Rifle Sights On A Handgun?

S

stonewall50

New member
So I am talking about the tight iron sights you see on a rifle. I have noticed most handguns I picked up use the square system. Why is that? I know that a handgun is not as accurate as a rifle, but doesn't it make sense that a tight sight would make aim easier?

Forgive my novice question? My kind of shooting doesn't usually need a point of reference other than the barrel (shotgun :))
 
I have seen some Ruger MK series handgun with rifle front sights (dot) and the rear has been changed to a V notch. Do not know if better for long range shooting.
 
Handgun sights are very adequate for the intended purpose. The blade front sight and square rear notch are in fact used on some rifles. The older Sharps and High Walls use this type of sight to great success. As far as handguns go, watch some top silhouette shooters using handgun sights shooting targets out to 200 meters. You don't don't give up anything with the sights on a handgun. They may look unfamiliar to a rifle shooter using "modern" bead front and notch rear, but they are every bit as accurate and possibly/probably more accurate to an experienced shooter.
 
Many, many, years ago I had a .22 Single Action set up with a bead front sight and U-notch rear. It was pretty fast for snap shooting at close range. But the bead made it very hard to hold elevation at extented ranges. And the bead also was likely to drag, or scrape, when drawn from a holster.

The U-notch and bead front sight as you describe were once popular and known as Paine sights, the current are known as Patridge sights, each after their designer.

Bob Wright
 
@stonewall50
... I know that a handgun is not as accurate as a rifle, but doesn't it make sense that a tight sight would make aim easier?
Click to expand...

It is the rare ability to shot a handgun accurately that fuels this notion. The gun it's self is often every bit as accurate as a longer gun. Sight-radius is the main player in this equation, closely followed by the quality of ones eyesight.

If there is anything inherent about a handgun's ability to produce good accuracy/or not, I'd say it would have to be sight radius and cartridge/projectile efficiency.

-SS-
 
If you ever mount a laser on a handgun, you will quickly realize why the accuracy of a long gun is rarely duplicated. And that's at close range. Watching the dot jump around at longer range will really accent the issue.

Handguns are good for what they are designed for, but excell at helping you fight to your long arm.
 
The typical sights you see on handguns are better for combat shooting and quicker target acquisition. Handguns are generally meant for short range use, which the sights are well suited for.
 
Sweet Shooter said:
...It is the rare ability to shot a handgun accurately that fuels this notion. The gun it's self is often every bit as accurate as a longer gun. Sight-radius is the main player in this equation, closely followed by the quality of ones eyesight...
Click to expand...
And a very significant factor is that a rifle is in contact with, supported by, and steadied by the body at four places: shoulder; cheek; shooting hand; and support hand. One fires a rifle from a much steadier platform, even when shooting off-hand.
 
And in addition to the sights, shooter's eyesight, and support, don't forget the trigger. The pull weight of even a mediocre trigger on a rifle has less effect against accuracy than even a good trigger on a handgun.

What I mean is, consider a 5lb trigger pull, for example. That pull on a 7lb+ rifle, braced against your shoulder, vs that pull on a 3lb handgun, held only in your hands, at arms length.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top