I hunt...I take that sight off and use the standard barrel sight and it still shoots!

Acespades by Sharps45 2 7/8, on Flickr

There just ain't enough time on most occasions to be fiddle-pharting around twisting knobs on a tang sight!

Outstanding shooting RM...

The area I hunt in central Kneebraskee is for the most part wide open rolling terrain with deep canyons scattered with occasional pockets of hardwoods and cedars.. 90 percent of the shots are usually 250 minimum and 3-400 most often except for one area along the Middle Loop river where my Marlin 444 shines.

I have plenty of time for target acquisition as this is all thousands of pristine ranch land acres where the deer rarely see orange.

As I mentioned previously I'm good to go out to 250 with barrel sights but beyond is ???

Beyond 250 my military training kicks in and says don't press a bad position,disengage,regroup and reacquire.The addition of the Vernier has permitted exactly that. Two weeks ago on the first outing I was busting lased rocks out to 350 and beyond with ease via my cast 525 gr PP launched from my 110 with jorge's sight on board.

Heretofore it's only been a pipe dream but the aperture seems to work just fine which has certainly extended my range of comfort and without a doubt I'll hunt it this fall.

FlyboyFlem

"I have plenty of time for target acquisition as this is all thousands of pristine ranch land acres where the deer rarely see orange."

That's a good point because the type of terrain you're hunting does make a difference!

I was on a Buffalo ranch in Nebraska that has a iron critter target layout like the Quigley and the four of us where banging away with several different Sharps calibers and we decided to back up to the Billy Dixon line at 1585 yards. I decided to use my hunting rifle the .44-77 Sharps using the Lawrence ladder sight and blade front. It took a few shots to get on that Buff at that range holding on dark spots on the ground to the left three targets because of the Neb. wind. but don't ever count the blade and ladder sights short. They work just fine. You just need to use them to learn how to use them.

Kurt

You guys suck. Only irons I can use these days are on a RB ML that has a 42" barrel. That puts the blade about 4' from my eye and I can deal with the fuzzies on the v-notch rear well enough. Otherwise it's apertures/peeps or glass. I like aperture sights a lot regardless of form. I do have an optical diopter sight on a zimmer that would be awkward afield. Hell, the gun it mounts on would be awkward in the field. German Schuetzen style guns...you put them on is the best way to describe it I guess.

OTOH, I have a Williams aperture on a Model 94 that has taken a few critters on the fly. Circumstances weigh heavily on how and where they (peeps/apertures/verniers) can be used I think.

Just get some glasses that let you see the front sight. I'm blind as a bat without my glasses. With glasses I can shoot. It ain't rocket science.

I already got bi-focals.....I hunt mostly very close cover that is shaded in large part and do so still hunting.

Also have a new lens in the left eye. I like sights with round holes.

6 Million $ Dan

I might have to get one of those, for my Stevens 44 as well. Screws are 1.50" center to center?

Of course, if I close my thumb in the action again I may want a left hand version

Not too loud Tex or someone will show up soon and say you don't need that!

Not need What?...thumb, tang sight, or Stevens?

Tang..

I can pretty well ga-rauntee I'm not gonna shoot a running deer with the Stevens. Although it's conceivable I could shoot a turkey with it. More likely a raccoon or bunny.

The Marlin in the same caliber wears a scope and will take warm smokeless loads; that would be what I'd want for serious critter getting.

My Marlin 444 wears only buck horns but I'm thinking a Lyman or similar tang might be the cat's meow for some extended range work as I have a fine 310 gr cast GC bullet it slings with authority.

MVA makes specific bases for a variety of old guns. Tell them what you got when you order.

thanks!

Ya know if I were you I would worry about the information that who ever is trying to pass that Parts Unknown soule sight off on you as an MVA longrange buffalo sight, more than I would be taking pot shots at folks who offered up opinions based on actual experience...

I take everything quite seriously on this thread and have put all suggestions on file.Pot shots? Sorry you're offended it was meant solely in jest and not to criticize anyone. Bill and I have become good cyber friends and he's busted my chops routinely with alternative suggestions but
I'm not offended in the least as the knowledge I've gained from our conversations are invaluable, doubtful it would be any different if you and I visited.

Jim is another mentor who's guided me along to where I am today with his take on the scheme of things. I've read enough mail here to know that many of you with years of experience differ on many issues and technical preferences but manage to arrive at the same place.

This is still a trial run for me and may not work out down the road but at least I gave it try...

Fugg it Flem, get a 300 Weatherby and kick all their asses

My mistake in ID'ing the sight,you are correct it's not an MVA but a Parts Unknown brand which has a few minor differences primarily at the base mounts.Correct me if I'm wrong but a search indicates they are no longer available as Parts unknown but now are Red River brand.

No matter it will serve my purpose well as it's high quality and still pricey but FWIW there was no misrepresentation intended as it found its way to my gun just several honest mistakes in identity which heretofore no one caught but you.

Parts unknown is now Red River. You can't get that soule sight anymore, they do produce the borchardt sight which combined with the redesigned eyecup makes a terrific target sight, but really sucks when it comes time to change the elevation setting.
Yes good quality sights are expensive.

Well just be careful you don't put your or somebody elses eye out with the damn thing. Your mother would never forgive us...

I think more accurately, get an ultralight .300 Weatherby and let folks shoot it. It will kick their ass for you.

That sort of stuff only works on folks with no experience,, not so much for folks that go back with the 300 wby to the days when you sent your M70 to Roy hisownself..
Experience, it's a great teacher, and sometimes it pays to pay some heed to folks that have it..

It's a lot less expensive if you can learn from the mistakes of others, but some things we just have to screw up ourselves before we learn. Just ask my ex-wife.

The more I ask questions here and read other BPCR forums, the more I learn what to do, and, more importantly, what NOT to do.

Ed

My LW 338/06 AI pushin heavies is worse than my 110 with a 530gr PP...

I can assure you, an Ultralight .300 Roy, loaded with 165's and a fistful of R22 kicks worse that a light .45-90, slinging 500's.

I'll tske your word for it...

Worst kickin' thing I ever shot was a Model 94 Trapper. Fit was atrocious. Added a pad and lengthened the pull and it's no worse than a growed up .338 Win Mag. fed max loads under 250 and 300 gr bullets. 510 grains from a .45-70 at about Mach 1.5 is a pussycat, comparatively speaking.

Have never met a big bore that hurt anything but my ears. And the target.

They all overpenetrate.