Fixed Sights V. Adjustable...Sound Off!

[scythefwd]

I don't think I own a handgun with adjustable sights. I really don't wow. They'd be nice, but since I mainly have my handguns as SD, not really a big deal. I know where they shoot. All of my guns shoot centerline, some a little high, most dead on.

 

[Daizee]

I have some preferences here.

On any concealment gun I'd want fixed sights.

On revolvers, fixed sights *usually* mean a degraded sight picture compared to adjustable sights.

On any non-concealment revolver I want adjustable for a better sight picture and the ability to tailor elevation, mainly. Tho I do like my Model-10 for being as Marko puts it: "The everything you need and nothing you don't gun", and it's my current defensive gun.

I can't abide the look of most single-action revolvers with fixed sights, which makes me weird. They look like their shoulders are slumping to me.

Most modern fixed-sight autos have decent sight pictures, and since to me those are mostly fighting guns, that's fine.

In all cases I want adjustable sights on my .22's of any type.

-Daizee

 

[OldCavSoldier]

My current-day two cents:

Target work = adjustable sights and longer barrels
Carry pieces = fixed sights and shorter barrels

That is not to say that I don't often carry my S&W M686+ with 3-inch barrel and adjustable sights, or even my six-inch M19 or M66 with the adj sights......

So many choices, so little time...............

 

[savit260]

I like choices.




Both get carried, and honestly, I don't find the adjustable sights on the Python to be any kind of an issue for me. As far as fixed sights go, the Army Special has a darned nice sight picture.

 

[S&Wfan]

There's only ONE reason for fixed sights.

There's only ONE reason for adjustable sights.

The reason is this . . . they WORK for their intended purposes best!!!

I like both types best too . . . and for the same reasons each way.

 

[cz85cmbt]

Cocked and locked, settle down, people take things personal around here. I happen to think that with the sight plane of a 2" revolver you add very little precision with the addition of adjustable sights. 2-2.5" revolvers are pocket guns or backup pieces designed for use in extreme close quarters and being that they are in a pocket I want snag free sights. For me I see no other place for a snub than in my pocket, on a high riding belly band, or maybe on an ankle as a backup (which is the only proper use of an ankle holster, as a place for a backup). The first two spots are prone to snags and any time you are writing there is no need to put "I think" or "in my opinion", because unless you are stating a fact it is assumed that it is your opinion, you may put that it is some experts opinion or that such and such is where you received a fact from but if YOU write it is assumed that it is your opinion, so yes if I buy a snub, I want snag free fixed sights because fixed sights are more trouble on a 2" snub than they are useful, so they are useless.

 

[Cocked & Locked]

Cocked and locked, settle down, people take things personal around here.

I'm confused and am not sure what you are referring to sir. The OP asked for opinions. I gave mine as asked, just as you have.

...any time you are writing there is no need to put "I think" or "in my opinion"...

I happen to think that with the sight plane of a 2" revolver you...

Now I'm confused that you felt the need to give me writing lessons by telling me "there is no need to say "I think." You sir, have done the same exact thing. Take a moment and look (above) at the first four words of your second sentence please.

Thanks for sharing your opinion and insight regarding sights on snubs. I've got snubs with sights and snubs without sights. I like both and don't feel that my opinion is strong either way.

My revolvers with fixed sights have barrel lengths ranging from 1 7/8" to 7 1/2". My revolvers with adjustable sights have barrel lengths from 1 7/8" to 4."

All of my semi's have fixed sights.

I'm sorry that I have given you an obviously felt need need to publicly chastise me and give me writing lessons. You have my apology for that. I notice you are a new poster having been here just a few months. So, I forgive you and may God Bless you.

variety is good, etc., etc.

 

[cz85cmbt]

Cocked I'm not giving writing lessons, but many people here could use a lesson in basic or even casual punctuation and spelling. What I was referring to is this:

"Even though you didn't say so, do you mean useless for you?"

