Are fixed sights more accurate on a revolver than on, e.g., a 1911? I think there would be a lot of merit in having a fixed sight revolver, if anything, because they seem like they would hold up well to a lot of use and carrying. They seem like the would represent the ultimate reliability when the chips are down and you must have reasonably accurate gun (at least for a handheld gun). I have a 1911 with "fixed" sights, except that the front sight could be adjusted for windage if necessary. However, I've never had to adjust my sights. It seems to me that a fixed-sight revolver would be even more accurate that a 1911. If this is so, why are the fixed-sight revolvers so unpopular and hard to find compared to their adjustable-sight counterparts? It seems to me that everyone likes adjustable sights on revolvers, but how many shooters actually adjust their sights? I think more shooters, including myself, might be better off with a fixed-sight revolver as long as the front sight was designed to elminate glare. What do you guys think? Does everyone have at least one fixed-sight revolver in their collection? Do you carry it, use it for plinking / target, or both?
Fixed sights
- Thread starter seasterl
- Start date
I agree that fixed sights are the best if they are "on". If your pistol shoots six inches right or left, fixed sights kinda suck. If it shoots high or low, a lot can be done with different bullet weights, front sight height, etc.
I just bought a S&W Model 64, used, fixed sight revolver. When I got to the range and chewed the center out of my target at 25 yds., I went,"whew" with relief because I have seen, and owned the alternative.
I always wonder about the used revolvers--or autos that we see for sale with very few miles on them. Are they perhaps "off"? jd
I just bought a S&W Model 64, used, fixed sight revolver. When I got to the range and chewed the center out of my target at 25 yds., I went,"whew" with relief because I have seen, and owned the alternative.
I always wonder about the used revolvers--or autos that we see for sale with very few miles on them. Are they perhaps "off"? jd
melchloboo
New member
It depends on the purpose of the gun.
Adjustable sights are a must for precision target shooting.
Adjustable sights are a must for precision target shooting.
I agree about the target shooting, and I don't think anyone would dispute that. However, I was just curious about folks' experiences with fixed sight revolvers and how often they regret buying one. I use the example of the 1911 pistols. Most of those who own one have one with fixed sights and never need to adjust them and they work great regardless of any brand of factory ammo. With custom loads, only the elevation would (might) change. So it seems that a revolver would be even more worthy of fixed sights due to the inherent accuracy. To keep things in perspective, I think everyone agrees, though, that for competition or precision work under various conditions and loads, that adjustable sights are needed.
If the revolver is a milsurp or an old PD revolver then the fixed sights are part of its original configuration and should be left as is.
There are someways of adjusting fixed sights, filing down the front sight to adjust POI-building it up is trickier. I read where Charlie Askins said he made a tool to bend the front sights of the Colt New Service .38s he ordered for the Border Patrol to get them more on target.
Also for a carry gun, a "belly gun", fixed sights are preferred, less to snag,
at close range traget precision is not quite as critical.
There are someways of adjusting fixed sights, filing down the front sight to adjust POI-building it up is trickier. I read where Charlie Askins said he made a tool to bend the front sights of the Colt New Service .38s he ordered for the Border Patrol to get them more on target.
Also for a carry gun, a "belly gun", fixed sights are preferred, less to snag,
at close range traget precision is not quite as critical.
I own six double action revolvers. Four have adjustable sights and two have fixed sights. I shoot more accurately with the two fixed sight revolvers. My fixed sight revolvers are; S&W model 10-14 4inch and a Ruger Police Service Six 4inch. I can't explain why but the fixed sight revolvers are deadly accurate with 158g ammo. More accurate than my adjustable sight revolvers.
I would say the answer is that they are fixed sight revolvers and were police service revolvers but two of my adjustable sight revolvers were also police issued revolvers.
Maybe its me, but any of the other members might shed some light.
roaddog
I would say the answer is that they are fixed sight revolvers and were police service revolvers but two of my adjustable sight revolvers were also police issued revolvers.
