Peeps for Hunting/Field Use

[Hook]

I have a couple of Browning 1886s with barrel sights that are just about useless to me for field or hunting purposes because of my aging eyes. I can see peeps much better and plan to add them on the 86s. The choices out there seem to be the Lyman 21 copies, receiver peeps like the Williams and Lyman, and tang peeps like the Marble.

I'd really like to hear some of your opinions (yes, I know the line about opinions) of the ease, practicality, problems, etc., of the different styles of peep sights for field use. I figure there are quite a few in this bunch that would have hand's on experince using these old guns for their original purposes.

[J Miller]

Hook,

My experience in general is the side mount sights such as the Williams and Lyman are excellent choices. I've used them for many years with perfect satisfaction.
They seem to be the right distance from my eyes whereas the tang sights are just too close. The tang sights also interfere with my grip on the stock.
The replica Lyman 21 would be a nice period correct sight as well. It's aperture is in basically the same place as the current side mount sights would be.

If I had the rifle you do and wanted a receiver sight on it, I'd go for the Williams or Lyman side mount. Easy, reasonably priced, durable, accurate.

Just speaking from my experiences.

Joe

[86er]

I had a Lyman 66 on my gun. I broke it twice. I then went with the Williams. It was more durable in my experience. However, I have a High Grade and it blocked out the gold animals. I machined down the bottom of the base up to the screw hole and it made the gold more visible. I never did warm up to it though, and I put a weaver type base where the rear sight was out on the barrel. On the base I have a large ring XS Weaver Low Back-up sight.

[Malamute]

I'm rather fond of the Lyman No 56's. They were first used in the late 20's or early 30's. Much more interesting looking than the later sights. The late Lyman No 66's are aluminum, and are thinner slides (more fragile) than the Williams, tho the Lymans look nicer on an older model rifle. If you can find an earlier Lyman 66, they were steel.



Lyman No 56 on a Browning 1886 carbine.

[Pathfinder09]

I have and 1886 and an 1895 Winchesters both wear Lyman 66WB receiver sights I am very happy with them. I recently picked up an 1886 SRC and I am putting a Williams FP sight on it. we'll see how I like that. Both are great sights. I loke the Lyman 21 too for historical reasons but the folks who havew them on this forum seem to like them.

In summary I think you are right the barrel sights don't do it at least for me too. Any of the above mentioned sight are of high quality and give good service.

Excuse the quality of the photos.

[Mike D.]

I find the reciever sights to provide the same sight picture, regardless of type and manufacturer. My guns carry sights by Lyman, Redding and Williams. The late model 1886s were factory drilled for receiver sights when the type sight was requested from Winchester. Newer Miroku guns carrying the Winchester name are also drilled, but not the Browning copies of the late 1980s and 90s. IMO, drilling for receiver mounted sights is a matter of personal choice and the "potential value" of the rifle should not be considered, especially if the gun is to be used as intended. All of the currently, as well as vintage, manufactured side mounted sights will fit the factory holes drilled on the upper left rear of the receiver. The exception to this would be the reproductions of the Lyman Nos 21 and 38 sights. These will require two new holes to be drilled and tapped. As I see it, the addition of a receiver sight is a plus, enhancing the gun's usefulness, especially to us with "aging eyes". Whatever sight you choose to mount, go ahead and do it, you will not be disappointed with the results.

[Hook]

Thanks, guys....this is exactly the input I was looking for. I am familiar with and can use pretty much all the styles for benchrest and plinking, but was just unsure which would be best for the field.

I was leaning toward the tang peep because of it's common recurrence in the old vintage hunting photos. I figured those ole boys would only tolerate what worked. Also, I figured I could handle drilling and tapping the one small additional hole myself and save some time and money. However, I really was concerned about the sight getting in the way of handling the rifle under hunting conditions and also the eye safety factor if you aren't paying close attention. It sounds like those concerns are real, at least from J Miller's point of view (and others I heard about over the years). If anyone has positive hand's-on experience otherwise, I'd love to hear about it.

The receiver style is one that I am more familiar with and should work quite well. I don't think I want to tackle the drilling of the receivers for either style (Williams or Lyman 21), but such is life. I fortunately have a good shade tree gunsmith that does excellent work in that department.

