I post this in the lever gun forum because IMO iron sights and lever actions are meant to be together. put a scope on a lever action and you take away the secret sauce. the most common iron sight is some form of buckhorn type rear sight. I have to ask what is the purpose of the buck horns on the rear? Those ears encumber the side view of the sights and prevent tracking a moving target as well. Also surprising is the various differences in rear sights. Some sights have a very wrapping buck horn. at this point after shooting quite a bit of lever guns lately. I prefer skinner/ghost ring on stationary targets, on moving I like a notch rear sight as flat as I can on the top. I don't get why it seems like its so hard to get iron sights correctly. probably my idea sight combo is what is put on the CZ rimfire training rifle. What are your opinions on irons and why gun companies did the buck horn rear sight so much

If you put a big 3-9x40 on it, I'd agree that you lose a lot in balance and feel, and for short range fast action.
I have a small 1-4x20 scope with wide reticle in low QR rings on my 30-30. Fit with the rifle is about perfect. And precision close range sight acquisition is super fast when turned down to the lowest power. It seems every bit as instinctive as iron sights, with the abilty...for me.. to really extend the accurate shooting range when turned up a bit.
The wide reticle is not optimum at longer ranges on small targets. But this rifle ain't set up for ground squirrel and prairie dogs.
And if I need or want to, I can access the 30TK's flat notch rear and bead front iron sights in short order thanks to the QR rings.

On my 39m .22 I have a smallish 2x7 with fine crosshair for more precision on small targets.
This rifle doesn't even have a front sight. After installing a scope several years ago, I took it off to make it more snag free when traversing the briar patch.
For really short range fast action on tiny targets like rats, the scope is a disadvantage. But I have a mark ii 678 target for that.

All that said, I'm not opposed to using iron sights. I made a couple of astounding shots with that little 39m and iron sights when I was much younger.
I loved the iron sights on my long barreled Remington 121.
And as a somewhat avid wingshooter, and skeet shooter, with a shotgun in my younger days makes short range on moving targets with iron sights somewhat natural. But that little 1-4 really lines up fast too.

I also like a ghost ring. But more so on a shotgun.

I think they are still put on leverguns because that is a traditional sight. I've read that was the original BDC sight system. For a real long poke you lined up the front sight to the top of the buck horns, for a mid range shot you used the top of the sight notch and for closer you pulled the front sight down deep into the sight notch. Of course you'd have to shoot and figure put what ranges corresponded to these sight pictures. A ladder sight is an easier and not much slower sight to use IMO.
I dont care for buckhorn sights, so most of mine get some sort of tang or reciever mounted peep mated to a blade front sight.

Here in PA we have an antler point restriction. The peep sight is m favorite but I have missed opportunities while confirming the number of antler points with binoculars. So now I carry something with a scope when looking for buck. Later in the season, I might carry the Winchester 1886, but know that less pressure in that time should allow me more time to use the binoculars in place of the scope absent from this rifle

My iron sight days are long gone ,if your young and can still see those iron sights good for you,otherwise your like me with a dang scope on a 22 lever.

I have read that you can also use the buckhorns as a sort of ghost ring for close fast shooting. I just replaced my Puma’s factory sights with a Marbles full buckhorn rear and ivory dot front sight. Have yet to get to the range but I like the look and feel of them.

I have XS and Skinner peep/ghost ring receiver sights on my lever action Marlin and Winchester rifles and far prefer them to a scope on that type of rifle. But, when we go after moose and caribou thus fall, I may put the little Leupold 1.5-5x20 with the German #4 on my Big Bore .356 Win. as it seems to fit on there just fine and will make a 200 yard caribou shot easier. The moose will probably be close, based on past moose shots.

The Marlin 1895 45-70 and my .348 Win. Mod. 71 will never wear a scope. I got my limits and don't need John Wayne shouting at me from his grave by golly!

I have both a 336 and a model 94 carbine.
The 94 is so light and handy that I prefer it.
For me, putting a scope on either of them would ruin the edge they give on their design.

