Shooters Forum banner

1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
268 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hello from Scotland~

My .444 Marlin is the first centre fire rifle ive ever used with open sights, and im extremly impressed with the performance of Ashley gost ring set i fitted. I can put 5 rounds loaded with the lee 310 bullet and 41-45 gn of N133 into 2.5"-3" at 100 yards and at 200 yards even with the larger gost ring accuracy is good enough for heart/lung shot on deer sized targets.

Recently i puirchased a Marlin 1894 CL in .218 Bee and have stuck a 3-9x40 on it to test bullets and loads..... If possible i would like to use it "scope free" if i can shoot well enough with some sort of open sight ?? Im wondering if a tang sight would be better than a Lyman/williams. But thats a way off yet ive much load testing to do and bullet supply and choice is proving problematic.

As soon as my licence is back from the police following a variation for .30-30 i will be picking up a marlin L.T.S 16 1/4" barrel.......This little handy rifle will certinally not be getting a scope on to ruin it handling. Im pondering putting the Ashley gost ring set from my .444 on it. I believe this type of sight will be ideal for a shorter range gun such as this .30-30.

Given the longer range capability of my .444 what other sight type could i fit to maximize its long range( 200 yard) accuracy ??

As i said before im very new to "non-scope" sights so any experince with tang sights ,williams etc would be most intersting

Englander
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
9,492 Posts
Tang sights will give a much longer sight radius, and that generally helps accuracy...more noticable as range increases than at short ranges, but measurably better even at short ranges.

Do suport the idea of non-scoped lever-rifles. For serious hunting, nothing works as well as a scope...but shooting should be about pleasure/fun.

Have a large following (with a nice web site) of black powder single shot shooters in GB....and what they have to say about tang sights holds just as true for lever rifles as it does for single shots.

Besides the big single shots, use a tang sight on an older Winchester 38-55 and an old Marlin 32-20 pump (mod. 27). Also use Lyman/Redfield.Williams reciever sights on a couple of rifles. Have to admit that I can't find any real accuracy advatage to the tang peep's extra two or three inches of sight radius over the reciever mounted sights...the tang sights just look more "period".

the advantage of the reciever smounted apatures is in their fine adjustments...the advantage of the tang sights is their ability to supply extream elevation adjustment, look "right" on old rifles, and put that apature very close to your eye.
----------
Have read reports of a few people who've managed to jam the tang sight into their eye in a slip/fall while sighting (should have been wearing glasses). I've not had it happen and wonder if they wouldn't have managed to damage themselves no matter what sight they were using....but I offer it as a possibility.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,365 Posts
Have to admit that I can't find any real accuracy advatage to the tang peep's extra two or three inches of sight radius over the reciever mounted sights...the tang sights just look more "period".
I'll have to agree. I've not seen two-cents worth of advantage shooting a tang mounted sight over the receiver mounted aperture sights in terms of accuracy. In regard to function, I feel that the receiver mounted sight far out-weighs the tang sight. It's adjustment is finer, and more precise, the sights are simply more rugged, and they don't interfere with the handling of the rifle when you are gripping the wrist area of the tang with your hand. For a hunting sight, the receiver mounted type is far more practical, especially as recoil is increased as with your .444 Marlin.

I have multiple rifles fitted with receiver sights, from .22 rimfires, .223 Rem, 7x57, 30-30, 30-06, .338WM, .375H&H, .357, .44 mag, .444 Marlin, clear up to a .458WM. They are fast, ruggedly reliable, efficient and capable of surprising accuracy out past most reasonable hunting ranges.

I once capped a black bear with my .30-06 Springfield 1903 at an honest, lazer-rangefiner distance of 383 yards, the sights were old Redfield receiver sights. Yes, the exception rather than the rule, but meat in the freezer and a rug on the wall none the less. (Here's the story:http://www.beartoothbullets.com/trail/archive_trail_talk.htm/23 )

Shoot whatever brand of receiver sights you mount on your rifles, until using them is second nature to you, and you'll be surprised at the confidence you'll build in your abilities, and the capabilities of your rifle.

God Bless,
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
9,492 Posts
Think it's a matter of tradition/style. For me, old guns deserve sights of the same age bracket. Would prefer to find an original sight, but a decent repro. of one from the time frame is acceptable (the going price for origainals puts the price of the repro. tang sights in persepctive).

All in all, the recievr mounted sight is the better design.

I'd prefer not to have a tang sight on that .444. The modern stock shape cramps my hand if I place it behind the tang sight...in front won't work either. Given a straight stock (no pistol grip) it works a bit better, but the comb of the stock still crowds the average hand. On a light kicking rifle, can cheat your hand to the side a bit, but better not to try that with a rifle giving a bit of "thump".
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Top