More precise revolver sights?

C

Chainsaw.

New member
Does anyone make sights for revolvers (s&w) that are more precise? I think of my old remington 510 target master rifle, it has a tiny front post with a ball on top thats maybe 3/64 wide and a deep V notch rear, I find I can really bury that ball in the notch and hit golf balls free standing at 80 yards. Now obviously thats a rifle but it makes me wonder if I could do better than the vague sights on some of my revolvers. What say yee?
 
Howdy

What's wrong with the precision of a standard S&W square groove sight?

You keep an equal amount of light on either side of the front sight, and place the center of the front sight where you want the bullet to go.
 
Jim, thanks for the links, I didnt even think of Dawson's, there front sights are spectacular for the price.

Driftwood, namely is the distance game where I find the sights lacking, even a 50 yard shot and the front post covers almost an entire target. Just wondering if sharper sights could toghten things up a bit.
 
Heck, I'd just be happy if modern rifles came with sights as nice as my Remington 510. My 10/22 and Marlin 60 seems like they have a piece of 2x4 as a front post by comparison!!
 
Back when I was shooting silhouette all my guns had the standard post front and notch rear. Nothing "precise" about this except that you could sit the target on top of the post and divide the daylight evenly on both sides of the notch in the back. At one Region 1 shoot I was able to shoot 9x10 shoot-off chickens at 100 yds using a stock Browning Buckmark .22lr semi auto. The shoot-off chickens were rifle silhouette chickens in order to make the shoot-off quite a bit more difficult. These tiny chicken targets were about 1moa in size. That was done with a type of sight that's been around for at least a hundred years. I don't know how you could get more precise than that. Fiber optics, beads, etc simply won't shoot as well as a post and notch. It's a case of "it's the Indian, not the bow" here. Learn how to use the sights on the gun if they are post and notch and you'll never have more precise sights....ever.
 
I believe that a peep or aperture rear combined with either a front bead or aperture are the most precise rifle sights but they don't seem to translate well to typical handgun shooting.

As NoSecondBest says, correctly sized square notch sights are probably the most precise iron sights for a handgun. People are different though and some good shooting is done with V notch sights. Not by me though.
 
Sounds like the OP would greatly benefit from finding a copy of Ed McGrivens "Fast and Fancey Revolver Shooting". This is one of the best books I have ever read about shooting revolvers. Sections on shooting aireal, speed, long range, and even shooting from moving cars. Gun sections on sights (and he liked bead sights), triggers, hammers, with modifying and designing to meet your needs. An old book that has been in multiple printings an should be able to be found online.
 
patridge

In the "hayday" of revolver (and single shot pistol) shooting c. 1920, shooters tried many different kinds of front and rear sights, some of weird and wonderful shape. Eventually, the now-conventional system of a square notch rear sight and a square cut front sight post proved to be superior and most shooters (and thus most manufacturers) went to that type, first promoted by a shooter named Patridge (no, not Partridge) and it was adopted by most pistol shooters around the world. The various shapes of notches and posts fell by the wayside.

Jim
 
VERY precise sights




Adjustable for windage/elevation; for notch width. The front sight (not pictured) is adjustable for height and width.
 
Last edited:
Put an ultradot on your revolver and dump the irons. You will shoot better, tighter, groups with an optical sight than any set of irons. And irons only get worse with age.
 
"...with an optical sight..." Nope. Optics only let you see the target better. They don't not make a firearm or shooter shoot better.
Rifles and revolvers aren't the same thing. They're not held the same or fired the same. Nor are the targets they're fired at anywhere near the same size. It's an apples and oranges comparison.
 
Slamfire is calling an Ultradot an optical sight. It's not really even close to a scope in the sense of being a true optic. An Ultradot is a red dot sight and it projects a red light onto the back of a glass lens mounted inside the sight. It doesn't enhance the target and it will not allow you to shoot tighter groups than iron sights if you still have "good eyes". I have red dots in one form or another on almost all of my handguns anymore. Not because they are better, but because my requirements are now different. Red dots will not allow me to shoot tighter groups at distance than irons do, but they allow me to shoot good groups at any distance easier and faster. As I mentioned above about shooting shoot-off chickens at 100 yards with an iron sighted Buckmark: this would not have been possible with any red dot sight then or now. In fact, the sights on the Buckmark weren't even capable of fine tuning the sights enough to even hit the first shoot-off chicken. I shot under that target and in order to make any correction I had to adjust the Merit aperture device attached to my glasses to move the POI about 1/3 inch up. Then I could run the rest. Even with a very small red dot that's not possible. The upside of red dots for most people is that they aren't shooting targets that small at that distance. If you're looking to shoot somewhat small groups at varying distances, such as game animals or varmints or bullseye targets they are quite usable and more than adequate. For "older eyes" they are a blessing. If your eyes are causing some of your problems and not your iron sights, then consider getting a red dot for your handgun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top