ASSRA Forum - Tang sight ID

ASSRA Forum › General › Collecting Single Shot Rifles › Tang sight ID

(Moderator Group: Moderator)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Page Index Toggle

Pages: 1 2 [3]

Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies)

Tang sight ID (Read 13468 times)

BP Frequent Elocutionist Offline Posts: 8039 Location: Westside Joined: Aug 27^th, 2006	Re: Tang sight ID Reply #30 - Oct 8^th, 2019 at 3:04pm	Print Post
	marlinguy wrote on Oct 8^th, 2019 at 10:06am: BP wrote on Oct 7^th, 2019 at 4:51pm: Bill Lawrence wrote on Oct 7^th, 2019 at 9:31am: Changing/providing custom screw spacing in a sight base is a trivial detail. Easily done. When there's a long, flat spring in the base, I'd guess that a spacing conversion while possible would no longer be "trivial". ... Bill Lawrence Why would it no longer be "trivial", Bill? If the spring has the same basic specs (soft spring stock material, thickness, width, etc) except possibly for length, where is the problem to shorten a flat spring in its soft state, then toss it in the heat-treat oven right along with the regular big batch of standard length springs that have to be heated and quenched to make them hard, and then be drawn back at a lower temperature (tempered) right along with the big batch of standard length springs? Where would all the fuss, muss and onerous trouble you seem to claim must occur to get a shortened flat spring actually take place at? And don't forget that as a shotgun, rifle and pistol manufacturer of multiple models that claimed to sell their products the world over, Stevens had long-term experience making one hell of a large variety and quantity of springs for all of their products. Even their rear barrel dovetail sporting sights with elevators used spring stock material. Spring length isn't a problem. The issue is the recess the spring fits into. A base made exclusively for a Stevens 1.5" spacing has a longer recess than a base made for a Marlin 1.5" recess. Shorten the spring, and the base, and the back edge of the recess would then be open with no lip where it used to end. Vall, You're not trying to tell me that Stevens didn't employ any qualified machinist's who could make a shorter tang sight base with a shorter spring recess to hold a shortened spring (if actually required), are you? Going by Phil's first posted picture, it looks like a screw holds the spring in place, and the spring simply sets on top of the base at the spring ends, so is there even a recess that the ends of the spring fit down into? Doesn't appear to be to me. What is the actual base length measurement of the sight base that's mounted on Phil's rifle anyway?
	« Last Edit: Oct 8^th, 2019 at 3:48pm by BP »
	There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading, the few who learn by observation, and the rest who have to pee on the electric fence and find out for themselves. Proud Noodlehead
	IP Logged

rkba2nd Frequent Elocutionist Offline Posts: 1945 Location: earth Joined: Feb 16^th, 2009	Re: Tang sight ID Reply #31 - Oct 8^th, 2019 at 3:17pm	Print Post
	Marlinguy I thought we were talking tang sights here?

	rkba2nd
	IP Logged

BP Frequent Elocutionist Offline Posts: 8039 Location: Westside Joined: Aug 27^th, 2006	Re: Tang sight ID Reply #32 - Oct 8^th, 2019 at 3:45pm	Print Post
	marlinguy wrote on Oct 8^th, 2019 at 10:04am: rkba2nd wrote on Oct 7^th, 2019 at 11:37pm: I was told that the large gunmakers, winchester, Marlin, Remington and Stevens manufactured their own sights, but made others available if desired by the customer. Smaller companies, such as Bullard, used sights of other manufacture as not profitable to make their own. The sight in question certainly appears to be Stevens and may have been altered to fit a Marlin. Hard to tell, not having it in hand. Carry on! If this was true, then how do you explain that Remington, Marlin, Savage all have identical Rocky Mountain silver blade front sights, and buckhorn rear sights? Even the early Ballard and 1881 Marlins used a Rocky Mountain buckhorn rear with the little ears at the base that are also found on early Remingtons. And Savage being later used identical sights used on late 1890's Marlin repeaters. Either they were all made by one sight maker, or one of the gun makers made them for themselves, and sold them to other gun makers. Vall, Take a closer look at those WRA 79 series Rocky Mountain front sights (and the WRA 73 series Knife Blade sights), and the buckhorn rear sights. They're not nearly as identical as you're saying. For example... the steel base WRA made to hold the sight blade is different in profile at both sides of the sight blade from the Marlin's and Steven's versions. There are notable differences in the rear buckhorn sights as well.
	« Last Edit: Oct 8^th, 2019 at 3:53pm by BP »
	There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading, the few who learn by observation, and the rest who have to pee on the electric fence and find out for themselves. Proud Noodlehead
	IP Logged