I prefer a williams peep with a red firesight front bead on the 94.

Let's see last count of I remember correctly I had 9 lever guns some are Winchester 94 most are Marlin 336 or 1894 for a spread of cartridges to select from .22lr, 218bee, all the way up to a 45-70 1895ss. One has a Williams peep on it with a globe front sight all the rest are scoped.
I have yet to meet the iron sight shooter that can place his shots as accurately as a scope user, it just is not going to happen.

I started deer hunting with a hand-me-down Savage 99 with a buckhorn sight and killed some deer with it. When I got enough money together, I bought a used Model 70 30-06 with a 4X Weaver on it and never went back to iron sights. Fast forward several years and got an itch for another lever action with iron sights.

I'll have to admit it was fun working with a lever again, but the process evolved.
336-C 30-30


Williams aperture




The end.

OK cowboy, since you asked about buckhorns and most are talking about scopes and such, and you have a buckhorn: how are you using it? Different sight pictures for different ranges? How fast is it for close stuff? Etc.? I'm thinking of removing the Williams peep and getting back to an open sight.

My preference is a receiver sight/post front combo.

The receiver sight gives you the longest sight radius, and a post-type front allows more of a view of the target, paper or fur.

After shooting military rifles for years, it is the system I have grown used to.

For me, using only buckhorn or ghost ring sights on levers...rear sights don't occupy my attention much. Usually near max the elevation. Since most shots are under 125 meters for me, I concentrate mostly on the front sight.

Like most weapons you have practiced with and familiarity with loads used, distances and no adverse weather conditions, you pretty much know where the shot will likely go before you pull the trigger.

I defiantly prefer a ghost ring, skinner/williams peep on targets not moving. I think the advantage with the buck horns are one moving targets. I think the peep ghost ring setup is harder to hold centered when you are moving the gun.

I've not encountered that, and the majority of the deer and pig I've shot with both my .30-30 and .45-70 (when it wore peeps) have been moving, sometimes at a run. The buckhorn covers a lot of the deer and I've never had a problem keeping the front sight centered. Your eye should do that naturally, without conscious effort.

Not saying that is your experience, just mine. I started using peeps in '77 and immediately realized the advantage.

That is exactly how my levers turned out. My eyes simply do not work with irons.

That looks good, low but your back up is still there. Makes it seem like Marlin's life purpose is to be the saddle rifle with a scope.

What if the moving target is a jackrabbit?

I would think that it would be even more important not to cover any more of the target than necessary.

A front post covers a lot less *target*, whatever size it may be, than a rear buckhorn.

agreed, I think it depends on the buckhorn. I have seen massive buckhorns. IMO there are 2 way to do irons, ghost ring/peep and a flat rear sight with a notch. if you look at the CZ training rifle rimfire sights. but you get so many weird iron sight arrangements that frankly suck.

I have scopes on both of mine but when shooting irons i keep both eyes open.

Seem to do better on those types of shots.

But what beats them all on wabbits is the "Red Dot of Death".

I've been an avid lever gun user for over 40 years. Over that time I've used every type of sight arrangement imaginable. My Winchester 94's now both wear Williams receiver sights in combination with green fiber optic fronts. My Marlins are scoped with a leupold 1-4x20 VX-II and Weaver K- 2.5. I have used buckhorns and flat topped rear sights with white diamonds and triangles under the notch in the past combined with sourdough, post and silver, brass and ivory beads up front. The best of those were flat topped rear with white diamond or triangle under the notch combined with a flat faced ivory bead front. Have also used aperture rear sights in combination with all of the above fronts plus red and green fiber optics and found the best combination for low light visibility along with adequate precision to be with the green fiber optic front. The aperture rear with 1/16" flat faced ivory bead is also quite good for visibility and beats the fiber optic for precision if you need to take longer shots.

