Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Savage Collectors Looking to trade

I am looking for an early lyman tang sight a No. 1 (flipped down aperture, my preference) or No. 2 (screw in disc aperture). Here are pictures of the style that I am looking for:







I don't want or need a totally mint sight, it just has to function properly and have no alterations. The rifle that it is going onto is not mint bluing so I would like something that would match.

What I have to trade is Lyman 2A (screw in aperture) with the side locking lever that is not mint, but function correctly. It does have a newer disc with the twilight brass ring installed on it. Bluing is worn, no rust. I would provide detailed pictures via email to anyone that is interested. I have an 1895 that I want to swap out sights on and have the correct period tang on it.

Blair

Blair, I will check my stash tonight--I am pretty sure I have one that style but will have to check the apeture.

Jim.

Jim,

Sounds good, I'd be happy with either.

Blair

Funny huh?

The #18's weren't marked for the 1895's yet the same sight for the 32-40's were marked SP under them. And SH for the 38-55's.

Same identical sight though. I wonder why they were marked for different calibers. Maybe the stems were longer or shorter.

Anyone have an idea?

Don't know why the stems would be different lengths, the trajectories of the .32/40 and .38/55 are pretty similar. Did Savage for some reason use front sights of different heighths among the different calibers on the early guns?

As an aside, anyone else notice the increase in usage of the word "site" on the internet, instead of "sight"?

Site is where I go.

Sight is where I see!

Pretty simple!

There was definitely a difference. My SP's adjustment ring is longer than the #19, also it looks wider at the base where the stem is.

Blair, you've got an SH is the adjustment ring longer or the same as your #18 or #19's?

Joe, I wonder if the thickness "dates" them.

Looking at the 1900 catalog pic on page 224, the drawing looks like the area under the adjustment ring is thinner in profile than
what is shown in the 1909 catalog pic on page 225.

They are just drawings of course but the 1905 pic seems to show the thicker profile or a little shoulder

Joe, that is the SH in the picture and it does have the wide adjustment knob.

I wonder if the wider adjustment knob was needed on the 38-55 and 32-40 rifles as it increased the range of the stem height from lowest to highest position. The extra 1/8 or so variation in stem position would result in about 12 inches at 100 yards. This would be beneficial when sighting in the calibers with more radical trajectories at longer distances.
BillR

Looks like the SH and the #19 have the same elevation adjustment but the SP (32-40) seems longer which leads me to believe that the stem is longer as well.

Funny, the 32-40 and the 38-55 were thought of as a target catridge back in those days and yet the 303 Sav was not. There wasn't that much difference in them was there?

Mad Dog, Yes, the .32-40 and .38-55, plus Pope's varient the .33-40, were well known target cartridges but only when used in target rifles. The guns that really made the reputation for those cartridges were single shots like the Ballards and even the Winchester High Wall. For their target loads, a cartridge case loaded with black powder and a wad was loaded into the breech. Then the bullets, nicely paper patched, were loaded through a false muzzle and rammed down the bore to the waiting charge of powder. Following that, the false muzzle was removed from the front of the barrel and the shot could be taken. For sporting purposes the .32-40 and .38-55 were both put in repeating rifles by Marlin in their Model of 1881. Moving into the Savage 99's time, at the turn of the century the .30-30's biggest competitor was the .32-40 except in the case of the Savage 99 where the .303 was taking its bows. Savage did have a target load for the .303 using black powder and a paper patched bullet but that didn't last very long.

Before the .30/30 and .303 Savage came out, the .32/40 and .38/55 were considered to be state of the art deer calibers, as well as setting the standard for competition. There is a lot to be said for a big flat-nosed lead bullet moving at 1600-1800fps.

The arrival of the aforementioned smokeless rounds revolutionized everything. All of a sudden, a .32/40 couldn't kill an anemic half-starved deer if it tried- one needed at least a new flat shooting .30/30 - .303S to do the job. Sound familiar?- re: the debate between the hot shot magnum whompers vs. the old tried and true standards.

For me, the Holy Grail is an 1899B, in .32/40, with that SP tang sight (followed real closely by an 1899H in .25/35, or a G in .303, or a...).

Right now I've got an 1899A 32-40 for the SP tang and it's wearing a Lyman (Savage 3B) ivory bead jack sight on the front which I believe to be factory installed. I think Rick gave me a ya on that to when I first bought it and told him about the front sight.

Got a line on a couple more 32-40's, one the guy ain't ready to sell yet (1899C 32-40) and the other I'm waiting to hear back from the guy at the gunshop who has a line on a couple but doesn't want the 32-40.

Not very many could afford a Pope muzzle-breach loading target rifle. It was like spending thousands today for a state-of-the-art target rig. Those who were fortunate to be able to get Harry to build them a rifle were people who could shoot, and proved it. The top offhand (Schuetzen) shooters of the day set records at 200yds. with those rifles that stood for decades and even now are not to be sneezed at. Don't forget, those guys were turning in those 1 - 2", 10 shot, 200yd groups while standing up, shooting offhand. The advent of smokeless powder and the increase in popularity of military-style position shooting sounded the death knell for those old black powder rounds for general hunting and target shooting.

Thanks fella's made a deal with lawman!

#18 or a 19?

18