Bill Lawrence Frequent Elocutionist Offline Posts: 1037 Joined: Mar 17^th, 2014	Re: Tang sight ID Reply #33 - Oct 8^th, 2019 at 4:09pm	Print Post
	BP, Stevens certainly could make a special-order tang sight base and if needed a matching staff that was correctly oriented vertically. But if there was sufficient need and money to be made by offering such a service, I'd have expected to find it listed in the company catalogs. At least in those I have, which are all originals, it isn't. Plus and again, why would an owner go to the trouble and extra expense of having a factory or crackerjack gunsmith make to order what his gun's maker likely already offered, or which general suppliers such as Lyman and BGI offered that would do the job, and would fit without modification? Bill Lawrence
	« Last Edit: Oct 8^th, 2019 at 4:17pm by Bill Lawrence »

	IP Logged

BP Frequent Elocutionist Offline Posts: 8039 Location: Westside Joined: Aug 27^th, 2006	Re: Tang sight ID Reply #34 - Oct 8^th, 2019 at 4:53pm	Print Post
	Bill, I think it would be easier for you to come at it from the other direction and ask yourself why the gun companies, in their catalogs, offered special options, and offered to perform special order work at additional cost. A lot of special work was requested by various customers who wanted something done differently, to suit their particular individual notions, and who had the money to pay for it, that was performed per prior inquiry and arrangement, that was never listed in the various gun company catalogs. Some individuals back then had "their" own favorite sighting equipment arrangement, and still do. Switching out sights is still one of the first things that occurs, even today.

	There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading, the few who learn by observation, and the rest who have to pee on the electric fence and find out for themselves. Proud Noodlehead
	IP Logged

marlinguy Frequent Elocutionist Offline Ballards may be weaker, but they sure are neater! Posts: 16272 Location: Oregon Joined: Feb 2^nd, 2009	Re: Tang sight ID Reply #35 - Oct 10^th, 2019 at 11:49am	Print Post
	BP, As you might have noticed I did not include WRA in the list of gun makers who shared a common front blade, and rear barrel sight? So not sure why you brought in WRA as an example? But Remington, Marlin, and Savage did use identical sights built by what appears to be the same maker. As for Stevens capabilities to build a sight, again you're twisting my words. I simply said if it was a longer base shortened it would lose the rear recess. Not that Stevens couldn't build a special base. But as I mentioned before; I've not seen a gun maker's sight base attributed to a particular company with a spacing that was not typical for that company. I'd still like to know if this sight is 1.5" spacing, or 1.125" spacing? And I'd still like to see the bottom side to see if it's been modified for Marlin spacing, or if the gun is modified to fit this sight?

	(You need to *Login* or *Register* to view media files and links)
	IP Logged

BP Frequent Elocutionist Offline Posts: 8039 Location: Westside Joined: Aug 27^th, 2006	Re: Tang sight ID Reply #36 - Oct 11^th, 2019 at 3:50am	Print Post
	Vall, Haven't we been down this road before regarding a phantom gunsight manufacturing company who supposedly supplied gunsights to all the firearms manufacturers you named? How many sights would this unknown sight company have had to have produced each year, and throughout the years, to keep all of the gun companies you've mentioned supplied with all of their required sights? Next, what all would have been required in order to do so, and how large would the paper trails have been that would have had to have been generated to conduct the business with the multiple firearms manufacturers? There are two pics provided by Phil for the sight... using the rifle action shown as an established known, which has known measurements, what tang sight base length do you end up with using simple scale ratio and direct proportioning?

