Marble Sporting Rear Sight on 1885?

[ohland]

Not found anything yet along the lines of a frugal dovetailed rear sight for an 1885 that I want to pay over $75 for. The various ladder sights interested me, but not enough.

Anyone use the Marble Sporting Rear Sight, rifle length (Long Blade 2-3/4" Long) on their Browning 1885? I just do not get too worked up over the tang sight because I can't use my thumb... I did look at the #95, but it appears the blade is shorter, thus farther from my (older) eyes.

Flat Top, Semi-Buckhorn, Full Buckhorn - any preferences? I'm gravitating to the flat top...

:2 drunk buddies:

[montana_charlie]

What kind of front sight do you have on that rifle?

CM

[ohland]

What kind of front sight do you have on that rifle?CM

It's like a Lyman #17, center of sight is .515 above top of barrel (.960 above center of bore). Uses Lee Shaver inserts. Does not have spirit level within sight. Right now it has a tang sight, so the globe front makes sense.

A bead front sight would do....

Rear of barrel is octagon, .800 across flats. Rear dovetail is @ 6" forward of receiver ring. I want nothing to do with ANY drilling on this one...

Looking to do 100-150 yards with this, mostly gongs at this point. What good is a gun if you don't shoot it?

:coffeecom

[montana_charlie]

In your place I would go for the Smith Enterprise full buckhorn ladder sight.
When taking aim, I would center the 'tube' of the globe front within the 'horns' of the buckhorn rear.
Then, whatever insert you have in the globe sight would be centered in the horn-sized 'peep' at the back.

It should be quite adequate for 100 to 150 yards ... even with your eyes.

CM

[ohland]

When taking aim, I would center the 'tube' of the globe front within the 'horns' of the buckhorn rear. Then, whatever insert you have in the globe sight would be centered in the horn-sized 'peep' at the back. It should be quite adequate for 100 to 150 yards ... even with your eyes. CM

Hmm, the horns would be a pretty consistent aim point. Never considered that.

I do love receiver sights, I can hit the 100 yard gong with a Lyman 90MJT and Williams FP-Target High. The 22LR boolit takes a bit to get there, but I can hear it hit. (or the quiet of a not-hit)

[oldred]

I bought that Marble sight, semi-buckhorn, for my heavy octagon barrel 1885 clone and I was very disappointed with it because it was simply too small to look right. I later took it off and put it on a stock 1895 Marlin lever action with a round barrel and it even looks kind of small for that gun, not sure why they make them so small but it just looked downright comical on that big octagon barrel.

[ohland]

I bought that Marble sight, semi-buckhorn, for my heavy octagon barrel 1885 clone and I was very disappointed with it because it was simply too small to look right

This is for a svelte 357 Mag half round/half octagon. Distance across flats is .800, how far across the flats was yours?

[fouronesix]

Right now it has a tang sight, so the globe front makes sense.
:coffeecom

You sure don't need a spirit level for 100-150 yards. :)

The globe front will work fine if the gongs or whatever you are shooting at have definable small aiming points. Many gongs are lost in the background or have no small, visible aiming points in their centers so the bullseye globes many times don't work so well.

You say the rifle currently has a tang rear (aperture?) sight and that is not working??? Is it the tang rear that's not working or the front globe sight???

I think I'd keep the rear tang sight and put a simple flat top post front insert into the front globe or go with a regular (non-globe) blade front sight.

Or alternately, put a "ghost ring" type sight in place of the rear barrel sight and use a plain blade front sight.

And if the eyes won't work with any iron sight combination, put an EER scout scope on and shoot away.

[ohland]

You sure don't need a spirit level for 100-150 yards. :) You say the rifle currently has a tang rear (aperture?) sight and that is not working??? Is it the tang rear that's not working or the front globe sight??? I think I'd keep the rear tang sight and put a simple flat top post front insert into the front globe or go with a regular (non-globe) blade front sight. Or alternately, put a "ghost ring" type sight in place of the rear barrel sight and use a plain blade front sight. And if the eyes won't work with any iron sight combination, put an EER scout scope on and shoot away.

The tang sight (Soule copy) works fine. I just dislike not having my thumb over the stock wrist when I shoot.

Blade is OK, or I could dig up something larger than the #17 clone size. That size makes me feel like there isn't enough light coming through when shooting in the field. #20MJT? Or a dovetail Redfield globe.

Marble has a ghost ring, not exactly precision made.

If the iron sights thing blows chunks, there's always the other low wall with (sure looks like a T/C Contender) Weaver base. Does NOT look period to anything but the Bubba period of fine gunsmithing.

[fouronesix]

Never had a Browning 1885. I've had original 1885s with tang sights and never had a problem with the sight being in the way of the grip. I guess it may be mounted differently on the Browning model ??

I don't think it's the amount of light getting through the Lyman 17 clone, but that small size and "crowded" area for the insert all are in the way of "seeing" a bunch of the target. A larger front globe would help but not eliminate that issue. A very plain, open, flat-topped blade (no globe sight) would provide the best seeing.

A Skinner type aperture sight mounted on the barrel just in front of the receiver would cure the tang sight - grip issue and still provide better sight radius than a barrel sight mounted in the original position.

[EDG]

I have very large hand and I can get my thumb over the stock of my Brownings with out any problems.
It may take a little getting used to. You might try cutting the fingers off a soft deer skin glove to protect your hand if you are not getting a good grip.