|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
2 members (bushveld, 1 invisible),
274
guests, and
4
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,518
Posts545,707
Members14,419
| |
Most Online1,344
Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 422 Likes: 1
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 422 Likes: 1 |
I took my 1922 Springfield out for some long range trials. The slide on mine is marked to 125 minutes (At least I think they are minutes.) Much to my surprise, the slide came free after 80 minutes of elevation. The elevating screw came to the end of the thread and just popped out.
Question: Do other long slide Lyman 48s have elevation screws that would allow the full use of the slide? One would hope so, else why make the long slide?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,740 Likes: 433
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,740 Likes: 433 |
I shot my 03 out to 1153 yds last year at Raton. I had fun shooting the famous White Buffalo. Anyway, from memory, I had it out at over 120 (not minutes - that requires barrel length calculations as well). There is a picture of the rifle in one of Michael's old threads on shooting with his rifles, but I can't find it to show you. this is the best photo available at the moment. http://www.amoskeagauction.com/104/414.html
_________ BrentD, (Professor - just for Stan) ![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/qclHjMQ.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 141
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 141 |
Back in the day the slide called the long slide was numbered to 150 on the elevation scale. The Lyman 48C on he Springfield .22's had an elevation scale numbered to 125. Perhaps your sight has a base that I call the shallow base. It does not fill the mortised out place in the stock. The later sights, post WW II, had the shallow bases. These were designed to fit over the stock and did not require the cutout. If you could post or email me a pic of the sight I might help you determine what is wrong. hsggbar@gmail.com.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,183 Likes: 47
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,183 Likes: 47 |
Dodging lions and wasting time.....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 141
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 141 |
That "long slide" with scale numbered to 30 must be a very early one. I notice it is marked "patent pending". Since the slide pictured, with scale numbered to 150, was patented in 1911 the other one must be very early. It appears to be narrower than the one on the right also.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
