Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
I have a Lyman code N sight base and parts to make a complete sight, which my old eyes could use. The Stroebel book says I could use it, however Ben Tolson says code NI for 33 cal. Can anyone explain the difference?
Thanks, Don
86Win said
I have a Lyman code N sight base and parts to make a complete sight, which my old eyes could use. The Stroebel book says I could use it, however Ben Tolson says code NI for 33 cal. Can anyone explain the difference?
Special code for .33s was Lyman’s marketing strategy for selling a new sight to someone like yourself who might already have the older N sight. Put your N sight on the rifle, shoot it, then ask yourself, “what’s the problem?”
The NI has a shorter staff, you can turn it down and fold it back without hitting the stock comb. Factory installed N sights usually had the comb trimmed back to allow fold down. I have a NI laying around to use when I shoot my 86’s that do not letter with the sight. T/R
Online
TR said
The NI has a shorter staff, you can turn it down and fold it back without hitting the stock comb. Factory installed N sights usually had the comb trimmed back to allow fold down. I have a NI laying around to use when I shoot my 86’s that do not letter with the sight. T/R
So the comb on a Winchester 1886 in .33 WCF is actually set back further than one on the stock of a .33 WCF without a tang sight in place, at least originally? Meaning there are at least two types of buttstocks out there?
If the 86 letters with a Lyman tang sight you would be able to fold it back. Just as Winchester made modifications for the big Lyman 15 to the bolt they made the stock so the sight folded down. If the sight had a large aperture it would require the stock to be trimmed more. Any after installed sights could or should be modified to allow the sight to fold to prevent damage to the stock. As I said the NI would require no or less modification because of it’s shorter staff. I assume the NI was shorter because the 33 was smokeless. I would not consider the modification to be a different type, just the fitting of the stock for the sight. T/R
TR said
If the 86 letters with a Lyman tang sight you would be able to fold it back. Just as Winchester made modifications for the big Lyman 15 to the bolt they made the stock so the sight folded down. If the sight had a large aperture it would require the stock to be trimmed more. Any after installed sights could or should be modified to allow the sight to fold to prevent damage to the stock. As I said the NI would require no or less modification because of it’s shorter staff. I assume the NI was shorter because the 33 was smokeless. I would not consider the modification to be a different type, just the fitting of the stock for the sight. T/R
Marble’s Flexible tang sight obviated these problems when introduced in 1905, because it “flexed” backwards if the bolt was long enough to touch it.
TR said
The NI has a shorter staff, you can turn it down and fold it back without hitting the stock comb. Factory installed N sights usually had the comb trimmed back to allow fold down. I have a NI laying around to use when I shoot my 86’s that do not letter with the sight. T/R
I had no idea Winchester made stock adjustments when fitting a tang sight at the factory. Very interesting.
steve004 said
TR said
The NI has a shorter staff, you can turn it down and fold it back without hitting the stock comb. Factory installed N sights usually had the comb trimmed back to allow fold down. I have a NI laying around to use when I shoot my 86’s that do not letter with the sight. T/R
I had no idea Winchester made stock adjustments when fitting a tang sight at the factory. Very interesting.
Yes, take a look at the comb when you see a tang sight attached. Especially mid and long range. If there are notches in the wood the sight is not factory installed. The factory would have removed some of the comb so there would be room so the sight wouldn’t hit the wood.
This is a most interesting thread!
First, I’m surprised that Winchester would produce two styles of stocks—one for rifles with a tang sight as shipped from the factory, and one without.
Attached are photographs of a Winchester in .33 Winchester with a tang sight not original to this 1906 production rifle. I installed it last month and have subsequently removed it. I didn’t like how it was too long and this thread confirms as to why.
Also attached are photographs of the patent dates on this Lyman tang sight. They are July 25 ‘05 and Oct 15 ‘07, which also confirms this tang sight is historically inaccurate for any .33 WCF manufactured prior to late 1907.
mrcvs said They are July 25 ‘05 and Oct 15 ‘07, which also confirms this tang sight is historically inaccurate for any .33 WCF manufactured prior to late 1907.
Curious what that 2nd pat date applies to, as the earlier one covers the locking-lever–a pointless “improvement.” If this is a #2, the disk is smaller than the one usually supplied. But I think I can make out the hole for the axle on which the turn-down peep of the #1 rotates.
They didn’t make different styles for the sights. They fit each stock as needed per the order.
Chuck said
They didn’t make different styles for the sights. They fit each stock as needed per the order.
Same style, just enough wood removed to use the sight. “They fit each stock as needed per the order.”, well said Chuck. T/R
I cant speak to the originality based on the discussion regarding whether they would letter or not with a tang sight, but on this rifle, Ive often wondered whether the cut-back comb was original, and never really thought about the imprint where it once had a tang sight. The letter is just states its a 45/90 rifle, OB, plain trigger. No mention of a tang sight, or the sling swivels. I purchased it for hunting and liked the fact it had provisions for a sling.
1892takedown @sbcglobal.net ......NRA Endowment Life Member.....WACA Member
"God is great.....beer is good.....and people are crazy"... Billy Currington
1892takedown said
I purchased it for hunting and liked the fact it had provisions for a sling.
Sling alone would have sold me on the gun. And I’d have had another tang sight back on as quick as I could find one.
I have to agree Clarence, and its surprising how few it seems were ordered with sling, maybe it was expected to be carried by scabbard and horse for the most part and not necessarily otherwise wanted. The provision for a sling, caliber, and good bore were all I was wanting as a shooter anyway back then. Whether original or not is purely academic and of no real consequence one way or the other. Tried hunting afoot with it once and after a couple miles came to regret it, and better appreciating the utility and weight of my 94 carbine. Thats likely why I havent entertained the thought of buying a tang sight for it.
1892takedown @sbcglobal.net ......NRA Endowment Life Member.....WACA Member
"God is great.....beer is good.....and people are crazy"... Billy Currington
1 Guest(s)
