All the different reticules...

There seem to be an infinite number of reticules.  What do we call them?  Maybe this chart will help.

One chart of reticules for reference...

The most common & useful reticules...

Lyman 56 Sight Codes...

Many thanks to Shasta for this. I can use it when perusing sights at gun shows.

According to the book "OLD GUNSIGHTS" by Nick Stroebel, the Lyman 56 application codes were:

56A- winchester 1892, 1894, 1886, Models 53, 55, 64, 65, 71, 1885, 87 Single Shot, Remingon Model 14 & 141.

56B- Winchester Model 1903, 63, 61, Marlin Models 1894, 36.

56BSA- BSA Model 12, Martini action rifles.

56C- Remington Models 14, 141, 25, Marlin Models 39, 39A, 1897, Savage Models 1903, 1914, 1929, Stevens Model 75.

56LA- Marlin 336.

56MB- Marlin Models 1893, 1894, 36.

56MC- Marlin Models 39, 39A, 1897.

56R12- Remingon Models 12, 121, 25, Savage Models 1903, 1914, 29, Stevens Model 75.

56S- Savage Model 99

56W- Marlin Model 1893.

56W71- Winchester Model 86 and 71.

Some applications require a different front sight also.

Counterfeit Leupold Scopes!?!

Read all about it. Tell your friends.

Peabody Rifles are Coming Back

Some exciting news for single shot rifle fans. Providence Tool Company is coming back (hopefully) withe the Peabody rifle. They will also be reproducing a copy of the Lyman #21 (aka climin' Lyman) receiver sight. Contact information isn't provided on the site but it is:

Providence Tool Company
PO Box 291
Plymouth, WI 53073

Phone/Fax: 920-893-9675
DPCD67@YAHOO.COM

Thanks to the Leverguns.com Forum for the info!

Shooting Far with Black Powder and Iron Sights

Another leverguns forum poster put me onto this. I just didn't want to lose it and want to share the video with friends. This shooting is with an old fashioned gun. The target is 1025 meters (or 1123 yards) from the shooter, and the aiming point (or bullseye) is 16" in diameter. The white buffalo target measures 6x10 feet. This is some shooting!

Cleaning Out the Parts Bin

While I've been on enforced house residency this week I've been going through the parts bins looking for stuff to sell to raise money for other stuff to buy. No, I can't help it.

I have found at least 2 old Winchester leveraction rear sights, a rear sight for the Winchester M1906, a couple of generic open sights, and a couple of Marlin open sights, all with elevators. Also, I got out the Lyman #2 coded "B" for the 1892 Marlin and one mounting screw (I'm looking for the other) and a generic type tang sight I originally got for the 1886 SRC but decided against mounting. Several grips, rubber, Pachmayr make for S&W N, K and J frames, Colt DS, along with wooden stocks for the Colt PPS and some un-identified Phillipine made grips for some revolver, possibly a Colt NS or 1917. Also found was a 10-round mag for a Taurus. Of course I've got those never fit to a revolver Herrett Shooting Stars for the post-66 PPS or Detective Special (or Cobra or Agent if it floats your boat).

All of this stuff is for sale and if you are "lucky" enough to read my blog you might as well make me an offer.

Ukranian Lyman Type 38 Sight Received

Today I received my sight from HikerLT. I saw over on Gunboards.com that he had one he'd bought from Buffalo Arms. Made by Parts Unknown, Inc. of 206 Oxford St., Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3M 3J6 (Phone & FAX: 204-487-7185), these sights are the affordable option to an original climbin' Lyman even at $225 US.

UPDATED:

I thought I'd add some observations for those with questions.

Markings? My sight's only markings (other than windage and elevation "ticks") are a faint eletric pencil "148" on the long leg near the forward mounting screw. Is it a serial number? I don't know.

Apertures? This has the same type of flip change aperture as on the Lyman #1 sights. I like it. Very practical for a hunting rifle.

The windage adjustment is adjusted by means of the wheel to the right of the aperture. There is no mechanism to lock it in place. However, once adjusted a bit of loctite on the screw on either side of the aperture should hold it against inadvertent adjustment or those who just have to twirl knobs (if you allow such to pick up your gun).

