|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 48,036
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 48,036 |
I was going to run my 270 pictured above with the peep. Figured it would be cool to have a peep sighted one to mess with. Didn’t work out so now I keep looking for one that I can put a peep on That 06 is great looking. You have a few to choose from. The recent ones you got from Bob's kids may suffice? Those are going to get set up for my two boys I believe. Not saying I won’t shoot them a little Ha ha.. yeah, that is cool man. Your boys will love them!! I'm assuming they are later fwt's. Those were some of Bob's favorites. 1959-1963..
I try to stick with the basics, they do so well. Nothing fancy mind you, just plain jane will get it done with style. You want to see an animal drop right now? Shoot him in the ear hole. BSA MAGA
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,303
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,303 |
I was going to run my 270 pictured above with the peep. Figured it would be cool to have a peep sighted one to mess with. Didn’t work out so now I keep looking for one that I can put a peep on That 06 is great looking. You have a few to choose from. The recent ones you got from Bob's kids may suffice? Those are going to get set up for my two boys I believe. Not saying I won’t shoot them a little Ha ha.. yeah, that is cool man. Your boys will love them!! I'm assuming they are later fwt's. Those were some of Bob's favorites. 1959-1963.. I think they’re mid 50’s. Let me check. 349XXX for the 270.. Haven’t seen the 30-06 yet.
Last edited by beretzs; 03/22/23.
Semper Fi
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 5,210
Campfire Tracker
|
OP
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 5,210 |
Alright guys. I know I've bought a few rifles with these sights and they work well. The nice thing about them is there is no big adjustment screws to get snagged on schidt and it is extremely lightweight. It's actually a pretty clean way to go about setting up your pre 64 with a rear aperture for hunting. Again, like I said before, many of these that I've seen had missing apertures/screw in apertures. This makes this sight more like a "ghost ring" and great for hunting. It lets you get on target very quickly and better in low light situations. Now, while my first thought for a pre 64 is the venerable 48WJS, it is actually pretty hard to beat this combo on a nice light featherweight rifle. The wear on the edges of this one shows whoever owned it before me used it quite a bit. I actually don't mind the wear around the edges, as it blends in well with the aluminum butt plate and the honest wear on the floor plate and trigger guard. This rifle is in overall great condition, yet the worn sight looks right at home on it. 1956 30-06 FWT. One of my babies: First picture is of course the 2 screws where you will mount the rear sight to. These are factory drilled and tapped and found on all pre 64 model 70's: Next pics are of the sight base. Make note on how well it fits the receiver: (also notice the clearance between the sight base and the stock) Here's the actual sight, when not on the rifle: Now when it's on the rifle: Like I said previously, this one is the OP's if he wants it.. BSA, that is just what the doctor ordered. I would love to have it. And I know just what you mean about the large hole where an aperture may be missing in these sights. In the Marines I trained with an M16 A2. On that rifle you have two peeps, the standard and that the 0-2, which we commonly referred to as the “fat girl” because you only took her out at night, or as the name indicates, at close range. That little sight will be perfect for my needs. I’ll send you a PM with my info. Thank you very much!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 5,210
Campfire Tracker
|
OP
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 5,210 |
I have two Lyman steel aperture sights. I don’t need both. PM me if you want one. Bugger, Thank you too, for offering up one of your Lyman’s. I’m going to take BSA up on his offer and I don’t want to be greedy. I won’t lie, this thread has peaked my interest in sights and I’m interested to see what’s out there, but perhaps someone else might have more of a need then me. If time passes and you still have one to get rid of, please let me know. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 48,036
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 48,036 |
Alright guys. I know I've bought a few rifles with these sights and they work well. The nice thing about them is there is no big adjustment screws to get snagged on schidt and it is extremely lightweight. It's actually a pretty clean way to go about setting up your pre 64 with a rear aperture for hunting. Again, like I said before, many of these that I've seen had missing apertures/screw in apertures. This makes this sight more like a "ghost ring" and great for hunting. It lets you get on target very quickly and better in low light situations. Now, while my first thought for a pre 64 is the venerable 48WJS, it is actually pretty hard to beat this combo on a nice light featherweight rifle. The wear on the edges of this one shows whoever owned it before me used it quite a bit. I actually don't mind the wear around the edges, as it blends in well with the aluminum butt plate and the honest wear on the floor plate and trigger guard. This rifle is in overall great condition, yet the worn sight looks right at home on it. 1956 30-06 FWT. One of my babies: First picture is of course the 2 screws where you will mount the rear sight to. These are factory drilled and tapped and found on all pre 64 model 70's: Next pics are of the sight base. Make note on how well it fits the receiver: (also notice the clearance between the sight base and the stock) Here's the actual sight, when not on the rifle: Now when it's on the rifle: Like I said previously, this one is the OP's if he wants it.. BSA, that is just what the doctor ordered. I would love to have it. And I know just what you mean about the large hole where an aperture may be missing in these sights. In the Marines I trained with an M16 A2. On that rifle you have two peeps, the standard and that the 0-2, which we commonly referred to as the “fat girl” because you only took her out at night, or as the name indicates, at close range. That little sight will be perfect for my needs. I’ll send you a PM with my info. Thank you very much! Sounds great man. Glad to help you out on this..
