My objection to tang sights - even those that have azimuth adjustment - is the lack of micrometer adjustments and visible scales. 

I spent the morning with Mike and Jeremy sighting in various rifles and listening to the two of them hammering and sawing - Mike spotting and Jeremy shooting -- to get a barrel sighted rifle to shoot where it looked instead of way over toward Fort Mudge.  Give me (preferably) a Redfield 80 with slide release for big changes instead of counting 57 clicks. But at least something that clicks and has a scale I can see for future reference. 

I'm not going to tap your Lightweight 86 receiver but my rice-powered 86 45-90 came that way and enjoys the Redfield 80 Erin G. sold me.  Inauthentic? Only if you believe 1886 Winchesters became useless in 1935. The Redfield sight catalog lists the 86 for its new-for-1935 Model 70.receiver sight. 

It slides into a scabbard, if those owning a 1500 pound widow maker are interested. 

Hotty Toddy.

Zebulon said
Not all of Ruger's products were focused on accuracy - at least the level of accuracy currently in vogue. 
The Mini-14 was designed and produced with military and law enforcement contracts in mind and for that purpose MOA accuracy is not required, as witness the Kalashnikov line. The Mini underwent a redesign and the subsequent 5.56 mm versions are more accurate than the early ones but they are not target rifles. In that respect they are not at all like the military M14 and its civilian counterpart, the M1A..A National Match MiA can shoot sub minute groups all day long..
I have no experience with the Ruger 44 carbine and all I know about it is it wasnt a successful product. The rimfire Ruger auto is another matter, although it takes an aftermarket barrel to win..
The company keeps accuracy data on the Ruger 77 and the No. 1.  The 77 is more accurate. Alot of accuracy problems with both rifles occurred when Ruger was buying barrels to make those rifles. .Now they make their own.
  

I had an early Mini-14 and understood why the characters of the very entertaining A-Team TV show seemed unable to hit anything smaller than a pickup truck. I briefly entertained the idea of buying a Ranch Rifle or later the Mini-30 but the early spray & pray Mini-14 soured me on that idea. OTOH I had a Ruger MK I Target .22 pistol that thought Winchester Wildcat was target ammo and together we terrorized the folks who thought informal plate matches were an equipment game.  Col. Townsend Whelen said it best.

Mike

My utilitarian opinion has always favored the Winchester 98a sight along with the Lyman 21/38 excellent unique version. The tang sights, though I have them, are not satisfactory for lever rifles IMO due to the almost unique hunting and horseback adventures  that are encountered. The best tang sight I have found  to date  is the short  unobtrusive  folding Lyman that  sits on a 1954 EG Savage 99 of mine in 250-3000.

I have an Axtell Mid-range on a Sharps, and a Winchester mid-range sitting affixed to an 1885 HW SS in 45-60. The rear tang sight seems almost natural on a single shot rifle. Especially with a fold-down Winchester or Marble fold-down 95 sporting rear sight. The Marlin 1897 rifles in 22lr are a joy to carry and shoot. An engraved, factory carved stock- special order  version I owned found its way to a Texas dairy ranch owner decades ago.

Sights are like rifles, very personal when it comes to choice, use- and purchase.

Ridge Marriott 

Zebulon said
Not all of Ruger's products were focused on accuracy - at least the level of accuracy currently in vogue. 
The Mini-14 was designed and produced with military and law enforcement contracts in mind and for that purpose MOA accuracy is not required, as witness the Kalashnikov line. The Mini underwent a redesign and the subsequent 5.56 mm versions are more accurate than the early ones but they are not target rifles. In that respect they are not at all like the military M14 and its civilian counterpart, the M1A..A National Match MiA can shoot sub minute groups all day long..
I have no experience with the Ruger 44 carbine and all I know about it is it wasnt a successful product. The rimfire Ruger auto is another matter, although it takes an aftermarket barrel to win..
The company keeps accuracy data on the Ruger 77 and the No. 1.  The 77 is more accurate. Alot of accuracy problems with both rifles occurred when Ruger was buying barrels to make those rifles. .Now they make their own.
  

