Log In
September 22, 2011
Offline
I have not seen a sight such as this one before. Wavy lines instead of knurling, and markings in different locations than usually noted. It looks early. Is it?
April 15, 2005
Offline
Al,
Yes, it is one of the early No. 1 sights. It immediately followed the thick-base variation. I have one just like it on my January 1887 vintage high-wall in 40-90 Ballard.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
September 22, 2011
Offline
This one sold for $255 (plus $5 shipping) last night. Was the price fair, too high, too low???
April 15, 2005
Offline
mrcvs said
This one sold for $255 (plus $5 shipping) last night. Was the price fair, too high, too low???
In my opinion, somebody got it for a very good price.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
September 22, 2011
Offline
What is this sight really worth? I bid $250 on it, thinking it was a lot, and I was unsuccessful in getting it.
April 15, 2005
Offline
mrcvs said
What is this sight really worth? I bid $250 on it, thinking it was a lot, and I was unsuccessful in getting it.
If I had a Winchester that needed that sight, I would have gone as high as $300 on it. The early sight variations are tough to find these days.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
December 30, 2011
Online
I agree with Bert that $255 + $5 looks like a good price. You see the later coarse knurled tang sights much more frequently than these. I would be nice to see the sight in hand.
Brad
June 11, 2014
Offline
That was a good deal. I purchased an early one of the same type for my original Winchester Model 1873 shipped in 1889. I coughed up $400 for it. I guess I paid a little too much, but couldn’t find any other early Lyman of that type at the time I was on the hunt. Here’s a photo of it ..
May 2, 2009
Offline
73 tang sights bring a lot more than 94/92 sights so $350 – $400 is average for a sight with good blue on it.
Bob
WACA Life Member--- NRA Life Member---- Cody Firearms member since 1991 Researching the Winchester 1873's
Email: [email protected]
December 30, 2011
Online
I don’t think that’s all that bad of a deal on your sight either Win 38-55. They’re always printing money but they quit making the good old sights a long time ago
Looks good on your rifle too.
Brad
September 22, 2011
Offline
First, what model rifles are these wavy line sights appropriate for, and manufactured for, for that matter.
Secondly, I am still seeking one of these “just to have it”. Sort of a deal where I locate the sight and then pursue the relatively easier task of finding a rifle or carbine to fit it to.
April 15, 2005
Offline
mrcvs said
First, what model rifles are these wavy line sights appropriate for, and manufactured for, for that matter.Secondly, I am still seeking one of these “just to have it”. Sort of a deal where I locate the sight and then pursue the relatively easier task of finding a rifle or carbine to fit it to.
The knurling pattern as nothing to do with the model it is appropriate to… instead, it is the application code stamped on the underside of the sight base that tells you which specific Model it was intended for. Based on when Lyman used the finer (wavy) cut knurling, most of them will be found on Model 1873, 1876, and early production Model 1885 Single Shot Rifles. By the time the Model 1892 and 1894 were put into production, Lyman was already using the coarse knurling pattern on the elevation stems of their tang sights.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
September 22, 2011
Offline
Thank you Bert! For some reason I thought a date of 1879 applied to these somehow, start or end, and as they were sometimes found on the Model 1885, if this date, as recollected, is correct, production was from 1879 until some time shortly after 1885???
This thread dates from 2015. I should have reached a little deeper in my pockets when bidding on that one.
April 15, 2005
Offline
The “1879” is just a patent date. I positively know the finer knurling pattern was still in use for at least a few years after the Model 1885 was introduced. The bottom rifle in my signature picture is serial number 7397, received in the warehouse on January 20, 1887, and it letters with as “Lyman F & R”.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
November 1, 2013
Offline
Bert H. said
The “1879” is just a patent date. I positively know the finer knurling pattern was still in use for at least a few years after the Model 1885 was introduced. The bottom rifle in my signature picture is serial number 7397, received in the warehouse on January 20, 1887, and it letters with as “Lyman F & R”.Bert
Bert, What code letter is marked on the bottom of this sight? Assuming not “S”.
The ’79 pat. applied only to the double, or “combination,” apertures, nothing else.
April 15, 2005
Offline
clarence said
Bert H. said
The “1879” is just a patent date. I positively know the finer knurling pattern was still in use for at least a few years after the Model 1885 was introduced. The bottom rifle in my signature picture is serial number 7397, received in the warehouse on January 20, 1887, and it letters with as “Lyman F & R”.
Bert
Bert, What code letter is marked on the bottom of this sight? Assuming not “S”.
The ’79 pat. applied only to the double, or “combination,” apertures, nothing else.
Why would you assume not “S” ? The sight has been on the rifle since the time it left the factory, and I have not had any reason to remove it.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
November 1, 2013
Offline
Bert H. said Why would you assume not “S” ? The sight has been on the rifle since the time it left the factory, and I have not had any reason to remove it.
Because the base of the S, like the N, was different from all other #1 Lymans–the location of the hinge joint, I mean. If this is an S, it’s unlike all others. Is that not reason enough to find out for sure?
April 15, 2005
Offline
clarence said
Bert H. said Why would you assume not “S” ? The sight has been on the rifle since the time it left the factory, and I have not had any reason to remove it.
Because the base of the S, like the N, was different from all other #1 Lymans–the location of the hinge joint, I mean. If this is an S, it’s unlike all others. Is that not reason enough to find out for sure?
Clarence,
Not true… the bases on the “S” marked tang sights were not all the same as the “N” (Model 1886) sights. I have a collection of “S” coded sights, and more than half of them have the base hinge joint in the same location as the “D”, “DA”, “W”, etc sights. All three of my Lyman No. 103 tang sights are also hinged in the forward location.
See the pictures below…
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
April 15, 2005
Offline
Here is a copy of the factory ledger page for serial 7397… note that it states “Lyman F & R Sts”. The front sight on the rifle is a No. 3
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
November 1, 2013
Offline
Bert H. said
Here is a copy of the factory ledger page for serial 7397… not that it states “Lyman F & R Sts”. The front sight on the rifle is a No. 3
Do you think I doubt that’s what’s recorded on the ledger? But what bearing does the ledger entry have on whether or not it’s actually an S? Even if the ledger entry specified “S,” it wouldn’t prove that’s what’s on the gun. Few SSs were chambered for cartridges long enough to interfere with the staff placement on standard #1s, which was the only justification for a special base. There’s only one way to find out how, or if, the sight is marked, & it’s not complicated.
