Rear sight alignment

[jdwalls]

I spent last Saturday putting about 30 rounds through my M1898 and noticed something odd. My rifle had a peep sight added to the action sometime before it came into my Dad's possession in the '50s. The 25 rounds I shot using the peep made a nice 5" group at 75 yards (from standing and kneeling positions).
Out of curiousity I set the original rear iron sights (1901 style) to 75 yards, flipped up the peep and was pleased to see the nice tight sight picture it provided. I got off 2 more rounds from the bench rest, then went out to check the target during the cease-fire period.
There were still only 25 holes in the target. I moved the target to the 50 yd range and reset the sight to 50 yds. I fired the 3 remaining rounds I had, waited for the cease fire and once again found that none of the shots had hit.
So, why the discrepancy between the performance of the gun using the different sights? Would the gunsmith who installed the rear peep have any reason to mess with the original sight? Neither one interferes with the other (at least beyond 50 yards - the "aftermarket" one obscures the original once it drops down close to the barrel.
I'd like to know how to restore the function of the original rear sight. I've pretty much settled on handloading the ammo in the future (although it doesn't save much cash, its getting hard to find 30-40 Krag rounds in the store (and they're always 180 gr spitzer instead of 220 round-nose). I figure I should be able to find a powder charge that complements the sight...or at least it'd be a nice project to try.
Assuming I can get the sight to work.

[coastie]

Go to 25 yards, or 10. Then work out.
Oh, a few years back, I spent my foolish money on Remington 30-40 as the gun store was "tired on the stuff hanging on the shelve". Yeah, 180's, but good for brass and I still have some "factory" stock of my own.
Good luck, Paul K. in Houston

[jdwalls]

Thanks for the reply. I'm still unclear on why the "added-on" peep seems to be correctly sighted in, yet the original rear sight appears to be drastically out of alignment. I just thought that was odd considering there doesn't appear to be any reason why the addition of a the rear sight would affect the accuracy of the original equipment.

[Ned Butts]

How big is your target backer board? The diffrence in the trajectory of 180 over 220 could have you shooting over the board. Your after market sight being set for the 180's and the military sight graduated for 220's is likely the problem. Reloading 220's to aproxamatly military specs has worked well for us over the years.
Ned

[jdwalls]

Thanks for the reply, Ned.
I hadn't considered that - the backer board is (from memory) about 36" x 30". It makes sense that a lighter bullet with better aerodynamics (spitzer vs round nose) would have a flatter trajectory from the higher muzzle velocity. Thinking about it, it does seem like the 1901 sight caused the muzzle to elevate, so that the rifle was lobbing the bullet. Would an 18" difference at 50 yards be an appropriate ballistic difference? It'll be a few weeks before I can get out to the range again. What is your source for bullets in handloading? Are they jacketed? I was thinking of using Accurate Arms 4350 powder and a friend's reloading tools.

[Ned Butts]

I use 40 gr. IMR 4350 and Hornady 220 gr rn. they come very close to military veloicity and performance. I like the Hornady because they seem to have a more round nose contour than others. My dad uses Sieras though with similar results, so I would say that any 220 rn would serve your purpose.
A couple of of other points from earlier posts, you don't mention barrel length or front sight. Are they original issue? Also the lowest setting on the M1901 rear sight is 100 yds, if you were setting below 100 and guessing you may have been off enough to add to the trajectory diffrence, if you set to the 5 thinking it was 50 you were actually "lobbing" them in at 500 yds! Keep shooting untill you get a combination that you like. The shooting is the fun part!!
Good luck,
Ned

[jdwalls]

Ok, that's kind of weird - I looked at the photos and it looks like the sight is a 1902 model. I'm not sure why I thought it was a 1901, they look completely different. The oval shape of the open sight piece and shallow notch at the hinge seem to differentiate it from the similar appearing 1898 sights.

The numbers on the sight go from 2 to 20. I guess I thought it was pretty optimistic for a rifle with iron sights to have ranges to 2000 yards!

The barrel length is right at 30", and the front sight appears to be unmodified. As far as I know, the only sportification done was the peep on the action and fore-most portion of the stock (where the bayonet fixture was) was cut down.

It might be an interesting project to restore the cut down stock and fixture. Short of finding a parts rifle, where could I find that? It'd be nice to have a sling to help stabilize the aiming as well.

[stinson10a]

I had my reblued 1898 cut to 22 in. and aperature sight, Williams, installed. The rear 1898,locking tab sight, front band, all parts remaining are available. at this time I have the hand guard installed, that may change.

[jdwalls]

Is there an "anatomy" diagram somewhere showing the names of the various pieces of the rifle? It'd be good to compare what I have remaining with what was originally there to see what's missing.