Rear sight identification please

headhunter2

headhunter2

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
44   0   0
Location
Vancouver Island
2nd model 46 12.jpg
This came on an old Mossberg but as it says PAT JAN29,1901 I assume it is a Winchester sight but don't know which models. The rifle it came on is a 1935 model so the sight is not original.
 

Attachments

  • 2nd model 46 12.jpg
    2nd model 46 12.jpg
    66.5 KB · Views: 247
The patent date doesn't indicate the year it was made. It's an error that I see a lot, the assumption that patent date = production date. I have razors with 1927 patent dates on them that were produced in the 1950's. There's no reason why something as relatively simple as a rifle sight couldn't be patented in 1901 and still produced in 1935.
 
Thanks gunrunner. That is what I assumed. This came on a 1935 Mossberg but Mossberg and Sons did not start until 1919 and even though OFM had patents before that himself they were assigned to his employer of the time. I had considered Cooey but as I have had some Cooey sights they were not the same. Not to find what it should look like with out the bubba.
 
headhunter2 said:
Thanks gunrunner. That is what I assumed. This came on a 1935 Mossberg but Mossberg and Sons did not start until 1919 and even though OFM had patents before that himself they were assigned to his employer of the time. I had considered Cooey but as I have had some Cooey sights they were not the same. Not to find what it should look like with out the bubba.
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of Mossberg, or Cooey for that matter, labelling their sights with patent dates similar to Winchester.
 
Some of the early one were marked "PATD" or "PAT. PENDING". Some even had patent numbers (#1 Front Ramp sight comes to mind) but most were just patented and not marked as such. They lowered the cost that way. The early plastic trigger guards had US Pat. & Can Reg on them. Oh and I meant to say "Now to find what it should look like"
 
The auction listing read "Unknown BA 22 Cal BL=23 3/4", Tube Mag, Poor Condition, Rusted". It was unknown as the barrel stamp was scrubbed. I assumed a Mossberg 46 but am now leaning toward Wards 47A (Mossberg 45A?)
2nd model 46 6.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 2nd model 46 6.jpg
    2nd model 46 6.jpg
    147.6 KB · Views: 54
I think the 45A stock is different in shape. I would lean more towards 46-46A(or a Wards cross over).
I think the difference between a 46 and a 46A is the stock. 46 had a walnut stock and 46A had a hardwood stock stained to look like walnut. I'm not to "up" on the Wards Westerns so can't really offer any help on that side. I would also look at exploded diagrams for differences between them and see if that offers you any direction towards an answer. Maybe take the barreled receiver out of the stock and scrape the barrel channel to see what the wood is.
My best guess is it is a 46. This is based on the bolt assembly mostly.
Scott...
 
Last edited:
Thanks cooey43, now I am more sure of it.
Archer, The barrel length is the give away as the 46 & 46A had 26 inch barrels and this has the 24". With no cheek piece I expect it is a Wards. I also am not up on the Wards. I would like to find the correct barrel to put on it. It is different than my 46 and way different that the 46A as that was a change up.
46 vs 2nd 2.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 46 vs 2nd 2.jpg
    46 vs 2nd 2.jpg
    46.4 KB · Views: 39
Wards may have had special requests as to how it was made to make it slightly different from the Mossberg version. The mag tube looks to be longer to?
 
I wonder if the top rifle had a damaged crown/barrel and a smith shortened it and recut the front sight dovetail? I helped a friend cut and recrown a 22 he had dropped and ended up taking an inch off to do a nice repair.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom