PDA

View Full Version : Cocking Piece Sight (Arms & the Man, vol 69)



ohland
07-01-2015, 09:32 PM
These have always interested me. Though I would guess mounting the sight on the bolt shroud would remove any weight penalty on the firing pin... This is the genesis of the Lyman 103 sight.

I have offended the gods (lower case) of CB, and it refused the full text (23K vs 20K).

Expect the full text and the images on my Experiences page.

http://ps-2.kev009.com/ohlandl/Cast_Bullet/Vault/Cocking_Piece_Sight.html

https://books.google.com/books?id=gJkwAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA236&dq=lyman+piece+sight&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CHiUVb61O4TusAWx4pW4DQ&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=lyman%20piece%20sight&f=true

Vol 69, no. 8 - Jan 1, 1922, page 10-11

HUNTING SIGHTS by Major Townsend Whelen
(Continued from page 4)

...it at least 15 minutes earlier in the morning and later in the evening, and every hunter knows that these are the times that game is moving.

When I came back east from this trip I approached the Lyman Gun Sight Corporation on the subject, and the consequence was we got up together the first so-called bolt sight for the Springfield. I wanted the original sight near the eye, but I also wanted accurate and positive adjustments, both elevation and windage, reading to minutes of angle, which the original Lyman did not have. The result was the first Lyman No. 103 sight. It was well made in the Lyman tool room by a tool maker. Every part fitted perfectly, and to this day this sight has remained tight and accurate. Based on my experience with this sight I recommended the No. 103 most highly-—and thereby got myself into a lot of trouble. Theoretically the sight is an ideal one in a number of ways. You have the original Lyman, near the eye, and yet it flies away from the eye as the rifle is fired, hence can be used on rifles of heavy recoil. It has the proper adjustments for elevation and windage. I can not imagine a better sight than the original which was made for me, but please notice that it was made by hand and by an expert toolmaker. In regular production the sight has not been the success that I hoped it would be. It is a hard sight to produce by machinery without it sooner or later developing looseness and lost motion within itself. The cocking piece is not a very secure or constant place to mount it. Some cocking pieces on the Springfield develop a looseness all of their own, and some of them vary their position when the safety is on or off. The position of the sight interferes with a firm grip of the small of the stock so essential to good holding and proper trigger squeeze. The Lyman people have lately slightly redesigned this sight in an effort to correct the looseness which often develops, and I hope they succeed, but they can hardly stop the vagaries of the cocking piece or the interference with the grip of the right hand.

NOW, the sporting Springfield is such a superb hunting rifle that it seemed a darn shame that there was not a superb hunting sight to go with it. So I determined to see if I could not make one. I wanted the original Lyman principle of a large aperture and small disc near the eye, and I wanted all the positiveness, accuracy and strength of the adjustments as seen on the Lyman No. 48 sight. The sight must be securely mounted on the rifle, it must not interfere with the grip, and there must be absolutely no looseness in either the sight or its mounting. It must be strong and sturdy like the Lyman No. 48. After a lot of thinking over I evolved an idea in my mind, and then carried it out with the assistance of Mr. James V, Howe who is first and foremost a most excellent tool maker, and next a most enthusiastic rifleman and amateur gunsmith. The result is shown in the accompanying illustrations, an as amply justified all the time and labor put on it. First we found that in order to get the original Lyman principle of aiming with the front sight alone the aperture had to be three inches nearer the eye on the Springfield than the Lyman No. 48 aperture was placed. Obviously the place to put it was on the sleeve as it was not only in the right position, but the sight placed here would not interfere with the proper hand grip on the small of the stock. But the sleeve on the Springfield has a little movement all its own and is not a secure place to mount a sight. Also there is no place on it where the sight can be securely set. So we designed and made an entirely new sleeve. and this in turn necessitated making an entirely new form of safety. It will be noticed that the new sleeve is of such form that it makes an excellent base on which to place what is Practically a Lyman No. 48 slide.

