Receiver sight vs. Tang Sight

[JudgeBAC]

After load developement ends with this rifle (Marlin Cowboy .38-55) oops yeah like load developement ever ends; I need to install a receiver sight or tang sight. Which shoudl I consider and which sight is the best?

[NickSS]

I have had a William FP reciever sight and a Marbles tang sight on my 38-55 cowboy rifle. They both work fine. The Williams sight has click adjustments and so does the Marble sight. I like the reciever sight better as it does not get in the way of gripping the rifle. The marlin bolt comes so far to the rear that the tang sight has to sit on a little block of steel way the the rear of the tang. this interferes with a good grip on the stock when shooting. However, I had to put the tang sight on as it was the only one other than barrel sights allowed for Cowboy long range competition. When I switched to a lever action 94 winchester with a marbles tang sight for my long range lever gun I put the reciever sight back on my 38-55 Marlin and use it for hunting and plinking now and my 1913 vintage Winchester for long range lever gun shoots.

[straightshooter1]

I also like the receiver sight as I can grip the rifle withou having to deal with a chunk of metal being in the way.

I expect the tang sight might be better at some REALLY long range, but at the distance I shoot my 38-55, the Lyman 66 I have works perfectly.

BTW, I am surprised you can't use .380s. I have had two of these Marlin 38-55s and both were .380. I was "told" that Marlin intentionally made them at .380, but I have forgoten why. I also recall Mid-Kansas Bullets (whom I don't think are in business anymore) used to make .380 38-55s especially for the (then) new Marlins.

Mine has been extremely accurate, I traded the first one for the second one only because I didn't like the checkering the early ones had. With every load I have tried, I have been well-pleased. (OK, there was that time I loaded "The Load", 13 grains of Red Dot without checking the manual and it was waaaaay too hot, unlocked the action, cratered primers, biiiiig noise-hours then wasted pulling boolits).:roll:

I think this is a great rifle and cartridge combination, at least for me. Sounds like yours is working real well.

Bob

[Bret4207]

Although I love the look of a tang sight, a recv'r sight is easier to work around when hunting, shooting etc. My Savage 99 wears a Marbles tang sight as does my Remington #4, Stevens 44 and 1 or 2 others I think. I like them, but they do make your grip awkward.

[Jon K]

I have both Williams and Marbles Tang. For tang rifles, I prefer the Marbles, and rifles w/o tang Williams.
Marbles sits closer to the eye, I find this easy to use, and the adjustment is easy click and go.
Williams sits farther away from the eye, and on some guns, I find it harder to use- focus time. Elevation lock screw- Williams FPTK is the only way to go, no screw driver.
Both are exellent sights and that's my view.

On a seperate note, I do have to say Marbles Warranty/Customer Service is Top Notch, right up there with RCBS & T/C. I have a 92 tang sight that wouldn't stay in the correct upright postion. I called them and talked to Joan in Customer Service, she said send it in with a note to her attention. Less than 2 weeks later it was at my doorstep- rebuilt the whole thing- NO CHARGE.

Have Fun Shooting,
Jon

:castmine:

[NVcurmudgeon]

I have several rifles with Lyman receiver sights and think they are great, especially when it comes to adjusting. OTOH my Remington 141 pump has a Lyman tang sight which fits only the 14/141 and looks cool, but it is hard to adjust (NO windage adjustment.) If historical appearance is desireable for CAS, the tang would get the nod (some posses can be fanatical,) but IMO you can't beat the receiver sight for practicality.

[John F.]

What NVCurmugeon said...

I have used original vintage Lyman and Marble's tang sights on older leverguns,
and while they work, most of these don't have windage adjustment. The older Lymans also do not have a lock for the elevation adjustment, and as they wear (which can be quickly) they become very easy to adjust -- not good for ensuring accurate zero. The old Marbles were superior in this respect, as they have a lock-nut arrangement to ensure your zero doesn't change once set. I have not fooled with the new Marbles tang sights with windage adjustment. However, a good receiver sight -- Williams FP, Lyman 66 or similar -- is a joy forever, and very easy to work with. Adjusting the old tang sights is a bit of a "cut and try" game, but the click-adjustable receiver sight makes life a lot easier, particularly if you switch loads often.

John

[floodgate]

Parts Unknown does have replacement stems for older and current Lyman sights that DO have windage adjustments at the aperture - copied from a scarce early Lyman design. I have not seen or used one, but theiir work on ther sights I have is top-notch and affordable. They are made to rigorous specs in Ukraine and shipped to Sergei Pustogorodsky in Canada; he has an unlimited warranty and a fine reputation.

floodgate

[Jon K]

The new Marble's Tang sights have positive repeatable sights. They are as good and repeatable as any reciever sight, and better than some production target sights.
I use mine for Lever Action Silhoutte, and need them to have positive repeatable adjustment. By guess and by golly, slip & slide are not for me.
I own 4 of the new type, and wouldn't hesitate to buy another.

I know what you mean about the old Marbles sights, I have an old one on a Win 1885 low wall circa 1889, I don't know when the sight was made, but it's old, and the adjustments suck! The only reason I don't take it off is antique value.


Jon
:castmine:

[ebner glocken]

On my marlin 1895CB I have a williams FP receiver sight and a lyman globe front. As others stated earlier it's out of the way of your hand and bolt. I like it much better than the lyman tang on my 94.

[mtngunr]

Utmost precision and/or aging eyes might appreciate the tang sight due to longer sight radius....for plain practicality, the receiver sight is hard to beat in most instances....my limited experiment a couple of years back ("couple" as in more than I want to admit to) had open sight groups cut in half by a receiver sight, the receiver sight groups cut in half by a scope, and the tang sight falling in between the latter two while being closer to receiver sight group sizes.....

[Char-Gar]

I MUCH prefer the receiver sight for the following reasons,

1. You don't have to fold it up or down..it is always ready to use
2. If doesn't interfer with where you put your thumb
3. It is easier to adjust
4. On an uphill shot with a heavy recoil rifle, you don't run the risk of sticking it in your eye.

I don't think the little extra distance closer to your eye you get with a tang offsets the negatives.

[Larry Gibson]

My vote goes with Charger. I've used tang sights on numerous lever actions and whhile most of them proved accurate they always were "in the way" of the thumb and what I prefer as a proper grip onn a straight stocked rifle. The older Lyman steel reciever sights are just the ticket. However the new ones work fine also.

Larry Gibson