Hooded front sights...Is it just me?

[L_Kilkenny]

I can't stand those things! I always thought it was some stupid idea that was added during the 80's and 90's. But now I'm seeing pics of older rifles with the things on em. As a matter of fact my 80's vintage 94AE doesn't have em. IMO, they're about as ugly as a scope!

LK

[J Miller]

To each their own.

My 1950 Win 94 has it's hood.
My 1977 Win 9422 has it's hood.

Now, bead sights are weak. If you lean your rifle against something that little dinky bead on top can be easily bent or even broken off. It's happened to me a couple times. So any rifle that cam with bead sights and a hood, keep the hood.

However if I install receiver sights and a post front sight, then the hood comes off and goes into the parts box.

Joe

[Don McDowell]

It's sorta weird but I can't shoot a levergun with a hooded front as well as I can when I remove the hood, yet I dearly love the globe sights on my Sharps'

[J Miller]

It's sorta weird but I can't shoot a levergun with a hooded front as well as I can when I remove the hood, yet I dearly love the globe sights on my Sharps'

Don,
I've found the same thing with my hooded rifles. I even will take the hood off sometimes at the range while I shoot and put it back on when I'm finished. The only purpose they serve for me is to protect that bead.
The globe sights are round and form an aperture for the front sight, at least those I've seen do.
Whereas the hood cuts so close to the sight it actually interferes with the sight picture.

Wow Don, I think we agreed with something for a change ... whoo-hooo!

Joe

[bsaride]

All my rifles get Lyman 17 Globe front sights (or something similar)
and receiver rear sights. Only exception right now is the 1908 Marlin,
I haven't decided whether I will change this one over yet.

[RANisbet]

As a competitive shooter that used open military iron sights exclusively (Not the globe type used with International style sights). I was taught that a front sight cover was there to use until you were ready to go shooting, then it comes off.
The idea is that the front sight should be well contrasted against the target. When the hood is removed, the direct ambient light shines on the front sight and gives a better contrasted sight picture.
Now here's something else: In competition, on military target sights, they get blackened to improve contrast.

Anyway, I always leave the hood on my hunting rifles.
Bob Nisbet

[765x53]

I agree with the previous post. The hood goes in your pocket when you're shooting and back on to protect the sight when transporting.

[PaulB]

Huh, I never thought of using them that way. Maybe because they often aren't all that easy to get off.

I generally throw them in the parts box, and risk a broken front. I don't think the risk is that great.

Globe sights, on the other hand, make a lot of sense to me. They are supposed to be part of the sight picture. I don't have any now though.

[Blaine]

No hoods for me.....makes the sight picture too busy.....especially with a ghost ring.

[Old Savage]

I like them and think they look good.

[Slick]

I use globes, hoods and un-hooded and think they all have their place & time.

It would be far worse a situation where we to have no choice at all...

[adirondakjack]

Had one on one levergun, and got rid of it when it got clogged with snow at an inopportune moment. For LONG RANGE or really precise work ya can't beat em. They stop the glare that hurts accuracy when the sun is on one side.

My current project rifle is getting a Lyman 17 and a Marbles tang peep, but it's a paper puncher.

[NonPCnraRN]

Anybody tried the fiberoptic front sights with a hood that has a cut out to let light in, yet still protects the fiber optic tube? Are those tubes round or kind of oval shaped like most hoods?

[Hank Dodge]

I've never shot one of those fiber optic ones with the cut hood, but I did handle one once. I'm not a fan of hoods, but that glowing site actually worked well with it. No longer were you looking at a dark silhouette of a site, it became a bright bead in a tube of sorts. It seemed to come up fast.

[El Chivo]

I like the globes but don't like that Marlin square hood - such an ugly shape and sight picture.

I prefer using the globe and it helps with accuracy - if you center the globe in your peep, then put the crosshairs on the target, you're more consistent than if you are using an naked front sight.

[horsesoldier03]

I don't mind the hood so much on the Marlins but the THICK sight post underneath the hood has to AFFECT the accuracy. I have an Old Glenfield Marlin model 30 that has no hood and a brass bead front sight that is awesome. It is thin enough that you can see your target behind the sight post. My 1894 and 336 both have the front hoods and the thicker sight post. I did take a file to the front top of the sights. With a couple of light swipes across the sight blade the brass will shine through. It helps me pick up the post when shooting in limited light situations associated with hunting.

