Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
I know it is not the kind of lever that everyone gets excited about but I have been tracking it for years and finally was able to purchase it. I’m not sure if the sight is original to the rifle. It appears to be, but the barrel does not have a dovetail sight blank which I would think it would have if it left the factory that way. However, it does not look like a rear sight was ever on the rifle. The rifle is in the early 28K range which this site indicates to be a 1900 manufacturing date. Lots of good finish on the rifle. Believe it or not the owner used to store it in an old WWII BAR leather case.
Regards,
CC
The slot-blank could have been lost, so if there’s no “ghost” mark on the barrel where the rear sight elevator would have rested, I’d bet it never had one. That BAR case did its work well!
November 7, 2015
Offline
Nice!
CPC said
I know it is not the kind of lever that everyone gets excited about but I have been tracking it for years and finally was able to purchase it. I’m not sure if the sight is original to the rifle. It appears to be, but the barrel does not have a dovetail sight blank which I would think it would have if it left the factory that way. However, it does not look like a rear sight was ever on the rifle. The rifle is in the early 28K range which this site indicates to be a 1900 manufacturing date. Lots of good finish on the rifle. Believe it or not the owner used to store it in an old WWII BAR leather case.Regards,
CC
That IS the kind of lever that some of us get excited about. That is an excellent find of a very nice, original Winchester in a scarce configuration.
Fortunately, the gun is in the letterable range for 1895’s, so Cody would have the records available that should tell you whether the Lyman receiver sight was original. As long as it still has its original barrel, the lack of a rear sight dovetail is a strong indicator that the receiver sight is original. By the finish, I’d bet it is the original barrel (proof marks on the barrel of a 1900 manufactured barrel would indicate it’s a replacement).
I’m sure Brad Dunbar would like to have the information on this rifle for his 1895 survey. BTW, he is particularly fond of this configuration, having at least one like it in his collection.
Mark Douglas said
As long as it still has its original barrel, the lack of a rear sight dovetail is a strong indicator that the receiver sight is original….
If it had no slot, it would have to mean than that, but I believe he said no slot blank or filler. Would seem logical for the barrel to be left un-slotted if a tang or rcvr. sight was ordered, except that, ordinarily, omitting the slot was an extra cost option.
It looks pretty clear to me in the pictures that there is no rear sight dovetail.
Mark Douglas said
It looks pretty clear to me in the pictures that there is no rear sight dovetail.
Believe you’ll see it if you enlarge the photo.
I see the rear sight dovetail as well. I used to own an 1895 exactly like this one with a blank in the rear sight dovetail along with the Lyman 21 receiver sight. It lettered with that sight configuration.
Don
My eyes aren’t what they used to be. I enlarged it the first time and didn’t see it, but when I enlarged it AND put on my glasses – there it is. Factory records should clear up the mystery.
Beautiful 1895! Love it, thanks for posting the pictures!
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
Hey that’s a pretty nice rifle! It looks like it could have a lot of case color on the hammer and link yet too. I thought for a second it didn’t have a rear barrel dovetail also until I looked really close. Really straining, but it looks like it has a bead front sight also. If you want, email me some info about it and the full s/n and I’ll have it searched for you if you aren’t a CFM member. 95 collectors have to stick together….
Thanks for posting the pictures.
Thank you all for the generous comments. I am very sorry about the confusion regarding the dove tail for the sight, it has one. There is no proof mark on the barrel. I’ve posted a few more pictures that will hopefully answer any more questions that you have. Thank you Brad for the offer, email to follow.
Regards,
CC
Brad Dunbar said
Hey that’s a pretty nice rifle! It looks like it could have a lot of case color on the hammer and link yet too. I thought for a second it didn’t have a rear barrel dovetail also until I looked really close. Really straining, but it looks like it has a bead front sight also. If you want, email me some info about it and the full s/n and I’ll have it searched for you if you aren’t a CFM member. 95 collectors have to stick together….Thanks for posting the pictures.
WTG, Brad!
James
November 7, 2015
Offline
Cody records should be interesting. I once thought the 1895 was poorly balanced and odd-looking but no longer feel that way. I like my 95’s but the rear sight is too small for me to use, hope to find a nice one like yours some day. Can’t wait to get home so I can see it on my real ‘puter.
TXGunNut said
I like my 95’s but the rear sight is too small for me to use, hope to find a nice one like yours some day.
Don’t risk permanent eye damage by straining to use that sight, and don’t wait for “some day”! Here you go: http://www.ebay.com/itm/LYMAN-NO-38-RECEIVER-SIGHT-WINCHESTER-MODEL-1895-EXCELLENT-COMPLETE-/182465645647?hash=item2a7bcccc4f:g:6tQAAOSwSlBYr2G1
OK, a little high, but instant gratification ain’t cheap.
A factory letter would seem called for. Many Winchester rifles mounted with tang or receiver peeps were also ordered with barrel sights. A friend of mine has a beauty 1886 in .33 Win. with Lyman 21 as well a Lyman no.6 folding leaf rear sight.
November 7, 2015
Offline
clarence said
TXGunNut said
I like my 95’s but the rear sight is too small for me to use, hope to find a nice one like yours some day.Don’t risk permanent eye damage by straining to use that sight, and don’t wait for “some day”! Here you go: http://www.ebay.com/itm/LYMAN-NO-38-RECEIVER-SIGHT-WINCHESTER-MODEL-1895-EXCELLENT-COMPLETE-/182465645647?hash=item2a7bcccc4f:g:6tQAAOSwSlBYr2G1
OK, a little high, but instant gratification ain’t cheap.
A “little” high? Had no idea. I don’t think the receiver on my 95 is D&T’d for the Lyman sight…unless I’m missing something.
mike webb said
A factory letter would seem called for. Many Winchester rifles mounted with tang or receiver peeps were also ordered with barrel sights. A friend of mine has a beauty 1886 in .33 Win. with Lyman 21 as well a Lyman no.6 folding leaf rear sight.
The prevailing principle then was that “the customer is always right”…even when he asks for something stupid.
TXGunNut saidI don’t think the receiver on my 95 is D&T’d for the Lyman sight…unless I’m missing something.
Only one extra hole was required–the one for the screw that controlled the elevation adjustment.
November 7, 2015
Offline
clarence said
Only one extra hole was required–the one for the screw that controlled the elevation adjustment.
Saw that, was wondering if the front hole was somehow different. Wasn’t clear on how it secured at the top rear of the receiver either. I’m thinking my “shooter” 1895 is too nice a gun to alter, hoping someday I’ll stumble over one that’s factory equipped with the Lyman sight. The way my luck is running it won’t be long. 
1 Guest(s)
