It's a tad pricey but I'm impressed with the workmanship,half min increments with easy read scale.Time for me to consider this as my eyes at this stage focus 10 fold better through a vernier than buck horns....So pour it on me fellas open to any and all suggestions pro or con..

http://www.kermitool.com/hoke_rifle_sight.html

Cannot think of any cons with the one that I own, well made as any.

How about front sight any pref ?

I prefer the Baldwin front sight as with their tang sight.

Concerning front sights, keep in mind one of the requirements is to easily be able to see the spirit level (bubble balance) in most all lighting conditions. Therefore I would not recommend one with the level mounted inside the globe which shades the level and bubble. Get one with the level housing mounted to the rear of the front sight. The AMT/Browning front sight has the most visible level that I've seen. There are others that are similar but generally with smaller diameter levels.

Wayne

I've installed and done maintenance tuning on Kermit's Sights.

TOP NOTCH American quality.

Beefier where it counts, to.

Like my bubbles IN the tunnel, myself.

Ditto on Steve Baldwins (or the ones I build ;))

For the record , I showed my prototype to Steve, and he approved my going forward with making em'.

GTC

Woody.

The biggest mistake one can make is putting a cheep sight on a rifle, tang or scope.
I see so many guys at the range with a top end rifle and put a low priced scope or a low priced flip flop tang sight on a rifle and then complain that there rifle is junk because it does not shoot to their exaptation's. There is nothing worse than having a flip-flop tang sight on a fine Sharps or high wall.
As far as the front sight, I use the MVA and I use the Baldwin but I prefer the Baldwin over the MVA simply because the way the inserts are held in place and the spirit level covered in the hood to keep the sun glair off the vile.

Ron Heilman makes good front and rear sights.

I have Hokes on all of my single shots, and that is after having owned and sold other brands, including MVA. It's not that the others weren't good to excellent, but being old and a left hand shooter, Kermit's sights work best for me. True vernier scales and engraved on both sides. Another plus is that the Hoke has a takeup feature to tighten the windage movement. Kermit used to make them as a sideline of his machine tool business, but since retiring and selling the business he makes them on his own. Just bought another from him.

The Hoke has 42 minutes of windage, and comes with an eyepiece with multiple apertures, so you don't have to pay extra.

I don't want to turn this into a dissertation, but to new BPCR shooters I'd advise, don't rush out and buy the best known brands just because "everybody" says they are the "best". Ditto "Ya gotta have a Soule". Do some research and find what works best for you. It may not be what "everybody" talks about or says is best.

Also, I agree with Mac on the external level on the Browning front sight. I also have a Distant Thunder made by Jim Kluskens, very similar to the Baldwin. Good guys, and shooters all.

Paul

Thanks for input so far fellas appreciate it muchly.I'm in the discovery/shopping mode at present and do realize its blasphemy to mount cheap sights on these fine specimens which I had no intentions of from the get go.

So far this Hoke I linked may just be at the top of my list as I certainly take Greg's word on any quality issue and I do like it being "beefier" than many I've looked at so far.

Done my homework on the bubble issue guess its a toss up as to individual taste more than a standard practice with light/glare issues.

Staff length is another issue I'm not sure of just yet, think I'll probably settle on a medium as presently can't envision myself shooting to the far side of the moon..

Just clicked on that link. It is not current, but is his old tool company, now under new ownership.

Paul

10-4 Paul thanks for the heads up..

External or internal level? I prefer both for reasons of being easily viewed until conditions make one or the other unusable.

Woody et al,

Just noticed your question about elevation. I recently had a discussion with Kermit on just that point. Now, I may be an odd duck, but I don't like more "iron" sticking up off my rifles than necessary. Seems like many BPCR shooters just have to have the biggest and tallest they can find, and a "magnum" eyepiece to boot. Not me. I prefer the shortest that will work, and I seldom change my rear aperture, and damned sure don't want to be fiddling with a dozen choices. I'm sort of a minimalist, and YMMV, of course.

Now, FWIW. My Browning .40-82, rechambered from .40-65, pushes a 417 gr. PJ Creedmoor at 1330 fps. A short Hoke will easily reach the silhouette ram at 500 meters with elevation to spare. Ditto my .45-70, which is my 1000 yard rifle. It wears a midrange Hoke and, Distant Thunder in front, and just this week my Creedmoor load with 80 grs. of Swiss 1.5 and a 535 gr. paper patched BACO Money bullet clocked 1370 fps. Kermit said that his shorty is good for about 450 yards, but I know that on my Browning .40-82 it will make 500 meters, and probably 600 yards.

Paul

My Hoke is a long range and is not needed at a thousand with the 45-90, a midrange I believe could get it there.

