Were commercial receivers factory drilled for peep (a.k.a. receiver) sights? If so, what is the hole spacing? Any opinions or preferences for Lyman, Williams, Redfield, etc.?
My first preference is for Lyman as they are all steel and I have never had one come loose. I had a Williams on a 12 gauge Ithica deerslayer that had come loose and dislodged. Unfortunately I didn’t notice it missing until I kicked up a deer. Not badmouthing Williams as I have them on a Marlin model39. And they work well, but I will not mount one on another high recoiling gun.
A couple years ago I was thumbing through GB and stumbled upon an FN .30/06 made the year I was born, 1952, and bid on it, $600. When I got it, I discovered that like many rifles from that era, it had been drilled for a mount no longer in production with a 3/8” hole spacing on the bridge instead of 1/2”. Since the stock had already been cut for the receiver sight, then filled, I decided to look for a sight instead of having the bridge holes redone. After a misstep or two, I finally located an unused Lyman 57FN that fit the holes perfectly. I recut the notch in the stock and applied some poly.
You can still see a bit of Sharpie just behind the sight.
When I went to sight it in with my standard .30/06 load, at the lowest setting I was still about 6” high at 50, so the next quest was for a front sight to fit the oddball Yurrupean front sight dovetail. Found what I needed at NECG. The original sight refused to budge, even when heated, so I had to make a relief cut down through it with a hacksaw. The new one just needed a bit of file fitting.
There may be other sights that fit like the Williams Foolproof, but those are discontinued. Another option if a rifle has the standard 1/2” spaced scope mount holes is the WGRS, a very tidy sight that doesn’t require the stock cut. A nice gentleman here loaned me another sight that fit his rifle, but the holes were just a hair off and I returned it rather than alter it.
Lyman is generally considered the highest quality aperture sight yet commonly available 'out there'. The model is, appropriately "48FN". A definite heads up in matter of version of this model over decades of manufacture. I don't know when the FN model entered production but only the last of four versions was specifically made to accommodate receiver mounting without having to inlet for the slide base! The last model has a base going below the stock line but is - best term available - scalloped to curve out around the stock. There is also the Lyman 57 as a good choice if not wishing the market prevalent expense of the 48 Series. It 'may' also be of a slide configuration to be mounted atop the stock level. In any relationship of receiver sight with gun, the actual stock on the gun may work with the last edition offering no-inletting... Or not work! There is also the matter of "Target" or "Hunter" knobs. By whatever name, knurled or dome shaped with coin slots for adjustments. 'Bout all off the top of my head. a quik pix of my short slide Lyman 48 of the "scalloped" generation. Able to unscrew and lift right off the rifle with no stock markings! And yes, confirming mounted on a Winchester But the illustration works even if shadowed!
An "Also ran, as yet worthy of consideration is the Redfield, as I recall 70 Model receiver sight.
Almost up all night finishing up project analysis! Pooped and hope my work here makes sense! Good Luck! John
The first is a FN Mauser in .257 Roberts that originally had a Lyman 57FN on it. When I got it, it still had the base for the peep sight, but it was wearing an old Weaver 6x scope on top. Unfortunately, the glass on the Weaver was not clear, so I replaced it with a new Leupold FX. While that shoots well (I took a beautiful 6-pointer with it), it doesn’t look quite right, so have been in the process of setting it up with a more period appropriate scope - a B&L Balvar with external adjustments. I ran into a snag with that (my “NOS” FN Mauser mount was missing the appropriate spacer block), so I just got a Lyman 57FN to put on it for the time being.
My FN Mauser in .30-06 had a Lyman 48 on it when I bought it. I replaced it with a B&L Balfor scope and stored away the Lyman 48 in case I ever need it.
Both the peep sights on my rifles were attached to the factory holes on the right side of the receiver.
I measured a couple of my commercial FNs and the receiver sight mounting holes appear to be about .625" That is what my poor eyesight is telling me, anyway.
I have seen two FN Mauser factory sporters that had peep sights installed on them, but the barrels were not drilled and tapped for sights. The barrels were factory also, as the serial numbers on the barrels matched the receivers.
I have seen two FN Mauser factory sporters that had peep sights installed on them, but the barrels were not drilled and tapped for sights. The barrels were factory also, as the serial numbers on the barrels matched the receivers.
