450 Fuller said
That Porter sight looks first rate. The Ross rifle was ahead of its time and quite popular in Canada, England and used in Africa.
The military version was used  selectively by some in WWI. Assembly and disassembly of the Ross rifle has to be done carefully; the design does not suffer fools gladly. Improperly assembled, a Ross rifle was indeed somewhat  hazardous to the user.
   

Sir Charles Ross and his rifle had similar personalities. Neither suffered fools gladly, as you say.

If you mis-assembled the bolt, you could fire the rifle with the bolt unlocked, scoring an "own goal" as the bolt came back through your head. 

The last words uttered by Sir Charles were to an attendant, immediately after which he rolled over in his bed and died:  "Get the hell out of here."

My kind of Scot. 

The military version was used  selectively by some in WWI. Assembly and disassembly of the Ross rifle has to be done carefully; the design does not suffer fools gladly. Improperly assembled, a Ross rifle was indeed somewhat  hazardous to the user.

The, "peep" is spring-loaded and by depressing a button located forward of the sight, the peep, "pops up."  Pushing the peep back down locks it back in place. The rifle pictures below is also equipped with a a fixed blade rear sight.  As it does not fold flat, it sits in the way of the Porter.  It is a single blade fixed sight and the Ross literature of the time advised that the M-10 in .280 Ross (given the cartridges impressive ballistics) was designed for that sight to be used from 0 to 500 yards.

View post on imgur.com

View post on imgur.com

View post on imgur.com

View post on imgur.com

On the topic of the, "Marlin Combinations Receiver Sight" (i.e. the L.L. Hepburn sight), I was interested in Brophy's comment in his Marlins Firearms book:

"When testing this sight, I found the peep and vertical adjustments quick and easy to use, but the open sight notch was found to be too close to the eye for accurate use, and was worthless."  

My experience with shooting rifles with this sight basically matches Brophy's experience.  It is easy to flip the leaf from peep to the large U - but as the large U is in fact essentially worthless - why would you?

View post on imgur.com

View post on imgur.com

View post on imgur.com

I know you wrote about Lilly extensively but thought Id mention it on the offchance the story slipped by. 

The only "black rifle" I own is a pre-63 Winchester Model 70 in 270 WCF with a black Mc Millan stock. It also came with a 22 in Shilen barrel and is now my dedicated mountain rifle for sheep, antelope in bad weather, or mountain grizzlies.

I am fond of early Model 70s, though the 1886 and pre-war Model 71s occupy much secure space in my arms room. I like Model 70s from 270 WCF through 338-06, 35 Whelen as customs up to 338 WM to 375 H&H.

Make preparations in advance. T. Roosevelt was right all along, and carried 1886 rifles like Ben Lilly, but in a different caliber. He probably also paid a tad more for his half-magazine special order 86 than Lilly did for his full magazine rifle in 33 WCF. But Lilly killed bears in the US and Mexico with his 33 WCF 1886, so it must have been effective. I trim 210 Nosler Partition bullets for mine. They work on deer and bear.

Keep your nose into the wind, and eyes along the skyline.

Ridge

Bottom line, my Model 73 Sporting Rifle 44 WCF and a carbine 357/38 are mechanically, cosmetically, and functionally identical to the original 3rd model 1873. And will shoot cast lead all day without a build-up. 

While we of the Southland aren't troubled by over-intrusive State government, if anyone else should need a non-evil-appearing Urban Assault Rifle that can do business as required, my Model 73 will shuck and shoot twelve high velocity +P 38 Special 150 grain semi-wadcutters from its 20" barrel at well over 1200 fs mv. Additional rounds can be fed into the gate without interfering with readiness. Post-engagement photo ops will not offend an average Grand Jury. 

Bill

The safety is manageable but not as handy as the gunsmith-installed tang safeties that were available for these hammerless guns. 

A handloaded 300 Savage 180 grain Nosler Partition , well-placed, is good for anything up to a Brontosaurus, and a big one at that.

Bill

I have owned steel Redfield and Lyman sights. and prefer them to an eye-gouging tang sight with lever rifles. I used to ride and own horses when younger, but age and common sense have crept in on little cat's feet. In the 1980s, have even crossed the US-Mexican line near Naco, AZ. on a Morgan with a 44 revolver.A few violations, but my friends in the Border Patrol just lost a bet. Like Charlie Askins, a varied Govt career wins both friends and enemies. These years, such red-blooded adventures along the border are not only unhealthy, it is virtually impossible without a welding torch in your saddle bags.

As to lever-action rifles, sights are pretty much the owner's options. Where I do step off the train, however, is with  the newer alteration of J. Browning, J. Marlin, and Oliver Winchester' s original trigger and hammer design and patents.. ANY new safety is both dangerous to the owner and is also an indication that corporate counsel has overstepped its bounds.

I would like to see a few civil punitive actions brought against these modifications, due to some Alaskan or Canadian hunter being mauled and disabled by a bear that could not be stopped due to a malfunctioning or maladjusted safety/hammer/trigger. Of my collection of Winchester and Marlin rifles, none are newer or new enough to be so equipped with such infernal diabolical offending appendages. I find no room for compromise on this issue, as I pretty  much have wisely invested in and hunt with-the originals. Charles Askins Jr. and Senior would probably be in my camp on lever - action rifle design abuses. Seems that the Savage 99 has dodged these pitfalls, though my 1950s 250-3000 is old enough to know better.

