.45-70 H010CC sighting problem

[Mistered]

Do you have more information on the Williams sight you mentioned ?

I have three of the standard Williams 94/36s on three of my rifles and a Williams 336 (intended for the Marlin) on my Henry.
I reversed the windage slide on it so I could mount it in reverse so it would not hang off the rear of the receiver.
Unfortunately Williams does NOT make a sight specific for the Henry (their online catalog lists one for it but it was never put into production - Hmm...) but this is a very satisfactory - and inexpensive way to get a receiver peep sight on it.
The bottom pic is the standard 94/36 on one of my Winchesters.

IMG_0954[1].JPG (65.34 KiB) Viewed 1781 times

IMG_0934.JPG (81.54 KiB) Viewed 1781 times

[Ozarkridgerunner]

Thanks a lot ESquared. I appreciate the input and the web link to Patrick. I have already sent him a message. Hopefully he will get it tomorrow. You know , I am not expecting the .45-70 to be a match rifle that drives tacks. I just expect better performance out of the sights. Like you , Mistered , Mags and GFK have all commented that there is a reason there are so many after market sights out there. We'll see what happens. Thanks again.

[Mags]

My experience similar to GFK. My Henry was shooting high when I first used it. Windage was zero. I lowered the rear site one notch, then one more, then backed up and raised it one. Got my first varmint kill with that setting at about 60-70 yrds. Thing is I kinda considered that a lucky shot kill. I couldn't get my eyes to focus on the rear, front sites and the target all at once. I had to keep changing my focus from near-sight to far-sight to make sure I had everything lined up. Big part of why I decided to go the scope route. Not the rifle sights fault, just my old eyes.

[Ozarkridgerunner]

Thanks, in your opinion how do they compare to say the Skinner peeps ?

[Ozarkridgerunner]

I understand what your saying Mags. My gripe is that on a sandbagged bench at 50 yards and me my dad and son shooting the results were all the same. My dad was an expert marksman in the military who has shot countless thousands of rounds in competition and for pleasure. My sixteen year old son has excellent shooting abilities and lots of experience for his young years. We have sighted in more guns than I can count with every sight configuration you could imagine. See my previous posts here about the problems. Having to hold the front sight at the top of target with a fully elevated back sight blocking all view of said target to get a center hit is ridiculous at 50 yards !!

[Mistered]

Thanks, in your opinion how do they compare to say the Skinner peeps ?

The Skinner is no doubt high quality and well made. I have never used one, but have seen one and they look very nice and well-finished but I do not care for the elevation adjustment.
The Williams is made out of aluminum but it well made and finished also but it is more of a 'utilitarian' design.
The nice thing about the Williams is depending on the model there are up to three grades of it for the same gun. There is a very basic style with set screws to secure the sliding windage and elevation blades, a click stop screw style up to a 'thumb knob' style for quick adjustments.

[Ozarkridgerunner]

Thanks, in your opinion how do they compare to say the Skinner peeps ?

The Skinner is no doubt high quality and well made. I have never used one, but have seen one and they look very nice and well-finished but I do not care for the elevation adjustment.
The Williams is made out of aluminum but it well made and finished also but it is more of a 'utilitarian' design.
The nice thing about the Williams is depending on the model there are up to three grades of it for the same gun. There is a very basic style with set screws to secure the sliding windage and elevation blades, a click stop screw style up to a 'thumb knob' style for quick adjustments.

Did you change out your front sight as well ? Also did you happen to see my post in reply to your question about the front sight height? Would like to hear your thoughts on that as well. It's back up in the posts a bit. Thank you.

[Mistered]

Did you change out your front sight as well ?

Yes. Knowing the Williams was going to set higher on the receiver I knew I would need a taller front so I took the blade front off of one of my Winchesters that was a .490 height and put it on the Henry. Turns out this was just right and at 50 yards with a 6 O'Clock hold I am dead on with the elevation on the Williams at about the halfway mark.
As it worked out I put the one off the Henry back on the Winchester as the height is not so critical with the 94/36 sight due to the greater range of elevation adjustment and like the Henry this worked out well also.
Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on point of view) I seem to shoot the Henry better with the squared off blade style front as it gives me a 'flat' surface to set the target on. The bead being rounded takes me a bit more time to settle in before touching off but I can work with it as well.
If you look at the pic of the Winchester you can see the sight is only a 1/4 of its elevation adjustment up and this again is at 50 yards with a 6' O'clock hold so I have plenty of adjustment if needed!

