There has been a couple discussions on Watson sights over the years. I have a few and finally got around to putting together the little bit of information I've found out about them. These sight were patented by Thomas Archer Watson a Canadian.

BillR posted about a Watson front sight on an 1899 that was marked "Watson, Niagara Falls, Canada, Sept 06". topics/1043407/Re_Watson_Sights

That is the only reference to a Watson sight with an address on it I've found, I assume that to be an early address for the company, I found an old auction listing for two undated ‘Watson Gunsight Company’ catalogs with different addresses; 8 Richmond Street E. Toronto, Canada and 62 Dundas Street East, Toronto 2, Canada. Thomas Archer Watson's address on early patents is Creemore, Ontario, Canada; on later ones Toronto.

I saw one of these sights wrongly credited to 'Watson & Son' located in London, England. They were a optical company and made optical gun sights for artillery pieces during WWI - watson-sons-g-s-telescope-x8

Searching for information on Watson sights may also turn up a US company that made gun sights, the 'Watson Luminous Gunsight Co'. of New York City. The patents are by Earle F Watson from Dumont, New Jersey. One of his patents was for clip on “luminous sights for use in the night time” for the Colt 1911 and the Browning machine gun. A set, new in the box, for a Browning 1917 Mark II sold on eBay August of 2020, the only set I’ve ever seen.
uspto.gov/01319313 Oct 21, 1919
Other patents for gun sights by Earle F Watson-
US1307646 (same design also has French patent FR494947), US1307647 June 24, 1919; Canadian CA201841 July 07, 1920; Great Britain GB141296 and GB141302; US1361768 Dec 7, 1920, not in his name but he was assigned ½.

Thomas Watson started out making front sights based on US patent 830868 filed in July of 1905, also patented in Canada CA96557A. The two longer sights are the same, one is shown with the hood removed.


Later Watson started making eyepieces based on Canadian patent CA145473 filed July of 1912, I could not find a US patent for this. These had the aperture made from very thin sheet metal and then crimped into the eyepiece. The marked ones I've seen were made to fit Lyman's and others with the same threads. Tang sights came much later with the US patent being filed July of 1927 and they take eyepieces that have threads that will not fit a Lyman, they are a 1/4-32 thread (from my measurements). All the Watson eye pieces I've seen that fit Lyman's are marked Watson, the ones I have that will fit a Watson are not marked, something to be aware of if you need an eyepiece for a Watson.... make sure it's not marked Watson!

From the left - Savage 99, Savage 1903, Marlin 22 (eye piece probably not a Watson), Winchester 1903, Stevens 425 (eye piece possibly not a Watson).



Two eye pieces I do not think are Watson's. The large aperture in the stems is also made by crimping in a thin disk.



Canadian patent CA144473


I've only seen Watson sights listed in A.G. Parker catalogs, the catalogs I have after the name change to Parker-Hale do not list them but have their own 'Watson Type'. I have never found the tang sights listed anywhere.

The listing of No 2 & No 8 front sights suggest there are other variations to be found.

Here's one other variation for comparison( on the left), it's marked Watson (..so, if you paid attention above, that means it won't fit a Watson... it fits a Lyman & others). It's a standard looking No1 size but has a quite complex thin double thickness metal snap on cover that holds a lens. The one in it appears to be just clear glass and does not magnify, I am confused by there being an arrow pointing to a 'top' on something that's perfectly round? Looking through it I can't see what difference it makes unless they wanted to make sure you could read their company name. The lens has a metal casing and is removable. I have not found any information on this, I assume these may have came with a set of different colored lenses.






All but one of the tang sights I have had problems with the spring that holds the post upright, some springs were roughly made replacements and most were warped which resulted in the post being very loose when up. The amount of bend put on these springs permanently bows them due to the short length. I tried different spring stock to make replacements with all taking a permanent bow when the sight was folded a couple times. I finally found that using three layers of very thin spring stock works, all but one of my sights now have that.

The 99 sight had even more problems. The parts have very loose tolerances and the threads can be disengaged if the elevation nut is pushed reward – everything is held in position by a small spring that pushes the elevation nut forward, this take all play out of the sight - that spring was broken on the 99 sight. After trying several spring stocks and having them break when trying to duplicate it I found a semi-hard stainless steel that was used for making cutters for thin plastic film that can be formed and still has enough spring properties to work when not required to flex much. Part of the problem with this one is that some of the solder used to hold the round part of the post in the square got into the channel for the bottom of the spring, I had to taper the bottom of the spring to fit into the side of the narrowed channel. The sight now is very tight and adjusts smoothly.

All the parts with the three leaf replacement post spring and the strip used to make the small tension springs.



-----continued next post due to limit on the number of picture per post -----

Here is the 99 sight and the Savage 1903 sight which was used for reference. There is a channel milled inside the elevation nut for the tension spring. Both these sights have a deep slot milled just above the pivot and are pinched together to get more angle on the post, none of the other sight have this. The Marlin 22 sight is almost the same as the Savage 1903 but does not need as much angle.



Maddog posted a group picture sometime ago with a Watson tang sight for a 99; it had a shorter base and post than this one, I don’t know which would have come first. With the shorter base the angle of the post might be a little less than this sight so it might not need the pinched notch. With a shorter post it could not fold down all the way with one of the larger eyepieces, mine will not with the largest eyepiece but will just do it with a No 2 size at lowest elevation.



