Live Auction...Don't look of you're easily offended!

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=275660778
I'm sure there is a reasonable explanation for the tang sight on this rifle, but I can't figure out what it would be. Can you shed some light on it for me?

It doesn't have sling swivels!

No, there is no reasonable explanation. Maybe someone didn't have the patience to wait and have the proper sight ordered!

You newbys should study up on early 1895 tang sights!! that sight and rifle are correct!!! there has been a lot of past discussion on them. Don

A fine lookin' little rifle, none-the-less.

Ron T.

Yes, it is Ron!!

Originally Posted by Loggah

You newbys should study up on early 1895 tang sights!! that sight and rifle are correct!!! there has been a lot of past discussion on them. Don

How on earth would you expect it to hold a zero?

Greg, I don't think it would very well!!

it was the first ones Lyman came out with,shortly after Lyman made the tang sight that used the holes in the tang. Don

Originally Posted by Loggah

Greg, I don't think it would very well!!

it was the first ones Lyman came out with,shortly after Lyman made the tang sight that used the holes in the tang. Don

Those yesteryear gunmen "KNEW" their guns. They didn't have a myriad of rifles to choose from. They had ONE and it was usually an extension of the man. That rifle the way is is will put food on the table all day long.

Put yourself in the original owners shoes. 4 reasons might be:

1) Longer sight radius = better accuracy
2) Not drilling extra holes in the metal maintains value.
3) Why buy a new tang sight when I have this one that will fit on the butt stock?
4) I like to work with wood screws.

Originally Posted by 300jimmy

Put yourself in the original owners shoes. 4 reasons might be:

1) Longer sight radius = better accuracy
2) Not drilling extra holes in the metal maintains value.
3) Why buy a new tang sight when I have this one that will fit on the butt stock?
4) I like to work with wood screws.

I agree with 1,3,and 4. I really don't think they worried about maintaining value. The gun was a fricken tool. PERIOD!!!!!!! We're the only ones that equate everything to dollars and cents........

There aren't alot of tangs like that one, you'll notice Dick tells you it's stamped "SA" on the bottom. So was the one Elwood sold and I've got one sitting in the sight box as well waiting for an 1895 with holes there to fill (I'll trip over one soon).

As Loggah said, the sight is the first Lyman (Lyman #1, SA code) made for the 1895. It was the only tang sight available for the first one or two years till the Lyman #1B /2B (same sight as the Savage 18 and 19) came out.

I'm more likely to trip over a sight.

Originally Posted by gregintenn

Originally Posted by Loggah

You newbys should study up on early 1895 tang sights!! that sight and rifle are correct!!! there has been a lot of past discussion on them. Don

How on earth would you expect it to hold a zero?

I expect it would hold zero plenty good enough for a hunting rifle.

Mike

mhmmmm.

I must be missing something. I'll admit to not knowing that the sight is correct. But I've reread the auction several times and I don't see where it says the sight is stamped SA.
And, there are holes in the tang for a tang sight seen in photos 4,5 and 15. Why would they use a sight like this instead of the one designed to fit the tang holes?

Originally Posted by Loggah

Greg, I don't think it would very well!!

it was the first ones Lyman came out with,shortly after Lyman made the tang sight that used the holes in the tang. Don

Just trying to learn here, not making argument!

Y'all know I'm NOT a "collector", but jezzzzzzzzzz... this one makes me feel sorry I don't have much money to spend frivolously... but DANG GUM it, it jus' looks "yummy" to me...

Youse guys are a "bad" influence on us "young'uns"... and it's all Greg's fault for postin' those pictures!~!~!

Interestingly to me is the LACK of bids thus far on this rifle. Those of us in the forum who know, (and I am NOT one of them), must know the seller and the lone bidder. I find the seller's 'other' auction to be a real pretty example as well... but I would prefer another chambering in that model. 30-30 doesn't pump my nads. That little prince has no bidders, but both auctions have time left and we shall see how they go.

For the uneducated:

The 1895 catalogue:

[Linked Image]

The 1897 catalogue:

[Linked Image]

You can clearly see where it states placed on wood.

Sorry I don't have an 1896!

Blair

Originally Posted by docost99

I must be missing something. I'll admit to not knowing that the sight is correct. But I've reread the auction several times and I don't see where it says the sight is stamped SA.
And, there are holes in the tang for a tang sight seen in photos 4,5 and 15. Why would they use a sight like this instead of the one designed to fit the tang holes?

Originally Posted by Loggah

Greg, I don't think it would very well!!

it was the first ones Lyman came out with,shortly after Lyman made the tang sight that used the holes in the tang. Don

Brian,

I think the consensus is that Savage put tang holes on there gun for future tang sight manufacturers. Lyman likely made the sight that screws into the wrist first b/c it was a small or simple change from something they were already making. They likely were not willing to spend a lot of time designing a new tang sight specifically for the tang holes on a 1895 when it was a new comer that had not proved itself yet. I'm pretty sure that someone mentioned previously this is basically another sight that Lyman was already making...
Just trying to learn here, not making argument!

Yes , it is marked "SA" on the underside of tang sight. I believe the sight has been on the rifle a long time.... Dick

Originally Posted by fatjack34

Interestingly to me is the LACK of bids thus far on this rifle. Those of us in the forum who know, (and I am NOT one of them), must know the seller and the lone bidder. I find the seller's 'other' auction to be a real pretty example as well... but I would prefer another chambering in that model. 30-30 doesn't pump my nads. That little prince has no bidders, but both auctions have time left and we shall see how they go.

There may be quite a bit of serious interest in it. However, a lot of guys who are quite serious about it won't jump in until the final seconds. Why just drive the bidding up?

I like it

Originally Posted by fatjack34

Interestingly to me is the LACK of bids thus far on this rifle. Those of us in the forum who know, (and I am NOT one of them), must know the seller and the lone bidder. I find the seller's 'other' auction to be a real pretty example as well... but I would prefer another chambering in that model. 30-30 doesn't pump my nads. That little prince has no bidders, but both auctions have time left and we shall see how they go.

Regarding this .30/30 SRC, most the time a Savage in a .30/30 is considered more desirable and will bring more money than a .303. This would be true of the M1899F. However, I do acknowledge there are .303 fans out there.

My sincere apologies to any of you I may have screwed up by posting a link to this auction. I really appreciate the education, however. Thanks, Greg

I looked at a model C 25-35 that had had one (I am guessing) the holes were there, had been filed in.