Avatar
Please consider registering
Guest
Search
Forum Scope




Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
Register Lost password?
sp_Feed sp_PrintTopic sp_TopicIcon
30-B rear sight on M1906
sp_NewTopic Add Topic
Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1765
Member Since:
December 31, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1
March 18, 2022 - 3:22 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost
sp_ReportPost

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

Avatar
Location: 32000' +
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1828
Member Since:
July 17, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2
March 18, 2022 - 5:11 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost
sp_ReportPost

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

http://rimfirepublications.com/  

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1765
Member Since:
December 31, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
3
March 19, 2022 - 3:48 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost
sp_ReportPost

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 LarryLaughWink

Avatar
NY
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 4322
Member Since:
November 1, 2013
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online
4
March 19, 2022 - 4:43 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost
sp_ReportPost

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.

Avatar
Location: 32000' +
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1828
Member Since:
July 17, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
5
March 19, 2022 - 4:58 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost
sp_ReportPost

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 LarryLaughWink  

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

http://rimfirepublications.com/  

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1765
Member Since:
December 31, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
6
March 20, 2022 - 12:25 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost
sp_ReportPost

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 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.  

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

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1765
Member Since:
December 31, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
7
March 20, 2022 - 12:26 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost
sp_ReportPost

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

Forum Timezone: UTC 0
Most Users Ever Online: 628
Currently Online: JEREMY S., pdog72, mrcvs, deerhunter, clarence, Jim McKee, Tedk, William Gray
Guest(s) 85
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
1873man: 5185
clarence: 4322
TXGunNut: 3904
Chuck: 3524
steve004: 3117
twobit: 2846
Maverick: 2019
JWA: 1828
Big Larry: 1765
Forum Stats:
Groups: 1
Forums: 16
Topics: 10431
Posts: 89905

 

Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 1434
Members: 11521
Moderators: 3
Admins: 3
Navigation