Tang sight on a lever action
- Thread starter Scrumbag
- Start date
Pathfinder45
New member
I like them.
There is nothing you can put in an 1892 action that has the recoil to drive a tang sight into your eye if your face is in the right place to begin with.
The advantages of a tang sight are its accuracy and adjustability. The disadvantages are speed of use and fragility. They are easily bent. damaged, or just knocked out of adjustment if left on the rifle when not in use.
Even Quigley usually carried his tang sight in his pocket, not on the gun until needed for long range shooting.
The kind of shooting you aren't likely to be doing with anything in an 1892 action, including .44 Mag.
IF you want one for the looks, cool, its your gun, go ahead. Marble and Ideal are the classic names in the field, and I'm sure one of those could be mounted, provided you get the rifle drilled and tapped for it.
Do make sure you get one that is tall enough you can actually use it. You'll find it more precise than the semi buckhorn open rear sight, once you get used to using it. Whether or not the rest of the rifle is that precise, or if that precision is a useful thing is another matter.
Good Luck!
Your choices nowadays are basically limited to Marbles and Lyman tang sights for you 1892. Drill and tap the tang of your rifle and install. Basically trouble-free and simple to use once sighted in, but they are not fast and they are not convenient on a lever rifle. They are a very basic flip-up peep sight that gives you a longer sight radius and greater precision potential in exchange for a little bit of inconvenience. You will find that they get in the way of your hand and take some definite intent to use. I would not install one on a carbine, but a long-barreled rifle is suitable for a tang peep. They are not like the tang vernier sights seen on 19th Century long-range rifles like Quigley's, those are much more delicate and precise instruments.
Reference? Link to news story? I have several rifles with tang sights, including a Savage 1899, a Deluxe 1894 and a High Wall. I can't see that would ever happen, even with the long-range vernier on my High Wall. Sounds like "be careful, you'll put your eye out".
Really?
Reference? Link to news story? I have several rifles with tang sights, including a Savage 1899, a Deluxe 1894 and a High Wall. I can't see that would ever happen, even with the long-range vernier on my High Wall. Sounds like "be careful, you'll put your eye out".To date I have never heard reference to eye injuries using a tang sight.
I admit to only going up to 45-90/45-3¼"/heavy 535-grain Sharps levels using
tang sights, but again never have I encountered/been told of eye problems.
Sharps:
32-20/357/44Mag/45Colt/ etc
Now if you want to chat about eyebrow-busting scopes . . . .
.
I admit to only going up to 45-90/45-3¼"/heavy 535-grain Sharps levels using
tang sights, but again never have I encountered/been told of eye problems.
Sharps:
32-20/357/44Mag/45Colt/ etc
Now if you want to chat about eyebrow-busting scopes . . . .
.
Last edited:
Thanks folks, the rifle is drilled and tapped.
Just trying to work out which base would work. To be fair I want the peep because my eyesight is too bad to use buckhorns and I've tried a peep mounted infront of the ejection port on the back of a scout rail but struggle with it. - However I have a cocking piece sight mounted on a bolt action rifle and I really like it and shoot well with it.
Anyone put a Williams type receiver sight on a Chiappa? Might have the holes for it.
Scrummy
Just trying to work out which base would work. To be fair I want the peep because my eyesight is too bad to use buckhorns and I've tried a peep mounted infront of the ejection port on the back of a scout rail but struggle with it. - However I have a cocking piece sight mounted on a bolt action rifle and I really like it and shoot well with it.
Anyone put a Williams type receiver sight on a Chiappa? Might have the holes for it.
Scrummy
Scorch...
"The tang sight is closer to the eye on uphill shots...therefore making it more dangerous to the possibility of eye injury ('however uncommon') on light rifles with heavy recoil."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_sight
Google: Are tang sights dangerous to the eyes - Then click-on "The American Deer Hunter - page 21
"The tang sight is closer to the eye on uphill shots...therefore making it more dangerous to the possibility of eye injury ('however uncommon') on light rifles with heavy recoil."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_sight
Google: Are tang sights dangerous to the eyes - Then click-on "The American Deer Hunter - page 21
Number10GI
New member
I've been shooting metallic silhouette for a number of years now and have never heard of an eye injury from a tang sight. Silhouette shooters use either tang or Vernier sights for the competition, there may be some who use a buckhorn sight but I've never seen it and I doubt that they score very well.