Maybe its me, but any of the other members might shed some light.
roaddog
Good fixed sights are fine by me -- poor ones just stink. On stainless guns I can not stand to have all stainless front and rear sights --- nothing to pick up on, end up painting the front sight.
That being said, how many out there have busted S+W or Ruger adj. sights? Not many I would hazard to guess.
Also the cylinder and slide adj to fixed sight deal looks very nice, when I find a pre-lock 625 I may put that on in.
That being said, how many out there have busted S+W or Ruger adj. sights? Not many I would hazard to guess.
Also the cylinder and slide adj to fixed sight deal looks very nice, when I find a pre-lock 625 I may put that on in.
The guns I use for target shooting have adjustable sights, so I can adjust them for POA with different loads.
The guns I have for CCW have fixed sights so there are less protruding things to snag clothes and such.
The problem with fixes sights are they are regulated for one particular load. Change loads and it's kentucky windage time.
Jim
The guns I have for CCW have fixed sights so there are less protruding things to snag clothes and such.
The problem with fixes sights are they are regulated for one particular load. Change loads and it's kentucky windage time.
Jim
Well, that would be a surprise to me why various loads would require windage adjustments. I can the relationship between bullet weight, velocity, and range affecting elevation, but not windage, and esp. not in a well-made revolver,...esp. not when 1911 shoot accurately all the time with no windage adjustments made to their fixed sights. Some fixed sight guns come with the front blade too tall with the intention that you will find your favorite load and file it down. The problem comes when you want to go back the other direction and can no longer raise the front sight.
Depends on the sights. It's not really about adjustability, it's about the sight picture. Not all fixed sights are created equally. Some are actually very good, some are terrible. If they are nice and square, matte black and serrated, with properly proportioned dimensions front to rear, there is little or no difference. It's just that typically, fixed sights are not very square or sharp but adjustables typically are.
My favorite fixed sights, or semi-fixed sights, are those of the original Single Sixes that feature a nice and square dovetailed rear with a square, serrated front. The only thing they give up to adjustable sights is, well, adjustability.
My favorite fixed sights, or semi-fixed sights, are those of the original Single Sixes that feature a nice and square dovetailed rear with a square, serrated front. The only thing they give up to adjustable sights is, well, adjustability.
Kreyzhorse
New member
I prefer fixed sights on all of my handguns. While I shoot well, I'm not a precision target shooter so fixed sights work well for me.
I've carried and used (rather hard) various revolvers for many years. I've several times seriously considered putting adjustable sights in a fixed sight gun, but have never seriously considered putting fixed on an adjustable sighted one.
The Smith adustables seem to hold their zero extremely well. They are also very tough.
Ruger adjustables can change elevation if the sight is sitting near the top end of its elevation adjustment range, and the holster pushes on the sight blade. I've had it happen. The elevation screw came all the way out. Fortunately the screw was in the holster. That particular gun ended up with the rear sight raised a lot to zero. After that, I lowered it to a few clicks above bottoming out, sighted it in by filing the front down, then fine tuning it so the rear wasnt sticking up so high, after that, it was fine. I've done the same for several other Rugers. No problems since.
Fixed sights can be a danged nuisance when you want to change loads, or just getting it sighted for you and the range/load you want to use.
"So it seems that a revolver would be even more worthy of fixed sights due to the inherent accuracy."
Worthy of fixed sights? It would seem the reverse to me, worthy of adjustable sights. Most revolvers I've had, shot or been around are match accurate compared to autos. Adjustable sights let you get them hitting exactly where you want them. No whining about "it's too far, I can't hit _______(fill in the blank) past 7 (or 25) yards". Longer range shooting gets much simpler with good adjustable sights. Fixed seem like more of a handicap to truly fine shooting, and getting the full potential out of your guns. I guess I'm of the opinion that any use you may put your pistol to, you should be capable of precision, not just target shooting.
The Smith adustables seem to hold their zero extremely well. They are also very tough.
