Marble's tang sight on M1895?

[Naphtali]

With two friends I recently shot one's newly arrived USRAC/Winchester M1886 that Doug Turnbull had rebored and converted to 475 Turnbull. Among the most startling things about the shooting were: Mr. Turnbull had installed a Marble's tang sight; the sight did not interfere with manipulating the rifle or action; and the sight did not touch shooter's eye or spectacles during recoil despite the 400-grain factory ammunition fired.

I have not met anyone who has a Marble's tang sight installed on a currently manufactured Marlin M1895. I have one being customized as I type. These sights, with drilling & tapping [installation], are not inexpensive. Is this sight as efficient installed on the M1895 as it is on the M1886? I am not certain, but I believe the sight base mounts differently on the Marlin tang because of the tang's serial number. I do not know whether this causes problems specific to Marlins that preclude its efficient use.

If there are no problems associated with the sight installed on Marlins, this would be a painless way to: increase sight radius; improve quickness to acquire sights; and improve potential accuracy while retaining an easily carried simple rifle.

[Gun Smith]

While I am not personally aquainted with the current Marlin I can generally say that a tang sight is superior at an open sight in virtually all shooting situations. The main complaint with a tang sight is it either requires you to hold your thumb along the side of the receiver to avoid the sight or risk getting bruised or cut if you wrap your thumb around the rifle grip . Once you use a peep sight in any location, receiver or tang, you will never go back to an open sight. Depending on how low you are able to move the sight post, you may have to get a higher front sight. The tang peep needs to be visually clear of any interference by the top of the receiver. The eye will move up in the peep aperture if it sees the curve of the top of the receiver and will create inconsistant groups.

[El Chivo]

I am considering those for my 336's and looked at the picture on Midway. This model has a tall cubic base that looks a little strange, but apparently is the only way to avoid the serial number. Also I think the tang of the 336 drops more than other rifles, so it needs a little more height to start off with.

As far as use, I usually end up lowering the front sight in order to start low on the tang sight stem for near shots, then have plenty of room to raise it for long shots. Also that is more stable and less counting to get it up there.

Personally I wouldn't go back to receiver sights. I am trying a scope for hunting this year and will probably ditch it too. It's great viewing but heavy to carry and I don't like the balance.

[Naphtali]

While I am not personally aquainted with the current Marlin I can generally say that a tang sight is superior at an open sight in virtually all shooting situations. The main complaint with a tang sight is it either requires you to hold your thumb along the side of the receiver to avoid the sight or risk getting bruised or cut if you wrap your thumb around the rifle grip . Once you use a peep sight in any location, receiver or tang, you will never go back to an open sight. Depending on how low you are able to move the sight post, you may have to get a higher front sight. The tang peep needs to be visually clear of any interference by the top of the receiver. The eye will move up in the peep aperture if it sees the curve of the top of the receiver and will create inconsistant groups.

The rifle presently has a very good adjustable aperture rear sight. The "view window" of the tang sight is, however, much larger and quicker to acquire -- or that's how the 475's sight is. Although the present sight is receiver mounted, I would need to remove it to take advantage of one mounted on the tang.

The M1886 has a semipistol grip. With Marble's sight up in its using position, my shooting grip was essentially identical with what I use with no tang sight present. When the sight was folded down, I had an option of laying shooting thumb along the side of the grip or draping over the sight's stem. But why would I worry about this situation. I wouldn't be aiming or shooting. And engaging the stem takes less that one second.

[AJMD429]

The "view window" of the tang sight is, however, much larger and quicker to acquire -- or that's how the 475's sight is.

Consider removing the aperture from the sight you have, and using it in 'ghost ring' configuration. I find that to be fast to use, and yet can ALSO be very accurate if you need, simply by taking just a bit more time in that case to get your sight picture.

[Sixgun]

When one uses a tang sight, he must take the same approach as when using a scope-----that means on a rifle, you have to plant the butt of the rifle firmly in your shoulder and take hold of the rifle with your other hand. I have literally used hundreds, possibly over a thous. of antique and modern leverguns from .22 LR to 45-70's pushing 400 grain bullets @ 2000 fps and have never had one smack me in the eye or my glasses. I wrap the thumb around the wrist when hunting and have never had that bruised. (I run the thumb along the tang when silhouette shooting).

Like a revolver, its all about gripping that rifle. Pretend the G-men are trying to take it from you and you ain't lettin' go.---------- --Sixgun

[Naphtali]

The "view window" of the tang sight is, however, much larger and quicker to acquire -- or that's how the 475's sight is.

Consider removing the aperture from the sight you have, and using it in 'ghost ring' configuration. I find that to be fast to use, and yet can ALSO be very accurate if you need, simply by taking just a bit more time in that case to get your sight picture.

Inner aperture has been removed. It is ghost ring-sized. And neglected to mention the Marlin has full pistol grip.

[O.S.O.K.]

The Marlins are a PITA for the tang sights - I had one on my 1895 (Lyman) and it just looked silly - wierd. I took it off and it now wears an XS sight with tall front bead (.600" 1/16 brass bead).

I do like the Marbles tang sights on my Winchesters though - they are excellent and with my C&R discount from Brownells, they are around $75 - not bad IMHO.

I've also got a Lyman on another Win 94 AE - and its fine - just had to shim it too get the windage right - the Marbles are adjustable in this regard of course.

Here's a pic of my 30-30 AI m94 with a Marbles installed:



And don't forget the rear sight blank! Marbles makes a very nice one that is curved and looks nice installed.

[Pete44ru]

Lyman supplies a sub-base (about 1/8" thick) with their #2 tang sight meant for Marlin's - which has the second hole a lot closer to the tang screw hole, in order to avoid D/T-ing through the serial number.
The tang sight base attaches to the sub-base normally, except that the front screw goes into the sub-base only ILO the tang.

I've mounted Lymans on late Marlins, but not a Marbles - but would presume Marbles would do something similar to avoid abetting the flouting of Federal law (serial number obliteration).

.

[Naphtali]

I believe Lyman's sight is not vernier adjustable for windage while Marble's sight is.

I think I deciphered PITA; I'm not enthusiastic about Internet short forms. Without details this is aproductive. With the exception of perhaps needing to recreate the serial number elsewhere, Winchester and Marlin tangs appear to serve identical functions in similar configurations.