Malemute, that old Lyman is very pleasing to the eye and I really like the graduated adjustment knobs, but I don't think I can find one reasonably priced. I did a quick google on them and they seem to run in the $200+ range. I would be interested in hearing about the Browning you attached a picture of, wrt whether you had to change the front sight on your SRC after adding the Lyman.

[Wind]

Greetings Hook - Well here I go again, charging in like the Lone Ranger with an opposing opinion!! I am a huge tang sight guy. I prefer the Marbles as thay have a windage adjustment. They are also producing a removable staff sight where in you can buy a taller insert and increase your long distance capability. You rarely have to mess with a front sight change too. By changing the eye piece, you can go from precision shooting to almost a ghost ring effect. Changing yardage shots is easy AND QUIET by just counting "clicks" up or down whilst twisting the sight adjustment barrel. No tools needed. I think that is very handy in the field when you're sighted in for 150 yards and that buck steps out at 240. Depending on the stock, I either snub my thumb up behind the sight base or lay it along side. Doesn't take to long to get used to. They fold down for transport and carry. Hope this helps. Watch yer top knot. Wind

[AJMD429]

To me, the TANG sights are just too fragile for most hunting or 'tactical' situations, although the 'nostalgia' factor can't be beat. I also like setups where you may have a scope, but can bring the tang sight into play by flipping it up if desired.

Keep in mind that the Williams FP (and probably other brands) can be ordered with "Target" knobs which facilitate on-range or on-stand range adjustments quickly and quietly like the tang sights. If you don't have a "Target" Williams FP, you can get the knobs and convert a regular FP for under twenty bucks. Many people I know do that, and ONLY put the "target" knob on the elevation, since they are unlikely to alter windage in the field.

[Malamute]

I paid between $20 and $80 for my Lyman 56's. I didnt know they had gone up so much. All I've bought have been at gun shows. Some were in junk boxes, and may have needed a small part here or there. You could always get a newer model sight installed, and keep your eyes open for older sights at shows. I recently bought a steel Lyman 66 for $25 at a show.


I didnt have to change the front sight on the 86 carbine.


I've removed the target knobs from all my Lyman receiver sights. I have had them change adjustment when shoved into and out of scabbards.


I for one, dislike the tang sights greatly. I bought a Browning 92 with one on it, I thought "Cool! nice sight!"....First time I handled it, I took it off and D&T'ed the gun for a reciever sight. My feelings are about the same with any old Winchesters that I handle with tang sights. Very uncomfortable and awkward to me. In my opinion, they were used "back in the day" because it was all they had available as an improvment on the barrel sights. Technically good sights, but awkward as all get out,...for some of us.


I can't help but notice, tang sights pretty much faded out after decent receiver sights became available.

[Jacko]

I'm not sure if you are interested in non receiver mounted peeps but have a look at http://skinnersights.com/ I have one of his dovetail mounted peeps and am impressed with it no end . I also bought his short dovetail peep and a front sight blade for my Rossi .357 . Just rugged , great value and quality and no drilling holes !

Follow this link also as differant threads on it show some variations he makes and his ladder sights that are not on his website just yet . http://www.marlinowners.com/forums/inde ... ,66.0.html

regards Jacko

[TNBigBore]

Good to see you here at Leverguns Hook. I am with you on the factory Browning 1886 sights being worthless for field use, at least in our wooded part of the country. I personally prefer the Williams to the current production Lyman receiver sights. I have had to send back no less than three of the modern Lyman sights because they could not be tightened down sufficiently to prevent wobble. I have never had any problems with the Williams FP or older Lyman sights. I cannot get a comfortable grip on any levergun with a tang sight, so I have quit using them altogether. The factory front sight on the 1886 SRC is the right shape and could most likely be improved with a little bit of white paint or fingernail polish.

[Mike D.]

I'm another shooter/hunter that dislikes tang type sights, especially on the 1886. They make the gun awkward to grip and can cause serious eye injuries under the often vicious recoil of the larger cartridges. They may be fine for target shooting, but are worthless for field use.