In many cases people say things like, "well, in your opinion" or "thats only your opinion", to retort what is someone's obvious opinion. There is no need to say so, doing so only shows that you are agitated with what someone wrote. I don't have to say "useless to me" because it is implied. When I read your post it seemed to me like you were kind of fired up about what I wrote and felt it necessary to directly attack my opinion. In any case, what LEA's do is of no concern of mine, a bunch of suits deciding what their agents should carry is not my idea of a firearms think tank, quite the opposite. Nice python by the way I have its predecessor the model .357 but have not had much range time with it yet.

 

[Cocked & Locked]

Oh, Ok. Thanks for the writing lesson. I will try my best to follow your guidelines! Feel free to please straighten me out if i backslide. Thanks!

 

[rswartsell]

I have multiple handguns and use multiple ammo loadings in each. This causes variations on POI that you would need to keep conscious of and adjust for in your sight picture.

It is not good for my shooting accuracy to try to keep up mentally with this checkerboard, :banghead: so I like adjustable sights. All of my shooters (not just an heirloom collectible) have adjustable sights with the exception of a Colt Lawman 2" .357.

Whatever works for each shooter, but I like to adjust to POI as best I can.

 

[Rexster]

I like both types of sights. Most of my handguns point well enough that sights, especially the rear sight, are largely superfluous at "normal" fighting distances, but defending a third party (I wear a badge) or hunting might mean a longer shot is indicated. Moreover, all is not so equal. Some "fixed" sights offer a quite good sight picture, such as the factory sights on my SIG P229 SAS pistols, and the rear can be adjusted, the windage by drifting it, and elevation by swapping sights. Generally, though, with revolvers, adjustable sights offer a better sight picture than fixed, except for some custom set-ups.

Edited to add: The Milt Sparks 200AW offers better protection to rear sights (and hammers) as well as to one's cover garments. A direct link to the 200AW itself would not work; go to the main site.

http://miltsparks.com/

 

[SwampWolf]

Both variants have their place. But unless snagging a sight on a draw in a self-defense scenario is at issue (in which case, fixed "sights" is the obvious option), I insist on having adjustable sights on any handgun I use for target shooting, hunting, "plinking" and even for a home defense piece. I reload for most of my handguns and only adjustable sights are suitable for adapting the poa with the poi when changing different bullet weights/velocity. "Kentucky windage" is the only alternative when you can't adjust the sights for the situation.

 

[kaiserspal47]

Fixed vs. adjustable

The adjustable sights are easier for me to see and unless your fixed front sight is pinned it's more difficult to put night sights on a fixed sight gun without smithing. One of my favorite carry guns is a smith 66 2.5 barrel with meprolight sights that I installed myself.

 

[Cocked & Locked]

One of my favorite carry guns is a smith 66 2.5 barrel with meprolight sights that I installed myself.

I've been so tempted to do that to my 66. Was it challenging?

 

[Loosenock]

Fixed sight guy here.

'Loose

 

[win-lose]

fixed here as well....

 

[aji]

Have both fixed and adjustable. I seem to like the fixed a little better.

 

[texas bulldog]

i prefer fixed for all purposes. as my eyes age, i may change my mind, i suppose. for now, fixed sights are sufficient for anything i do with my handguns.

 

[woad_yurt]

I have 2 4" K-frames, one with fixed and one with adjustable sights and I can get on target much more quickly with fixed sights.

 

[Elmer]

There, fixed that for you. Not everyone things they are very appealing.

Most adjustable sight arrangments offer a superior target picture than grooved fix sights, and that's why I like them. For accurate shooting, whether you adjust and perfectly zero them or not, adjustable sights yield more satisfying results for most people.

And the bottom line on "carry" is that for many decades really durable, reliable, and hard-to-damage rear adjustable sights have been around. The S&W system has been virtually unchanged since 1940 and has seen service on more law enforcement guns than any other adjustable sight system I would wager.

