Fixed sights vs. adjustable sights ~ my thoughts....

B

Bob Wright

New member
The discussion about fixed sights vs. adjustable sights comes up frequently on this, and other, forums. For whatever its worth, here has been my experience.

First of all, I do prefer adjustable sights. But I'm not constantly fiddling with my sights. Once I'm sighted in, those adjustable sights are for all practicable purposes fixed. I sight in most of my revolvers to shoot to center of a 6" (more or less) dia. bullseye at twenty five yards, using a six o'clock hold. This means my point of impact is 3" above point of aim at twenty five yards. Using my pet .44 Magnum loads, this puts me pretty well on target out to 100 yards or so, and scores hits for me on the rams at 200 meters. Bear in mind I do not shoot in competition, so this is adequate accuracy for me.

As to fixed sights being regulated to point of aim from the factory, I have not found this to be the case. Most guns I've bought new with fixed sights usually shoot too low with most of my ammunition. This allows me to file the front sight down to get on target. Most of my fixed sight guns I sight in to hit a 1" dia. target spotter at ten yards.

My experience with fixed sight revolvers has led me to realize that I don't obtain as good a sight picture with the grooved frame rear sight, as the top of the frame is rounded, and at times I catch myself holding the front sight up to the imagined radius of the topstrap, while other times I hold along a line secant to the arc. Small difference to be sure, but makes a big difference as the range increases.

For these reasons I find the flat top of the blade of an adjustable sight to provide a better sight picture for me. One exception to this is a Uberti Flat Top copy of the Colt revolver. This does provide a much better sight picture that the Colt SAA type rear sights.

I have heard that some prefer the inverted "V" and "U" notch rear sights of the older Colts, but for me I can't hold elevation as well with this sight arrangement. My first revolver, a Colt New Service, had this sight arrangement and I shot it pretty well at first, but then I was shooting at targets that were paper picnic plates at maybe fifty feet of so.

I have always liked the front sight that comes on Ruger Blackhawks, and the S&W Baughman front sight after removing that pesky red insert. The Eliason rear sight, as furnished on current Colt New Frontiers is one of the best rear sights put on a gun, along with the old Millett rear sights.

Uberti Flat Top Rear Sight:



This has worked very well for me over many years of shooting.

Bob Wright
 
Last edited:
The two guns I prefer to have fixed sights are concealed carry piece and service pistol that may see hard use.

I tried carrying various adjustable sight handguns over the years and each was a disaster. The sights would catch, slow the draw (or stop it cold) and tear the clothing. From an open holster,no problem.

The lack of adjustment is usually a minor trouble. For a defensive pistol pinpoint accuracy really isn't necessary. My main concern with fixed sights is that often...not always but often the guns shoot to the left for me. Some guns are worse than others. See the target shot with a war time issue S&W Military & Police 38 Special. At 10 yards firing DA not a bad group but way left of center.

standard.jpg



The next target was shot with a S&W Model of 1926 44 Special. Load used a 200 grain bullet and they went below point of aim but made a decent group except for the one that went high for some reason scoring a near perfect hit. It shoots much closer on the windage for me.

standard.jpg



Adjustable sights let me compensate for this. If I carry a fixed sight handgun I have to shoot it some and make sure I know where they are going. But then that's always a good idea.
 
40+ years ago the "experts" favored fixed sights because less could go wrong with them. Currently laser sights with their batteries, switches, etc. Worrying about adgustable sights seems a bit paranoid.
 
I dunno, salvadore, in my circles of 40 years ago and the popular literature of the day, adjustable sights was a sign you had Arrived in the pistol shooting world.

Nowadays, there is a strong market for high end guns with fixed sights. One of the best known expensive 1911 clone labs appears to sell more fixed than adjustable, on guns that I suspect will see no harder duty than the rent a lane range.

I know of two makes of fixed sights designed to replace adjustables, and costing more than the adjustables themselves.

There is also a following for 19th century type U notch and bead sights, although larger than our ancestors used.
 
Each of these has been my everday carrying gun at some point over the years:

S&W Model 19, Don Hume holster:



S&W Model 586, Don Hume holster:



Ruger Blackhawk .44 Special, Bob Mernicle holster:



For the past two years, Ruger Blackhawk .44 Special, Tom Threepersons holster by Graveyard Jack Gunleather:





Bob Wright
 
I like adjustable sights for range guns, nicer guns. I prefer smooth, low profile fixed sights on carry guns. In fact, I really don't object to channel sights - I can learn how to shoot well enough with them within 20 feet.
 
As long as the relationship of the front and rear sights looks good to my eye, I don't really care about the shape or shapes surrounding the notch.
I think I like a flat, "shield" type rear sight, like the Bo-mar adjustable or Heinie fixed, but S&W fixed revolver sights work great, and I don't think that I'll ever bother to have a slide milled for aftermarket sights again.
I'm looking through the rear sight, not at it, so even a busy sight like a Novak or S&W adjustable revolver sight doesn't disturb my aim, as long as the width and depth of the notch are good.
I just got a new Springfield Range Officer, and while the adjustability of the rear sight is convenient, the sight picture isn't nearly as good as with a Heinie fixed rear, and I'd much rather have the better sight picture all the time, than the convenience of easy adjustability that comes into play only occasionally.
 
