I want to use an adjustable peep sight on my 45-70 Rolling Block that I'm working on at the present. I was going to use an extra sight from a Remington mod 37 RF, but I've misplaced them. What do you suggest. 100 yd hunting will be max.

I had a Lyman 48W on my converted 7mm. The base looks like I modified it. I had a globe front sight. Worked great-looked bad.

For an honest 100 yard rifle I would install a solid non adjustable rear sight. Track of the Wolf has lots of castings to choose from if you can not make it. I would install it just forward of the center of gravity so, it does not poke you hand. The front would be a simple blade about 0.080" wide,

For a traditional looking rifle, with an octagon barrel especially, I would install a modern version of the "rough and ready" combination peep sight. I would used a hooded front sight about 0.080" wide. Or the MVA beech combo below.

https://montanavintagearms.com...-ready-barrel-sight/

https://montanavintagearms.com...ination-front-sight/

Marbles tang peep sight; original and has windage. I have lots of them, mostly on lever actions but have installed them on SS too.

I need to look into both of your suggestions.
Cheaper than good scopes.

Those peep sights on the barrel is a bad idea to me; peep is too far away to work correctly.

That original Remington Rough and Ready sight works quite well. I have two Rollers, and they both carry the Rough and Ready sight in the rear and a blade in the front.

Not for me; the peep is too far away from my eye to work. Like on a 1903 Sprimgfield; the field of view is too small. Put the peep where is belongs, near your eye. There is a reason no one has put a peep sight on the barrel since 1903.

quote:

Originally posted by dpcd:
Not for me; the peep is too far away from my eye to work. Like on a 1903 Sprimgfield; the field of view is too small. Put the peep where is belongs, near your eye. There is a reason no one has put a peep sight on the barrel since 1903.

I agree with you. I think I need a peep that I can install on the side of the receiver "I think".

I used to have a half dozen of the Redfield Palma Match sights squirreled away until I realized the buffalo were all dead and smokeless powder wasn't just one of those new fangled, passing fancies. Long sold now, but I still use Williams receiver sights for my rack & pinion bear guns. A lot of people poopoo them because they are inexpensive and made of aluminum but I abuse the hell out of them and they have never let me down.

Yes, I bought my first Williams 5D receiver sight for my 94 Winchester back when they were really FIVE dollars. That is where it got it's name, like Motel 6.
Anyway, you could certainly put one of those on your roller although it will look too modern, it will work.

quote:

Marbles tang peep sight; original and has windage. I have lots of them, mostly on lever actions but have installed them on SS too.

Most of those are too short for a rolling block.

I second the suggestion of using the rough and ready sight. New ones are available from Montana Vintage Arms.

Yes, marbles makes a tang sight for rollers the rough and ready sight would be for those who are not serious about using a peep sight but wants something that looks period.

Ive never been a big fan of tang sights. They usually have a lot of side to side slap in them, which has always bugged me. My big beef with them is because I'm so fawking stupid, I toss them up and forget to hold my thumb on the right side of the grip in the heat of battle and I split the web of my hand on the sight when the gun goes off.

Others, apparently are not quite this dumb and get by with them rather well. But, I'll stick to my receiver sights. I'm not a period looking kind of feller so I'll stick to my non period kinda sighting apparatus.

No slop in the marbles. But they do go where you might want to put a thumb.

dpcd--I have to disagree with your assertion that the Rough and Ready sight is purely for looks and nostalgia. I have two original rollers in 45-70, and both carry that sight. One is an original sight, and the other is a modern replica by MVA.

Both of those rifles will hit a gallon milk jug at 400 yards with no problem. The sights work quite well if you have them set for the appropriate distance, and I have killed deer and hogs with both of these rifles with this sight set up. Like most things, you just have to learn how to use them correctly.

That is pretty good shooting; I just don't like the peeps to be up on the barrel and I suspect most shooters won't like that either; peep sights need to be close to the eye for best results. (I didn't say that the barrel mounted peeps won't work; just that a peep mounted back near the eye will work better) I think that is true as no modern target or military rifle has a barrel mounted peep. Must be something to it.
Now, the advantage that the barrel mounted sights have is durability; tang sights are more fragile. But we tend to care for our rifles more than they could in the 1870s, traveling on horseback and wagon as they did.

I had a Lyman over the receiver ring. The Rough and Ready is on the barrel over the chamber. The peep ends up only about an inch further forward. The open sight option on the R/R is pretty much useless because it is too close to the eye.

From a functional standpoint I would say that the peep sight over the receiver ring is best. It is non traditional looking though.

I also had a little sight that used two screws to attach it to the top of the receiver ring. A non adjustable solid peep/ghost ring sight Attached to the ring might be pretty good, although ugly. Any sighting in would be done by drifting and filing the front sight.

I like the old Refield International sights. They can be adapted to just about anything and if the are a little loose from use can be tightened up. I made a no-gunsmith mount for one on my center-fire conversion 1881 Swiss Vetterli and it works great. If you want something a little smaller, the Redfields for a Mauser or Remington can be adapted to a square sided action and they are plentiful and fairly cheap. I've never liked the tang mounted sights. They get in the way of my hand and the adjustments are too course and loose for my taste.

quote:

Originally posted by gzig5:
I like the old Refield International sights. They can be adapted to just about anything and if the are a little loose from use can be tightened up. I made a no-gunsmith mount for one on my center-fire conversion 1881 Swiss Vetterli and it works great. If you want something a little smaller, the Redfields for a Mauser or Remington can be adapted to a square sided action and they are plentiful and fairly cheap. I've never liked the tang mounted sights. They get in the way of my hand and the adjustments are too course and loose for my taste.

As of right now, I believe this is the way to go for me.
Thanks

A little caution here Butch ! ! ! !

I think the difference between the Palma Match and the International Match was in that the International Match used the table to extend the horizontal adjustment and the aperture rearward while leaving the vertical adjustment on the receiver. The Palma Match used the base bar to extend the entire sight rearward. For some reason which has eluded my simple, little, pointed head I preferred the Palma Match sights on my dumbwaiter guns. I can't remember if the International match sights interfered with the hammers, cartridge loading or what but you might want to get on Google Pictures and study the difference before you get out your credit card and start scanning eBay.


OK I just called one of my evil associates and asked him why the how was and what the fuck. The Palma leaves a big square viewing port that allows you to look down into the chamber and gives you more room to get your big fat puddy on the hammer-banger.

Rod,
What I meant to say was that type of sight would be my choice.