Marlin 39A sights

[chickenstripe]

I own a 70's vintage 39A and the only thing I dislike are the sights. They don't seem to be fine enough for my tastes, and the brass bead front sight is easily lost on various backgrounds.

I have a sneaking suspicion that this is an accurate rifle, I just feel the sights are holding it back. (don't want to put a scope on it)

Can anyone give me any input on replacement sights for these rifles?

[Baja_Traveler]

Your suspicion is correct - they are very accurate rifles, and the 39a is the must-have model for lever action small bore silhouette. You need to put a Lyman 17a globe on the front and a Williams Foolproof peep sight on the back(FP-39-TK), or alternatively a Marbles tang sight on the back.

[gnoahhh]

Dead on advice. I would consider scaring up an old all-steel Lyman 66 too.

[94Doug]

Good enough for the Colonel.

Doug

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/picture.php?albumid=442&pictureid=4186

[uscra112]

Your suspicion is correct - they are very accurate rifles

True dat!

[9.3X62AL]

I have a Marlin 39A of similar vintage (1974 or so), and it may be my most accurate rimfire rifle--ever. I've adapted to the open iron sights usually found on leverguns over the years, and can do decent work with them in the field. They do lack a little something for fine target work, though.....and these lever Marlins can illustrate that succinctly.

Great little rifles.

[chickenstripe]

The 17A has several different versions. Which one would work best?
17AHB
17AEU
17AMI
17AML
17AUG
or 17ATC ?

Would this set-up be acceptable for field use?

[RJM52]

Should you go with the Lyman 17A globe for the front get the Shaver Globe Sight Inserts available through Brownells. I have a 17A on the front of a Springfield M1 .22 target rifle and the Shaver insert kit lets one really take advantage of the front globe sight.

Bob

[RJM52]

The 17A has several different versions. Which one would work best?
17AHB
17AEU
17AMI
17AML
17AUG
or 17ATC ?

Would this set-up be acceptable for field use?

Get a caliper and measure from the bottom of the dovetail to the top of the bead or just tap your front sight of and get the overall height. Then match it to whatever the closest is for a 17A. My guess is that you will need the lowest one.

I have had 17A on two guns and have hunted with both. Under very low light conditions they are less than ideal but overall there isn't too much of a problem in normal average daylight...

Bob

[saltydog452]

I bought a 39 A 'Golden' in Jan '67.

The factory front sight had a protective hood covering a brass ball ball front. The protective hood prevented light from getting to and reflecting off of the brass bead. The hood was easily slid off for shooting and then back on when the 39 was transported. That combination was the cat's whiskers for field use.

I shoulda stoped while I was ahead.

Fast fwd about 20 years to when I was plinking crows and metal chickens at 100 yds. Since this Golden 39 A was factory drilled to accept the Lyman 66 MC rear. I figured that I'd gfve it a whirl.

When I tried the 66 MC and the Lyman 17 AHB front together, I had to elevate the rear 66 MC way beyond reason. It was past the point of being just fragile and unsupported. Soooo, the ffront sight base was removed and a dovetail was cut in the barrel tip that'd lower the 17 AHB.

Now that time has moved fwd another couple of decades, I really wish that I gotten a tang rear, a fold down midships rear and left the front OEM brass bead alone. That combination would seem to offer options from back porch crow and pine cone sniping to whatever seems like fun at the time.

All of this was pre-internet and the monthly gun rags were considered comparable with Moses bringing down Holy Writ etched in granite from the mountain top.

salty

[keyhole]

I did what you are contemplating to my late 70's vintage 39A. Rear sight is the Williams Fool Proof (Model F-P). The first attempt at a front sight was the Lyman 17 AUG, 0.584" height. It proved too tall, causing the rear sight to be elevated way too much. So what I am using now is the Lyman 17 AHB, 0.404 height. It has worked out OK. The center of the rear aperature is about 0.55" above the receiver, for a 25 yard zero. This is with either the circle inserts or the narrow post. Both Lyman front sights came with 4 inserts plus a yellow clear disc.
A lower front sight would be even better. The .404 height causes the rear sight to be elevated a fair amount, but nothing extreme. I don't know if lower front posts are available. If so, I'd get one a little lower than 0.404. I can't imagine they make one too much lower because on the 0.404 sight, there is not much space between the bottom of the sight globe and the top of the front sight base on the rifle.

The circle insert is OK for bullseye targets, but not much good for field shooting, at least for me. The narrow post has worked out fine. I really like it. Like you, I find the original sights useless, especially for my 60 year old eyes. I thought of getting a scope but the looks of a scope of a trim lever rifle just does not work for me.

If anyone needs a 17 AUG I'll make them a good deal.

Keyhole

[MakeMineA10mm]

I've got a small scope on my 39A, but I hate scoped lever-guns. You guys have inspired me!

:bigsmyl2:

[94Doug]

My "in town" dealer now has two of these in stock, one is a reeeeal old model, the other a nice stock version that looks about 20-30 years old. Must........resist.

Doug

[chickenstripe]

OK, I believe I'm going to spring for the Williams rear peep sight.

Are the applicable threaded holes the ones shown in the picture?

[Baja_Traveler]

No, the 39A sight uses the threaded holes on the top of the receiver.

http://www.pbase.com/baja_traveler/image/137580678.jpg

[Clyde]

The indicated holes are for a receiver sight, you just have to find a sight made for mounting on the side. I use a Lyman 66 or Williams FP-39. They are sometimes hard to find since Marlin eliminated the side mount holes some years ago.

[hes]

I have a 39A with a Marbles tang sight that works great for me.

[keyhole]

Are the applicable threaded holes the ones shown in the picture?[/QUOTE]

Yes, they are the holes used for mounting a Williams FP on my later 70's vintage 39A.

[chickenstripe]

I just spoke with William's Gunsight Company to get clarification on which sights are applicable to my "old model" 39A. They have four "FP" sights listed for the 39A.

The sights in Red are applicable to the old style recievers, with the holes specified in my previous post.

The sights in Blue, the TM series, are applicable to the newer style 39A with rebounding hammer.

[Doc Highwall]

Marlin stopped drilling and tapping the two holes on the side of the reciever a while back on all their lever actions.

[saltydog452]

Those two highlighted holes are what anchors my Lyman 66 MC in place.

Again, the 66 MC required removal of the factory OEM ramp and a dovetail cut into the barrel that'd accept a front sight.

In fairness to Lyman, maybe I rec'd a sight set other than 66 MC and 17 AHB. I dunno.

Now, the front has an unprotected vertical line and works just dandy with my current set of eyes.

It was an interesting trip. The 39 was/is worth the journey. From '67 to 2011, its been a hoot to shoot.

Have fun,

salty

[lcclower]

I saw (but too late) over on Texasguntraderdotcom, a 39A with a long, 3/4" tube scope, the front mount was in place of the rear open sight. Can anyone tell me whose mount set that might have been. Just curious, y'know. LC

[chickenstripe]

Sight update.

Installed the Lyman 17AHB and the Williams FP-39 (#1256).

After sighting it in at 10yds I was hitting golf balls (easily) at 50yds. This was with the inserts provided with the Lyman sight. The Shaver inserts are next.....which I luckily included in my sight order.

Thanks for all of the input.

My 39A is becoming the rifle I thought it could be.