dimrod said
Ugly???  Come on, Bill!  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The climbin’ Lyman is my favorite receiver sight on a vintage Winchester, whether it be an 1895, 1894, or 1886. It’s classy, accurate, more robust, and further away from my delicate eyeball. To each his own. 
  

Durable, reliable and difficult to find in excellent condition.

cj57 said
Steve 
Thank you! It is the only 27" in the records, it's a shame Marlin didn't list much more then barrel and mag length and PG in their shipping ledger
  

CJ -

Yes, it is a real rarity for sure - by anyone's definition.  As far as Marlin not listing more detail in their records, just ask most owners of Marlin engraved rifles - commonly the presence of factory engraving is not mentioned.  Frustrating.

Thank you! It is the only 27" in the records, it's a shame Marlin didn't list much more then barrel and mag length and PG in their shipping ledger

cj57 said
I believe they were working on the model 21 before the pat date. I have a Marlin 1893, shipped late 93 with a 27” barrel and no rear sight dovetail, it has a Lyman 21 attached. The sight doesn’t have the logo stamp. Marlin either mounted the sight or sent the gun too Lyman for testing and returned to Marlin 

CJ -

VERY VERY COOL.  27 inch barrel, lettered, first year production a .38-55, and clearly no other sight had been mounted on that rifle.  It also provides a very intriguing historical clue as to how early the Lyman No. 21 made it's appearance.

I suppose given it's a Marlin, many other collectors around here aren't filled with envy.  I'll make up for them

Zebulon said
Despite hysterical gibberish to the contrary, we Americans still enjoy the freedoms granted us by Almighty God, among them the natural freedoms of speech, association, religion, and self-protection.
As the late Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas succinctly put it, every American has the inalienable right to go to hell in his own particular way.  
I recoil from the notion that the Lyman 21/38 is cute, cuddly or anything other than a blight on any Winchester or Savage rifle. 
BUT, I will defend to my last breath and drop of blood the right of my friend and colleague Steve to desecrate his collection with one or more of them. 
De gustibus non disputandum est et errare humanum est.
  

Bill - 

It is gratifying and heartening to have you in my corner!

As the late Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas succinctly put it, every American has the inalienable right to go to hell in his own particular way.  

I recoil from the notion that the Lyman 21/38 is cute, cuddly or anything other than a blight on any Winchester or Savage rifle. 

BUT, I will defend to my last breath and drop of blood the right of my friend and colleague Steve to desecrate his collection with one or more of them. 

De gustibus non disputandum est et errare humanum est.

steve004 said

mrcvs said

Zebulon said
Ian, anything is possible but the Lyman 56 micrometer receiver sight became available in 1933 and the competing Redfield 70 in 1935. Save only for the awkward Winchester 1895,  either micrometer receiver sight was easily mounted on Winchester lever action rifles and both were superior to the Climbing Lymans.  By the early Nineteen Thirties I don't think many customers would have opted for a Lyman 21 or 38 for their Winchester Model 86, 92 or 94. 
The Lyman 21/38 seems peculiarly suited to the Winchester 95 just because of the rifle's architecture. 
As an avid user of tang peep sights, I can readily see why a 1935 buyer might choose a Lyman or Marble's tang or a Winchester 98A bolt peep, over a micrometer receiver sight for his Model 94 carbine. But why bugger up the left receiver wall for a complicated, delicate, less precise and -- let's say it - ugly contraption like the 21/38?
  

I am not a fan of receiver sights, as I prefer the symmetry that a tang sight provides.  The lone exception to this is the Lyman 21/38 receiver sights.
Bill, for a receiver sight, the Lyman 21/38 is almost cute and cuddly.
  

The Lyman 21/38 fits much flatter to the receiver than other receiver sights. Many receiver sights are like a bulge on the side of the receiver.  Sort of like a burl on the side of tree.  
  

I can see both sides of these conversations and opinions, as the "personal taste", or preference certainly comes into play here. IMO!

