Sights

[Subdeacon Joe]

@watab kid made a a comment on my Spanish American War about the Krag being effective.  Which got me thinking about Mausers and other rifles of that era.  The transition from big bores and black powder to small bore and smokeless. 

 

Which got me to thinking about sights. 

 

You've designed a new rifle.  Smaller bore, higher velocity than your 11mm, 1,500fps black powder (thinking of the 11mm Gras).  How do you calculate front sight height, sight radius,  rear sight hight and calibration for range adjustments? It can't just be by guess and by God.  There must be some calculation to give you a theoretical starting point. 

[Colorado Coffinmaker]

 

As far as I know, there are calculations based on Ballistic Coefficient, Velocity, Bullet Weight, etc., but I don't do math.  Take the new rifle out to the range and shoot it with the new ammunition.

[Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967]

8 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

@watab kid made a a comment on my Spanish American War about the Krag being effective.  Which got me thinking about Mausers and other rifles of that era.  The transition from big bores and black powder to small bore and smokeless. 

 

Which got me to thinking about sights. 

 

You've designed a new rifle.  Smaller bore, higher velocity than your 11mm, 1,500fps black powder (thinking of the 11mm Gras)....

 

Hm.  When I get home tonight I'll drag out my 11 mm Gras and take a look at it. 🙂

[watab kid]

13 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

@watab kid made a a comment on my Spanish American War about the Krag being effective.  Which got me thinking about Mausers and other rifles of that era.  The transition from big bores and black powder to small bore and smokeless. 

 

Which got me to thinking about sights. 

 

You've designed a new rifle.  Smaller bore, higher velocity than your 11mm, 1,500fps black powder (thinking of the 11mm Gras).  How do you calculate front sight height, sight radius,  rear sight hight and calibration for range adjustments? It can't just be by guess and by God.  There must be some calculation to give you a theoretical starting point. 

my comments were intended to indicate the krags were a vast improvement over the trapdoors , looking only at our military , we obviously redesigned our rifels following that conflict patterned to the mauser , the M1903 was the result to adapt us into the modern smokeless military rifle era , note that the bayonets carried over , all krag bayonets would fit the M1903 as well as the M1905 bayonets all the way through the WWII era 

 

but in the span am war we were armed with krags up against the 1893 mausers 

[Subdeacon Joe]

1 minute ago, watab kid said:

my comments were intended to indicate the krags were a vast improvement over the trapdoors , looking only at our military , we obviously redesigned our rifels following that conflict patterned to the mauser , the M1903 was the result to adapt us into the modern smokeless military rifle era , note that the bayonets carried over , all krag bayonets would fit the M1903 as well as the M1905 bayonets all the way through the WWII era 

 

but in the span am war we were armed with krags up against the 1893 mausers 

 

You got me going off on a tangent with your mention of the Krag being effective.  It was the US Army issue right after the Trapdoor Springfield, transitioning from relatively slow,  big bore, black powder with a rainbow trajectory to a fast,  small bore, smokeless,  fairly flat trajectory rifle,  and what that might mean for the sights.  How do the developers come up with the dimensions for the sights?  How do they determine the stadia markings?

[Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967]

Took me a while to get home, but here be the Gras.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 5 by Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967

[Injun Ryder, SASS #36201L]

FYI

 

 

Krag Sights:

 

 

 

Edited March 5 by Injun Ryder, SASS #36201L

[watab kid]

1 hour ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

You got me going off on a tangent with your mention of the Krag being effective.  It was the US Army issue right after the Trapdoor Springfield, transitioning from relatively slow,  big bore, black powder with a rainbow trajectory to a fast,  small bore, smokeless,  fairly flat trajectory rifle,  and what that might mean for the sights.  How do the developers come up with the dimensions for the sights?  How do they determine the stadia markings?

see your point , i was not on the same track , it was far superior to the trapdoords we were issueing prior to their acceptance 

[Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967]

Kud0s to @Injun Ryder, SASS #36201L for that post above!

