Lyman Hunter Sights

[Flinter987]

So after 4 years of just casual target shooting with friends, I decided I should get serious and see if I can get a load worked up for my gun and sight it in for big game. Tonight showed me what I knew for four years already! I can't stand the factory sights on my Traditions Shenandoah. Can't seem to hit the broadside of a barn with them! I've been eyeing the Lyman Hunter Sights for awhile now. My only concern has been, will they fit my gun? Do any of you guys know the answer to that question? Do you know what size of dovetail traditions uses on that gun? Thanks so much and sorry for the rambling post! Flinter987

 

[Flinter987]

The sights in question: http://www.cabelas.com/product/Lym...lyman+sights&WTz_l=Header;Search-All+Products

 

[Zonie]

They should fit if no one has enlarged the original dovetails.

 

[BrownBear]

Yeah, I moved a set of Lyman primitive sights from a GPR onto a traditions Crockett. Fine fit.

But since the .360 base is smaller than the "standard" 3/8", Zonie raises a good point. Some guys enlarge the dovetails on European guns to 3/8" rather than filing down the bases.

 

[Flinter987]

Thanks guys! I'm gonna give them a try!

 

[Rifleman1776]

This stubborn, old, crochety traditionalist can't help wondering what is wrong with switching to sights that are more.....well.....traditional?
Going to an iron front blade and a buckhorn, or similar, rear sight would look.....uh....more traditional. And, I think you would like it more than that Lyman thing. BTW, I have used the Lyman sight and did not like. I probably have a couple in my box of forgotten junk.

 

[tg]

Some just can't won't, adapt to the earlier type gear as often it may take more work and time, the objective now is often to step back into the ML world then try to get the gun to perform as close to the modern centerfire as possible, the traditional ways are on the way out in general.

 

[Rifleman1776]

Some just can't won't, adapt to the earlier type gear as often it may take more work and time, the objective now is often to step back into the ML world then try to get the gun to perform as close to the modern centerfire as possible, the traditional ways are on the way out in general.

I asked Flinter that question and am happy to let him answer for himself.

 

[ebiggs1]

My thoughts, likes and dis-likes, is selfish, I guess. I owe no particular time period anything that some of you treat as a religion. I have wondered how I would have fared if I had been born in the period. I don't care for very long barrels and the stock style associated with popular traditional flintlocks. I do like the feel of a TC Hawken with a moderately long 32” barrel. The rest, sights and lock are more traditional, however. Patched round balls, cut at the muzzle, real black powder, all that good stuff.
So the addition of a Lyman sight is only that person's preference.

 

[necchi]

here's one Track of the Wolf has that is listed to fit Traditions rifles (and save a few bucks); http://www.trackofthewolf.com/Cate...Id=14&subId=167&styleId=769&partNum=RS-16-AML

Better yet maybe Rifleman 1776 could dig through his junk and find ya one,,
,he's tried them himself and found a more traditional sight was better for him.
Perhaps he can help someone else learn the same lesson he did.

p.s. Rifleman, did someone ask you if perhaps a different site would be better for you when you tried the "less-traditional" site?

 

[Flinter987]

Life's been pretty busy, I'll try to reply in more detail soon! Thanks everyone for your interest and help!

 

[Rat Trapper]

I think the sights a person puts on his/her rifle is a personal thing. Put on what you want and change it if it doesn't get the job done. I've gone to Lyman 57 peep sights on two of my target rifles and couple with the TC peep sights. The rest of my rifles have the open sights they came with. I want all the accuracy I can get and I do not own anything to any period nor HC. When I was young I had 20/10 vision now as an old guy I need glasses to get 20/20. I also need special glasses to see rifle/pistol sights well enough to shoot good groups. So if someone feels the need to install a fiber optic front sight, I understand.

 

Some just can't won't, adapt to the earlier type gear as often it may take more work and time, the objective now is often to step back into the ML world then try to get the gun to perform as close to the modern centerfire as possible, the traditional ways are on the way out in general.

Your new avatar. :wink:

 

[BrownBear]

Kinda depends on your goals. If you want a gun that's correct in every way but you can't see the sights, what's the point of shooting the bloomin thing? Hang it on the wall, be proud of it, and take up golf.

