New rear sight for Marlin 1894C

[eldon519]

Hey all, I hope your holidays have gone well so far.

I was lucky enough to find a Marlin 1894C under the Christmas tree which I had been wanting for ages, and in typical gun nut fashion, I'd already like to tinker with it.

I'd like to add a rear aperture sight to it, but I"m not sure whether to go the Williams receiver sight path or Marble's tang sight path. This particular one does not have the serial number on the tang, so it would be a candidate for drilling. Is one more durable than the other? I kind of like that the tang sight allows for a longer sight radius and can be flipped down to allow for using the open sight should you want to. I'm kind of afraid it could easily get damaged standing up back there though, and when laid down, I'm afraid it would be in the way of my strong-hand thumb. Any users have any advice for me?

 

[tominct]

Got the Williams on mine, bought it from Gun Parts about 13 years ago. Mated it with a globe front sight with interchangeable inserts. Works great.

Modifications:
1) Had to put some brass shim stock under the front dovetail, from the factory it wasn't tight.
2) Removed the rear sight insert so it's basically a thin-rimmed ghost ring now. Not necessary, I just like it better.
3) I removed the stock rear sight & elevator, oiled up the dovetail, then filled it with black epoxy putty. Again, not necessary.
I'm hoping that the oil will let the epoxy plug be tapped out without a lot of extra work when the time comes when I want it restored.


Now, years later, I can't remember if I swapped out the front sight because of a height issue with the peep rear, or if it was just because I don't like bead front sights.
If you're okay with a bead, you may not have to do that.

 

[tominct]

One other thing. With a pistol cartridge, I doubt that you'd get the use out of the tang sight's elevation range. Couldn't hurt to have it, I guess.

Also, you'd get a bit more sight radius with the tang sight.
I like them too, I think the reason I didn't go with it was that it would have covered the serial number on my rifle, someone told me at the time that was a violation of GCA '68.

 

[RSVP2RIP]

There are rear sight blanks made by Marbels and others that look like they belong in the dovetail and require no more effort than replacing the rear sight does. My opinoin is that you only need one rear sight. Forget about transitioning to the rear sight on the barrel as it would have to be a fold down, and I only find the fold down sights pop back up at inapropriate times. I would rather have a Lyman reciever sight with target knobs. It's made of steel which I think wears better and looks like it wasn't painted as with the William's. You most likley will need a higher front sight.

 

[tominct]

I didn't think the adjustable target knobs were of any practical advantage when I bought mine. Not like this is a long-range target rifle, it's a .357/.38. Plus, I like the idea of getting it zeroed and leaving it, and not having a lot of hardware hanging out in the breeze. Mine's a range toy, occasional deer gun, and a pest and small game gun.

I wasn't too fired up about the painted aluminum either, but it looks good on my rifle, it works, and doesn't get in the way when carrying it.

So, basically I'm not finding fault with your opinions or conclusions, just that my parameters might be different from yours or the OP's. But my selections made my 1894 exactly what I wanted it to be.

Yes, I'm pretty sure (now that I think about it) that I had to reorder a higher front sight than I got originally. Second time was a charm!

ETA: I got the dovetail fillers, but sent them back because I didn't think they looked much better than the empty dovetail slot. But some careful prep and application with the epoxy (using a finger wet with acetone) gave be a filler that was faired quite nicely with the barrel contour. And like I say, it should be readily removable when the time comes.

 

[Batman1939]

Eldon: I have not looked at all the responses to your question, so I may duplicate something already said. I suggest that you logon the Paco Kelly's Leverguns forum. There are a bunch of "levergun specialists" there and the question of which non-factory sights seem to work best has been discussed at great length. The choice of sights is a personal preference, but some interesting considerations have been detailed there. For example, many have said that tang sights are OK off the bench or for silhouette shooting, but aren't so good for being dragged through brush, etc. while hunting. Some shooters also claim they've been poked in the eye by tang sights while shooting under field conditions. A "cyber-trip" to this site would likely be worth your while.

 

[Furncliff]

I had the Williams, not very sturdy as far as I'm concerned. I put Skinners on my 1894c and model 39. Clean, simple work fine.

http://www.skinnersights.com/More_Information.htm

 

[mgkdrgn]

+1 on the Skinners. I have them on my Rossi M92 and love 'em to death.