The top of the slide is bent a little to the rear so as to bring the aperture a little nearer to the eve. otherwise it is essentially a Lyman No 48 slide placed on the left side instead of the right. Placing it on the left made it much easier to adjust and easier to see the graduations. It was necessary to assure the slide coming to absolutely the same place with reference to the receiver every time the bolt was opened and closed if the sight was to come to a constant position with respect to the front sight and barrel for every shot. We found that the tendency of the sleeve was to rotate slightly to the right, so on the under side of the sleeve and to the right of the cocking piece groove we placed a stop pin which abuts against the top of the tang of the receiver. On the opposite side of the under portion of the sleeve we placed a spring plunger which every time positively forces the sleeve over to the right to an absolutely constant position. When the bolt is closed the sleeve and entire sight is forcibly pressed to a constant place with reference to the receiver, consequently it is in exactly the same position for every shot. We improved the adjustments considerably by engraving the words “Up” and “Down” on the head of the elevation screw to show which way to move it to get the desired change in adjustment, and by putting “R” and “L” on the windgauge and windgauge screw to designate right and left windage, in each case with arrows pointing to show the direction to turn.
<snip!>

Cocking Piece Sights
BY VAN ALLEN LYMAN

With regard to sights mounted on the firing pin or cocking piece of a bolt-action rifle I would rise to remark that, broadly speaking, they are a “frost” and had better be left alone for serious work, unless one merely wishes to experiment with them out of curiosity. Then, for the love of Mike, do the experimenting long before you go in the game fields. You may change your mind, and want to make a change.

I am aware that this rather strong statement may call forth denunciations from many who have used such sights for years with perfect satisfaction and who prefer them to any other kind for the bolt action rifle. The fact remains, however, that, taken all in all, the cocking piece sight has not given general satisfaction to date, and the best proof of this is that, though it has been generally known for a long time, it is comparatively little used. From an optical point of view it has decided advantages over the receiver sight, and if it were as mechanically satisfactory it would have superseded the receiver sight long ago. The principal objections to the cocking piece sight are that it can not be depended on to keep in perfect alignment, and it is mechanically weaker and more liable to in jury than other types of sights. Also, it adds weight to the firing pin and renders it more sluggish in its action, though this may be more of a theoretical than a practical objection.

With a desire to get first-hand information on the subject (which is being passed along to fellow shooters for the reading), the writer once had a Lyman No. 103 sight fitted to a Springfield firing pin--a factory job. The sight was nicely fitted to the cocking piece, but when the gun was cocked the aperture would wobble sideways for nearly a sixteenth of an inch, due to natural looseness in the bolt mechanism clearances. Presumably all this looseness would disappear when the trigger was drawn, for, as a well-known rifleman said to me when explaining the virtues of this sight, “the bolt and all its parts will always settle down to the same place each time as the trigger is drawn, and naturally the sight comes to the same place, too; so any looseness in the first place is immaterial.” Did it do so? It positively did NOT. I know for a fact that his sights so rigged did exactly what he claimed for them, but his were super rifles, made pets of and hand finished with an expert's care and not the general run of factory stuff that Mr. General Public has to accept, and this also should be borne in mind.

The logical thing to do was to “make the fix” so the sight would come to the same place each time, and a couple of evenings were spent in grinding and polishing and working on the trigger mechanism. This did the work, almost. As the trigger was pulled the sight would come right to the same place each time, almost. But that “almost,” proven by a middle sight on the barrel, showed that the sight drawing down to exactly the same place every time was non-existent, at least on that particular rifle. Hope was not given up, however, and an attack was made along another line, that of tightening up the bolt mechanism all through so as to take out every bit of wiggle.

Space does not permit of telling in detail how this was done; suffice to say that the general procedure was to make every thing a few thousandths of an inch too tight and then dress down with fine emery cloth. The final result was a rifle having a firing pin with absolutely no shake to it at all, and incidentally a pretty stiffly working bolt in consequence. There was no play to the sight at all this time; it shot finely, as good as a No. 48 receiver sight would have done in the first place and with the added advantage of being close to the eye. But after a moderate amount of shooting had been done it was found that the sight was loosening up in the dovetail groove where windage adjustment is made. This was apparently caused by the unavoidable yank and shock that is necessarily given to the sight when firing. Taken all around, it didn’t work out in as satisfactory a manner as had been hoped for, and I knew then the reason for those occasional advertisements in the sporting magazines—somebody wanting to trade off a cocking-piece sight for one of the other kind.

<SNIP!>

A Defense of the Cocking Piece Sight
By WALTER B. WILSON

In the February 1 issue of ARMS AND THE MAN Mr. Van Allen Lyman arose to remark that sights mounted on the cocking piece of bolt action rifles were, broadly speaking, a “Frost” and had better be left alone for serious work. Broadly speaking, I share in his belief, although, in at least one case of a Lyman sight on the cocking piece of a Springfield, it is not a “Frost," but, on the contrary, is a most satisfactory arrangement and does return to absolutely the same place each time, with relation to the receiver every time the gun is cocked and the trigger drawn.

