Avatar
Search
Forum Scope




Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
Lost password?
sp_Feed sp_PrintTopic sp_TopicIcon
What are the differences between the Lyman 48T and 48F receiver sights for the Model 52?
sp_NewTopic Add Topic
Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 43
Member Since:
January 29, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1
March 2, 2023 - 6:00 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

As I understand it, from previous conversations, the 48F replaced the 48T for the Winchester model 52. From looking at the two sights it appears the 48F sight base is contoured so no stock wood needs to be removed to install the sight. While the 48T needs to have a notch cut in the stock to install it. Is this true throughout 48F production? Are there any other differences? I know there were some design changes for most of the Lyman 48 series receiver sights in the late 30’s. Such as the windage and elevation knobs.

Thanks, Tom

I know this is related to my earlier question, but I felt it was different enough to start a new topic thread.

Avatar
NY
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 6681
Member Since:
November 1, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2
March 2, 2023 - 7:22 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

tom in michigan said
As I understand it, from previous conversations, the 48F replaced the 48T for the Winchester model 52. From looking at the two sights it appears the 48F sight base is contoured so no stock wood needs to be removed to install the sight.

  

Think it might have been the 48J that first eliminated need to mutilate stock.  48F very short lived–not in 1930 cat. nor in 1933, where the J is described as “new.”  I have nothing in between those yrs.

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 471
Member Since:
March 12, 2008
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
3
March 3, 2023 - 3:15 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Tom, there is no discernible difference between the LH mount 48T and the 48F. I got curious this morning and removed some of mine for measurements. They are all within a few thousandths of each other. 

Winchester didn’t start using the contoured base of the 48F sights until well into B production. I know the date quoted for the change on the 48WJS & 48WH used on the model 70’s is 1947. 

Clarence, I believe you intended to say the 48T was very short lived. The 48F had a long life and was used clear up until the end of Sporter production in 1959.

Steve

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 43
Member Since:
January 29, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
4
March 3, 2023 - 5:36 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

seewin said
Tom, there is no discernible difference between the LH mount 48T and the 48F. I got curious this morning and removed some of mine for measurements. They are all within a few thousandths of each other. 

Winchester didn’t start using the contoured base of the 48F sights until well into B production. I know the date quoted for the change on the 48WJS & 48WH used on the model 70’s is 1947. 

Clarence, I believe you intended to say the 48T was very short lived. The 48F had a long life and was used clear up until the end of Sporter production in 1959.

Steve

  

Steve,

I just looked at my copy of the large, four page, model 52 fold out brochure, pictured in Houze’s book. By the text and images, it appears to have been issued in 1937 to introduce the new B series model 52, and the heavy barrel as a regular production item. It has images of all the sights available as regular production items on the model 52. It also discusses returning your rifle to Winchester to have the heavy barrel installed. The text implies that Winchester is the best place to have your rifle upgraded. Kind of a shot at Johnson and some of the other barrel makers from the period.

The 48F sight pictured, has the contour cut to fit around wood, the blue slotted screw in the top of the elevation screw, and the larger windage screw. This would indicate these modifications were implemented as early as 1937.

From our earlier discussions, it appears the change from the T designation to F occurred sometime in the middle 1930’s. Then by 1937 the 48F had been upgraded with the above mentioned modifications. It is interesting to note that my 1936 Lyman catalog #23 only shows pricing for the 48T and 48J  in the price list.The price list is dated 1936. There is no mention of the 48F in either the catalog or the price list. The only image and description in this catalog is for 48J.

As the sights appear to be the same, it seems the change from T to F was something internal within Lyman that will probably never be explained.

Tom

Avatar
NY
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 6681
Member Since:
November 1, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
5
March 3, 2023 - 6:39 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory sp_QuotePost

tom in michigan said
It is interesting to note that my 1936 Lyman catalog #23 only shows pricing for the 48T and 48J  in the price list.

  

Same in ’33 ed.  Actually, only “the new” J is illustrated, but the fine print of the sight chart lists both T & J.

