Abbynormal
Member
So can someone sell me on a Williams peep sight vs a Lyman Tang sight?
Good of each vs bad of each
Good of each vs bad of each
Win M94 Williams v Lyman sight
- Thread starter Abbynormal
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
LoboGunLeather
US Veteran
Lyman tang sight can be a bit cumbersome in use due to placement on the tang where the shooting hand grips the rifle, also more exposed to possible damage from impact or dropping.
Receiver sights mount directly to the side of the receiver, less exposed to impact or other potential damage. Nothing wrong with the Williams brand, but my preference will always be the older Redfield or Lyman with steel construction (rather than aluminum alloy) and generally better (easier) adjustment ability.
I own an old Winchester 1892 .25-20 rifle with Lyman #2 tang sight, also several rifles with receiver sights by Lyman, Redfield, and Williams. The old Lyman #2 is aesthetically pleasing, but for hunting and target shooting I prefer the receiver sight.
They are all pricey little things these days, aren't they?
Receiver sights mount directly to the side of the receiver, less exposed to impact or other potential damage. Nothing wrong with the Williams brand, but my preference will always be the older Redfield or Lyman with steel construction (rather than aluminum alloy) and generally better (easier) adjustment ability.
I own an old Winchester 1892 .25-20 rifle with Lyman #2 tang sight, also several rifles with receiver sights by Lyman, Redfield, and Williams. The old Lyman #2 is aesthetically pleasing, but for hunting and target shooting I prefer the receiver sight.
They are all pricey little things these days, aren't they?
Alk8944
US Veteran
I have rifles with both tang and receiver sights and far prefer the receiver sights for practicality. Redfield is my preferred brand, but hard to find and expensive when you do.
So far as Williams is concerned, it depends on which model. They used to have an aluminum receiver sight called the 5D which was adequate. In the 1960s-70s it sold for around $5, hence the name.
So far as Williams is concerned, it depends on which model. They used to have an aluminum receiver sight called the 5D which was adequate. In the 1960s-70s it sold for around $5, hence the name.
I have mounted a receiver sight on all my lever action rifles that came already drilled and tapped for one. I think tang sights are interesting and certainly nostalgic, but I've never even considered mounting one on one of my rifles.
Have spent 69 yrs living no farther than 10 miles from Williams Gun Sight. Went to school with several of Williams boys. I have always used their products and been very happy with them.
DWalt
Member
I also have a M94 to which I attached a Williams 5D receiver sight. No complaints. I also have a Savage lever action (M1895) with a Marble tang sight and a Remington 81 with the same type of sight. No complaints about those either. For a M94 with an exposed hammer, I would choose the Williams.
Last edited:
I have had most all of 'em...in fact I have a Lyman tang sight for a 94 I'm going to sell on the bay. I also prefer the steel Redfield or Lyman receiver(on my 64 30-30) sights but the Williams is ok...just a bit harder to adjust. To be honest...a tang peep looks neat but it is in the way...I had one on my Cowboy 95 Marlin...Shot fine but hurt. Pretty rifle someone else wanted more than me
gwpercle
Member
For hunting Deer and Hogs in the Louisiana bottoms ... the Williams 5D reciever sight gets the nod . Compact and sturdy , easy to sight in , and stays sighted in ... A good Hunting sight .
Mine is on a Winchester Model 94 30-30 and I prefer it to any scope , red dot and the Lyman Tang .
Range toy ... Lyman Tang . They are folding so you keep fooling with them and I find them harder to sight in , not as much adjustment ...
but the Lyman Tang sights Look Cool and are fun to play with .
Hope this helps you out !
Gary
Mine is on a Winchester Model 94 30-30 and I prefer it to any scope , red dot and the Lyman Tang .
Range toy ... Lyman Tang . They are folding so you keep fooling with them and I find them harder to sight in , not as much adjustment ...
but the Lyman Tang sights Look Cool and are fun to play with .
Hope this helps you out !
Gary
Last edited:
30-30remchester
Member
A subject I am very opinionated on. I shot mostly iron sights till my eyes started going @65. Folding tang peep and receiver sights were my mainstay. Collecting vintage unmolested rifles, many had the folding tang sight. Very fragile sights not suited for hard working guns. Even folded down when not in use, they were subject to easy damage. Heresy I know. Receiver sights remind me of an old saying about an elephant is nothing, but a mouse built to government specifications. Those old Lyman sights were huge and cram full of useless adjustments. Solid as a rock though. There were a few off brand well thought out receiver sights of the past that were built well with minimal excess. Those old Lyman long slides were sold by the pound is my belief. Most people shoot irons under 300 yards so for big game there will be little to no need for any adjustments after sight in. The top mounted sight for the 1903-A3 was a superior, simple, rugged and well thought out receiver sight. The best receiver sight I ever saw was on an African professional hunter's backup model 70 Winchester. It was simple a thick piece of steel bent into an "L" shape with a sight hole in it and mounted in the rear scope hole in the receiver. Nothing to go wrong or be fiddled with.
