Ruger Fixed vs Adjustable sights

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mosin77

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
1,543
Kind of have my eye on a single action Ruger in .45 Colt/.45 acp. I think if I were to get one it would be the convertible model, with a 5.5” barrel, for versatility. Many people say that a single action, besides being stronger, seems to soak up recoil better than a double action revolver due to the way it rolls in your hand, so I’d like to try one. There are two obvious choices:

Ruger Blackhawk = legendary strength but man, that front sight blade is so ugly. I don’t like ugly guns much.

Ruger Vaquero = traditional good looks ...and traditional fixed top-groove sights.

So how necessary are adjustable sights for a revolver that is chambered for two different cartridges? I’m not looking to set marksmanship records here, just plink and general utility, *maybe* some short range hunting at some point. Some people seem to think it’s foolish not to have them, some say they’re a liability on a “user” gun. Any thoughts as it pertains to these two revolvers?
 
If you are going to buy a gun to shoot two different rounds I would go with the adjustable sights. If just going to use one load and one bullet weight a fixed sight gun is fine. Most adjustable sights are also more defined and easier to use. Especially if you are talking fixed sights on a gun made of stainless steel. The SS has a glare to it in sunlight and can be hard to see. Most adjustable sights are blued and stand out better.
 
I shot SASS for many years with a pair of Ruger Vaquero Bisley's in .45 colt. Liked them.
I have a Ruger Blackhawk Bisley in .44 spl. I much prefer the sights on this revolver. I prefer the sights, not the adjustable factor.
Once I set the rear sight, that's it.
I have a S&W in .45 ACP. Set it and forget it.
I do not have any multi task revolvers. I consider it a gimmick.
 
Ugly??? I think the Blackhawk is one of the handsomest revolvers extant. You just have to look at them differently than a Colt SAA.

The greatest advantage to adjustable sights is not adjustability, it's the sight picture. A black rear blade with a square notch, coupled with a crisp, square ramp or patridge front blade is far easier to be consistent with than just about any fixed arrangement.

Add to that a convertible in which you actually plan on using both cartridges and I consider adjustable sights a must. Especially those two, because .45ACP hardball will have a drastically different point of impact than heavy bullet .45Colt loads.

Fixed sight guns that are actually used, rather than just for making noise at the range, are really one load guns. You find one load you like and want to use, then zero it accordingly.

004b.jpg
 
If you are planning to shoot it with both cylinders, you're going to want adjustable sights.

The disparity of the range of velocity and bullet weight of the cartridges usually span quite a range...which would affect POI
 
I have an old Vaquero .45 Colt, a Wrangler .22 and a Single six .22 convertible with adjustable sights.

I agree with both of the above posters: Once you find a load you and the gun like with a fixed sight revolver, any deviation leads to some Kentucky windage to hit where you want it to hit. Also, the sight picture with the adjustable sighted gun is better than the fixed sighted ones. Rugers fixed sighted guns do have good sight pictures compared to some other makers, but they aren’t as crisp as the adjustable blade/ squared off fronts of the adjustable sighted guns.

Stay safe.
 
This is a very subjective subject.

Adjustable sights on a single action revolver, sacrilege to some, me included.

Adjustable sights on any hand gun great if your going to dedicate it to one load, even one brand at one distance.

Adjustable sights on a single action revolver with two cartridge capability your either going to spend time fiddling or just wind up sticking with one cartridge or the other.

My self I just let the gun tell me then compensate with hold and windage.

That’s just me, and I’m not a competitive shooter. I will say I have a Uberti Cattleman with 45C and 45ACP cylinders. Fixed sights and it is sweet.
 
Just know that the New Vaquero is not as beefy and strong in the frame or the cylinder walls as the original Vaquero. If you plan to load hotter rounds you may wish to stick with the Blackhawk.

I owned a Blackhawk in .357. It had the 4 5/8” barrel. I bought it used and really couldn’t believe how ugly the front sight was. That sight became beautiful after I started shooting the gun. It was one accurate 6 shooter. I sold the gun to a good friend. I asked him one day if he would be interested in selling it back to me. His response was “I plan to be buried with this gun.”...I guess I got my answer. :)
That is one gun that I regret letting go.
 
I own two Vaqueros I purchased for CAS. I enjoy shooting them & once I find the right sight picture I can shoot them well even out to 100 yards. HOWEVER if I were to buy another SA Ruger revolver for range shooting, plinking, hunting or anything else other than CAS I would definitely go with adjustable sights.
 
