Remington Lee rear sight

[jmoore]

:help:My 1879 Remington Lee US Navy rifle's rear sight is rather damaged and the notch is shifted about 12 MOA to the right. Before I go bending it (it already has some ancient cracks) I think it might be prudent to see if anyone knows of a replacement sight leaf. Otherwise it'll be heat and tweak time, with maybe a dab of TIG welding.

Rifle shoots too well to leave it be!

[GeneM]

jmoore - The US Navy Model 1879 Lee Magazine Rifle used two different rear sights.

The first US Navy contract was for 300 rifles, inspected by WWK, and their serial #s ran from 1 to 300. These rifles used the standard Springfield M1879 rear sight base, graduated to 550 yards and stamped "R" . The special leaf was stamped "N" in the upper left corner and graduated to 1300 yards. It appears to be the same leaf used on the Navy Hotchkiss rifles. I have observed other variations of the Springfield M1879 rear sight on the Lees - most likely these were replaced after US Navy service. For shooting purposes one could use a leaf and slide from the later M1879 rear sight. The Buffington rear sight was used on 110 of the later model 1885 US Navy Lees and as replacements for the special Model 1879 Springfield rear sights used on both the US Army Model 1882s and US Navy M1885s.

The 700 non-contract M1879s, inspected by WMF, were purchased by the US Navy in 1884 and the serial #s ranged from 301 to 1300. These were made by Remington for general sale and used the Remington rolling block style front sight base, rear sight and socket bayonet. The rolling block rear sight had the base graduated to 500 yards and the leaf to 1200 yards. The rolling block leaf is the standard one without the peep sight aperture. These rifles were initially issued to the USS Altanta and Boston. There are Navy memos from these ships complaining about the rear sights and the fact that the socket bayonets are not interchangeable. They specifically noted that the rear sight like those found on the Springfield rifles used by the Marines would be an improvement.

Hope this helps.

Gene Myszkowski
Author - The Remington Lee Rifle

[jmoore]

Quite helpful, indeed!

[GeneM]

jmoore - Which M1879 do you have? I have been tracking both especially the First Contract rifles. It seems a few escaped the slot cut in the magazine well modification for the Lee Cook magazine.

GeneM

[jmoore]

Its S/N 696, I believe. It has the auto retacting forward retaining clip on the mag body, so it has the said modification to the receiver.

Looked at nine rolling blocks, none of which had a proper replacement sight leaf (no 45-70's in the lot). Closest were the 43 Spanish but either face the wrong way or are mangled worse than mine, plus only graduated to 1100(meters?).


Will try and post pics eventually of this rifle and some later models! (missed out on the US Navy 1885- it sold in Ohio)

BTW but on a related topic- What's the difference between 45-70 and .450 Gatling? No info can I find on the latter.

[GeneM]

jmoore - The rolling block rear sights changed with various contracts, but most used the same screw sizes and space between the screws. I check sights from parts dealers at shows. Have found the proper Michigan contract and the Cuban Contract carbine rear sights, these were also used on the 7mm rolling block. The black powder rolling block rear sights have a wider variety but I found the one with the peep hole on the leaf came the closest. I believe it was a South American or Mexican contract. The Lee Magazine Rifle M1879 was manufactured in 1881 and would have used rolling block sights of that time frame.

I have attached a photo of the rear sight on my Lee. The base is graduated 1 to 5 and the leaf 6 to 12.

The .450 Gatling is mentioned in Skennerton's book as one of the calibers the original Sharps Lee was chambered for in the 1880 British trials. The Sharps Lee rifle and carbine used Martini Henry barrels chambered for the solid drawn Gatling service ammunition.
GeneM

[jmoore]

That's the same sight, alrighty! Your rifle has way more finish than mine, though. However, I don't feel guilty shooting it, seeing how its not museum quality.

Guess its an excuse to hit a show. Last one was probably Allentown, Pa., a couple of years ago. (I'd rather be in the woods this time of year, plus they're too dang crowded!)

The solid head makes sense for the .450 Gatling. The only mention of this round in my US Military Small Arms Ammuntion Vol. 1 (Sorry if the title name isn't quite right) book concerns BLANK ammo. Dimensionally, its the same as 45-70-500, I assume.

[5MadFarmers]

That's the same sight, alrighty! Your rifle has way more finish than mine, though. However, I don't feel guilty shooting it, seeing how its not museum quality.

Guess its an excuse to hit a show. Last one was probably Allentown, Pa., a couple of years ago. (I'd rather be in the woods this time of year, plus they're too dang crowded!)

The solid head makes sense for the .450 Gatling. The only mention of this round in my US Military Small Arms Ammuntion Vol. 1 (Sorry if the title name isn't quite right) book concerns BLANK ammo. Dimensionally, its the same as 45-70-500, I assume.

FWIW the 1880-1881 and 1881-1882 fabrication reports don't contain any ammunition listed as "Gatling." '81-'82 does list blanks for "Machine guns." 22K of them.

They also list a .45 "model 1881" with a 500 grain round. There are also ".45 flat point" and ".45 solid head." That latter being reloadable.

Gene is more aware of this stuff than I am though. Sadly I was outbid on the Gatling gun Ordnance Memorandum recently. That might have shed more light.

[jmoore]

My Remington Lee in 43 Spanish cal. has a very similar sight to the 1879. The only difference in the sight leaf is that the '79's 1-500 sight blade is of uniform thickness whilst the 1882/85's tapers from bottom to top. (All this is when the sight is viewed from the side.) Since the graduations are the same, and I have not yet started gathering 43 Spanish ammo or reloading gear, I reckon I'll swap rear sight leafs until a proper replacement is found. Not likely till next year, it seems. Also going to hold off buying a better 405gr bullet mold until things settle down a bit. Delays, delays!