Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
Bert H. said
The front sight is currently installed backwards on your Model 1892, and any other gun if it folds to the rear. The Beach Combination and Lyman No. 5 Combination sights were designed to fold towards the muzzle.
Okay, I’ll have to reverse it. I’m guessing this makes it less likely that the sight is original to the firearm as I’m not sure if original to this firearm why it would have been removed and installed backwards as opposed to being installed to replace something else???
I’m guessing that other sights flipped backwards on other firearms I have that gave this, but that’s IIRC, and I may not recall correctly. My guess may have been based on knowing that tang sights fold backwards. To be honest, I never really noticed this nuance until Clarence pointed it out to me.
I assume there’s a slight taper and how does being installed backwards affect the sight and/or the notch in the barrel?
The slight taper is in the dovetail cut versus the sight base.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
The slight taper is in the dovetail cut versus the sight base.
Excellent. So interchangeable and reversible. I would have guessed it was the other way.
mrcvs said I’m guessing this makes it less likely that the sight is original to the firearm as I’m not sure if original to this firearm why it would have been removed and installed backwards as opposed to being installed to replace something else???
I’d say, “you’ll find out for sure when you obtain your letter,” except that the factory record sometimes neglects to include sights. But it’s certainly a period correct sight, even if originality can’t be confirmed.
Bob is right about the height of the ivory post, so maybe the sight was removed to replace it; the ivory looks suspiciously bright for its age.
When a Lyman combination is new the ivory is flush with the bottom hole and when it has to been worn down or broken you push it up from the bottom and you might have to reshape the exposed end which will make it bright again. So if the ivory is recessed in the bottom of the sight its probably the original ivory.
Bob
WACA Life Member--- NRA Life Member---- Cody Firearms member since 1991 Researching the Winchester 1873's
Email: [email protected]
Issue resolved, see attached photographs.
Thank you to those who pointed this out to me, I wasn’t keen enough to identify this discrepancy myself.
Should others need to to this, realize there is a Right side to Left side taper in the barrel dovetail of 0 degrees 30 minutes. Therefore, removal should be Left to Right and replacement the reverse.
25-35 said
The old adage of installing/removing sights:”Left out, Right on”
I wonder if this adage applies to all makers, though I’ve always followed it when working with other makes. Probably makes little difference after someone unaware of the rule (and how would you know unless someone told you?) has previously removed a sight by forcing it out to the left, thus widening the taper.
MRCS, if the Lyman sight was original to the gun it would say so on the Letter. It really isn’t important. That sight adds value no matter when it was put on the gun. It was on backwards though. If your gun letters with a certain sight then you need to find that sight but not so much when the standard sight was original on the rifle.
Chuck said
MRCS, if the Lyman sight was original to the gun it would say so on the Letter. It really isn’t important. That sight adds value no matter when it was put on the gun. It was on backwards though. If your gun letters with a certain sight then you need to find that sight but not so much when the standard sight was original on the rifle.
I like the sight, but not sure why it was put in backwards. Not sure if it was put in from the left when it should have been put in from the right as a strong push with the thumb can dislodge it and it removed quite easily yesterday. It doesn’t slide and is fairly firm. There is no recoil with this round so it shouldn’t fly off when firing. I’m going to remove later and apply machine oil under it for a little added viscosity. Not really loose but not as firm as I would like.
mrcvs said
I’m going to remove later and apply machine oil under it for a little added viscosity. Not really loose but not as firm as I would like.
Certainly not supposed to be that loose, but as I suggested, if someone unknowingly drove it or another sight out to the left, the tapered slot might have become un-tapered. A small piece of thin paper under the sight will hold it in place against much heavier recoil.
clarence said
Certainly not supposed to be that loose, but as I suggested, if someone unknowingly drove it or another sight out to the left, the tapered slot might have become un-tapered. A small piece of thin paper under the sight will hold it in place against much heavier recoil.
The tolerances are already tight. I’ll try that but, if I had to guess, paper might even be quite too thick for this.
I have used a 1/4″ square of shim stock to tighten some sights. It’s trial and error to get it in the right spot so it tightens where you want it.
clarence said
A small piece of thin paper under the sight will hold it in place against much heavier recoil.
THANK YOU Clarence! It was fairly tight already such that I thought a piece of paper would be too thick, but it worked like a charm! Will not move unless tapped with a brass punch.
1873man said
Nice looking 92. The ivory is up too high. It should be flush with the metal tit. That is there to protect the ivory from getting broken off.Bob
Bob is correct. I’ve had several Lyman no5 front sights & the metal post behind the ivory is there to protect it. You can punch the ivory upwards from the small hole underneath the base when uninstalled, but not sure you want to try punching it down level with the metal post protector due to it possibly being to brittle with age.
I’m late to the game but yes installed backwards. I’ve also seen that before a few times. Hopefully no damage to the taper in the dovetail slot. Very Nice gun Ian.
RickC
Looking at the first posted pictures, it appears the sight wasn’t completely driven in to center. I would doubt any damage to the barrel dovetail resulted. The paper shim has worked well for me in the past. Tissue or waxed paper have always worked well for me. RDB
The factory letter arrived today.
A few quite very interesting things.
It letters with sights being addressed. “Sights: Lyman combination, front, leaf, and rear”
It was received in the warehouse five times! It shipped out three times.
Presumably, it it was received in the warehouse five times, it also would be shipped five times as well?
Any thoughts as to why it was received that so many times?
It remains as it letters.
”Received in warehouse November 24, 1897.
Shipped from warehouse on November 26, 1897. Order number 23351.
Returned
Received in warehouse on January 06, 1898.
Received in warehouse on March 05, 1898.
Received in warehouse on May 09, 1898.
Shipped from warehouse on May 12, 1898. Order number 8860.
Received in warehouse on December 29, 1898.
Shipped from warehouse on December 30, 1898. Order number 19135.”
Also of interest, the serial number was applied on April 28, 1896 but this rifle was not received in the warehouse for the first time for another 1 year 6 months and 27 days.
The letter is attached for your review.
This has turned out to be a most interesting rifle, to say the least!
Ian,
For other Winchesters I have encountered with multiple Received & shipped dates and order numbers, the guns were used for salesman “exposition” shows. I cannot say for certain that was the case for your Model 1892, but I highly suspect it to be the case.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
Ian,For other Winchesters I have encountered with multiple Received & shipped dates and order numbers, the guns were used for salesman “exposition” shows. I cannot say for certain that was the case for your Model 1892, but I highly suspect it to be the case.
Bert
How did you determine the others were used for salesman “exhibition” shows? Is there a record of this somewhere?
It seems like the most logical explanation.
1 Guest(s)
