Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
This two leaf sight is on a 1886 I have and want to know what it is and who made them.
Lyman #6. Usually used in conjunction with a tang sight. Not a bad old rifle, either.
Thank Clarence, and yes it has a lyman tang sight and Lyman front with an ivory bead.
It’s a really super-nice sight set-up for that rifle. The rifle was originally shipped with Lyman Hunting front sight and a Flat Top Sporting rear sight (and no mention of a tang sight). However, the rifle has three repair and returns and I’m thinking during one of those, Winchester installed those sights.
steve004 said
However, the rifle has three repair and returns and I’m thinking during one of those, Winchester installed those sights.
That matted brl. never had a Sporting rear sight on it! The more times any rifle was returned for improvements, the better I like it–it demonstrates the gun was owned by a thinking rifleman, who had studied how to make the gun better, for him at least, & was willing to go to the trouble of boxing up his gun & returning it to the factory.
clarence said
steve004 said
However, the rifle has three repair and returns and I’m thinking during one of those, Winchester installed those sights.
That matted brl. never had a Sporting rear sight on it! The more times any rifle was returned for improvements, the better I like it–it demonstrates the gun was owned by a thinking rifleman, who had studied how to make the gun better, for him at least, & was willing to go to the trouble of boxing up his gun & returning it to the factory.
The rifle may have been shipped with a Sporting rear sight and then, in one of the returns, the barrel was matted and a different sight installed (i.e. the one on there now). But wait, it can’t have gone that way as the matted barrel is mentioned as part of the original shipment! There is some intrigue here. I suppose one option is that shortly after the owner received the rifle, he changed rear sights and added the tang sight. Clarence, by itself, I find this rifle very interesting. I am equally interested in who originally ordered it (and sent it back three times). Surely, the original owner was, as you suggest, a thinking rifleman. I will confess I feel some pain that I do not own this rifle.
Steve, I don’t believe the matte was added after the fact as the Barrel address is stamped on the left diagonal flat. Maybe a sight change? the tang sight is definably a later addition as the color is slightly off. Thinking the flat top sporting was removed on one of its trips as I have a very nice 45-70 elw, and it is actually a pain in the butt using the tang sight in conjunction with the flat top sporting.
oldcrankyyankee said
Steve, I don’t believe the matte was added after the fact as the Barrel address is stamped on the left diagonal flat. Maybe a sight change? the tang sight is definably a later addition as the color is slightly off. Thinking the flat top sporting was removed on one of its trips as I have a very nice 45-70 elw, and it is actually a pain in the butt using the tang sight in conjunction with the flat top sporting.
Right on the barrel matting. The Cody letter specifies it originally was shipped with the barrel matted.
I am with you on the hassle of using a tang sight with various rear sight. I really prefer a sight blank of a folding sight like the one on yours. However, I am often hesitant to remove a rear sight that has sat in the sight slot since the day the rifle was born. I just hate to mess with it. I like the looks of a sight where you can tell it’s never been off the rifle.
oldcrankyyankee said
Thinking the flat top sporting was removed on one of its trips as I have a very nice 45-70 elw, and it is actually a pain in the butt using the tang sight in conjunction with the flat top sporting.
Of course it is–that’s why Lyman catalogs of the time made a big issue of telling their customers to remove the brl. sight when installing one of their tang sights. Even without that warning, common sense should make it obvious that any object in the line of sight between the peep & the front sight is a distraction which compromises the fundamental principle of all aperture sights, which is that the shooter should see ONLY the front sight superimposed on the target.
Steve’s point of feeling uneasy about removing an original sight is a valid one, but that has nothing to do with the basic optical principle I’m talking about. But if you’re uneasy about disturbing an original sight, maybe you shouldn’t even be shooting the gun, except maybe at a range under controlled conditions.
Hate to continue this but, did Lyman make different versions of the #6 sight? have seen some that have different blades than the one pictured here and were called a 6.
oldcrankyyankee said
Hate to continue this but, did Lyman make different versions of the #6 sight? have seen some that have different blades than the one pictured here and were called a 6.
One variant had a single leaf (called 6 SL), & another specially made for Model 54s had aiming notches in both leaves, rather than the straight bar. Like other products manufactured over many yrs, there can be minor variations in shape of leaves.
Crankie, here are pictures of what I believe is a Lyman #6 on an 1885 winchester lettered July 1904. The letter made no reference to sights. Don
86Win said
Crankie, here are pictures of what I believe is a Lyman #6 on an 1885 winchester lettered July 1904. The letter made no reference to sights. Don
A #6 all right, but the “flat” notch, without any “V” shape to it, is a variation I can’t remember seeing before. Cond. of sight sure makes it appear it’s been there since the gun was built. Does it also have an original-looking tang sight, which was usually paired with a #6?
Poor quality pictures but if you are referring to the flat topped leaf, it has a red triangle for sighting. Maybe you couldn’t see it. It does not have a tang sight but is D&T for a tang sight which Bert says could not be factory. Did the original owner order a folding leaf sight with the intention of drilling & tapping for a tang sight?
86Win said
Poor quality pictures but if you are referring to the flat topped leaf, it has a red triangle for sighting. Maybe you couldn’t see it. It does not have a tang sight but is D&T for a tang sight which Bert says could not be factory. Did the original owner order a folding leaf sight with the intention of drilling & tapping for a tang sight?
What’s unusual about this #6 is that BOTH leaves are flat topped. Every other one I’ve seen (except the special one for 54s) has one flat-topped leaf with the triangle, & the other is higher with a “V” shape. If the triangle on yours is red, it’s been painted, as originals should be white.
Here’s what the standard #6 looks like: https://www.ebay.com/itm/363833987516?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0&ssspo=9-OrlwM7Sy2&sssrc=2349624&ssuid=_gy-KQtESUa&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY
That’s crazy if the tang sight hole spacing isn’t the standard Winchester measurement (2-3/16″), which every SS built in 1904 should have had. What was Bert’s explanation of how this could occur? Special order? Sure breaks all the rules!
86Win said
The spacing is 1-7/16″ which fits my code F Stevens tang sight. Don
Amazing that anyone would take the trouble to special order a SS with that spacing, if that’s what happened. To save the cost of a new sight ($2) because they already owned that sight? That’s tight.
F is the Lyman code for the Stevens Favorite, which had a shorter staff than others made to fit Stevens.
Don’t forget, the single blade #6, is to be found on near all M57 Target rifles. Both of mine have one in addition to the Lyman 42-W receiver sight. Big Larry
So the original pictures I showed were of a two leaf sight, both leaves were same height with the edges checkered. front leaf. ie, closest to muzzle has a V notch. second leaf, ie, closest to breech has a U notch.
oldcrankyyankee said
So the original pictures I showed were of a two leaf sight, both leaves were same height with the edges checkered. front leaf. ie, closest to muzzle has a V notch. second leaf, ie, closest to breech has a U notch.
That’s like the one in 86Win’s photos. I wonder if both could be very early versions of this sight before the common one with the white triangle was designed, but that one was already standardized by 1902, because it’s shown in my 1902 catalog, white triangle & all. Very confusing! Maybe Lyman was making variations that never made it into a catalog?
1 Guest(s)