I wish I could remember the writers who use to bring the subject up Jim. I'D probably bet Cooper was one. I kinda remember whenever the M-58 was mentioned the fixed sight was thought to be a plus on police revolver. I've had and have a lot of fixed sighted shooters and the only one that gives me fits is a mid fifties Colt Marshall that shoots too low and since only about 2500 were made I don't want to file on front sight.
 
When they are on for you, fixed sights are great, when they're not....I recall Skeeter Skelton writing that he found fixed sighted handguns usually shot about an inch left for him and he could live with that, Charlie Askins mentioned making a tool to bend the front sights of the Colt New Service 38s issued to the Border Patrol though he did not describe it in detail. I have a repro Remington M1875, I hade to have a higher front sight-the post style-to get the POI I wanted for my 45 Long Colt load. Also fixed sights require you to find the load the handgun likes and stick with it.
 
I prefer fixed sights if they are on. Sometimes it's hard or impossible to regulate them and then if you change loads they shoot off.
 
For a true 'war' gun, I prefer fixed sights (Glocks, Sigs, etc..)

For CCW, a good adjustable sight like the S&W rear sights work fine with a proper holster.

attachment.php


Both of these revolvers, one a S&W one a Ruger have adjustable sights that work well for CCW.

Deaf
 
Fixed sights are pretty much built into the gun and even with the best of intentions, are set up for a specific load at a specific distance. I think S&W (for example) sets all its .38 Special fixed sight revolvers to hit point of aim (not 6 o'clock) at 25 yards with 158 grain lead round nose bullets. If you are shooting anything else at any other range or using a 6 o'clock hold, you can expect the revolver to be "off".

Jim
 
I bought a new S&W Model 22 when they first came out (2007?), and with my 200@850 competition load, the gun shot a foot low and 6" left, at 25 yards.
The front sight was too wide anyway, so I narrowed and shortened it, and now it's dead-on. More work than I would have liked, but it's never going to need adjustment again.
 
Bob, your posts are always a treat and your revolvers are just lovely. My old Gunsmith introduced me to the Bowen Rough Country rear sights some years back and they're on 4 of my six Rugers.
 
I prefer adjustable sights on my revolvers as well...( model 19's, 27's, 29's, Freedom Arms single action revolvers, etc )..../ but on my tactical guns (always 5" 1911's ) ...I prefer fixed sights.

I have carried a model 19 in a 4" once in a while ...so the adj sight is not a big deal in terms of a carry gun like that one .../ and like you, once they're adjusted for my eyes, I tend to leave them alone.

So its a mixed bag for me I guess...
 
I prefer adjustables and have used them on both range and carry guns. I sight in my guns for POA/POI at 25 yards. I rarely get a fixed sight gun that hits POA/POI for me. The fixed sight revolvers, with a groove machined in a rounded top strap are, for me, the hardest to hit with beyond about 15 yards for the reasons mentioned by Bob Wright. I have been issued fixed sight revolvers, but still went to the expense of buying and carrying my own adjustable sighted guns. I have drifted rear dovetailed sights on semi-autos many times to correct for windage, and bought new front sights of the proper height to correct for elevation almost as often. With fixed sight revolvers, adjustments are a bit more challenging and expensive to do right....ymmv

Ps, Bob, I've owned my share of single action revolvers, but I'm not really much of a SA revolver guy. That being said, some of the SAs in your photos are among the nicest handguns, of any kind, that I've ever seen. I only have one SA revolver now, a Freedom Arms. Yep, it has adjustable sights.
 
This is an interesting concept. For most uses, I find fixed is better. For situations where I will likely shoot several bullet weight, especially in plinking thru full loads, or ranges over 25 yards, I like adjustable.

This looks a lot like autos get fixed sights and revolvers get adjustables, in my safe.
 
But I'm not constantly fiddling with my sights. Once I'm sighted in, those adjustable sights are for all practicable purposes fixed.
Click to expand...
That sums it up for me. Where autopistols are concerned, this means that fixed sights aren't usually any significant handicap for me compared to adjustable. You can usually install different height sights (or modify sight heights) to adjust for elevation and can generally drift one or both of the sights for windage adjustments. Admittedly, it's not as simple or convenient to adjust fixed sights--sometimes it may even require the services of a gunsmith--but you really only need to do it once.

With revolvers, it can be a little trickier since a fixed sight revolver often doesn't really have a rear sight at all--just a groove in the frame. But even then, adjustments can be made to the front sight for elevation and even when the front sight can't be drifted, barrel timing can sometimes be adjusted to work out windage problems.

For my money, the only time an adjustable sight is really a necessity is on a handgun which needs to shoot with precision accuracy at different ranges and/or with different loadings.
...I find the flat top of the blade of an adjustable sight to provide a better sight picture for me.
Click to expand...
Your point is well taken and again, I agree. However that's more an issue of the sight shape than it is an issue with fixed versus adjustable sights. Even on a fixed sight revolver, it is possible to get a flat top blade if the manufacturer decides that's a requirement. And, of course, on autopistols, most fixed sights have flat top rear sights.
 
I love fixed sighted guns for their sturdyness. Fast and furious they are more than sufficient. When it comes to accuracy, especially at 25 yards and beyond, I like adjustable sights.

I have found different bullet styles and weights to have quite an influx on POI.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top