Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Savage Collectors Rocky Mountain sights question

Here we go again. My letter states my gun came with Rocky Mountain sights front and rear. I don’t have a rear sight except the marbles tang sight. Thinking of buying that part but no where on the internet can I find that rear sight. The only reference is to a front blade sight. Was Rocky Mountain a “generic” term in 1910?

Some sight info here... sight info

Semi buckhorns for Savage can be found on auction sights ~$40.
Hard to tell what was original to the rifle as other options were available as well.

Yeah, the standard sights for stock rifles were rocky mountain front blade/etc, but the ledgers often didn't record sight upgrades.

Catalog No 35 from about 1910 shows the 14RM rocky mountain rear sight - this is the long one made from sheet metal and fit to the dovetail block that goes in the barrel with another dovetail joint on top in line with the barrel... if that makes sense.... I got some picture somewhere I'll look for.

Is there any wear on the barrel where a rear sight was to give an indication of the length? There were not a lot of rear sight options listed, the Lyman No 6 two leaf folding sight was one and it was often used when a tang sight was mounted, the problem with those is that there were different heights for a lot of different applications and it's hard to find the right one.

Here is one variation of the sights used on the early 1899. This one has an adjustable sight leaf. Others do not.

That sight is the Marlin one used on 1895's & early 1899's, it's a little taller than the sight Savage later came up with to replace it. Here's a link to some comparison pictures - https://www.24hourcampfire.com/-#Post11006033

The pictures are in Photobucket but it appears they are now allowing them to display again... with their water mark...

That one was on my 1899B made in 1904.

Any idea when they stopped using them?

Approximately when did the rear dove tail location change from ~ 5 1/2" to ~3 1/4" for rifles?
Dimension from the front of the rec'r ring to rear of dove tail.

The solid frame, long barrel, 1899s have the dovetail further back. Short rifles and SRCs are closer but often more like 3" and sometimes less.

I generally equate the dovetail move to the switch to model 99s.

That sounds about right.
I have;
1899A/1914 = 5 1/2"
1899A/1920 = 3 1/4"
99B/1920 = 3 1/4"

I posted some pictures to the Image Gallery. What’s left of the original rear sight. 5-1/2” from dovetail to receiver ring. I’d say there are scratches that show the original sight was 4-1/2” from point to what looks like a scratch from an elevator piece? I think the old one was cut off to use the tang sight? Opinions welcome

It appears the sight has been broken off. Only the dovetail/front remain.
You can drive that thing out (L to R) and replace it once you decide.
I can't comment on the holes ahead of the dovetail.

A lot of those types of "slot fillers" that were created by cutting off the rear sight were done when a tang sight were added. In this case, it might have been done when the scope was added.

I like them, it's character and I usually leave them alone.

I think the holes in front of the dovetail were part of a Malcomb scope system, since it’s d/t on the side of the receiver. I was considering putting the rear sight back on in case I don’t like using the tang sight. Can’t hurt I guess unless someday I put a Malcomb back on it. I’ll refer back to some previously posted pictures to see if they had rear sights. What do you guys seem to prefer rear sight or tang?

I am a huge fan of tang sights. The longer sight radius contributes to better marksmanship. Some people just cannot get used to NOT focusing on the rear sight, which is what you MUST do to use any "peep" sight, tang or receiver mounted. I think tang mounted is better because it gets the peep closer to your eye, and they just look cool!

But I was taught to shoot with a home made peep on Westinghouse made Mosin-Nagant. Then Uncle Sam issued me several different long guns, all of which had peeps. I feel handicapped with open sights...

My opinion is worth what you paid for it!!!

Doug

This is where my Malcolm front sight is located. The rifle lettered as being sold to Malcolm so we assume it's original. This is a 22HP 1912 H TD, so the barrel is shorter.

IMO (which is worth a bucket of warm spit), tang sights are the way to go, especially on a rifle of that vintage made long before receiver sights were made for Savage lever guns. As Doug said, aside from aesthetic/period correct considerations, tang sights provide many benefits. (But on the down side they aren't as robust as receiver sights.) In the end it boils down to personal taste (as long as the gun is kept away from the Krylon spray paint and modern Hubble-like telescopic sights).

A common trick in that era was to turn the barrel sight into a slot filler when changing up the sight system, but usually on the ones I've seen (and the ones I did myself) the protocol was to file/grind the back of the sight behind the dovetail to match the front of the sight ahead of the dovetail not just file it off flush like on the one pictured above. Another common trick was to throw the whole thing away and replace it with a Lyman #6 folding rear sight, thus retaining a modicum of backup capability in a pinch. Yet another ploy was to retain the entire rear sight when installing a tang sight, and using the tang peep as a light focuser to enable a sharply focused view of the barrel sight and front sight, and not employ the tang sight as an actual sight. (It was a common ploy on European factory rifles way back in the day.) That would seem like much ado about nothing to me. I guess it took a while for the rank-and-file to fully trust the optical theory of an aperture rear sight.

A point made in the Malcolm catalogs was that a side mount scope did not interfere with the original barrel sights leaving them for backup or low light. You can see in Joe's photo the Malcolm front mount is dished down so it does not interfere with the barrel sights.

The side mounts I have seen still have the barrel sights, however, it appears your gun has the holes almost to close to retain the barrel sight unless the front of the sight were shortened. From the protected blue & wear pattern it looks like your gun had a long rear sight on it for a long time.

The devil is in the details. Just to get it right, I shot this guy with the tang sight, not the Malcolm. He was only about 5-60 yards walking straight at me. The tang worked just fine.

Awesome!