A customer ordering a T would not know from the catalog description that a chop-job on his stock was necessary to mount it, which I’d regard as a pretty unwelcome surprise.

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 2385
Member Since:
December 31, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
6
March 3, 2023 - 7:09 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Pic of a Lyman 48-T on a round top receiver.  Big Larry

 

thumbnail-4.jpgImage EnlargerTop-of-NS-M52-2.JPGImage EnlargerTop-of-M52-NS-2.JPGImage Enlarger

sp_PlupAttachments Attachments
Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 471
Member Since:
March 12, 2008
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
7
March 4, 2023 - 4:32 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

tom in michigan said

seewin said

Tom, there is no discernible difference between the LH mount 48T and the 48F. I got curious this morning and removed some of mine for measurements. They are all within a few thousandths of each other. 

Winchester didn’t start using the contoured base of the 48F sights until well into B production. I know the date quoted for the change on the 48WJS & 48WH used on the model 70’s is 1947. 

Clarence, I believe you intended to say the 48T was very short lived. The 48F had a long life and was used clear up until the end of Sporter production in 1959.

Steve

  

Steve,

I just looked at my copy of the large, four page, model 52 fold out brochure, pictured in Houze’s book. By the text and images, it appears to have been issued in 1937 to introduce the new B series model 52, and the heavy barrel as a regular production item. It has images of all the sights available as regular production items available on the model 52. It also discusses returning your rifle to Winchester to have the heavy barrel installed. The text implies that Winchester is the best place to have your rifle upgraded. Kind of a shot at Johnson and some of the other barrel makers from the period.

The 48F sight pictured, has the contour cut to fit around wood, the blue slotted screw in the top of the elevation screw, and the larger windage screw. This would indicate these modifications were implemented as early as 1937.

From our earlier discussions, it appears the change from the T designation to F occurred sometime in the middle 1930’s. Then by 1937 the 48F had been upgraded with the above mentioned modifications. It is interesting to note that my 1936 Lyman catalog #23 only shows pricing for the 48T and 48J  in the price list.The price list is dated 1936. There is no mention of the 48F in either the catalog or the price list. The only image and description in this catalog is for 48J.

As the sights appear to be the same, it seems the change from T to F was something internal within Lyman that will probably never be explained.

Tom

  

Tom, you are correct. I looked at some of my very early B target rifles with 48F and FH sights. They are all relieved on the base for stock clearance. I know my A sporter is a full block early style 48F. So the transition must have been made just about the time the B was introduced. The one early B Sporter I have use the scarcer and cheaper 57 receiver sight. It does have the relieved base. 

I took a look at my 1936 and 37 Lyman catalog. Neither one mentioned a 48F or T. However the price sheets included with the catalogs list the 48F, but no 48T. I think you are probably correct about Lyman just arbitrarily changing the designation from T to F. I wonder if it was done to prevent confusion between the RH mounted 48T and LH mounted 48T? 

By the way, not sure if you are aware or not, but Eric Johnson worked for Winchester prior to him going out on his own and he maintained a very close relationship with them throughout his career. If you look through his records, he installed many of his barrels on 52’s for Winchester. These were used for comparative accuracy testing in the Ballistics Lab. I have a 52C, 103996C that was 1 of 2 he did at the same time for Winchester in 1961. Another I have that he did in 1961 also, was done for Tiny Helwig who was the National Sales Mgr for Winchester. This was done on one of the 52C single shot Olympic actions of which only 10 were made. 

Steve

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 43
Member Since:
January 29, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
8
March 5, 2023 - 5:19 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

seewin said

tom in michigan said

seewin said

Tom, there is no discernible difference between the LH mount 48T and the 48F. I got curious this morning and removed some of mine for measurements. They are all within a few thousandths of each other. 

Winchester didn’t start using the contoured base of the 48F sights until well into B production. I know the date quoted for the change on the 48WJS & 48WH used on the model 70’s is 1947. 

Clarence, I believe you intended to say the 48T was very short lived. The 48F had a long life and was used clear up until the end of Sporter production in 1959.