[RanchRoper]

I know lots on this forum swear by their Skinner sights on their Henry rifles, maybe check it out (or maybe you have already and i missed it in a thread).

[GFK]

I fipped my insert as well but had little perceived effect. My Dad and son also shot multiple times as I thought maybe it was just my sight pattern. They consistently had the same results. I don't like to sound like a whiner or complainer but I've had several $100 dollar .22's that required very little if any adjustment right out of the box to shoot dead on. I just believe a gun of this quality from a reputable company should be held to a higher standard. Also, I would say the vast majority of shooters when shooting iron sights with a front bead and rear notch are going to settle the bead in the notch with either a six o'clock or possibly center hold. Seeing the front sight for me was not an issue as the big brass bead was quite clear. A better test firing protocol at the factory before the gun is sent out might eliminate some issues. I'll say it again , after spending a grand , I expected better when I've had much better results from $ 100 rifles.

I thought something similar. When I shot my Marlin 336W using open sights, I did not make any adjustments. It was pretty centered at 50 yards. I was hitting to the left some. But, I think that was more me and the trigger pull than the sight alignment. That is what prompt me to contact Henry. I expected a rifle that I paid $200 more for to shoot as well or better out the box. But, that was not the case. I will admit, I do not shoot as far to the left with it. I think it is due to a smoother trigger pull. So, that is a plus. But, a smoother trigger pull is not effective if a bullet is not on target.

That's exactly how I feel, GFK. I know buckhorn sights maybe a bit fickle but I have used them on a number of rifles with certainly respectable results. The left /right correction on my rifle was quite minimal and easily corrected. But this elevation issue is something else. I don't have a problem with raising the front bead up farther in the buckhorn to achieve the result but when the rear ramp is fully elevated and you have to hold at the very top of the target essentially blocking it from view, well that's not acceptable for me. Not at 50 yards.

Yes, I agree. From what I understand, Henry moved from a Ghost Ring setup to a Buckhorn setup due to shooters' not able to obtain a reliable sight picture. Who knows, it may shift to another type of sighting system if enough shooters express their concerns.

[Ozarkridgerunner]

I know lots on this forum swear by their Skinner sights on their Henry rifles, maybe check it out (or maybe you have already and i missed it in a thread).

Thanks RR. I plan on doing so. I do like leaving guns set up with original. Not much for change if it works but I may have to in this case.

[Ozarkridgerunner]

Did you change out your front sight as well ?

Yes. Knowing the Williams was going to set higher on the receiver I knew I would need a taller front so I took the blade front off of one of my Winchesters that was a .490 height and put it on the Henry. Turns out this was just right and at 50 yards with a 6 O'Clock hold I am dead on with the elevation on the Williams at about the halfway mark.
As it worked out I put the one off the Henry back on the Winchester as the height is not so critical with the 94/36 sight due to the greater range of elevation adjustment and like the Henry this worked out well also.
Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on point of view) I seem to shoot the Henry better with the squared off blade style front as it gives me a 'flat' surface to set the target on. The bead being rounded takes me a bit more time to settle in before touching off but I can work with it as well.
If you look at the pic of the Winchester you can see the sight is only a 1/4 of its elevation adjustment up and this again is at 50 yards with a 6' O'clock hold so I have plenty of adjustment if needed!

Yes sir sounds like a good set up there. Interesting when you said the height on your front sight from your Winchester was .490. That's a shade taller than my Henry's. So now I'm really scratching my head because maybe the front sight isn't too tall which I thought was the only thing it could be! Now I just don't know.

[Ozarkridgerunner]

I thought something similar. When I shot my Marlin 336W using open sights, I did not make any adjustments. It was pretty centered at 50 yards. I was hitting to the left some. But, I think that was more me and the trigger pull than the sight alignment. That is what prompt me to contact Henry. I expected a rifle that I paid $200 more for to shoot as well or better out the box. But, that was not the case. I will admit, I do not shoot as far to the left with it. I think it is due to a smoother trigger pull. So, that is a plus. But, a smoother trigger pull is not effective if a bullet is not on target.

That's exactly how I feel, GFK. I know buckhorn sights maybe a bit fickle but I have used them on a number of rifles with certainly respectable results. The left /right correction on my rifle was quite minimal and easily corrected. But this elevation issue is something else. I don't have a problem with raising the front bead up farther in the buckhorn to achieve the result but when the rear ramp is fully elevated and you have to hold at the very top of the target essentially blocking it from view, well that's not acceptable for me. Not at 50 yards.