Ruger adjustables can change elevation if the sight is sitting near the top end of its elevation adjustment range, and the holster pushes on the sight blade. I've had it happen. The elevation screw came all the way out. Fortunately the screw was in the holster. That particular gun ended up with the rear sight raised a lot to zero. After that, I lowered it to a few clicks above bottoming out, sighted it in by filing the front down, then fine tuning it so the rear wasnt sticking up so high, after that, it was fine. I've done the same for several other Rugers. No problems since.
Fixed sights can be a danged nuisance when you want to change loads, or just getting it sighted for you and the range/load you want to use.
"So it seems that a revolver would be even more worthy of fixed sights due to the inherent accuracy."
Worthy of fixed sights? It would seem the reverse to me, worthy of adjustable sights. Most revolvers I've had, shot or been around are match accurate compared to autos. Adjustable sights let you get them hitting exactly where you want them. No whining about "it's too far, I can't hit _______(fill in the blank) past 7 (or 25) yards". Longer range shooting gets much simpler with good adjustable sights. Fixed seem like more of a handicap to truly fine shooting, and getting the full potential out of your guns. I guess I'm of the opinion that any use you may put your pistol to, you should be capable of precision, not just target shooting.
Last edited:
Lets look at this rationally
and with a bit of historical perspective, shall we?
Early handguns all had fixed sights, if they had any kind of sights at all. Colt cap&ball pistols (revolving pistols) had a small V notch cut in the hammer, and a tiny front sight to align through it.
By the 1870s, you have solid frames with a channel to look through to find the front sight. The best of these had a square notch at the back. Along comes adjustable sights. Add ons to regular fixed sight guns, for target work. Generally pretty big, clumsy and fragile. Easily knocked out of adjustment, easily damaged. They get a (deserved) reputation as not suitable for serious social use.
Time passes. Adjustable sights get better. Smaller, more durable, but, the reputation persists. Adjustable sights are too "fragile" for police work.
GI guns stay fixed sight revolvers, and the 1911A1, which has the rear sight drift adjustable for windage. Works just fine for them, as the military only shoots one load, and they don't put as high a premium on accuracy as civilian owners do. Most service autopistols still follow the same basic sight pattern, a fixed front, and a rear sight drift able to correct for severe windage problems.
Now move into the 1930s. Things start to change. The .357 Magnum becomes the tip of the iceberg, showing shooters things that powerful handguns can do, and that they will do them better with adjustable sights.
Pause for WWII.
Move to the 1950s, and enter the .44 magnum. Again, much more useful tools with adjustable sights. By this time, the adjustable sight has proven itself capable of surviving police use, and some agencies do use them, notably Hiway Patrols, but many do not. Still considered "too fragile" or an "unneeded expense". But civilian shooters want them. Because of their versatility. Many gun models are marketed identical, excpet for the sights. And Every gun makers top of the line models feature adjustable sights.
The drawback to fixed sights is that they can only be "on" for one load, at one range. Lots of loads will be "close enough" for many things (especially close range defense) but for other things, shooting at longer ranges, hunting, etc. you are best with a gun that shoots where the sights look.
And fixed sights can't be easily changed, and can't be repeatedly changed. Every gun is an individual, with individual quirks, and slight to not so slight differences of how they shoot different ammo. No two people seem to look through the sights exactly the same way.
With a fixed sighted gun, you have to find ammo that shoots where you look, and stick with it in order to be on target. Or you need to learn the hold off for each different load, and range you are going to shoot.
With an adjustable sighted gun, you can adjust the gun to both the ammo, and you, and when something changes, you can adjust it again, over and over.
Do you need adjustable sights on a belly gun? no. Need them on a ccw? no. You don't need them on anything, if you are willing to put up with what you have to do to make fixed sights work their best for all the things you do with a pistol. I had a fixed sight .44 mag.(Ruger Vaquero) nice gun, but I traded it for a SuperBlackhawk, because I wanted adjustable sights. Because I do different things with my pistols, at different times, and I like to be able to zero the pistol to the ammo I want to use, not zero myself to the ammo the gun likes to use.