	There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading, the few who learn by observation, and the rest who have to pee on the electric fence and find out for themselves. Proud Noodlehead
	IP Logged

marlinguy Frequent Elocutionist Offline Ballards may be weaker, but they sure are neater! Posts: 16272 Location: Oregon Joined: Feb 2^nd, 2009	Re: Tang sight ID Reply #37 - Oct 11^th, 2019 at 10:35am	Print Post
	You've twisted my words again BP. I said it could be a common sight maker, or it could be one gun maker who built sights for themselves, but also sold them to other gun makers also.. Yes, there was previous discussion as to companies that could have made sights for gun makers. But that's another conversation, not this one.

	(You need to *Login* or *Register* to view media files and links)
	IP Logged

BP Frequent Elocutionist Offline Posts: 8039 Location: Westside Joined: Aug 27^th, 2006	Re: Tang sight ID Reply #38 - Oct 11^th, 2019 at 3:11pm	Print Post
	marlinguy wrote on Oct 11^th, 2019 at 10:35am: You've twisted my words again BP. I said it could be a common sight maker, or it could be one gun maker who built sights for themselves, but also sold them to other gun makers also.. Yes, there was previous discussion as to companies that could have made sights for gun makers. But that's another conversation, not this one. Vall, If that's for another conversation, not this one... then why did you introduce it into the conversation of this topic when you posted... marlinguy wrote on Oct 7^th, 2019 at 4:45pm: I don't believe most gun makers also made their own sights. I believe that sights were made to specs given by each gun maker to jobbers who built sights in large quantities for the various makers. Some makers had unique sights, while others shared common sights. It's not unusual to see front and rear sights for several gun makers with identical style sights. If they were making them themselves, each would be unique to that maker. That doesn't mean that all maker's sights are the same, but there are numerous examples of gun sights that indeed are the same, and appear to be made by the same supplier. If a gun company made their own sights, then special ordering a sight with a different spacing wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility. But I've never seen a sight that was in the style for a particular maker ever drilled for spacing common to another gun maker's use? I'd like to know if Phil's sight is 1.125" Marlin, or 1.5" Stevens? I think that info would confirm if it's a Stevens or not for sure. Heck, maybe it's got an extra hole under that spring, which would indicate a Stevens base modified to fit his Marlin! and then also posted... marlinguy wrote on Oct 8^th, 2019 at 10:04am: ... If this was true, then how do you explain that Remington, Marlin, Savage all have identical Rocky Mountain silver blade front sights, and buckhorn rear sights? Even the early Ballard and 1881 Marlins used a Rocky Mountain buckhorn rear with the little ears at the base that are also found on early Remingtons. And Savage being later used identical sights used on late 1890's Marlin repeaters. Either they were all made by one sight maker, or one of the gun makers made them for themselves, and sold them to other gun makers.

	There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading, the few who learn by observation, and the rest who have to pee on the electric fence and find out for themselves. Proud Noodlehead
	IP Logged

marlinguy Frequent Elocutionist Offline Ballards may be weaker, but they sure are neater! Posts: 16272 Location: Oregon Joined: Feb 2^nd, 2009	Re: Tang sight ID Reply #39 - Oct 11^th, 2019 at 7:22pm	Print Post
	I brought it up then, and I still think it's a possibility. But it's not part of this discussion and since we never got an answer to confirm or deny it then, why would I bring it into this discussion? I do know when to stop beating a dead horse. But if it makes you feel better, then bring it up as often as you need to!

	(You need to *Login* or *Register* to view media files and links)
	IP Logged

Page Index Toggle

Pages: 1 2 [3]

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

« Board Index ‹ Board Top

Top

ASSRA Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.6.12!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.

Valid XHTML

Valid CSS

Powered by Perl

Source Forge

Page completed in 1.2337 seconds.