Beckerhead firearms

Tanker 1/66,

I hear you on the eyes, age, iron sights deal. If you want to continue to mess with irons, especially on lever guns, here is what works for me.

First, fit a Lyman 17AHB front sight. (The HB is the shortest one, and is the one you want.) If you don't know how to file a front sight to fit (never file on the rifle!), then learn how or get a gunsmith to do it. It is not difficult once you learn a few tricks, but a sight pushing tool really helps (although I think I had to modify my tool to work with the Lyman 17A sights.)

The Lyman 17A is not much bigger than the front sight hood on most lever guns, so it doesn't look at all out of place. Stick with an aperture/ghost ring rear of your choice, but get something that can get high enough, because even the lowest Lyman 17A is a bit tall. The Skinner long/tall aperture holder or a Williams receiver sight works fine. (Edited to add: You may find the Skinner long/tall aperture holder to be too long and needing to be shortened a bit. But the regular aperture holder won't engage as many threads as you would like.) The first thing to try in the Lyman is one of the "lollipop with hole" inserts (inserts come with the sight.) You will discover that if you can see it, whatever "it" is, you can effectively aim at it. You will be back to aiming at 1" dots at 50 yards. I'm not exaggerating. It doesn't matter if your eyes are such that the front sight is a little blurry, because just like a rear ghost ring, you are looking through the front sight. Looking through the front sight instead of at it is a paradigm shift. You have to experience it to appreciate it.

Now that you are back to hitting stuff like you used to, you will discover the Lyman "lollipop with hole" insert blocks too many real targets. In other words, you can easily aim at that 1" dot, but it covers up way too much of a deer or something like that. You can aim at the deer, but you cannot tell exactly where on the deer you are aiming. The solution is to Google up Lee Shaver Gunsmithing and get a set of his inserts for the 17A. Use one of the ones I call "small circle suspended on cross hairs." I like the smallest one. Now, this insert might not be in focus for you either. Here is how I use it. The front sight will look like a "fuzzy dot", but one you can actually more or less see "through or around", I assume because there is a hole in middle and because the suspended circle has such a thin perimeter. On a big target, just aim with that fuzzy dot. On small targets, you will discover that when you are centered, you will clearly see the target just like you did with that obscuring Lyman insert. This is because you eye has a clear path to the target by looking through the rear ghost ring and through the unobstructed center of that "fuzzy dot."

I had great vision when I was younger. Was better than 20/20 in my right eye, maybe 20/15. Never needed glasses. My distance vision is still good, but I started needing drug store readers at about age 45. I'm almost 65 now and it is tough trying shoot a 10-shot group with my lever .22 off a bench at 50 yards aiming at a 1" dot. Why? Because usually before 10 shots the dot is so chewed up that my aiming point is all messed up!

Of course, nothing beats the single focal plane of a scope, and magnification always helps. But fitting scopes really well is almost impossible on some guns. Even if you manage to hang them on there, it is still "not quite right." The stock fit is wrong for a scope, hammers may get in the way, or the whole balance of the rifle is screwed up. Using what I describe above, I can use iron sights about as well as I ever could. I would bet on me now, to out shoot the younger me (having better vision) if the younger me were forced to use conventional open sights. The right iron sights make a huge difference. If you try this, I hope it works as well for you.

Another thing that works well when a scope is too big is the small red dots like the Bushnell TRS-25. People with a bit of astigmatism will not see a nice round dot, but a misshapen dot or a small "cluster." Having some astigmatism, that it what I see. No worries. Just consistently zero and aim with the highest "mini-dot" in the cluster!

-Gun Doc

P.S. The Lee Shaver inserts are a bit delicate. I like to take a Dremel to one of the Lyman inserts (usually one of the posts) and make a "protective washer with ears." Put the Shaver insert into the 17A, then the protective washer, then screw the locking ring on.

Edited to add: There are some sights that work well on well defined targets in good light, but are greatly compromised when trying to aim at real world targets in the field. The sights I describe above are meant for real world situations, but they but may not be the best for a specific, well defined, always the same target. And again, nothing much beats a scope for precise aiming, but that doesn't mean a scope is always the best choice.
 
Last edited:
The trigger does not descend into an exposed position until you cock the hammer back. The trigger is literally flush in a trigger well and rotates down as the hammer is cocked back.

I'm guessing that the thinking was "Don't cock it till you're ready to shoot." The lack of a trigger guard does make it easier to shoot while wearing gloves in adverse weather.

One of the obvious improvements that was incorporated into the Walker Colt was the addition of a trigger guard.

Kinda funny that the trigger is not rotated down and available to be dangerous until the revolver is cocked and then becomes dangerous! I get the "Don't cock until you are ready to shoot" idea. But, as you already noted above, issues with all that is why they added a trigger guard to the Walker.
 
What?
I thought those Quigleys were more like 45-110 or 45-120.

technically the Quigley is a 45-110, but they made a lot of rifles in 45-70 that look identical to it on the outside due to lower cost of ammo.
impressive shooter, but the 16 pound barrel alone weighs more than my Gemmer style Sharps rifle.
 
technically the Quigley is a 45-110, but they made a lot of rifles in 45-70 that look identical to it on the outside due to lower cost of ammo.
impressive shooter, but the 16 pound barrel alone weighs more than my Gemmer style Sharps rifle.
Sales would have been real low. They pretty much had to be made for an off the shelf ammo. I will dig my Big Pig out and post up a picture.
 
