Old revolver sights.

Status
Not open for further replies.

jimbo555

Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
1,307
Location
Statesboro,Georgia
Did old timers in the 19th and early 20th century have better eyesight or did they not use the sights? My s&w model 1905 has sights that are very difficult at the least for me to see!
 
Shorter lifespans, most folks probably didn't live long enough to get presbyopia. ;p

Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2
 
If you think a 1905 era Smith & Wesson hand ejector has hard-to-see sights check out some of they're top-breaks made about the same time or back into the 1880's and 90's.

Or watch one of today's flash sight picture game competitors try to do it with a 1911 .45 Colt, made in say 1912... :evil:

But to answer your question, I think they used the sights in good light when they had the time (meaning lots of it) and otherwise just pointed - especially at close range.

So far as revolver sights are concerned, things didn't improve much until the middle/latter 1920's

As a historical note: When Bat Masterson of western gunfighter fame ordered a pair of custom Single Action Colts from the factory he specifically told them to make the front sight blade thicker.
 
wow...
My s&w model 1905 has sights that are very difficult at the least for me to see!
actually I'm glad to hear it - I thought it was just me that couldn't see the sights on my 1905. For a good long while, I thought they were broken off, but then I found out - no, just tiny...
 
I think good sights or the understanding of what they would be some day were not on the radar yet back thin.

Look at a Colt SAA with a tiny tapered blade and a small U milled in the back of the frame.
Or Model 98 Mauser's with a V-notch rear and an inverted-V front blade.

Splane to me how anyone could align them exactly, even with young eyesight??

The 1903 Springfield came closest to being remarkably accurate sights on a military rifle.

If old men fought wars instead of starting them, good sights would have come along much sooner then they did.

rc
 
They were combat guns then. They didn't care about shooting one ragged hole. Minute of man was good enough.
 
Yes, but minute of man would have been a lot smaller at any range with good sights you could see.

I understand that to the average conscript solder with little or no marksmanship training, it would not matter.

But there were always a few good riflemen in every size unit who could have benefited from better sights.

With no disadvantage to the average man.

It worked well for the U.S. military for over 100 years.
It would have worked as well for the Germans or Russians.

rc
 
Last edited:
Howdy

No, men in the 19th and early 20th Centuries did not have better eyesight than today. They simply learned to use the tools that were available to them.

This is a link to a photo of probably the best target pistol in existence in the late 19th Century. A Smith and Wesson New Model Number Three target model. Records were set with this model that are difficult to duplicate today.

http://www.armchairgunshow.com/images/ot51/NM-557.jpg

This is a Smith and Wesson Double Action 44 Target Model, made in 1895. The sights on this revolver are identical to what were on the New Model Number Three target model.

nickel44DA01_zpsaef44d59.jpg

Here are some close ups of the sights on the 44DA.

nickel44DArearsight_zps57bff1f0.jpg

nickel44DAfrontsight_zps02bf4ce1.jpg

nickel44DAfrontsight02_zps6bbdcfcb.jpg

The simple truth is, champion 19th and early 20th Century target shooters had natural talent, excellent eye sight, and most important they practiced a great deal to hone their skill. We are simply spoiled by the target sights that are available today. Records were set with sights exactly like in these photos.

As for shorter life spans, Walter Winans was 56 years old when he won a gold medal in the 1908 summer Olympics. He was 60 when he won a Silver in 1912.
 
+1

And those tiny old target sights right there are about 210% more accurate then todays big, huge-dot, day-glow in the sun, makes you blink twice and wipe your eyes, rapid fire, faster missing, combat sights all the young kids lust after these days!

If they only knew what they are missing!!
And why!

rc
 
Yes, but all of the target shooting was done, one-handed slow fire at usually 50 yards. Regular model revolvers of the same sort simply had a very thin blade and no bead at the front, with a smaller "U" notch at the back. That said, they still posted some outstanding groups - some of which were so good that they beat champion European competitors using single-shot pistols with set triggers, and much better sights.

But Smith & Wesson, as well as Colt and many others, made revolvers intended for defensive shooting, and at least in one case they strongly recommended that users of their .38 Safety Hammerless model point, not aim, when fast work was called for.

Last but not least, the more successful gunfighters during those days were far more concerned about placing they’re shots where they’d take effect, then worrying about how quickly they could get them off.
 
Front sight on my Smith and Wesson Perfected is sharper than my pocket knife. not very "perfect" if you ask me. The rear sight is the smallest notch I have ever seen used as a sight. Though when the light is right and I line up the sights it is very accurate. Most times I shoot it just looking over the rib.
 
Personally, I divide handguns into "Target" and "Defense" groupings.

In a defensive situation of five to seven yards, you are probably not going to use your sights. I support the old adage: "Point the end of your barrel at the shirt/jacket and keep shooting until the shirt/jacket isn't there anymore".
 
I've got a Brazilian contract 1917 and I can confirm that the thin front sight blade and miniscule rear notch are far from "old guy eyes" friendly. It's not a gun I can see using for any sort of lift/sight/fire speed focused matches. Too much time would be lost just seeing the sight picture since there's precious little room for angular error without the sights disappearing altogether. But it's fine for slow deliberate bullseye shooting.
 
It was called "drawing a fine bead".

If you think the sights on old handguns were small look at older rifles.

The idea was that the smaller and more defined the bead the more a clear and distinct sight could be drawn. The early Paine sight, named after it's creator Ira Paine is an example.

This began to change slowly with rifles in the late 19th and early 20th century. But only later with handguns. The old King's Gun Sight company helped to change that alot.

But look at the early sights of the 1911 and the Luger.

The sights were atrocious. Some could shoot very well with them but it was a chore.

tipoc
 
Those sights are "atrocious" in retrospect, but in the old days, shooters preferred a "fine" sight, as Tipoc says. When the Patridge sight was first introduced, it met a solid wall of resistance from shooters who thought it looked like a chimney and contended that no good shooting could ever be achieved with such monstrous sights. It was not for many years that the skeptics became convinced of its superiority.

The Patridge (not "partridge") sight was named for shooter E.E. Patridge, who was the first to use it. Its main competitor was the Paine sight, advocated by Ira Paine, another great shooter of that era. The Paine sight was a round gold bead with a U notch rear. It was used with a center hold so the round bead covered the round target bullseye when in alignment.

Jim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top