Avatar
Search
Forum Scope




Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
Lost password?
sp_Feed sp_PrintTopic sp_TopicIcon
Early Lyman tang sight
sp_NewTopic Add Topic
Avatar
NE OREGON
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 535
Member Since:
July 8, 2016
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
61
September 13, 2016 - 3:26 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost
Avatar
Wisconsin
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 4279
Member Since:
May 2, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
62
September 13, 2016 - 3:42 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Its not for a 73 like he says. The staff is too short and the rear hole is too big.

Bob

WACA Life Member---
NRA Life Member----
Cody Firearms member since 1991
Researching the Winchester 1873's

73_86cutaway.jpg

Email: [email protected]

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 853
Member Since:
June 11, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
63
September 15, 2016 - 9:26 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

Bob, I’m the fellow who sold that tang sight on eBay. I purchased it for my original 1873 44 W.C.F. from a fellow named Don in Maine who collects tang sights. There is no model stamp on the base, just the patent date, so I just took Don’s word that it would be from the same era, and work on my ’73 and it did perfectly. Are you sure about the rear hole? The rear hole looks to be exactly the same size as the ones you showed on page 1, and it fit my 1873 perfectly. In the photo that shows the sight mounted on my ’73, the stem is set for exactly 100 yards. I can see what you say about the (knurled nut?) being shorter than your sights that are marked for a ’73. There is room for a longer knurled nut to come further up the stem, but it worked just fine at 200 yards (consistent 5″, five-shot groups at 200 yards with soft cast bullets), which is the furthest our club range goes to, and I had room to go further. The fellow who bought it has a ’73 chambered in 32 W.C.F. and, similar to me, wanted a tang sight from the same era rather than a modern tang sight. I’ve sold my ’73 to fund a very high condition 1894.

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1704
Member Since:
September 22, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
64
September 15, 2016 - 10:27 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Do you have any others for sale? I would like an early one and did bid on this one. Because of the suggestion that it was not for an 1873, I did not bid that high on this one. Actually, I was the high bidder for several days, including when it was suggested this one could be spurious, and was most thankful when I was outbid on this one. I thought it to be original to an 1873??? 

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 853
Member Since:
June 11, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
65
September 16, 2016 - 2:27 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

mrcvs, that was the only one I had. I do not know what vintage rifle this sight came off of (I assumed it originally came off a ’73 because of what the collector told me). I just asked the collector in Maine for a period correct sight for the 1873 and he sent me that one. It fit perfectly and worked perfectly so I was happy. I even hunted with it and took a nice Whitetail Deer with it. I had no idea it was not the official 1873 sight until Bob pointed it out. I tend to not be too particular about which tang sight goes with which model so long as it fits and works perfectly from 50 to 200 yards and dates back to the same approximate era as the rifle. 

Avatar
Wisconsin
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 4279
Member Since:
May 2, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
66
September 16, 2016 - 3:58 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Any Lyman sight for a Winchester lever will fit a 73 and do the job unless the staff is too tall like if you used a 76 tang sight. The difference of the 73 tang sight is the rear hole is the same as the front, the other tangs sights have a larger diameter rear hole since all the other guns use the screw that goes through the stock and the staff height will be wrong. 92 and 94’s will have a shorter staff. When I look at the photo of the bottom, the rear hole is larger diameter than the front and the staff looks like its screwed up quite a ways. Normally with a Lyman tang sight the staff can be lowered all the way and it will be close to point blank sighting when using the correct sight. If you lower that sight all the way I imagine you would be looking at the back of the hammer.

Bob

WACA Life Member---
NRA Life Member----
Cody Firearms member since 1991
Researching the Winchester 1873's

73_86cutaway.jpg

Email: [email protected]

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 853
Member Since:
June 11, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
67
September 16, 2016 - 3:39 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Thanks, Bob. Very useful info. If that staff was lowered all the way, one would definitely be staring at the back of the hammer.

It makes me wonder if I don’t have one or two other old Winchesters that have non-spec tang sights. I don’t want to take them off to check, though, as I’ve got them adjusted in windage and don’t want to mess things up. I wouldn’t be surprised if the occasional old timer put a tang sight on his gun that, even not the specific one designed for that model or caliber, still worked and he never knew the difference.

Avatar
RickC
Guest
WACA Guest
68
May 6, 2020 - 4:17 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

I have an uncoded Lyman tang sight that came off my 86(45-90) made in 1888. It is the same as the other Lyman tang sights on my 86’s but my other rifles are DOM 1890 & 1897 & N stamped on the underside of the base.
Does anyone know when Lyman started coding the sights ? The marking on the stem base says pat Jan 29/79.

802EBDAE-B3CE-443B-8699-3C02C34797AD.jpegImage Enlarger
7D52E3F3-CB69-4FF8-A514-3EB8ACC4DA6B.jpegImage Enlarger
900041C9-5F40-493B-8DA5-AA5CF1D84D8E.jpegImage Enlarger
BE419A74-285D-48F1-92FE-7E96752A7E83.pngImage Enlarger

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 4566
Member Since:
March 31, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
69
May 6, 2020 - 10:25 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Do all of them have the same knurling?  Early sights were fine and later course.