Lots of shooters don't adjust their sights often. But many, if not most, have adjusted them at least once. Once the get the gun/ammo combination shooting the way they want, they often leave the sights alone, until something forces them to adjust them. And when it does, they are glad they can. I do own a fixed sight revolver, but its outnumbered about a dozen to one by its adjustable sighted cousins.
Compared to service style semi autos (1911s or any Browning style tilt barrel system) revolver sights are often more accurate. Individual guns can be exceptions, of course. But generally its true. Because revolvers have the front sight on the barrel. And the rear sight (fixed or adj.) on the frame, and in relationship to the barrel, these sights do not move.
Autopistols have the sights on the slide. And the barrel moves, the slide moves, and hopefully everything comes back to the same place for the next shot. Take a look at most of the "sport pistols", the .22s. Rugers, Brownings, Colt Woodsmans etc. They will almost always out shoot a service pistol, in terms of accuracy (group size). Why? Because their barrels don't move, and at least one of the sights is fastened to that barrel!
and with a bit of historical perspective, shall we?
Early handguns all had fixed sights, if they had any kind of sights at all. Colt cap&ball pistols (revolving pistols) had a small V notch cut in the hammer, and a tiny front sight to align through it.
By the 1870s, you have solid frames with a channel to look through to find the front sight. The best of these had a square notch at the back. Along comes adjustable sights. Add ons to regular fixed sight guns, for target work. Generally pretty big, clumsy and fragile. Easily knocked out of adjustment, easily damaged. They get a (deserved) reputation as not suitable for serious social use.
Time passes. Adjustable sights get better. Smaller, more durable, but, the reputation persists. Adjustable sights are too "fragile" for police work.
GI guns stay fixed sight revolvers, and the 1911A1, which has the rear sight drift adjustable for windage. Works just fine for them, as the military only shoots one load, and they don't put as high a premium on accuracy as civilian owners do. Most service autopistols still follow the same basic sight pattern, a fixed front, and a rear sight drift able to correct for severe windage problems.
Now move into the 1930s. Things start to change. The .357 Magnum becomes the tip of the iceberg, showing shooters things that powerful handguns can do, and that they will do them better with adjustable sights.
Pause for WWII.
Move to the 1950s, and enter the .44 magnum. Again, much more useful tools with adjustable sights. By this time, the adjustable sight has proven itself capable of surviving police use, and some agencies do use them, notably Hiway Patrols, but many do not. Still considered "too fragile" or an "unneeded expense". But civilian shooters want them. Because of their versatility. Many gun models are marketed identical, excpet for the sights. And Every gun makers top of the line models feature adjustable sights.
The drawback to fixed sights is that they can only be "on" for one load, at one range. Lots of loads will be "close enough" for many things (especially close range defense) but for other things, shooting at longer ranges, hunting, etc. you are best with a gun that shoots where the sights look.
And fixed sights can't be easily changed, and can't be repeatedly changed. Every gun is an individual, with individual quirks, and slight to not so slight differences of how they shoot different ammo. No two people seem to look through the sights exactly the same way.
With a fixed sighted gun, you have to find ammo that shoots where you look, and stick with it in order to be on target. Or you need to learn the hold off for each different load, and range you are going to shoot.
With an adjustable sighted gun, you can adjust the gun to both the ammo, and you, and when something changes, you can adjust it again, over and over.
Do you need adjustable sights on a belly gun? no. Need them on a ccw? no. You don't need them on anything, if you are willing to put up with what you have to do to make fixed sights work their best for all the things you do with a pistol. I had a fixed sight .44 mag.(Ruger Vaquero) nice gun, but I traded it for a SuperBlackhawk, because I wanted adjustable sights. Because I do different things with my pistols, at different times, and I like to be able to zero the pistol to the ammo I want to use, not zero myself to the ammo the gun likes to use.