Quality? I think the sight is of good quality. The technology is typical of the time and although the sight body appears to be a thick sheet of steel folded to have two portions at right angles to each other, there are numerous small and well fit parts to make the sight.

The list on these is $225 but an original sight is at least double that even for the Lyman 21 with is drift adjustable for windage rather than the more expensive 38 (screw adjustable windage).

Front Sights - Surprisingly Overlooked?

I touched on the rear sights, mostly, but the front sights are important as well. I suppose you could say I overlooked them. That certainly isn't what we do when shooting. In fact the front sight may well be the most important part of the sighting system.


In the military, with "iron" sights, the post is king. Post type front sights are on most military rifles and carbines and in the US have been the thing for many years. Military shooters are accustomed to the sight picture provided by the post and peep. I think the military knows what they're doing, at least here. This combo is the most precise combat usable sight available (remember that we aren't discussing any of the electronic or telescopic sights). Shown to the left is the Marbles Sourdough sight. This sight is nothing more than a post with a copper/brass insert to highlight the sight against certain dark backgrounds. This is so that the sight can be accurately located on the target, not to use in the manner of the bead front sight.

The bead front sight is shown here to illustrate the difference. With this sight the contrasting metal is intended to provide a round circle which at least partially subtends the target. Because the part of the sight used for aiming is round it is next to impossible to consistently locate it vertically on the target or to notice canting. An inability to do either of these things can contribute to a degree of inaccuracy not present with the post. However, the bead is fast to use as one simply looks through the aperture and lays the bead on the target (covers the target) and shoots. Some folks prefer it.

Of course, some prefer to have both sight types available. The Beech Combination was created for just such a need.With the hood up a bead type sight is available and with the hooded bead folded to the down position a post type sight is made visible. Another benefit of the sight is that the two sight types can be used for different ranges without adjusting the rear sight. The one shown here is from Buffalo Arms and also adjustable for windage.

Another means of having the availability of different front sights is the globe sight. The one shown to the right has a spirit level so the shooter knows if he is canting (tilting) the rifle. These sights come with or can utilize a number of inserts with different front sight forms as shown in the photo to the left. The rings are used by target shooters and are sized to correspond with regulation bullseye targets at various ranges. One looks through the peep, places the front sight on the target so that just a ring of white shows all around the bull between the bull and the sight ring. This allows for extreme precision and consistancy in the sight picture. The post forms are used in the same way as any other post. There are even cross-hair inserts for those desiring such.

Now this isn't all there is to say about front sights, but my favorites are the sourdough and post, bead is second. The globe is good for target shooting but obscures too much target for me when in the field. I don't like the new fiber optic sights as the sight picture for MY eyes is too blurry with the bright colors used.

Scope sights you say? Well that is a whole other topic for another time.

Rifle Sights - part 1

Recent forum discussions gave me the idea that I might like to set down my ideas on rifle sights. I've got strong prejudices/preferences just as many other folks do and I think it should be helpful to articulate those thoughts.

Because so many folks kid me about it I suppose that my liking/preference for the Williams Foolproof receiver sights is well known. I like it because although the Foolproof is made of aluminum it is sturdy, simple, and has no "extra" parts to come undone. I'm a big supporter of the KISS principle. It is also light and the finish is durable. Even in today's world of sometimes sloppy or overseas manufacturing, these sights are made in the USofA and consistently well done.

Williams also makes the 5D sight. This sight isn't as sophisticated as the Foolproof in that it doesn't have click adjustments. One simply loosens the lock-down screws and slides the sight about to adjust. With practice this can be easy and for those who never feel a need to rezero for any reason (especially if you only shoot one load), this sight will suffice. You'll note that it looks very much like the Foolproof and the sight bases (the part that attaches to the rifle) are, in fact, the same. The biggest advantage this sight has over the Foolproof is price. Normally you can get it for a little over one-half the price of a Foolproof from the same vendor.

Williams makes yet another receiver sight, the Guide Receiver sight. As you can see this doesn't mount to the side of the rifle but to the top of the receiver or barrel. The weakness of this sight is primarily in the range of available adjustment. As you can see in the photos, both windage and elevation adjustment is very limited when compared to the Foolproof and 5D. The Guide Receiver Sight is nothing more than an adaptation of the Guide Open Sight with an aperture. Very clever are those engineers at Williams Gunsights. The Guide Sight has one or two advantages. The first is price over the Foolproof. The second is subjective and is that the base on the side of the rifle is eliminated providing a "cleaner" look.