This particular Springfield, however, happens to have the most finely adjusted and smoothest working bolt and trigger mechanisms that I have ever seen on a bolt-action rifle, and since the present owner has had this rifle he has still further generally dolled up the workings by polishing with dimantine the bolt and bolt well, all cam surfaces, lug races, etc., beveled the cocking nose and sear and made various other adjustments, until there is no unnecessary drag or looseness in any detail, and this cocking piece does not “almost” return to the same place each time, but it does positively.

The writer has seen bolt guns with sights on the cocking-piece, that did, as Mr. Lyman has said, “return to the same place each time—“almost.”

Mr. Lyman closes his interesting piece on “Cocking Piece Sights" with the statement that his next attempt to fix a cocking—piece sight would be made by using a sight of the Marble flexible joint sort, changed over for use on the cocking-piece, and this statement gave me what I believe to be a good idea.

The next morning after reading his article I went to work to make a sight base which would receive a Marble upright and joint. This base was carefully made by hand of tool steel, and when it was finished the Marble mechanism fitted nicely. I happened to have a Marble sight with an up right and stem of just the right length to use in connection with the base and the cocking-piece of a Springfield.
<SNIP!>

Aperture Sight for the Cocking Piece
By VAL A. FYNN

IT is universally conceded that an aperture rear sight should be as near the eye as possible and that, in a bolt action rifle, the ideal location of such a sight is on the cocking piece. Unfortunately the cocking piece is movable when the arm is cocked and the position of any rear sight attached to it is therefore indefinite. Since with a 30" sight radius a displacement of the rear sight of 1/100th of an inch corresponds to a change of impact of 1.2 inches at 100 yards it is easily seen why such sights have not given general satisfaction. It does not appear that this defect can be eliminated by machining the bolt and receiver to closer limits. Substantially closer limits than now adopted in the best makes of bolt rifles are not practical for quantity production and even if they were all the play could not be taken out and the effect of wear at numerous points would still have to be contended with.

It has occurred to the writer that satisfactory results could be secured with an aperture sight on the cocking piece by providing means for positively locating said cocking piece, and therefore the rear sight, at the extreme end of its travel—when in the full cock position. The very fact that the play introduced by the unavoidable tooling tolerances allows the cocking piece to move practically in all directions makes it easy to positively locate it at any point of its travel without introducing undue friction or necessitating the use of appreciable effort. As soon as the trigger is pulled the cocking piece moves out of engagement with the locating means and completes its travel with no more interference than usual.

<SNIP!>

Multigunner
07-02-2015, 03:16 PM
First time I saw a cocking piece mounted rear sight was in a very old movie, late 20's to early 30's.
During a scene where white hunters were pinned down in a hut and firing on their attackers I noticed one of the hunters whenever he worked the bolt would nudge the cocking piece mounted rear sight level with thumb and fore finger before firing.
While they were firing blanks on a sound stage I guess this actor was familar with this sort of sight and was leveling it before firing out of force of habit.

I can't see any real advantage in a rear sight mounted on either cocking piece or bolt shroud.
It shorter eye relief or longer sight radius is necessary a bridge extension rail would make more sense.
Those who were used to tang mounted peep sights of single shot rifles might find it easier to transition to a bolt action by using the cocking piece mounted sight.

Dan Cash
07-02-2015, 05:22 PM
I have an old Steyer rifle built by Henry Atkin of London that is equiped with a cocking piece sight identical to the one in the above article. Mine does not have deflection correction capabilities but is graduated for 1,2 and 300 yard incriments and provided with a small aperture that swings down to allow a "ghost ring" aperture when desired. This system suppliments the barrel mounted 3 leaf express sights and has proven very satisfactory.

sthwestvictoria
07-06-2015, 05:48 AM
Have you seen Juniors $2 Mosin bolt peep sight?
http://www.castbullet.com/makeit/rr.htm

W.R.Buchanan
07-11-2015, 06:44 PM
I have been aware of the Howe/Whelen Bolt Shroud Sight for some time now. In fact there was an article about it in a Gun Digest from about 10 years ago. The guy had made three of them.

Thru that article I became aware of a book called "The Modern Gunsmith" by James V. Howe.

It took me a while to hunt a copy of that two volume set but I did and low and behold the drawings for the Howe/Whelen Bolt Shroud Sight were in there. The drawings are "Extensive" and cover EVERY SINGLE part of the sight.