If scoped how do you deal with such a low comb? I would love to put a 2.5X scope on my Henry .44 lever but can't get a good cheek weld (hate to ruin the feel/looks) . I have a peep and am waiting on a fiber optic front. Old eye thing makes it hard to see the front sight. If the brighter front sight does not work I don't know what is next.

I don't own a scoped rifle. At 67 I can still see well enough to shoot sub one inch off a bench at 50 yards with open sights and when everything works, 2 inches at 100 are not uncommon and if aperture sights are used, 2 inches is common, provided the rifle is capable. My two Schuetzen rifles and my Shiloh #1 Sporter set up for target work consistently break one inch at 100 and, the two Schuetzen rifles, benched, have shot near bullet diameter, 8.15 mm and 8.7mm. Just a little over 1/3 inch and around 3/8 in. with those inaccurate cast bullets. Even with older eyes, if you PRACTICE you can shoot better than you think you can.

Having said that, buckhorn rear sights are a PITA. If you want rapid acquisition of your target, get a shallow "V" rear sight with a platinum line down the center of the back. Inside 100 yards it's "accurate enough". A little larger front bead will help but that will also determine your group size...if shooting a group is more important than putting a killing shot on game.

Basically that's the old British primary "standing rear" sight arrangement, sloped forward. It proved plenty fast enough for critters that could turn you into a red puddle so surely it's adequate for anything on this continent that a 30-30 is suitable for.

Brian Pearce had an article in either Rifle or Handloader comparing a 25-20 marlin 94 with open, scope and red dot sights and their was no practical difference between them. I wish I could find a link to it.

You’d even do better than a scope, with accuracy, if you used a satellite based tracking system which launches laser-guided missiles.

Under ideal conditions with an ideal target I'm sure that's true.

Without even realizing it I had gravitated to peep sights and scopes only. Then I acquired my Mannlicher Schoenauer model 1905 with flip up u notch irons. Due to my aging eyes they were giving me fits. I had my gunsmith rework the flip ups to a wide shallow express configuration with a gold centerline. I now can shoot 2 to 2 1\2" groups at a hundred yards and see the whole deer when jump shooting. It would be very easy to modify most v notch sights to this style if your eyes can still make them out. Good hunting.

Under what conditions?? Pointless statement, you can bias the contest to favor either system.

Most of my lever actions have a Lyman steel aperture sights. I think one is aluminum Lyman and I have a scope on my 256.

The reason for buckhorn sights is that when you get used to them and maybe only have one rifle you can gage distance and set the front sight in the sight picture for that distance. Back in the day you just need enough accuracy to kill a deer or whatever, it seems.

I had some correspondence with the owner of Henry rifles, nice guy. I told him I'd be much more interested in Henry rifles if they came without the cut in the barrel with that buckhorn sight. I told him that aperture sights are the way to go. He claimed people wanted buckhorn sights and I seriously doubt that!!! But he is the owner and I'm just a shooter.

I don't like buck horn sights!

Aperture sights are perfect for lever guns. I shoot gophers, prairie dogs with my lever guns in the warm months and whatever in the winter.

There are iron sights and then there are iron sights. Once a year a rifle club near me, in an effort to boost membership, held an any sight no holds barred 50 shot match at 200 yards using NRA highpower targets. The results over a number of years, seemed to favor the scopes only slightly...maybe 60/40 scopes to irons. The scores were so close usually that the top 3 scores were usually settled by "X" count. Iron sights can be competitive.
That said, if there ever was a worse sight than the buckhorn and round bright bead...I've never seen it.

I like iron sights and other then my Tikka Superlight 6.5 Creed all of my rifles have them either as back up to a scope or as the only sight system. I also believe for most they are plenty accurate for Alaska's big game out to 200 yards, which is further then 90% of my shots have been taken in the last 55 years. I currently have peep-receiver sights on 5 rifles, of which 4 are lever actions. I see better in low light with open sights as compared to peep sights and I never hunt with the insert in the aperture, so I guess I am using them as a "ghost sight".

