Williams Peep Sight Quandary

[Ribcracker]

I own both a top-eject model 94 and a model 336C. I'd like to put a peep on one or both of them. Williams makes the FP-94/36 (WU1274) for use on both the 94s and 336s. But they also make the FP-336 (WU70222) which is designed specifically for the Marlin.
Does anyone know what the difference is between the two sights? I'm not sure which one(s) to buy. My Winchester has two plugged holes on the forward receiver for attaching a side plate scope mount but there are no holes back where you would mount a peep.
The Marlin has plugged holes both on the rear left side as well as up on the top strap.
I'm not fond of the idea of drilling the 94 because it was made in 1947 and is nearly pristine.
What are my options?
Thanks!
Bud

 

[PawPaw]

If that Mod 94 was made in 47 and is nearly pristine, I wouldn't drill it either.

Put a peep on the Marlin.

 

[oneoldsap]

If you can find a tang mounted sight for the 94 , that would work without adding any holes . Not going to be cheap though. Why not scope the marlin ?

 

[michaelcj]

If your 94 has the tang drilled for a sight [second screw forward of the tang/stock screw] I'd recommend going with a Marbles tang sight. It has the advantage over the Lyman #2 of being windage as well as elevation adjustment.

MJ

 

[Old Grump]

I put the Williams on mine and could not be happier. It made my 94 a field gun instead of just a backyard plinker because now my old eyes could acquire the front sight again. A little bulky but you don't really notice it carrying the gun and its easy to adjust but have never had to once it was sighted in. To me anything tang mounted might be a nice sight but in the heavy brush I used to walk through it was just something else to snag on and possibly break off. Might not ever happen but it was the thought of it that made me go Williams aperture.

 

[Ribcracker]

Thanks for the input, guys. you've been very helpful.
PawPaw, I don't know why I'm reluctant to poke holes in the 94. Yeah, it's pretty but it certainly isn't rare. It's "value" is mainly as a shooter...at least, to me.
Oneoldsap, I don't want to scope the Marlin purely for aesthetic reasons. I just think a scope looks awkward on a lever action. I do use scopes on my bolts and autos, though.
Michaelcj, Yes, a tang sight for the 94! It does have the extra tang hole for mounting. I didn't realize that until you pointed it out. Thank you!
Here's a comparison of the Lyman #2 and the Marbles: http://www.hobbygunsmith.com/Archives/Feb04/Interview.htm
Old Grump, As far as I can tell, the tang sight can fold down against the stock when you're bush-whacking. I suppose it might still snag but it's prolly not much of an issue. It appears as though the Williams FP or 5D will easily mount on my Marlin so that's what I'm gonna do. As far as the 94?...Tang sight! So I guess I've got it sorted out.
I've attached a coupla pictures to show the screw pattern on my 94 and the 336.
My 94 is a Win 32 Special. It's "pet" load is a cast 170 grainer over a mere 9 grains of 2400 for 1100 fps. You'd think ignition would be erratic at such a low case volume density but the standard deviation is consistently under 10.
Groups average about 1.5" at fifty yards. I don't try it at 100 because the buckhorn is so coarse. That's why I need a peep!
You guys are a valuable asset to folks like me - years of expertise and wisdom.
Really, thanks.
Peace,
Bud

 

[Ribcracker]

Okay, next question...
The Williams FP-94/36 mounts on the side of the receiver on the Marlin.
The Williams FP-336 mounts on the top strap using the rear scope mount holes. My 336 is drilled to use either method. Would one be preferable to the other?
I know I should just pick one and go with it but I have a history of making the wrong decision. It's a curse!
So...side-mount or top-mount?

 

[OJ]

No Marlins but - Winchesters - the 95 (30-06) required drilling - th 94s were D/T

and the gunsmith was a little uptight because he said if any of the silver or gold wires had caught the bit, it could do damage - didn't happen, though. I take to aperture out for ghost ring effect.

