Dead zero for 19th Century manufactured or designed rifles

[orpington]

Yesterday I was firing a Savage 1899 rifle in .30 WCF manufactured in 1913. There is no tang sight on this rifle and the rear sight elevator is at the lowest setting possible. Shoots 3” high at 50 yards, 8” high at 100 yards.

I have noticed the same with other rifles I shoot. I shoot primarily rifles that, if not manufactured prior to the advent of the 20th Century, their design predates 1900. If I were designing a rifle, I would think that dead zero would be at 100 yards about the middle range of the rear sight elevator.

The worst offender is a Sharps .50/70 conversion that is close to 20” high at 100 yards, this using a Fg black powder round.

And so, why so high? Renders the rear sight elevator essentially useless. And where is dead zero? Seems so far out, 200, 300, 400 yards, such that visualization with iron sights is nearly impossible.

 

[H&Hhunter]

You need to install a slightly higher front sight. Those rifles are not intentionally zeroed high from the factory. The simple fact of the matter is that for whatever reason they are not regulated to your load.

 

[S.Crockett]

Hitting targets on call at any segmented distance out to the “Rifleman’s Quartermile” (i.e., 500yds), and doing it with iron sights, was once an expected thing of anyone calling themselves a “marksman.”

This was in the period roughly from after the Civil War through the late 1800s (what you’re asking about), and was probably still true as a common goal of basic marksmanship through WW1. See, “A Rifleman Went to War,” by Herbert McBride. We were then still a “Nation of Riflemen,” something not true today or at least not true in the same way as in that era.

So no doubt iron sights on rifles back then were regulated accordingly. The 30-40 Krag and 1903 Springfield rifles might be examples.

 

[H&Hhunter]

Iron sights on most sporting rifles were regulated at 50-100-200-300 etc. with variations amongst various makers. If your rear sight is at its lowest position and you’re 8” high at 100 yards your front sight is too short.

On military rifles the rear sight also elevates and also would not be right if it was shooting extremely high at the 100 yard setting.

 

[entropy]

Aim at the belt buckle was a common military mantra of that age. It arose from the muzzleloader era, the short engagement range of the times, and the tendency of untested troops to fire over the opposition's heads. This is also why when adjustable sights became common on military rifles, the minimum settings were between 100 and 300 yards, meters, or arshins.
It would not be surprising to find that some sporting arms of the early 20th century had sights done in a similar fashion. The cure, as mentioned, is to install a taller front sight, preferably one that is tall enough to file down for your preferred load.

 

[jmorris]

If I were designing a rifl, I would think that dead zero would be at 100 yards about the middle range of the rear sight elevator.

It could have been but you are not using the same ammunition.

 

[orpington]

Hitting targets on call at any segmented distance out to the “Rifleman’s Quartermile” (i.e., 500yds), and doing it with iron sights, was once an expected thing of anyone calling themselves a “marksman.”

This was in the period roughly from after the Civil War through the late 1800s (what you’re asking about), and was probably still true as a common goal of basic marksmanship through WW1. See, “A Rifleman Went to War,” by Herbert McBride. We were then still a “Nation of Riflemen,” something not true today or at least not true in the same way as in that era.

So no doubt iron sights on rifles back then were regulated accordingly. The 30-40 Krag and 1903 Springfield rifles might be examples.

This is as likely an explanation as any.

With increased urbanization, I simply don’t have the luxury of firing at a target 300, 400, or 500 yards away.

 

[kidneyboy]

It could have been but you are not using the same ammunition.

My first thought too. Try running it at the same velocities and bullet weight that it was designed for.

 

[orpington]

One important piece of information I left out is that I fired 26 jacketed 150 grain bullets and achieved these results. I also had four #311041 173 grain cast bullets and those were actually a little low at 50 yards. But I only had 4 rounds and there was no consistency.

This could be the reason for this. 19th and early 20th Century firearms were designed for cast bullets. A good excuse to cast…

 

[jmorris]

One important piece of information I left out is that I fired 26 jacketed 150 grain bullets and achieved these results. I also had four #311041 173 grain cast bullets and those were actually a little low at 50 yards.

Well, now you know you can either change the sights or ammunition to get it where you want it.

I guess you already knew that, we didn’t.

 

[orpington]

Well, now you know you can either change the sights or ammunition to get it where you want it.

I guess you already knew that, we didn’t.

Yes, of course. Perhaps I should have stated that jacketed bullets fired in 19th and early 20th Century rifles shoot high. However, I shoot cast bullets in all black powder rounds and the Sharps 50/70 Govt conversion shoots notoriously high.

 

[jmorris]

If it’s been around, it’s not out of the question that it has been modified over the years.

When I have done it in the past, it’s rifles that’s shot too low for me and the loads I was using. Filing down the front sight makes the POA and POI intersect at the distance I want.

When I am gone and someone tries different loads that what I use, they will have your results, unless they start over with a new front sight.

 

[Pete D.]

