I read with interest "The Ghost Gun" by Mark Sage; especially his documentation on rear sights. In New France rear sights were not uncommon. During 1746 and 1747 there were two gunsmiths carrying out official government work for Captain La Corne at Fort Michilimackinac. The ledgers of these two men, Louis Lefevure and Jean Baptiste Amoit, mention laboring on "front sight beads" and "rear sights". To my knowledge none of these rear sights have surfaced or survived. I was wondering if anyone has seen or has images/sketches of these or similar rear sights on French fusils?

if you pick up a copy of T.Lenk's book: the flintlock , its origins and development. You will find a number of B&W photos of original French smoothbore rear sights .
Myself I have always called these butterfly sights . But that’s probably not correct . Here are a few samples for you

Captchee I am amazed at the engraving. The toes on the foot can't be very big. I am looking trying to put the lock in perspective. Is that a plain nut that holds the top jaw on? Is it possible to get a side view of the lock? No matter how arcain or unique you come up with the answer.

Thank you very much! I'm going to look for T. Lenk's book. It's interesting to see the different variations as well as the different sight placement.I would believe the ones install at Fort Michilimackinac would be a simple version of these sights.

here is a simpler one .


doublelong spring
the lock was a wheel lock ??? somewhere i have the photo set for that piece ???? .
ill look , it may take me a while if i dont have it already on my PC.

quote:

Originally posted by Legris:
Thank you very much! I'm going to look for T. Lenk's book. It's interesting to see the different variations as well as the different sight placement.I would believe the ones install at Fort Michilimackinac would be a simple version of these sights.

i believe the book is available as a on line book . Possibly free now days

Found it for my Kindle for $9.99. Haven't looked at Google yet.

Thanks again! I downloaded a sample to my Kindle. I was also checking into "The Fusil de Tulle in New France 1691-1741" by Russel Bouchard. But it is a background history of the fusils manufactured there; and these were shipped to New France w/o rear sights.

Butterfly sights seems to be tghe most often used term today for these sights and like any other part of the gun the plain fusil would probably have a simple version of this type of sight that Lenk shows on his high art guns of the time. Typicaly the architecture lock and most all parts are the same om a plain gun or a fancy gun of most any period with only the material or embelishment being different. Often this is the only way to see what the plain guns whish did not survive to any degree looked like from the earlier periods. During the 17th and 18th century the trdae guns were typicaly a very simple, cheaper, lower quaility version of the current fowler in vogue in the country of origin.I made a butterfly sight out of brass for my fusil but found I did not need it so I gave it to a friend. It was a simple affair with a dovetail mount a lot like the photo above without all the foo-fra on the ends and sides, definately not a "fine" type sight as to the sight picture due to the shape of the sight. I cut and filed it out of a blank piece of brass about 1 1/2 x 1 1/2".

Some fascinating and beautiful work on those old guns. No doubt, rear sights are historically correct on old smoothies. They may not have been the rule, probably the exception. But, for simplicity sake, in competitions today most clubs have a 'no rear sight' rule in an attempt to level the playing field for everyone. That does cause some confusion as to whether rear sights were historically correct.

Once a person understands that a rear sight is nothing more then a reference. Then they start looking for such a reference, they quickly find way more rear sights then they ever thought were there .
They also begin to learn the signs of where a rear reference once was in the cases where they were removed .
As TG stated , a lot of times the sight isn’t a defined , highly visible sight . Some times the sight isn’t attached to the barrel but part of the molding or shape of the tang . Other times its just an odd file mark
As such IMO I would say that the case of rear sights to no rear sight is about 50/50 . depending on the gun of course

What got me into researching rear sights on smoothbore , was an original South American trade gun that my wife purchased for me many years ago .
Its very light and very cheaply made . But its perfectly functional .
Just in front of the breech on that gun, about 3 inchs , is a mark that looks like someone took a hack saw to it .
For a long time I was of the mind set that someone had done just that .
Then one day while at a gun show I ran across another identical piece . With that one it has a simple blade set into that cut in the barrel . So when I got home , I ran a feeler gage into the cut . Sure enough . At one time it to had that rear sight and someone had removed it .
That started my quest . To date I have found rear sights guns where modern opinions say that there were none . The NW trade guns are a very good example. Of those displayed at the Cody Museum back in 1999. ½ had either rear sights still on them or the signs of once having them ..
I also do not believe the non sight rule is one that was designed to level the playing field because frankly it doesn’t . the only ones not using a rear reference are those who have not found or figured one out yet .
IMO the rule is nothing but a hold over brought about by lack of understanding

It may also be that rear sights were more of a regional item too. Both gunsmiths mention it as one the the first three items worked on for the native and Canadien populations. In reading another journal, "shooting flying" was not the rule that it is today. So the rear sight would not have been a complicating factor for subsistence hunting as some have mentioned to me.

This isn't ment to change the NMLRA's trade gun rules. Just trying to get at the truth.

maybe , but it sure doesn’t seem so.
lets do alittle test of this .
for those with the book Flintlock fowlers by Tom Grinslade .
go through that book and count the number of different fowlers with either rear sights being set to the barrel or a purposeful rear reference filed to the tang , breech or groved barrel .
With just a quick run through , I find 23 just in the first 50 pages that show those refrances or placed sights , clear as day . In fact those that don’t show a clear rear reference are in fact far fewer then those which do.
there are many . if not most all . but if we just count sights that are above the plain of the barrel

page 34 . NewEngland fowler c 1737.
page 56 . New England fowler c1775
Page 77 . new england fowler c 1790
page 84. new england fowler c 1800
page 156 . hudson valley Fowler c 1760
page 160. hudson valley Fowler c 1770
page 162 hudson vally fowler c 1770
page 164 Hudson Valley fowler c 1785
every fowler minus 2 starting at page 200 through 221 and again on 226, 235.

so unless i missed a couple 31 with sights above the plain of the barrel.
thats also not counting those with chiseled or filed type rear reference . if we include those , it would be far easier to count those without a rear reference .

when it comes to NW guns . as i stated . those displayed at Cody show at least 50/50 . i have also been told that as many as 2/3 of the trade guns guns at MT Historical Society in Helena , have either the erupted style or dovetailed in sights

When it comes to the NMLRA and its rule on trade gun shoots . IMO the rule has little base past one that’s been accepted and continually propagated

This message has been edited. Last edited by: captchee,

quote:

the only ones not using a rear reference are those who have not found or figured one out yet .

Are you saying that is why all my shots go to the left?

Lower yer right foot!Single sole mocc's on the right,double on the left!

When I started shooting smoothbore's all them years ago,we knew that rear sight's were fairly common on the original gun's,we just like the additional challenge of no rear sight above the plane of the barrel. The distances we shoot our beloved muzzleloader's,accuracy difference's between rifled and smoothbore's is very small.The rule wasn't based on H/C,P/C option's,just the "fun" factor".

A few years back while at the Museum of the Fur trade I sat in the trade gun room and actually counted how many of the 200 + smoothbore trade guns had a rear site. These guns ranged in age from 17 to 19 century from all types of builders

20%

These rear sites were anything from a dovetailed site installed by a gunsmith to a piece of the barrel raised and cut by a hand ax.

Rio