HoloSight on Rossi 92'

[Jeff H]

I am such a curmudgeon. I actually find tang sights attractive and historically correct but I will quit shooting my levers before I put a scope or holo sight on my old lever guns or my Rossi. I must hang my head and admit I have a scope on a 9422M. The darned thing is so accurate it deserves a scope for precise head shots.

Well, mine's going on a 357 Mag Contender Carbine if it makes you feel better.

I tried a forward-mounted scope, a red-dot and finally a receiver sight on my 357 Rossi. Ultimately, the receiver sight was the lightest, most compact and easiest to use under all conditions for me. The Contender is so short that I can't catch the front sight with any of the three different fields on my blended bifocals.

 

[L Ross]

Well, mine's going on a 357 Mag Contender Carbine if it makes you feel better.

I tried a forward-mounted scope, a red-dot and finally a receiver sight on my 357 Rossi. Ultimately, the receiver sight was the lightest, most compact and easiest to use under all conditions for me. The Contender is so short that I can't catch the front sight with any of the three different fields on my blended bifocals.

Nolo Contendere on the Contender. One of my barrels has a red dot, the other two have 7X Burris target scopes. Contenders are what, a "modern" invention? So optics look normal on them to me.

 

[Winelover]

My levers are strictly set up for hunting. That requires a lighted aiming point for low light, when deer are the most comfortable traveling. Before switching, I tried different front sight and different colors with largest ghost ring aperture. Nothing worked. Not even the green light pipe fronts. Can't see the front sight, can't make the shot. Muzzle loaders are the worse offenders. Especially, those long barreled Kentucky/Tennessee styles. That was the reason for the switch to the Hawken length Renegade from my 50 caliber Tennessee Mountain rifle. Even so, the Renegade wears a forward mounted UltraDot. I'd rather make good hits than wound any game animal.

BTW, all my bases were purchased or custom made so as to use the existing drilled and tapped holes. The firearms can all be returned to the way they left the factory, if need be.

 

[Jeff H]

The Romeo 5 are nice I have one too. But they are not a tiny reflex.

CW

Nope, not tiny, but it showed up today and it's VERY compact compared to even the compact 1-3x20 on it now, and actually less than half the weight.

Learned something today too - you have to look through the right part of your bifocals for the dot to be a dot and not a blob. A bit concerned about this, but no time to mount it and see how the target looks while keeping the dot sharp. THIS is the problem with irons I have which drove me to this type of sighting device.

This thread has me more actively considering springing for a Rossi 92 again. If the "dot" doesn't go onto the Contender Carbine, it would likely go on the Rossi. Not a nostalgic antique, but a utility piece, so it should be just fine.

 

[Jeff H]

...Contenders are what, a "modern" invention? So optics look normal on them to me.

If I remember when something came out, it's still "new" to me.

I remember when those came out. Doubtless the majority of posters here do as well. "New-fangled contraption," but I like it.

 

[Winelover]

Nope, not tiny, but it showed up today and it's VERY compact compared to even the compact 1-3x20 on it now, and actually less than half the weight.

Learned something today too - you have to look through the right part of your bifocals for the dot to be a dot and not a blob. A bit concerned about this, but no time to mount it and see how the target looks while keeping the dot sharp. THIS is the problem with irons I have which drove me to this type of sighting device.

This thread has me more actively considering springing for a Rossi 92 again. If the "dot" doesn't go onto the Contender Carbine, it would likely go on the Rossi. Not a nostalgic antique, but a utility piece, so it should be just fine.

Not a issue for me, I wear progressive (no line trifocals) lenses. Same with open sights.

 

[Jeff H]

Not a issue for me, I wear progressive (no line trifocals) lenses. Same with open sights.

That's what mine are - progressive BIfocals, but they give me fits.

 

[fiver]

your optometrist can put the different parts in different places on the lense.
i had the wife's eye doctor set hers up so she has to slightly roll her head back to use the magnifying glass portion.
other wise she'd have giant rear sight and tiny front sight syndrome, or worse the rear bead on her shotgun in focus but not the target.
with them set properly she only has normal sight out where it matters and the high mag portion is out of the way.

 

[Jeff H]

your optometrist can put the different parts in different places on the lense.
......

I'll be seeing her in September anyway.

I took it outside and messed with it for a bit. Turns out the middle part of my lenses, which is supposed to be my "monitor-reading" part has the dot and the target at 50 yards in focus. Defintely time for a tune-up. Can't be cranking my neck like that to see through it mounted on a rifle.