another picture

Thanks, Val

It's the bottom line for a tang sight from Ballard and you would think they would be easier to find and less expensive, but they are a rare find (around here at least) and cost accordingly.

Froggie

westerner wrote on Sep 21^st, 2019 at 7:44am:


No. A Stevens wont be the 1.125" spacing that Marlin used. They're 1.5" centers.

Proof?  (And, no, not just because you said so.)

Bill Lawrence

Phil,
I finally had a moment and looked through some of my books, I'm going to agree with Wes-turner on the origin of this sight - it looks to be a Stevens.  In Tom Rowe's recent book there is a picture of a sight that closely resembles what you have.  I'd like to see another couple views of yours yet, it is all "slider" configuration? Attached is a picture out of Tom's book with the one of similar features.   
If sights interest you, Tom's book is worth having.   
Hoping Tom doesn't mind me posting a page from his book 
Greg

It was the spacing that made me question that the sight was a Stevens (sorry, Joe) since to the best of my knowledge Winchester, Marlin, Stevens, et al. only sold tang sights that fit their guns.

Bill Lawrence

It's quite easy to shorten a Winchester sight's long base to neatly fit a Stevens, Ballard, or other such tang.  But shortening a Steven's base with its 1-1/2" spacing to fit a Ballard at 1-1/8" would seem to me to possibly require a new rear screw with a noticeably smaller head.  Of course, if you really don't care about looks and if necessary are willing and able to readjust the staff's vertical position . . .

Bill Lawrence

First off, I don't see anywhere in this thread where pmcfall gives the hole spacing. 

Pictured below are features of the sight that are Stevens features not Ballard. 

Left is the screw head above the spring that no Ballard sight has. 

Middle is the profile of the base which is a Stevens feature not Ballard. 

Right is windage and lock screw in the eyepiece that is a Stevens feature, not Ballard.

Some Stevens and Ballard sights have the outside mounted spring. The sights are easy to distinguish. The differences are obvious to anyone willing to take the time to look and compare the two sights. 

pmcfalls sight looks like a Stevens sight not a Ballard sight. 

As to base screw spacing. Stevens would re-barrel your rifle, restock your rifle. Stevens would do just about anything anyone was willing to pay for. Would it not be a simple matter for Stevens to use spacing that worked on a  particular brand rifle?

Bill Lawrence wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2019 at 11:54am:



Bill. You started the proof thing in this thread.  

Changing/providing custom screw spacing in a sight base is a trivial detail. Easily done. Do you require proof for that too? 

I made no statement of fact, Bill. Did you see the question mark at the end of my sentence?

Changing hole spacing in a sight base is very easy to do. I know from experience. This thread is about who manufacture the sight in the picture pmcfall posted not hole spacing. 

Below, another Stevens sight on a early Stevens rifle showing the same features shown in pmcfalls picture. Not sure if that's a Stevens rifle. I don't know much about the early Stevens break open single shot rifles so please do not ask me to prove it.

Details. You old duffers are not looking at the details. Surprising as they are right in front of your eyes. I wouldn't be surprised if some of you couldn't tell the difference between a Chevy and a Ford. Is it old age? Dementia? Got a little dementia goin there? 

Do I have to post pictures of Ballard sights now? Any of you old farts own a book?

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!

marlinguy wrote on Oct 7^th, 2019 at 4:45pm:


You and Maxine Waters got a lot in common..........

rkba2nd wrote on Oct 7^th, 2019 at 11:37pm:


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.

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.

Thanks, Vall, for being more explicit than I was.

Bill Lawrence

Marlinguy   I thought we were talking tang sights here?

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

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'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.

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!