 

The 1901 Krag rear sight was essentially an upgraded Buffington-style, as installed on 1884 Springfield (Trapdoor) rifles, and retrofitted to some earlier models.  The 1903 Springfield sported a similar sight.

 

Many years ago I was searching for a Buffington, when my old pard @Palouse sent me a 1901 Krag sight.  It immediately was mounted on my Buffalo Classic and paired perfectly with it's globe front sight.  Literally, TONS of elevation and windage!  

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT -  From a 2018 thread:

Quote

 

Big Gus, SASS# 66666

• Members
• •  365
• Gender:Male
• Location:Crozet VA
• SASS# 66666
• Rivanna Rangers

Posted September 15, 2018

For all three of my Buffalo classics in both 45-70 and 38/55 I mounted a krag 1901 carbine sight. It has a ladder and left right adjustment. Also mounted it on my H&R Shakari. I have won ten state long range matches with them seven in Virginia and three in Delaware. You can usually find them on eBay or gunbroker for around $100. 

 

 

Edited March 5 by Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967

[Subdeacon Joe]

6 hours ago, Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967 said:

Kud0s to @Injun Ryder, SASS #36201L for that post above!@PalouseLiterally, TONS of elevation and windage!  

 

 

 

 

 

So they anticipated shooting at aircraft. 

[Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967]

14 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

So they anticipated shooting at aircraft. 

 

"Airplane Sights."  

 

I recovered this Arisaka from my aunt's garage roof in 1971, where it had evidently been lying for years.  Covered in rust, mud, and crud, and ugly as sin.  All moving parts frozen.  Couldn't even give it away, but reluctant to toss it in the trash (or the bay) as some folks suggested.  

 

Set it in a corner; about once a week I'd hit it with either Liquid Wrench or WD-40.  Did this for months.  Then one day, I picked it up, and on a whim whacked the bolt handle.  It moved!  Not much, but there was definitely some give!  So I worked at it, pried the bolt release open with a large screwdriver, and eventually got the bolt out.  Swung it up to look down the bore, expecting to see stalactites of corrosion growing out of huge pits.  Nope.  That was when I learned that the Japanese had SO wisely lined the bores with chrome.  Many hours of work with oil and 0000 steel wool and bronze brushes disclosed that the original bluing was still intact under the chrysalis of petrified grime. 

 

It shoots well - and at a hundred yards, the sights are every bit as accurate as any of my iron-sighted lever action rifles.  But I have NOT tested it on any aeroplanes!  

 

     

 

 

       

 

 

Edited March 6 by Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967

[Chickasaw Bill SASS #70001]

pretty cool 

 

the MUM is still intact 

 

   

[watab kid]

i had an arisaka with the aircraft sights and the monopod , it was a good idea but in practical application i dought it worked well , i sold it a long time ago , 

[Chantry]

On 3/4/2026 at 8:42 AM, Subdeacon Joe said:

@watab kid made a a comment on my Spanish American War about the Krag being effective.  Which got me thinking about Mausers and other rifles of that era.  The transition from big bores and black powder to small bore and smokeless. 

 

Which got me to thinking about sights. 

 

You've designed a new rifle.  Smaller bore, higher velocity than your 11mm, 1,500fps black powder (thinking of the 11mm Gras).  How do you calculate front sight height, sight radius,  rear sight hight and calibration for range adjustments? It can't just be by guess and by God.  There must be some calculation to give you a theoretical starting point. 

 

Complicated math that I don't understand.   I suppose of you, using a 100 yard zero, know how  much the round drops (and the muzzle velocity at all three ranges) at 200 and 400 yards, the complicated math that I don't understand will allow you project a range table and allow you to design sights.

 

Now we can cheat and use computer programs or apps on the stupid smartphones that will do all the work for us if just input some values.

Edited March 7 by Chantry