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
WTB: Lyman #4 hunting sight
sp_NewTopic Add Topic
Avatar
New Member
WACA Guest
Forum Posts: 1
Member Since:
February 8, 2021
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1
February 12, 2021 - 3:15 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

I am looking for a Lyman #4 hunting sight to go on a 1907 M1892. Does anyone on the forum have one they would part with. I am keeping an eye out on EBay but thought I would ask here as well.

Thanks.

Avatar
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 4517
Member Since:
March 31, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2
February 12, 2021 - 5:56 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

The No. 4 has an application code of S for Winchester.  I’m not sure if it is marked on the bottom?  The Lyman No. 3, 20 and 28 also have ivory beads but are not the same shape.

Avatar
NY
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 6151
Member Since:
November 1, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
3
February 13, 2021 - 1:24 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Chuck said
The No. 4 has an application code of S for Winchester.  

But any 3/8″ width will work.  Just like all the different app codes Lyman gave tang sights with the same Win hole spacing–any of them can be used on any Win with the same spacing; a way, I think, for Lyman to sell more sights.

Avatar
Kingston, WA
Admin
Forum Posts: 10616
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online
4
February 13, 2021 - 3:06 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

clarence said

But any 3/8″ width will work.  Just like all the different app codes Lyman gave tang sights with the same Win hole spacing–any of them can be used on any Win with the same spacing; a way, I think, for Lyman to sell more sights.  

While “any” 3/8″ front sight will fit, or a tang sight as the same hole spacing, they most certainly will not all “work”.  The reason Lyman put an application codes on sights intended for a Winchester is that it determined what the height of the sight was/is.

WACA 6571L, Historian & Board of Director Member
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

Avatar
NY
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 6151
Member Since:
November 1, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
5
February 13, 2021 - 4:42 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Bert H. said
While “any” 3/8″ front sight will fit, or a tang sight as the same hole spacing, they most certainly will not all “work”.  The reason Lyman put an application codes on sights intended for a Winchester is that it determined what the height of the sight was/is. 

I don’t believe it. I don’t believe it makes any significant practical (as opposed to theoretical) difference.  True, if you install a Lyman tang sight coded for a M. ’90 on a SS it won’t have sufficient elevation to shoot at 500 yds, but that’s not what I consider “practical,” unless 500 yds is where you expect to be shooting. 

“Works” I define as conducive to shooting at reasonable iron sight ranges, 200 yds max.  I began shooting with any sights that would “fit” the slots & hole spacings long before I ever heard of an app code (like 50 yrs ago), or owned a Lyman catalog (though I’ve now got 20+ pre-war originals), & can’t remember any of my “mix & match” sight combinations that didn’t “work” for the shooting I was doing.

 

 

Avatar
Kingston, WA
Admin
Forum Posts: 10616
Member Since:
April 15, 2005
sp_UserOnlineSmall Online
6
February 13, 2021 - 5:48 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

clarence said

Bert H. said
While “any” 3/8″ front sight will fit, or a tang sight as the same hole spacing, they most certainly will not all “work”.  The reason Lyman put an application codes on sights intended for a Winchester is that it determined what the height of the sight was/is. 

I don’t believe it. I don’t believe it makes any significant practical (as opposed to theoretical) difference.  True, if you install a Lyman tang sight coded for a M. ’90 on a SS it won’t have sufficient elevation to shoot at 500 yds, but that’s not what I consider “practical,” unless 500 yds is where you expect to be shooting. 

“Works” I define as conducive to shooting at reasonable iron sight ranges, 200 yds max.  I began shooting with any sights that would “fit” the slots & hole spacings long before I ever heard of an app code (like 50 yrs ago), or owned a Lyman catalog (though I’ve now got 20+ pre-war originals), & can’t remember any of my “mix & match” sight combinations that didn’t “work” for the shooting I was doing.
  

This topic is concerning the application code on a front sight… and the height of a front sight is way more critical than the height adjustment on tang mounted peep sight.  I only mentioned the tang sight because you did.  The application code on a front sight identifies its height… try installing a front sight that is not tall enough… or one that is too tall, and then tell me “it works”.

WACA 6571L, Historian & Board of Director Member
High-walls-1-002-C-reduced2.jpg

Avatar
NY
Member
WACA Member
Forum Posts: 6151
Member Since:
November 1, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
7
February 13, 2021 - 1:51 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_QuotePost

Bert H. said

This topic is concerning the application code on a front sight… and the height of a front sight is way more critical than the height adjustment on tang mounted peep sight.  I only mentioned the tang sight because you did.  The application code on a front sight identifies its height… try installing a front sight that is not tall enough… or one that is too tall, and then tell me “it works”.  

Of course it’s possible to run into a front sight of such extreme dimensions either way that a problem would arise, but most are in a “middle range” of height that will “work” with some corresponding adjustment of the rear sight.  My point was, don’t get hung up on app codes, as it’s not such a critical dimension that your eyes & common sense aren’t capable of judging, without knowing the app code, whether the sight will be usable; at any rate, it’s never been a problem for me.  The app code may constitute some theoretical “ideal,” but that doesn’t mean others can’t be used with satisfactory results. 

Forum Timezone: UTC 0
Most Users Ever Online: 778
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
clarence: 6151
TXGunNut: 4867
Chuck: 4517
1873man: 4259
steve004: 4097
Big Larry: 2290
twobit: 2284
TR: 1690
mrcvs: 1656
Forum Stats:
Groups: 1
Forums: 17
Topics: 12504
Posts: 108547

 

Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 1727
Members: 8718
Moderators: 4
Admins: 3
Navigation