I like both receiver and tang sights. Everybody else already covered most of my points. I'll add that tang sights are closer to your eye which may bug you, but I get a slightly better sight picture than with a receiver sight.
Also, be wary of the newer Marbles tang sights. I have a couple of them on silhouette rifles. The dang jam nut gets loose after just a few shots. I'm always retightening it during a match. Wouldn't be so bad except when it gets loose, the post wobbles. The older ones didn't have this issue.
Also, be wary of the newer Marbles tang sights. I have a couple of them on silhouette rifles. The dang jam nut gets loose after just a few shots. I'm always retightening it during a match. Wouldn't be so bad except when it gets loose, the post wobbles. The older ones didn't have this issue.
Last edited:
Have used both Williams reciever peep sights for 50 years and have never had a problem, usually when hunting I remove the screw-in disk and use them as a ghost ring sight
Ivan the Butcher
Member
Go with what the gun is pre-drilled for! If both or neither, I would go with the Williams receiver sight. There was/ and maybe still is a replacement peep for the factory mid barrel sight that has a peep (made by Williams)
I have a number of older Lyman and Marbles tang sights, those have "clicks" and are reliable! The new Lyman tang sight has an O-ring, and no clicks, it isn't "Repeatable" or reliable. I have the new Lyman tang sight on my 1885 Low Wall 38-55, I use it as if it if nonadjustable. (for a single distance it works fine)
Montana Vintage Arms (1-406-388-4027) make new production sights (front, mid, and Tang) Their parts can be used to rebuild the old originals! They are not cheap, but if you actually use them, they are worth every penny! (I have their Vernier sights on my Shiloe Sharp's.) The 1886 Winchester Tang and the MVA tang sights are both $275.
Almost all tang sights are not adjustable for wind, almost all receiver sights are.
Ivan
I have a number of older Lyman and Marbles tang sights, those have "clicks" and are reliable! The new Lyman tang sight has an O-ring, and no clicks, it isn't "Repeatable" or reliable. I have the new Lyman tang sight on my 1885 Low Wall 38-55, I use it as if it if nonadjustable. (for a single distance it works fine)
Montana Vintage Arms (1-406-388-4027) make new production sights (front, mid, and Tang) Their parts can be used to rebuild the old originals! They are not cheap, but if you actually use them, they are worth every penny! (I have their Vernier sights on my Shiloe Sharp's.) The 1886 Winchester Tang and the MVA tang sights are both $275.
Almost all tang sights are not adjustable for wind, almost all receiver sights are.
Ivan
The only do-it-yourself item I ever did was put a Williams peep sight on a .30-30 M.94. EXCELLENT!!!!!!!!!!!!
I love aperture sights of any ilk. The eye naturally centers the front sight in them and I prefer using a bead front as opposed to a post for that reason.
Tang sights for the model 94s were common on the older pre WWII rifles and I believe most were factory tapped for them. All of my older 92s and 94s have the extra tang hole. They utilized the rear stock bolt which required a longer replacement in addition to the smaller front screw. The advantage of a tang sight is that they could be easily and quickly adjusted for shooting at longer ranges. The more expensive models are adjustable laterally. Their disadvantage is that they are more fragile and interfere with the grip hold when folded down. They excel for target shooting. However, for hunting, it is best to use them in conjunction with a fold down rear barrel sight. Use the fold down as a primary sight for a faster close range shot, but fold it down and go to the tang sight for those deliberate long range shots.
Receiver sights became popular after WWII, possibly influenced by the military usage on the M1s. Winchester started to tap the receivers on the model 94 as a standard feature in the early 1950s, though it is common to find earlier post war rifles that have been tapped as a special order or by a gunsmith. I've used Redfields, Lymans and Williams without issue. Have more rifles with aftermarket receiver sights than with scopes and prefer them for hunting. They are solidly built, and extremely reliable. They don't fog up like a scope and are quicker on target than regular iron sights. Like Dobegrant, I remove the sight disc when hunting. Really not much of a disadvantage to them other than they are slower to adjust for great changes in shooting distances.
John
Tang sights for the model 94s were common on the older pre WWII rifles and I believe most were factory tapped for them. All of my older 92s and 94s have the extra tang hole. They utilized the rear stock bolt which required a longer replacement in addition to the smaller front screw. The advantage of a tang sight is that they could be easily and quickly adjusted for shooting at longer ranges. The more expensive models are adjustable laterally. Their disadvantage is that they are more fragile and interfere with the grip hold when folded down. They excel for target shooting. However, for hunting, it is best to use them in conjunction with a fold down rear barrel sight. Use the fold down as a primary sight for a faster close range shot, but fold it down and go to the tang sight for those deliberate long range shots.