This is not a project to undertake lightly, as this thing not only has a bunch of small and not very easy to make parts, but all of the major parts would tax the skills of any very seasoned toolmaker, not to mention that some of the major parts are so complex that even someone who is really good will spend a long time just figuring out how to make the parts needed to duplicate this instrument.

This NOT a CNC Project, it is a Manual Machine and Hand Tool Project, and you better be well equipped.

Whelen states in the above write up that he doubted that the sight would ever be produced, and he was right, although a few have been made here and there by people that had way too much time on their hands.

The entire purpose of this sight is to have the aperture as close to the eye as possible on a bolt action rifle with the intent that you didn't actually see the rear sight but instead only focused on the Front Sight which is what you are supposed to do anyway.

I spent time a few years ago redrawing most of the parts. This helps me understand each part and develop a strategy to produce it. I can build them in my shop and I may one day do a run of parts for about 25 complete units.

I am anticipating a price of around $900 each for these and believe me that would be a gift from Heaven! I doubt they would sell since the real draw is in the vintage and history of the original sights,,, of which there are very few! Mine would only be "Replicas."

That sight occupies about 1.5 cubic inches with more things going on packed in it than you can imagine. And in the end every sight has to be hand fitted to your rifle.

Your reward for building this sight is that you would have the coolest Receiver Sight ever made installed on your Classic Springfield or Mauser Sporter. However it is a replica not an original but then again your rifle is probably a replica or at least a contemporary gun. Maybe G&H would buy them?

If you could actually find and afford a real G&H made sight, it would be the ultimate up grade to your classic G&H Sporter. It would also probably double the value of the gun!

Yes they are that cool! And it is sound testament to Whelen's skill at figuring out what was the best way to go. I might add that he had all this stuff figured out 93 years ago! We should be so lucky to have 1/10 of his savvy!

He was "That Good!"

Randy

EDG
07-13-2015, 10:15 PM
Here is a complete set of photos that had been on Ebay I think. This sight belonged to the late Mike Petrov http://finegunmaking.com/page33/page25/page25.html
This sight would be easy to make in quantities on a 5 axis CNC mil but the tooling and programming costs would high as well as the number of test parts required to proof the tooling and program. It could stand some CAD work to make it look nicer. The programmer can fix the crude finish but no one can fix the cost to make these.


144488144489
144490144491144492144493144494144495144496144497

Josh Smith
07-13-2015, 10:38 PM
Hello,

I used to make these. I don't any longer because they're damned difficult to stabilize on that third axis well enough to ensure the same position each time the rifle's cocked.

Here's the report:

http://www.smith-sights.com/smith-sights-rigby-style-rear-sight-report.php

Again, I no longer make these. I keep the page up for reference and share it here in hopes that my experiences might help someone.

It can be done, but it's just not worth the time and hassle unless you really want a peep sight. In that case, it can be made to shoot a bit better than the standard open sights.

Regards,

Josh

W.R.Buchanan
07-13-2015, 11:01 PM
EDG: I forgot where I got those pics but you are right they were on Ebay.

Michael Petrov is one of the foremost authorities on Whelen. I have posted his article on the Headspace myths concerning the .375 and .400 Whelen cartridges several times. He even had Whelen's hand dies for loading the cartridge as well as correspondence from Whelen to various shops.

That even may be a real Howe/Whelen sight in the pics. G&H did offer it as an extra cost option when you had one of their rifles built for you. I would love to know how many exist? My best guess is less than 25.

The kicker on making the main piece is the Threaded Section on the nose end that screws into the back of the bolt. I believe I would make that as a separate part and silver braze it in place.

The one thing that bugs me about the sight pictured above, is the clamp for the vertical slide. On the drawings it is exactly like a Lyman 48 this one is different.

I think they initially used a lot of parts from Lyman Sights like knobs and springs etc.

I'm sure we could do better on the finishing now as things have changed a lot since 1925.

Randy

Multigunner
07-14-2015, 12:16 PM
How about sintered iron?

W.R.Buchanan
07-14-2015, 01:51 PM
How about $25k+ for the mould. MIM would be about the same.

No, this is a low production type of project and the other side is there is going to be a limited market for the product. Mainly because the vast majority of people have no idea it existed, and probably wouldn't know what to do with it anyway.

This is a pretty Esoteric thing and only belongs on a certain class of gun.

Randy

EDG
07-14-2015, 03:37 PM
This kind of sight would probably only be used on a classic Mauser, Springfield or Mannlicher type rifle where cost is no object. Most likely the stock would have been produced by one of the American old timers from between the wars. To make it match the original rifle it would be a hog out.
When Petrov died a year or 2 ago his stuff was sold on Ebay. I think this sight brought over $1000.
The slide lock is similar to a spring loaded slide lock on an old Redfield that I have.



