Tang Sights, good, bad, and downright ugly scoop please?

[Canuck Bob]

I'm close to getting a tang sight for a Marlin 444. Could I please get some feedback from guys and gals who love em and hate em?

I have used receiver sights for decades and always thought to get a tang sight.

Also any suggestions on suppliers would be welcome.

[J Miller]

Bob,

I also use receiver sights and like them. I cannot stand tang sights because they are TOO close to my eye and they interfere with my grip on the stock. That's my reasons for avoiding them.

Joe

[jnyork]

I have 5 lever action rifles with tang sights, .22 LR, (2), 30-30, 32 Special, .33 WCF. Oh, and a .30 Remington pump. I fire thousands of rounds a year in competition with these rifles (except for the pump, which is just for fun.). I like them because they give you additional sight radius and with the Merit adjustable aperture you can tune them in to exactly the correct diameter for the light conditions, plus it helps a great deal to give my poor ol' eyes a clear sight picture. I use the Marbles tang sights, which are a quality item with sharp repeatable click adjustments for both elevation and windage. It never occurs to me that they are closer to my eye than a receiver sight, and do not get in the way of my grip at all. I would absolutely buy another tang sight vs a receiver sight.

[Canuck Bob]

Thank you both.

I'm starting to find that when I slide my cheek up the stock as a test that my sight picture improves slightly.

[rangerider7]

I have had two. I did not like ether of them. Just my two cents.

[O.S.O.K.]

Marbles is the best. Has windage adjustment. They do put the aperture close to your eye - which is where it belongs unless you have a brutally recoiling firearm.

I have one on my Rossi 44 Mag carbine and it works great.


You may like a receiver mounted model better though from the standpoint that there's more grip room and the 444 does have pretty good come-back.

I have XS sights on my 336 frame Marlins.

[Terry Murbach]

I HAVE LYMAN TANG SIGHTS ON A BROWNING 92 357 AND A 26" WINCHESTER '94 30-30. I DISLIKE BOTH !!! THEY'RE TOO DARNED CLOSE TO MY EYE AND ARE IN THE WAY OF MY THUMB CROSSING THE TANG OF THE RIFLE.
I THINK IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THE DAY RECEIVER SIGHTS CAME OUT WAY-THE-HECK-BACK-WHEN, THE SALES OF TANG SIGHTS DROPPED TO NOTHING IN ABOUT 20 MINUTES FLAT NEVER TO BE SEEN AGAIN UNTIL SOME SASS GUYS THOUGHT THEM TO BE QUITE THE BERRIES AND JUST HAD TO HAVE THEM TO BE ABLE TO HIT THEIR HUMONGOUS TARGETS ABOUT 25" OFF THEIR MUZZLES. [ IT ALWAYS SEEMED TO ME AT THOSE SILLY DISTANCES EVERYONE SHOULD TAKE THE SIGHTS OFF THEIR GUNS ALLTOGETHER AND POINTSHOOT THE MATCH...BUT I DIGRESS...]
THE TANG SIGHTS ON A HEAVY RIFLE LIKE A SHARPS ARE A WHOLE DIFFERENT SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES AND WORK DARNED WELL WITHOUT BEING A REAL P-I-T-A NOR A P-I-T-T NOR ENDANGERING YOUR ONE AND ONLY LEFT OR RIGHT EYEBALL.

[Canuck Bob]

I should mention that I am considering a Savage 99 for next lever gun. Will consider a tang sight for it as well.

[BigSky56]

Only one drawback I know of is shooting uphill it can get you in the eye with a heavy recoiling rifle I believe Jack O Conner was on a hunt where a guy lost his eye to one while sheep hunting. danny

[2X22]

I HAVE LYMAN TANG SIGHTS ON A BROWNING 92 357 AND A 26" WINCHESTER '94 30-30. I DISLIKE BOTH !!! THEY'RE TOO DARNED CLOSE TO MY EYE AND ARE IN THE WAY OF MY THUMB CROSSING THE TANG OF THE RIFLE.

