That spare peep doesn't get in the way?

 

Nope. It is just below line of sight.

 

I wonder if you might have to get a taller front sight. Think i'd rather go without the middle peep, but i guess see how it goes.

 

I have the Skinner peep sight on my 39A, the stock front sight height works ok. I also have the spare aperture in the dovetail blank, it doesn't get in the way of the sight line. As I recall, one half turn of the peep stem moves the point of impact about 7/8ths of an inch at 50 yards.

 

Looks great. I just got a 47 and am looking at peep sights and I keep coming back to this one. It's not a safe queen but I'm still hesitant to drill it.

I like the lines and still having the smooth receiver sides. I don't see any reason it would be less accurate than a Williams or Redfield side mount that my old eyes could tell anyway. Anyone tried both?

 

looks to be a very tidy add on item , i like it ,

 

You may wish to streamline your barrel profile by getting a 'curved' sight blank ( Rifle Dovetail Sight Filler Blank (black) ). I tried the Skinner sight on my 39 but ended up stripping the threads when adjusting the azimuth/elevation settings. It sure looked pretty . . . as does yours.

 

You may wish to streamline your barrel profile by getting a 'curved' sight blank ( Rifle Dovetail Sight Filler Blank (black) ). I tried the Skinner sight on my 39 but ended up stripping the threads when adjusting the azimuth/elevation settings. It sure looked pretty . . . as does yours.

Thanks, one's on the way.

 

The skinner sight looks good but I would skip that whole slot filler idea. If the front/rear sight lines up over the spare & insert then it would also line up over the original sight with the elevation ramp in the lowest setting. It is a unique idea but I dont care for the look of slot and really seems odd with the spare aperture sticking up.

I will offset my 2c worth of criticism with a LIKE to an interesting post.

 

My 39A dates from 1963. I put a Redfield receiver sight on it. I used the Skinner sight on a Winchester 9422 because it only had the 3/8" receiver groove.

 

Just thought someone might want to see how the Skinner peep sight looks on my Marlin 39A; just installed it along with their rear dovetail blank that holds an extra peep aperture. The factory 1961 rear sight (non-folding buckhorn style) was in the way of the peep view so had to take that off & figured why not have the ability to have an extra aperture on hand, or have the ability to take out the aperture on the sight to use it as a ghost ring in low light, and have the place to hold it. I think the peep looks very good. I like how it's trim, doesn't hang off the sides, and is low profile & simple. Now to see how it shoots with the new sight!

I have a Skinner on my 39A as well. It works. The buckhorn ain't bad either . My rifle has the type of buckhorn that lies flat if desired , so no need to remove it . Some years thats not possible . But yes. I've shot a couple of second place matches with mine.

 

I've had a Skinner sight on my 39A for several years now. One of the best mods I ever made on a rifle, reason being is now I can hit things. The peep totally transformed the rifle but all I did was change sights.

 

I put Skinner sights on 3 of my 39A's. Sometimes you have to install a different front sight and sometimes you don't. Rugged, sleek inexpensive and fun to shoot. They fit 39A's made 1954 and later.
I have the slot filler on one of them. It's nice to have a spare smaller aperture in case you switch brands of ammo and need to re-zero.
I have the brass base one on one of my rifles and plain black on the others. I prefer black because my cataracts are sensitive to the slightest glare.
The guy that makes Skinner sights lives about 50 miles from me. I never met him but I met lots of people that like him. They call him Andy or Parson.

 

Sight looks great. Skinner makes a good sturdy sight. I sight mine in at 25 yards and if the front sight is not replaced for a taller sight, lowest setting on the Skinner will always shoot just a tad high. I like the front sight for easy of adjustability. They seem to be better sighted in at 50 yards though. Good luck and let us know how she does with that sight.

Lucky Guy,
If I had that 47 I would not want to drill the top of the receiver either for a Skinner sight. It should have pre factory drilled holes on the side of the receiver for a side mounted receiver peep sight. Something like a Lyman, Redfield or Williams 39A. I believe that is the route I would go. Just have to find one. Not sure if Williams is making the 39A anymore but you should be able to find a Lyman easy enough.

 

I'm looking. Williams doesn't make theirs anymore. 66mc's are pretty precious. A guy makes an adapter to mount a Redfield 75 with the original side mounting holes. I'll pull the trigger on something soon. Thanks.

 

When the barrels were fitted to the receivers, there was always a tiny bit of concentricity variation in manufacturing so this is the reason some of the front sights won't work with Skinner sights. Understandably this was never an issue with rear sights fitted to the barrel. I zero all .22 LR rifles to 50 yards. The Skinner elevation adjustments are pretty coarse and more so on the 20" Mountie 39A due to shorter sight radius. IIRC it was more than an inch per half turn of the Skinner aperture at 50 yards, so even if you get the front sight perfect, you still may have to hold 3/4" low at 50 yards. The windage adjustments are just a dovetail with a set screw and using a dial caliper makes it easier.

 

No Skinners on my 39a and Mounties, just old steel Lymans and a Redfield. I do have a Skinner on a late mode 1894CL 32-20 that was not drilled and tapped for the side mount receiver sight.

 

If possible, post photos showing the Lyman and Redfield sights. Thanks.

 

kissofdeath, Here

is are a couple pics of a lyman 56A

 

Thanks for posting those.

 

Thank you! You have now given me an idea for my next project!!

 

yes thanks , thats what i would prefer to have if i were going to alter my original rifle ,