How about $25k+ for the mould. MIM would be about the same.

No, this is a low production type of project and the other side is there is going to be a limited market for the product. Mainly because the vast majority of people have no idea it existed, and probably wouldn't know what to do with it anyway.

This is a pretty Esoteric thing and only belongs on a certain class of gun.

Randy

Ballistics in Scotland
07-14-2015, 04:39 PM
W.R. Buchanan's proposed sight is a superb instrument, but the trouble is that not many people want that sort of superb instrument nowadays. Their heyday was when scopes were much less often used. Target shooters will always want something more rigid than the best cocking-piece or bolt shroud can be, and the market is for something which can be instantly used in the event of a scope failure, severe climatic conditions etc., and without fitting or finding extra parts.

For this purpose something simple and indestructible, folding or not, might be very useful, and quite accurate enough for ordinary hunting conditions. If it was in the usual forked cocking-piece bracket, semi-permanent windage might be given by washers as spacers, and elevation by a moveable or interchangeable front sight blade.

Mind you I have gone the micrometer route. This is a small receiver sight of unknown make which I silver soldered, together with a mild steel plate of my own making, to a spare bolt plug on my Schmidt-Rubin M1889, which I perhaps unreasonably like better than anything as compact and modern as the M1911. The reasoning behind this one, though, was that I wanted the most accurate sight I could have without drilling or otherwise altering any original parts.

It is probably true about sintered iron costing too much for a limited-production item. Lost wax casting would surely be more economically viable for small runs. Here is a firm which makes a very wide range of castings for antique guns, e.g. hammers at £20. Whether it would be economical enough, I don't know. When Lyman etc. went over to aluminium (A detestable substance for sights in my opinion. You might as well have a Piccatinny rail), they no doubt knew what they were doing.

http://www.peterdyson.co.uk/

144563

EDG
07-16-2015, 05:22 PM
After using scopes since about 1962 I find I no longer like to haul one around on an old rifle.
The bulk of the scope just seems out of place.
If I was to buy more scopes they would be 7/8 tube scopes like the Leupold Alaskans.

I still like scopes for shooting varmit rifles but tang sights or receiver sights are my favorites for cast bullets and walks in the woods.

Bent Ramrod
07-16-2015, 06:58 PM
I put one on my Krag rifle to be used as the auxiliary iron sight if the forward mounted scope conks out. I sighted it in at 100 yds, IIRC, and haven't used it since. It didn't seem all that inaccurate, at ranges one would use an auxiliary iron sight, and the cocking piece doesn't wobble around at full cock, as the canards in the old literature had it. (The cocking piece does wobble a little, but only in the uncocked position.) If the additional weight of the sight slows the lock time, I'm not good enough to notice. The one thing I don't like is that the striker motion slamming home tends to push the sight staff up or down even when the lever is locked down, after a dozen shots or so, and adjustment is necessary. But the "cool factor" is what I was after.

144721. 144720

Ballistics in Scotland
07-17-2015, 04:13 AM
For anybody who has been shooting since 1962 - me for example - an aperture sight is far better than open sights. What we usually hear is that a really large aperture is best for hunting use, and I agree for this when the shooter is in the first bloom of use, and can change focus from target to front sight in the instant of firing, without even knowing he is doing it. For the middle-aged or elderly some compromise on this may be useful, since a moderately small aperture will increase the depth of focus.

If you aren't going to use a scope at all, though, you are right in mentioning a receiver (on a bolt action rifle) or tang sight (on one that isn't.) A cocking-piece shouldn't wobble when it is cocked, and nobody can adjust his aim during its forward travel. But that isn't to say it is always in exactly the same position when cocked. It is unlikely to be a significant disadvantage in most hunting situations, but every little helps.

We do see people on the boards who, doubtless for reasons Dr. Freud would have understood, use rifles powerful enough to be ready for the dinosaurs to come back. They can't, of course kill a deer any deader than, for example, a sporterized Krag, which Jeff Cooper admired so much, or further away than you will see one. But such a rifle might produce a risk of the folded cocking-piece sight hitting you on the cheekbone when the scope is in use.