 

[Ribcracker]

Those are gorgeous levers, OJ. Makes me weak in the knees. And I'm curious to know how you embed your photos to the forum without us having to open them as attachments. But that's a subject for another thread on another day. Right now, I'm more interested in knowing the preferred method of mounting an aperture on a 336 that's been D/T'd for both top and side mounting.
Opinions?

 

[Crazy Carl]

Skinners on the Marlin. No muss, no fuss & very easy to install. Very clean look, as well.

 

[michaelcj]

Bud, just a heads up regarding the tang sights. I originally ordered the Lyman #2 and put it on my completely original 1932 Eastern Carbine. Ran into a problem in that the #2 even at its lowest setting was grouping 9" high at 50 yards. The sight barrel was just too long/tall. The only option with that sight was to install a taller front sight, and in the case of 9" high at 50 that would mean one that may have required an aircraft warning light! My 94 is one of the earliest with the ramp/bead/hood [introduced 1932] front.
So I went with the Marbles and it was right on and had the advantage of being windage adjustable [Lyman is not] also the "New Marbles" has a model with interchangable posts of varying heights. I didn't have to go that way as the standard Marbles for the 94 works just great with plenty of adjustment out for the practical range of the 30WCF. Good Luck.

Mike J

 

[OJ]

Ribcracker
Member


Join Date: August 13, 2011
Location: Oxford, Michigan
Posts: 23 Those are gorgeous levers, OJ. Makes me weak in the knees. And I'm curious to know how you embed your photos to the forum without us having to open them as attachments. But that's a subject for another thread on another day. Right now, I'm more interested in knowing the preferred method of mounting an aperture on a 336 that's been D/T'd for both top and side mounting.
Opinions?
__________________
It's easy to be wise, just think of something stupid to say and don't say it.

Thanks for the kind words about my lever guns - I have two Winchester 94s in 30-30 as well as the 95 plus a Browning BL22 rimfire - which has a Williams FPGR aperture sight that attaches to the grooves rimfire rifles have for scope mounting.

I should also mention the Williams aperture sights do require a little taller front sight - I personally like the XS white line front sight -

One thing at a time - if your rifle is D/T'd for side mount - just remove the screws and mount the Williams FP screws in those holes. It does require elevating the top part out of the way to insert the screws that attach the sight to the rifle but that's no real problem.

There are other Williams sights that don't have the precision adjustment but I like the FP series best.

As to posting photos - go to this link -

http://photobucket.com/


- it's a subscription service at very reasonable cost (plus a free trial use) and gives you the ability to post photos on forums plus the ability to send photos in your emails.

 

[dahermit]

...My Winchester has two plugged holes on the forward receiver ...

If the "1947 Winchester 94" already has those holes drilled and tapped in the forward receiver, then drilling more to put on a receiver sight will not lower any collector value...the first two holes already did that.

 

[Ribcracker]

Carl,
Thanks for tipping me off to the Skinner sights. They're reasonable in price and I really like the compact design. Plainly, they mount in the scope mount holes. My only concern is that there might not be enough elevation adjustment to use the factory front. Skinner's website says "try it and see". It appears as though I'll need a .4 to .5 inch blade for 30-30 in 20" bbl. My blade looks to be .4" so it "might" work.
OJ has mentioned that I'd prolly need a taller front with the Williams sight, as well. I wasn't aware of that. I just assumed that these sights would be designed to be compatible with the factory fronts. Wouldn't that make sense? I can feel my anxiety level rising. I really don't want complications and added expense. My wife keeps an eye on the pocketbook, ya know.
Here are some photos of my front:
Bud

 

[Ribcracker]

Mike,
Thanks for the heads up on the Lyman vs the Marbles tang sight for the 94. If I can use the Marbles with the original front AND gain the ability to correct windage without shimming, the extra cost is well worth it. I'll definitely buy the Marbles for my 94.
Hermit,
You're absolutely right about the damage being done to the 94. It's done!
But...further drilling and tapping adds more expense (and holes). Really, I'm torn. But the more I look at the tang sight, the better it "looks" to me. I guess it appears more authentic or somethin'. I just like it.
Thanks for pointing it out, my man. It is so true.
Peace,
Bud