Receiver sights became popular after WWII, possibly influenced by the military usage on the M1s. Winchester started to tap the receivers on the model 94 as a standard feature in the early 1950s, though it is common to find earlier post war rifles that have been tapped as a special order or by a gunsmith. I've used Redfields, Lymans and Williams without issue. Have more rifles with aftermarket receiver sights than with scopes and prefer them for hunting. They are solidly built, and extremely reliable. They don't fog up like a scope and are quicker on target than regular iron sights. Like Dobegrant, I remove the sight disc when hunting. Really not much of a disadvantage to them other than they are slower to adjust for great changes in shooting distances.
John
Yendor357
Member
I have both the Lyman, and the Williams reciever sights. There isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the 2.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the new Ruger/Marlin rifles no longer have the reciever drilled and tapped for a receiver sight.
Williams makes a reciever sight that uses the top rear scope mounting holes. This is designed for the larger 336 sized action. I don’t know if it’ll work with the 357 or 44 sized rifles.
If you have a Rossi or Miroku/Win 92, I highly encourage you to drill and tap it for a receiver sight. The pay off is well worth the trouble.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the new Ruger/Marlin rifles no longer have the reciever drilled and tapped for a receiver sight.
Williams makes a reciever sight that uses the top rear scope mounting holes. This is designed for the larger 336 sized action. I don’t know if it’ll work with the 357 or 44 sized rifles.
If you have a Rossi or Miroku/Win 92, I highly encourage you to drill and tap it for a receiver sight. The pay off is well worth the trouble.
Attachments
As noted above the pre war Model 94 *rifles* were drilled and tapped tang sight and those vintage Marbles and Lyman tang sights were awesome sights. The pre war Model 94 carbines were not drilled and tapped.
In 1933 Winchester started drilling and tapping the Model 64 rifles for the Lyman 52A receiver sight as well as the tang sights.
This Model 64 is drilled and tapped for a tang sight but wears a Lyman 62A receiver sight.
However it was not until 1952 that they started drilling the Model 94 carbines for receiver sights, by that time the nearly identical 62A sight. A 1952 Model 94 carbine tapped for a receiver sight above a pair of 1950 Model 94 carbines without the tapped receiver. All three however have vintage Lyman or Marbles tang sights.
The Lyman 1A sight on this 1926 Model 94 rifle is near gun art, exceptionally well made and extremely practical with a flip out aperture to allow a larger aperture for low light conditions or shooting at close range at moving targets. They had practical iron sights down to an art form.
With a tang sight, the pre 64 Model 94 rifles and carbines and most post 63 Model 94 rifles are capable of very good lever gun accuracy (100 yard group with the 1926 Model 94 26” rifle.)
——
The modern Marbles and Lyman tang sights don’t impress me nearly as much. The current (since the mid 1990s) Lyman No 2 sight uses an o-ring to provide friction on the elevator barrel but doesn’t have an effective lock. It does have index marks that you can fill with paint or wax from a crayon to mark a zero, but it’s a bit rudimentary and makes holding a zero problematic. It has no windage adjustment.
The Marbles sight has adjustable windage and elevation with 8 clicks per turn on each, and with each offering about .4 MOA of adjustment depending on barrel length and resulting sight radius. However the windage doesn’t lock and the lock is poor on the elevation.
Modern Marbles Standard Tang Sight
Modern Lyman No 2:
With any tang sight, if you plan to use the sight for elevation adjustment for different ranges it absolutely must be mounted perpendicular to the tang to avoid an increase in elevation from adding or subtracting windage. And or course canting errors will increase the higher the sight is above the bore.
——
The Williams receiver sight is very similar to the Lyman 62A and both are available in finger adjustable or lower profile coin adjustable models. Here’s a Williams FP-94 on a Model 94 Classic 26” rifle.
——
With either a tang sight or receiver sight you’ll want to remove the rear sight and replace it with a sight blank to improve the sight picture.
——
Marbles makes a tang sight for the current Miroku made Model 94s with the tang safety but it’s just not comfortable or practical as it interferes with the thumb going over the top of the tang. (Even with the adjustment knob reversed to the other side.)
In 1933 Winchester started drilling and tapping the Model 64 rifles for the Lyman 52A receiver sight as well as the tang sights.
This Model 64 is drilled and tapped for a tang sight but wears a Lyman 62A receiver sight.
However it was not until 1952 that they started drilling the Model 94 carbines for receiver sights, by that time the nearly identical 62A sight. A 1952 Model 94 carbine tapped for a receiver sight above a pair of 1950 Model 94 carbines without the tapped receiver. All three however have vintage Lyman or Marbles tang sights.