If your goal is to be able to shoot, use whatever sights are required to do so and laugh off the critics.

Here's something to think about: Those same critics are using modern steel barrels on their guns rather than the correct forged iron. They can rationalize that change, but it's not okay for you to rationalize your sights. Makes perfect sense, don't it?

 

[Rifleman1776]

p.s. Rifleman, did someone ask you if perhaps a different site would be better for you when you tried the "less-traditional" site?

After 40+ years at the game, I have to admit I don't remember specifically. But, then after hundreds of 'campfire' discussions and, probably, thousands of conversations on the range, I probably asked for and/or was given a lot of advice. I tried a lot of things for myself. I do recall the Lyman sight in question was used for a while on my wife's target rifle where adjustable sights were allowed. She found them lousy for hunting. I found them indesirable for most applications tried.
Yep, if asked, I'll look and see if I still have some in my 'junk' drawers.

Edit: another reason original poster might consider NOT using the Lyman's is because he may be barred from matches that require fixed sights only. That would be a bummer.

 

[tg]

"Keeping Tradition Alive"

I seem to recall that logo somewhere, nothing wrong with suggestion the use of traditional gear if trying to accomplish the above

 

[CoyoteJoe]

I know none of the shooters on this forum but of the rifles I've seen on the range and at rendezvous I have yet to se one with really traditional sights. Sights on original rifles tend to be a pointed brass or silver front blade no more than 1/8" above the top flat. The rear sights vary but are most often a flat bar with just a very tiny scratch of a notch. Sights so low to the barrel are pretty much impossible to aim in bright sunlight and especially after the barrel heats up and waves begin to shimmer off the barrel. I tried such sights briefly on my Bucks County smoothrifle and very quickly replaces them with taller sights, still in traditional style but NOT traditional height.

 

[Rifleman1776]

I know none of the shooters on this forum but of the rifles I've seen on the range and at rendezvous I have yet to se one with really traditional sights. Sights on original rifles tend to be a pointed brass or silver front blade no more than 1/8" above the top flat. The rear sights vary but are most often a flat bar with just a very tiny scratch of a notch. Sights so low to the barrel are pretty much impossible to aim in bright sunlight and especially after the barrel heats up and waves begin to shimmer off the barrel. I tried such sights briefly on my Bucks County smoothrifle and very quickly replaces them with taller sights, still in traditional style but NOT traditional height.

CJ, methinks you make a way-way too broad a statement about "original rifles". To make a blanket statement about centuries worth of scores of rifle styles is obviously going to incorrect at some point. Plus, many of the makers and vendors of sights state, or claim, theirs are designed after originals. As for the low, tiny sights. I'll agree they are hard to see. But I have seen quite a few with sights just like that in museums. To me, those tiny low sights are a puzzlement. I do wonder how anyone could like them and how middle to older age shooter could even see them. As for heat from shooting. I do believe we shoot our rifles a lot more than 'they' did 'back then'. They shot for a purpose. e.g. hunting or defense. We shoot recreationally quite often. It is not unusual for a competitior to shoot 50 to 100 rounds in a day.
So, I respectfully reject your theory. I do hope our original poster considers going with a (higher) style original, fixed sight.

 

[CoyoteJoe]

Of course I have not examined every old rifle ever made, there could well be an original rifle somewhere with a high line of sight, I've just have never seen it. What I am saying, and I think you agree, is that the "norm" on old rifles is a very low line of sight. It certainly was not the point of my post to recommend such sights.
My one outing with those very low sights was a bright sunny spring day of about 40 degrees and even with such a cool temperature those sights were unusable due to shimmering waves rising from the barrel. It's amazing how much improvement is obtained by just raising the sight line by a fraction of an inch.
I too find those low sights a bit of a "puzzlement", it seems like just an all round bad idea.

 

[tg]

"Sights so low to the barrel are pretty much impossible to aim in bright sunlight"

Pretty simple ....they only shot in the dark or they did not use their guns and they were for show? often the old ways take quite a bit of getting used to or at least this has been my experience at times.and looking thru RCA 1&2 there appear to be no shortage of sights that would be sufficient for use in most conditions and not quite so miniscule