Win 94 30 30 sight upgrade?

Potashminer said:
From what I am finding, that is exactly how rear aperture sight works - they are blurry. Some sort of light physics plays a game - you focus your eye on the front sight - to see it as clearly as you can - clearest, sharpest view is caused by the physics - only happens dead centre in the aperture - you don't look or think about the aperture - let the magic happen - just concentrate to see that front sight as sharp and as clear as you can - rear aperture is a blurry rim, if you even notice it - even if the target gets a bit blurry. Had a former boss who spent his last tour in USMC as shooting instructor - that "focus on front sight" is Marine way of doing it since before WWI... Meant to be done with both eyes open - training your brain to mix two images - target is clear through left eye, front sight is clear through right eye. I do not know how a bulls-eye target shooter would describe it, but above description will certainly work with 30/30 at whatever ranges you would use it... It is possible, at my level of practice, that I actually close my left eye at the moment of firing - I am not sure - but the "theory" is supposed to be that both eyes stay open...
Click to expand...

yeah spot on potash!
i way over think and over focus on the circle an the bead and the target and the bloody birds and the angle of the sun and in short, i over complicate the beauty of these setups.... raise rifle, point toward animal (generally rather close range for 'hunting' ) and put front 'post' on animal and squeeze.. cycle and do it again if animal is still running.. then i think ethics comes into it after about 2 or 3 shots :)

do the PEep sight thing though, betterthan red dots .
 
That "light physics" magic must be related to the distance from eye and diameter of aperture. So with the Williams and Lyman sights I have - can use as "ghost ring" - bigger hole - I presume less precise - then a "hunter aperture" insert - smaller hole, smaller disc, then a "target aperture" - smallest hole, largest disc. My impression is that one gives up "quick" in return for "precision". Have not found any reason not to use the fine, small diameter target aperture to "sight in", then remove that aperture and use another - or none - to shoot at game.

I notice both the dedicated rimfire target rifles that I have - a Schultz and Larson Model 60 and a Model 70 - actually have apertures both front and rear - made specifically for shooting at bulls eye targets - black, round bulls eye - although both came with interchangeable inserts for front sight that duplicate picture of a post in various widths and one has a "bead" on top of the post, besides various size apertures.

I have read posts on CGN of members using the double aperture set-up back in the day for 800, 900 and 1,000 yard target shooting - the system must work - nobody was using barrel mounted "iron sights" to do that - just up to me to figure out how to do it!!! (well, an exception comes to mind - Boer fighters using Mod. Mauser 7x57 to engage British RedCoats at those ranges - 1899-1902 - barrel mounted iron "V" rear sight on a ladder slide)

I used to have a Parker Hale 5C rear aperture sight that had an eye-piece that you would turn to select one of multiple aperture diameters - was told that was to get the "right" one for the amount of light there was on that particular shooting string.
 
Last edited:
I've shot several different rifles equipped with receiver sights "with" and "without" the insert in the sight. Very little difference from the bench, and I find almost no difference in accuracy for hunting purposes. Even a ghost ring or the big hole without aperture insert is more accurate for me than any open rear sight. It's likely that a small aperture will slightly improve group size off the bench. But for hunting purposes the better view of the target through a relatively large aperture is superior to use in the field. The big black disc around some inserts is not helpful either. When hunting I like 0,125" minimum, ( Williams "twilight" aperture) or bigger, or no aperture at all when hunting.
 
IIRC the rear peep ring is supposed to be blurry with your focus on the front sight. Is how I shot the issue FNC1 and my own Garand rifle my own Wichita. Handgun shooters get this idea no problem.

If I am wrong please someone correct me.

Cheers
 
Thanks for all the help.
I was gonna try the fiber optic sights from Ellwood Epps but I didn't like the idea of the rear fibres optics. So I skinner Black Gold set.

Got a couple of bottles of front post paint,just in case.
 
45C said:
Do you mean open sights?
If so, a long time ago.
Click to expand...

No, am referring to a receiver sight that attached to the side of a 94 and utilized the front sight. The original rear bbl sight is removed.

