Log In
July 31, 2005
Offline
Does anyone know when the #4 ivory hunting front sight was introduced? Stroebel’s book just says it was last cataloged in 1943.
I call myself a collector as it sounds better than hoarder
November 1, 2013
Offline
It was listed in the 1889 catalog, according to the Lyman Centennial Journal. However, when this history of the company was compiled in 1978, a complete run of Lyman catalogs was evidently not available, so it might have entered production prior to ’89.
May 23, 2009
Offline
On page 152 of John Parsons “The First Winchester” is a pictured a Model 1876 “One of One Hundred” with serial number 714, which would have been made in 1877. This gun appears to have a Lyman #4 front sight.
On page 124 of Dr. Ed Lewis “The Story of the Winchester 1 of 1000 and 1 of 100” Lewis discusses his intrigue and finds the gun somewhat a mystery. Parsons describes the gun as chambered in .45-60 W.C.F., which wasn’t produced until 1879. So was the gun sent back and/or re-chambered in .45-60, as all the early guns were made in .45-75 W.C.F. Or did Parsons record the serial number wrong? Interesting gun, if it does see the light of day any time soon.
That is probably one of possibly the earliest guns I’ve seen with the Lyman #4 front sight.
Also 1 of 1000 Model 1873 serial #44263 made in 1880, appears to have a Lyman #4 front sight as well.
Sincerely,
Maverick
WACA #8783 - Checkout my Reloading Tool Survey!
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-research-surveys/winchester-reloading-tool-survey/
November 1, 2013
Offline
Maverick said
On page 152 of John Parsons “The First Winchester” is a pictured a Model 1876 “One of One Hundred” with serial number 714, which would have been made in 1877. This gun appears to have a Lyman #4 front sight.On page 124 of Dr. Ed Lewis “The Story of the Winchester 1 of 1000 and 1 of 100” Lewis discusses his intrigue and finds the gun somewhat a mystery. Parsons describes the gun as chambered in .45-60 W.C.F., which wasn’t produced until 1879. So was the gun sent back and/or re-chambered in .45-60, as all the early guns were made in .45-75 W.C.F. Or did Parsons record the serial number wrong? Interesting gun, if it does see the light of day any time soon.
That is probably one of possibly the earliest guns I’ve seen with the Lyman #4 front sight.
Also 1 of 1000 Model 1873 serial #44263 made in 1880, appears to have a Lyman #4 front sight as well.
Sincerely,
Maverick
Wm. Lyman’s first gun-sight, his original “Combination Tang Sight,” was patented in Jan. of 1879, but another year passed before (after heavy advertising) his business really took off, so his other sight designs obviously had to follow afterwards. His earliest ivory-bead front sight patent was granted in Oct., 1885, followed about a year later by a variation called his “Patent Hunting Sight.” Finally, some (unknown) time later, came the “Improved Patent Hunting Sight,” later called the “No. 4.” Given this timeline of the evolution of Lyman’s front sights, it’s therefore hard to see how the No.4 could have arrived on the scene before 1887.
So, either the dating guideline provided in the Lyman Centennial Journal is incorrect, OR the No.4s on the above referenced guns were not factory original. That point ought to be easy to verify by recourse to factory records.
May 23, 2009
Offline
clarence said
So, either the dating guideline provided in the Lyman Centennial Journal is incorrect, OR the No.4s on the above referenced guns were not factory original.
I suppose either part of this sentence could be true one way or the other.
clarence said
That point ought to be easy to verify by recourse to factory records.
Hardly so! The factory records will not always mention special sights a lot of the time for special order guns. This has been proven many times.
Also I maybe mistaken as they could very well be Lyman #3 front sights and not #4 sights. I’m not claiming to be a Lyman sight expert.
Here is the front sight on Model 76 1of1000 serial #10036, that left the factory on 6/8/1880. Is it a #3 or #4? Sorry in advance, as I know the picture quality is not the best.
Sincerely,
Maverick
WACA #8783 - Checkout my Reloading Tool Survey!
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-research-surveys/winchester-reloading-tool-survey/
November 1, 2013
Offline
Maverick said
Here is the front sight on Model 76 1of1000 serial #10036, that left the factory on 6/8/1880. Is it a #3 or #4?
That distinctive curved profile makes it a #4, all right. The #3 is a more conventional looking front sight, having a round cylinder of ivory inserted vertically just in front of the steel blade.
Did the books in which these rifles appeared report whatever specs was included in the factory records? If optional sights weren’t properly recorded in these records, how could the special order customer be charged for them?
May 23, 2009
Offline
clarence said
Did the books in which these rifles appeared report whatever specs was included in the factory records? If optional sights weren’t properly recorded in these records, how could the special order customer be charged for them?
To answer your question correctly I’ll give it my best shot, but for the best answer to such a question would probably be answered by someone at the Cody Firearms Museum where the records are at.
To quote Jim Gordon’s 1873 book,“Apparently, the only surviving factory records regarding the Model 1873 are the warehouse ledgers. The factory order forms for the 1873s are nowhere to be found. All we actually know about the factory orders comes from the ledgers which indicate the “Order” number and the date shipped for each gun. Unfortunately, the order form must have been the first document completed upon the receipt of a purchase request and likely contained the full detail for any special features. Like-wise, the order obviously contained the name and location of the customer information not found on the surviving ledgers. We know that the Winchester factory dealt substantially with dealers, not with individual customers. Of course, dealer orders would include guns as well as ammunition and parts, etc. The dealer purchases were most often mailed to New Haven where the information was transferred to the prenumbered factory order form. ……. It was not the purpose of the ledger to record every specific feature of a particular gun. The real detail was recorded on the order form.”
