Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
The Lyman 21 was definitely not a standard sight for the Winchester Model 53. I suppose, however, that it could have been ordered from the factory this way. When you look at how it is mounted, do you think this is a factory job, or an after market job?
After market job.
Bob
WACA Life Member--- NRA Life Member---- Cody Firearms member since 1991 Researching the Winchester 1873's
Email: [email protected]
1873man said
After market job.Bob
Bob,
What are the tell-tale signs of an after market job? I see these sights on the 1892’s, 1894’s, and 1895’s from time to time, but can never tell if they are aftermarket or not unless it can be verified on a Cody letter. Of course you want to make sure the sight code matches the model/caliber of the rifle, look at the finish/lack of wear under the sight, etc. I’ve also noticed that the factory installed 21’s usually have the two elevation dots. Beyond that, I haven’t got a clue.
Don
At first glance the sight looks fairly “legit.” But if you look closely there is a good amount of wear to the bluing on the left side of the receiver under where the sight should have protected it. If the sight were on the gun from day one the sight should have more wear than the receiver and there should be a “shadow” of higher condition protected bluing under the sight. Or the owner shot EVERYTHING at 800 yards requiring the sight to always be elevated!!!
Michael
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
twobit said
Or the owner shot EVERYTHING at 800 yards requiring the sight to always be elevated!!!
Maybe Elmer Keith was the original owner.
The two big things that caught my eye was what Michael said about the finish in the slot, there is no shadow of nice finish under the sight and the other is the slot had been filed out giving it a square corner at the bottom front of the slot. This happened when bubba drilled the holes in the wrong place and had to do some bubba gunsmithing to make it work. The platinum dot inlays I always thought they were a sign of factory sighting but I’m not 100% sure about it. The factory could put the sight on and not sight it in.
Bob
WACA Life Member--- NRA Life Member---- Cody Firearms member since 1991 Researching the Winchester 1873's
Email: [email protected]
1873man said
The two big things that caught my eye was what Michael said about the finish in the slot, there is no shadow of nice finish under the sight and the other is the slot had been filed out giving it a square corner at the bottom front of the slot. This happened when bubba drilled the holes in the wrong place and had to do some bubba gunsmithing to make it work. The platinum dot inlays I always thought they were a sign of factory sighting but I’m not 100% sure about it. The factory could put the sight on and not sight it in.Bob
Thanks Bob and Michael. I did notice the lack of finish under the sight. Good eye on the filed out corner, I didn’t notice that.
Don
Here is an example thats a bit of a conundrum. Did the receiver sight come first then the tap for the scope mount, and if the receiver sight came first, then why is it coded DA and not DB for this M53? For its $25 purchase price back in the 60’s it probably didnt make a difference.
1892takedown @sbcglobal.net ......NRA Endowment Life Member.....WACA Member
"God is great.....beer is good.....and people are crazy"... Billy Currington
1892takedown said
Here is an example thats a bit of a conundrum. Did the receiver sight come first then the tap for the scope mount, and if the receiver sight came first, then why is it coded DA and not DB for this M53? For its $25 purchase price back in the 60’s it probably didnt make a difference.
That is interesting. My guess is the 21 was on there originally and the scope was added, then removed, and the 21 put back on. And do remember that $25 in the 60’s was a chunk of change. A little bag of chips was a nickel and I just spent $2.40 for a little bag of pretzels in my building’s lunch room last week!!!
Michael
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
1 Guest(s)
