Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Hi from Australia.
With aging eyes it’s getting harder to use open sights so I’d like to fit a “Climbin’ Lyman” receiver sight to my Winchester 1895 .30/40 sporter (1906 production). After some searching I finally located a Lyman No.38 in nice shape and it’s condition is also a good match to that of my rifle. It’s missing the front screw but I was happy with an incomplete sight in this condition.
I’d be grateful for some advice on how to go about locating the rear hole for the slide and what drill & tap size is required. I had a look at the 1895 book and apparently a paper template came with these sights to assist in locating the correct position. It also looks like I might lose part of the patent markings but I can live with that. Thanks.
Pete
Spud said
Hi from Australia.With aging eyes it’s getting harder to use open sights so I’d like to fit a “Climbin’ Lyman” receiver sight to my Winchester 1895 .30/40 sporter (1906 production). After some searching I finally located a Lyman No.38 in nice shape and it’s condition is also a good match to that of my rifle. It’s missing the front screw but I was happy with an incomplete sight in this condition.
I’d be grateful for some advice on how to go about locating the rear hole for the slide and what drill & tap size is required. I had a look at the 1895 book and apparently a paper template came with these sights to assist in locating the correct position. It also looks like I might lose part of the patent markings but I can live with that. Thanks.
Pete
Pete – are you saying your concern is you will have to drill through some of the markings?
steve004 said
Pete – are you saying your concern is you will have to drill through some of the markings?
Evidently not, as he said he could “live with that.” I presume he has one of the 95s made without the “extra” screw hole for mounting a tang sight…so the factory could save itself 10 cents. So if you’ve GOT to D&T to make up for the factory’s cheapskatedness, my choice would be D&T the one hole needed in the upper tang, for which the tang sight itself would provide a template. There’s no sight I like better than the 38, but considering the difficulty of mounting one on a rcvr. not previously D&T, compared to the simplicity of mounting an ordinary tang sight without real damage to the gun, the latter would be the route I’d take. Esp. since the 38 in question lacks an essential part, the forward pivot screw.
clarence said
Evidently not, as he said he could “live with that.” I presume he has one of the 95s made without the “extra” screw hole for mounting a tang sight…so the factory could save itself 10 cents. So if you’ve GOT to D&T to make up for the factory’s cheapskatedness, my choice would be D&T the one hole needed in the upper tang, for which the tang sight itself would provide a template. There’s no sight I like better than the 38, but considering the difficulty of mounting one on a rcvr. not previously D&T, compared to the simplicity of mounting an ordinary tang sight without real damage to the gun, the latter would be the route I’d take. Esp. since the 38 in question lacks an essential part, the forward pivot screw.
I don’t know if this is accurate but I had heard long ago that about one in ten M1895’s came from the factory with the needed top tap hole for a tang sight. I’ve never owned one. One wonders how many 95’s left the factory with the top tang tap hole but no tang sight? I would suspect few if any left the factory with the side receiver tap holes, but no sight.
The above question (about how many left the factory with the tang sight tap hole but no tang sight) prompts me to wonder whether by placing a tap hole there, would the, “originality” be impacted. No one could look at and say decisively, “there shouldn’t be a tap hole there.” Let’s also remember that a large number of 95’s were manufactured outside of the, “letterable” range.
January 26, 2011
Offline
Steve
I don’t think it’s one in ten drilled. I’ve seen very few and most are questionable outside of the factory work. My general rule is the ’95 should not have the forward tang sight hole unless the gun letters with a tang sight. It seems the only tang sight that might make sense and not interfere with the bolt would be a Marbles Special base (which would look really nice on a ’95). I don’t collect any Marbles sights, nor do I have catalogs. Did Marbles have a Special Base application code for the Win 1895?
If you are set on having a peep sight, and are willing to drill, I would agree with Clarence and drill one hole, if a Marbles tang sight exists. I love the Lyman 38 as well, but that’s a lot of risk trying get it mounted just right. Just an opinion. Anyway ……. what do I know? Do what you are comfortable with.
~Gary~
pdog72 said I don’t collect any Marbles sights, nor do I have catalogs. Did Marbles have a Special Base application code for the Win 1895?
Absolutely, two of them actually, depending on caliber. More interesting than that is the 1905 Marble’s catalog illustration for all their “Flexible” sights–it shows a standard “Flexible” mounted on a ’95 with the extended bolt pushing the stem backwards! I think I’d prefer that to use of the Special Base, which seems rather close to the eye on such a hardkicker as a ’95.
If the factory believed the bolt-throw of a ’95 precluded use of a Lyman tang sight, then all ’95 rcvrs. should have been D&T for Lyman 21s & 38s; an insignificant cost for the factory, compared to the trouble for an owner who wished to fit one after purchase, with the distinct possibility that the job might be botched by a shade-tree gunsmith.
Spud, Perhaps I can point you in a direction that may help some. Winchester Bob has some parts for the Lyman 21 and 38 sights. He lists two front screws. One is for those rifles drilled and tapped for mounting ahead of the finger lever pivot screw. The other uses the hole for the finger lever pivot screw. that would mean one less hole to drill and tap. The spacing for the rear hole then is established by the sight itself. Then he also lists the rear stud. I should think once you have the screw for the rear stud, you can determine the thread diameter and pitch from the screw. I would think that it would be counter productive to try disassembling the receiver only and shipping to the US to have the sight installed, but there are a few smiths I would be confident in being able to match factory work of the day. Surely there are those near you who could be trusted once you have the needed and appropriate parts for the sight in question. I hope this helps and doesn’t muddy the water further. Tim
Thanks for those replies & thanks Tim for the source for Lyman No.38 parts. Winchester Bob won’t send outside of the USA but I’ve asked if he will post to a friend there who’ll send them onto me.
I have both the Marbles Special mount & flexible tang sight and have used them successfully with ’95s that have an windage adjustable front sight. This 95 sporter has a pinned front sight and shot way to the right with the Marbles flexible tang. I tried shims to correct this but no go, hence my preference to go with a Lyman No.38 as a permanent solution.
Your replies got me thinking about other alternatives and I remembered that I had a Lyman No.47 staff adapted for use in Marbles tang sights so I dug it out and lapped it to fit this base. Fitted well so will give this a run in the short term (working up hunting loads) while I progress the No.38 option. At least I now have some windage. Thanks again.
Pete
Spud said
Your replies got me thinking about other alternatives and I remembered that I had a Lyman No.47 staff adapted for use in Marbles tang sights so I dug it out and lapped it to fit this base. Fitted well so will give this a run in the short term (working up hunting loads) while I progress the No.38 option.
Brilliant solution–never would have thought those two sights could be “crossbred.”
1 Guest(s)
