Avatar
Please consider registering
Guest
Search
Forum Scope




Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
Register Lost password?
sp_Feed sp_PrintTopic sp_TopicIcon
Redfield 94 E sight for my 1894
sp_NewTopic Add Topic
Avatar
Hershey, PA
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 29
Member Since:
July 24, 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1
February 5, 2022 - 5:29 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost
sp_ReportPost

Thanks to forum members, I was told that a good peep sight for my 1912 1894 would be a Redfield 94 E.  I recently purchased one with target knobs in about matching condition to the rifle.  To my disappointment, the sight’s holes don’t match the pre-drilled holes on the rifle.  I’ve attached a photo that shows the problem.  C-C and threads are correct, but the holes are too low on the receiver.

The photo shows the difference when the sight’s relief angle is matched to the receiver.  Not seen in the photo is the “ghost” of a previously-mounted sight, so some sort of sight had been affixed earlier in the rifle’s life.

What did I do wrong?  Wrong manufacturer/model or are the holes for something else?

20220205_120850.jpgImage Enlarger

Thanks for your help and advice.

Dorsey

sp_PlupAttachments Attachments
Avatar
NY
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 4322
Member Since:
November 1, 2013
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online
2
February 5, 2022 - 6:10 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost
sp_ReportPost

You need to figure out what sight was previously mounted.  Probably the one most commonly seen on ’94s was the Lyman 56.  They often show up on ebay, so you could ask the seller to provide measurements that would help you determine if that’s what you need.  Might also have been a Pacific LB sight.

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 422
Member Since:
September 19, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
3
February 5, 2022 - 7:14 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost
sp_ReportPost

Like everyone, I am guessing here.  The distance down from the top of the receiver looks very similar to the hold spacing of a Williams sight.  The one I have on a Winchester is on an 1886 however, so no idea of the applicability to the 1894.  Clarence has as good info on sights as any I know of on the forum, so I respect his thoughts.  Tim

Avatar
NY
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 4322
Member Since:
November 1, 2013
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online
4
February 5, 2022 - 8:52 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost
sp_ReportPost

tim tomlinson said
Like everyone, I am guessing here.  The distance down from the top of the receiver looks very similar to the hold spacing of a Williams sight.  The one I have on a Winchester is on an 1886 however, so no idea of the applicability to the 1894.  Clarence has as good info on sights as any I know of on the forum, so I respect his thoughts.  Tim  

I was thinking about the older makes of rcvr. sights, but Williams is a very likely possibility, because who knows when the previous sight was put there.  (Why take it off, once the holes had been drilled?)  I still remember ads for the Williams 5D sight–meaning 5 dollars!

Avatar
Hershey, PA
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 29
Member Since:
July 24, 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
5
February 6, 2022 - 1:36 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost
sp_ReportPost

The guy I bought the rifle from is a gun trader who bought the rifle as he sold it to me; with holes and no sight.  He suggest that I put an older scope on it, but that seems implausible.

I’ll look online and at gun shows for a Lyman 56.  Now that I know what won’t fit, I can be more specific in my search for one that might.

Dorsey

Avatar
NY
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 4322
Member Since:
November 1, 2013
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online
6
February 6, 2022 - 1:40 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost
sp_ReportPost

[email protected] said

I’ll look online and at gun shows for a Lyman 56.  Now that I know what won’t fit, I can be more specific in my search for one that might.

Dorsey  

Ebay is the place to find whatever it needs, & Tim may well be right about the Williams.

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 54
Member Since:
May 21, 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
7
February 6, 2022 - 3:08 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost
sp_ReportPost

 Hi    The screw holes are not Winchester original, so NO sight listed for an 1894 will fit.   If you have not got the sight off the rifle you will have to make a sight to fit or drill more holes in the right position.   If you are going to drill,  get the correct sight first.  Those holes are too low and too far forward.    Eric

Avatar
NY
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 4322
Member Since:
November 1, 2013
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online
8
February 6, 2022 - 3:34 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost
sp_ReportPost

Eric Ryan said
 Hi    The screw holes are not Winchester original, so NO sight listed for an 1894 will fit.   If you have not got the sight off the rifle you will have to make a sight to fit or drill more holes in the right position.   If you are going to drill,  get the correct sight first.  Those holes are too low and too far forward.    Eric  

Eric, you’re certainly right that these holes are non-original, but there must be SOME sight that matches up.  The Lyman 56 came out in 1935, so I’d be surprised if there wasn’t some co-ordination between Lyman & Winchester on the hole spacing, when ’94s became available factory-D&T’d. Don’t know the date that occurred, except that it was post-WWI.