Yup. Agree Completely. It took spending $500 on a Vernier Tang for an '86 to learn it for myself. Couldn't get used to taking a whack on the eye. Now I have it sitting on a shelf gathering dust. A Lyman tang I mounted on a '94 1906 38-55 was better, but still not my cuppa tea. Luckily my daughter loved it and so now its at her house

THE TANG SIGHTS ON A HEAVY RIFLE LIKE A SHARPS ARE A WHOLE DIFFERENT SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES AND WORK DARNED WELL WITHOUT BEING A REAL P-I-T-A NOR A P-I-T-T NOR ENDANGERING YOUR ONE AND ONLY LEFT OR RIGHT EYEBALL.

Agree completely. Kinda makes a feller wonder why scopes were invented after a few hours of shooting a Sharps with a long range Soule Tang.........

2x22

[rangerider7]

I don't like not being able to put my wrist around the grip.

[Sixgun]

Whoa! I must be in the minority here. Having used tang sights for close to 40 years sure has made me educated in the subject. As we speak, I have approx. 40 leverguns with original and a few modern (repos) sights on 'em.

As most of us know, most all pre-war leverguns came d & t 'ed for tang sights.

I have them on .22's up to hard kicking 45-70's. I use all of these rifles for plinking, target shooting, silhouette, and hunting. On one 1895 in the hard kicking 35 WCF, I have it mounted un on the wood and its very close to my eye. No problem--The guys who say their eye gets poked out by a tang sight are the same ones who get their heads bashed in by a scope---You gotta use common sense and keep the butt tight against your shoulder.

I wear glasses and thousands of rounds a year leave no marks on 'em from the tang sights.

Tang sights give a longer sight radius. No brag here--just fact--I can shoot groups as tight with a tang sight as I can with a scope out to most ranges, say 500 meters---------This is assuming conditions are right with good light--moa or a little larger. Everything within reason--You are not going to shoot one hole groups at 200 meters with a tang sight, but I have heard of it being done--ask Mike Venturino

When a rifle is brought up to the shoulder, you are right on target with a tang sight--just put the front bead on and fire.

The only downfall a tang sight has is that they are fragile. Drop the rifle on it and well, she's is gonna bend. I'm still waiting to bend my first one.--------------Sixgun

[Nicknack]

I have a Lyman on my 44 Magnum Marlin Cowboy.two on my Winchester 1892's One a CNC made one and the other a Marbles I love em they do wring out the best accuracy for your rifles but they are terrible on a Marlin, as rangefinder7 said

I don't like not being able to put my wrist around the grip.

They don't seem to get in the way on a Winchester.
Marbles are better made than the Lyman and they have adjustment for windage.
There is a good bloke on ebay USA that sells great tang sights CNC made that he makes himself they are a little bit heaver than the production ones but they are very robust and reasonably priced,they come with windage adjustment and three aperture Peeps.
Sorry but I'm sure they don't fit a marlin, only Winchester 1892,1894,1885 and he can do a mod. for Sharps.

Regards Dallas

Model 92 32-20 1926 004.JPG

ebay special

[BigSky56]

Heres some tang sights for 99's. danny
http://www.savage99.com/tang_sights.htm

[Terry Murbach]

Whoa! I must be in the minority here. Having used tang sights for close to 40 years sure has made me educated in the subject. As we speak, I have approx. 40 leverguns with original and a few modern (repos) sights on 'em.

As most of us know, most all pre-war leverguns came d & t 'ed for tang sights.

I have them on .22's up to hard kicking 45-70's. I use all of these rifles for plinking, target shooting, silhouette, and hunting. On one 1895 in the hard kicking 35 WCF, I have it mounted un on the wood and its very close to my eye. No problem--The guys who say their eye gets poked out by a tang sight are the same ones who get their heads bashed in by a scope---You gotta use common sense and keep the butt tight against your shoulder.

I wear glasses and thousands of rounds a year leave no marks on 'em from the tang sights.

Tang sights give a longer sight radius. No brag here--just fact--I can shoot groups as tight with a tang sight as I can with a scope out to most ranges, say 500 meters---------This is assuming conditions are right with good light--moa or a little larger. Everything within reason--You are not going to shoot one hole groups at 200 meters with a tang sight, but I have heard of it being done--ask Mike Venturino

When a rifle is brought up to the shoulder, you are right on target with a tang sight--just put the front bead on and fire.

The only downfall a tang sight has is that they are fragile. Drop the rifle on it and well, she's is gonna bend. I'm still waiting to bend my first one.--------------Sixgun

IT IS OKAY, SIXGUN , AS WE ARE GONNA GIVE YOU A BYE ,WHAT WITH YOU BEING A PENNSYLTUCKIAN AND ALL....

