Peep sight for a Marlin 1894

[v8stang289]

Gotcha, I guess since mine is an older one from 1978 it has the side mount holes from the factory. So I probably could use the FP-94/36 if I wanted.
I've got an FP-336 on the way from Charlie98 now at any rate. I'll post some pics when I get it mounted.

 

[CraigC]

If you have the holes in the side, then the same sight should fit the Marlin 1894, 444, 1895 and 336, as well as the Winchester 94. I'm not sure when they made the change but would prefer the side mounts.

 

[dh1633pm]

I really like the XS sights. Who hasn't used Williams sights? I like them, but not their footprint. They never look like they were supposed to be there. Yet they work great. Tang sights are good, but always seem in the way. Just me. I have used one on my dad's old Winchester.

 

[v8stang289]

I'm not sure when they made the change but would prefer the side mounts.

I think I would as well, but since I have the top mount coming I'm going to try it out. As long as it works well and doesn't interfere with the hammer too bad I'll stick with it.
Otherwise I'll order a side mount.

 

[CraigC]

With Marlins, I usually end up using a hammer extension on most of them anyway. Doesn't seem to be an issue on Winchesters.

 

[v8stang289]

Mine came with the old style extension like this


I like this type so hoping it works with it.

 

[halfmoonclip]

My '94 Marlin had a receiver mounted peep (Williams or Lyman...) which worked fine, but finally went to a scope for more readily counting horn points.
Personally, prefer tang sights; they do fold out of harms way, and the Marbles offer windage adjustment as well. Usually they involve drilling and tapping, not one of my favorite jobs. But it does buy you some sight radius, and a better sight picture IMHO.
Had to take the rear sight off a Mirchester '73 because it would not fold; need to think about getting a folder rather then the blank.
Moon

 

[Micro]

If you top-mount a Williams on an 1894 in the rear holes intended for a scope base, it will overhang the rear and interfere with the hammer. (It won't on a 336, but it will on an 1894.) The hammer extension won't help. There are a couple of solutions: 1) use a Skinner or XS sight, 2) have a third rear hole drilled and tapped in front of the rear two hole so you can mount the Williams further back without overhanging the hammer, or the easiest way, 3) mount the Williams in the front scope base holes. It sits farther forward on the receiver, but it doesn't interfere with anything, and it's still close enough to the eye that you still get a perfect sight picture,

Here's my 1894 .44 Magnum with a forward mounted Williams.



For reference, here's my 336 in .35 Remington with Williams mounted in the rear holes.

 

[GBExpat]

... If you top-mount a Williams on an 1894 in the rear holes intended for a scope base, it will overhang the rear and interfere with the hammer. ...

Hmmm. Must be an issue with the newer ones. The 5D that I mounted in the rear holes on my 1984-mfr 1894S 30+ years ago suffers from no such problem.

EDIT: Wait ... trying to remember. As I recall, my 5D is not mounted via scope-mount holes on top of the receiver but holes on the left-rear side of the receiver.

 

[A526051]

I installed Skinners sight on my 1894 CB, no issues at all. The picture is from their website

 

[Charlie98]

If you top-mount a Williams on an 1894 in the rear holes intended for a scope base, it will overhang the rear and interfere with the hammer.

I must have missed that part... YMMV, of course...

 

[CraigC]

The hammer extension does help. I'd rather deal with the minor hammer interference than mount it too far forward.

 

[Charlie98]

In reality, the OP has the best of both worlds. My Browning 71 has the side mounted Williams, it is a little more slick than the topper... but they both work the same way. Yes, they look a little hunky, but their function eclipses their outward appearance. If the top mount doesn't work, the OP can always opt for a side mount.

 

[Micro]

I must have missed that part... YMMV, of course...

View attachment 963565

Hmmmm

Look where your sight is screwed in compared to my rear scope holes. Look where your forward screw hole is compared to mine. Yours is forward of the receiver screw, mine is behind it. Your rifle either has screw holes at a location different than mine, or yours has the third hole drilled and tapped ahead of the rear holes and the front Williams hole uses that.

There is no way the Williams will mount to the rear holes on my rifle without interference with the hammer. Tried it, didn't work. Oh, I could probably raise it way up, but I'd rather have the full range of adjustment available to me. In addition, in the low position, it would interfere with the safety.

With respect to being too far forward, it isn't. Sight picture isn't discernibly different than the same sight on my .35 Remington.



This is an 1894 with a third hole drilled and tapped and the Williams using the front old hole and the new hole. Lines up precisely where your sight is mounted. Did you buy your rifle with that sight mounted on it? Take it off, I bet you have a third hole.

 

[Charlie98]

Now you have me wondering... I may have to pull mine off to see.

Mounting it forward works well enough... that's the way I had to mount the Williams on my Marlin model 15... in front of the bolt slot. It works lickety-split... and I'll bet yours does, too.

 

[Charlie98]

Because truth is always stranger than fiction...



I'm going to guess that I had that tapped at one time. My 1894 is a Forever Rifle, so I would have spent the money to have it tapped out and mounted correctly.

Matt... if that upsets the apple cart and doesn't work on your rifle, let me know and I'll buy that sight back if you don't want it.

 

[Old Dog]

Great thread, really good job with the photos also, guys.

 

[Micro]

The third hole is the way to do it if you are so inclined.

 

[v8stang289]

Matt... if that upsets the apple cart and doesn't work on your rifle, let me know and I'll buy that sight back if you don't want it.

It should be ok either way. It should be here this coming week sometime, if for some reason I cant use it on the 1894, I can resell it or get a 336 to put under it, haha.
Thanks

 

[Newtosavage]

For a rifle that's designed to be carried in the hand at the receiver, I've never cared for side-mount rear peep sights. I understand their merits, but I just can't stand that extra glob of metal hanging on the side of the receiver.

Skinner sights are all I'd use on a rifle like that. My Marlin 94a wears a Skinner rear aperture and once I got the front sight figured out, it's absolutely ideal. I've been looking to add a Marlin lever gun in .357/.38 and it will also get a Skinner rear aperture when I finally get one.

 

[CraigC]

I've been using them for decades and never thought a receiver sight was in the way. Necessary equipment, IMHO.

 

[Charlie98]

Skinner sights are all I'd use on a rifle like that.

Well... you have to tailor your tool to the job. Skinners are great hunting sights... but they have a very limited range of vertical adjustment... and that's what I need.

This is the Williams on my Browning 71... I have it jacked out to shoot at 900yds... can't do that with a Skinner.

 

[Newtosavage]

I'd just be wasting ammo at 900 yards. You're probably a much better shot than I am though.

 

[Charlie98]

I'd just be wasting ammo at 900 yards. You're probably a much better shot than I am though.

Shooting is a skill to be developed... hey, if I can do it, you can, too!

 

[Newtosavage]

Shooting is a skill to be developed... hey, if I can do it, you can, too!

All the critters I shoot at fall down, so I'm good enough for my needs.