A Williams Guide Receiver Sight mounted on an NEF rifle. Courtesy of Junior Doughty

I've never had any problems with the Williams sight save one. When I buy them used they sometimes come minus the mounting screws. A quick call or letter to Williams gets a set of screws for that particular sight.

Then there is the Lyman series of sights. Lyman has been making tang and receiver sights for a LONG time. It is very interesting to look at the evolution of the aperture sight as built by Lyman as it begins with simple tang sights and the muzzleloader era to sophisticated click adjustable receiver sights and from all steel to aluminum. However, I'm going to limit myself to sights I'd use for pump and lever action rifles.

I actually started with a Lyman #2 tang sight on the Winchester M62A shown in the photo. This was actually the very first rimfire I ever shot! This isn't the best photo, but I have one old Lyman and one new Marbles mounted on my Winchester pump action .22 rifles. These sights are pretty good and practical on the .22s.

The tang sights are fine for soft recoiling firearms and they do increase the sight radius over that possible with the receiver sights but I can't say that I (that's me, some folks don't have these problems) like them for heavier recoiling for a couple of reasons. First, since they sit on the tang they tend to slide by the hand while not permitting the same grip one would take on the gun's wrist if they weren't there. This can result in distracting abrasions. Second, the tang sight sits awfully close to the eye and it does make me a bit nervous in the prone position (I think prone is a bit more likely circumstance than using high angle fire with a big-bore rifle).

However, the Lyman sight I'm most likely to have use of is the 66. The 66LA is the sight intended for the Winchester and Marlin lever actions. It looks very much like the WB sight which is for the Winchester 1886 lever action. Although these were once made of steel, they are now aluminum.

I have a Lyman. I got it for and it is mounted on my 336T. The Lyman's have the ability to be zeroed out so that one can adjust from a known point and back again. this should be an advantage over the Williams. Unfortunately the system used is a separate sliding plate(s) retained by screw(s). You can see the elevation plate in the above photo. In my "lemon" the elevation plate screw stripped the threads on the aluminum base. As machinists know, not all alloys are created equal and the Lyman aluminum alloy is apparently NOT the equal of the alloy used in the Williams sights. Perhaps, too, the tap and or drill weren't correct and the hole slightly oversize.

When I contacted Lyman (who do nothing via e-mail or so it seems, a definite no-no in today's market) I was basically told tough luck. No offer to make it right, nothing. So, I simply adjusted the sight and epoxied the plate in place. Otherwise there was nothing wrong with the sight. The Lyman 66LA costs about the same as the Williams Foolproof. It is click adjustable and some folks prefer the small knobs (one could buy a Williams Foolproof with the Target Knobs option which is more expensive). I think the biggest advantage the Lyman has over the Foolproof is the plunger which is a quick release which allows the bar to be removed from the base and returned to zero. The Foolproof can't do that.

The Lyman and other receiver sights made of steel including the Redfields are to be preferred if only because they are nostalgic. There is just something special about a steel sight. There are many who believe that a steel sight is more durable than any aluminum sight.

For many years, most models of guns were drilled and tapped for receiver or tang sights. It was no great thing to mount one of these, go zero it and then go hunting. A new front sight was seldom required. Now, one must have the side of the receiver drilled and tapped by a gunsmith at up to $50 a hole (when you can't do it yourself). Is it any wonder that popularity of the aperture sight has declined?

There are some who say that the Lyman and Williams sights are prone to snag (snag what, how?) or bend or get knocked off and they prefer other systems. I personally don't know anything that snags stuff more than a scope sight or tang sights. I suppose you could bend the horizontal bar but don't you have to work at it? Yes, I know one fellow that broke a Williams Foolproof off a Ruger M77. But look at the rest of his stuff, he beats the hell out of all of it!

There are other folks who make aperture sights. These are mostly like the Williams Guide Receiver Sight in concept in that they are mounted on top of the receiver. Most REQUIRE a new front sight and indeed, this is usually a part of the package. They have the same weaknesses and strengths of the WGRS. There are also specialty aperture sights made to mount on scope sight mounts as emergency replacements for scope sights. That has got to be a good idea.