[Sixgun]

IT IS OKAY, SIXGUN , AS WE ARE GONNA GIVE YOU A BYE ,WHAT WITH YOU BEING A PENNSYLTUCKIAN AND ALL....

Terry,
I did not think many people knew that. We Pennsylvanians
have Pittsburg on the west, Philly on the right, and Alabama inbetween We are as good a redneck as any from North Dakota ----------Sixgun

[Griff]

Well, I'll balance it out a little.

Tang sights are the bee's knees! And if you have yer face adjusted properly on the stock, know how to hold a firearm, yer eyes are in no more danger than they are with that truly monsterous device known as a "scope"!!!

Since you SHOULD be wearing eyewear as protection from a far more common occurence, such as escaping gases... fear of pokin' yer eye out ain't reasonable.

Terry, Terry, Terry, those ol pharts what play cowboy & indians in SASS and think they need tang sights are relative newcomers... and most of them only use them because receiver sights are against the rules. Those prima donas of the shooting sports (Schuetzen) were using tang sights was before SASS was a gleam in Judge Roy Bean's eye!

Don't knock 'em till ya try 'em. There is a technique to their use. Depending on the specific rifle, I don't wrap my thumb over the top... even on my 45-70 1886 or the Sharp's.

[WinLover]

[/quote]

Hey Sixgun!! Nice threesome of 95s! ......... even if they are all "wrinkle walls"! Are any of the other three of your guns flatside?

[Sixgun]

Are any of the other three of your guns flatside?

Griff,----------You tell 'em!!!!!!!!!!

WinLover,
I like your handle--me too! Better than any 401K plan---don't we know that with the recent disaster

No, no flatsides---In my 4,972 years of snagging the old leverguns, there are two that I'm looking for-----(I won't pay going price----eventually the one I'm looking for will show up at Targetmaster or an auction) are an '86 in 50-110 and a 1895 in 40-72, flatside oct. or preferably a nickel steel version for the added safety when shooting smokeless. --------Sixgun

[3855]

I’m with Sixgun on this one. I shoot a bunch of original Winchesters up to and through 45-70 and 45-90’s. I try to mount tang sights on them all. I have never been whacked in the eye with one.

I also have had one mounted on a sporterized Remington Rolling block chambered in 50-90. Total gun weight is only 10 ½ lbs. I shoot 670 gr paper patch bullets in front of 108 grs of Swiss 1-1/2 black powder. Recoil is monumental. Never have I been poked in the eye.

I find that a good, tightly constructed tang sight will cut my groups in half at almost any range as compared to barrel sights. 1-½ MOA groups at 100 yards are not uncommon with many rifles so equipped. Some will do a little better. Most of the guns I collect are old enough so are not equipped with factory holes for receiver sights. Drilling a receiver to mount one is unthinkable. I’ll shoot a tang sight any day.

[AJMD429]

Personally, it depends on the use I'm putting the gun to:

• 1. Hunting - if 'dusk' or 'deep woods' lighting will happen, I see WAY better with a large-bell Scope. I've yet to see a deer 'laugh' at my non-authentic sighting setup...
  
  2. Daytime Shooting - I prefer the ruggedness and compactness of a Williams FP or similar Receiver Sight.
  
  3. Target or 'Vintage' Guns - If the gun is used for range-only target shooting (where fragility isn't an issue), for show, or for me to 're-create' in my own mind something of an 'old-days' experience, I do like a good Tang Sight (Marbles or the Taurus clone of Marbles).

I know most of you never drop your guns, but I'm clumsy , and have dropped at least one levergun which landed on a barn floor , right on the top of the reciever. The Williams sight now bears a small 'ding' on the top . OTOH I've been yanking myself and my gun through greenbriar tangles, and BENT the stem of a (folded down) Marble's tang sight .

We'll never know what our ancestors would have chosen, as both modern receiver sights and tang sights weren't available at the same time for them to choose between today's models, but I'm thinking they'd have picked the Williams FP over the Marbles Tang, for serious field use.

That's not to say Tang Sights are all bad - but to me they are kind of like some say about scopes - a bit more fragile, but a bit more accurate. Get a Tang and a Receiver, and decide what you like best - neither is 'bad'...