Yep. That's consistent with my experience, and my son's with a Hoke on his Shiloh .45-90. The 1000 yard setting is right about 200 points, and the midrange Hoke shaft is marked to 270.

Paul

Just happened to have pics of a LR and short Hoke, the LR on a Shiloh I no longer own. Also, a pic of a MR Distant Thunder. One feature of the DT is that Jim makes them for mid and long range, with a bit of forward tilt, so that with the tang sight at elevation you are looking straight through the sight barrel, so you don't get an distorted oval picture.

Checked out this newer DT. its going on my watch list for sure as I like its overall looks and features.



This new version of the Distant Thunder Front Sight at left is designed to compliment the octagon barrel found on most BPC rifles. This new sight will be offered in both the mid-range and long-range configurations to cover shooting from 200 to 1200 yards. It is currently available in 3/8" dovetail and will be offered in .450" (Shiloh) and 7/16" (C. Sharps) dovetails as well. As with our round globe sight you can order with a standard insert set and/or any number and style of custom inserts*. You can taylor the custom inserts to your shooting distances, the type of targets and most importantly your eyes. These new sights are CNC machined from solid bar stock just like our round front sight and our tang sight. They have the same internal level which is shaded inside the globe so it is protected and in the same focal plane as the front aperture making a proper sight picture much easier.

New octagon front sight with level and standard inserts�$163 plus shipping.

If you don't get carried away with the height of the front sight most midrange sights will make 1000 yds with bullets exceeding 1250 fps and leave some room to spare.
I personally don't care for the spirit levels in the front sight, they are to much distraction, and either seem to reflect to much light (external) or take up to much of the front sight (internal). I do like the Shaver front sights for their size of the globe, and he does offer a fair amount of usable recticles.
"Hadley" eyecups are never a bad choice, because sometimes one hole just won't work in the conditions present.

Nice! Another service that Jim Kluskens (Distant Thunder) offers is custom front sight inserts. Particularly good if you have an odd or obsolete globe sight.

Another detail. Jim's inserts are the same diameter as the Baldwin. Don't know what inserts Steve offers as standard or options.

"Lollipop" aperture inserts, which I favor, are available from Ron Snover, in both 17A and Sharps sizes.

Paul

Good point. The inside diameter of the globe, especially relative to how much "stuff" is inside, makes a difference in how the shooter can "see", but very much dependent on the individual's own eyesight, and also somewhat subjective.

What I have found is that for an internal level to be "seeable", I need a globe that is larger than the common Lyman 17A size, like the Browning, Heilmann, and smaller Shaver, to name three that I am aware of. With the somewhat larger globes like the DT, Baldwin, and larger Shaver, I can see the internal level OK. The Browning is a 17A size, but works well with its external level. I had a Heilmann, and it is a nice neat little globe sight with an internal level, very much at home on a smaller rifle, but it went down the road because I just couldn't see well with it. The Lyman 17A is still made, and an excellent value at less than $40. If anything, the newer ones are even better made than earlier production.

I find Shaver's inserts too fine for my eyes, meaning the thickness of the surrounding metal. There are other makes of inserts that work with his sights, especially the common 17A size.

The traditional Sharps front globe with the pivoting detent leaf spring was a royal PITA to me, always catching and bending. For me function trumps pure tradition.

Here is a pic of a Sharps and Heilmann sight, neither of which I currently own.

Lots of choices out there.

Paul

That Heilman front with that slot on top to let the light in on the insert is a really nice sight. I don't own one, but know a couple of folks that do.

Hey Ranch, If you don't like the spirit level with the front sight, do you like the spirit level in the rear sight slot or do you prefer no level at all?

I'm pretty comfortable with no level.

It's always nice to know a guy who's always on the level....

The main point in the discussion of levels is the choice between internal and external levels in or on the front sight, as shown in the pics with my last post. As a practical matter, a level is most relevant and useful at longer ranges, especially for serious competition. For hunting and other shooting at shorter "practical" ranges, a level isn't very useful, IMO. I don't recall ever seeing a level in a barrel dovetail on a rifle in the hands of an experienced BPCR shooter, but perhaps I've missed something.

Paul

I might not be an experienced BPCR shooter and I recently got a rifle that had a level mounted in the rear dovetail. Let me say, I was surprised to see how "out of plumb" I was holding the rifle. Since then I have gotten two more rifles with levels attached to their front sights. And I see more than a few rifles with levels at the silhouette matches that I've just started to attend, enough that they might be considered as standard equipment.

I have 7 of the LR Hoke sights! IMO...they may not be the best in the world but they're way ahead of whatever is in second place!

Distant Thunder front sights work for me also!