The above does not only apply the model 1873, it applies to the majority of collectible Winchesters.
At the time of Jim Gordon’s writing his book in 1997, I don’t believe he knew about the additional records regarding the “Serial Number Application (SNA) Dates”. So that is also an additional type of Winchester Company record known and available. Later they stopped using the Ledger book and used a file card system, which you can read about in Rob’s & Dunbar’s new Model 95 book, but even most of those records are lost. Other than that, I believe some of the most detailed surviving records are for the Winchester Model 21 Shotgun which is very specific down to a customer’s measurements for length of pull, but that was way later of a time frame.
So in a nut shell, the records you speak of existed at one time, but are now lost and thought to have been destroyed. But occasionally new discoveries are made.
Sincerely,
Maverick
WACA #8783 - Checkout my Reloading Tool Survey!
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-research-surveys/winchester-reloading-tool-survey/
November 1, 2013
Offline
Maverick said
It was not the purpose of the ledger to record every specific feature of a particular gun. The real detail was recorded on the order form.”
The above does not only apply the model 1873, it applies to the majority of collectible Winchesters.
Maverick
Thanks for this info, which sheds a more complete light on the significance of factory letters–usually considered the be-all and end-all of a gun’s factory documentation. But it appears that when the file card system replaced the ledger system there was more space to record details such as special-order sights; I’m somewhat sorry this change was made, because I have a couple of guns that letter with special-order sights which somewhere along the line were replaced with standard sights! (Probably stripped off by a dealer to sell separately, which I’ve seen done with my own eyes.)
Though it may be impossible to find out what sights these ’73s were originally equipped with, it still looks to me as if they were built too early to have been factory-fitted with Lyman #4s–the respective production dates seem just too far apart.
May 24, 2012
Offline
I have thoroughly enjoyed this discussion. Thanks!!! One of the many reasons being that I own a rare Whitney-Kennedy large caliber rifle made in the Spring of 1883, that has numerous special order features, such as an extra heavy barrel, of a non-standard length, and double-set triggers, etc. It’s front sight is an Ivory blade. it is in the general shape and height of the factory pinned metal blade plain open sight – which is a highly interesting note. I’ve often wondered as to whether or not it could be factory, primarily, because this is such a rare rifle with highly desirable features, and the fact that Whitney modified existing stock to produce special order guns. The bigger point here, is not whether or not the ivory blade was installed at the factory…which is totally irrelevant to me, but about this discussion and Clarence’s note about the timeline regarding the evolution of Lyman’s front sights in terms of the their No. 4. I might add that Whitney was on the cutting edge of gun manufacturing in 1883 and, to my knowledge, none of their factory known sights involved ivory at this point in time.
James
” src=”
” width=”790″ />
November 1, 2013
Offline
jwm94 said
I’ve often wondered as to whether or not it could be factory, primarily, because this is such a rare rifle with highly desirable features, and the fact that Whitney modified existing stock to produce special order guns.James
Don’t know why it couldn’t be a special order sight–looks like it would be easy for the factory to make. Not a Lyman design, but there were others making front sights with ivory inserts.
I have a Ballard the front sight of which has a blade made out of a 1880s dime cut in half! I wouldn’t trade it for an original Ballard sight!
May 24, 2012
Offline
Thanks for the notes, Clarence!
James
March 31, 2009
Offline
I had an 1873 with an ivory blade front sight. Didn’t letter but looked great.
July 31, 2005
Offline
It’s interesting that in Lyman’s own adverts for the #4 Ivory hunting front sight as shown in Stroebel’s book the company essentially puts down this sight and says the #3 is what most riflemen prefer. Here’s a snip from the ad as shown on page 52 of Old Gunsights.
“Lyman Ivory Hunting Front Sight No. 4 – – – – $1.00 Preferred by some because the ivory is protected against injury by its surrounding metal. No so much in demand as our popular No. 3 which excels in its advancement of construction and nicety of design.”
I have owned two antique Model 1873 rifles that had #3 front sights and on both of them the bead was missing. Seeing other vintage #3 sights for sale on eBay I notice that many of them are missing the bead as well. Perhaps the #3 was a better target sight but not so good for hunting and frontier use.
I call myself a collector as it sounds better than hoarder
November 1, 2013
Offline
Bill Hockett said
It’s interesting that in Lyman’s own adverts for the #4 Ivory hunting front sight as shown in Stroebel’s book the company essentially puts down this sight and says the #3 is what most riflemen prefer.
Probably because the bead was so much larger than that on the #4; in fact it was available in 3 sizes of ivory, though each bead size was assigned its own catalog number.
#3s missing their ivory are repairable, which I think would be more difficult on a #4, though I’ve never tried it. But after obtaining some ivory scraps & splinters from a maker of ivory handgun grips (years ago, it goes without saying), I replaced the ivory in several by scraping with a razor blade chips of ivory into a rough cylinder & gluing them in place. Tedious, & by no means “good as new,” but better than an empty socket.
May 2, 2009
Offline
Actually the #4 is the easiest one to fix of all the sights that have a ivory bead. You just take the sight off and from the bottom you tap with a small punch, pushing more ivory up to expose it, then you just dress it to the right shape. It already has extra ivory in it just like a eversharp pencil unless someone has done that a few times.
Bob
WACA Life Member--- NRA Life Member---- Cody Firearms member since 1991 Researching the Winchester 1873's
Email: [email protected]