Bill - thanks for the information. You know much more about Rugers than I do.

I didn't have MOA accuracy in mind.  Rather, MOPP (minute of pie plate).  If a modern rifle can't do that, I'm going to be disappointed.

The Mini-14 was designed and produced with military and law enforcement contracts in mind and for that purpose MOA accuracy is not required, as witness the Kalashnikov line. The Mini underwent a redesign and the subsequent 5.56 mm versions are more accurate than the early ones but they are not target rifles. In that respect they are not at all like the military M14 and its civilian counterpart, the M1A..A National Match MiA can shoot sub minute groups all day long..

I have no experience with the Ruger 44 carbine and all I know about it is it wasnt a successful product. The rimfire Ruger auto is another matter, although it takes an aftermarket barrel to win..

The company keeps accuracy data on the Ruger 77 and the No. 1.  The 77 is more accurate. Alot of accuracy problems with both rifles occurred when Ruger was buying barrels to make those rifles. .Now they make their own.

Bill mentioned the outstanding accuracy of his Ruger .250 Savage.  I wonder how Bill Ruger was able to tolerate sending out rifles as inaccurate as his .44 autoloader?  On that note, I recall the earlier Ruger mini-14's were generally very inaccurate as well. I would have welcomed an opportunity to visit with Bill Ruger about this topic.  

Zebulon said
I want to amend my statement about Marlins. Not only did I yearn for a Model 39 Mountie -- and actually bought a 1958 Golden Mountie from Dwight van Brunt several years ago and equipped it like the one on the cover of Outdoor Life's anthology -- with a Williams receiver sight --but I have often thought about a new 1894, one of the ones built by Sturm Ruger, in 44 Magnum, a really flexible cartridge I've loaded for years. The 1894 shares the looks of the Mountie sufficiently, and I  particularly like the octagon barrel Cowboy. 
  

I have had a fondness for .44 magnum carbines.  I've already referenced my Marlin M1894, but I will mention that I have owned two Winchester M1894 .44 mag. carbines. Both were circa early 70's as I recall.   I've also owned several Ruger .44 autoloader carbines.  I greatly enjoyed the portability and handling of the Rugers.  Accuracy however was abysmal.  As a handloader I've found the .44 magnum very versatile.  I've loaded bullets ranging from 180 grains to 300 grains.  It's not a long range cartridge of course but as a deep woods hunter, the .44 mag cartridge was a fine choice.  Add in the portability of a carbine and you have a fine set-up.  

Zebulon said
Good morning, Steve.  No, I know very little about Marlins, particularly compared to you. I was questioning the brand of the rifles, not the sights. My very limited understanding of the Hepburn Marlin relationship is that Marlin bought the Hepburn patents and Marlin rifles are based on those.  
I was born into a family of loyal Winchester customers. My paternal grandfather's duck gun was a Winchester 1911 self loader. An uncle was a Winchester sales rep and knew Ad Topperwein and his wife quite well. Another uncle who owned the farm on which I learned to shoot was a locally renowned sportsman, a Master of Hounds, and the Game Warden of Warren County, MS.  His shotgun was a Model 1897 and he bought his grandson a Model 42. My Dad had a Model 90 in 22 WRF.  
But where we lived on the Texas Gulf Coast, there was no free hunting land and Dad saw no reason for me to have an expensive 22. I got a Sears single shot. The only local store with a gun counter was a Western Auto and it was not a Winchester dealer. The only lever action rifle I could even look at was a Marlin 336. Even at age 10 I thought of it as a weird, misshapen and disappointing pseudo-Winchester. Like Bert does. 
Years later, the first time I did get to go deer hunting, some bozo almost gut shot me with -- you guessed it, a 336. 
But I always wanted a Mountie.
  