My wife really liked the little Mod. 94 Big Bore .356 Winchester I picked up last spring, so it will wear a Leupold 1.5-5x20 with a German #4 reticle and Warne QD rings during moose season and then just the XS receiver sight for the rest of the year. I had a new Mirkoru .348 Winchester made into a .348 Ackley Improved this last year and have a bunch of Starline brass to fire formed and will do it this winter so the barrel will cool faster. It came with a Lyman receiver sight and the barrel sight was removed. I am looking for a reliable barrel mounted sight that I can compare my accuracy to the XS sight with. I plan on hunting with it for a couple of years and it should be a superb moose buster with those wonderful 250 grain Kodiak Super Bonded bullets at close to 2,500 fps mv. I also plan on looking for one of our many moose eating brown bears if possible and want to keep the shot under 100 yards. It has enough of the "right stuff" to kill at 200 yards, but I trust my shooting more on a big bears if I am closer and 40 yards would be just splendid.

I like Marlin and Winchester lever guns and which one I like the best is what ever I am packing for the day. The one I have had the longest and like the most is a Marlin 45-70, a light weight easy to field strip power house. One of the neatest things I see on the market is the receiver sight offered by Skinner Sights for Marlin rifles that has the cut out for medium height Talley QD rings. A simple turn of a couple levers and one instantly has the option of a scope or a receiver sight. Can't beat that with a stick!

It really depends on ones eye sight. If you have poor vision, the buck horn sight isn’t the best option. If you have good vision and don’t shoot regularly , again the buck horn sight is not the best option. If you have good vision and take the time to become proficient with a buck horn sight, it’s a great option.

If you cannot "see" the **iron** sights and the target...get new glasses.

If you are unable to properly shoot a 100-150 meter/yard rifle without a scope...get a different type of rifle.

You asked how to use a Buckhorn sight and here is the answer.
I have tried this and did not make it work very well.
Dixie Gun Works used to have several full Buckhorn sights that were high quality and different heights.

In 1892 A.C. Gould wrote on the poor quality of the buckhorn sight in his book “The Modern American Rifle.”

The idea was simple and observing the sight with its purpose in mind will make its utility obvious.
Unless you have some rare capability to judge the range to the animal, it would be convenient to have a sight that eliminates this main factor in making a kill shot from point blank range to the max effective range of your rifle. That device is the buckhorn sight.

In practice, the top of the horns are placed on the back of the animal and the bead is moved up to his belly and you squeeze the trigger. Zero the rifle so the bullet hits the critter above the bead just about where the heart resides. This works from where the animal fills the buckhorn (up close) all the way out to where you run out of effective range of the rifle and or sight picture. At some distant range, the trajectory starts to fall below the parameters of this scheme and while you could start holding the bead above the top of the horns to get a little more range, its probably not very practical.

The height of the buckhorn window must be calculated to fit the size of game intended to be hunted with a particular rifle and the position of the sight on the barrel is important as well. A little plane geometry math is required to establish the sight window height and the location of the sight along the barrel.

I hope this abbreviated explanation makes the case for a buckhorn sight on your old smoke pole rifle. Not of much importance on a rifle with a point blank range of 250 yards unless you intend to use it beyond the pbr. Hint, the faster the bullet, the shorter in height of the buckhorn.


In October of 1918, The Century Company published Townsend Whelen’s book, “The American Rifle.”
Whelen had this to say on the buckhorn sight:
“As before mentioned, the simplest form of rear sight is the plain open sight consisting of a bar having a “V” or “U” shaped notch. Fig. 44 shows one of the oldest forms of rear sights still frequently met with on hunting rifles. It is known as the “Buckhorn” sight because of the similarity of shape when viewed from the breech to a deer’s horns. It is not a good sight, and it is remarkable that it should have been so popular. The shape is such that it hides much of the target in aiming, and it is very difficult to get and keep the aim on running game with it. It is very hard to align the front sight evenly for elevation in the very small “V” notch at the bottom of the crotch.”

Whelen was not alone, Crossman and others were also writing in favor of the Lyman sights.