Log In
February 19, 2014
Offline
Would a model 94 serial # 1897633 be correct with a lyman peep sight? Year comes up 1952
April 15, 2005
Offline
Is it a Lyman No. 48?
Serial number 1897633 was made just a few months before Winchester began drilling & tapping all Model 94 Carbines for a receiver mounted peep sight.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
February 19, 2014
Offline
All I have is pictures. The sight is marked lyman 50 100 150 200. Looks like the 48s I looked at on the web. Has a blank in the rear sight dovetail. Doesn’t look like it ever had a rear sight mounted but hard to saw for sure from pictures. I’ve been looking for a 1952 as my birthday is feb of 1952. Thanks Jay
April 15, 2005
Offline
Jay,
The odds are that it was factory drilled & tapped for the Lyman No. 48 56 sight. Like I mentioned, the serial number is 1952, and it was in 1952 that Winchester began drilling & tapping all Model 94s as a standard feature. In my survey, there is a fairly clean transition in the 1915700 serial number range, but there are a notable number of earlier serial numbers that were drilled & tapped. In my survey, 1895962 was factory drilled & tapped.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
February 19, 2014
Offline
Thank you for the help. Jay
March 19, 2014
Offline
Wouldn’t the 94 have been drilled and tapped for a Lyman 56? I thought the Lyman 48 was for round receivers found on bolt action rifles. The Lyman 56 was introduced in 1935 and last catalogued in 1959. I think the Lyman 66A was introduced around 1954 to replace the 56. Either would be suitable on an early 50’s 94 though the plainer Lyman 56 may look the part better.
April 15, 2005
Offline
mike webb said
Wouldn’t the 94 have been drilled and tapped for a Lyman 56? I thought the Lyman 48 was for round receivers found on bolt action rifles. The Lyman 56 was introduced in 1935 and last catalogued in 1959. I think the Lyman 66A was introduced around 1954 to replace the 56. Either would be suitable on an early 50’s 94 though the plainer Lyman 56 may look the part better.
Mike,
You are correct… my mind was wandering (too many hours at work this past many weeks).
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
1 Guest(s)
