Home Forums Lever Action Central Big Bore Levers to peep or not to peep

Hi ya'll
Just picked up a Win 1886, in 45-70, and want to put a peep on it. I saw a Skinner peep advertised, it takes drilling and tapping the top of the receiver. It looks sturdy. Anybody use this peep? Or does anyone have any suggestions? Thanks

I have Skinners on my Ruger #1 45-70. They work better than the factory sights for my reloads and required only minor adjustments after installation.

A Williams FP would go right on there, though it wouldn't be as nice-looking as the Skinner setup.

Lyman probably makes a sight, too, and I think they are better looking than the FP, also.

If it sounds like I don't like the FP, that's not true, I have two levers equipped with them.

I have to admit they ain't the purtiest sight, but they do work.

Anyway, the receiver sight offers two main advantages over the buckhorn I feel are important, one being a much longer sight radius, the second is a better view of the target.

XS makes one similar to the Skinner but is a little sleeker and I like the windage adjustment better. It mounts the same way, D&T the top of the receiver behind the locking lugs.
Couple pictures here, http://levergunscommunity.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=22649

it is your gun but if it were mine I wouldn't drill any holes into an original gun especially if other receiver sights are available for the factory holes. the Williams fp is not the slickest but it works as it has for years.

I've installed Lyman or Redfield sights on several rifles, including a Jap 1886. I have one Williams sight also. I hate buckhorn sights! If the rifle were mine, I'd install an aperture sight. If you can do this without drilling and tapping, do it. If you bought the rifle as an investment and plan on putting it in your safe, don't drill. If you plan on hunting throw away that worthless POS buckhorn sight and install a peep sight of your choice.

Personally I like the old steel Lyman sights best. But I've not had experience with Skinner or XS.

At least start with the Williams that uses existing scope mount holes. It's cheap. If you don't like the peep sight or can't shoot well with one (my variable bifocal eyeglasses give me a "hole and a half rear sight), you're not out much money.

Bugger, your opinion on buckhorn sights is the same as mine!

Ok this gun is going to the woods with me it's not an investment piece. there are no holes in it for any type of sight. I have seen one aftermarket sight that utilizes bolts on the side of the receiver. It looks bulky, even kinda cheesey. Drilling and tapping seem to be in order. Skinner sights are about $15 cheaper than XS, and they look much alike. I have a williams on my 94, I've not had a problem with it but the skinner looks sturdier. I'm leanin' that way.

I have a repro Win 1886 that also had no threaded holes on the side of the receiver for site mounting. I had my gunsmith remove the tang safety and drill/tap for a tang sight that covers where the the tang safety sits. I use vernier tang sights on a Sharps and Ballard so am accustomed to them and had an extra one that fit. I'm not sure I like it on this application - it sits far enough back on the tang that my glasses "tap" the site on recoil which has me questioning it's suitability.

Another option not mentioned here is the repro Lyman #21 site by Providence Tool and sold by Buffalo Arms. I have that site on a repro Win 1895 and repro Browning 71. I really like this sight and am considering one for the 1886...

I'm not big on tang sights, I had a Sharps with a tang sight and it was always in the way. The Lyman #21 is the sight I referred to as bulky. That's a completely personal evaluation. The Skinner is still the front runner. Research tells me I'm very likely going to have to change the front site as well any suggestions?

Providence tool makes a reproduction of what is the Lyman #21, I think. Buffalo arms carries them. It mounts to the left side of the frame. I honestly do know if an older 1886 would be factory drilled for one. I have one on a repro 1895 and had to have it drilled and tapped. Installation is neat, and adjustment is easy.

I have some Skinner sights, not that one, and they are good. That one looks a little too square and angular for my taste especially for that particular rifle.

I tried a Marbles tang sight on a 1895 Marlin Cowboy rifle, 45-70 and the darned thing just hurt my hand too much during recoil that I removed it. I may end up putting a Skinner on it.

As others have said, I wouldn't drill and tap the gun, I'd find something that fit the existing holes. I've used williams, redfield, and lyman receiver sights over the years on guns of various ages.

I like open iron sights but not buckhorn sights. If you can't find a receiver, consider replacing the front sight with a plain blade and the rear with a square notch giving the same sort of sight picture as revolver target sights. My new/old TC muzzleloader is set up that way and I'm surprised how well I it works for me.

Tom

I've got the williams on my 1895g and it is good to go!

Since you're going to use it, and it's not drilled at all, I would pick the sight I liked best and move on. I like older Lyman's and the XS sights over the Skinner, but that's personal prefernce.

I like the Lyman sights best. Early models are especially nice, so expect to pay a little more.

I have been shooting peep sights on my .30-30, 35 Rem and now my .45-70 encore. The Williams FP has worked out well. Usually use a Merit adjustable aperture. My latest FP has the target knobs.

Have you wandered afield with the target knobs? I have considered them on my rifles equipped with the FP, but the knobs look like they could catch on clothing/brush.

They would certainly be more convenient at the range, and I really don't change sight settings in the field with those sights, but my .45-70 likes to print each load with a different weight bullet about 2 zip-codes from each other, requiring an adjustment if I go from, say, a 300 grain bullet to a 420 grain. I'm talking 5 or 6 inches.

Vic,

I have not. They don't stick out a lot but could be an issue for some. I mainly shoot targets with my rifles these days and train and hunt bird dogs.

OK, thanks.

I like the concept, but I hunt my rifles and have learned that protruding items such as the knobs can catch on things.

That turns a graceful slip through some brush into a dancing bush....but then again, I've never been accused too often of being graceful....

If they were like yours and shot mainly at the range, I definitely would use them, the adjustments being much more convenient.

Thanks again.