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?

jwm94 said
You're welcome, Rick.  The patent date that Brad posted is what I have, too.  According to this reference, the Lyman 21 ". . . was furnished in 1899 for the Winchester Models 1886, 1895; Marlin Models 1893, 1895 and Savage 303 . . . Lyman developed this sight specifically for the Winchester '95 repeater."  So, Clarence's comment about coordination between the two companies makes sense.
 
James
  

Is this reference correct?  Unless it is post factory work, I have also seen the Lyman 21 (or 38) on the Winchester Model 1892 and 1894 rifles as well as the Winchester 1886 and 1895.  Has anyone seen a Lyman 21 or 38 on a Winchester Model 71, 53, or 55 which is theoretically possible as the Climbing Lyman sight, according to Post #'s 8 & 10, above, suggest the Lyman 21 (Lyman 38?) were produced until WWII.

It would be helpful if you could post a photo. 

Before the 1964 modifications,  the ramp of the front sight of the Model 70 was either forged integrally with the barrel (early) or sweated on (late).

The post-63 70 and 670 front sight ramps were attached by a screw. EDIT: THERE MAY BE A SECOND SCREW MOUNTED THROUGH THE BASE OF THE DOVETAIL. REMOVE THE SIGHT FROM THE DOVETAIL TO SEE. 

The sight and ramp were made by Williams and were made high to align with the high Monte Carlo comb. 

If all you want to do is remove the sight itself from the ramp, it is tapped out from left to right (bolt handle side) using a nylon tipped pin or small diameter hardwood dowel section, and a nylon or leather or brass hammer. Tapped repeatedly, not hammered like King Kong. .

How does this remove?  There's a small screw at the rear but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the sights fastening.

Is it a wedge fit - needs to be hammered out?

Best regards

Graeme

Bert

Wondering if anyone could give me some info on the sights. Are they period correct? Could they have been installed by Winchester.

Any general info would be appreciated. Thanks.

450 Fuller said
Aperture sights are as personal as the rifles preferred. For my shooting, receiver or the original 98 a sights work best on the 1886 or Model 71 rifles.Tang sights seem to fit and shoot better on single shot models such as the 1885 Winchester and Sharps rifles. I have an original Mid-range on the former and an Axtell Vernier Long Range on the latter rifle.
Improperly fit tang sights may potentially strike a shooter in the eye, particularly if the hunting ground is uphill or uneven.
  

I'm thinking the receiver sight on an 86 or 71 makes a lot of sense for a hunting gun with significant recoil. I like the looks of a tang sight for the 94 or 92. Funny thing, was just shooting a 75 Target today and discovered the aperture was a bit small. I went up one size last year but it appears I need to go up another size. One was good, two looks better! Easier to go bigger than smaller, drill press earned its keep today. Regardless of where they mount, they make all the difference in the world for this shooter. It seems almost all of my keepers have aperture sights these days and a nice Winchester with a receiver or tang sight catches my eye almost as quickly as a nice piece of wood. 

Mike

Improperly fit tang sights may potentially strike a shooter in the eye, particularly if the hunting ground is uphill or uneven.

450 Fuller said

I have an Axtell Mid-range on a Sharps, and a Winchester mid-range sitting affixed to an 1885 HW SS in 45-60. The rear tang sight seems almost natural on a single shot rifle.
  

Do you have any idea who finally bought Axtell?  I would like to find a long range sight.  These looked almost the same as a real Sharps sight.  

ccommo said

cj57 said

Steven Gabrielli said
Climbin 21 ain’t cheap. Is that what the extra hole in the receiver by the hammer screw is for ? 
  

That hole by the hammer screw is for the saddle ring, the carbine isn't drilled for the Lyman 21, that would be just at the end of the rolestamp 
  

Thank you cj for that information.
Well now im really confused. Why would the rear sight be modified if not for use with a receiver sight?
If the hole is there for the saddle ring, would that mean this would have been a factory SRC? Or are all carbines drilled for the saddle ring?
  

Yes, it's a SRC, one of its owners removed it, maybe didn't like the clinging noise. You often see the 95 carbines with the handguards removed, the cutouts for guard clips are visible on sides of forearm, if no cutouts, then it was ordered without handguard

cj57 said

Steven Gabrielli said
Climbin 21 ain’t cheap. Is that what the extra hole in the receiver by the hammer screw is for ? 
  

That hole by the hammer screw is for the saddle ring, the carbine isn't drilled for the Lyman 21, that would be just at the end of the rolestamp 
  

Thank you cj for that information.

Well now im really confused. Why would the rear sight be modified if not for use with a receiver sight?

If the hole is there for the saddle ring, would that mean this would have been a factory SRC? Or are all carbines drilled for the saddle ring?

Steven Gabrielli said
Ahhh, yes thanks of course. That carbine appears refinished?
  

Yes, both metal and wood, and missing the forearm cover