1903 Peep Sight Choice-Redfield or Lyman vintage

[boom boom]

For reasons explained below, I need to choose whether to use a Redfield or Lyman 1903 peep sight.

I am just now getting around to finishing a multi year project. In essence, it is converting a 1903 receiver to function with a m1922 M2 bolt plus an original m1922 M2 Barrel as a .22LR rifle in a full military stock etc to avoid confusing someone that it is actually an M2. The conversion from .30-06 to .22LR itself is not really an issue as it has been done before and this rifle is assembled via parts and not by stripping active rifles by me. The receiver itself was poorly d&t on top and it was a high numbered receiver so safety on that count is not an issue. These holes will be filled with plug screws.

However, one of the issues involved with this particular conversion is that a genuine m1922 receiver has a solid headspacing surface on the receiver's right rear. The m1922 M2 bolt bears only on a single lug at the rear (and the m2 has a screw to adjust headspace on that receiver. Fitting an M2 bolt to a 1903 receiver that has a bolt raceway for the right bolt lug cut out of it requires for safety and headspacing reasons to fix a solid plug to fill the 1903 right rear bolt raceway. The usual procedure is to use silver hi temp solder with retaining screws to reinforce the joint. This gives a solid space for headspacing and for safety rather than relying on the thin walls of the regular 1903 receiver at that point.

Now, if I am going to have these screws to reinforce the plug in the receiver anyway, I figured that I would go ahead and mount a peep sight to the rear using these two screws anyway.

Now the choice is between a Lyman 48 sight or a Redfield. As most folks having these sights know, vintage peep sights have grown in popularity and thus price as they have not been made in decades. What I am asking is an informed opinion and comments by folks that have used either of these sights on a springfield 1903 as to their recommendations of which one to choose and why. I am agnostic about the different models which varied over the years. Please help my decision of which one to choose.

 

[OFT]

I've used both brands. I prefer the Lyman a little more than the Redfield but either one will do just fine for an old '03.

 

[boom boom]

I've used both brands. I prefer the Lyman a little more than the Redfield but either one will do just fine for an old '03.

If you do not mind, care to elaborate?

Since you have used both, your insights would be valuable. From what I have seen, the Lymans for the Springfield are going for about double the Redfield so I was wondering if the Lyman was that much better. The space agey look of the Redfield 70 model with its large rounded adjustment screws is also kinda out there but I wondered if that was easier in use than the Lyman with its more traditional screws. The older Redfield has a much smaller adjustment screw on top and the Lymans apparently vary quite a bit on slide length.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

I've not used the Redfield, but the Lyman 48 is a hoot.....click click click.

I get spare apertures from these guys-
http://www.aperturesnmore.com/

 

[boom boom]

I've not used the Redfield, but the Lyman 48 is a hoot.....click click click.
View attachment 853740
I get spare aperatures from these guys-
http://www.aperturesnmore.com/

Thanks Nightlord40k. Purty rifle. Anything you don't like about the Lyman?

 

[mustanger98]

Now, this is just me, but OP said not to have somebody mistake this build for an original M1922 M2.

The Redfield M70 would be different to the Lyman #48's being original to this application, and it can be had with target knobs.

Also, maybe outside the range of OP's intent, but I'm thinking a early-mid 1950's Lyman #57 SME with knurled knobs would fit, maybe without having to inlet the stock.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

Thanks Nightlord40k. Purty rifle. Anything you don't like about the Lyman?

Not really, once you figure it out, its pretty easy to set up. When I first got it, I dont think it had been adjusted since 1945, so I had to completely dissassmble, polish, and lube it- but its running like a top now.

 

[boom boom]

Now, this is just me, but OP said not to have somebody mistake this build for an original M1922 M2.

The Redfield M70 would be different to the Lyman #48's being original to this application, and it can be had with target knobs.

Also, maybe outside the range of OP's intent, but I'm thinking a early-mid 1950's Lyman #57 SME with knurled knobs would fit, maybe without having to inlet the stock.

Thanks, moving to more modern is not a problem and I have no problem with no inletting into the stock. I have several spare stocks but once you do it, harder to undo. I have to find a home for a high number Rock Island receiver as well after all. I am simply not that familiar with old peep sights as I usually just restore a rifle to as issued. In this case, I do not want someone selling it years after I'm gone as a super duper M2 experimental version.

 

[mustanger98]

Thanks, moving to more modern is not a problem and I have no problem with no inletting into the stock. I have several spare stocks but once you do it, harder to undo. I have to find a home for a high number Rock Island receiver as well after all. I am simply not that familiar with old peep sights as I usually just restore a rifle to as issued. In this case, I do not want someone selling it years after I'm gone as a super duper M2 experimental version.

After hearing a few doozies, I'd say it's liable to happen anyway. Have you thought about keeping a log book... with part #'s, drawing #'s, etc... on this build? Keep it more or less with the gun? I don't know... sounds like extra trouble.

So far, going by what I've seen on eBay, a good #57 SME's are still less expensive than #48's. Less expensive than some Redfield 70's, too. Not only that, but the #57 is simpler in a way than the other two models.