Steve

  

Steve,

I just looked at my copy of the large, four page, model 52 fold out brochure, pictured in Houze’s book. By the text and images, it appears to have been issued in 1937 to introduce the new B series model 52, and the heavy barrel as a regular production item. It has images of all the sights available as regular production items available on the model 52. It also discusses returning your rifle to Winchester to have the heavy barrel installed. The text implies that Winchester is the best place to have your rifle upgraded. Kind of a shot at Johnson and some of the other barrel makers from the period.

The 48F sight pictured, has the contour cut to fit around wood, the blue slotted screw in the top of the elevation screw, and the larger windage screw. This would indicate these modifications were implemented as early as 1937.

From our earlier discussions, it appears the change from the T designation to F occurred sometime in the middle 1930’s. Then by 1937 the 48F had been upgraded with the above mentioned modifications. It is interesting to note that my 1936 Lyman catalog #23 only shows pricing for the 48T and 48J  in the price list.The price list is dated 1936. There is no mention of the 48F in either the catalog or the price list. The only image and description in this catalog is for 48J.

As the sights appear to be the same, it seems the change from T to F was something internal within Lyman that will probably never be explained.

Tom

  

Tom, you are correct. I looked at some of my very early B target rifles with 48F and FH sights. They are all relieved on the base for stock clearance. I know my A sporter is a full block early style 48F. So the transition must have been made just about the time the B was introduced. The one early B Sporter I have use the scarcer and cheaper 57 receiver sight. It does have the relieved base. 

I took a look at my 1936 and 37 Lyman catalog. Neither one mentioned a 48F or T. However the price sheets included with the catalogs list the 48F, but no 48T. I think you are probably correct about Lyman just arbitrarily changing the designation from T to F. I wonder if it was done to prevent confusion between the RH mounted 48T and LH mounted 48T? 

By the way, not sure if you are aware or not, but Eric Johnson worked for Winchester prior to him going out on his own and he maintained a very close relationship with them throughout his career. If you look through his records, he installed many of his barrels on 52’s for Winchester. These were used for comparative accuracy testing in the Ballistics Lab. I have a 52C, 103996C that was 1 of 2 he did at the same time for Winchester in 1961. Another I have that he did in 1961 also, was done for Tiny Helwig who was the National Sales Mgr for Winchester. This was done on one of the 52C single shot Olympic actions of which only 10 were made. 

Steve

  

Steve,

It’s interesting that the price sheet in my 1936 Lyman catalog lists the 48T but not the 48F. The price sheet is dated 1936. It is a separate sheet glued to the first page in the catalog. With the information you have and my catalog it appears Lyman went from the 48T to 48F sometime in 1936.

My reference to Johnson was used simply because his name was the first that came to mind as an outside barrel maker for the model 52’s. Somewhere in the back of my mind  I remember reading that he did work for Winchester as well. I wasn’t aware he collaborated with Winchester that late. I could have said Hubalek or Niedner etc.

Tom

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 471
Member Since:
March 12, 2008
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
9
March 5, 2023 - 5:48 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

EJ had the name recognition in the sport, but for the most part they all made pretty good barrels. There were a whole host of guys doing championship quality barrels, besides Hubalek, Niedner, there was Titherington, A&M, Womack, even Pope and Peterson got in on the 52’s early in the game. There are more I cannot think of and probably many I have never heard of. It is a very interesting subject for me.

Steve

Avatar
NY
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 6681
Member Since:
November 1, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
10
March 5, 2023 - 6:02 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

tom in michigan said I could have said Hubalek. 

In which case, you’d have named the Prince of .22 brl. makers.  Don’t know if Niedner rebarreled 52s, but Hubalek certainly did.  And if the customer needed a scope to go with it, he’d make that, too.

Given the variables inherent in position shooting, I wonder how much advantage average shooters (i.e., not Tack Hole Lees) of these premium brls actually gained, except psychological; but that’s not unimportant. 