Yes, I agree. From what I understand, Henry moved from a Ghost Ring setup to a Buckhorn setup due to shooters' not able to obtain a reliable sight picture. Who knows, it may shift to another type of sighting system if enough shooters express their concerns.

You know I understand that there's not a one size fits all solution. Most folks are going to vary in their sight picture using open sights. I can see through the buckhorn fine and the brass bead shows up well for me. I am just out of adjustment on the sights to place my shots where I aim.

[GFK]

That's exactly how I feel, GFK. I know buckhorn sights maybe a bit fickle but I have used them on a number of rifles with certainly respectable results. The left /right correction on my rifle was quite minimal and easily corrected. But this elevation issue is something else. I don't have a problem with raising the front bead up farther in the buckhorn to achieve the result but when the rear ramp is fully elevated and you have to hold at the very top of the target essentially blocking it from view, well that's not acceptable for me. Not at 50 yards.

Yes, I agree. From what I understand, Henry moved from a Ghost Ring setup to a Buckhorn setup due to shooters' not able to obtain a reliable sight picture. Who knows, it may shift to another type of sighting system if enough shooters express their concerns.

You know I understand that there's not a one size fits all solution. Most folks are going to vary in their sight picture using open sights. I can see through the buckhorn fine and the brass bead shows up well for me. I am just out of adjustment on the sights to place my shots where I aim.

Which, I suspect is not an isolated situation. I guess I should be more specific what I meant by reliable sight picture. I was referring to a standard or traditional sight aligning that will allow for reliable prediction of POI. (i.e. 6 o'clock hold with a POI at or just below center of target). I guess what Henry is referring to with a fully adjustable Buckhorn is the insert. But, this is the first time I have used an insert with an open sight. So, it was something I was not accustomed to. But, it did allow me to predict my POI based on a traditional POA. I guess for ranges of less than 100 yards, it will work fine. More than that, I will probably use a scope.

[Ozarkridgerunner]

Yes sir there are limitations with open sights as we know. A lot of variables come into play like individual eyesight, which is more of a challenge as I get longer in the tooth ! Sight picture , background, lighting , etc. all come into play. I was really hoping to leave this rifle as original as possible if I could shoot it well enough that way but the sight set up may limit me as well as my own abilities. I did hear back from Patrick at Henry first thing this morning. He has asked me to drive the front sight out and get a number off the bottom and send to him. Perhaps on the way to getting this figured out.

[GFK]

Awesome! Glad to know. Yes, I like to keep things original as well. Hopefully, a new front sight will better your situation.

[Mags]

... I was really hoping to leave this rifle as original as possible ...

IMO Patrick sending you another front sight preserves keeping your Henry original.

[Mistered]

I was really hoping to leave this rifle as original as possible

Changing a front sight does not detract from originality, especially on a modern, production rifle. It’s just part of what you need to do for a rifle that doesn’t quite shoot as well as you would like and It’s more important to have it shooting accurately for you.
Heck I am going to be changing the sights on a 118 year old Winchester (I’ll keep the originals of course) but they will be in the tradition of an original system available at the time - just new. Basically it will be a blade front with a Marble’s tang rear.

[Ozarkridgerunner]

Good news to report. Patrick at Henry is sending me two new front sights to try. He asked me to slide out mine and read the number off the bottom of the original. It was 58B. I assume this is a Henry part number? Anyway, I sent that information to him and he quickly responded saying he was sending me two sights to try out , a 56 and a 50. Once I had sent him my address he responded back shortly that they were on their way and to let him know the results. Customer service at its best. Felt a little humbled after my rants here about my initial disappointment with the sights. I had waited and saved a long while for this rifle. It was actually the first new gun I had personally purchased in many years. I was so looking forward to getting to enjoy shooting it that when things weren't perfect I had a bit of a fit. Ah , a lesson for me in patience and that nothing is perfect but great to have the response I received from Patrick at HRA to show that customer service is at the forefront within the company. I apologize for getting so worked up over my small issue.

[ESquared]

Not at all, Ridgerunner, no apology necessary! Just glad to hear you have a likely solution on the way (or, TWO likely solutions!). I wigged out when my new (and first) Henry BBS wouldn't feed like I thought it was going to (or should have), but it turned out to be "operator error" on my part, so I really had to eat some crow!
Interesting, too, that the markings on the sights are just alphanumeric, not actual heights. Oh, well, ours is not to question why.
Please keep us posted after you've tried out the new one(s). It'll all work out and you'll be a happy camper in no time!