Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
Hi, I bought an old Lyman 1 (not 1A) tang sight for my 1906 Winchester .22 pump. I just mounted it. I could tell the staff is too high, even lowered as far as it would go. It has a pretty tall Lyman bead front. I test fired a few CB caps. It’s hitting about 10 inches high.
I unscrewed the staff and it seems like I could just grind down a little of the bottom of the staff, with no harm. Would that work to lower it? I see it’s hollow at the bottom with a tiny hole, and somewhat tapered. Just need 2-5MM off I’d guess.
What is the application code stamped on the underside of the sight base? It sounds like you do not have the correct sight on it. The correct application code is WS. I do not recommend modifying the sight that you currently have on the rifle.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
AZshot said
I see it’s hollow at the bottom with a tiny hole, and somewhat tapered.
That was for a pin the user could insert to prevent the staff from being lowered too low; not your problem, obviously.
The hole on the bottom of the staff is for a pin so you could set the point blank elevation. They would grind off the pin until it sighted in at the close range. I agree that you might have the wrong sight on it or someone replaced the staff with the wrong one.
Bob
WACA Life Member--- NRA Life Member---- Cody Firearms member since 1991 Researching the Winchester 1873's
Email: [email protected]
It has WS stamped under the base. Fits perfect. Oh, the pin must have already been missing. With a pin it would be WAY too high, like for shooting at the 500 yd rams! I won’t hurt the sight barrel, but already filed a little off the bottom of the staff for a proof of concept, it indeed let’s you lower it more. The markings on the staff are at the 4th line. That’s as low as it goes. I was able to get it down to the 3rd with just a little filing that will be inside the barrel, no one will ever see. It was probably the wrong staff, but has the little flip iris, so I want to make it work. Just a $100 sight, pretty worn, as I wanted it to match the worn rifle.
AZshot said
Just a $100 sight, pretty worn, as I wanted it to match the worn rifle.
File it down, make it work, it’s already outside “collector grade.”
But “we”–Lyman fanciers, that is–call that “flip iris”–a “turn-down” peep; it was, in fact, the basis for Lyman’s first sight patent, so not to be despised.
Thanks, that’s what I’m doing. Just got back from firing the rifle with LRs the first time. Worked great with the barrel sight. If I leaned the tang enough to get the iris at a smidgeon above the buckhorn, it’s sighted in. I’m going to file the rest to bring it down to that point, no use having a useless 100 dollar sight on a $200 rifle…!
Before sight. 
I’ve also noticed the same problem with Lyman tang sights (WS) on my model 1890 rifles. They shoot too high even with the stem fully lowered. About 3″ high at 100ft range. I resorted to a slightly taller front sight than the standard 75A on one rifle. I thought I’d measure the stems for you to compare. They are all 1.200 inch (excuse my antiquated measuring tools). I did find the mentioned pin in one from a WRF rifle that limits the downward travel.
I have other Marbles (W9) tang sights that do not have any problem.
Question for the forum…were tang sights generally made for longer ranges than “plinking” distances?
<img alt="" src="
” />
Good to know. I measured mine before I started filing. It was 1.370. It will need to be about 1.15 I’d guess. But you can just put a yardstick across the rear and front sights and see it’s way too high. You’d have to shoot at 100 yds for sure, or maybe 200. These are boys rifles, and tiny. They weren’t meant for long range schuetzen….
Getting lower…
Rustyjack said
Question for the forum…were tang sights generally made for longer ranges than “plinking” distances?
Of course! In fact they were made to shoot at ranges extreme for metallic sights…except for the Elmer Keiths among us!
AZshot said
If I leaned the tang enough to get the iris at a smidgeon above the buckhorn…
As Wm. Lyman would & DID say, “Get rid of that, if you want the full potential of a tang sight.”
Even though the base is marked correctly could someone have replaced the staff? I would not get it down to the point where it lines up with the buckhorn. If you have to shoot this close do as Clarence said, remove the buckhorn or use the buckhorn for close shots.
I’ve got the staff down to as far as it goes, and I estimate it will still shoot high at 25 yds plinking distance. I’ll use the barrel sight for plinking, and raise the tang for occasional 100 yd shots. Perhaps I’ll get lucky and it will be on at 50 too. That begs a question: If the Lyman 1 with WS on the base cannot allow a staff to get low enough to shoot at point blank range, why would people want it? Every long range sight I have still allows you to zero it to shoot at sort ranges. With this one, now the knurled barrel is the block, even getting the iris lollipop down to it’s top….it’s still too high.
AZshot said
If the Lyman 1 with WS on the base cannot allow a staff to get low enough to shoot at point blank range, why would people want it?
They wouldn’t & Lyman didn’t make it that way–as Chuck suggested, the staff must have been changed to a taller one. Seems improbable, but if you look at a lot of tang sights, you’ll find that a surprising number have been altered in one way or another. Why? Why have so many guns been messed up in stupid ways?
Maybe when they did it it wasn’t stupid? My newer guns get changed to the way I want them with no regard for it ever being collectable.
Clarence, let me clarify. The problem isn’t the staff really. It’s that the barrel the staff goes into is too tall also. So even by putting the “right” staff in that will bottom out at the top of the barrel, it will be too tall, probably. I don’t see any signs the entire site was replaced onto a WS base, but I guess it’s possible. But I’m not going to be able to buy a new barrel and staff assy to find out, that would cost too much.
The poster above said all his Lyman WS sights were too high. If it were possible, I’d like to get a measurement reading from a cross section of about 10 Lyman 1 heights from barrel base to barrel top. Mine is 1.120:
AZshot said
If it were possible, I’d like to get a measurement reading from a cross section of about 10 Lyman 1 heights from barrel base to barrel top. Mine is 1.120:
My WS .992″.
That would be a better height for my rifle, just eyeballing how much lower that is. I guess I have the wrong sight barrel, or they made different heights. Assuming you measured exactly where I did, from the base ring to the top of the collet.
Seems to be quite a bit of variation. That dimension on mine measures approx .900″ The lower section of the upright seems to have a different appearance also.
<img alt="" src="
” />
The knurled part of the barrel is .430
<img alt="" src="
” />
AZshot said
That would be a better height for my rifle, just eyeballing how much lower that is. I guess I have the wrong sight barrel, or they made different heights. Assuming you measured exactly where I did, from the base ring to the top of the collet.
The difference is in the length of the rotating sleeve–the staff corresponds to its length.
1 Guest(s)