Tony

mrcvs said

Zebulon said
Ian, anything is possible but the Lyman 56 micrometer receiver sight became available in 1933 and the competing Redfield 70 in 1935. Save only for the awkward Winchester 1895,  either micrometer receiver sight was easily mounted on Winchester lever action rifles and both were superior to the Climbing Lymans.  By the early Nineteen Thirties I don't think many customers would have opted for a Lyman 21 or 38 for their Winchester Model 86, 92 or 94. 
The Lyman 21/38 seems peculiarly suited to the Winchester 95 just because of the rifle's architecture. 
As an avid user of tang peep sights, I can readily see why a 1935 buyer might choose a Lyman or Marble's tang or a Winchester 98A bolt peep, over a micrometer receiver sight for his Model 94 carbine. But why bugger up the left receiver wall for a complicated, delicate, less precise and -- let's say it - ugly contraption like the 21/38?
  

I am not a fan of receiver sights, as I prefer the symmetry that a tang sight provides.  The lone exception to this is the Lyman 21/38 receiver sights.
Bill, for a receiver sight, the Lyman 21/38 is almost cute and cuddly.
  

The Lyman 21/38 fits much flatter to the receiver than other receiver sights. Many receiver sights are like a bulge on the side of the receiver.  Sort of like a burl on the side of tree.  

Zebulon said
Ian, anything is possible but the Lyman 56 micrometer receiver sight became available in 1933 and the competing Redfield 70 in 1935. Save only for the awkward Winchester 1895,  either micrometer receiver sight was easily mounted on Winchester lever action rifles and both were superior to the Climbing Lymans.  By the early Nineteen Thirties I don't think many customers would have opted for a Lyman 21 or 38 for their Winchester Model 86, 92 or 94. 
The Lyman 21/38 seems peculiarly suited to the Winchester 95 just because of the rifle's architecture. 
As an avid user of tang peep sights, I can readily see why a 1935 buyer might choose a Lyman or Marble's tang or a Winchester 98A bolt peep, over a micrometer receiver sight for his Model 94 carbine. But why bugger up the left receiver wall for a complicated, delicate, less precise and -- let's say it - ugly contraption like the 21/38?
  

I am not a fan of receiver sights, as I prefer the symmetry that a tang sight provides.  The lone exception to this is the Lyman 21/38 receiver sights.

Bill, for a receiver sight, the Lyman 21/38 is almost cute and cuddly.

The Lyman 21/38 seems peculiarly suited to the Winchester 95 just because of the rifle's architecture. 

As an avid user of tang peep sights, I can readily see why a 1935 buyer might choose a Lyman or Marble's tang or a Winchester 98A bolt peep, over a micrometer receiver sight for his Model 94 carbine. But why bugger up the left receiver wall for a complicated, delicate, less precise and -- let's say it - ugly contraption like the 21/38?

jwm94 said
You're welcome, Rick.  The patent date that Brad posted is what I have, too.  According to this reference, the Lyman 21 ". . . was furnished in 1899 for the Winchester Models 1886, 1895; Marlin Models 1893, 1895 and Savage 303 . . . Lyman developed this sight specifically for the Winchester '95 repeater."  So, Clarence's comment about coordination between the two companies makes sense.
 
James
  

Is this reference correct?  Unless it is post factory work, I have also seen the Lyman 21 (or 38) on the Winchester Model 1892 and 1894 rifles as well as the Winchester 1886 and 1895.  Has anyone seen a Lyman 21 or 38 on a Winchester Model 71, 53, or 55 which is theoretically possible as the Climbing Lyman sight, according to Post #'s 8 & 10, above, suggest the Lyman 21 (Lyman 38?) were produced until WWII.

It would be helpful if you could post a photo. 

Before the 1964 modifications,  the ramp of the front sight of the Model 70 was either forged integrally with the barrel (early) or sweated on (late).

The post-63 70 and 670 front sight ramps were attached by a screw. EDIT: THERE MAY BE A SECOND SCREW MOUNTED THROUGH THE BASE OF THE DOVETAIL. REMOVE THE SIGHT FROM THE DOVETAIL TO SEE. 

The sight and ramp were made by Williams and were made high to align with the high Monte Carlo comb. 

If all you want to do is remove the sight itself from the ramp, it is tapped out from left to right (bolt handle side) using a nylon tipped pin or small diameter hardwood dowel section, and a nylon or leather or brass hammer. Tapped repeatedly, not hammered like King Kong. .