[SJPrice]

I too enjoy the Browning 1886's.. I have both a SRC and a 26 inch octagon barreled rifle both in High Grade. I agree the factory sights are worthless to older eyes. I went an different route with mine as I did not like the way a tang sight got in the way of my grip and I also did not like the way the receiver sights looked. I changed to a Smith full buckhorn rear sight and find it works great as a "peep" sight for hunting. http://www.buffaloarms.com/browse.cfm/2,231.html It also flips up to give you a long range ladder sight and using the old time method of lifting your cheek off the stock with the ladder sight I can shoot pretty well out past 600 yards. Of course the only game I shoot out that far is rocks and such. Nice thing about the full buckhorn sights is the fact that it does not change the lines or handling of the rifle.

[Hobie]

I have a couple of Browning 1886s with barrel sights that are just about useless to me for field or hunting purposes because of my aging eyes. I can see peeps much better and plan to add them on the 86s. The choices out there seem to be the Lyman 21 copies, receiver peeps like the Williams and Lyman, and tang peeps like the Marble.

I'd really like to hear some of your opinions (yes, I know the line about opinions) of the ease, practicality, problems, etc., of the different styles of peep sights for field use. I figure there are quite a few in this bunch that would have hand's on experince using these old guns for their original purposes.

Williams FP-71 or the equivalent Lyman will do just fine.

[Hook]

Jacko, can you see the barrel peep better than the original barrel sight? I guess what I'm asking is whether you are an old fa*t like me and have deteriorating eyesight? I wonder if my 60 yr old eyes will be able to see the peep that far away when I can't see the notch rear sight that well.

TNBigBore, how are things in North Alabama. Didn't know you were into 86s. The ladder sight and square notch front sight on my SRC are very accurate and actually shoot to point of aim out to 300 yds. I can see a large square post with a square notch rear sight fairly well when I have plenty of time to sort out which one of the three front posts is the middle one AND if the target is well defined. I shoot my SRC and Rossi 92 clone very well under those circumstances. When a deer is in that thick stuff you alluded to AND the light is low AND I have 0.75 seconds to get off a shot....forget it! The bead front sight and semi-buckhorn rear on the 86 rifle are even worse.

My plan it to put a peep on the SRC and a post front (either a Beech sight or one of Skinners posts) and a peep rear on the rifle. That way, MAYBE I can reach a comfort level to take these things hunting next year. Of course, 86er told me how he put a LER scope on his 1886, and how it has worked well for him for many years of hard hunting. If I don't get there with the peeps, I may have to consider that.

[Jacko]

The barrel mounted peep for my 45 year old eyes offers an excellant sight picture much more precise than the buckhorn , works just like a receiver mounted peep for me . I have an Lee Enfield with a receiver mounted Central Arms peep and comparing the shorter sight radius with the barrel mounted Skinner peep is not noticable . The peep it's self is not in focus but sort of a ghost ring type effect - my eyes quickly centre the front sight and I get a clear sight picture . My groups come down near 1/2 the size compared to the buckhorn rear sight as supplied on my Rossi .

regards Jacko

[Pete44ru]

Although I've installed a Marbles tang sight on a Miroku/Winchester 86EL, I've since revised my opinion, and have relegated tangers to target shooting, not hunting.

If I had a Browning 1886 that had to be D/T'd for a peep, I would D/T two holes - one in the top/rear of each action side rail - for a Williams top-mounted FP meant for the angle-eject Win 94AE.

IMHO, it would make for a pretty "clean" installation.

.

[Hook]

If I had a Browning 1886 that had to be D/T'd for a peep, I would D/T two holes - one in the top/rear of each action side rail - for a Williams top-mounted FP meant for the angle-eject Win 94AE.

Hmmm, yet even another option. Has anyone actually tried this?

[Paul E.]

just installed the willians 5d firesight on my top eject 94, and it was the best thing i have ever done, factory setting for the windage was perfect, and only took one slight adjustment on the elevation to zero it in, Like you i have aging eyes (54), and these sights enabled me to shoot accurately again. Now all i have to do is find some copper rounds to go hunting, here in Cali they banned lead for all the best hunting area's.
Paul

[Dave]

The peep sight makes good shooting a lot easier. I have had very good luck with the Williams Foolproof and 5D.