[gyrhed]

I can't stand the way a scope looks on a lever action and most of teh cartriges do not warrant the use of a scope. If I had a 308 marlin I would scopce it, but my 357 mag gets a tang, and I tried one on the 45-70 Marlin 1895. Any hit strong enough to bend the tang or dent a reciever sight would at least be hard enough to make me sit down and resight in a scope. Tangs are great when you can use them. I did not like the way it felt under my thumb on my 1985 marlin, in fact it was very anoying. But I do not even notice it on the Marlin 1894. I carry three sizes with me and change as the light dies. Even with old eyes you can shoot the largest one in very dim light. If you get your starting loads set at shorty range by changing the front sight you can use all of the adjustement of the tank for longer ranges.

If you get hit in the eye with a tang you need to review how you hold a weapon.

I went with a burris fastfire on teh 45-70 and I love it. It looks like some of the reciever sughts on the market and with teh burris base kit it is very low profile. In fact if teh battery dies you can flip up the rear sight and use the original irons. Sighted in a 100 yards it is easy to shoot deer size targets out to 200 yards which is a reasonable maximum range to apply to teh 45-70 with its rainbow tragedtory. If I had a range finder or always hunted on a marked course I would carry teh 45-70 to longer range stands.

[Griff]

I have a Lyman on my 44 Magnum Marlin Cowboy.two on my Winchester 1892's One a CNC made one and the other a Marbles I love em they do wring out the best accuracy for your rifles but they are terrible on a Marlin, as rangefinder7 said

I don't like not being able to put my wrist around the grip.

They don't seem to get in the way on a Winchester.
Marbles are better made than the Lyman and they have adjustment for windage.
There is a good bloke on ebay USA that sells great tang sights CNC made that he makes himself they are a little bit heaver than the production ones but they are very robust and reasonably priced,they come with windage adjustment and three aperture Peeps.
Sorry but I'm sure they don't fit a marlin, only Winchester 1892,1894,1885 and he can do a mod. for Sharps.
Regards Dallas

Model 92 32-20 1926 004.JPG

ebay special

That's the very same sight I have on my custom 94. Installed way back in 1988! I didn't know he was still making them. Their only drawback is repeatability of settings. I ended up using a knife to scratch marks @ 100, 200 & 300 yards qith my ammo.


Do you have a link?

[Borregos]

I had no experience with tang sights until this year. I had one I picked up years ago buried in the junk at the back of my reloading bench, uncovered it earlier this year and decided to fit it to my old Winchester 1894 SRC manufactured around 1914. What an astounding difference it made! As Sixgun said the results were as good as putting a scope on it (not that I would ever do that!). Shortly after doing that I picked up another one at one of our matches and put it on my Marlin 94 in 44Mag, same result.
Since I always have laid my thumb along the stock and not across the wrist that does not bother me either.

[Old Time Hunter]

I think that the "climbing Lyman" on two of Sixgun's '95's is the cat's meow...the tang sights are fine off the bench but cumbersome in the woods. Then again, Pennsyltuckians tend to do things a bit different. Heck, they even put "fifth wheels" on Macks! (I'll let Griff expond upon that).

[El Chivo]

I started with receiver sights and disliked them, I had to lean forward to see throught the aperture. I also hated that lump on the top of the receiver. I tried a tang sight and now have them on all my rifles.

I have gotten whacked some, but with wearing glasses it was no problem. But if you hold the rifle more securely this won't happen.

My shooting is much improved with tang sights, and I am no better with a scope than with tang sights. I hunted all last season with the tang sight extended and it didn't get in the way. Just be aware of it.

Another advantage is, I put Weaver rails on my leverguns and the tang sights see right over it. I can take a scope on or off depending on the situation, and the tang sight is always there as a very accurate backup.

[jd45]

My 2 cents............I put a Marble's on my Uberti Sporting Rifle, along with a Lyman globe front & that combo helped turn it into a REAL tackdriver. You just can't believe the sight picture. I can't imagine why anyone would want to put a tang sight on a rifle that doesn't have an adjustment for windage, (Lyman). jd45

[Nicknack]

Gday griff here is the link to the bloke that makes them over there he goes by his ebay name of x123ray
Good honest seller
http://shop.ebay.com.au/x123ray/m.html? ... ksid=p3686

Model 92 32-20 1926 004.JPG

[Lobo]

I like these!

www.montanavintagearms.com/

[AJMD429]

I can't stand the way a scope looks on a lever action and most of teh cartriges do not warrant the use of a scope.