The Savage 22 sight on a 1903 & a 29-A.


Watson had some lasting influence, Parker-Hale marketed 'Watson Type' front sights at least into the 60's, as shown in the catalog pages above, Dockendorf had a front sight that appears to borrow heavily from the Watson, it is better in a way by being made longer so the hood does not need to be removed when it's opened to let in light.


Wittek-Vaver made there eyepieces the same way as Watson using small thin disked crimped in. For some applications they furnished a single small insert that was not crimped and supplied a set of loose disks. The large disk and the small inserts have the same thread so the inserts can be used by themselves, the threads are the same as for a Lyman. The small inserts are slotted so use can use the end of the holder to tighten them. They also made a front sight that took inserts, they have a larger size thread and are not slotted, the front sights are not strong enough to put the inserts in very tight. Rear insert have holes from 0.031" to 0.93" usually in a plated holder, fronts 0.070" to 0.146" usually in a blued holder. I've also seen smaller sets of just 4.


---- continued in next post -----

Because these sights are not marked for application it often involves guess work when buying one online. I guessed wrong when I bought the one for the Stevens, the hole spacing matched that for a Stevens Visible Loader but when I got the sight I found it way to short for one of those. I knew of only one other gun that used that hole spacing, another Stevens. With these sights coming out 10 years or more after that gun was discontinued and with probably less than 5000 made I cannot understand why they made it, they must not have know how few there were. The Watson is made to mount like the Marble's V7 for this rifle, these both make for an awkward thumb position. The Lyman HP is much better, the design of the Lyman allows the sight to go between the narrow hole spacing.



the Marble's V7


The Lyman HP


If the Watson & Marble's sights for the 425 look tall, here is the Marble's V7 next to the Marble's V6 for the Visible Loader, both use the same base but the 425 uses #8-40 screws and the Visible Loader #5-44's with oversize heads to position the sight off the head, the clearance holes are the same.


ADDED - found a picture I forgot about, it's a couple of T. A. Archer's Canadian patents, I found the 4 bead rotating front sight interesting and the other one overly complicated..

Patents CA96556 Dec. 1905 and CA128647, Oct. 1910

Thank you, Gene. Yet again I'm impressed beyond words.

Thank you Gene!

I love, Love, LOVE aperture sights! Mostly for their ease of use with my tired eyes, but also for the minimal additional weight and mechanical simplicity.

I will do my best to avoid any Watsons...

If I end up with any, I will promptly send them to you!

Doug

echo, echo..

I don't think too many folks know how much effort it takes to track down the information, papers, catalogs - much less find the sights.

Gene, amazing information. Thank you!

Great work - as always! Thanks.

When I first learned of the Watson sights I couldn't wait to get a set for my Granddad's 1899 B. Sharing the Watson name, it just made sense. They shoot very well on the old .303.

I learned about the different aperture threads the hard way. I ended up having the Aperture guy make me an assorted set. I believe the threads on my set are like 1/4 - 32.

Gene, I have a short history of the company from an old collectors magazine. If you would like a scanned copy send me an email.

Great job Gene. Thank you for posting your work. I enjoyed reading through everything.

Well, there’s a chapter. When can I put my order in?

Thank you Gene.

I've added it to the Misc. Good Info sticky.

Good work Gene. Thanks for the post!

Really cool post! Thanks for the info Gene.

Thanks to Lightfoot I got some earlier and more detailed Watson information. Some of it was hard to read, the pictures from a magazine article from 1999 are not up to what we expect today, they appear to be old copies of even older copies. The company goes back farther than I thought with it starting in Creemore, Ontario in 1896, moving to Niagara Falls, Ontario around 1910 and Toronto, Ontario by 1923 and was still in business at least into the mid-1950's.

There were front sights from No1 to No 9 but some of the numbers were for the same design sight but with different posts. Two of them were windage adjustable with built-in levels. These have to be very rare.



Watson list tang sights earlier than I thought, a very early catalog from with a Creemore address shows one, but it's much different than the 1920's patented design. It say's patent applied for but I could not find one so it may not have been granted.


The snap on lens holder is for holding corrective lenses for people with poor eye sight, the one I have either is just plain glass or very weak. This is very hard to read.


With the earlier date for the company I searched back farther for patents and found another sight that was patented both in Canada, CA55632 and in Great Britain, GB189703982 (the first four digits are the year, British patent numbers started over each year). This is for the No 1 front sight, a multi-bladed one. The scans of the Canadian patent are mostly unreadable.

I recently came across two Watson sights, and one that might be a Watson.

The two are in the general shape of a Springfield 1903 or 1922 front sight, but with an integral globe & post, instead of a blade.

They are both marked "Watson" on the top, but on the left side, one (slightly taller) is marked "Watson", while the shorter is marked "B&M" (assume this is Belding & Mull). On the bottom, the taller is marked "8G" (I think), and the shorter is marked "80". Both also have an arrow on the bottom, showing that installation is left to right.

The 3rd sight is an unmarked globe sight with a 3/8" dovetail, that looks a bit like the No. 4 sight shown in the above Watson info.

These look like excellent sights for target shooting.

Has anyone seen any literature on the Springfield-style sights?