Aftermarket sight options for Marlin 1894CB

W

Wayward_Son

New member
I love my new Marlin. I've put 150 rounds of .357 JHP through it so far and it has been a pleasure to shoot.

However, my accuracy is lousy. I don't blame the gun. My crumby eyesight has a hard time focusing at fifty yards through iron sights. And I'm shooting cheap Monarch ammo which is visibly different from one bullet to the next which certainly can't be good for tight groups.

But I'm also wondering if maybe I could do better with some different sights.

Marble offers an adjustable rear sight that appears to replace the rear sight blade with one adjustable for windage and elevation. While this would certainly allow me easier fine-tuning (without having to tap the rear sight to the left or right with a hammer to adjust for windage), it wouldn't solve my problem of having a difficult time focusing on the target while also making sure my front and rear sights are lined up properly.

Plenty of folks here seem to like peep sights or "tang" sights. I know what they are, but I'm totally unfamiliar with them. What are the benefits of these sights? They appear to be adjustable for windage and elevation, which is good, but I've never used them before and I am completely unaware of the mechanics or methods of using this type of sight, not to mention any advantages and disadvantages.

Others here mention ghost ring sights. Again, I'm completely unfamiliar with them. Everything I said about the peep sights can be copied and pasted here.

A fourth [cheap] option is to drive out my rear sight, flip it around and reinstall it. I read on one website that while this would shorten the sight radius, it would be easier on the eyes and allow for quicker target acquisition and faster follow-up shots. It told the history of the improvements in rifle sighting methods from past to present and how the rear sights on rifles used to be installed much further out from the eye as opposed to rifles manufactured in recent times, and that this has actually led to modern rifles being harder to shoot quickly and accurately compared to their older counterparts (particularly for people with poor eyesight. Something about having the sights so close to your eye forced the shooter to focus on the sights instead of on the target, while having the sights further from the eye helped the shooter focus on the target while still being able to line up the sights.

So please, help me educate myself. One of these four options would probably suit me better than the other three, but I don't know enough about them to make a good decision.

I'd like to reliably and consistently score 3-4" groups (about the size of an apple) at 75 yards with iron sights. I know part of that will come with practice and part of it will come with better ammo.

I refuse to put a scope on this gun.
 
B

bottom rung

New member
I put a Williams 5D peep site on my Marlin 1894FG. It is a huge improvement over the standard sites. It mounts in the pre-drilled and tapped holes located on top of the reciever. On the Cowboy models, like yours, the serial number is located on the left side of the reciever instead of the tang. This is done so you can mount a tang sight without covering that all important number. The tang sight would look better than the Williams 5D, but it might be more expensive. The 5D goes for around $35 and is constructed of aluminum. Check out Midwayusa.com. They have a wide variety of sights from Lyman, Marble, and Williams.
 
S

stinger

New member
Tang sights are neat for an authentic look, but the receiver sights are more practical, IMHO.

Williams makes a nice receiver sight, although there are a couple of other brands. The 5D is about as simple as it gets, but quite effective. I have Winchester 94 with a Williams (FP?) and the only difference is my adjustments 'click.'

Marbles would be my recommendation for a tang sight. You could spend less, but shouldn't. And you could spend more, but don't need to.
 
J

jrothWA

New member
Have a Wiliams Foolproof on my 336...

it mounts on the left rear portion of receiver.
You can remove the slide after sighting -in if a scope is considered.
the term "ghost ring" refer to when the screw-in insert is removed then you have a larger ring to sight thru, very good for brush hunting, accurate to as the eye naturally centers the front.
 
H

hodaka

New member
I put a Williams Fool Proof on my 1894C with a filler piece in the factory rear sight cut. I think a tang mount would be in the way although I have never had one on a lever action. The FP works well.
 
R

RonJ

New member
I just put a set of XS Ghost Ring sights on my 1894c. They're very sturdily built and look great on the rifle. Unfortunately I haven't had a chance to sight in yet. Can't wait!
 
