Hunting with an 1886 Winchester

[geobru]

While hunting with my 40-82, I missed an opportunity at a buck that was trotting through heavy timber. This was old growth where the smaller dominant trees were 2-3 feet in diameter, so it was easy for him to get lost in the trees. I didn't take the shot because it would have been too far back. A few minutes later, a small buck passed by and basically crossed below me then climbed the hill to my right. This gave me a lot of opportunities to track him in the sights. He was walking slowly and would stop, change direction, then go again. It was difficult to stay on him as he was moving through the timber.

This is the sight I have on my gun.




I noticed two things when I was tracking him.

First, the semi buckhorn sight effectively restricted my view so I couldn't look through the sights and see what was coming up. When he was standing, it was fine, but a moving target seems to be pretty difficult, especially if visibility is hampered by a lot of trees. I now understand why there are so many of the old sporting rear sights that have been filed flat!

Second, I found the fully loaded 86 has a lot of inertia when you are tracking a target and are swinging with it. Any change in the speed or direction of the target and I would swing past it. With its heavy barrel and cartridges in the magazine, it just isn't as maneuverable as a 20" carbine or a lighter framed 24: barreled gun.

Now for the question. Have any of you who use your guns for hunting developed preferences as to what type of sight is easiest to track moving game with? I've used flat top sights on a bolt gun before, and they worked ok. Seems like peep sights would be quicker because you are not having to line up three points, just put the front post on the target and fire.

What is your experience?

[J Miller]

Peep sights preferably, but if factory barrel sights, nothing more than semi-buckhorns. Never did like the full buckhorn sights.

Joe

[Ben_Rumson]

Given how close game appears to be, the given light and the time you have to get a shot off in , I'd practice snap shooting with those sights.. both eyes open.. at a distance you deem appropriate for the area you hunt in. I think you've prolly figured that 3 rounds in the mag will be more than enough in those woods and may help the swing..

[Mike D.]

Peep sights with the disc removed. Basically, it's just a ghost ring, but very effective.

[Malamute]

I have used mostly reciever peep sights, after using open barrel sights off and on. Even D&T'ed an original 86 when I was hunting with it. The barrel sights are tougher to use, but flat topped is easier than buckhorns. I've filed off or traded off a number of buckhorns over time. The last couple guns I aquired that had them, taking them off was the first thing I did.


As time goes by, I've become even more a fan of glass. I can still bang the 300 and 600 yd plates with irons, but seeing game, especially in poor light, requires glass for me. At this point in life, if I was looking for a 71 or 86,(assuming I could afford one again) finding one that had already been D&T'ed for a side mount would rather get my attention, in a positive way.

[KirkD]

For me, I found the semi-buckhorn helpful on a running deer. A few years ago I was hunting with my Model 1894 .38-55 with a full octagon barrel and semi-buckhorn sights exactly like yours. The deer was running flat-out, and I mean it was moving at 75 yards crosswise to me. The semi-buckhorn sights seemed to help home in on that deer. I swept the front sight past it, aiming about 3' ahead of it and dropped it with one shot. For me, the worst sight to use would be a peep sight with the peep in it. A ghost ring is entirely different .... no problem.

[Chuck 100 yd]

Peep with large aperture or ghost ring is best.

[Mike D.]

This is the sight picture from one of my guns. Too bad that the front sight won't show up in the photo, but you get the drift.

sight picture.jpg

[Buck Elliott]

Shoot with BOTH EYES OPEN, and focus on the target and front sight...

[geobru]

The semi-buckhorn sights seemed to help home in on that deer. I swept the front sight past it, aiming about 3' ahead of it and dropped it with one shot.

I tried to do that with this buck. They went behind a couple of 3-4 foot fir trees and I was set for them to come out the other side. While behind those trees they did an about face and were headed the other way. If I hadn't had my left eye open, I would not have seen them. In a more open setting, I don't think there would be as big a problem, but in this timber it isn't unusual to have a moving animal disappear behind trees and not be visible again.

They are masters at keeping trees between them and any perceived threat. One time, during elk season, I had a buck walk away from me in small fairly thick timber. I could see 50 yards or more in spots and there was a skiff of snow on the ground. I even moved ahead toward him to try to spot him, but I never saw him again. I tracked him for a ways to see how he gave me the slip and he just moved away from me, making sure that there was always something between us.

I guess there is only one solution. Dang it, I'm just going to have to shoot more! Darn!!

[geobru]

This is the sight picture from one of my guns. Too bad that the front sight won't show up in the photo, but you get the drift.
Attachment:

Mike, That looks similar to the setup I have on my 45-90. That's why I asked about peep sights. Mine doesn't have an aperture, and it seemed that it would have been easier to use than the barrel sights.

Too many guns and too many choices, or is it not enough guns to fit every situation? I know which one I think it is, but my CFO has a different viewpoint!!

[KirkD]

Shooting a moving target in thick timber is hard, no doubt about that. I tend to plant the buttstock against my upper arm and move my entire upper body as a unit, not the gun. With big trees, however, it's dadgummed hard. A fellow not only has to lead the deer, but pick a gap in advance, and if the deer is changing direction, you might as well pull out your thermos and have a tea.

[Mike D.]

The sight is just an old Lyman 56 with the aperture removed. I removed them from all of the receiver sighted guns.

[fordwannabe]

I use a lyman tang on my 1886 and like it, it has two apps one for tatget work the other for hunting. I had a chance at a nice 86 in 40-82 today at the gunshow but I can't have two 86's for economic reasons. He was asking 2000 seemed reasonable but.... Tom

[Grizz]

Shoot with BOTH EYES OPEN, and focus on the target and front sight...

+1

exactly what I was thinking. I used peeps a lot on my hunting guns, including on the superblackhawk that I took a lot of deer with. but most important is full binocular vision that superimposes the front sight on the animal and keeps it there. works from a bobbing boat as well as a moving animal in the woods.

I doubt I can make those shots any more 'cause I'm losing that full binocular infinite depth of field vision I used to have.... and didn't know it.

Grizz

[winchester1886]

Big problem here we didn't get to see a picture of the 86, now come on ?

[gglass]

I will jump on the peep sight bandwagon, but that does not answer the inertia question. I too find that larger heavier rifles are difficult to change direction or reacquire a target on the move. My answer has been the smaller and stronger Winchester 1892. I own three newer Rossi M92 Pumas chambered in .38/.357 Magnum, .44 Magnum and .454 Casull... This gives me a choice of calibers to match the game, and each is just as nimble as the next for brush and woods hunting.

My two cents.

[kimwcook]

Winchester1886, he posted a pic of it here:

http://www.levergunscommunity.com/viewt ... =1&t=22523

[Old Savage]

Get a folding rear sight and fold it down - this fellow from England was all over the six inch bull at 100 yds with this.

[KirkD]

I will jump on the peep sight bandwagon, but that does not answer the inertia question. I too find that larger heavier rifles are difficult to change direction or reacquire a target on the move.

Okay, I'll admit I must be the oddball, but I like the heavy barrels on the 1886's, and 1876's. I've never noticed an inertia problem with these barrels. I can't imagine an animal changing direction so fast that I could not match or beat it with a 28" full octagon barrel on a '76. It is the light barrels that I have more trouble with .... they just jump all over the place ..... no inertia. The solution to that for me, with a light rifle like the Model 94 carbine or the Model 53, is to plant the stock against my upper arm make my entire body swivel as a unit, which really helps to stabilize those light little rifles.

[Old Savage]

Well Kirk - you are the guy who has dedicated yourself to hunting only with this sort of riflery so I am going to take you word on that.