If I was determined to make a one-off cocking-piece sight, I would cannibalize a Parker-Hale 16 sight I have. This is a sort of very short micrometer tang sight, operating in the horizontal plane from a side mount. They aren't cheap, though, as they aren't making them any more.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/A-PH16H-sight-from-an-old-gun-rifle-made-by-Parker-Hale-/121699309674?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_3&hash=item1c55d8186a

Bent Ramrod
07-17-2015, 12:26 PM
As I recall, it was Capt. Curtis' wife who poked her eye out with a Lyman tang sight, but it was mounted on a Savage lever action. She was shooting vertically at an animal that was looking down at them from a ledge or cliff directly above. Probably wouldn't have happened if the shot had been in a more normal position. The cocking piece sight runs forward, away from the eye on firing, and one would have to be a determined stock crawler to keep up with it in order to be in any danger from the recoil.

I am convinced that the alleged "inaccuracy" of cocking-piece sights, single-shot, lever-action and auto loading rifles, offhand stock designs and so forth was an unintended consequence of the writing done in the sporting magazines (particularly the American Rifleman) between the wars. The articles were dominated by Camp Perry shooters and enthusiasts of the new varmint calibers, and eventually the reader got the impression that anything that one couldn't go prone with and rack up dozens of X's or woodchucks was no good. The result was that a lot of perfectly serviceable things went into the discard, and a bunch of perfectly suitable hunting rifles suddenly sported bulbous forends and fat pistol grip stocks. This made them less effective for the still-hunting and snap shooting they were made for, but didn't make them suitable for 600-yard slow fire courses, either.

When Whelen said "Only accurate rifles are interesting," I doubt if he meant that the more the accuracy, the more would be the interest. Otherwise he'd have been shooting nothing but Unlimited rail guns. I like target shooting, but Cooper's dictum "If it was half as accurate as it is, it would still be twice as accurate as it needs to be," resonates more and more with me as I get older.

The sad part is that this prejudice hangs on and on, aggravated by the truly marvelous accuracy of a lot of today's CNC production, and by gun writers who shoot 3-shot groups for evaluation of same. There are constant inquiries on the various Fora to the effect that the pilgrim has just purchased an antique rifle with an excellent bore but can't get sub-MOA groups with it; what's wrong? When I try to explain to them that the groups they are getting are gilt-edged by the standards that existed when the gun was made, they don't appear to believe it. But the fact is that every rifle can't necessarily be a match rifle by today's standards, and most of them weren't meant to be so in the first place. Same goes with the sights and other accoutrements.

Ballistics in Scotland
07-19-2015, 06:19 AM
I suppose she had the butt over her shoulder. At least it is hard to imagine this happening any other way.

British magazine testers of motorcycles, desperate for advertising revenue, used to start acceleration tests a little short of the sensor tape on the ground. Even a few feet were enough to give an undeservedly high reading for the standing quarter mile. Three shot groups are a snare and a delusion for anybody, and most especially if someone can take all day trying for a three-shot group they like.

I think the highest quality nineteenth or early twentieth century barrels - or routine high quality, rather than the work of people like HM Pope - were just as good as we can get today. Button or hammer rifling has made us a bit surer of getting that quality, that is all. The kind of old barrel that most often falls down on accuracy, if its condition is unimpaired, is the military barrel rifled in a single pass of a cutting broach. But not even all of those are bad. Here is a 100 yard group published by TF Fremantle in 1901, and shot by St. George Littledale, the explorer of central Asia. The date means it would have been the box-magazine Mannlicher rather than the Mannlicher-Schoenauer.

144912

More than barrels, the great improvement in standards of accuracy derive from the challenge offered to ammunition manufacturers by benchresters and skilled handloaders. They can't follow suit completely, of course, or you would have cartridges that wouldn't chamber with a speck of dirt in there, and have a sliding bullet fit. But that is where the biggest improvements have come from. Glass bedding and floated barrels (the latter of which I consider another snare and a delusion unless the gap is wide enough to wipe dirt out of) have helped too.

Lever-action rifles labour under another disability. I wish I could remember who it was (PO Ackley?) who rebuilt a 94 Winchester with tight headspace and no magazine or forend tunnel for one, and found its accuracy well up to bolt-action standards.

Bent Ramrod
07-19-2015, 06:05 PM
Certainly the adaptation of the principles behind painstaking hand craftsmanship to mass production has helped accuracy a lot. But the extent that it helps the weak link in the chain do better shooting gets less and less straightforward. A lot of good shooting is mental, and voodoo definitely affects the mind.

