![Confused :?](./images/smilies/icon_confused.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Shasta is correct, the new Lyman's aren't windage adjustable, unless you're very creative... I've found in the majority of cases, I can simply shim one side or the other of the tang sight's base and end up with a sight that's sighted for that particular load. At one time Simth Enterprises made a copy of the early Lyman tang sight... and what a marvelous sight it is!Bill in Oregon wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 9:09 amI've had both, but it has been so long I have forgotten if one make had any significant advantages over the other for both target work and hunting carry. Anyone care to chime in and help your elderly brother?![]()
Thats what my BHA 89 levergun has (only it IS adjustable), and it works real nice...!Scott Tschirhart wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 3:46 pm I think a fixed peep sight, mounted on the bolt on a top eject gun, would be the bee's knees! Especially if it was rugged enough to not move in a saddle scabbard.
I had one on the rear scope mount of my remington 7mm mag. talk about sight radius! it was a "can't miss" gun for everyone who shot it !Scott Tschirhart wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 3:46 pm I think a fixed peep sight, mounted on the bolt on a top eject gun, would be the bee's knees! Especially if it was rugged enough to not move in a saddle scabbard.
Couldn't agree more! I'd buy an old one that's tight and made better before I'd ever buy a new one. But if I had any Winchesters I'd buy the MVA version before a Lyman or Marbles. Yes, it's $225, but a much higher quality sight. Or I'd buy a Lee Shaver Economy Soule, and have a far superior sight, with lots of windage and elevation adjustment. They're $260, but money better spent than it is for a sloppy loose sight.Jay Bird wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 11:22 pm As for the modern Lyman's and Marbles and for what they cost these sights are one of the biggest rip offs in the gun market. They are sloppy threaded and can easily fall apart......ZERO craftmanship for what ???...$100-$150. They work for what they are but the price should be half of what they cost.
I have several of each and prefer the Marbles due to the windage.
I have maybe 45-50 of the originals of which most all are mounted on guns and unless they have been abused, they are tight threaded with threading that stays put. The modern ones use an o ring or a spring detent to stay put.
The ones by Montana Vintage Arms and a couple of other quality manufacturers are in a class by themselves but they cost as much as a gun does.
Once you know quality it's easy to see and feel the difference.----006
Thanks Bill. Can't see it, but the 1893 Marlin has some unusual sights all around. The front sight is a Lyman globe with flip up peep or post inside the globe. And the top of the receiver has a full length peep sight that's dovetailed into the receiver top, with a peep aperture at the back that is screw adjustable for elevation also. One of a kind sight, that I've never seen on another gun. I bought this gun from the original family in Goldendale, Wa. many decades ago. It is the first Marlin I ever purchased.Bill in Oregon wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 11:40 am Beautiful rifles, as usual, Vall!
Shasta, you really do like tang sights don't you!![]()
Six Old Friend, I tend to disagree but maybe I am agreeing, I'm not sure. All that matters is getting your rear sight aperture to meld well with your front sight (I prefer fiber optic front but YMMV). The really small aperture sights on the rear don't work for me on the rear end, it wouldn't matter if it was a tang sight or a receiver sight.Sixgun wrote: ↑Sun Feb 14, 2021 4:32 pm Tutt,
You can get on faster with a tang sight...you throw the gun up and just look at the front sight......the same as with a receiver sight but with the receiver sight you still have to "look" for the opening..the tang sight peep hole is there instantly, slightly longer sight radius and is easier for target shooting for you can use a .030 hole...you won't do that with a receiver sight.....
The two advantages a receiver sight has is that it near indestructible....tang sights are easily bent and with heavy recoiling rifles a tang sight will pop you in the eye.
There's other pros and cons as the receiver sight can be made with more solid fine tuning.....if your eyes can see it. There was a time I could use a .030 aperture but I now need a .060 due to "spider webs"
I find it works very well. One of my favorite inserts... shoots very well, aim at the bottom of the black, should yield x-ring hits. As you can see, the slight additional hump of the tang base is fairly unobtrusive. I barely register its presence. This also shows my second favored position on sights where the base is a bit more obtrusive... Such as my Smith Ent. tang sight. And my more normal grip.Bill in Oregon wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 1:47 pmGriff, how is that Lyman 17A globe front holding up for you in the hunting field?