Marbles tang sight - Win 1885 traditional hunter - 405 Win

[Gemsbok405]

Was busy testing loads on a NIB Win (Miroku) 28" 1885 Traditional Hunter, and first day all fine with rifle after 10 full power loads. Fitted with unmarked "Marble tang" sight and crescent butt recoil plate.

Next session, fired 14 rounds...shoulder said "no more" at this stage.

Back in workshop, cleaned rifle and noticed that tang sight had about 3/8" slop fore and aft. Had a good look at item, cleaned, and tested spring plate (under tang) and was compressing and returning as moved tang from down to shooting position.

But slop remained. The tang has a concave dimple in bottom of tang in which the ridge (middle of tang spring) locates to keep tang sight vertical. It is not a very precise connection in that the spring "ridge" has a tighter radius than the bottom of tang "cam" with its larger and more open radius. In the grand scheme the high point of ridge will locate the middle of cam cut, and hold the sight vertical.

All fine, but the 405 Win is known to "kill at one end, and cripple at other", and recoil is substantial and not far off a .300 Magnum in real terms. Perhaps the recoil inertia is pulling the tang sight forward...and beyond its design function. After all, most of these sights are on 'softer' recoiling .30-30 and .38-55 rifles, and have no-where the recoil factor of the .405 Win.

I really enjoy this rifle's power and accuracy, and makes a deadly falling plate weapon, and have some distant plans to stalk and hunt some large buck with this rifle...

But don't see an easy fix to get to work!

[Wayne Smith]

That's why I sprang for the side mounted sight for mine. The remake of the Lyman Model 21?? I've forgotten the number but Buffalo Arms had them.

OOPS! Mine is a '95!

[Tatume]

I had one on a 45-70 High Wall, which is quite the equal of the 405 Winchester in recoil. Mine worked just fine. I suggest you look into replacement parts. Perhaps Winchester will send them to you?

[Le Loup Solitaire]

I have an original 1885 Winchester Hi-wall in 45-70, an 86 in the same caliber and an 1895 in 405 WCF. All have crescent shaped buttplates and when loaded much above 1200-1300 fps require some planning on where/how to get the placement right in relation to the shoulder. The 95 has the original express sight on it, but the other two have the Marble tang sights. Many years ago I tried shooting near full power loads and although each was impressive in performance I did not enjoy the recoil. The 405 hit the hardest. The NRA recommended 53 grains of 3031 for the 45-70 with a 400 grain cast bullet and that (at around 1700+ fps) was punishing. Needless to say each arrangement was more than adequate for hunting any game in the western hemisphere. There are many choices in cast bullets around for the 45-70, but the 405 choices are somewhat more limited. I was able to find Lyman bullet 412263 in a single cavity and use it to this day. I have not hunted for many years now, but enjoy these guns more at reduced velocities. LLS

[Gemsbok405]

what I fail to understand is why the tang base is radiused almost same (both sides of convex cut) so can rock fore-n-aft when it only needs to travel from folded down (flat) to vertical(upright). There should be stopper somewhere in system to limit forward (tang) motion to vertical only. This could be a cross bar in front of sight base, or a deeper wedge at (forward) limit of convex cut in tang base. The limiter and spring pressure would be enough to hold at whatever load is fired in rifle...

All I really ask is that the sight be "Fit for Purpose".

[Boz330]

The Marble's sights that are being made now suck. I've sent 2 back to the factory because of the slop in them. They came back somewhat better but nothing to brag about. Personally I'll never buy another. The Ideal replica sold buy C-Sharps is about the same price and head and shoulders above the Marble's. I had one on my 1885 and loved it.

Bob

[Tatume]

what I fail to understand is why the tang base is radiused almost same (both sides of convex cut) so can rock fore-n-aft when it only needs to travel from folded down (flat) to vertical(upright).

On firing the rifle recoils, and the sight folds forward somewhat. This accomplishes two things. It reduces wear and tear on the sight, which is of a somewhat fragile design (as are all tang sights). It moves the sight away from the eye of the shooter, and if it does contact the shooter's eye, it has the freedom to move some more. This will, it is hoped, reduce the severity of the injury to the eye.

More than one person has lost eyesight to tang sights.

[Gemsbok405]

I can understand the injury risk of a peep sight with a 1895, as is very far back to clear the bolt movement. The 1885 (falling block) tang is nice and far forward, if look at relative position of sight vs. trigger.

In fact a riflescope (on 1885) is set up to almost same rearward position

The Marbles literature warns about pushing the tang forward...

The long term effect of the radiused tang base scraping against the pocket spring may be good for 20 shots with the .405W, before both or either parts fail!

Perhaps a secondary return spring would be the answer to retard forward movement.

[Clay M]

OUCH!!! I have an original 95 .405 complete with cresent buttplate.It will gig you off of the bench.
I use an action gel pad between the butt and my shoulder.It takes a good deal of the bite out of the recoil.My old patrolman buddy use to call it a sissy pad. I handed him the rifle and said, you shoot it twenty times then.