Best possible accuracy using traditional iron sights

[HighUintas]

What is the best possible accuracy a person can do at 100 yards using traditional iron sights? Design doesn't matter, other than them being a post/bead/fiber front and a notch rear.

I'm wondering about this in the context of muzzleloaders because I have not seen any evidence that a person can regularly shoot a muzzleloader with traditional iron sights any better than 3" at 100, yet I see many guys mentioning 1", 2" blah blah.

I'd assume that surely someone here has taken their bolt gun that does 1-1.5" large round count groups with a scope and put iron sights on. Or, maybe someone here uses irons regularly instead of a scope and can speak truthfully about their groups without cherry picking and exaggerating their and their gun's abilities.

This is the best I've done with a muzzy, shooting 54cal patched ball from a bench at 100 using silver blade front with a small V notch rear. Winds were gusting to 10-12mph to the left, so I was trying to hold for that. Main group in black is about 4"

 

[RockAndSage]

Man, that is a great question...

 

[Fireflyfishing]

Dang it. I dug through all my photos looking for my M1 and M1A groups print. Couldn’t find them. But…they shoot much better than what you have shown above. Maybe solid 2” groups? I run hand loads in them as well.

 

[HighUintas]

Dang it. I dug through all my photos looking for my M1 and M1A groups print. Couldn’t find them. But…they shoot much better than what you have shown above. Maybe solid 2” groups? I run hand loads in them as well.

Doesn't the m1 and m1a use a ghost ring or semi peep type rear sight though?

I think I could do better than the target above with a ghost ring rear

 

[Fireflyfishing]

Doesn't the m1 and m1a use a ghost ring or semi peep type rear sight though?

I think I could do better than the target above with a ghost ring rear

Affirm. They both have the same sights and the rear is a peep.

 

[summs]

I run a lot of iron sights, 30-06 pump rifle, muzzle loader, 22, if i could find an affordable 870 20ga, I'd put a peep sight on the slug barrel too.
I use and prefer a rear peep and at 50 yards I can stack bullets, 100 yards looks like your photo.

Im preparing for close range and running shots, 4" at 100 is good enough for me.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

I haven’t done it in the cell phone era, but back in the late 1990s, I could get consistent 1-1.5” 5-shot groups with a WW I Mauser and a pre-64 long barreled .30-30. Both with hand loads. Back then I never shot 10-shot groups.

I’ve seen people shoot far better than that with aperture sights. My older brother has my dad’s old Model 30S in .30-06. With hand loads (150-grain Speer bullet and 50.0 grains of 4064), that rifle prints nickel-sized 5-shot groups at 100 yards. I’ve watched my dad make headshots on wild turkeys with it at a paced out 90 and 120 yards (no widespread use of rangefinders back then).

Having “the right size” aiming point is important, in my experience. “Aim small, miss small” still applies, but it has to be large enough to see.

 

[Wrench]

I have videos of me busting clays at 300yds with irons on a muzzleloader. My sights are a peep set up... but I can do the same with my BPCR rig with a buckhorn slider.

The key is to be consistent and learn how versatile your sight can be.

 

[Wrench]

A search of Idaho lewis' youtube videos are pretty eye opening as well.


It's worth looking up palma matches too.

 

[RockAndSage]

I have videos of me busting clays at 300yds with irons on a muzzleloader. My sights are a peep set up... but I can do the same with my BPCR rig with a buckhorn slider.

The key is to be consistent and learn how versatile your sight can be.
View attachment 950616

The stuff you've shown in your videos is pretty mind-blowing. Yes, a peep-sight setup, but 300yd clays with a muzzleloader is 300yd clays with a muzzleloader.

 

[HighUintas]

I have videos of me busting clays at 300yds with irons on a muzzleloader. My sights are a peep set up... but I can do the same with my BPCR rig with a buckhorn slider.

The key is to be consistent and learn how versatile your sight can be.
View attachment 950616

Yes I've seen yours and Idaho Lewis's videos. It sure is impressive. I'd like to see the 300yd clay shooting with a buckhorn

 

[Hnthrdr]

Imo I think a 2” 5-10 shot group out of a patch and ball muzzy is pretty dang good, I’ve done several with 1-2” groups with a modern inline muzzy and conicals at 100 but only 3 shot groups, probably could get tighter but it’s all about time and practice I would think

 

[HighUintas]

I had my flintlock shooting 4" at 100 (10shots) when I had a peep and Lee shaver globe reticle on it. But removed those sights because they're an abomination on that gun. If the pan going off didn't make me want to have a seizure, I'm sure that 4" would only be 2".