Yes, both my commercial FN Mausers fall into this category.
As this Thread still 'lives & breathes', just to add another dimension to the aperture (formal name for so-called "peep sights". As FN was first marketing its commercial modern Model 98 of the late forties onward design featuring solid left sidewall and and low scope bolt/safety configuration, they also offered the option of the "Armstrong Dual Range" aperture sight. A photo of one below. To me a bit more complex as 'officious' than useful. That aside, it was the "factory option" offered directly with the rifle rather than perhaps importer-intermediary product.
Also for clarity, just to reaffirm that the earliest version of that FN commercial action arrived on American shores "as advertised" in 1946. And of the corresponding rifles generally available in 1949, which bore standardized receiver sight mounting holes on right side of the Bridge, putting such installation just forward of the bolt handle.
The Lyman breed, in format of the Series ,48 ad 57 seemed far more popular, the fact of the Armstrong as more expensive along with features of little practically utility such as ability to choose between two aperture sizes, were of insufficient interest to cause price point justification. Yet rifles deemed ultimately "of Factory originality" repose in the Armstrong breed.
The Postscript that in late 1950-early 1951 the pre drilled scope mounting holes didn't escape the Factory as calculated by factory year markings, Best! John.
To continue the discussion on peep sights, what about rear sights in a similar configuration as the old M1 carbine and 03A3 rear sight, top mounted with protective ears? The Lymans and similar are great for target accuracy but have always seemed a little on the weak side if the firearm is dropped on the rear bridge and sight. Yes, I know, one shouldn't drop their firearm but anyone who has packed out meat in wet snow, side hilling in the Rockies (or any steep wet hill for that matter) has had an un-intentioned tumble or two and have their firearm slip out of hand. Without support under the sight bridge (Lyman, Redfield etc.) a solid hot on a rock or log would most likely bend or even break the sight. What other options are there for a more robust iron peep sight?
“Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.” ― G. Orwell
"Why can't men kill big game with the same cartridges women and kids use?" _Eileen Clarke
"Unjust authority confers no obligation of obedience." - Alexander Hamilton
To continue the discussion on peep sights, what about rear sights in a similar configuration as the old M1 carbine and 03A3 rear sight, top mounted with protective ears? The Lymans and similar are great for target accuracy but have always seemed a little on the weak side if the firearm is dropped on the rear bridge and sight. Yes, I know, one shouldn't drop their firearm but anyone who has packed out meat in wet snow, side hilling in the Rockies (or any steep wet hill for that matter) has had an un-intentioned tumble or two and have their firearm slip out of hand. Without support under the sight bridge (Lyman, Redfield etc.) a solid hot on a rock or log would most likely bend or even break the sight. What other options are there for a more robust iron peep sight?
I’m sorry that I don’t know of any nice looking aperture sights that would solve that problem, but my bet is that one could mount a picatinny rail on the rear scope mount, then fit any number of robust aperture sights on that. For that matter, there are aperture sights that mount under and behind the rear scope mount on a picatinny rail. So one could mount one of those, sight it in, then mount the scope and sight it in. That would provide some insurance in the event of a tumble on a hunt where quickly replacing the rifle wasn’t an option.
Durability was part of the reason I took the Lyman 48 aperture sight off my .30-06 and replaced it with a B&L Balfor 4x scope. I know that a little drop won’t affect something like that as much. The B&L mounts, with the adjustments built into the mount, are very strong. And the scopes are also very robust since they don’t have any moving parts. They are perfect for the kind of hunter who sights in the rifle once and then never has to adjust it again (they can be adjusted, but there’s no reason to for normal hunting in my mountains. A shot over 300 yards would be an anomaly).
On the other hand, while I love carrying these beautiful old rifles out in the woods, the thought of taking a tumble with them makes me nauseous.
Many years ago, my father was hunting on our mountain with a lovely old drilling. He slipped on a wet rock while carrying the rifle at port arms. Rather than fall down onto the rifle, he threw his arms out and landed on the rocks with his ribs, cracking three of them. He’s dealt with the injury for at least three decades, but at least the drilling was unharmed.