 

[boom boom]

After hearing a few doozies, I'd say it's liable to happen anyway. Have you thought about keeping a log book... with part #'s, drawing #'s, etc... on this build? Keep it more or less with the gun? I don't know... sounds like extra trouble.

So far, going by what I've seen on eBay, a good #57 SME's are still less expensive than #48's. Less expensive than some Redfield 70's, too. Not only that, but the #57 is simpler in a way than the other two models.

Thanks for the tip on the model #57, does that one require inletting the stock for it?

Considering that people now collect Bannerman's monstrosities, who knows. I am using the full military stock and hardware, the receiver is clearly marked as a 1903, and the alterations should be fairly obvious but as you said, who knows. I keep logbooks for reloading specific rifles but have not on building projects--sounds like an interesting idea as these projects often take several years to finish. I have a Lebel restoration that is going on about 3 years now due to the scarcity of some Lebel parts.

 

[mustanger98]

Thanks for the tip on the model #57, does that one require inletting the stock for it?

From my limited observation... seeing old pictures and comparing different parts, a #57 will not require inletting in the military '03 stock.

Now, which code...

#57 S is for the '03A3.

#57 SME is for the '03 Springfield, remodeled U.S. Enfield, and some Mauser models (seems to exclude the military 1898 actions).

 

[boom boom]

From my limited observation... seeing old pictures and comparing different parts, a #57 will not require inletting in the military '03 stock.

Now, which code...

#57 S is for the '03A3.

#57 SME is for the '03 Springfield, remodeled U.S. Enfield, and some Mauser models (seems to exclude the military 1898 actions).

It will have to be for the original 03 Springfield as that is the receiver I will be using.

 

[LoonWulf]

lemme go dig thru my parts box, I think I've got a 57sme in there. I was using it on my arisaka

 

[boom boom]

lemme go dig thru my parts box, I think I've got a 57sme in there. I was using it on my arisaka

Love to buy it from you if you want to sell.

Saw an sale on gunbroker on a mislabled Arisaka, ad has it as a Mauser
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/824240720. It was rechambered to a 6.5 x 257 and been drilled and tapped for a scope on top. Currently at $61 and $50 S/H.

 

[Mowgli Terry]

Well, both you guys are right. You do and do not have to relieve to stock for Lyman 48's. The later models that a thinner base making the stock cut unnecessary. The old time Lyman 48 sights like were on the M1922 and NM 03's did have a large base that needed that stock cut. Even today many more Lyman sights show up than Redfield. Got both. Both a good sights.

I remember visiting one of the old time gunsmiths in town. He had three or four M1922M2 bolts complete in his miscellaneous parts box. Those were the days.

The base of the old 48 for the 03 was cut not interfere with the clip slot in the receiver. The M1922 did not have this relieved place. The Lyman sight for the 03-A4 is different. I'm thinking that if your receiver is drilled and taped for the 57 it's the same as the modern 48's.

 

[LoonWulf]

I dug it out...turns out it's a Williams 5d Jems, and your welcome to it if you want it

 

[mustanger98]

If I understand correctly, the Williams 5D's started production in the early 1970's, along the same time as Lyman and Redfield changed from steel to aircraft aluminum. As long as you're not needing micrometer click adjustment, there's nothing wrong with a set-and-forget sight... just gotta know your zero and trajectory.

 

[boom boom]

Not sure if I do need micrometer click adjustments or not as I would be using it for a .22 LR which obviously has a bit different trajectory than a .30-06.

 

[boom boom]

I dug it out...turns out it's a Williams 5d Jems, and your welcome to it if you want it View attachment 853909 View attachment 853910 View attachment 853911

Thanks. I'll make a decision fast today and let you know.

 

[Jim Watson]

There are other brands. You might turn up a Marble-Goss, Wittek-Vaver, or Pacific.

 

[boom boom]

There are other brands. You might turn up a Marble-Goss, Wittek-Vaver, or Pacific.

My basic problem is that I am familiar with the military issued sights but have little to no familiarity with the sporting peep sights that were used. Most of the information on older peep sights is really not on the internet other than brief discussion of the models on a specific rifle so I figured the collective knowledge of the THR folks would help.

I do have a spare 1903 sight and platform but a) I am getting older and open sights are getting harder to use, b) I am using the mounting screws of the peep sight to help support the headspacing block necessary for the conversion.

 

[eastbank]

my high number 1903 springfield armory 3006 sporter came with this redfield receiver sight and it required wood to be removed. but the sight works very well and lets me shoot the rifle well.

 

[boom boom]

my high number 1903 springfield armory 3006 sporter came with this redfield receiver sight and it required wood to be removed. but the sight works very well and lets me shoot the rifle well.

Did someone jewel the slide of the peep sight as I haven't seen that on the Redfields for auction? Did they do it to reduce glare or something?

 

[eastbank]

as the extractor is also jeweled, I think some one thought it would look nice. to me just bling.

 

[LoonWulf]

ya know I might be able to lay hands on one of those redfields. buddy of mine has a Springfield we mounted w scope on that had one attached not sure if I have it or if he took it back.