I love my Lever Guns; Marlins and Miroku/Winchester to be exact. But I’m cool with Henry’s and Rossis.

As most astute Levergunners know, most of the old Marlins and Winchesters came from the factory drilled and tapped for a reciever sight like the Lyman 66LA, and the Williams aperture sights. That practice has started to go, or has already gone away. In the case of the solid top receivers, that makes sense because the top of the reciever is drilled and tapped and Williams and Skinner make an aperture sight that utilizes those holes. But as for the top ejecting 1892 the options are pretty much limited to some sort of a dovetail in the barrel sight or the tang sight. The tang sight is in the way, and the Skinner dovetail aperture is coarsely adjusted and has very little range which turns into a pain in short order.

My Friend who has a Rossi 92 managed to take possession of his deceased grandfather’s milling machine. I have a Miroku 92 that needs a reciever sight like my 1886 Miroku, 39M, and 1894 Marlin. My friend, who had reservations about drilling and tapping into nice guns agreed to partner up with me in the task of drilling and tapping.
I did gun dis, and re assembly. He had to figure out how to hold the guns on the milling machine. And I pretty much told him where to drill. New drill bit and taps from MidwayUSA were deployed.

What initially looked like a daunting task was pretty easy. I learned 92 disassembly on YouTube. And my friend made a jig to hold the receiver of the 1892s. The actual drilling and tapping was sort of anticlimactic. Reassembly was a bit fiddly, but not bad.

My Friend’s stainless Rossi with its 24 inch octagon was wearing some sort of a saddle mount with a Leupold 2-7X. Good scope, but very clumsy looking. The Rossi with the Lyman 66 LA looks great! Quigley would have been proud. During sight in, my Friend fired a couple of 3 shot groups at 50 yards that went under 1.5 inches. I fired 3 shots at an inch and a half black dot at 50y, and hit the dot twice. Not bad for 63 year young eyes.

Have a 92? I strongly recommend a receiver sight. It’s not THAT hard to drill and tap a couple of holes.

Sorry about the poor pictures. I really struggle with pics on this site for some odd reason.

Attached Images

	IMG_0273.jpg (60.5 KB, 134 views)
	IMG_0275.jpg (25.0 KB, 129 views)

Milling machines make great precision drill presses. Just make sure to take the time to get the work piece properly-and securely-held in place before you start drilling/machining.

Yes, You’re right. Getting the receivers secure in the mill was maybe the most challenging part. But once we got it figured out, it seemed so simple.

The top of the receiver is of course flat, and parallel. The bottom is oddly shaped. I initially suggested some sort of styrofoam that would take the shape of the bottom of the receiver. But that proved inadequate .

With the receiver laying flat on its side, and the top of the receiver jammed into a parallel piece of machined oak, we laid another small piece of oak on the left side of the receiver. It really didn’t take a lot of clamping pressure to get it to hold.

Both our rifles are more fun now. Who wouldn’t like a gun that is easier to shoot accurately? The front bead on my Miroku 44 is .075”. Which means it’s covering 7 1/2 inches at 100 yards! I’m sorry, but this old Boy isn’t going to be shooting many sub MOA groups with the 92. I can put 3 shots under 3 inches at 100 yards, I consider that a Win.

These receiver sights, the Williams and the Lyman are just such a joy to work with. Before, if I was within an inch or 2 at 100 yards, that was about as good as I could hope for. Adjusting the rear sight with a hammer was too Neanderthal for me. I get good enough accuracy now, that I’ll make that adjustment if I’m an inch or 2 off. It’s pretty simple; click, click, click. Perfect

I can drill and tap a 92, but I can’t post a blasted picture correctly to save my soul. My apologies.

Attached Images

66A0FB75-308E-4831-B782-59EA22EFE152.jpg (62.2 KB, 34 views)

3 inches doesn’t sound very impressive. But from 100 yards away with no magnification, it’s pretty tiny by my standards.

My beloved old 1894 Marlin in 357 this time. The Miroku shoots about the same.

Attached Images

7E375088-3859-4599-A9D8-363B66042540.jpg (93.1 KB, 22 views)

I have two Rossi M92 rifles.
A 38/357, and a 44 spl/mag.
They are too old to have the cross-bold safety, which is good, in some ways. A lot of people feel like these older ones are better guns than the newer offerings.
But sometimes I wish mine were newer versions WITH the cross-bolt safety, just because adding a peep site to the newer guns is so much easier than trying to add aftermarket sights to the older versions - like mine.
There are aftermarket kits to replace the cross-bolt safety with a peep sight, but there's nothing like that for the older guns.