Unless I'm carrying a handgun concealed where it's important to have sights on it that won't snag on the draw (i.e., typical snub-nose revolvers) or one that I want to retain its historical appeal in terms of how the original types looked (i.e., "cowboy" style, single-action revolvers), I prefer adjustable sights on most of my handguns; especially ones used for target shooting or hunting.
As has been mentioned, typical adjustable sights afford a better "sight picture" and they allow for accommodating different points of impact (poi) meshing with the point of aim (poa) while using same sight picture on the same gun when using different weight bullets and/or different charges of powder. Adjustable sights are particularly advantageous when firing different cartridges from the same gun (i.e., .38 Special/9mm Luger/.357 Magnum or, as in what the op is considering, .45 Colt/.45 ACP).
The notion of using "Kentucky windage" to coordinate points of aim with points of impact on guns having fixed sights wouldn't work well with me because I have too many of them to remember which bullet goes which way on a particular handgun when drawing down on a paper target or the head of a squirrel. o_O
 
Last edited:
UGLY?! UGLY?! You, Sir, have the audacity to insult my constant companion!

100_0479_zps1r95u05l.jpg

100_5968_zpsckqpnxin.jpg


As to sights, the Blackhawk presents a far better sight picture than what Elmer Keith described as "hog wallow" sights. If offers you the ability to put you bullet precisely where you want it to hit. I'm a reasonably good shot, and here is a comparison between a Ruger Blackhawk ans a Uberti Model "P". The sights make the difference:

100_9999-1_zps7244ec50.jpg


Bob Wright
 
I guess “ugly” is too harsh a word to describe the Blackhawk’s front end. Perhaps “goofy”? :p
Regardless of appearance they are very nice sights on an excellent firearm.
 
Well, in most objective ways, Ruger's adjustable sights are better than their fixed sights. I do agree that the fixed sights are better looking.

I have a Vaquero that is pretty accurate, but it was very hard to hit with, and the point of impact could vary with things like the position of the sun. I didn't want to make a huge change to the appearance of the front sight, but I did want the gun to be useful. So...

1) Rotate the barrel to get the windage set.

2) File the top of the front sight to get elevation right.

3) Flatten the face of the front sight with a file.

4) Give the new face a smooth matte finish.

5) Coat both front and rear sights with something non-glare. I used cold blue.

The gun now hits to POA and the sight picture is nearly as good as the adjustable sight guns. Of course, switching loads - let alone cartridges - would almost certainly screw it all up.

To me, the effort was worthwhile, though I don't think I would do it on a convertible. I also don't plan on doing it again. The Blackhawks are just really good guns and I also happen to like the way they look!
 
Depends what you want to do.

If you want to find one load that shoots to the sights and pile it deep, fixed sights work.

If you already know what load you want to run, or may shoot multiple loads I'd go adjustable.

If you like a good, sharp sight picture adjustable sights are your huckleberry.

If a "good enough" sight picture works, or you like a challenge, fixed sights will work too.

I like as big and sharp of sights as possible on all my guns. I'll make concessions for dedicated carry guns, but not much.

I went with adjustable on my 5.5" Bisley convertible 45
full&d=1563389496.jpg
 
Kind of have my eye on a single action Ruger in .45 Colt/.45 acp. I think if I were to get one it would be the convertible model, with a 5.5” barrel, for versatility. Many people say that a single action, besides being stronger, seems to soak up recoil better than a double action revolver due to the way it rolls in your hand, so I’d like to try one. There are two obvious choices:

Ruger Blackhawk = legendary strength but man, that front sight blade is so ugly. I don’t like ugly guns much.

Ruger Vaquero = traditional good looks ...and traditional fixed top-groove sights.

So how necessary are adjustable sights for a revolver that is chambered for two different cartridges? I’m not looking to set marksmanship records here, just plink and general utility, *maybe* some short range hunting at some point. Some people seem to think it’s foolish not to have them, some say they’re a liability on a “user” gun. Any thoughts as it pertains to these two revolvers?

I completely understand your issue with the big front sight blade on the Blackhawks. Compared to the front sight on the New Vaquero, the Blackhawk sights look like a thumb that been smashed with a hammer. Colt New Frontiers are the same way, just the nature of the beast. It'd be nice if someone would make nice, low profile rear sight and a short front sight to match it.

I'm a fan of fixed sights and find most revolvers do pretty good with them and I accept the trade off of the rugged simplicity of fixed sights vs. the flexibility of adjustable sights and their superior sight picture. Some manufacturers have even figured out how to make fixed sights whose sight picture is as good as adjustable sights; S&W's Model 10-x's of the last 50 or so years are perfect examples.

