Register
Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
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 6571L, Historian & Board of Director Member
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 6571L, Historian & Board of Director Member
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 6571L, Historian & Board of Director Member
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 6571L, Historian & Board of Director Member
Bert H. said
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).
One of the main reasons for making the musket was to provide shooters using it with a military type rear sight; adding a tang sight would defeat that purpose, though it’s a better sight. Not so, however, with the excellent rcvr. sights on 87s–replacing one of them with a tang sight would make no sense at all.
clarence said
One of the main reasons for making the musket was to provide shooters using it with a military type rear sight; adding a tang sight would defeat that purpose, though it’s a better sight. Not so, however, with the excellent rcvr. sights on 87s–replacing one of them with a tang sight would make no sense at all.
I agree… the Lyman No. 53 receiver sight is more than adequate for the Model 87, and it would require removing it to use the “SC” Lyman tang sight, leaving behind (4) ugly empty screw holes in the side of the receiver. I have looked at more than 1,500 Model 87 Winder Muskets, and every single one of them had a Lyman No. 53 sight (or was drilled & tapped for it).
WACA 6571L, Historian & Board of Director Member
1 Guest(s)
