Winchester 1892 sights

Welcome to the Leverguns.Com Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here ... politely.

Moderators: AmBraCol, Hobie

Forum rules
Welcome to the Leverguns.Com General Discussions Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here other than politics... politely.

Please post political post in the new Politics forum.
Post Reply
Tanqueray
Levergunner 1.0
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2017 10:37 pm

Winchester 1892 sights

Post by Tanqueray »

I’ve been thinking about this on and off for a while, but can’t make sense of it - why do the 1892 carbines have an incremented ladder sight, which would lend itself to shooting at longer ranges, while the rifles have a buckhorn style rear sight? I know buckhorn sights supposedly have three different points of aim, however the long range point of aim (between the “horns”) will never be as accurate due to the wide space between the horns.

It would make sense to me that the carbine should have the buckhorn, and the rifle the ladder? Is this by design, or an accidental mix up that was never rectified?
More meplat, more better.
User avatar
AJMD429
Posting leader...
Posts: 31933
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:03 am
Location: Hoosierland
Contact:

Re: Winchester 1892 sights

Post by AJMD429 »

I've always wondered why the carvings and rifles had different friends as well; almost seems backwards.

I have found that if I just focus on the front sight, the rear 'horns' sort of fade from focus and can work like a 'ghost ring' to some degree, although I much prefer the Marbles Bullseye for that sort of thing.

Anyway - don't know if that's what the oldtimers did or not.
Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws
"first do no harm" - gun control LAWS lead to far more deaths than 'easy access' ever could.


Want REAL change? . . . . . "Boortz/Nugent in 2012 . . . ! "
Pete44ru
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 11242
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 7:26 am

Re: Winchester 1892 sights

Post by Pete44ru »

.

I believe the reason behind the sight differences can be found in history.

Once upon a time, lever action carbines with short barrels were thought to be best for battle and/or rough hunting/trekking, where occasionally a shot may be presented at a long(er) range - where the ladder sight shines, in terms of ruggedness & flexibility of range.

OTOH, lever action rifles were destined for "sporting" use, and had (generally) finer design lines (witness longer barrels, crescent buttplates, PG stocks, checkering, different bbl configs, etc) - part of which included finer sights.

That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it ! . :roll:


.
Last edited by Pete44ru on Sun Mar 25, 2018 4:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
HawkCreek
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 311
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2016 6:21 pm

Re: Winchester 1892 sights

Post by HawkCreek »

I agree with Pete though I have no concrete evidence to support this. I think it also dates back to the Turks adopting the '66 for their cavalry. Those real ladders were calibrated in mils! For the en mass tactics of the day it made sense for volley fire.
Stevie
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 134
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2017 2:47 pm

Re: Winchester 1892 sights

Post by Stevie »

Yeh...I imagine Winchester must've considered the carbines as service/utility arms and were rear-end deep in ladder sights. My Browning saddle-ring carbine(1886 replica) has the ladder sight that's calibrated to '2000'....but 2000 whats?...I decided the rear sight calibrations were more for a load reference use where you keep a ballistic notebook.

Near as I can tell Winchester used the same sight on most of it's carbines and military muskets from 1873 models through the 1894 models.

My 1892 sporting rifle has a standard Winchester wedge adjustable rear sight with the brass/silver topped blade which appears to be the normal sporting style sights. On occasion you will see a Winchester carbine with a three leaf rear sight. I looked at a really beat M1894 .32-40 with what appeared to be an original three leaf sight not too long back.
User avatar
Malamute
Member Emeritus
Posts: 3766
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:56 am
Location: Rocky Mts

Re: Winchester 1892 sights

Post by Malamute »

The so-called ladder sights on Winchester carbines were a military type sight, Winchester called them leaf sights. Such sights were common on most military carbines and rifles from the Civil War period on for some time. Winchester had always been trying to intereat the various militaries in their guns, the carbines and musket style rifles being done up in military style butt plates, sights, sling rings (today called saddle rings) and barrel bands. Look at most military arms of the Civil War period onwards, the similarity is apparent.

Winchester was very slow to drop many things, some quite odd. The screw slot in the end of the magazine cap had a purpose at one time, the caps used to be threaded into the end of the tube on the early 1873s, but they changed to a screw threaded in from the side of the tube to retain the cap. They didnt stop cutting the screwdriver slot until the late 20s or early 30s. The sling ring had a purpose on military cavalry carbines, it was attached to a wide shoulder belt or sling with a large snap clip that could slide on the sling strap, the gun was so attached to a cavalry trooper so he wouldnt lose his gun when riding or if/when he came off his horse, the gun generally being slid into a short socket type scabbard on the right rear of the saddle where it stayed vertical and didnt flop around when riding. Despite much legend and myth, nobody seems to be able to come up with any period writings or images of any civilian use of the sling rings such as the popularly believed use of a loop of leather to hang the gun off a saddle horn, many sling rings were cut off and discarded because of the noise they made and marring the receiver finish. We think of them as a cool old time thing, but they didnt serve a useful purpose unless one used a cavalry type carbine sling (which some people do today as a single point type sling).

The markings on later carbine leaf (or ladder) sights were a simple reference scale, not a range scale. Yes, they ended up using the same sight on all carbine models. I believe the early 1873 carbine sights and 1866 rifle sights had actual range markings. If you look at them, they are progressively farther part as the range increases, (and numbered for each range) which wouldnt work out as range markings on the later sights, as they are evenly spaced and numbered. I believe most of the tang sights used werent marked for range, but an evenly spaced scale intended for reference. One would need to shoot the load they were going to use and memorize or record the ranges and settings. I believe the marking go to 20, not 2000.

The 3 different aiming points some use with buckhorn sights wasnt really that great an idea. The factory had most of that covered with a better idea in any event. The sporting sights were better designed than most understand, and theres not really any need to try such methods as holding the front blade up in space between the ears of the rear sight. The steps on the sight elevator were intended to be sighted for 50 yards for the first step, and an additional 50 yards for each step up. Most older elevators had 5 or 6 steps, giving 250-300 yards of range. Winchester had 3 different sight elevators for different type of cartridges for the same sporting sight. Many had a small plate in the rear face of the sight held in position by a small screw, the plate could be adjusted to fine tune the zero to the elevator steps. This all seems lost on later generations and Winchester hasnt promoted or encouraged it for ages.
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt-

Isnt it amazing how many people post without reading the thread?
Tanqueray
Levergunner 1.0
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2017 10:37 pm

Re: Winchester 1892 sights

Post by Tanqueray »

Thanks for the replies everyone, some very interesting insights, if you’ll excuse the pun.
More meplat, more better.
Post Reply