Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Rimfires Winchester 68

Have a few 67’s but this 68 is an absolute gem. Points like a shotgun and accurate as hell with the peep.
Had in 44 years this year, I was 7 when dad bought it for me. Been chasing rabbits out of the garden with it last two evenings shooting underneath them.
It has what I’m thinking is the fairly rare Winchester sling hooks they used on a lot of lever guns.

Glad to see this subject come up as I just got a Win 68 two days ago.

Love the peep, but I think I am going to take the front sight hood off and see if I like it better that way.

My rifle is one of the early models with the finger groove stock (like your rifle), but does not have the sling attachments.

I love the slimness of the stock, long barrel, and overall simplicity of the 67 and 68.

Nice rifle. Hard to beat those old single shot 22s. I've got Winchester 67 , 121 that both shoot way better than they should

Something worth considering for your Model 68, I recently installed a Williams FireSight front on my Model 63, to liven up the sight picture a bit. Don’t have much mileage on it yet, and haven’t tried it from the bench, but it seems very promising:



It ought to be particularly effective with a large aperture peep sight, sorta like a poor man’s red dot sight if used in any reasonable minimum lighting conditions.

I had a 68 for a long time that was chambered and marked for the .22 WRF ctg. Until a Winchester collector heard about it....

And I once won an iron sights smallbore single shot match at my gun club with a 68 in .22 LR. Beat guys with Remington 510s which SHOULD be better target rifles based on the better trigger. Maybe the Remington guys all had the shakes that morning! (Lord knows the Win 67 and 68 triggers are "no great shakes!").

Yessir! Better equipment cannot adequately substitute for good technique.

Them old Browning designed Winchester single shot bolt 22s are certainly capable, when in good hands. My Dad’s childhood Model 04 from the late 1920s (a predecessor of the 67 and 68), which I had resuscitated from its near death-by-rusting experience, is a good example:



… even before the addition of the UltraDot sight:



It had lost nearly 6” off the front of the barrel due to excessive rusting, and there’s still some pitting remaining in the 16-1/2” bore. Yet, it nevertheless shot surprisingly well, while I was standing and leaning for support against the right side partition for my shooting lane.

I find the F.O. sights easy to see obviously, but not as precise as a good flat-topped blade. All I’ve seen for rifles consist of a fiber bead, and beads are too fuzzy around the edges, especially in my Golden Years. If I used one for hunting, I’d sight it using the center as the POI instead of the top. Some handgun sights have the F.O. embedded in a squarish blade, which is better I think.

That 63 of yours is awesome.

Thank you, sir.

And, at my age, all bead front sights are fuzzy, even with glasses.

Strangely enough though, in reasonably good light, the notch in the Marble’s rear folding sights, such as those shown in the above photos, actually acts a tight, half aperture to sufficiently sharpen focus on the front bead, whether it be brass or fiber optic, to allow a reasonably precise 6 o’clock hold, as demonstrated pretty well by the 04 pictured above with the brass bead sight, and to a lesser extent by the 63 pictured with the fiber optic sight.

I certainly agree with you that, with a fiber optic front and a wide, full aperture rear, a center hold is best, and can produce remarkable precision if held consistently, which is the real trick.