The evolution of handgun sights?

[rcmodel]

I've been pondering this for some years.

While cleaning 4 Colt Woodsman tonight I noticed the progression of handgun sights over the last 89 years.

1927 6" Target = 1/16" gold bead front and tiny U- notch rear. (I can't begin to see.)
1936 4" Sport = 1/10" front and square notch rear. ( I can almost see.)
1965 6" Targetsman = .090" front and rear. ( I can see sorta.)
1976 4 1/2" Match Target = 1/8" front and rear I can see very well.)

Others I can no longer see.
V front and inverted V on the P08 Luger & 98 Mauser.
Tiny sights on an original GI Colt 1911.
Any & all Russian MAKs.
Browning / Colt pocket hammerless of any discreption.
1/10" fixed sights on old S&W I, J frames, and 1/16" bead sights on K, and N-Frames.

So, the question is, why did it take the worlds firearms geniuses nearly 100 years to figure out 1/8" square notch sights are vastly superior and more damage resistant to anything smaller??

rc

 

[Jim NE]

1927 6" Target = 1/16" gold bead front and tiny U- notch rear. (I can't begin to see.)
1936 4" Sport = 1/10" front and square notch rear. ( I can see.)
1965 6" Targetsman = .090" front and rear. ( I can see sorta.)
1976 4 1/2" Match Target = 1/8" front and rear I can see very well.)


So, the question is, why did it take the worlds firearms geniuses nearly 100 years to figure out 1/8" square notch sights are vastly superior and more damage resistant to anything smaller??

They got older and blinder?

 

[rcmodel]

Yea, but.

There were old guys back then too, and bifocals were too expensive for most Shootests to buy them then.

I kind of understand the tiny almost non-existent sights on pocket guns back then.
No snag and all that.

But if the sights were too tiny for use, why bother putting them on in the first place?

rc

 

[BigBore44]

I'm sitting here in utter disbelief that I'm seeing a question from rc. The man with all the answers. But I'll throw out a couple possibilities.

1. It's just how it was until someone figured out wider was better.
2. The old adage of "aim small, miss small".

Other than that, I got nothin.

 

[GRIZ22]

Smaller sights are more precise. This makes them more accurate. Yes they are harder to see and more likely to be damaged.

 

[ThomasT]

Whats funny is I thought the front blade on my GP-100 was too wide so I filed down both sides a little. That was 20 years ago and at almost 59 I still like it. I did the same thing with my Lyman Great Plains Rifle.

 

[Rush_Fan]

Was point shooting more prevalent in the past rather than aimed shots?

 

[Old Fuff]

Having looked at a lot of handgun sights dating from the mid-19th century to present I suspect in serious encounters pointing rather then deliberate aiming was likely probable. It takes too much time to see and align those little "V" or half-round rear notches with 3/64 inch wide front blades - especially in less then optimal light.

 

[tipoc]

To understand the evolution of pistol sights learn about rifle sights. They only really begin to diverge in the 20th century and then inconsistently. Look at the sights on military K98s as an example.

Briefly...The earliest pistol sights were basically a notch in the rear, usually machined into the rear top of the frame, either U shaped of square and a front metal round post for a front sight. This front round post was occasionally square. These appeared on cap and ball single shot pistols. Over time the half moon or fingernail front sight began to appear. These appeared first on dueling pistols, IIR my Boothroyd correctly.

With the appearance of the single shot revolver things began to change. The pistol became a weapon of the cavalry and could be carried on horseback in pommel holsters. The front sight became sturdier and the rear sight remained about the same. Look at pictures of the Walker Colt and revolvers used during the Civil War in the U.S.

The half moon front sight, which usually tapered from the bottom to the skinny top and the groove cut into the rear were common.

Most pistol and revolver shooting has been close rang affairs with the sights being aids in rapid pointing. Competitive shooting drove the design.

The military has, until the last few decades, acted as if pistol sights were pretty useless things.

By the late 1800s revolver sights took a great leap forward. Competitive target shooting became a rage along with touring exhibition shooting.

One of the first innovations was the drift adjustable rear sight. It was crude by today's standards but it worked.

An extraordinary shooter, Ira Paine worked with French shooter Gastine Renette to develop the Paine front sight in the 1880s or so. It was a thin piece of metal which held, on top of it, a long round gold or ivory bead for the circular front sight.

https://archive.org/stream/pistolrevolversh00himm/pistolrevolversh00himm_djvu.txt

https://books.google.com/books?id=f...#v=onepage&q=ira paine target shooter&f=false

This followed the pattern if military riles of the day and of shot gun sights but was adapted for handguns and competitive exhibition and and competitive shooting. The shooter of the day drew a "fine bead" with rifle or handgun. A small rear notch and a small (and or thin) front sight. Often the front sight had a taper to it. Look at early Luger pistols and 1911s bult up to WWII, and in the case of military 1911s for decades after.

The next step came from a shooter named E.E. Patridge in the late 1800s as well but after Paine. This was a sight still common today, the Patridge sight. A rectangular frontsight, usually undercut in the rear to cut down on glare, with squared edges mated to a similar rear. This type sight later migrated from revolvers to pistols.

The Call front sight, a rectagular and squared front sight with a gold or ivory bead implanted in it also appeared in the early 20th century and was an improvement.

The Baughman quick draw front sight appeared in the 1930s developed by Frank Baughman a FBI agent.

Throughout this time the half moon or fingernail round front sight remained on revolvers though Colt was the first to square off it's edges to allow for more accurate shooting when mated to a square cut rear sight notch.

You can read a bit more about that in the articles I've linked to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_sights

tipoc

 

[gwpercle]

Another surprisingly good iron sight is on the Walther P-38.
It has a wide square front with a wider square U rear, something about that setup lets my older eyes use them.
I can see the front, unlike some thin front sights , and that wide rear notch allows a lot of light on each side of the front, it's easy to center in the notch, your eye wants to naturally get it in the middle. Design circa 1938 !
Wish my other, newer , guns had similar sights.
Gary

 

[2zulu1]

I'm at an age when it's difficult for me to to align the front, back sights and target at two hand grip distances: however, I can still point shoot ~7 yards one handed. Still do well with carbines that have a peep rear and post front.

One of the modern sight designs that rc didn't mention is the trapezoid design found on Steyrs. I have an M40-A1 and can consistently hit 20 ounce plastic bottles at 60 yards, just put the front ^ on the bottle and it's a hit. Maybe it's time to get one in 357SIG.

The BHP sights tend to work well also, to a point.

 

[Wil Terry]

IF YOU go read the book on pistol sights by E.E.Patridge YOU will know all you'll ever need to know on the subject and ALL your questions will be answered.
And so it goes...

 

[ericuda]

I am tending to prefer the wider u that gary is talking about. My ppq has a wide rear sight picture that seems to just work. I need to get out my 1022 and see if I can still shoot it with the tiny small front bead.