Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Savage Collectors Receiver sights without wood removal 1899

Is there a good tang mounted receiver sight option that doesn't require wood removal for an 1899? From what I'm gathering the Redfields may not, but the Lymans may?

Any help appreciated. My eyes dont do blade rears well anymore and I think a tang mounted receiver with a numbered elevator may be my best option.

I'd like to stretch it out every once in awhile on a flat range besides just a hunting zero.

Thanks.

Never had trouble with either one but if you run into this issue, shim the base up to clear the interference.

Lyman made a couple of elevation and windage adjustable peeps. I think they are #'s 29 1/2 and 30. My 1903 Savage catalog calls them #20. There is also a #17 windage and elevation adustable. Non-windage adjustable's are #'s 18 and 19. These are probably Lyman 1ASA These sights don't hang over the side like the Lyman 54's and 70's which are later (99) production.
here is a pic of the 1903 catalog page.

For receiver sights, you have the Redfield 70LH and 70LT, and the Lyman 56S and 57SA (corrected).

I'm not sure any are 100% guaranteed to fit with no problems, but I've had less problems with Redfields. Here's a 1952 99EG in 250 that I had that came with a Lyman 56S, and a previous owner had to remove some wood.

Redfield 70s and Lyman 57s seem to be just fine. As too are the Williams sights. I had a Lyman 56 I never used because it did interfere with the stock. I compared that sight with a 57 and observed that the 56 lacked a radius cut on the underside that the 57 had. And the lack of that cut was the problem. Some tang sights can cause problems too, but that’s when the wood sets to high or proud above the tang and requires lowering to the height of the metal.

I just file the bottom of the sight to clear the wood. Cant see it and doesnt hurt anything.

That’s the conclusion I reached. Better to alter the sight than the rifle.

Yep, but one is messing up a $200.00+ sight.

Beats messing up a $1000 rifle!!

I know Joe, but I’d rather not mess either up. At the very least would look for a sight that fits

Listen to 300jimmy. Shims cost nothing and don’t ruin anything.

Wasn’t advocating altering a valuable sight. Only that in comparison, altering the sight and not the stock was the lesser of the two evils. And, as I think you expressed in another post, we can always choose to make our own decisions and simply not use any sight that requires it or the gun being modified. That’s what I did. I sold my “new in the box” 56 to someone else, and after disclosing the issue discussed here. As for the future, I’ll stick to the Lyman 57 and Redfield 70 for obvious reasons.

Thanks for all the responses. I dont want to have to remove wood on my rifle, and also dont want to spend big money on a sight that may not fit without doing so.

Can anyone date a definitive preference for receiver sights (Lyman, Redfield) versus flip up tang sights (Marbles, Lyman etc) for practical use on the 1899?

Lyman 70LH or 70LT. but they are later than an 1899 if you are looking for period correct.

Your question asked about "practical use on the 1899". Either a tang sight or receiver sight will work on any Model 99 with a drilled and tapped tang.

So now the question becomes, do you want it to be period correct as well as practical? The Savage No. 18 that David shows above is actually a Lyman No. 1. In 1905 Lyman introduced the 1A and 2A. The A indicates the addition of a locking lever. Most tang sights (Marble, Lyman 1A, Lyman 2A) are not windage adjustable. The Lyman 29 1/2 and 30 1/2 are windage adjustable (and expensive) and would be period correct for 1899s made after ~1914.

Receiver sights began coming available in the mid-1930s, so they would not be period correct for a Model 1899. The Lyman 56 was available by 1935 according to Stroebel, so the Lyman 56S would period correct for rifles made from the mid-30s through the early 1950s (last cataloged in 1959). Although the Lyman 57 was introduced in 1938, as best I can determine, the Lyman 57 SA for the Model 99 was not introduced until ~1951 or 1952. (My 1949 Lyman application sheet shows only the 56S as a receiver sight for the Model 99.)

According to Stroebel, the Redfield 70 was introduced in the early 1940s. (Savage switched from the Lyman 30 1/2 to the Redfield 70 on the Model 99 RS in 1940.) In 1957 Redfield introduced the Redfield 80 which is simply the 70 with a push button quick removal of the elevation staff similar to that on the Lyman 57.

It does need to be windage adjustable......my front sight is not. Thanks.

Marbles Tang peep.

Rory, that should say 57SA.

Don't mean to show up and pick fly s&^t out of pepper but also don't want the guy buying a Springfield sight.

Good catch. The Lyman 56S, but the Lyman 57SA. Both for Savage 99's.

It's important.

Don't mean to be too picky here, but:

1) wyo1895, in your post of 3/12, did you mean REDFIELD 70LT and LH?

2) there seem to be some chronologic inconsistencies here.
a) Jaaack states that according to Stroebel, the Redfield 70 series debuted in the early 1940s, but if Savage replaced the Lyman 30 1/2 with the Redfield 70LH in 1940, this means it must have started production in 1940 at the latest. Of note the Redfield 70 series is not listed in the Stoeger 1939 catalog which narrows the start date.

b) He also states that Stroebel says the Lyman 56 was available in 1935. However, although the 1939 Stoeger catalog lists the Lyman 56 for many other lever action and pump action hunting rifles, it specifically does NOT list the 56S for the Savage 99.

c) However, in the Stoeger 1944 catalog both the Lyman 56S and Redfield 70LH are present.

d) In the Stoeger 1949 catalog, the blurb for the 70LT/LH specifically states "First practical micrometer receiver sight ever made for this famous rifle." I don't have any of the intervening catalogs, so cannot be more precise.

Taken together, these facts suggest that the Redfield 70L came out in 1939-40, and the Lyman 56S for the Savage 99 came out after 1940 but before 1944.