 

[Formidilosus]

What is the best possible accuracy a person can do at 100 yards using traditional iron sights? Design doesn't matter, other than them being a post/bead/fiber front and a notch rear.

I'm wondering about this in the context of muzzleloaders because I have not seen any evidence that a person can regularly shoot a muzzleloader with traditional iron sights any better than 3" at 100, yet I see many guys mentioning 1", 2" blah blah.

I'd assume that surely someone here has taken their bolt gun that does 1-1.5" large round count groups with a scope and put iron sights on. Or, maybe someone here uses irons regularly instead of a scope and can speak truthfully about their groups without cherry picking and exaggerating their and their gun's abilities.

This is the best I've done with a muzzy, shooting 54cal patched ball from a bench at 100 using silver blade front with a small V notch rear. Winds were gusting to 10-12mph to the left, so I was trying to hold for that. Main group in black is about 4"

View attachment 950527View attachment 950531View attachment 950532View attachment 950533

With post and notch sights: 10 round groups, and legitimately consistent- about 3-4 MOA is the best I have seen on various targets. And that was from world class iron sights shooters using precision rifles. I ought to revisit it as I haven’t tried in more than a decade.

I’m sure with specifically designed sights, and a specifically designed target to perfectly frame those sights- it could be a bit smaller. But, I have never seen anyone walk up with post and notch sights and put 10 rounds into a 2” group at 100 yards- let alone put 10 rounds into a 2” target at same.

 

[HighUintas]

With post and notch sights: 10 round groups, and legitimately consistent- about 3-4 MOA is the best I have seen on various targets. And that was from world class iron sights shooters using precision rifles. I ought to revisit it as I haven’t tried in more than a decade.

I’m sure with specifically designed sights, and a specifically designed target to perfectly frame those sights- it could be a bit smaller. But, I have never seen anyone walk up with post and notch sights and out 10 rounds into a 2” group at 100 yards- let alone put 10 rounds into a 2” target at same.

You need to get that Kibler flintlock going to show us what's possible!

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

What is the best possible accuracy a person can do at 100 yards using traditional iron sights? Design doesn't matter, other than them being a post/bead/fiber front and a notch rear.

I'm wondering about this in the context of muzzleloaders because I have not seen any evidence that a person can regularly shoot a muzzleloader with traditional iron sights any better than 3" at 100, yet I see many guys mentioning 1", 2" blah blah.

Are the guys mentioning the groups using your definition of sights though? If they are talking the same page I agree thats unlikely.

If they are running a front globe with wire reticle and rear peep, then you can hold tighter.

 

[HighUintas]

Are the guys mentioning the groups using your definition of sights though? If they are talking the same page I agree thats unlikely.

If they are running a front globe with wire reticle and rear peep, then you can hold tighter.

No one uses the globe and reticle front that I've seen. Mostly what I've seen is people showing 1.5" groups from a flintlock using an aperture rear and a post front and some claim to do the same using a notch rear. But there's no real evidence to back it up other than the occasional picture of 3-5 shot groups that people typically cherry pick from the best shooting day of their life.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

No one uses the globe and reticle front that I've seen. Mostly what I've seen is people showing 1.5" groups from a flintlock using an aperture rear and a post front and some claim to do the same using a notch rear. But there's no real evidence to back it up other than the occasional picture of 3-5 shot groups that people typically cherry pick from the best shooting day of their life.

File it under: "I am skeptical until I see it but at the end of the day I don't give a shit SO... mov'n on with life" FOLDER.

 

[Formidilosus]

You need to get that Kibler flintlock going to show us what's possible!

Tell me about it. I was doing about 4” 7-10 round groups at 100 yards with a Traditions Kentucky rifle last year.

 

[TaperPin]

There’s a huge difference in eyesight between shooters, since gun alignment with the target is what we’re really talking about. That really shows up on target at different ranges. Some big revolver guys with old eyes that could shoot all day and not have any shots go out of a 1-1/2” circle at 25 yards (6 MOA), can struggle to get 10 MOA groups at 100. For a hunting rifle 3 MOA off the bench at 100 yards would be a really good day for me with young eyes, but I’ve shot next to guys with competition guns that are stupid accurate. Palma matches way out there are often won well under 1 MOA, and I think one competitor said if he can’t shoot under 3/4 MOA in calm conditions something is wrong.