[dgslyr]

If I had a Browning 1886 that had to be D/T'd for a peep, I would D/T two holes - one in the top/rear of each action side rail - for a Williams top-mounted FP meant for the angle-eject Win 94AE.

Hmmm, yet even another option. Has anyone actually tried this?

The 86 is alot wider than the 94.That might work on a 92 though.

[Lastmohecken]

The Williams FP 71 is about as good as it gets for an 1886, I put one on my Browning 1886 SRC last year and I also put one on my Browning 95 and it works great there, also.

I put receiver sights on most of my iron sighted levers, with the one exception; and that is the pre-64 Winchester model 94. On that gun I stay with the original semi-buckhorn sights. There is just something about that particular combination, that allows my old eyes to still see it really good, and I actually prefer it to the average receiver sight.

[Pete44ru]

If I had a Browning 1886 that had to be D/T'd for a peep, I would D/T two holes - one in the top/rear of each action side rail - for a Williams top-mounted FP meant for the angle-eject Win 94AE.

Hmmm, yet even another option. Has anyone actually tried this?

I don't know - I was just proposing as to what I would like to try.

The Williams 5D/FP peeps for the 94AE's have a measurement, side-to-side, between the two mounting holes of exactly .800" - but I don't have a Model 86 handy, to measure the distance between it's receiver side rails, center-to-center.

One possible problem, that might have to be solved via machining the back of the overhanging sight base, is that the M-86 left receiver wall may be too thick to allow the mount holes to center the rails, without modifying the left sight base overhang.

One thing I DO KNOW that fits a Model 86 in the top mount position, is an XS peep - as they make a sight specifically for Model 71/86's, along with a pin-in front sight blade.

There is a pic of Brian Pearce's M-86, with one mounted, in the March 2007 Rifle Magazine (#230), pp.16.

BTW - XS makes two peeps for the 71/86 - one for rifles with a front ramp, and another for those w/o ramp.

Here's the stock numbers:
Pinned front sight = *1-WI-0002-1-
Peep ( gun w/ramp)= *1-WI-1106-5-
Peep ( w/o ramp) = *1-WI-0018-5-

.

[Charles]

I started shooting peep sights on first a Winchester 75 (1954) and later a 'winchester 52 (1956) in small bore competition. In '56 I also started high power with the 03 Springfield and a Lyman long slide 48 year sight. Later I went to a NM Garand, again with the military peep. I also equiped my hunting rifles with good peep sights. To this day, I still prefer peep sights to scopes by a large margin.

For a bolt gun, the Lyman 48 was the best sight ever made. The 66 also is a good sight for a rifle with a flat sided receiver. The Redfield sights (70 and 80) are also good mico adjustable receiver sights. Thought not field adjustable, the all steel Redfield 102 is a hell for stout receiver sight for hard use rifles. Once adjusted put a little Locktite on the screws and the sight will be there when you need it. The 102s are still reasonable on the used market.

The only thing the tang sights have going for them is nostalga. They are delicate compared to receiver sights, prone to wear at the joint, and have to be folded up and down and they alway seem to be in the wrong position. Then there is always the issue of what to do with your thumb? I don't find them useful and certainly inferior to a good receiver mounted peep sight.

The Williams sight? The first one I had was given to me by old man Williams himself who used to spend winters down here in deep South Texas in the 50's and early 60's. They are good solid sights, with positive locks that hold them in place under hard use conditions. I can only fault them for esthetics, being made of alloy and having a spray on finish. I don't use them, but it is only for snooty esthetic reasons. It is for that same reason I hunt down old all steel Lyman and Redfield sights. The newer alloy Lymans work just fine and are as rugged as they need to be.

Being an old target shooter, I prefer the target knobs on bolt rifles so I can dial in windage and evevation in the field. For rought duty/saddle scabbard use, the hunter knobs, the Redfield 102 or Williams is the way to go. If you know your rifle, you load and are decent at guesstimating the range, you can use Kentucky windage and elevation out to the limits of the sight. But it is still elegant to feel those elevation clicks as you countdown the yardage, 150, 200, 250,300, 350. yards.
t

[Hook]

I want to thank you all for the input. It really helps to get feed back based on experience.