Bill -

If I had the reading comprehension of a second-grader, I might have been able to grasp your question.  I'm not aware of any actual Hepburn branded rifles (other than prototypes), but Hepburn did create the patents for the Marlin Models, 1888, 1889, 1891, 1892, 1893, 1894, 1895 and 1897.  The rifles I pictured are all Marlin Model 1893's.  

I believe, I too, could be described as having come from a family of loyal Winchester customers.  My Dad's first deer rifle was an '86 in .33, my Grandfather used an '86 in .45-90 (and later a Model 54 in .30-06), my Great uncle used a M1876 in .40-60, many uncles and cousins used M94 carbines in .32 special (with a couple .30WCF carbines thrown in).  My Dad's shotgun was a M1897 12 gauge.  My Dad also later purchased a M100 in .308.  I do recall one alternate brand deer rifle of note that received strong family admiration was a Savage .250-3000 that my cousin shot an enormous deer with.  

I probably used a greater variety of rifles over the years at the family deer hunt than anyone else.  Winchesters were included and my M94 .32 Special carbine accounted for many deer. 

Now, true confession time.  For many years I also used a Marlin M1894 .44 magnum carbine. And it did account for many deer.  As I think of it, I can't recall any other family member using a Marlin   I recall one year I used a Winchester M70 custom rifle - but it was in .450 Marlin

I was born into a family of loyal Winchester customers. My paternal grandfather's duck gun was a Winchester 1911 self loader. An uncle was a Winchester sales rep and knew Ad Topperwein and his wife quite well. Another uncle who owned the farm on which I learned to shoot was a locally renowned sportsman, a Master of Hounds, and the Game Warden of Warren County, MS.  His shotgun was a Model 1897 and he bought his grandson a Model 42. My Dad had a Model 90 in 22 WRF.  

But where we lived on the Texas Gulf Coast, there was no free hunting land and Dad saw no reason for me to have an expensive 22. I got a Sears single shot. The only local store with a gun counter was a Western Auto and it was not a Winchester dealer. The only lever action rifle I could even look at was a Marlin 336. Even at age 10 I thought of it as a weird, misshapen and disappointing pseudo-Winchester. Like Bert does. 

Years later, the first time I did get to go deer hunting, some bozo almost gut shot me with -- you guessed it, a 336. 

But I always wanted a Mountie.

Zebulon said
I agree the Hepburn sights illustrated fell out of the ugly tree and got mashed by several branches on the way to the ground. (The rifles are no things of grace mostly because of the downward projecting lump from which the lever is suspended. Are these the earlier Hepburn branded rifles or the later Marlin/Hepburns? )
I also wish the 98a bolt peep had continued as an option for the top-ejecting Winchester lever actions. They have a minimalist appeal and don't clutter up the stock wrist as tang sights do. They look good on a Model 71 or 64 but I think they really shine on a 94 carbine. The closest thing to it I know of still available is a Skinner in black finish. 
Although many collectors dote on a side-mounted Lyman 21 or 38, those look like a Rube Goldberg [over-complicated] invention to me and do not seem to be much, if any, more precisely adjustable than the 98a. 
However, given a choice and from a shooter's perspective, I prefer micrometer adjustable receiver sights with hunter knobs, my favorite being the old Redfield 70 or the steel 80. Compared to a Lyman 21 they are almost invisible and the aperture is comfortably further away from my eye than a tang peep allows, which can be a hazard on hurried, uphill shots with a light, heavily recoiling rifle. 
Truth be told, the most inconspicuous receiver sight is a black aluminum Williams FP with screwdriver adustments. Anathema to originalists and even I wouldn't put it on a Winchester. It does look right on a Mountie because of the cover illustration on the old Outdoor Life anthology. 
  

Bill -

All four of these, "Marlin Combination Receiver Sights" are marked Marlin, with the June 30, 1903 patent dates.  I've vaguely heard of variations that are unmarked - so perhaps those are the other versions you are referring to?  I realize this is a Winchester forum and I don't want to out you ... but I've collected and studied Marlins for 50 years... and there is some evidence to suggest that you know more about Marlins than I do

Mike