Receiver or Tang Sight?

[LIMPINGJ]

Which do you prefer on a hunting rifle or carbine. I have only used receiver sights for the last several years due to not doing so well with the barrel mounted open sights. I have a Browning 1886 carbine I want to get back in use but these were not drilled and tapped for a receiver sight. I was thinking about mounting a tang sight as it might need only one hole d&t vs the two holes for a receiver sight. Anyone have experience with using a tang sight for a hunting rifle vs a receiver sight?
Thanks

[TXGunNut]

These days I don't buy a levergun that isn't D&T'd for one or the other. I'm partial to tang sights but seldom hunt with either. Have you checked to see if either sight is offered for your rifle? Have you seen the Marble Bulls-eye sight that replaces a rear sight? Doesn't offer the sight radius of a tang or receiver sight but it's an option that doesn't involve drilling holes in your rifle. You could also mount a tang sight with one screw and a removable adhesive.

[Muskrat Mike]

Go to : http://www.skinnersights.com/ and check out their barrel mount sights. It may be an option you may like if you have a dovetailed rear sight.
Mike

[scattershot]

I have used both, and see little practical difference in the sight picture, maybe a whisker with the tang sight when target shooting. However, the tang sight on its stalk or ladder always struck me as being a little fragile for hunting and field use. For that reason, I'd go with a receiver sight.

[NSB]

Get a Skinner sight and have it put on your gun. Two small holes to drill and tap and you'll end up with a very, very nice hunting sight. You can also add a Merit Aperture if you want one to that sight. It comes with different size screw in apertures if you simply want to go that route or take the aperture out and you've got a great ghost ring sight. I had this one case colored to match the gun's finish and then put on.

[enfield]

I sure like the Marbles tang sights, very easy adjustment for elevation and windage and 3 different apertures depending on what your need is.

[catskinner]

I prefer reciever sights. A tang gets in the way of my thumb.

[rintinglen]

+1^^^^
On my silhouette guns I have tang sights, on my hunting guns, only receiver sights. Tang sights are more easily damaged as well.

[OverMax]

I wouldn't dill & tap such a rifles receiver unless it became absolutely necessary. No harm in the mounting of a Lyman type tang sight though. Once you get use to its aiming. All's good.

[Freischütz]

My experience follows Catskinner's. M92s don't interfere as much as M86s do.

[Wind]

Hey there L-J -- Whilst I'm a big fan of tang sights, I'd recommend a receiver sight on your '86. Marbles tang sights all use the stock tang screw in their sight mountings. The originals, the Japanese imports, and the imports with a tang safety all use the tang screw. This still leaves the tang crowded, and with very close tolerances. Even with windage adjustment in the sight, there is very little room to use it as the bolts "ears" straddle it on both sides.

160168

A Lyman 66A receiver sight may your better bet. Hope this helps. Best regards. Wind

[dverna]

For hunting I would use a receiver sight

[northmn]

The tang sight was a "long range" adaption in the days before scopes. Close up the standard sights were used. They get in the way of properly grasping the wrist of the rifle and are considered a little fragile. Great on cowboy shooters guns and not so much on hunters guns. The receiver sight is just more practical. Either a Skinner or another style reeiver sight may require a higher front sight, but they are worth it.

DP

[ironhead7544]

I would go with the receiver sight. Had one on my 1886. With heavy 45-70 loads, I have heard of people being hit in the eye with a tang sight.

If you must have a tang sight, Varner makes one that looks rugged.

[salvadore]

Even I was able to drill and tap a Lyman reciever sight for a couple of my lever guns. I don't know anything tang mounted safeties, etc.

[hornady308]

+1 on receiver sights being more robust in the field. +1 on tang sights being really cool.

[dragon813gt]

Go to : http://www.skinnersights.com/ and check out their barrel mount sights. It may be an option you may like if you have a dovetailed rear sight.
Mike

I have one on a Savage 99. It does work. But it takes longer to pick up compared to a receiver or tang sight. Most of my rifles wear receiver sights. I've been taking scopes off over the last few years. I'm really partial to Skinners but they do have their drawbacks.

[StrawHat]

On a hunting rifle, especially a lever rifle, I find myself drawn to the receiver sight. Here is a picture of one on my Winchester 1895. I find the tang sight to be in the way of my hand, which is usually gloved, and causes an awkward grip.

The Skinner sight mounted just above the bolt looks interesting. Not sure if the bolt on the 95 would clear it but it works great with this old Lyman sight. Since this photo, I have removed the aperture to another sight and use it as a ghost ring.

160292

Kevin

[gnoahhh]

On my lever guns (Savages exclusively) I prefer tang sights. I've used them for many years- hunting and casual shooting- and never found them to be fragile, nor have I ever felt them to be in the way of my thumb. A distinct advantage, IMO, is that they put the aperture right in front of my eye, and also increase the sight radius just that little bit more.

[beemer]

I have a Marbles tang sight on my 45-70 Marlin, I will sooner or later replace it with a receiver sight. It is in the way of my thumb making it uncomfortable to shoot.

Dave

[LIMPINGJ]

StrawHat that looks just like my setup on the 1895 except I used a Redfield.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Go to : http://www.skinnersights.com/ and check out their barrel mount sights. It may be an option you may like if you have a dovetailed rear sight.
Mike

I'm grateful for that website. Their "Hepburn" receiver sight, not exactly the original Hepburn design but close, will fit my .32 Marlin 1894 using the original holes drilled for the purpose. Then there is my Army and Navy Stores .255 Jeffery rook rifle... This could cost me plenty.

I've got a .40-82 Winchester 1886, with a bore a bit worn for confidence, and very unremarkable except that it lay under the floor of a mountain cabin throughout their invasion by gun control enthusiasts. I don't think it was ever intended as a weapon of war, for there was fishing-boat to fishing-boat service for that, and few occasions to ask people to get killed for nothing in a country that wasn't going to be reinvaded through. It was more the principle of the thing. I wouldn't drill that one for anything, and used a modern Lyman tang sight last time I shot it.

But where there is a free choice, I would prefer a receiver sight. It is less easily damaged, and although both are adjustable, a good receiver sight is more easily returned to a previously set range adjustment, which can be useful if you hunt in varied country with what isn't the flattest-shooting rifle in the world.