__________________
Send lawyers, guns & money...

Have you considered a Lyman 17 globe front sight? You can use a post type insert for most casual shooting and circle insert for target work. The "circle in a circle" works really well. I have it on a bunch of older rifles, including a Marlin 1895 in 45/70 and it's terrific. Works wonders for older eyes too.

I haven’t found a globe front yet. I haven’t looked real hard. Im sure they’re out there.

The bolt mounted Peep: That’s basically the same concept as the barrel dovetail mounted Skinner sight. The bolt mounted peep is a really good idea that just doesn't work that well. There is no windage adjustment, so all thats done with drifting the front sight. Good luck with that. The elevation adjustment is crude at best.

I tried the Skinner barrel mounted peep. I was on my 3rd front sight before l was in the ball park as far as elevation. Windage was literally hit or miss. I wasted a lot of time, money, and ammo in trying to get that thing to work. The rifle would group better with the Skinner than with the buckhorn. And l shot a few decent groups with the barrel mounted peep, but not consistently like l can with the receiver mounted peep (longer sight radius). I ended up giving the $55 Skinner away.

The Rossi is a good value. I like em a lot. My friend’s Rossi shoots about as well as my Miroku. Results may vary. If Rossi would ever see fit to put decent wood on their rifles, I would be tempted to buy one. It looks like they took a piece of pine and stained it reddish brown and called it a day. His particular Rossi has a very smooth action. He bought it used, and I suspect it’s had a bit of work done to it. The trigger is 4 pounds with less movement than my Miroku. The safety on the Rossi would be gone 10 minutes after l got home with it, if l ever bought one. If you have to put a safety on a lever gun Miroku nailed it. My cousin’s friend’s brother took the rebounding spring out of his Miroku, eliminating the light hammer strikes, and essentially turning it into an original, operation wise. But l would never advocate removing any safety device.

Drill and tap. It’s not that hard. And if you're not comfortable doing it yourself, Pay someone to do it. You’ll enjoy your rifle more.

Not an 1892 but still a lever rifle and it needed a good aperture sight.



It does a great job. I have paired it with a gold bead front sight.

Kevin

__________________
Unshared knowledge is wasted.

It;s discouraging that Lyman no longer makes a receiver sight for the Marlin 39-A.

Sometime in the past they stopped making the sight out of steel and went to aluminum.
Now the sight is gone, out of production, just when I decide to replace the lesser Williams with the nicer Lyman.

They are available on the secondary market.

Kevin

__________________
Unshared knowledge is wasted.

Other than for a factory special order, Winchester didn't tap their lever rifles for the receiver mounted aperature sites until the early fifties. That includes the model 92 and 94s. But many were tapped by local gunsmiths.
I have a nice model 94, made in 1951 that is not tapped and have owned model 94s from 1953 and 1954 that were.
Prior to WWII the tang mounted folding peep sights were common. And all of the early 92s and 94s I own are tapped for the tang style sight.
I like the new Rossi 92s and they are the best bang for the buck.
The newer ones with the safety atop the rear of the bolt can be retrofitted with a ghost ring aperture. But I am surprised that they aren't tapped for a Lyman style receiver sight.

John

Straw, that is the coolest gun I’ve seen all day! That’s awesome that you rescued that old guy.

Faris, I have both Lyman, and Williams receiver sights. I’ll confess that I bought the Williams because I got tired of waiting on the Lyman66LA that I had on back order for a year.

I bought 2 new Williams a week or 2 ago. I can’t speak for the old Williams, but the new ones that I have are NICE. Yes, the main 2 parts are aluminum. But they are very nicely finished. They’re stout looking. They’re rock solid. The click adjustments are precise feeling. I have 3 Williams now, in 3 different configurations. I dig em all. If Lyman doesn’t want to take my money, I’ll gladly buy Williams. In my opinion, the Williams that I have are at least the equal to the Lyman’s that I like so much.

Rip, I never could wrap my head nor my hand around a tang sight. They always looked flimsy and in the way. But to each their own.

It’s not that hard to drill and tap a 92. I’ll never forget the day my Friend and I did ours. That was so much fun. It’s the fun that keeps on giving.

I have both Wiliams and Lyman receiver sights on some of my rifles. The two Lyman 57s on my bolt actions were bought used at gunshots for around $50, but that was 10 plus years ago. All of the Williams I've bought were new, and were for a couple 94s and a model 71 Winchester. I believe that the Williams may always have been made out of aluminum.
As far as form, function, and reliability, they are equal.
And yes, I agree, wrapping a thumb around a tang sight is a real pain.


John

I shot the rifle again today. I have the theory that the rifle groups better without the squishy Limbsaver recoil pad.

As usual I apologize for the sideways pic.

Attached Images

730150DE-FB4C-4872-8207-E705313AE3C0.jpg (117.0 KB, 8 views)