From a mathematical standpoint, there's not enough difference in POI's of handgun bullets out to 75 yds or so to warrant piddling with sights, IMHO. My .357's, whether firing .38 loads at 850 fps or .357 loads at 1300+ are close enough out the 50 yds. that I can hold "on" with the slow loads and just a little low with the fast ones. Same with my .44 Specials; the 250-ish gr. RN's running 750-775 fps I keep handy for small game hit dead to the sights at 25, while the same weight SWC's running near 1000 fps hit just a little higher, not enough to matter when shooting at something the size of a deer hog. The key, I've found, is to select a bullet weight and stay close to it. Seems much of the slight differences in POI's has more to do with muzzle rise than anything.

The 45 Colt though, in my experience has been another matter entirely. A 255 gr. RNFP running 800 or so fps shoots quite a bit lower than a slightly heavier SWC running close to 1,000 fps. Throw lighter bullets such as 200 grainers in the mix, and POI's really start to drop. I have no idea why this is the case.

SO....you can buy a New Vaquero, regulate the sights to the load you expect to use most, then work around other loads, or buy a Blackhawk and have the versatility of adjustable sights. I will add that the one New Vaquero I owned had a front sight that I felt was too thin at .080" compared to other SA's whose front sights run .095-.100".

35W
 
This Uberti Flap Top has fixed sights that are superior, in my notion, to the Vaquero's hog wallow rear sight:

View attachment 893964

I've Seen Blackhawks modified in this way as well.

Bob Wright

The Uberti Flat Top sights do indeed provide a good sight picture, but they're not fixed. The rear is adjustable for windage and the front for elevation. Dixie Gun Works has them in 45 Colt for a nice price and they're pretty nice looking revolvers too-

Uberti%20Flat%20Top-13_zpsr0bspbln.jpg

A feller could buy a 45 ACP cylinder from VTI Gun Parts and have a Uberti "Convertible".

I sold my Flat Top .45 Colt before I ever shot it and bought one in 44-40 and fitted a .44 Special cylinder to it. It is hands-down the most accurate revolver I've ever owned.

Uberti%20Flat%20Top%2075%20yds%20edit_zpsqq2ytyaf.jpg

429244%2075%20yds._zpsg62g7mm1.jpg

429383%2075%20yards_zps8x0gkhqp.jpg

But alas, the Uberti Flat Top sights are pretty tall.

35W
 
Last edited:
Fantastic feedback, everyone! It’s great to hear from folks who have actually owned these, instead of having to buy both, just to see. (Of course, who am I kidding? I’ll probably end up with both types eventually anyway!) But it’s nice to hear some of the relative pros and cons.
 
Howdy

I have a few Ruger Single Actions. Here is my Blackhawk 45 Colt/45ACP convertible that I bought brand-spanky new in 1975 for $150. To tell you the truth, I did not even want the ACP cylinder, but that was the way it came. I never use the ACP cylinder. No, it is not for sale.

plZsbaNdj.jpg




In addition to my old Blackhawk on the left in this photo, here are a bunch of Vaqueros I have acquired over the years. The two on the far right are 357 New Vaqueros. The three to the right of the Blackhawk are the slightly larger 'original model' Vaqueros that are not made any more. These had the same size frame and cylinders as the Blackhawk. The three of them happen to be chambered for 45 Colt.

pmB92Lnej.jpg




OK, there is no denying the sight picture with an adjustable sighted Blackhawk is more eye friendly...........

po6Qz2e2j.jpg




..............than the fixed sight of a Vaquero.

poQCKDMyj.jpg




Sorry, the finish on my Blackhawk has gotten bunged up a bit over the years.

I have lots and lots of revolvers, both double action and single action. Fixed sights and adjustable sights. I shoot them all.

But I have to ask you guys who favor adjustable sights because you can adjust them for different loads. How many of you actually bring a notebook with you to the range or out in the field that says exactly how many clicks to move the rear sights for the different loads you may be shooting that day?

I sure don't. Practically speaking, with an adjustable sighted revolver, I sight it in once, with whatever load I am shooting that day, and I never readjust it again. I do a lot of shooting soup cans at the 25 yard berm at my club, and I use Kentucky Windage a lot, with both fixed sights and adjustable sights. I simply adjust where I am holding until the cans start jumping around. I never bring a screwdriver with me to the range for adjusting sights.

There is one other 'advantage' to adjustable sights. They can help make up for poor trigger technique. I can't tell you how many used revolvers I have bought with the rear sight adjusted to the right of center. Generally speaking, this means the previous owner was a righty who placed the trigger in the crease of his trigger finger under the first knuckle. More comfortable, but bad technique. Shooting this way tends to push the shots to the left with a righty, so they compensate by moving the rear sight to the right. So if you are used to pulling the trigger that way, there is another argument for adjustable sights.