Can't remember where it is; maybe an old American Rifleman or one of the early Gun Digests, but anyway, some guy got hold of one of the then-new dial indicators (can't remember if it was a Starrett or Interapid) and decided to check out that icon of iron sighting everywhere, the storied Lyman 48. He had several fancy target rifles fitted with these, so he took the sights off, clamped them in a vise on a surface plate or milling bench, and started checking.

He found, to his shock, that the individual clicks on the 48's did not engender the same amount of movement each time! Sometimes a click moved the leaf a couple thousandths in the right direction, sometimes only half that and sometimes either not at all or slightly in the opposite direction! All the sights had backlash in them caused by differing amounts of wear in various parts of the screw adjustments. Or perhaps by the fact that Lyman probably didn't use instrument grade machinery to manufacture gun sights in the first place.

So naturally it was time to go into print with :shock:[smilie=w::shock:! (Wow, finally get a chance to use these emoticons!)

What happened next was pretty predictable. The Lyman 48, which had been the go-to sighting equipment at Camp Perry, Sea Girt, Wimbledon, etc. for two generations, disappeared from those ranges, then from the rifles of ordinary shooters, then from the catalogs of miscellaneous shooting accessories and finally from the Lyman catalog itself. Specimens are now sought out by collectors to make their classic rifles look properly "period," and nobody seems to complain that the addition degrades the ability of the rifle to hit what is aimed at.

All we can do is hope that somebody doesn't check out the Redfield Olympic and Anschutz sights with some kind of Laser or Doppler or Ultrasound or light-wave-emission measuring device and prove that they are "no good" as well. The phenomenon of the shooter whose gun shoots lights out and has made the mistake of looking at the bore or throat through a borescope is not unknown on Internet fora. He now sees slight tool marks, or maybe a streak of copper or two. Does he need to fire lap, lap, rebore, or rebarrel? (If he has lost confidence in his gilt edged barrel because he looked at it too closely and won't approach his shots with the same confidence, I guess the answer is "yes." Or maybe he could sacrifice a goat...)

i remember an American writer for motorcycle magazines visiting the BSA plant in the 1960's. At the time, the BSA Gold Star was supposed to generate 50 horsepower when tricked up for racing. The writer couldn't figure out the rationale for this claim, since the factory did not possess a dynamometer. When I read that, I stopped worrying about the mere 28 HP my weak one-lunged Yamaha SR-500 was supposed to generate, and went back to just riding the thing.

Cap'n Morgan
07-20-2015, 03:00 PM
He found, to his shock, that the individual clicks on the 48's did not engender the same amount of movement each time! Sometimes a click moved the leaf a couple thousandths in the right direction, sometimes only half that and sometimes either not at all or slightly in the opposite direction! All the sights had backlash in them caused by differing amounts of wear in various parts of the screw adjustments. Or perhaps by the fact that Lyman probably didn't use instrument grade machinery to manufacture gun sights in the first place.

Growing up with cheap scopes from the sixties and seventies, you learned to take up the slack in the adjustment screws whenever the adjustment called for a CCW rotation. A few rap on the tube with a suitable object (like a loaded shotshell) also helped settling things down.

It took me some rather expensive modern scopes to trust a scoped rifle to keep it's setting year after year. And yet, I still check regularly just to make sure...

Ballistics in Scotland
07-21-2015, 05:04 AM
I've got a pre-war Zeiss 7/8in. zielklein scope with only elevation internal adjustment, apparently for the 1930s .22 rimfire. I value it for its 6in. or so eye relief, which is ideal for a sporting Martini, and like some (not all) of the 1960s cheapies, it is a whole lot better than no scope at all. But it has the most failure-proof reticule and adjustment system anyone can put on a scope. The reticule itself moves up and down. I use it with an early Buehler base and rings, quite rare because they are of the kind killed by the cheaper Redfield system, to start with the reticule centred in the field of view.

I think a major disadvantage to accurate click adjustment on scope or (to return to topic) other sights is having the clicks. Back in the 70s I found the adjustment on my steel Weaver K4 and K1.5 (marvelous scopes for the money) was extremely repeatable. The answer may be strong spring pressure keeping one flank of the threads in contact at all times.

Bent Ramrod
07-22-2015, 01:18 PM
Any kind of lead screw arrangement is going to wear, so the click indexing method is, at least theoretically, a flawed design. Minor variances in the position of the cocking piece sight would, also, theoretically, add to the dispersion of shooting. Whether the movement of the cocking piece sight would make the shooting less accurate, in the practical sense, than the backlash in the Lyman 48 adjustments, or in a well-used Whelen bolt-shroud adjustment screw, or the eye error with the notch-and-bead barrel sight, or the slop in standard "set and forget" hunting scopes, is the real issue.

