marbles sight question (s)

[rm1911]

got an old winchester 67. want to replace the sights. no, I won't alter it and will retain the original sights anyways, kinda like the marbles bullseye sights. I know I'll need to replace the front as well. used the brownell's sight height calculator.

the barrel at the rear sight is .803 and at the front sight is .562. marbles lists the bullseye as going from .338-.535, and recommends 1/3 up the sight ramp. which makes rear sight height .404.

did it originally on a spreadsheet and got .524. brownell's calculator gives me the exact same number. (at least I can do word problems!!)

but damn, .524" seems like I'd have a shark dorsal fin coming off the front sight.

also, marbles makes a .500 and a .530 front sight. if I went smaller, that'd send shots high and I'd have to adjust rear down. with only two steps and it does seem like I'd be off quite a bit. if I went taller, I'd be a little low and would have more room to adjust up.

does this sound right or did I screw up somewhere??

[morrcarr67]

Oh, hell. I read every language known to man except Greek and that sounds Greek to me.

I thought it was gonna be a simple question like do you like them.

I can answer that one.

Yes I like them. I have them on my Ranger 101.11.

[spitter3]

got an old winchester 67. want to replace the sights. no, I won't alter it and will retain the original sights anyways, kinda like the marbles bullseye sights. I know I'll need to replace the front as well. used the brownell's sight height calculator.

the barrel at the rear sight is .803 and at the front sight is .562. marbles lists the bullseye as going from .338-.535, and recommends 1/3 up the sight ramp. which makes rear sight height .404.

did it originally on a spreadsheet and got .524. brownell's calculator gives me the exact same number. (at least I can do word problems!!)

but damn, .524" seems like I'd have a shark dorsal fin coming off the front sight.

also, marbles makes a .500 and a .530 front sight. if I went smaller, that'd send shots high and I'd have to adjust rear down. with only two steps and it does seem like I'd be off quite a bit. if I went taller, I'd be a little low and would have more room to adjust up.

does this sound right or did I screw up somewhere??

Sounds perfect!! I like the marble bullseye, I might possibly put 2 of those on my last 2 rifles. You can go either way on the front sight, if you go partridge you can fine tune the front site with a file. I went with a skinner barrel mount on my 10/22 and figured out that my front sight needs to be greater than .555 with the rear sight being at the lowest setting, still debating if I should go bead, partridge or fiber optic.

[rm1911]

Sounds perfect!! I like the marble bullseye, I might possibly put 2 of those on my last 2 rifles. You can go either way on the front sight, if you go partridge you can fine tune the front site with a file. I went with a skinner barrel mount on my 10/22 and figured out that my front sight needs to be greater than .555 with the rear sight being at the lowest setting, still debating if I should go bead, partridge or fiber optic.

thanks. it's that 1/2 inch front sight sounds kinda big. maybe not. the thing with the bead front is that you can't file it down.

I've considered replacing the front sight on my M96 and filing though. different forum though!!

think I'll order from brownells and give them a shot. also, I will probably go with taller sight, the .530. I looked at the elevation correction chart. the difference ranges from .02 to .04, but that's for 100yds. that's about the practical range of the 22. so at 100 with a slightly taller sight, I'd be a bit low, but have more room on the rear ladder to adjust upwards. and at that, probably not much needed at all.

I'd certainly be way low at 25-50 with the shorter sight.