Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Savage Collectors which tang sight

i've got a 99f in 300 savage that i would like to put a tang sight on. something like the marble sight . not a receiver sight. my understanding is that some of these old sights don't have windage adjustments? what models should i look for with windage adjustments?have also heard i might need a higher front sight? does anyone here have such a sight?

thanks Ed

In terms of vintage tang sights, the Lyman 29½ and its brother the 30½ is your best bet. Not cheap, but fairly common. I can speak to their utility as a rifle sight. The top of the line Lyman 103 is another one but they are rare and almighty expensive. Yes, you will likely need a taller front sight to go with it, but that statement is based on my using them on the pre-1920 models I accumulate and shoot (note I didn't say "collect"). I know not of the front sight requirements if used on a 1950's F.

I think, but don't quote me, that the current generation Marble's tang sight is windage adjustable. I only ever looked at them and noted their general flimsiness so I never bought one. I dimly recall a couple guys writing here many years ago about their less than pleasant experiences with the late issue Marbles (and Lymans for that matter) so therein lies more fuel for my prejudice. Can anybody clarify/confirm that?

Frankly, I would opt for a Lyman 57 or Redfield 70 tang mounted receiver sight. Rugged, reliable adjustments, and wide range of motion. I think they look perfect on post-1930's 99's. I have a Lyman 57 on my youngest 99, a 99T .300, and I couldn't be happier with it.

50's F's have a dovetailed front sight (as do 20's F's, no?) in which case you can use a non-windage adjustable tang sight and simply drift the front sight in either direction to attain zero with the load you settle on.

I copy Gary. I think tang sights look a little out of place on post-war 99s and frankly, beyond aesthetics, the Redfield 70 and Lyman 57 are better sights. My preference is for the Redfield 70 as it is a bit more compact in shape and pretty much equal to the Lyman in function. On the other hand, earlier 99s look best with tang sights. In addition to what's already been said, non windage adjustable tang sights can be shimmed for some degree of improved accuracy if they are hitting off center of aim.

There is also the new production Marbles. Pretty flimsy from most accounts but offers windage for half the cost of the 29-1/2 or 30-1/2.

Oh, screws not included. Who does that??

Marbles Midway

My vote goes to the Lyman 29 1/2. I am a fan of the flip down aperture and wind-age adjustment. I am also one of them who is willing to pay a wee bit of a premium for said Lyman sight. Have yet to regret acquiring one. (well, maybe one on e-bay that there were extenuating circumstances.)

I have to side with Jerry, hard to beat the 29 1/2 or the 30 1/2

Gonna side with Gary. My first preference on a peep sight is to go with a sight that's appropriate to the age of the rifle. The Lyman 56/57's and Redfield 70's receiver sights ruled the late 40's and 50's for Savage 99 peep sights.

But it's a personal preference. Heck, I like scopes on my old 99's that I actually shoot, so I can hardly cast stones at folks that just want a specific tang sight. Life's short, do what makes ya happy as long (well... within reason! ).

I've got a "thing" for Lyman 56's

My "working" 99H in .303 (V 1-2 by David's book) now wears a 29 1/2 and did NOT require a new front sight.

My nephew has one of the new Marble's tang sights on an EG and while it does not look like much, it does work well. No problems so far. It's been on the gun for some years now, maybe 10 or so, and he is not the most gentle person. I'll ask, but I don't think he had to change the front sight either or I would have been involved. I'm also pretty sure it came with screws...

Still, the 29 1/2 gets my vote!

Doug

Your nephew's experience with the modern Marble's matches my own. I put one on a 99F from 1957. It is pretty ugly, but works fine. I did change the front sight, but I don't remember if I had to or not.