Additionally, I generally don’t hunt with iron sights anymore, except for during black powder season. The reason is not to do with accuracy, but with positive ID of antlers. I don’t trophy hunt, I hunt for meat, but it can be difficult to identify antlers on a deer in the heavy woods where I hunt and most days only antlered deer are legal. A nice 4x scope makes that much easier.
As this Thread still 'lives & breathes', just to add another dimension to the aperture (formal name for so-called "peep sights". As FN was first marketing its commercial modern Model 98 of the late forties onward design featuring solid left sidewall and and low scope bolt/safety configuration, they also offered the option of the "Armstrong Dual Range" aperture sight. A photo of one below. To me a bit more complex as 'officious' than useful. That aside, it was the "factory option" offered directly with the rifle rather than perhaps importer-intermediary product.
Also for clarity, just to reaffirm that the earliest version of that FN commercial action arrived on American shores "as advertised" in 1946. And of the corresponding rifles generally available in 1949, which bore standardized receiver sight mounting holes on right side of the Bridge, putting such installation just forward of the bolt handle.
The Lyman breed, in format of the Series ,48 ad 57 seemed far more popular, the fact of the Armstrong as more expensive along with features of little practically utility such as ability to choose between two aperture sizes, were of insufficient interest to cause price point justification. Yet rifles deemed ultimately "of Factory originality" repose in the Armstrong breed.
The Postscript that in late 1950-early 1951 the pre drilled scope mounting holes didn't escape the Factory as calculated by factory year markings, Best! John.
I like the idea of getting one of those with the Armstrong sight, but it just hasn't come along at the right price.
Just to reiterate a basic precept of adding a receiver based aperture sight such as the Lyman, Redfield, Williams or Armstrong... The idea of "pre-drilled receiver bridge metal is great, but the inletting of stock as 'may be necessary in many of the earlier modes, that precludes the precept of popping such sight on and off s you please! With the exception of some few quality receiver sights that will fit those pre-drilled holes, as a permanent feature! Be sure of 'that to which you're committing!
As to a more rugged receiver sight, the limits of ruggedness are limited only by the imagination, budget and balance of "reasonableness". The postulation of dropping a rifle in any manner which would likely disable the aperture sight; I'd suggest would do-in a scope considerably of lesser force. If you want "military grade" ruggedness, "Rugged can be had or built to suit. Just be caution, less you get it! The best alternative isn't necessarly to increase ruggedness itself. Rather have the "spare tire", such as a fold down aft barrel sight which many rifles alreaded tapped or slotted. Thinking outside the box as "ruggedness alternatives!
There are models made by XS, Skinner, even Williams Gunsight, that utilize the holes for the rear scope mount, or in some cases dovetails for mounting. They can be harder to get adjusted, but look pretty robust as there isn’t much “hanging out” to provide leverage under impact. They are very light and compact. One I’ve used is the Williams WGRS, aluminum, but pretty sturdy, and clearly marked for adjustment.
I had a FN 338-06 with a 24" Douglas barrel, the guy who built it used a ramp frt sight off a 700 Remington up frt. He used a 1 pc Redfield Jr on the receiver for scope mounting, it also had the little fold down peep on the back.of the base. It doesn't look like much but the peep is adjustable via the mount screws. I mounted a 4x40 on the base worked up a load with 200 gr Hornady SP bullets and 760. Groups were good and vel was at 2800fps. Not allways leaving good enough alone, I pulled the scope and rings off, bore sighted it with the flip up peep, with minimal adjustments it was hitting about 1.5" high at 100. Shot a total of 50 rounds thru it using that simple little peep, I'd trust it for primary use even though it's whole purpose is a backup sight.i shoot tang peeps to 1000 yards on my Shiloh every year I am fully aware of their potential. Mb
" Cheapest velocity in the world comes from a long barrel and I sure do like them. MB "
I had an older steel Lyman 57 on my M98 375 Whelen AI. I do better with aperture sights than open sights in general. I don’t do well at all with the sights that come on virtually any lever action. But years of practice with a flat open rear sight and a flat front sight I do ok. However it isn’t as fast as aperture sights for me. All my lever guns have steel Lyman aperture sights.
I prefer classic. Semper Fi I used to run with the hare. Now I'm envious of the tortoise and I do my own stunts but rarely intentionally
![[Linked Image]](https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/gallery/80/full/252994.jpeg)