Anyone that worked in law enforcement back when 15's, 19's and 66's were popular, remembers just how fragile the rear sights were. If you were the department armorer, you replaced the blades on them constantly. Certainly in police work, guns live pretty hard, (with having to roll around on the ground fighting with people while wearing them, etc.), but there's no way you can call the S&W sight "hard to damage".

 

[GrandmasterB]

I prefer sights that I can see well and that give a good sight picture. For me that means a wide, square rear notch and I tend to prefer the rear sight to be black and I prefer a bright orange insert in a black front sight. With well regulated sights like these, I am in business. It doesn't matter if they are fixed or adjustable, as at most of my shooting distances and for the consistency of loads I use, there is little POA to POI difference.

Fixed sights on a blued revolver are OK, as long as I can get that orange on the front sight, either via an insert or model paint.

Fixed sighted stainless revolvers are about my least favorite for sight picture, but I do own an excellent S&W 64 that shoots like a dream. I sure wish it had a larger black rear sight though!

I won't comment on all the other discussion regarding carry versus range work, as the other posters have pretty well covered this. Just give me sights I can see, and see well.

 

[SwampWolf]

Anyone that worked in law enforcement back when 15's, 19's and 66's were popular, remembers just how fragile the rear sights were. If you were the department armorer, you replaced the blades on them constantly. Certainly in police work, guns live pretty hard, (with having to roll around on the ground fighting with people while wearing them, etc.), but there's no way you can call the S&W sight "hard to damage".

You're talking about me here and, in three decades of le experience, I've "rolled around" a couple or three times with a holstered Smith equipped with adjustable sights. On the one occasion that I had a part of a rear-sight blade snap off, I was at no disadvantage with the broken sight because, given the close proximity of the miscreant, if the revolver needed to be fired (fortunately, it didn't ), any type of sight would have been about as useful as teats on a boar hog.

I think way too much is made of the supposed fragility of adjustable sights. As illustrated by the aforementioned instance, of the relatively few times in real life (police work or otherwise-the pistol being used in a military setting perhaps being the exception) that an adjustable sight gets damaged, most will get out of sorts in a close, hand-to-hand confrontation where a proper sight acquisition would be impractical, if not impossible.

 

[Gary A]

As my tastes and collection of handguns has evolved, I find that I generally prefer fixed sights, although I do appreciate the improved sight picture of adjustable sights. I only have a couple of autos which are fixed, and I have a couple of dedicated-to-defense double-action revolvers which are fixed. My Vaqueros are obviously fixed but, oddly enough, my favorite handguns are my Blackhawk .45 convertibles. They are adjustable because that's how they come which is fine with me. I like them for what they are and their sights are secondary. Now if I can come up with a .45 convertible Vaquero with an alloy grip frame to save weight that shoots to POA with a preferred load...

 

[Elmer]

You're talking about me here and, in three decades of le experience, I've "rolled around" a couple or three times with a holstered Smith equipped with adjustable sights. On the one occasion that I had a part of a rear-sight blade snap off, I was at no disadvantage with the broken sight because, given the close proximity of the miscreant, if the revolver needed to be fired (fortunately, it didn't ), any type of sight would have been about as useful as teats on a boar hog.

I think way too much is made of the supposed fragility of adjustable sights. As illustrated by the aforementioned instance, of the relatively few times in real life (police work or otherwise-the pistol being used in a military setting perhaps being the exception) that an adjustable sight gets damaged, most will get out of sorts in a close, hand-to-hand confrontation where a proper sight acquisition would be impractical, if not impossible.

Certainly a broken rear sight doesn't put the gun out of action, nor does a broken rear sight on an 870, and I worked with plenty of guys that kept using either, in exactly that condition. (Actually, every rifle sight gun I ever saw in those days had the rear sight broken off........I always checked out a bead sight gun...). But neither one presents the best sight picture, and though they may suffice for an "average encounter", they're not ideal.

By the way, I also carried adjustable sight Smith's for a few thousand shifts, (along with several different fixed sight guns), and really didn't have many issues either. I was just pointing out that they do break......