Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
I have 3 of the M1906’s. Early rifle # 21675, has the 30-A rear sight with patent date. The next rifle, # 183538, has a 30-B rear sight with no markings at all. The 3rd rifle, # 788406, also has the 30-B rear sight, and it too has a patent date. Is this normal? Not a lot of good info on these rifles out there. Thanks, Big Larry
Online
Hi Larry,
According to the drawings for the 30A and 30B; The 30A was used on the 1890 (with no mention of the 1906) and the 30B was used on both the 1890 and 1906. During the course of production there were 4 Change of Product notices and drawing revisions for the 30A and 6 Change of Product notices and drawing revisions for the 30B so you will undoubtedly run into sight variations.
The C/Ps are dated but that does not necessarily mean the changes were implemented immediately so I only use them as a general guide when trying to determine the proper variation/vintage of the sight in relation to the rifle date.
Let me know if you are looking for more specific information and I can share the changes and dates for comparison to your sights.
Best Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
The 30-A or M1890 rear sight was used on the early M1906. All my books show it. The first ones had no cutout for the adjusting screw and the wings were 1/2″. The 30-B was a modification on the 30-A in that the wings were made bigger,1″ to grip the bbl. better. They also had the cutout for the adjusting screw. One of mine, made in 1906 has the M1890 30-A while the other two , later rifles, have the 30-B. Now, my M1890, has the 30-A with the patent dates and a very small sighting notch, while the 30-A on my M1906 has the standard “V” notch.
My original question was why one of the 30-B’s had no patent dates? It was made in 1909. No biggie as it is a 30-B for sure. I love these little rifles, as you do your M69’s. Trouble is, nice ones are quite hard to find, and very expensive. Bores are usually bad too. Tom took the early 22 short rifle to the range yesterday and it performed well at 50 yards even with a much less than stellar bore.
When you make it here, in the near future, you can look them all over. All 3 are very nice specimens. I may opt for more of these little rifles. Big Larry
Big Larry said
Tom took the early 22 short rifle to the range yesterday and it performed well at 50 yards even with a much less than stellar bore.
Big Larry
Tom must have the eyesight of a hawk if he did that using those crude open sights. Now with the Lyman 103 “WS” presently languishing in my spare sight box, he might be hitting golf balls at 50 yds.
Big Larry said
My original question was why one of the 30-B’s had no patent dates? It was made in 1909. No biggie as it is a 30-B for sure. I love these little rifles, as you do your M69’s. Trouble is, nice ones are quite hard to find, and very expensive. Bores are usually bad too. Tom took the early 22 short rifle to the range yesterday and it performed well at 50 yards even with a much less than stellar bore.
When you make it here, in the near future, you can look them all over. All 3 are very nice specimens. I may opt for more of these little rifles. Big Larry
Hi Larry,
The drawing revisions and change notices reflect all of the variances you described (plus a few more) however they do not indicate the patent date was ever omitted from the sight (which they do indicate on some other sights) so that leads me to believe the omission of the patent date on your sight was simply human error/oversight. It happened more frequently than you would think. I have a rifle that Winchester forgot to roll-mark the barrel but it has the PW proof.
Waiting for the temperature to warm up a bit more before I drive up your way. I have to go to Cody again and hate messing with snow chains.
Best Regards,
Jeff
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
clarence said
Big Larry said
Tom took the early 22 short rifle to the range yesterday and it performed well at 50 yards even with a much less than stellar bore.
Big LarryTom must have the eyesight of a hawk if he did that using those crude open sights. Now with the Lyman 103 “WS” presently languishing in my spare sight box, he might be hitting golf balls at 50 yds.
I too have a #103, but it is on a real nice M1894 circa 1916 with an oct. bbl. Minty bore, 95% rifle in 38-55. No plans to shoot it. Tom is a very good shot. He shot a 10 shot dime size group at 50 yards with a M72 I got from our friend Jolly Bill. Yeah, he is pretty good. Big Larry
JWA said
Hi Larry,
The drawing revisions and change notices reflect all of the variances you described (plus a few more) however they do not indicate the patent date was ever omitted from the sight (which they do indicate on some other sights) so that leads me to believe the omission of the patent date on your sight was simply human error/oversight. It happened more frequently than you would think. I have a rifle that Winchester forgot to roll-mark the barrel but it has the PW proof.
Waiting for the temperature to warm up a bit more before I drive up your way. I have to go to Cody again and hate messing with snow chains.
Best Regards,
Jeff
Thanks Jeff. Larry
1 Guest(s)
