On my standard Mauser 98 receiver (unfired Yugoslavian M48) I have a Redfield 70 sight mounted. I also have a Lyman 48, but which of the three versions I don't know. I don't know if version makes any difference in location of mounting screws on receiver.

I'm putting together - that is, trying to put together - a between-the-wars sporting rifle that would be at home in the Rocky Mountains and in the African velt.

Are mounting holes' position a standard Mauser 98 receiver identical for Lyman 48 and Redfield 70 micrometer receiver sights?

If you have both sights, as you say in your post, cannot you compare the base holes? The M48 is an intermediate length Mauser action, not the standard length.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobster:
If you have both sights, as you say in your post, cannot you compare the base holes? The M48 is an intermediate length Mauser action, not the standard length.

I have the Redfield installed. As pieces come together, which of the sights appeals to me is right this second still difficult to choose.

The Lyman 48 is by far the better sight. I would take any Lyman over any Redfield. I've owned and used many receiver sights.
Custom Marlin with Lyman receiver sight.

A 48 should mount but it might not be right. Early 48's are machined to line up with the charger slot, if the Redfield was drilled towards the rear, the Lyman base won't line up correctly. Later 48's don't have that problem, but they are a bit wider than the Redfield base. As long as the rifle was drilled correctly, the horizontal part of the staff should be level to the bore.

The proper Lyman sight would be 48M. There are long slide, short slide, target knobs, stay set knobs, etc. Different eras are cosmetically and functionally different, but they are all the same screw spacing.

There are a lot of Lyman 48 models 48S, 48W, 48WH, 48WJS, and on and on. You need a 48M. There is also a 48SME (Springfield Mauser, Enfield). The clip charger guide also comes into play as in the previous post. The gun needs to be drilled properly.

Lyman 48M is sight. Despite both sights being essentially N.I.B. (Redfield) and nearly the same without box (Lyman), I find myself leaning Redfield. But I don't know how I feel. Maybe because my access to parts is much better?

I don't find an overall difference in quality control.

If it is for a hunting rifle, which do you think looks better? Once it's sighted in, the adjustments don't really matter.

With those cross-arm peeps, I would worry about the arm being pressed down on the receiver in a fall. So, I'd choose the one with the strongest arm and, once sighted in, stick a prop under it.

The Lyman (not sure about the Redfield, will have to look) has a small set screw at the end of the cross arm that can be adjusted to rest on the top of the receiver once the elevation has been adjusted. This should protect it from light hits.
C.G.B.

A correction to my last post. I took a look at a couple of Lyman sights and the little set screw doesn't contact the top of the receiver, it hits the top of the sight base. I thinks its purpose is to act as a stop so the sight can be removed and replaced to the same zero location. It does offer some support, but not so much.
C.G.B.