I don't hunt anymore and never used a lever gun in hunting so I can't comment on the difficulty using one in that sport. Walking through the brush with the sight upright could cause damage to it. In a blind or a tree stand I don't see a problem.
Check out Marbles sights, they make bases for a lot of different rifles so you shouldn't have any problem getting one for your rifle.
I have Marbles sights on my Winchester 94, Marlin 39A, Rossi Model 92, and on my Winchester 1885 Low Wall but I use the rifles in silhouette competition exclusively.
I don't hunt anymore and never used a lever gun in hunting so I can't comment on the difficulty using one in that sport. Walking through the brush with the sight upright could cause damage to it. In a blind or a tree stand I don't see a problem.
Check out Marbles sights, they make bases for a lot of different rifles so you shouldn't have any problem getting one for your rifle.
I have Marbles sights on my Winchester 94, Marlin 39A, Rossi Model 92, and on my Winchester 1885 Low Wall but I use the rifles in silhouette competition exclusively.
Both my 24" Rossi .357 Mag and 24" Uberti .45 Colt have tang sights with target apertures for longer range shooting and both are a ton of fun to use. The .357 Mag does surprisingly well at 300yds!!
I used the Marble's Tang Peep Sight Rossi 65, 1892 Steel Blue, #009807 you can get from MidwayUSA HERE. It should work on your Chippa as both are clones of the Winchester '92. I use the target aperture because with it so close to your eye (no, it's never come close to hitting me either), you get a significant Depth of Field advantage so that even with old, bad eyes I can see both the front sight and target clearly.
I used Lyman's #2 tang sight and target aperture on my Uberti with the same excellent results. You can get one HERE.
I used the Marble's Tang Peep Sight Rossi 65, 1892 Steel Blue, #009807 you can get from MidwayUSA HERE. It should work on your Chippa as both are clones of the Winchester '92. I use the target aperture because with it so close to your eye (no, it's never come close to hitting me either), you get a significant Depth of Field advantage so that even with old, bad eyes I can see both the front sight and target clearly.
I used Lyman's #2 tang sight and target aperture on my Uberti with the same excellent results. You can get one HERE.
Last edited:
I have several original tang sights for rifles I have. Win, Marlin and Savage. They are fine for shooting target, lousy in the field. Most rifles they are behind the hammer and you have to change your natural grip to shoot. They aren’t worth snot for moving targets. On the other had a receiver type sight is just as precise, more if you get target clicks. And is in natural location for most. I got poked with a tang ladder, like Quigleys, on a RB 45/70. Shooting at jumped deer. I probably didn’t have gun in correct position, that’s why they are no good in the field. Unless you are staking out a herd of Buffalo.
I agree that they are problematic in the field. When it comes to aperture sights on the receiver, they also have their problems relative to hunting deer. Nevertheless, inasmuch as I was in love with the MI Garand and I did well with its aperture sight, I experimented with a receiver (aperture) sight on a custom 7x57 that I was dying to try out on deer. I purchase one with a "gold' ring inset around the aperture. Its purpose was to enhance its utility in dim light. I found it to not be useful in dim light, and was not happy in that instead of making things brighter in dim light, made things dimmer than when not looking through the sights. In short, I came the conclusion that aperture sights are very good for target in adaquate light, but not so much in fading light down in the swamp trying to aim at a buck...however, I made a good shot on the buck anyway, but it removed any illusion I had about hunting deer with an aperture instead of a scope.
No question that scope is better than aperture.
But aperture's waaaay better`n open sights.
FWIW: The miiitary's stayed w/ aperture for battle sights from M1 - M-14 - M16 . . . . with the Marines only now phasing them out for optics on the line.
Pretty near 85 years.
But aperture's waaaay better`n open sights.
