ASSRA Forum - Yours Truly, Harvey Donaldson

ASSRA Forum › General › General Discussion › Yours Truly, Harvey Donaldson

(Moderator Group: Moderator)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1

Yours Truly, Harvey Donaldson (Read 2344 times)

oneatatime Frequent Elocutionist Online Posts: 4465 Location: Rocky Mountains Joined: Oct 30^th, 2011	Yours Truly, Harvey Donaldson Sep 8^th, 2018 at 7:00pm	Print Post
	I'm really enjoying this book. I was just reading about his choice for the perfect aperture sizes for shooting 6 inch bulls at 100 and 12 inch bulls at 200. They are: front .116 inch (No. 32 drill) and rear .025 inch (No. 72 drill) at 32 1/4 inch separation. Sizes were worked out by C.W. Rowland. He was also mentioning that the most accurate loads at 100 and 200 were as slow as possible that would not show tipping at the distance being shot.


	IP Logged

marlinguy Frequent Elocutionist Online Ballards may be weaker, but they sure are neater! Posts: 18042 Location: Oregon Joined: Feb 2^nd, 2009	Re: Yours Truly, Harvey Donaldson Reply #1 - Sep 8^th, 2018 at 7:15pm	Print Post
	Did Harvey mention eye relief on the sights with those aperture sizes? I've found receiver sights need a larger aperture opening than tang sights. And the few Marbles "Special Flexible Base" tang sights I had needed even smaller openings. Those sights relocate the staff to right at the leading edge of the comb, and a small aperture looks even bigger that close to my eye.

	(You need to *Login* or *Register* to view media files and links)
	IP Logged

JLouis Frequent Elocutionist Offline Posts: 10625 Joined: Apr 8^th, 2009	Re: Yours Truly, Harvey Donaldson Reply #2 - Sep 8^th, 2018 at 9:49pm	Print Post
	Individual quality of eye sight is really what dictates what is best for each individuals personal use. Sometimes and just my own personal feelings is that often times there are some who will try to rely on what has been working the best for someone else. When we should actually be working on what works the very best for the each of us. JLouis

	" It Is Better To Now Have Been A Has Been Than A Never Was Or A Wanna Be "
	IP Logged

Redsetter Frequent Elocutionist Offline Posts: 3468 Location: New York Joined: Aug 6^th, 2013	Re: Yours Truly, Harvey Donaldson Reply #3 - Sep 8^th, 2018 at 11:40pm	Print Post
	marlinguy wrote on Sep 8^th, 2018 at 7:15pm: I've found receiver sights need a larger aperture opening than tang sights. Being further from the eye, they "seem" smaller, even if the same diameter as the tang sight aperture. Drilling out the pin-hole of my early M52 rcvr sight improved it immensely, & I'm not the only one who did this, because target-shooter supply catalogs like P.J. O'Hare's carried sets of reamers for the specific purpose of enlarging pin-hole apertures. But that doesn't mean that "smaller is better" in tang sights either. I've enlarged the apertures of several factory tang sights, including two Marlins, & found doing so improved my accuracy. Not that this is any "discovery"--throughout his life, William Lyman preached in his ads & early catalogs that pin-hole apertures were detrimental to accuracy, & tried (without great success) to convince shooters to shoot with larger ones.


	IP Logged

40_Rod Frequent Elocutionist Offline Extremism in the persuit of accuracy is not a vice Posts: 4285 Location: Knoxville, TN Joined: Apr 20^th, 2004	Re: Yours Truly, Harvey Donaldson Reply #4 - Sep 9^th, 2018 at 10:24am	Print Post
	John is right individual eyesight will determine the best size for apertures. Harvey’s book is a great book to read. Once you get over Harvey’s penchant for trying to take credit for every firearms innovation since the invention of gunpowder. There is a wealth of knowledge in that book one of my favorites is the chapter on point shape vs. muzzle velocity. 40 Rod


	IP Logged

svartkruttgris#369 Frequent Elocutionist Offline Posts: 2980 Location: Colorado, Norway, Sweden Joined: Oct 28^th, 2014	Re: Yours Truly, Harvey Donaldson Reply #5 - Sep 9^th, 2018 at 1:52pm	Print Post
	JLouis wrote on Sep 8^th, 2018 at 9:49pm: Individual quality of eye sight is really what dictates what is best for each individuals personal use. Sometimes and just my own personal feelings is that often times there are some who will try to rely on what has been working the best for someone else. When we should actually be working on what works the very best for the each of us. JLouis Yep! That is exactly what I found shooting same rifle with Marbles Tang sight as by buddy. My eyesight in right eye was fading over those years and each year I needed a larger hole, until I could no longer use right eye for shooting. Ditto for dark vs bright days. Buddy's eyesight was and remains better than I ever had in right eye, so no change in hole size needed. Been long time since I consider advice such as HD's to be at all valid for me.


	IP Logged

Pages: 1

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Page completed in 0.7408 seconds.