J

jhansman

New member
I had a tang sight on my for a while, sold it and tried a red dot, ditched that and went back to the stock iron sights. For me, it shot as good with those as the other 'solutions.'
 
C

CraigC

Moderator
I much prefer a receiver sight to all others on a levergun. Preferably a Lyman or Williams Foolproof. IMHO, the 5D is a pain to use because of its setscrew adjustments. For the front I've always used a 1/16" brass bead but just got an XO .100" post to try out.
 
W

Wayward_Son

New member
I took my Marlin out to the range again today. I didn't have any new sights to try out, and I didn't do anything different while shooting, but I did isolate the variable of ammunition.

Instead of the cheap Monarch 158grn SJHP bullets I was using, I instead bought a box of 50 Remington 158grn LSWC.

I made several startling revelations today. :)

1. Monarch is junk ammunition.

2. Ammo from reputable manufacturers absolutely out-performs cheap off-brand ammo.

3. The Remington LSWC is much easier to load into the rifle than the Monarch SJHP.

4. The LSWC feeds better, smoother, and with fewer hangups than the SJHP.

And, most importantly:

5. The Remington LSWC is hands-down way more accurate out of my Marlin than the cheap Monarch SJHP.

With Monarch I was getting almost all of my shots inside a 9" circle, most of those were inside 7" with a few inside 3". I don't know all the correct terminology for the "rings". My bullseye is a one-inch circle. What I refer to as a 3" circle is the ring around the bullseye. The diameter of this circle is three inches, but the outer ring of that circle is 1.5" from the center of the bullseye. Is this the "2 ring"? And accordingly, what I call a 7" circle is 7" in diameter, with the other boundary 3.5" from the center of the bullseye.

With the Remington I put seven inside 3" with two through the bullseye, one inside the 5" ring (2.5" from the bullseye), one inside the 7" ring (3" from the bullseye) and one inside the 9" ring (4" from the bullseye).

My incorrect terminology probably makes this sound very innacurate. To put it in simpler terms, I was previously grouping inside something approximately the sice of a basketball at fifty yards. Today, with nothing more than a change in ammo brand and bullet design, I put 7 of 10 shots into a tennis ball, with the other 3 shots hitting a soccer ball. The difference is astonishing (to me).


So maybe different sights would still help improve my accuracy with this gun, and certainly extra practice will help my game. But whereas I was frustrated and disapointed in the gun's accuracy (was it my eyes? the sights? the gun itself?) I am now happy to realize that shooting a better style of bullet from a areputable manufacturer made a world of difference. I now have an accurate brush gun with open sights.

After I was done shooting I went back into the range office and discussed ammunition and accuracy wit hthe range/store owner. He then pulled a case of American Eagle (Federal) 158grn JSP off the shelf and told me that he felt it would be an even more accurate round. His thoughts were that the copper jacket would help the bullet realize the most "guidance" from the bore's rifling grooves whereas a lead bullet may deform slightly from the rifling instead. I told him I'd try a box next weekend.


On another topic, accuracy aside, here's another question: I plan on using this levergun from smaller pigs and deer in SE Texas. Which bullet type would give the best overall mix of penetration and expansion without fragmentation for small-medium hogs and whitetails: 158grn LSWC from Remington or 158grn JSP from American Eagle?

I'm leaning towards the JSP, and if it's more accurate to boot than that seals the deal.
 
B

bottom rung

New member
I made a similar discovery with my .41Mag 1894. At first I was shooting reloads. I was getting a 12 inch groups at 25 yards! I was flipping out. I thought that I might be pulling the gun off target, or flinching, or something. I waited and put a scope on it, then I went back out. I got the same 12 inch groups all over again. I tried Remington Express 210gr Jacketed soft points and I was making one hole groups. Yee Haw! Steve
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top