Lots of shooters don't adjust their sights often. But many, if not most, have adjusted them at least once. Once the get the gun/ammo combination shooting the way they want, they often leave the sights alone, until something forces them to adjust them. And when it does, they are glad they can. I do own a fixed sight revolver, but its outnumbered about a dozen to one by its adjustable sighted cousins.
Compared to service style semi autos (1911s or any Browning style tilt barrel system) revolver sights are often more accurate. Individual guns can be exceptions, of course. But generally its true. Because revolvers have the front sight on the barrel. And the rear sight (fixed or adj.) on the frame, and in relationship to the barrel, these sights do not move.
Autopistols have the sights on the slide. And the barrel moves, the slide moves, and hopefully everything comes back to the same place for the next shot. Take a look at most of the "sport pistols", the .22s. Rugers, Brownings, Colt Woodsmans etc. They will almost always out shoot a service pistol, in terms of accuracy (group size). Why? Because their barrels don't move, and at least one of the sights is fastened to that barrel!
Put me down in the fixed-sight camp.
Precise zero is what's required for precise shooting, and you can accomplish that with a fixed-sight handgun. Yes, it is usually a little more work. They stay put once you get them zeroed and it removes the temptation to crank screws because you missed.
Yes, fixed sights generally work best if you stick with one bullet weight- not necessarily one load. and there are notable exceptions to that generality as well. 1911's will generally shoot to the same POI with generic 230 JHP's (WW/USA) that they will with a 200 grain LSWC over 5.0 of W231.
I have also found .357 DA revolvers to shoot to essentially the same POI with 148 grain .38 wadcutters as they do with 125 grain magnums- at least to about 25 yards.
Precise zero is what's required for precise shooting, and you can accomplish that with a fixed-sight handgun. Yes, it is usually a little more work. They stay put once you get them zeroed and it removes the temptation to crank screws because you missed.
Yes, fixed sights generally work best if you stick with one bullet weight- not necessarily one load. and there are notable exceptions to that generality as well. 1911's will generally shoot to the same POI with generic 230 JHP's (WW/USA) that they will with a 200 grain LSWC over 5.0 of W231.
I have also found .357 DA revolvers to shoot to essentially the same POI with 148 grain .38 wadcutters as they do with 125 grain magnums- at least to about 25 yards.
If you had adjustable sights...
You could move those groups to the center of the target, Sarge!
Sorry, just couldn't resist.
I'm not saying fixed sights aren't good. For some things they can't be beat. I don't do those things, or do them much anymore. And if CQB ever enters my life again, I'll be point shooting anyway.
It all a personal choice, and yours is as good for you as mine is for me.
You could move those groups to the center of the target, Sarge!
Sorry, just couldn't resist.
I'm not saying fixed sights aren't good. For some things they can't be beat. I don't do those things, or do them much anymore. And if CQB ever enters my life again, I'll be point shooting anyway.
It all a personal choice, and yours is as good for you as mine is for me.
Thanks for all the great comments, guys! It's been a good read.
I agree with of the comments in support of adjustable sights. When I get a new gun that I plan to use for serious accuracy work (target or hunting), I get every factory load as well as several custom loads worked up for the gun and then hit the range in pursuit of the best load. However, most shooters don't do this as they find it overkill. I think they're robbing themselves and leaving accuracy on the table, but that's them. I think for plinking, though, or self-defense (be it against a human or wild animal), fixed sights are ideal. BTW, it's not exactly self defense if you have to take a precsion shot at fifty yards.
Regarding elevation, if you're shooting silhouette or other target shooting, or just want to take a long-range shot, then we all agree that adjustable sights are best. There was never a dispute over that. However, if we match the bullet's trajectory to it's overall effectiveness (on harvesting the quary), and keep the range reasonable, then I think the fixed sights are adequate. If you're hunting and at a distance where the fixed sights will no longer put you on target, then the shooter should also consider whether the load will truly be effective at that distance. If you're a police officer and need an accurate shot at long distance, then that's different. Most loads will be effective as long as he hits the target. IME, most loads I shoot have a trajectory that is flat enough so that I don't need to worry about majoy trajectory adjustments, but that's only been the loads I shoot. If I get outside that range, then I would be target shooting or using a scope for hunting.
