![$vboptions[bbtitle]](/forum/images/logo.gif){kind=logo}
Originally Posted by SHELL SHUCKER
TA-DAAAA!
My new M92 Baby Carbine is almost ready for the range test.
Well done, sir. Very well done indeed!
|
TA-DAAAA!
My new M92 Baby Carbine is almost ready for the range test.
Well done, sir. Very well done indeed!
In times of stress, we should all stop and think - WWJCD? (What Would Jeff Cooper Do?)
Thankyou Sir!
Well done, sir. Very well done indeed!
It was your pic of that purdy little "Rare Winchester" that got
me goin' in the right direction on this build.
I just need the ladder rear sight to finish 'er up proper.
Happiness is propelling projectiles!
Shoot well & load better!
Shell-Shucker,
Have you (or has anybody) been able to physically confirm that the notch in that Chiappa ladder sight is low enough to do the trick? Is there any way of knowing how its lowest setting compares to the lowest settings in the Steve's Gunz "low buckhorn" and Steve's Gunz "low flat-top" replacement sights?
I wonder if those two sights from Steve's Gunz are identical in that regard.
Boomer
Boomer,
I've been scouring the web on this for some time now and folks on the Paco Kelly's
and leverguns community sites have been saying that the dovetail size on Chiappas
are .390". I figure that it's a safe bet that all of the Italian levergun replicas
would be this size because they, like Brazil operate on metric measurement.
US gunmakers work in inches. That's the Buggaboo.
As for sight height the Chiappa ladder sight is plenty low enough to get you in the ballpark
as it's a very close match to the sight on the Winchester "Baby Carbine".
Steve's low flat-top looks to be a good bet too. Give him a shout to be sure.
This sight is a Marbles unit I reckon, but confirm it with Steve.
SS
Last edited by SHELL SHUCKER; 04-15-2012 at 11:38 AM.
Happiness is propelling projectiles!
Shoot well & load better!
Shell-Shucker,
I wasn't curious to know if the dovetail would be a good fit. I'm sure that the .390 Chiappa sight will be fine.
I was just wondering how the minimum height in the "sighting-notch" of the ladder sight compared to the minimum height of the "sighting notch" in the Steve's Gunz/Marble's low flat-top.
In the FAQ section of the Steve's Gunz website, he claims that the low flat-top (or low buckhorn) ... in combination with his "higher" front sight ... will get you "in the ballpark" (whatever that means) with the Ranch Hand.
One thing about that comment makes me a bit uneasy. Although the RH comment was made one day before a similar Rossi 92 carbine comment, I'm pretty sure that he first made that conclusion in reference to the carbine-length Rossi 92's (which he'd been tweaking for years), and then just re-applied it word-for-word to the shorter/newer Ranch Hand. How could something which gets you "in the ballpark" with a regular carbine sight-radius also work similarly with the RH's 10" sight-radius. That's a pretty big assumption, right?
Last edited by boomer49; 04-06-2012 at 06:11 PM.
It's pretty easy to adjust most rear sights up and file the steps in the ladder to work with your favorite load........a higher based front sight is the answer!
Getting the sight line higher up will make for a more natural cheek weld as well for guys that want to use a full stock, and it will also improve the hold for people shooting with the short stock.
The sight line with the factory front sight of the ranchhand feels like a shotgun where you are basically looking just above the receiver and bolt.
I have a Rossi trapper that has a factory .5 front sight(which would still be to low on a ranchhand).....why Rossi chose to use an even shorter front sight for the ranch hand is beyond comprehension!
All we can do is assume until we get the parts in our hands and
start experimenting with front and rear sight combos. I'm working on
that as we speak, but it won't be cheap for me at least cause I'll
be buying and range testing sights 'till I get it bang on.
Then of course, I'll blab it to the CGN world.
Happiness is propelling projectiles!
Shoot well & load better!
"I have a Rossi Trapper that has a factory .5 front sight (which would still be too low on a Ranch Hand) ... why Rossi chose to use an even shorter front sight for the Ranch Hand is beyond comprehension!"
Can-down, it may sound unbelievable, but the only possible rationale (that I can imagine) would be appearance/aesthetics. But it's soooo hard to believe that the manufacturer would consciously sacrifice function for aesthetics. On a hat, maybe ... but not on a parachute or firearm!
I'm eagerly waiting for a follow-up "range report" from Tall Guy, now that he's got his Steve's Gunz low flat-top rear sight all sorted-out and symmetrical. He's using it with the bit-taller Steve's Gunz front fiber-optic sight ... exactly the combo that Gary's gunsmith in B.C. is now (I hope) finally mounting/testing on my Ranch Hand.
Last edited by boomer49; 04-08-2012 at 01:35 AM.
roflmao!!!!
CSSA, NFA, NRA, Conservative Party and Sporting Clubs of Niagara member.
Sale:"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes." - Thomas Jefferson, 1775.
I appreciate your gracious back pedalling boomer49. There was something else really bothering me about the ranch hand and after handling it a bit more it became obvious...cycling a follow up round! Without the the rifle planted into my shoulder cycling the action for a follow up round was awkward, the rifle has to come away from the firing position, cycle the round and re-aim. Bad ju-ju if you need a lightning fast 2nd, 3rd shot...But it's still a hell of a rifle!
[IMG]Ranch Hand_1 by sunstruck1, on Flickr[/IMG]
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
