Can you post photographs of the rear sight blank area?
Is there evidence of an elevator from a rear sight? Or, as per this thread, a Special Smokeless Rear sight would leave no wear, usually, unless all the way down.
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-sights/question-on-32-ws-sights/
I would expect to see a Special Smokeless rear sight on a .32 Special rifle from this era. Or, if the tang sight is original and in its place, would that perhaps letter.
Just bringing this up, as I don’t know for sure and, in the meantime, photographs of the rear sight area would prove helpful.
W.A.C.A. life member, Marlin Collectors Assn. charter and life member, C,S.S.A. member and general gun nut.
Henry Mero said
Ian I don’t see any evidence of a sight mounted on the barrel and the tang sight looks as though it’s been there forever I do have a new in the box 32 sight I could put on the gun, but I don’t think I will
The barrel looks much better than the sight blank which suggests to me that is not from the time of original manufacture. There’s no evidence of a sight elevator, which tells me IF there once was a rear sight, it was the .32 Special Smokeless Rear Sight.
The tang sight, if not original to your rifle, has been on the rifle a very long time.
Henry Mero said
Ian I don’t see any evidence of a sight mounted on the barrel and the tang sight looks as though it’s been there forever I do have a new in the box 32 sight I could put on the gun, but I don’t think I will
Can you mount that Special Smokeless Rear Sight and not occlude the sight plane of the tang sight? If not occluded, I’d be inclined to inclined to put it on this nice rifle—IF it looks like it is of the same condition as your rifle and doesn’t appear to be a later addition.
I’ve always found it interesting that they were making the M1894 in five different chamberings, and for just one of those, they came up with a special sight. I’d love to have heard the discussions that led to that decision. I have seen one .30 WCF with this sight – that lettered.
Henry Mero said
I did put it on and yup it looks better than sitting on the shelf by itself and the rifle looks like a real .32 spl.
Your opinion, but not mine, nor that of the original owner who was gun-savvy enough to set up his rifle for the best shooting it was capable of; that is, replacing the open sight with a tang sight. And you can’t pretend there never was a tang sight, due to the discoloration of the upper tang, so it will have to go back, even though it can’t be used with the blockage created by the rear sight. You’ve made a wall-hanger out of it.
clarence said
Henry Mero said
I did put it on and yup it looks better than sitting on the shelf by itself and the rifle looks like a real .32 spl.
Your opinion, but not mine, nor that of the original owner who was gun-savvy enough to set up his rifle for the best shooting it was capable of; that is, replacing the open sight with a tang sight. And you can’t pretend there never was a tang sight, due to the discoloration of the upper tang, so it will have to go back, even though it can’t be used with the blockage created by the rear sight. You’ve made a wall-hanger out of it.
Well, that was my question. Is a Soecial Smokeless sight acceptable with a tang sight or does it obscure the sight plane when utilizing the tang sight?
mrcvs said
clarence said
Henry Mero said
I did put it on and yup it looks better than sitting on the shelf by itself and the rifle looks like a real .32 spl.
Your opinion, but not mine, nor that of the original owner who was gun-savvy enough to set up his rifle for the best shooting it was capable of; that is, replacing the open sight with a tang sight. And you can’t pretend there never was a tang sight, due to the discoloration of the upper tang, so it will have to go back, even though it can’t be used with the blockage created by the rear sight. You’ve made a wall-hanger out of it.
Well, that was my question. Is a Soecial Smokeless sight acceptable with a tang sight or does it obscure the sight plane when utilizing the tang sight?
Unless you are trying to shoot 600+ yards with the tang sight, then Yes, the Smokeless sight interferes with the tang sight. Because that rifle wore a tang sight for a long time, that is what I would put back on it (without the Special Smokeless sight).
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
mrcvs said
clarence said
Henry Mero said
I did put it on and yup it looks better than sitting on the shelf by itself and the rifle looks like a real .32 spl.
Your opinion, but not mine, nor that of the original owner who was gun-savvy enough to set up his rifle for the best shooting it was capable of; that is, replacing the open sight with a tang sight. And you can’t pretend there never was a tang sight, due to the discoloration of the upper tang, so it will have to go back, even though it can’t be used with the blockage created by the rear sight. You’ve made a wall-hanger out of it.
Well, that was my question. Is a Soecial Smokeless sight acceptable with a tang sight or does it obscure the sight plane when utilizing the tang sight?
Unless you are trying to shoot 600+ yards with the tang sight, then Yes, the Smokeless sight interferes with the tang sight. Because that rifle wore a tang sight for a long time, that is what I would put back on it (without the Special Smokeless sight).
Bert
Okay, now I’ve done it!
That’s why I asked if it was appropriate (non occluded view) with the tang sight and this one.
It does look nice, however, if not appropriate.
If you replace the blank, I would replace it with a blank with less wear. The blank has too much ch wear relative to the condition of this rifle.
I see no evidence of an elevator sight having been previously installed, either.
mrcvs said
It does look nice, however, if not appropriate.
Well, I guess “nice” is in the eye of the beholder, but many believe this is one of the most awkward-looking rear sights ever designed. (Excepting the abominations seen on some European Schuetzen rifles.) I wouldn’t argue that it doesn’t work well, but “looks nice” is a statement about appearance, not function.
OK , well maybe I’ll take it off again and put the blank back in, then reinstall it depending on who I’m speaking with, whether they like the 32 sight or not. I guess what I’m sayin’ is “I” like it with the 32 sight on it and if You think it’s an abomination, well sucks to be You, “cause I have the gun.
W.A.C.A. life member, Marlin Collectors Assn. charter and life member, C,S.S.A. member and general gun nut.
Henry Mero said
OK , well maybe I’ll take it off again and put the blank back in, then reinstall it depending on who I’m speaking with, whether they like the 32 sight or not. I guess what I’m sayin’ is “I” like it with the 32 sight on it and if You think it’s an abomination, well sucks to be You, “cause I have the gun.
For the most part, we are talking collector’s with collector rifles here. I realize many here shoot some (or all their rifles) but many of us have rifles that we do not shoot. Again, I realize that does not include everyone.
I shoot many of my rifles. My eyes focus poorly on rear barrel sights so whenever possible, I use a tang or receiver sight. I really dislike shooting a rifle with a tang sight and a rear barrel sight occluding the view. Sometimes I just make do as I’m only shooting paper anyway. I am reluctant to pull a rear barrel sight off a high condition rifle if it is clear, that sight hasn’t been touched since the rifle was originally shipped. But yes, if it’s a rifle I would be hunting with, I would not leave a rear barrel sight on it (unless it is the two-leaf style that folds flat). So if for me, if a rifle is primarily a collector rifle seeing little (if any use) the fact that the rear barrel sight partially occludes the tang sight, is a ridiculous concern.
January 26, 2011
I’ve always had mixed feelings on the 32 WS sight, mostly leaning towards the fact that it’s got a clunky, ugly look to it. That said, I did end up with a nice 22″ short rifle with an octagon barrel and a 2/3 magazine that really looks great with the 32 special sight. They are certainly a strange sight as they seem to float above the barrel.
Mod 1894, 22″ OB, 2/3 Mag | 32 WS | 309884 | 1906 |
~Gary~
1 Guest(s)