The 1903 Springfield’s fixed battle sight was set for 500 meters (547 yards). I wonder what other rifles of the period used for zeroes

 

[Mosin77]

Almost certainly a question of load if it’s a sporting gun. Modern loads, even those intended for old guns, tend to replicate modern loads for modern guns. Lighter bullets at higher velocity. All things being equal this gets you a flatter shooting gun with less of an arched trajectory and a longer maximum point blank range. This is how most of us shoot because until very recently, getting a truly accurate idea of distance to target, especially when hunting in unfamiliar terrain, was not much more than a guess.

The old sights are typically designed for the older loads, which are heavier and slower.

Of course there’s always the possibility that someone’s already monkeyed with your sights to try to dial in the rifle for their own favorite load back in the day, but this is usually pretty clear upon inspection.

If it’s an old military gun, those tend to shoot high for other reasons. Namely that the designers weren’t interested per se in where on the bullseye you hit, but rather that a soldier could get hits on a man-sized target at long range. So even at the lowest rear sight elevation setting, the gun will shoot quite high. This goes back to that maximum point blank range, and getting it as far out there as possible. Belt buckle to top of the head is about 3 feet so anywhere in that area will do. Designers had an idea that with rifled barrels a well trained army ought to be able to engage an enemy army at thousands of yards and pummel them from a distance, so the sights are often ridiculously long range by our standards. In the real world this was seldom realistic of course.

 

[someguy2800]

Generally military rifles of the era were not meant to be zero'd with the rear sight. The rear sight was marked for different ranges so when the rifle was test fired at the factory they would leave the rear sight at the correct range setting and adjust the height of the front sight if necessary to regulate the sights. As a soldier you weren't supposed to mess with it, you were just supposed to select the range setting you were told to use. Most commercial rifles don't have range marked rear sights so you just set them to the notch that gets you the closest to where you want to be.

 

[Dave DeLaurant]

Ever notice that most sporting sights lack specific range graduation? The manufacturer couldn't know what bullet and charge weight the owner would select.

John Pederson even designed an adjustable rear sight for this Remington pump rifles that used arbitrary graduations -- the end user was supposed to determine what range each one designated.



The exception is with double rifles, since they have to be deliberately regulated for a single load.

 

[H&Hhunter]

Ever notice that most sporting sights lack specific range graduation? The manufacturer couldn't know what bullet and charge weight the owner would select.

John Pederson even designed an adjustable rear sight for this Remington pump rifles that used arbitrary graduations -- the end user was supposed to determine what range each one designated.

View attachment 1146258

The exception is with double rifles, since they have to be deliberately regulated for a single load.

I’ve seen an original 600 NE double that had a very optimistic adjustable flip up rear sight with leaves from 50 to 500 yards. I think those were a marketing gimmick back in the day.

I can picture a well healed sportsman in his smoking jacket at the club, puffing on a pipe and declaring his new rifle capable of cleanly taking a tusker at 500 yards, old boy.

“You don’t say Giles, 500 yards?”…

Regulated from the factory that way old boy! All one must do is flip up the last leaf and press the trigger don’t you know.

 

[Mosin77]

Ever notice that most sporting sights lack specific range graduation? The manufacturer couldn't know what bullet and charge weight the owner would select.

John Pederson even designed an adjustable rear sight for this Remington pump rifles that used arbitrary graduations -- the end user was supposed to determine what range each one designated.

View attachment 1146258

The exception is with double rifles, since they have to be deliberately regulated for a single load.

When I first got into old guns this was a source of great consternation for me. “Why doesn’t my Marlin have any numbers on this sight? Those old timers must have been wizards.”

Of course, they had a lot more frequent opportunities to shoot, and a lot fewer guns to shoot too, as a rule, so if they bothered to adjust the sights at all, it probably wouldn’t take long for them to assign meanings to them.

 

[jrmiddleton425]

Yesterday I was firing a Savage 1899 rifle in .30 WCF manufactured in 1913. There is no tang sight on this rifle and the rear sight elevator is at the lowest setting possible. Shoots 3” high at 50 yards, 8” high at 100 yards.

I have noticed the same with other rifles I shoot. I shoot primarily rifles that, if not manufactured prior to the advent of the 20th Century, their design predates 1900. If I were designing a rifle, I would think that dead zero would be at 100 yards about the middle range of the rear sight elevator.

The worst offender is a Sharps .50/70 conversion that is close to 20” high at 100 yards, this using a Fg black powder round.

And so, why so high? Renders the rear sight elevator essentially useless. And where is dead zero? Seems so far out, 200, 300, 400 yards, such that visualization with iron sights is nearly impossible.

I'm going to go out on a limb here. You can get close to 3 inches high at 50 yards and 8 inches high at 100 if the rifle is sighted for a 6-o-clock bull hold. Make sure the front sight is UNDER what you want to hit. Not ON it.

 

[orpington]

I'm going to go out on a limb here. You can get close to 3 inches high at 50 yards and 8 inches high at 100 if the rifle is sighted for a 6-o-clock bull hold. Make sure the front sight is UNDER what you want to hit. Not ON it.

It is.