Rifle front/rear sights too close to be accurate?

tooldawg99 · February 11, 2009, 10:14 PM

I have this dilema posted on another forum for milSurp rifles, but wanted to get others opinions.

Here's the set-up: I have an Enfield no1 Mk3 that I want to shorten and put a combo flash suppressor/sight on the end of the barrel. The existing rear sight is located in front of the receiver, which would leave about 9 inches between front and rear sights. The Gibbs conversion on the Enfield 308's used this set-up exactly. They made and sold hundreds, if not thousands, set up exactly this way.

My concern is the gunsmith suggested that I use a Mk4 instead, since the rear sight is behind the receiver, which would still leave about 20+" from sight to sight even on a shortened barrel.

I don't want to use optics, just iron sights on a short brush rifle. In your expert opinion, is the gunsmith hedging, or is it a legitmate concern? I think I might take it to another gunsmith who might be more confident in his work, as this guy said, "I can do it, but we'll just have to pray that you will be able to hit paper at 100 yards, cuz those iron sights are too close to each other to do any real good..."

what do you think? Are the Gibbs carbines incapable of hitting paper at 100 yards but nobody ever said anything? I understand the logic of using a site that has more space between front and rear, but this carbine follows the Gibbs style, and as I have never fired a Gibbs version, I'd like to know what your experience says I can expect!
thanks

Ruger4570 · February 12, 2009, 11:02 PM

Well you would have more sight radius than I have on my pistol and I have no problem putting all the bullets into the large black Bulls Eye I use designed for pistols.

February 11, 2009, 10:14 PM	#1
tooldawg99 Member Join Date: November 26, 2008 Location: SOuth Carolina Posts: 29	Rifle front/rear sights too close to be accurate? I have this dilema posted on another forum for milSurp rifles, but wanted to get others opinions. Here's the set-up: I have an Enfield no1 Mk3 that I want to shorten and put a combo flash suppressor/sight on the end of the barrel. The existing rear sight is located in front of the receiver, which would leave about 9 inches between front and rear sights. The Gibbs conversion on the Enfield 308's used this set-up exactly. They made and sold hundreds, if not thousands, set up exactly this way. My concern is the gunsmith suggested that I use a Mk4 instead, since the rear sight is behind the receiver, which would still leave about 20+" from sight to sight even on a shortened barrel. I don't want to use optics, just iron sights on a short brush rifle. In your expert opinion, is the gunsmith hedging, or is it a legitmate concern? I think I might take it to another gunsmith who might be more confident in his work, as this guy said, "I can do it, but we'll just have to pray that you will be able to hit paper at 100 yards, cuz those iron sights are too close to each other to do any real good..." what do you think? Are the Gibbs carbines incapable of hitting paper at 100 yards but nobody ever said anything? I understand the logic of using a site that has more space between front and rear, but this carbine follows the Gibbs style, and as I have never fired a Gibbs version, I'd like to know what your experience says I can expect! thanks

February 12, 2009, 11:02 PM	#2
Ruger4570 Senior Member Join Date: April 3, 2005 Location: Rochester, New York Posts: 2,136	Well you would have more sight radius than I have on my pistol and I have no problem putting all the bullets into the large black Bulls Eye I use designed for pistols.