1911Forum banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,653 Posts
I don't have any experience with that sight but I am a big fan of peep sights. Here is another option to consider -on both of my Winchester Trappers I just put the sight in a vise and filed the "horns" off and ended up with a flat topped rear sight to match up with the flat topped front sight. It works well and costs nothing and my sight picture is now the same as my handguns and it is easier to fine tune elevation. But a peep is probably faster for most folks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,031 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
I don't have any experience with that sight but I am a big fan of peep sights. Here is another option to consider -on both of my Winchester Trappers I just put the sight in a vise and filed the "horns" off and ended up with a flat topped rear sight to match up with the flat topped front sight. It works well and costs nothing and my sight picture is now the same as my handguns and it is easier to fine tune elevation. But a peep is probably faster for most folks.
That's a thought. The big issue for me is my eyes are getting worse and I have a hard time seeing the front through that tiny notch in the rear. I just lost the elevator for the rear so when I order a new elevator I might just order a whole rear and experiment before spending $80.

I'm thinking beside filing it flat I could also "U" shape the notch for a little more depth and width.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,048 Posts
The Skinner sights are a quality item.
A lot of Marlin 39 owners really like them.

The Skinner is much smaller and less intrusive then the standard Lyman or Williams receiver sight, but doesn't adjust as easily as the standard type receiver sights do.

This is usually not an issue because most people sight in the rifle and never have to change the settings.

If your eyes are getting old, the aperture receiver sight is the way to go if you're staying with iron sights.
The Skinner would be far better then any barrel mounted sight, no matter how you modify it.

As an experiment, get some sheet brass or steel, bend it in an "L" shape and tape it to the barrel where the rear fight is.
Height is not important, this is just an experimental sight to try out, so all it has to be is slightly taller then the sight that's on the barrel now.
File it to how you think it will work including a notch, paint it flat black and see how it works.
Now take the same type sheet metal and punch a hole in it. Tape it to the receiver and take a look.
The receiver experimental sight will work much better and the front sight will appear to be much sharper.

Of course, depending on how your Model 94 is set up, you could buy a Williams receiver sight for less then the excellent Skinner.
Depending on your receiver, you would need a version that mounts on the side, or one that mounts to scope mount holes on top of the receiver.
Some of the Williams receiver top mount sights are very compact.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,653 Posts
I opened up the rear notch on mine small amount but with the thin front sight you're kind of limited. But at least now when I line up the top of the rear and top of the front I can hit what I need to most of the time. Elevation is right on the money out to 100 yards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,031 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Thank you both for your input

I'm trying to get a better sight picture without going to a Lyman or Williams. I've seen both in person and both are way too bulky for this 92, it's a short barrel Trapper.

Also this rifle has some sentimental value so I don't want to do any real permanent changes to it.

I've used peep sights since my time in the Corps so I know how that works, and yes it would be superior to any barrel mounted sight. I've used rifle sighted 870s for almost as long and know the drawbacks of that system as well.

In the end I'm thinking I'll just go with the Skinner and get it over with. After Santa takes care of Christmas that is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,031 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
I have this sight on a Rossi 92 and really like it. I believe it will fit your 94, but you can find out for sure from Marbles.
https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1828132532
OK this changes everything. It retains the look of the original rifle and offers what looks like a useful upgrade. Plus I went to their webpage and they have ivory and gold bead fronts to match.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,048 Posts
Be aware that aperture rear sights only work well when the aperture is very close to the eye.
Aperture sights that are on the barrel don't work nearly as well and probably won't be much better then the standard notch sight you have.

Before buying make up a "try" sight from metal sheet as I described above.
This time, punch a hole in it and mount it to the barrel.
That way you can see for yourself how well it'll work for you before dropping any money.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,031 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Be aware that aperture rear sights only work well when the aperture is very close to the eye.
Aperture sights that are on the barrel don't work nearly as well and probably won't be much better then the standard notch sight you have.

Before buying make up a "try" sight from metal sheet as I described above.
This time, punch a hole in it and mount it to the barrel.
That way you can see for yourself how well it'll work for you before dropping any money.
Thanks, I may give this a try. I will probable go with the gold bead front, right now I have a dab of red paint on the skinny front sight and it helps.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,011 Posts
I like the sight well enough I may need another ‘94 just to try it. Bill installed the tang mounted peep on a gun for me earlier this year. I love it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
89 Posts
I prefer Ranger Point Precision rear peep sights to Skinners (I have both). But I see that RPP does not carry rear sights for the '94. :bawling:
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top