Last edited:
technically the Quigley is a 45-110, but they made a lot of rifles in 45-70 that look identical to it on the outside due to lower cost of ammo.
impressive shooter, but the 16 pound barrel alone weighs more than my Gemmer style Sharps rifle.
Wow a 16lb barrel but I guess they needed it to handle that big round. The only thing I know of a Quigley was the movie,Quigley Down Under. It's was a good movie :)
 
Yea, but grandma said it is not polite to holler with your mouth full. o_O

Just locked up a Ruger/Bisley Super Blackhawk for ten days; it's a Californistan thing.
e7QK0DW.jpg
Congrats, that's a very fine piece. I like how Ruger provides the rings, I have a 1980's 7.5" Redhawk in 44 mag. My eyes aren't what they used to be so I put a Leopold 2x scope on mine. Takes awhile to get used to but the extra weight helps reduce the felt recoil to the point where it's fun practice a whole box with, these guns can pop 2liter bottles at 100 yards with that scope. Enjoy!
 
Tanker 1/66,

So from the looks of things, I'm thinking you already knew just about everything I put in my longish post (this thread #1801) about iron sights? But, while it may have been somewhat "wasted" on you, I suspect it will help someone down the road. Even the kid 91bravo's eyes won't last forever! ;-)

First time I saw Quigley Down Under, I happened to be in, of all places, Australia! That's a good movie, and I'm a big fan of Selleck, but some of the shooting was a bit over the top.
 
Last edited:
Tanker 1/66,

So from the looks of things, I'm thinking you already knew just about everything I put in my longish post (this thread #1801) about iron sights? But, while it may have been somewhat "wasted" on you, I suspect it will help someone down the road. Even the kid 91bravo's eyes won't last forever! ;-)

First time I saw Quigley Down Under, I happened to be in, of all places, Australia! That's a good movie, and I'm a big fan of Selleck, but some of the shooting was a bit over the top.


Gun Doc,

I for one really appreciated the time you took to share that knowledge. I'm in my mid 50's and wanted to shoot open iron sights or a rear peep on my Ruger 77/357 and just can't seem to see well enough. That aperture type front sight might be just the ticket along with a rear peep sight and with the correct front insert like you described. That Ruger 77/357 is 5.5 pounds and by the time even a lightweight 1-4x scope and rings are added it adds almost a pound of top heavy weight to an otherwise quick to point low profile brush gun. Thanks again!
 
G Gun Doc On no it wasn't wasted. Just because I have the toy that doesn't always mean I know how to play with it.
I can tell that you have a passion and vast quantity of knowledge Please don't stop sharing. I'm never to proud or stubborn to listen, learn, and adapt.
 
Tanker 1/66,

So from the looks of things, I'm thinking you already knew just about everything I put in my longish post (this thread #1801) about iron sights? But, while it may have been somewhat "wasted" on you, I suspect it will help someone down the road. Even the kid 91bravo's eyes won't last forever! ;-)

First time I saw Quigley Down Under, I happened to be in, of all places, Australia! That's a good movie, and I'm a big fan of Selleck, but some of the shooting was a bit over the top.

Yeah I guess barrel fouling didn't effect his 1000 yrd shots lol And I wish I could swing mine around like an M1 carbine. Still a classic movie for sure.
 
First, thanks to all for the acknowledgements. I think it is the teacher in me that compels me to share good things I have learned.

Yetidayhiker, that light pistol caliber bolt gun would be a great candidate for some good iron sights. You might also consider a small red dot like the Bushnell TRS-25.

91bravo, the point is that with the right iron sights, you might find you can shoot them later in life than you think. You may also find you might be more accurate now, even with good eyes, if you used "better" iron sights. For what it is worth, when I could see them well enough I too liked a peep and those XS front sights with the white stripe. But when you think about it, the way you sight in guns for most field shooting at random targets is the shots impacting at the top of the post. This requires you to almost cover up the spot you want to hit. That's difficult. Bullseye shooters, who shoot at the same target all the time, can sight in with the classic "6 o'clock hold" where the black round bullseye sits on top of the post. They hit way over the top of the post at the center of the bull. That is considerably easier.

Tanker 1/66, the thing that got me about Quigley was 1) he could supposedly judge range accurately enough to set sights when the difference of 25 yards at 500 yards would cause a miss with the perfect shot (when he was demonstrating by shooting the bucket), and 2) he could repeatedly hit that bucket from offhand. As for swinging it around like a M1 Carbine, I believe I read that Sharps built several rifles for the movie. One had an aluminum barrel so Selleck could handle it easily and quickly (non-firing, of course.)

Here is a similar story. A friend of mine who worked at a local gun shop was the armorer for the movie Secondhand Lion (a fun movie, by the way.) Shipped to the shop were some "prop" guns. These were cast out of plastic from actual guns, then very nicely painted up such that they looked real from only a few feet away. They were incredibly light and incredibly realistic. One I remember in particular was a Winchester Model 70 in .375 H&H with a scope. The detail was so good that you could read the barrel roll marking, the serial number, just everything about the original gun, mount, and scope. If I recall correctly, the leather sling was real and functional. We had some fun when an unsuspecting person would walk into the room, "Hey, catch!" Another was a Winchester pump shotgun, either a Model 97 or a Model 12, I don't remember. Michael Caine and Robert Duvall sure could handle those guns like they didn't weigh much, because they didn't!
 
Back
Top