For me, even the 'lowly' .44 Magnum does warrant the use of a scope, for two reasons:

• 1. On my main 'deer' gun, I want to see clearly in dim woods or twilight, and place a shot on a 75-100 yard deer knee-deep in brambles. I just don't have the vision at my age (or really ever) to do that with anything but a scope.
  
  2. On my more accurate .44 Magnum, I can place a shot within 2" at 100 yards, and I just can't see well enough without magnification to see anything other than a black-bullseye-on-white-target that size at that distance. If it's a feral cat, or a stray rock or dirt clod or crouching coyote, forget it. Maybe most folks can see that well, but I can't.

OTOH, for plinking and target shooting, where I'm in control of the light and the target definition, I just love the aperture sights, tang or peep.

[gyrhed]

I can't stand the way a scope looks on a lever action and most of teh cartriges do not warrant the use of a scope.

For me, even the 'lowly' .44 Magnum does warrant the use of a scope, for two reasons:

• 1. On my main 'deer' gun, I want to see clearly in dim woods or twilight, and place a shot on a 75-100 yard deer knee-deep in brambles. I just don't have the vision at my age (or really ever) to do that with anything but a scope.
  
  2. On my more accurate .44 Magnum, I can place a shot within 2" at 100 yards, and I just can't see well enough without magnification to see anything other than a black-bullseye-on-white-target that size at that distance. If it's a feral cat, or a stray rock or dirt clod or crouching coyote, forget it. Maybe most folks can see that well, but I can't.

OTOH, for plinking and target shooting, where I'm in control of the light and the target definition, I just love the aperture sights, tang or peep.

I don't have good enough eyes to shoot the starndard buckhorn sight in low light at 100 yrds but the tang with changeable apetures and a good 1/16 inch gold bead on hte front makes a big difference. Have you ever tried lookinh through a pin hole mounted on your glasses and then through a tang peep?

Like some have stated above the tang mtd peep with small apeture is almost as good as a scope. I can shoot 1" groups with good competition sights at 100 yrds but that doesn't mean I can hit a 1" target like a squirrels head at 100 yrds. Unless he has like an 8" cicle centered around his head.

I understand the scope I just do not like how they look on a lever gun. Even after saying that If I had like a 308 ME I would scope it. Thats also why I went with the fastfire on the 45-70 so I could hit deer and hog size targets quick out to 200 yrds. The tang was no good on the 1895 for a lot of reasons and I do not care for the way the reciever sights look either.

The 357 got the tang and it shoots like a scope. quick and accurate from 0-150 yards as long as the target is bigger than the bead it is not hard to center the target.

[Canuck Bob]

Whoa! I must be in the minority here. Having used tang sights for close to 40 years sure has made me educated in the subject. As we speak, I have approx. 40 leverguns with original and a few modern (repos) sights on 'em.

As most of us know, most all pre-war leverguns came d & t 'ed for tang sights.

I have them on .22's up to hard kicking 45-70's. I use all of these rifles for plinking, target shooting, silhouette, and hunting. On one 1895 in the hard kicking 35 WCF, I have it mounted un on the wood and its very close to my eye. No problem--The guys who say their eye gets poked out by a tang sight are the same ones who get their heads bashed in by a scope---You gotta use common sense and keep the butt tight against your shoulder.



I wear glasses and thousands of rounds a year leave no marks on 'em from the tang sights.

Tang sights give a longer sight radius. No brag here--just fact--I can shoot groups as tight with a tang sight as I can with a scope out to most ranges, say 500 meters---------This is assuming conditions are right with good light--moa or a little larger. Everything within reason--You are not going to shoot one hole groups at 200 meters with a tang sight, but I have heard of it being done--ask Mike Venturino

When a rifle is brought up to the shoulder, you are right on target with a tang sight--just put the front bead on and fire.

The only downfall a tang sight has is that they are fragile. Drop the rifle on it and well, she's is gonna bend. I'm still waiting to bend my first one.--------------Sixgun

I resurrected this thread to ask Sixgun about the tang sight mounted on the stock of the 95 (technically not a tang sight I guess)? I've seen this arrangement on some Savages as well. Just curious how a sight on the stock feels and performs?