Avatar
RickC
Guest
WACA Guest
70
May 6, 2020 - 11:16 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

Will look later Chuck when I get home. Thanks. I got a feeling pre 1890 had no code stamped on it.

Avatar
RickC
Guest
WACA Guest
71
May 6, 2020 - 11:58 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

One thing I can confirm is this unstamped Lyman rear tang sight fits with space to move on my lettered 40-65 DOM 1897 when it’s folded down, but it hits the front of the comb on the 1888 & 1890 DOM 86’s.
I forget when the 86’s went to a lighter thinner buttstock.

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1710
Member Since:
June 4, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
72
May 7, 2020 - 1:33 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

  AG, I think the comb was trimmed at the factory if the gun lettered with a Lyman tang sight. Winchester would not install a sight that by folding it would damage the wood. The guns I have that letter have a sharp, steep, slope to the front of the comb. The difference between a N and a NI is the height of the staff, the NI sight fits on most non factory sight installations  because of the shorter staff for the smokeless 33.

 I do not believe that all pre 1890 sights are unmarked. I have owned several pre 1890 86’s that lettered with a Lyman tang sight, they looked original, and they were all marked N. T/R

Avatar
RickC
Guest
WACA Guest
73
May 7, 2020 - 1:56 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

Thanks TR factory trimming makes sense. This is a Lyman as depicted in the photos. Now I’m onto a new inquiry about the buttstock being different on my DOM 1888 & 1890 rifles versus my DOM 1897. I haven’t measured yet but it’s visually wider & the top of butt plates are longer.

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1710
Member Since:
June 4, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
74
May 7, 2020 - 12:30 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

 AG, About serial number 60,000-95,000 Winchester began making the wood smaller with a different style rifle butt plate. The later butt plate does not have the curled toe and the receiver height was reduced in the front at about 83,000. The butt plate looks similar to a 94 and some people refer to it as having the “small wood”. T/R

Avatar
RickC
Guest
WACA Guest
75
May 7, 2020 - 12:50 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

TR said
 AG, About serial number 60,000-95,000 Winchester began making the wood smaller with a different style rifle butt plate. The later butt plate does not have the curled toe and the receiver height was reduced in the front at about 83,000. The butt plate looks similar to a 94 and some people refer to it as having the “small wood”. T/R  

That would make sense TR. I’m assuming all Lyman N code tang sights for the 86 “not” factory ordered, were just a bit too long even turned down the entire way during this time period of the first buttstocks?

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 1382
Member Since:
July 8, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
76
May 7, 2020 - 8:16 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

I have been looking for a Lyman Combination No. 1, Second Variation tang sight for my 1900 vintage model 1892.  If you know of one, please let me know.

Thanks,

Al

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 537
Member Since:
March 14, 2022
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online
77
February 20, 2023 - 7:07 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

rustyjack said
Does anyone know if the vintage Lyman No.1, 1A and 2A tang sights were produced and sold concurrently or in what years were each discontinued? Would it be period correct to find a second style No. 1 (hairspring and flip down aperture) on a rifle produced in 1917?

  

An old thread but interesting read. Found this in Brad‘s site project 1900-1907.

”Lyman catalogs of the period refer to it as a Lyman Improved Combination Rear Sight, 1A. “A” designates the addition of a position locking lever, shown above, patented July 25, 1905”

My 1905 catalogue does not show a Lyman 1A or a locking lever which makes sense because it was only granted patent approval that year,. Does anyone know the catalogs Brad is referring to or when the 1A was first introduced in the catalogs, possibly 1906, 1907, 1908?

 RickC 

   

Avatar
NY
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 6280
Member Since:
November 1, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
78
February 20, 2023 - 7:48 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

RickC said
My 1905 catalogue does not show a Lyman 1A or a locking lever which makes sense because it was only granted patent approval that year,. Does anyone know the catalogs Brad is referring to or when the 1A was first introduced in the catalogs, possibly 1906, 1907, 1908?
  

Patented July 1905, but not catalogued until 1906, according to Lyman Centennial Journal.  It would only make sense, however, that as soon as production commenced, Lyman (always a heavy advertiser) would have begun advertising them in sporting periodicals.  Lyman also made a practice of printing flyers for new products to insert in existing catalogs.

Since the A’s locking lever was every bit as useful as tits on a boar hog, I’m convinced Lyman believed the company needed something new to counter Marble’s new & superior tang sight, also introduced 1905.  The original style remained in production, however, & was, I think, the better of the two.

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 537
Member Since:
March 14, 2022
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online
79
February 20, 2023 - 8:05 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Thanks for sharing Clarence. That’s a good addition to this thread.

 RickC 

   

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 4566
Member Since:
March 31, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
80
February 20, 2023 - 8:36 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Clarence is the Lyman Journal worth buying?  I would like a reference book on Lyman sites but most catalogs I have found are lacking.

Forum Timezone: UTC 0
Most Users Ever Online: 778
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
clarence: 6280
TXGunNut: 4966
Chuck: 4566
1873man: 4279
steve004: 4160
Big Larry: 2323
twobit: 2289
TR: 1710
mrcvs: 1704
Forum Stats:
Groups: 1
Forums: 17
Topics: 12644
Posts: 109930

 

Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 1745
Members: 8788
Moderators: 4
Admins: 3
Navigation