RM

My objection to tang sights - even those that have azimuth adjustment - is the lack of micrometer adjustments and visible scales. 

I spent the morning with Mike and Jeremy sighting in various rifles and listening to the two of them hammering and sawing - Mike spotting and Jeremy shooting -- to get a barrel sighted rifle to shoot where it looked instead of way over toward Fort Mudge.  Give me (preferably) a Redfield 80 with slide release for big changes instead of counting 57 clicks. But at least something that clicks and has a scale I can see for future reference. 

I'm not going to tap your Lightweight 86 receiver but my rice-powered 86 45-90 came that way and enjoys the Redfield 80 Erin G. sold me.  Inauthentic? Only if you believe 1886 Winchesters became useless in 1935. The Redfield sight catalog lists the 86 for its new-for-1935 Model 70.receiver sight. 

It slides into a scabbard, if those owning a 1500 pound widow maker are interested. 

Hotty Toddy.

Zebulon said
Not all of Ruger's products were focused on accuracy - at least the level of accuracy currently in vogue. 
The Mini-14 was designed and produced with military and law enforcement contracts in mind and for that purpose MOA accuracy is not required, as witness the Kalashnikov line. The Mini underwent a redesign and the subsequent 5.56 mm versions are more accurate than the early ones but they are not target rifles. In that respect they are not at all like the military M14 and its civilian counterpart, the M1A..A National Match MiA can shoot sub minute groups all day long..
I have no experience with the Ruger 44 carbine and all I know about it is it wasnt a successful product. The rimfire Ruger auto is another matter, although it takes an aftermarket barrel to win..
The company keeps accuracy data on the Ruger 77 and the No. 1.  The 77 is more accurate. Alot of accuracy problems with both rifles occurred when Ruger was buying barrels to make those rifles. .Now they make their own.
  

I had an early Mini-14 and understood why the characters of the very entertaining A-Team TV show seemed unable to hit anything smaller than a pickup truck. I briefly entertained the idea of buying a Ranch Rifle or later the Mini-30 but the early spray & pray Mini-14 soured me on that idea. OTOH I had a Ruger MK I Target .22 pistol that thought Winchester Wildcat was target ammo and together we terrorized the folks who thought informal plate matches were an equipment game.  Col. Townsend Whelen said it best.

Mike

My utilitarian opinion has always favored the Winchester 98a sight along with the Lyman 21/38 excellent unique version. The tang sights, though I have them, are not satisfactory for lever rifles IMO due to the almost unique hunting and horseback adventures  that are encountered. The best tang sight I have found  to date  is the short  unobtrusive  folding Lyman that  sits on a 1954 EG Savage 99 of mine in 250-3000.

I have an Axtell Mid-range on a Sharps, and a Winchester mid-range sitting affixed to an 1885 HW SS in 45-60. The rear tang sight seems almost natural on a single shot rifle. Especially with a fold-down Winchester or Marble fold-down 95 sporting rear sight. The Marlin 1897 rifles in 22lr are a joy to carry and shoot. An engraved, factory carved stock- special order  version I owned found its way to a Texas dairy ranch owner decades ago.

Sights are like rifles, very personal when it comes to choice, use- and purchase.

Ridge Marriott 

Zebulon said
Not all of Ruger's products were focused on accuracy - at least the level of accuracy currently in vogue. 
The Mini-14 was designed and produced with military and law enforcement contracts in mind and for that purpose MOA accuracy is not required, as witness the Kalashnikov line. The Mini underwent a redesign and the subsequent 5.56 mm versions are more accurate than the early ones but they are not target rifles. In that respect they are not at all like the military M14 and its civilian counterpart, the M1A..A National Match MiA can shoot sub minute groups all day long..
I have no experience with the Ruger 44 carbine and all I know about it is it wasnt a successful product. The rimfire Ruger auto is another matter, although it takes an aftermarket barrel to win..
The company keeps accuracy data on the Ruger 77 and the No. 1.  The 77 is more accurate. Alot of accuracy problems with both rifles occurred when Ruger was buying barrels to make those rifles. .Now they make their own.
  

Bill - thanks for the information. You know much more about Rugers than I do.

I didn't have MOA accuracy in mind.  Rather, MOPP (minute of pie plate).  If a modern rifle can't do that, I'm going to be disappointed.

The Mini-14 was designed and produced with military and law enforcement contracts in mind and for that purpose MOA accuracy is not required, as witness the Kalashnikov line. The Mini underwent a redesign and the subsequent 5.56 mm versions are more accurate than the early ones but they are not target rifles. In that respect they are not at all like the military M14 and its civilian counterpart, the M1A..A National Match MiA can shoot sub minute groups all day long..

I have no experience with the Ruger 44 carbine and all I know about it is it wasnt a successful product. The rimfire Ruger auto is another matter, although it takes an aftermarket barrel to win..

The company keeps accuracy data on the Ruger 77 and the No. 1.  The 77 is more accurate. Alot of accuracy problems with both rifles occurred when Ruger was buying barrels to make those rifles. .Now they make their own.

Bill mentioned the outstanding accuracy of his Ruger .250 Savage.  I wonder how Bill Ruger was able to tolerate sending out rifles as inaccurate as his .44 autoloader?  On that note, I recall the earlier Ruger mini-14's were generally very inaccurate as well. I would have welcomed an opportunity to visit with Bill Ruger about this topic.