As to scope sights for lever actions, well, they seem out of place to me. They negate the handling and compact characteristics of the leveractions that attracted me. If one must have a scope sight on a levergun I'd suggest as compact a scope as possible. I'd probably go for one of the Weaver 2½X fixed power scopes that I use on my Contender carbines.

I was recently was asked about mounting telescopic sights, aka scopes or scope sights. I read a lot of different articles, some more than once, and some maybe 2 or 3 years after first reading them. See a lot of posts on the internet.

I have always been a cheap so-and-so and would not even buy a scope for many years. Didn't like them, didn't need them, and didn't want to spend the money. Then my attitude began to undergo a change as I got older (who's sight doesn't get worse as they get older?) and when I began to feel a need for more precision. I had a couple of .22 rifles on which I mounted a scope sight for the purpose of squirrel hunting and made some really good shots. Then I go into Contenders and they are a natural for mounting scopes easily and maintaining their easy-to-carry characteristics. While I would never want to mount a scope sight on a levergun, most of my contender barrels have one.

Because I'm a cheap so-and-so, it seemed natural that I would mount the scopes myself. Of course, I'm too cheap to get a bore collimator or bore sighter (such as this Leupold Boresighter or this Simmons Boresighter. So, I've had to use a multitude of field expedients.

It is necessary and sometimes difficult is to ensure that the reticule is not canted in relation to the gun bore. I've used levels, plumb lines, the Reticule Leveler and all sorts of other devices and field expedients to correct problems. Sometimes you have to get really creative. However, you must start with the mount which must be of the correct relationship to the bore. Sometimes even the factory will get the D&T wrong (but not that often in my experience). When that happens, some people will quickly resort to shims.

I never use shims if I can help it. Mechanically, they are another very weak link in the physical chain connecting the scope to the mount and mount to rifle. IOW, the shim can actually render the scope to rifle relationship more tenuous than is necessary. MOST (not always) of the time shims are not needed to zero the firearm. MOST scopes have the range of adjustment needed, much more than needed IN MOST CASES. There are cases where the BASE or MOUNT must be shimmed to ensure it is square to the rifle but because of the way bases attach, there isn't nearly the chance for slipping that shimming in the rings might present. If gross off-sets are needed there are rings made with inserts such as the Burris Posi-lin that obviate even a perceived need to shim and also those that provide lateral (windage) adjustment such as the Millet Angle-Locs.

For shim material I particularly don't like the use of cartridge brass because it is tapered. You can't ensure that it isn't tapered because from the head of the case to the case mouth the brass will taper in thickness. Tapered shim material does 2 bad things. One, it makes it extremely difficult to judge the degree of change you'll get when you tighten the work down onto the shim. Two, not all of the shim material will be in contact with both work surfaces which reduces the friction which holds everything in place against recoil.One shim material that is usually consistent in thickness across the shim AND cheap is the side of a soda or beer can (I'm afraid to admit how many BEER can shims I've made! ).

For my scoped guns (which are now all Contenders) I use Weaver mounts and low Weaver rings. I square the reticule using the Reticule Leveler. Weaver rings can easily torque a scope out of square and so I tighten every other ring screw ¼ turn at a time until they are all fully tightened. I might bore sight but often find it a waste of time. I go to the range. I fire one shot on the target. I secure the gun with the crosshair directly on the one bullet hole. I then adjust the sights so that the crosshair is directly over the desired POI. I then fire a single confirmation shot. I've already tested the ammo used and have the supposed ballistic performance to hand. I then shoot to confirm at 25, 50, 100 and 150 yards. I then zero for maximum point blank range. I'm not one to be changing sights of any kind and for the light loads I make up for some rifles, I adjust the load to shoot to the sights albeit at shorter ranges, say 25 yards. This system works for me. If I pay attention to detail, the "chore" goes off without a hitch.

This is not to say that other methods don't result in zeroed guns but this seems so much easier to me. I know because I've tried the method of locking the gun into a vise making sure all is square and level and then using a plumb line on which one lines up the vertical crosshair of the reticule. Too, many steps many interconnecting parts. At each connection a bit more slop or error creeps in. It can be enough to drive anyone crazy.