The Lyman 1A sight on this 1926 Model 94 rifle is near gun art, exceptionally well made and extremely practical with a flip out aperture to allow a larger aperture for low light conditions or shooting at close range at moving targets. They had practical iron sights down to an art form.
With a tang sight, the pre 64 Model 94 rifles and carbines and most post 63 Model 94 rifles are capable of very good lever gun accuracy (100 yard group with the 1926 Model 94 26” rifle.)
——
The modern Marbles and Lyman tang sights don’t impress me nearly as much. The current (since the mid 1990s) Lyman No 2 sight uses an o-ring to provide friction on the elevator barrel but doesn’t have an effective lock. It does have index marks that you can fill with paint or wax from a crayon to mark a zero, but it’s a bit rudimentary and makes holding a zero problematic. It has no windage adjustment.
The Marbles sight has adjustable windage and elevation with 8 clicks per turn on each, and with each offering about .4 MOA of adjustment depending on barrel length and resulting sight radius. However the windage doesn’t lock and the lock is poor on the elevation.
Modern Marbles Standard Tang Sight
Modern Lyman No 2:
With any tang sight, if you plan to use the sight for elevation adjustment for different ranges it absolutely must be mounted perpendicular to the tang to avoid an increase in elevation from adding or subtracting windage. And or course canting errors will increase the higher the sight is above the bore.
——
The Williams receiver sight is very similar to the Lyman 62A and both are available in finger adjustable or lower profile coin adjustable models. Here’s a Williams FP-94 on a Model 94 Classic 26” rifle.
——
With either a tang sight or receiver sight you’ll want to remove the rear sight and replace it with a sight blank to improve the sight picture.
——
Marbles makes a tang sight for the current Miroku made Model 94s with the tang safety but it’s just not comfortable or practical as it interferes with the thumb going over the top of the tang. (Even with the adjustment knob reversed to the other side.)
I have receiver sights on several rifles. I quit with the tang type that mount behind the hammers on levers and single shots. They cause me an unnatural grip and only good for stationary targets. I had bad experience with a REM RB 45/70 and tang sight. I snapped a shot at a jumped buck and tang sight grazed my eyebrow. Just a little blood and skin loss but I’m quick learner.
If you are buying a reciever sight for woods hunting and you are going to
sight in and not use the adjustments for range, you might as well by the inexpensive models. Some of them are over priced for what they are in my opinion.
I like the old Lyman’s with click adjustments. I never used windage after sighting in. Elevation was used a good bit. If you are range shooting at known distances you can use witness plate to adjust and return to zero.
Hunting the ability to use adjustment of elevation for range is handy if you are good judge of distance. I used them to that effect on 22s and low velocity cf rifles. If you aren’t utilizing the adjustments in sight one with least moving parts is your best bet.
If you are buying a reciever sight for woods hunting and you are going to
sight in and not use the adjustments for range, you might as well by the inexpensive models. Some of them are over priced for what they are in my opinion.
I like the old Lyman’s with click adjustments. I never used windage after sighting in. Elevation was used a good bit. If you are range shooting at known distances you can use witness plate to adjust and return to zero.
Hunting the ability to use adjustment of elevation for range is handy if you are good judge of distance. I used them to that effect on 22s and low velocity cf rifles. If you aren’t utilizing the adjustments in sight one with least moving parts is your best bet.
I assume you're talking about a receiver sight, instead of a tang sight.
Williams are aluminum, Lyman are steel. The Lyman is much better quality.
Post war 94's that were drilled for a receive sight won't have their value decreased either way. The Williams brothers made their living drilling and tapping guns to add their sights and scope mounts. They're less than an hour away from me in Davison Michigan, but I can never forgive them for destroying the value of so many guns that would now be collectable.
Williams are aluminum, Lyman are steel. The Lyman is much better quality.
Post war 94's that were drilled for a receive sight won't have their value decreased either way. The Williams brothers made their living drilling and tapping guns to add their sights and scope mounts. They're less than an hour away from me in Davison Michigan, but I can never forgive them for destroying the value of so many guns that would now be collectable.
Last edited:
I assume you're talking about a receiver sight, instead of a tang sight.
Williams are aluminum, Lyman are steel. The Lyman is much better quality.
Post war 94's that were drilled for a receive sight won't have their value decreased either way. The Williams brothers made their living drilling and tapping guns that are now collectable and adding their sights and scope mounts. They're less than an hour away from me in Davison Michigan, but I can never forgive them for destroying the value of so many guns that would now be collectable.
I think you will find the new Lyman receiver sights are now aluminum. I’ve not any new ones nor any Williams. I don’t know if any difference between the two any more. I look for old steel Lyman’s and also old tangs regardless of manf.
Similar threads