They look like this. This one is a Redfield. The Williams and Lyman are easier to find.

UkBjiOxl.jpg
 
SuperCub said:
No, am referring to a receiver sight that attached to the side of a 94 and utilized the front sight. The original rear bbl sight is removed.

They look like this. This one is a Redfield. The Williams and Lyman are easier to find.

UkBjiOxl.jpg
Click to expand...
No sir, first time I've ever seen that.
 
45C said:
No sir, first time I've ever seen that.
Click to expand...

You might want to check it out before committing. That type of sight was used long before reliable scopes came on the scene and were used long after.

They are excellent sights as recommended by many previous posters who replied to this thread who have used them. :)
 
SuperCub said:
You might want to check it out before committing. That type of sight was used long before reliable scopes came on the scene and were used long after.

They are excellent sights as recommended by many previous posters who replied to this thread who have used them. :)
Click to expand...

Yes, I did read the replies.
I already committed to the skinner black gold sights, but I think I'd like to try a few different sets, see what works best.
I think I'll try the ones you've mentioned, plus the set from Ellwood ,as well.

I could always sell the ones I dont like.

Thanks
 
7.62Nato said:
What does one use if wanting a peep without having to drill and tap? Mine is a 48 and is not drilled an tapped. Am I stuvk with the semi buckhorns? Even barrel mounted peeps are better than what it has right now but cant seem to find one.
Click to expand...

Maybe something like this?
 
That Redfield shown above in Post #29 has both elevation and windage as "turning knob" adjustable. There are still Lyman versions of that available. Least expensive, lowest tech is shown below - the Williams "5-D" version - apparently once stood for "5 - Dollar" sight, but much more than that today. Windage and elevation are both set by locking screws, so a bit more fussing than the others - need several good fitting screw drivers with you to sight in - loosen screw, re-adjust sight, tighten up the screw to hold it in new place. I think once they were set, they were left like that for years, possibly generations. This example was bought new within past five years - sold as the Williams 5D 94-36 shown on my 1955 Win 94 - I think it also fits and works on Marlin 336, but I do not own one to try it. Note that I have not yet found a filler blank for the dovetail slot that held the barrel rear sight.

41321400-25F6-4528-9BEF-8B623987FD35.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 41321400-25F6-4528-9BEF-8B623987FD35.jpg
    41321400-25F6-4528-9BEF-8B623987FD35.jpg
    69.4 KB · Views: 53
45C said:
Maybe something like this?
Click to expand...

Neither of those is going to work on a standard Winchester 94 - the top of the bolt is exposed - has to be able to move - unlike the Marlin with a solid top. Same with the AE Win 94 - has holes drilled and tapped on top edges so scope base or receiver sight straddle that bolt - not sure that a standard 94 has enough meat there for that drill and tap. But, yeah - those are "receiver sights", "rear aperture sights" that at one time were the very much preferred improvement for most shooters above the "normal" iron sights up on the barrel. Most modern people jump straight to a scope - I do not think that works well on a Win 94 at all - lose the balance and the one-handed carry "handiness" with a scope - tried it in the late 1970's before the AE was out - scope has to be completely offset to the left side so that the cartridges could eject straight up. Even had to rotate the scope a quarter turn to get the windage adjustment turret to the top and elevation turret to left side - to get it out of the way - of course that interchanged the functions and made the labels wrong...
 
7.62Nato said:
What does one use if wanting a peep without having to drill and tap? Mine is a 48 and is not drilled an tapped. Am I stuvk with the semi buckhorns? Even barrel mounted peeps are better than what it has right now but cant seem to find one.
Click to expand...

I never owned one of that age - look at the top of the rear tang, behind the hammer - some lever guns had two holes there - one (rear one) was a bolt that went through to hold the butt stock on - second one - further up, I think just had a "plug" in it. Was for specific tang sights that folded up and down. If you do not have two holes on top of tang, nor two holes into side of the receiver, I do not know how to get a rear aperture sight without drill and tap...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom