Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
clarence said
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.
So, you ignore the fact that not all “S” coded sights are hinged in the middle of the base, and you also ignore the fact that the sight on the rifle is period correct to the rifle, and you ignore the fact that the rifle letters with a Lyman tang sight… and yet, you still feel the need to argue the fact that it might not be original to the rifle and take it apart for the sake of what ???
A little bit of history behind this rifle. I bought it 20-years ago from a 91-year old gentleman living in Wisconsin. He (and his son) stated that he bought the rifle 65-years prior from a Mom & Pop Hardware store in South Dakota. At the time he purchased it, the owner of the store mentioned that he had taken it in on trade from the original buyer almost 20-years prior to that. The old gentleman I bought it stated that he paid $9 for it, and was the rifle’s 3rd owner. In all the years he owned it, he never shot it because he could not find ammo for it, and that was his one regret when he sold it to me. When I informed him that Winchester only made (120) rifles in the 40-90 Ballard cartridge, and that it was never a “high” demand cartridge, he commented “no wonder I could never find ammo for it”. One of the things that attracted me to the rifle was the condition of the bore… it is almost like new! I have not shot it (yet), and am hesitant to do so even though I now have two full 10-round boxes of original WRACo ammo for it. If I ever do shoot it, it will be with special cases loaded with IMR 4198.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
I’m not ignoring anything! What makes an “S” coded sight if it’s NOT the special base? Are you saying you’ve seen an “S” coded sight that did NOT have the special base?
I said that few cartridges were long enough to justify the special base, but the .40-90 is one of them, which makes it all the more strange that this sight has the standard base.
clarence said
I’m not ignoring anything! What makes an “S” coded sight if it’s NOT the special base? Are you saying you’ve seen an “S” coded sight that did NOT have the special base?I said that few cartridges were long enough to justify the special base, but the .40-90 is one of them, which makes it all the more strange that this sight has the standard base.
Clarence,
Did you bother yourself to read the reply where I posted pictures showing the Lyman “S” coded sights I own ?
In answer to your question, it is NOT the “special base” that makes it an “S” coded sight!!
For what it is worth, the 40-90 Ballard cartridge is only 2-15/16″… a fair amount shorter than the 40-90 Sharps Straight 3-1/4″.
The sight base location for the “N” coded sights is because of the bolt throw distance on the Model 1886 (not the cartridge length). For the Model 1885, the cartridge length was not a concern in regards to the placement of the tang sight staff. If the cartridge case length really was a concern, all of the Mid-Range and Long-Range graduated peep sights made for the Model 1885 would have been made with a different sight base.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
Clarence,
Did you bother yourself to read the reply where I posted pictures showing the Lyman “S” coded sights I own ?
I did NOT see those photos, but they answer the question I asked. But still don’t understand why Lyman was making S sights with TWO different bases, or how, if a customer had a preference for one or the other, he could specify which one to buy.
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
I have a Colt large frame that letters with this Lyman sight. It shipped in 1890. It has the finer knurling.
[email protected] said
I understand this sight is designed for a single shot, but is it possibly designed for the model 1885 single shot, or have you ever seen one on a Win. 1885, Hi-Wall?
Certainly not designed specifically for the ’85 or any other SS, though it could be used on one. Catalog cut shows it mounted on an ’86. Scarce sight–scarce because it was not a great design.
[email protected] said
Clarence,Interesting! According to Nick Stroebel, the “S” Code, on page 28, indicates that it fits a Winchester Single Shot, all Calibers, except .22, and .30/40!
Yes, but that’s merely the app code–doesn’t mean the #15 itself was designed specifically for the SS, or any other model for that matter. (And the probability is, other app codes with Win hole spacing would work equally well on a SS.) Catalog I mentioned was Lyman.
[email protected] said Thanks, i don’t have the Lyman Catalog. Is that the 1926 Lyman Gun sight Manual?
Same illustration was used in all Lyman cats while sight was in production, ending in 1906; so it was available for many yrs, but customers just weren’t buying.
Actually Stroebel put out 3 sight books. I have 2 of them. Old Gunsights 1998 and Old Gunsights and Rifle Scopes 2008. The first one is not a just not copied in the second one. There is some different data in each. Limestone look at the smaller picture on page 25. It shows the longer side of the base on the hammer side.