Sorry if the above paragraph is not well explained. (I have a long honey-do list waiting and I don't have time to gather my thoughts and my wife waiting.)
Anyway, I just wanted to gather a concensus about the merrit of fixed sights for certain types of shooting. If I have a .44Mag in a 5.5" barrel with fixed sights, I would expect it to be more accurate than my 1911. As long as the fixed sights are well-placed on the gun, I would not expect to have to make windage adjustments. I know the bullet drop at a certain distance for a given set "zero" distance, and anything within that range would be insignificant compared to sight adjustment, meaning, if bullet drop is 4", I'm not going alter my front fixed sight for that 4". If I feel that I need to, I need to take a step back and ask myself, "what am I really trying to do here!"
I think the strongest argument to use adjustable sights, and it sounds like some of you guys agree, would be for sight picture and how quickly the gun is to aim. Nothing beats black, under-cut serrated sights that are proportioned to each other, but if it's a shiny, reflective front blade and shiny rear frame groove, and they eyes are getting old, then it might not be ideal.
Thanks again for all the comments. (I hope I'm not in too much trouble with my wife now!) BTW, I'm originally from Kentucky, so "windage" to use meant anything we needed to do to get the bullet to the target, be it hold-over or negotiating the strong breeze. I got a good chuckle out of the exchange and play on words.
I agree with of the comments in support of adjustable sights. When I get a new gun that I plan to use for serious accuracy work (target or hunting), I get every factory load as well as several custom loads worked up for the gun and then hit the range in pursuit of the best load. However, most shooters don't do this as they find it overkill. I think they're robbing themselves and leaving accuracy on the table, but that's them. I think for plinking, though, or self-defense (be it against a human or wild animal), fixed sights are ideal. BTW, it's not exactly self defense if you have to take a precsion shot at fifty yards.
Regarding elevation, if you're shooting silhouette or other target shooting, or just want to take a long-range shot, then we all agree that adjustable sights are best. There was never a dispute over that. However, if we match the bullet's trajectory to it's overall effectiveness (on harvesting the quary), and keep the range reasonable, then I think the fixed sights are adequate. If you're hunting and at a distance where the fixed sights will no longer put you on target, then the shooter should also consider whether the load will truly be effective at that distance. If you're a police officer and need an accurate shot at long distance, then that's different. Most loads will be effective as long as he hits the target. IME, most loads I shoot have a trajectory that is flat enough so that I don't need to worry about majoy trajectory adjustments, but that's only been the loads I shoot. If I get outside that range, then I would be target shooting or using a scope for hunting.
Sorry if the above paragraph is not well explained. (I have a long honey-do list waiting and I don't have time to gather my thoughts and my wife waiting.)
Anyway, I just wanted to gather a concensus about the merrit of fixed sights for certain types of shooting. If I have a .44Mag in a 5.5" barrel with fixed sights, I would expect it to be more accurate than my 1911. As long as the fixed sights are well-placed on the gun, I would not expect to have to make windage adjustments. I know the bullet drop at a certain distance for a given set "zero" distance, and anything within that range would be insignificant compared to sight adjustment, meaning, if bullet drop is 4", I'm not going alter my front fixed sight for that 4". If I feel that I need to, I need to take a step back and ask myself, "what am I really trying to do here!"
I think the strongest argument to use adjustable sights, and it sounds like some of you guys agree, would be for sight picture and how quickly the gun is to aim. Nothing beats black, under-cut serrated sights that are proportioned to each other, but if it's a shiny, reflective front blade and shiny rear frame groove, and they eyes are getting old, then it might not be ideal.
Thanks again for all the comments. (I hope I'm not in too much trouble with my wife now!) BTW, I'm originally from Kentucky, so "windage" to use meant anything we needed to do to get the bullet to the target, be it hold-over or negotiating the strong breeze. I got a good chuckle out of the exchange and play on words.
