1 sight vs 2 sights: accuracy

[Scarecrow Repair]

I have an 1842 Springfield .69 caliber musket and an 1861 Springfield .58 caliber rifle. I thought a comparison of the musket vs rifle would be interesting, caliber difference notwithstanding. Heck, I am such a crummy shot with iron sights (vision) that I figure the caliber difference wouldn't matter much anyway. What I was really interested in was the grouping size.

Upon hauling them off to the local shooting field, I had an Oy Vey! moment when I found out (again) that the 1842 musket has only a front sight. Heck, it is just a single barrel shotgun, right? Made the comparison kinda pointless, but I shot 'em both a few times anyway.

But it got me to wondering. How much difference in accuracy is there with just the front sight? Maybe I will try some day with an AR-15 with a removable rear sight, or at least fold down, but I am not sure how valid that would be, since the 1842 was designed to be used that way. Maybe a better question would be to try adding some temporary rear sight to the 1842. Not sure exactly what would do the trick, but I will put it on my brain's back burner and let it think about it for a while.

Has anyone ever tried anything like this?

[JMB1911]

You have to have a rear sight as a point of reference. Though we focus on the front sight when shooting, the rear sight serves as a point of reference as to the firearm's angle (e.g. elevation and windage). Even if a firearm doesn't have a rear sight (my shotgun doesn't), I find that I'm using the rear of the receiver as a point of reference to ascertain windage and elevation.

[Scarecrow Repair]

You have to have a rear sight as a point of reference. Though we focus on the front sight when shooting, the rear sight serves as a point of reference as to the firearm's angle (e.g. elevation and windage). Even if a firearm doesn't have a rear sight (my shotgun doesn't), I find that I'm using the rear of the receiver as a point of reference to ascertain windage and elevation.

Right. I figure the real answer is very gun-specific. I wonder if the 1842 would have been designed differently if a rear sight had been intended; it is very similar to the 1861. Or maybe the 1861 rear sight was an afterthought, or maybe they didn't care much for military long guns at the time, since massed fire was the standard of the day. New recruits were drilled in shooting fast, not accurately. They were shooting at a line of enemy, not dinner.

[6079Winston]

"Don't shoot until you see the whites of their eyes" wasn't just a saying, it was a practice with smoothbore muskets. Once rifling was added to the mix things got more complicated but it is still good advice, especially if planning an ambush. My favorite story of getting close involves the British, French and muskets. In this battle the British marched directly towards the French, violating the custom of the day of stopping and firing from a distance. As the British marched closer a French officer called out something like "For god's sake, why don't you fire?" A British officer answered back "Oh no sir, the British never fire first. After you." The French then fired an ineffective volley at near maximum range and started to reload. While the French were busy reloading, the British marched to about 15 paces, stopped and fired a volley that instantly killed some 200 French soldiers and a dozen or so officers. The surviving French broke and ran, probably falling to British bayonets.