By the way, I kind of like how similar the sights are with a Blackhawk and a Colt New Frontier.

pnJagSaXj.jpg
 
Last edited:
I'm with Driftwood on this one. I don't think I've ever made a sight adjustment on a revolver. Revolvers aren't like a match rifle where one would make dope changes for different distances or wind conditions.
I certainly agree that adjustable sights generally provide a better sight picture but as far as having the option to make adjustments, I just never do. JMHO.
 
If the blade wasnt so tall on my Vaquero it wouldn't be an issue. I dont want to file the blade so I'm applying white out to the top of the the blade to keep from shooting way low even at 10-15 yards. But as it is I'll take the adjustable on my SBH.
 
The 45 Colt though, in my experience has been another matter entirely. A 255 gr. RNFP running 800 or so fps shoots quite a bit lower than a slightly heavier SWC running close to 1,000 fps. Throw lighter bullets such as 200 grainers in the mix, and POI's really start to drop. I have no idea why this is the case.

The different points of impact between the bullet weights is caused from the amount of time a bullet spends in the barrel after being fired. When you shoot a heavy bullet the velocity will be lower and that gives the barrel more time to recoil upwards before the bullet leaves the barrel. The bullet will strike higher on the target. A lighter bullet at faster velocity will leave the barrel sooner before the barrel rises as much from recoil and will strike lower on the target.

Just for fun set a few of your guns upside down on the sights. Then notice how the barrel will be at an angle on the flat surface. The barrel will not be in line with the sights. Thats the amount figured in on a fixed sight gun so that when firing the common bullet weight (158gr in 38 special) the bullet will be on target. An adjustable sighted gun will be the same but allows you to easily change the angle with the adjustable sights for different bullet weights.

The first time I did this I thought my gun was screwed up because the barrel wasn't in line with the sights. I almost filed the front sight off to make the barrel and sights the same. Then I learned why it was made that way. I do know someone who filed off his front sight on his Blackhawk to make it even. His BH shot way high at 25 yards. He had to send it back to Ruger and have a new front sight installed.
 
The different points of impact between the bullet weights is caused from the amount of time a bullet spends in the barrel after being fired. When you shoot a heavy bullet the velocity will be lower and that gives the barrel more time to recoil upwards before the bullet leaves the barrel. The bullet will strike higher on the target. A lighter bullet at faster velocity will leave the barrel sooner before the barrel rises as much from recoil and will strike lower on the target.

Just for fun set a few of your guns upside down on the sights. Then notice how the barrel will be at an angle on the flat surface. The barrel will not be in line with the sights. Thats the amount figured in on a fixed sight gun so that when firing the common bullet weight (158gr in 38 special) the bullet will be on target. An adjustable sighted gun will be the same but allows you to easily change the angle with the adjustable sights for different bullet weights.

The first time I did this I thought my gun was screwed up because the barrel wasn't in line with the sights. I almost filed the front sight off to make the barrel and sights the same. Then I learned why it was made that way. I do know someone who filed off his front sight on his Blackhawk to make it even. His BH shot way high at 25 yards. He had to send it back to Ruger and have a new front sight installed.

I've been told that many times and on paper it makes sense. But although I can only guess, I think it has something to do with the weight of the revolver and how it affects recoil. If it were simply a matter of the time a given bullet spends in a barrel, then there would be a huge difference in POI's of my .38 loads vs. .357 loads in the same revolver, but there isn't. But the .357 is quite a bit heavier than the .45 Colt, therefore the muzzle rises significantly less.
Again, just a hypothesis.

35W
 
Unless I'm carrying a handgun concealed where it's important to have sights on it that won't snag on the draw (i.e., typical snub-nose revolvers) or one that I want to retain its historical appeal in terms of how the original types looked (i.e., "cowboy" style, single-action revolvers), I prefer adjustable sights on most of my handguns; especially ones used for target shooting or hunting.
As has been mentioned, typical adjustable sights afford a better "sight picture" and they allow for accommodating different points of impact (poi) meshing with the point of aim (poa) while using same sight picture on the same gun when using different weight bullets and/or different charges of powder. Adjustable sights are particularly advantageous when firing different cartridges from the same gun (i.e., .38 Special/9mm Luger/.357 Magnum or, as in what the op is considering, .45 Colt/.45 ACP).
The notion of using "Kentucky windage" to coordinate points of aim with points of impact on guns having fixed sights wouldn't work well with me because I have too many of them to remember which bullet goes which way when drawing down on a paper target or the head of a squirrel. o_O

I’m not really following this . Can anyone clarify it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top