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 471
Member Since:
March 12, 2008
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
11
March 5, 2023 - 6:11 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Clarence, I have always questioned how much better the custom barrels were over the factory pieces. It has always been my opinion that the custom barrels were probably more consistently good, as opposed to a production barrel. The custom guys could afford to take the time, keep the reamers sharp and and lap them appropriately. That’s nothing against the Remington 37 and Winchester 52 barrels, for production barrels, they were very good. A former ballistics employee at Winchester told me that when they tested the EJ barrels against the factory barrels, it was a toss up for the most part. He also said that each had an ammo preference and when you got them matched up, there was no discernible difference. These were shot off the Winchester “Oscar” machine rest, so I doubt seriously the average position shooter of the day had much of an advantage except in his mind, which is often times very important as well. It’s no different today in competition, there’s always a “favorite barrel of the month”.

Steve

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 43
Member Since:
January 29, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
12
March 7, 2023 - 4:52 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

clarence said

tom in michigan said I could have said Hubalek. 

In which case, you’d have named the Prince of .22 brl. makers.  Don’t know if Niedner rebarreled 52s, but Hubalek certainly did.  And if the customer needed a scope to go with it, he’d make that, too.

Given the variables inherent in position shooting, I wonder how much advantage average shooters (i.e., not Tack Hole Lees) of these premium brls actually gained, except psychological; but that’s not unimportant. 

  

I have seen a couple of 52’s re-barreled by Niedner. I was bidding on one while back but it went for more than I thought it was worth.

Tom

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 471
Member Since:
March 12, 2008
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
13
March 9, 2023 - 6:08 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

I was digging through my file of Winchester Product Change Notices this morning looking for different information, but came upon a PCN dated 3/12/1934. It states ” The Special -#48T Sight  mentioned in the above paragraph has now been assigned the following number and description. Lyman #48F Receiver Sight.”

It goes on to state the advertising department will make necessary changes to catalog sheets and advertising matter. 

It was signed by G.R. Watrous.

The Sporting Introduction PCN was dated 2/5/1934, so the 48T change to 48F was made the following month after introduction. No doubt Winchester used up their existing stock of 48T’s before the actual 48F’s were used in production, so it is anyone’s guess when the production change actually occurred on the plant floor. This should put to bed the change date and the fact that the LH mount 48T is the same as the early 48F except for identification stamp.

Steve

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 43
Member Since:
January 29, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
14
March 10, 2023 - 5:33 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Steve,

Looks like you found the answer. Being a large buyer, Winchester probably received all of the early 48F production. The lag between the time Winchester issued the PCN in 1934, and  Lyman making the official change in their pricing and catalog in 1936, was probably to make sure they had sold off their inventory of the earlier 48T sights. Even though there was no practical difference between the LH 48T and the early 48F, other than the model designation. People always want the latest and greatest.

Tom

Avatar
NY
Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 6681
Member Since:
November 1, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
15
March 10, 2023 - 9:49 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

tom in michigan said People always want the latest and greatest.
 

Not necessarily–the 82A (my favorite, too) was good enough for the winner of the 1933 Dewar match.  I’ve been looking at Rifleman photos & ads to see how 52 advertising might have changed.  All 52 ads in ’33 show guns with 82As.  But the August, 1934, issue shows a 52 with a left-side mounted rcvr sight; ad states “Lyman sights.”

Most match photos were too indistinct to identify rear sights.  But I was surprised by how many scopes were in use–about as many as irons judging by these photos, & almost all Feckers, as the alum mounts revealed. 

Forum Timezone: UTC 0
Most Users Ever Online: 778
Currently Online: Aussie Chris, TR
Guest(s) 86
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
clarence: 6681
TXGunNut: 5290
Chuck: 4743
steve004: 4419
1873man: 4377
Big Larry: 2385
twobit: 2327
mrcvs: 1806
TR: 1745
Forum Stats:
Groups: 1
Forums: 17
Topics: 13054
Posts: 114349

 

Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 1820
Members: 9017
Moderators: 4
Admins: 3
Navigation