This gun isn’t a showpiece, but it’s got more than enough holes in it already!

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 54
Member Since:
May 21, 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
9
February 6, 2022 - 5:56 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost
sp_ReportPost

Hi Clarence   The problem is that the sight holes are both too low and too far apart. I suspect that they were drilled to fit a modified or incorrect sight in the first place, as well as being in the wrong position.   This is a patch up at best.   Best thing to do is to make a sight to fit the holes.   Eric.

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 196
Member Since:
March 19, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
10
February 6, 2022 - 2:19 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost
sp_ReportPost

Eric is correct in my opinion. Along with being too low the forward position will place the sight aperture too far from the shooters eye for optimum use. If I owned it I think I would plug the existing holes and get it redrilled for the Redfield. Examine any post 1950 model 94 for an idea of proper hole location and go from there. The sight should sit somewhere over the rear locking lug like factory drilled jobs. My 2 cents.

Avatar
NY
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 4322
Member Since:
November 1, 2013
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online
11
February 6, 2022 - 2:32 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost
sp_ReportPost

Eric Ryan said
Hi Clarence   The problem is that the sight holes are both too low and too far apart. I suspect that they were drilled to fit a modified or incorrect sight in the first place, as well as being in the wrong position.   This is a patch up at best.   Best thing to do is to make a sight to fit the holes.   Eric.  

If the job is going to be that complicated, & Dorsey’s intention is merely to make the gun “shootable” with something better than a lousy brl. sight, the path of least resistance would be installation of a tang sight.  Even a correct rcvr. sight looks out of place on a ’94.  If the holes were plugged with well-fitted screws dressed down to match the surrounding finish, the result would be, to my eyes, far more pleasing than a makeshift rcvr. sight. 

Avatar
Hershey, PA
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 29
Member Since:
July 24, 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
12
February 7, 2022 - 4:10 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost
sp_ReportPost

As usual, lots of good advice and information.

Clarence has it exactly right.  I accepted the holes (and lowered price) thinking I could “easily” fill the holes with a period-correct after-market peep site.  What I wanted was a gently-used rifle that I could actually handle and shoot without regard to collector value.  I’ve learned that others here share that view.  This is not to denigrate those whose main interest is collecting, just that I can’t play in that league.

I like the idea of a tang sight which I hadn’t considered as an option until now, but now that I know how wrong the holes are, I’ll pursue one.  As I understand them, they use existing tang holes.

Dorsey

Avatar
NY
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 4322
Member Since:
November 1, 2013
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online
13
February 7, 2022 - 4:32 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost
sp_ReportPost

[email protected] said

I like the idea of a tang sight which I hadn’t considered as an option until now, but now that I know how wrong the holes are, I’ll pursue one.  As I understand them, they use existing tang holes.

Dorsey  

Exactly, & the Lyman & Marble’s sights that will fit are the most plentiful ones in circulation.  Hold out for one that comes with screws–they aren’t hard to find on ebay. The “correct” Lyman code for ’94s is DA, but any sight with the same hole spacing can be used, & the gun won’t care.  The equivalent Marbles code is W1, but, again, if the spacing is correct, it will serve your purpose.

Forum Timezone: UTC 0
Most Users Ever Online: 628
Currently Online: Burt Humphrey, pdog72, deerhunter, clarence
Guest(s) 81
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
1873man: 5185
clarence: 4321
TXGunNut: 3904
Chuck: 3524
steve004: 3117
twobit: 2846
Maverick: 2019
JWA: 1828
Big Larry: 1765
Forum Stats:
Groups: 1
Forums: 16
Topics: 10430
Posts: 89899

 

Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 1434
Members: 11521
Moderators: 3
Admins: 3
Navigation