I wish Marlin would go back to the Thin Brass Bead Front Sight Post!

[Hobie]

I get the gun, the hood comes off and goes into the parts box, the rifle lives out its life with me sans hood. I've yet to break off a bead front sight but I do prefer the post or sourdough for precision shooting. I find that the hood obscures the target.

[TedH]

I'm with Hobie, I take them off right away and throw them in the parts box. Can't stand shooting with them on. I've never broken or damaged a front sight.

[Don McDowell]

Put me in the never seen a bent front bead.
Howsomever the bead on my 405 did eventually fall out from apparently the recoil?

[Tycer]

I broke the bead on my 86 the day before an out of state hunting trip. A hood would have saved it.

[Mutt]

I shoot with or without . My eye site is kinda' poor , So It's makes little difference. I will say that I agree that the shade of the hood is most helpful .I was out last week at the range , trying out my new to me Marlin 30AS . NO HOOD . Sun light seemed to cut the post in half shadow wise . But probably no one has more fun than I do.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Mutt,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,

[Modoc ED]

I like a hooded sight. I even go so far as to put a dab of Locktite Black Max on em so they don't get knocked off by heavy brush, etc..

[L_Kilkenny]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesn't care for em. There has been times when they would of saved me broken front sights. I've gone thru 3-4 over the years on my coon hunting .22's. The amount of abuse a gun takes while you're running around in the woods at night chasing dogs is unbelievable. But I've never had one break to the point where it couldn't be used.

LK

[BAGTIC]

I like hooded sights. They give a more even light pattern under glare conditions. I also like aperture rear sights. With both of them I never even notice the hood a I am focused on the post front.

I hate round bead front sights and semi-buckhorn rears, also shallow vee rears. First thing I do is convert my open sights to a post front and square notch rear (Patridge style).

[KCSO]

I once talked with a Britisher who was astounded that "YOU YANKS" shot a gun with a hood on the sight. According to him unless it was a target globe the hood was to protect the sight in transport and was NEVER used shooting.

[Don McDowell]

I can't imagine how some folks must "transport" a rifle if they're worried about bending or breaking a front sight during the process

[Buck Elliott]

Sheet-metal sight hoods are seldom concentric to the front sight, which can cause all sorts of optical aberrations when trying to shoot with one in place. Globe- or target front sights are another matter, entirely, as the true circle around the front sight can help to focus and enhance the sight picture.

I don't shoot with 'hooded' sights on a levergun. If it has a hood, it goes in my pocket when the rifle comes out of the scabbard.

[gak]

I'll be the odd one here and say that, on Winchester 94s that were designed with the hoods, I actually like them--and actually am looking for four of the Pre-64 types and two of the Post 64s (ca. 1979)--I've heard are subtly different--I've heard the terms "high" and "low"? (I forget, it's been awhile since I've had a complete Post...I always assumed they were the same)--those of you with those parts bins full of them, PM me with what you've got!. ..as I always seem to end up with guns owned by you guys that take them off! I like the better sight picture and quicker sight acquisition (for me). These guns (pre-64s on) don't have enough prong of a rear buckhorn--if any--to make the fronts work optimally without the hood. Otherwise, on guns that never had a hood to begin with, I prefer a semi to full buckhorn combined with front post.

[Buck Elliott]

The machined hoods of the old Redfield ramp front sights were OK, but I've only used that kind of set-up (with a recaiver peep sight) on Bolt-Action Rifles, and way back before I "knew better..."

The "circles surrounding a point" sight picture worked well enough for leisurely shooting, but was noticeably "busy" when things got western...

[win92]

When walking around the woods either early or late in the day I tend to need as much light on the front bead as I can get. So all my levers are without hoods. But at the range on stationary targets I prefer globe type sights as far as Irons go. So the Sharps and Highwall wear their hoods.

[Charles]

Front sight hoods have a purpose other than to protect the sight. Sunlight will glint on one side or another of a shiney bead. This can cause the POI to wander a mite. Target shooters have an old saying.."Light goes up, sights go down".

99% of sport shooters have no need for a front sight hood, but for serious target shooting they do come in handy from time to time.