[email protected] said
Bert,I find this very interesting. Maybe you can help me. I have what I believe is an early Lyman #15 Wind Gauge Tang Sight, with coarse, not the fine knurling, I would expect to find on an early Lyman. The Wind Gauge is pretty neat, how it adjusts for Wind-age, side to side! The closest info. that I can find is on page 25 in Stroebel’s sight book. Under the base has the “S” CODE STAMPED, for Single Shot! The main difference is the pics, in the book compared to the sight that I have, are a little different, in that the front of the base is longer in the book, where mine is shorter in the front and longer in the back! I will try to upload pics. as soon as possible! Under Winchester in the back of his book, I don’t see the Lyman #15 listed under the Model 1885! I understand this sight is designed for a single shot, but is it possibly designed for the model 1885 single shot, or have you ever seen one on a Win. 1885, Hi-Wall? Any help would be appreciated! Thanks!
The “S” application code indicates that it was intended to be installed on a Winchester Single Shot (Model 1885). The difference in the base is likely because it has the “S” code versus a “W”, or “WS”, or any other application code.
I have never seen one mounted on a Winchester Single Shot rifle (or found in the records that letters with a Lyman No. 15). It is a scarce sight, but as Clarence mentioned it was an unpopular sight with shooters of the era.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
[email protected] said
Thanks Chuck, I did notice that! Like you I have two of his books, but not the third one. Like most of you I am intrigued with the mechanical side of the older quality made sights such as this one, let alone the Firearms they go on. Bert, I appreciate your answer and info. as well. I was wondering, with your knowledge, and research into the Single Shots, what you had to say!
His other book is all about scopes.
Online
Hi Bert
I just acquired this Lyman? sight marked SC on bottom (like your Lyman SC only slightly different) see attached photos. Is this right for my 1885 winchester low wall 22 which letters August 1904. you have seen my rifle before SN 97274. Thanks, Don
Hey, Don, I saw that sight & thought about buying it myself! Not because I needed another Lyman sight, but because I like such examples of shooter modification, if well done. You got it for a good price. Someone went to a lot of trouble to turn a #1 into a “kind of” #2, by soldering on that disk. Are those decorative file marks around the edge? The extra hole doesn’t bother me too much–obviously put there to use on a tang with different hole spacing. SB is the code listed for .22RFs.
86Win said
Hi BertI just acquired this Lyman? sight marked SC on bottom (like your Lyman SC only slightly different) see attached photos. Is this right for my 1885 winchester low wall 22 which letters August 1904. you have seen my rifle before SN 97274. Thanks, Don
Don,
It is my understanding that the “SC” coded sight was intended for the .22 rim fire Winder Muskets. That stated, it could be used on your .22 low-wall. I do note that the sight base has been altered with the additional of the center mounting screw hole, and the eye-piece is not a Lyman part.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
Don,
It is my understanding that the “SC” coded sight was intended for the .22 rim fire Winder Muskets. That stated, it could be used on your .22 low-wall. I do note that the sight base has been altered with the additional of the center mounting screw hole, and the eye-piece is not a Lyman part.
Bert
Not impossible Lyman changed the code assigned for Winder Muskets, but the code I saw in briefly checking two ’20s charts was “WM.”
The home-made eyepiece is the best thing about it!
clarence said
Not impossible Lyman changed the code assigned for Winder Muskets, but the code I saw in briefly checking two ’20s charts was “WM.”
The home-made eyepiece is the best thing about it!
I do not have any of the old Lyman charts handy… do any of them you have mention the “SC” application code ? I know what the “S” and “SB” are for, and have read the same thing you mentioned about the “WM” code (though I have never found one with that application code). I have found a small number of 1st variation Winder Muskets that letter with a No. 2A or a No. 103 tang sight though.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
I do not have any of the old Lyman charts handy… do any of them you have mention the “SC” application code ?
SC is listed in the 1930 cat for the 87 only. So appears code was later changed to WM.
clarence said
Bert H. said
I do not have any of the old Lyman charts handy… do any of them you have mention the “SC” application code ?SC is listed in the 1930 cat for the 87 only. So appears code was later changed to WM.
So what year (catalog) does the “WM” code first appear in? You mentioned “20s” in a previous reply, and that would put it before the “SC” code in the 1930 catalog.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
So what year (catalog) does the “WM” code first appear in? You mentioned “20s” in a previous reply, and that would put it before the “SC” code in the 1930 catalog.
Sorry, I mis-spoke–I meant ’30s. ’36 & ’40 show the WM code. I checked some ’20s cats, but none included app charts.
Interesting, and it at least partially explains why I have not yet encountered a Lyman tang sight with the “WM” application code. It appears that the “SC” was/is the more likely found sight on a Winder Musket, but even they are scarce. Until this topic post, I had only ever seen just one (and I own it).
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
2 Guest(s)