I try to stick with the basics, they do so well. Nothing fancy mind you, just plain jane will get it done with style. You want to see an animal drop right now? Shoot him in the ear hole. BSA MAGA
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,429
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,429 |
When you're speaking of a quality receiver sight, especially on high power bolt rifle, you're describing an "instrument". "Best of class!" I do surely hear the remark typical concerning such as the Lyman 48, in terms of bit of "bulk" and also edges that catch on gun cases, clothing or brush. A penalty, for which the reward in "instrument quality" and as particularly noted above not the fussing around getting it "regulated". If your field world is at a relatively fixed range distance, a variety of less expensive serviceable sights, but then less excuse for not using a less expensive scope with ease of adjustment. I don't think there's any one good answer. The person, time place, circumstance including inclement weather... Not to mention front sight as also noted above. The Lyman 57 series is also quite good. Less expensive than the 48 and most of the attributes of dimensions and quick setup. The Redfields are "next quality" to me but factually about the same. From there such as Pacific Sights, reflecting decent 'purpose oriented' if clunky sturdy species! Last bit of trivia perhaps, "Hunter" rounded top knobs are slightly more 'anti-catch on everything' but require a device of "coin slot" dimensions for the 'price' of convenient adjustment. I'll take target knobs, thank you!
I don't know about you all, but I've enjoyed this Thread. With Thanks! John
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,188
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,188 |
One of my favorite topics, M70’s and receiver sights!
I just want to note (unless noted earlier and I missed it) that Williams made two different models of receiver sights. The FP (fool proof) which had the internal micrometer adjustments. Also the 5D ($5 dollar) which did not have click adjustments, simply slides and lock screws.
I agree with the others that the Williams FP is one of my favorites. Once locked down it’s very solid.
In regards to the Lyman, the 48 is wonderful but the 57 is horrid in my opinion. The slide wobbles in the shoddy aluminum base and no means to lock it down.
The older steel redfields are a great option as well and usually much cheaper than the Lyman 48 if one is hung up on having steel.
For Standard M70’s I usually try to hunt down a steel sight to match the steel bottom metal and buttplate. For featherweights, I like the Williams FP as the aluminum ages the same as the bottom metal and buttplate, + keeps with the light weight theme.
Stuck in airports, Terrorized Sent to meetings, Hypnotized Over-exposed, Commercialized Handle me with Care... -Traveling Wilbury's
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 48,036
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 48,036 |
One of my favorite topics, M70’s and receiver sights!
I just want to note (unless noted earlier and I missed it) that Williams made two different models of receiver sights. The FP (fool proof) which had the internal micrometer adjustments. Also the 5D ($5 dollar) which did not have click adjustments, simply slides and lock screws.
I agree with the others that the Williams FP is one of my favorites. Once locked down it’s very solid.
In regards to the Lyman, the 48 is wonderful but the 57 is horrid in my opinion. The slide wobbles in the shoddy aluminum base and no means to lock it down.
The older steel redfields are a great option as well and usually much cheaper than the Lyman 48 if one is hung up on having steel.
For Standard M70’s I usually try to hunt down a steel sight to match the steel bottom metal and buttplate. For featherweights, I like the Williams FP as the aluminum ages the same as the bottom metal and buttplate, + keeps with the light weight theme. Good post Tom.
I try to stick with the basics, they do so well. Nothing fancy mind you, just plain jane will get it done with style. You want to see an animal drop right now? Shoot him in the ear hole. BSA MAGA
|
|
|
|
550 members (1badf350, 1936M71, 160user, 17CalFan, 12344mag, 10gaugemag, 55 invisible),
2,638
guests, and
1,380
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,191,704
Posts18,475,294
Members73,941
|
Most Online11,491 Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|