FWIW: The miiitary's stayed w/ aperture for battle sights from M1 - M-14 - M16 . . . . with the Marines only now phasing them out for optics on the line.
Pretty near 85 years.
Last edited:
I have Lyman 66s on my several of my woods deer rifles. My deer shooting is mostly under 100yds, dead run and in stuff so thick they die standing up. I use no aperture in my receiver sights. I carry a Williams Twi Lite in my watch pocket , that’s the Gold Ring one to screw in if I get a chance at long shot. That gold ring doesn’t do jack, it just happens to be the one with the biggest hole. I wouldn’t say scope is better than receiver sight. It depends what the conditions are. They do some precision shooting with receiver sights. Stand up the average shooter give him 3x9 scope on his favorite rifle and give him five offhand shots at 100yds.
What do you reckon the average group to be? About 9” is the answer. Easily done with a receiver sight too. My dad belonged to a gun club that had a deer hunter turkey Shoot every year open to the public. Only rule was no support, 100yds, clay pigeons were the bullseyes.
They had 14 firing positions. Many times there would be no winners out of 14 shooters.
What do you reckon the average group to be? About 9” is the answer. Easily done with a receiver sight too. My dad belonged to a gun club that had a deer hunter turkey Shoot every year open to the public. Only rule was no support, 100yds, clay pigeons were the bullseyes.
They had 14 firing positions. Many times there would be no winners out of 14 shooters.
stagpanther
New member
Maybe if you shoot straight up into the air the tang sight could poke you in the eye? 
1. I would offer the automatic centering of the front post is a (very) quickly-developed/ automatic reaction -- to the point of evolved instinct.
2. Even then -- as noted in other references -- the aperture itself becomes the entrance pupil for the entire optical system of target, front sight post, rear aperture, and eye. The resultant parallax suppression of a small aperture further reduces even the effect of slight misalignment.
3. As corollary, the light passing through the aperture is parallelized similar to how a collimated lens works -- producing a significant increase in depth-of-field and dramatically sharpens the front sight (and every in the field of view).
Drawback ? Reduced light gathering as conditions degrade.
2. Even then -- as noted in other references -- the aperture itself becomes the entrance pupil for the entire optical system of target, front sight post, rear aperture, and eye. The resultant parallax suppression of a small aperture further reduces even the effect of slight misalignment.
3. As corollary, the light passing through the aperture is parallelized similar to how a collimated lens works -- producing a significant increase in depth-of-field and dramatically sharpens the front sight (and every in the field of view).
Drawback ? Reduced light gathering as conditions degrade.
No, you have to do that. What we've been told (right or wrong), for generations is that the human eye can "naturally" find the center of a circle,
Which (we've been told) is how peep sights work. Your eye automatically finds the center of the circle (the aperture in the sight) and then its up to your conscious will to put the top of the front sight post there (in the center of the circle).
The closer it is to the eye, the easier it is to look through the rear sight, not at it. We're told the "center the sight in the circle" is more precise than trying to line up equal amounts of "daylight" on each side, and front sight level with the top of the rear sight blade.
I'd say degree of precision varies, just as the skills of the shooters vary. Size of the aperture matters, tiny ones for target use are more precise (with a skilled shooter trained to use them) than open sights, but take longer to use accurately. Larger apertures (up to large "ghost ring") are faster to use than smaller ones, but are less precise. Something you probably won't notice unless they are shot side by side on a target range.
I don't know that tang sights are any more accurate (in the field) than receiver mounted peep sights, I don't have much experience with tang sights. Theory says the longer sight radius increases the potential for accuracy. Up to the shooter to see if they can use it, I guess.
I quickly ditched to cheapish buckhorn tang setup on my Henry 30-30 in favor of a Skinner peep. I have a very accurate and mild "cowboy" load shooting a 170 gr RN cast bullet at about 1600 fps . I really struggled to hit anything with the OEM sights and could not figure out POI adjustments with my mild load. I ended up with the Skinner rear peep, and modifying an extra tall front blade sight so I could zero at 100 yds , and raise the rear peep and also hit at 200 yds.
http://skinnersights.com/
http://skinnersights.com/