Looking at Marcot's book, on page 45 you'll see pictures of a Maynard tang sight that is installed on a Rem #1.

I doubt anyone here will claim that Remington once considered the Maynard sight screw spacing to be a Remington factory standard screw spacing for tang sight installations.

There are a number of different tang sights shown installed on various #1 rifles in Marcot's book, plus on page 41 you can see what looks like a shortened tang sight base that was adapted for the installation of that scope made by an unknown manufacturer.
The tang sights shown on page 109, page 163 (though this one may have used the Remington spacing), and on page 229 will raise an eyebrow or two.

As you dig further into the book, you'll see holes all over the place even on the fancy target #1s, indicating that a lot of folks back then used what they had in hand or that was immediately available, or that fit their particular ideas of what would work best.

Look we all know any rifle can be "modified"at any time. My query is only about observations. Does the early Remington use a 2 1/8 hole spacing for their early rifles? 
If you look in Marcots book it appears that on the early target rifles the base of the tang sight is longer. Look at the front on the sight base and you will notice that it seems farther forward. The juncture at the front of the buttstock seems to be real close on some of the target bases and farther back on others. Obviously all being made and installed by Remington.

Can anybody with an early target rifle verify my findings?
Hole spacing of 2 1/8 center to center.
  Don

Not to my knowledge Don? It's less than 2" at 1.9375" spacing. Uses regular 10-32 NF thread screws. Mine are either this spacing, or not D&T for a tang sight.

PS-Looked it up in Stroebel's Old Gun Sights book, and he has the same 1.9375" spacing listed also.

rustyrelx,

I love suspense, but how about letting us all know which particular pages, photos, and individual rifles in the Marcot book you are actually referring to?

My orig. Rem. 1 1/2 RB. is def. 2 1/8" and base that fit it was supplied by Baco.

Aha!!!!!! another one,the story thickens, Thank you MT Chambers. What is the serial # range mine is 52XX.

I will get out the Marcot book and look again at the pages. And post them.
Don

I have a #1 sporting rifle with a factory tang sight. 1 15/16" hole spacing.

rustyrelx wrote on Oct 24^th, 2015 at 12:48pm:

Don,

Maybe not so obvious.
Consider that some factory Remington target sights may have been installed at Remington, while other factory Remington target sights may have been ordered separately for installation by shops on rifles with untapped tangs... which can explain the variation in positioning you see of the front of the sight base to the upper tang/front of buttstock to receiver reference datum you selected.

Looking in the old Remington catalogs, I haven't seen where the customer is requested to specify any screw spacing when ordering the Remington tang sight.

A person can use basic photogrammetry principles to see if a Rem factory sight base pictured in Marcot's book has the necessary OAL for a 2 1/16" screw spacing, but that will have to wait for you to post those particular page #'s, pictures, and rifles you mention.

marlinguy wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2015 at 9:31am:

Vall,

Those side profiles are useful.
They provide lengths, distances, angles and scale.
We have established measurements from various points on actual receivers (pull one out of your safe and do some measuring), and also on actual samples of Rem factory production sights.
Working with established values allows you eliminate a lot of PIOOYA guessing and assumptions.    

Vall,

Let's try it this way... can you tell a factory Remington sight from a factory Winchester sight from a factory Marlin Ballard sight?

I suspect you've seen more than enough samples of originals, both mounted on rifles as well as loose, to distinguish between them using more than just the difference in screw spacings.

Yes, they have their similarities.
But (ignoring the screw spacings), the Remington tang sight wasn’t a direct duplicate of a Winchester thick base, or of a Marlin Ballard, or of an early thick base Lyman.

Like any firearm part, sights have their recognizable differences, which is what we use to distinguish between them, and which often makes a particular sight stick out like a great big sore thumb, and is one of the reasons the claims made about sights on flea-bay are often so hilarious.