The only people who really are affected by these considerations are the most critical of target shooters, those guys who shoot at game animals at extreme distances and write it up to impress the natives, and gun writers pressed for a topic and a deadline. The problem is that their complaints get to the ninety-and-nine who would otherwise be using these sights with perfect satisfaction. Hope springs eternal that some minor technical improvement in equipment will take them from the chimney-corner of their "B" shooting to the cotillion of "AAA" shooting with no additional effort on their part. They abandon the good old standbys, which then go out of production, and spend more money on the latest advancements. Their shooting does not improve much, and the marketers are pleased with the new revenue streams, but the ultimate result for the rest of us is the reduction of the choices in equipment we used to take for granted.

Larry Gibson
07-22-2015, 01:50 PM
"I used to make these. I don't any longer because they're damned difficult to stabilize on that third axis well enough to ensure the same position each time the rifle's cocked."

Not only must the sight be stabilized to the same position on when cocked but many times on many actions the rear of the cocking piece is also pulled down slightly as the trigger is pulled. Probably not a problem on top end quality rifles but on many milsurps it is. I have used such cocking piece sights on '03s, Mausers and MNs and found none of them gave precision accuracy. Sufficient to hit a deer out to 100 yards perhaps but not any where near as precise as a receiver mount similar sight. On actions where up and down and side to side movement can be stabilized and repeatable such sights prove satisfactory for their intended purpose.

Larry Gibson

kootne
07-22-2015, 03:12 PM
I really like Leroy Rice's solution to bolt mounted peep sights, but I think they were only adapted to Krags. It would not be a good choice for a target shooter but on a hunting rifle it's the best. Simple, light weight, inexpensive at the time.

KCSO
07-22-2015, 03:40 PM
Let see you cut off the knb on the springfield cocking piece to get a lighter firing pin and then you add a sight? I just never couldsee why these lasted as long as they did. Admittedly nice work but the wrong place to add a sight imho.

3006guns
07-25-2015, 07:10 PM
I have a cocking piece sight..........on a Mosin Nagant! It was a Lyman offering from many years ago and came with the sporterized MN. Someone went to a lot of trouble to put a decent walnut sporter stock on this gun along with a good trigger. Of course, it's a Westinghouse octagon receiver rifle so it was worth it. Evidently they got tired of it though as the barrel was struck and polished, but never blued. I have yet to shoot it, but the sight looks perfectly adequate for hunting even allowing for any striker movement.

I have another, a Lyman #35 that is a prized possession. It mounts on the ejector box of any standard Mauser and right now it's on a Yugo that I shortened into a short rifle/carbine for behind the pickup seat. With the issue sights I can get close to the 200 yard gong......with the Lyman I can smack it every time. With my 66 year old eyes that's quite an accomplishment! I really wish someone would manufacture that sight again. With all the surplus 98's that flooded the market years ago there would be a demand!

W.R.Buchanan
07-27-2015, 07:25 PM
The Whelen/Howe sight has a hard stop on one side of the base and a spring loaded plunger on the other side which removes all slack from the positioning of the sight everytime the bolt is closed. The result is that it's position repeats everytime.

I have use similar stops on very close tolerance grinding machines which were expected to repeat their positions under a grinding wheel literally hundreds of times every shift. They work perfectly.

This sight shares many common components with the Lyman #48 which was the premier sighting device of the day. It's two main advantages are that it increased the Sight Radius by another 3+ inches which when used with a Ghost Ring Aperture extended your shooting time longer into the twilight period, and it looked really cool.

I would push the "Looks Really Cool" part as the best reason to build one.

Randy

StrawHat
07-29-2015, 07:09 AM
I would like to have something like this for a Swedish Mauser I have. Even something as simple as just a threaded hole in the cocking piece with a tapped eye bolt installed. Just looking for adding to a hunting rifle, not looking for target work. I try to keep things as simple as possible and as mechanically simple as can be made. For my purpose, the cocking piece sight would only adjust vertically. Any horizontal movement would be obtained with the dovetailed fore sight.

Kevin

EDG
08-07-2015, 02:27 PM
You can always design in anti-backlash springs and tight tolerances to minimize mechanical errors.
Virtually ever machinist that ever lived knew to back out the tool and set it going into the work to remove backlash.
That technique work with sights also.

W.R.Buchanan
08-08-2015, 03:06 PM
Scopes too!

Randy