As usual - fantastic rifles!

Bill - 

I suspect you are not pleased to see the wonderful engraving on this M1895 to be covered by the Lyman sight:

https://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/4098/29/engraved-and-gold-inlaid-winchester-flatside-model-1895-rifle

By the way, that is one fantastic .38-72 - half octagon, engraving, gold, fancy wood and checkering... wow.  I will admit that this is an example where the Lyman sight is not a great addition.

Burt Humphrey said

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.

still working today - dimrod, one of our WACA members, with a nice Alaska grizzly.

oldcrankyyankee said
I just want to say that I really like the 21/38's. I think they look sexy on a slab sided Winchester. Pretty functional also, just gotta learn what the ranges are in relation to the marks on it. I maybe biased here because I shot my biggest buck with the 86 on the left! But the one on the right is a 38. Which to me is even better having the windage knob.
BTW, Bert is that beautiful 1895 deluxe in 35 wcf? lol!
  

It is

BTW, Bert is that beautiful 1895 deluxe in 35 wcf? lol!

That looks beautiful on there! To me the 1895 was one of the best rifles to hold "The Climbin Lyman" !

Not knocking that M-1893, cj57, put up! I like it on a 94 also!

Thanks for sharing!

Tony

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.