|
|
05-05-2012, 09:15 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Indiana
Posts: 437
Likes: 297
Liked 325 Times in 119 Posts
|
|
1950 44 Target HE goes to the range.
I think the supermoon that folks are talking about has affected me. On the other hand not every target was this good.
S146XXX
__________________
Dennis
|
The Following 5 Users Like Post:
|
|
05-05-2012, 11:00 PM
|
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 14,006
Likes: 5,023
Liked 7,720 Times in 2,632 Posts
|
|
Can't argue with results like that! Nice shooting.
I see an earlier owner of the gun must have been a serious target competitor. He beveled the top of the front patridge sight to catch overhead illumination and reflect it back toward the shooter's eye. From the rear that would still look like a post, but the top portion would be a little brighter than the bottom half and would really stand out compared to the black vertical surface of the rear sight.
__________________
David Wilson
|
05-06-2012, 12:12 AM
|
SWCA Member Absent Comrade
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 70
Likes: 67
Liked 43 Times in 16 Posts
|
|
Thank you, David, I had never been aware of such a modification. So in the pre-match rituals when folks are blackening their front and rear sights from a carbide lamp (ok, or from a spray can), the user of this gun would just wipe the carbon from the bevel? Cool.
|
05-06-2012, 12:22 AM
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The SW Va Blue Ridge
Posts: 17,585
Likes: 90,486
Liked 25,027 Times in 8,570 Posts
|
|
I had a M27 converted to .44 Special using a 6 1/2" 1950 barrel. That Patridge sight tended to chew up my holsters, so I did a ramp job similar to the front sight shown.
__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!
|
05-06-2012, 12:35 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Kansas City area
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 162
Liked 518 Times in 169 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCWilson
I see an earlier owner of the gun must have been a serious target competitor. He beveled the top of the front patridge sight to catch overhead illumination and reflect it back toward the shooter's eye. From the rear that would still look like a post, but the top portion would be a little brighter than the bottom half and would really stand out compared to the black vertical surface of the rear sight.
|
As an old - and I do mean old - Bullseye shooter, I would think such a modification would cause the the impact position to vary with the position of the sun. You want the front sight to stay a uniform brighness regardless of sun position and brightness. I guess everyone has their own ideas but most guns designed for bullseye shooting have undercut or straight Patridge front sights.
__________________
Dick
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
05-06-2012, 12:56 AM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: E. Washington State
Posts: 5,515
Likes: 1,337
Liked 10,632 Times in 3,247 Posts
|
|
"As an old - and I do mean old - Bullseye shooter, I would think such a modification would cause the the impact position to vary with the position of the sun. You want the front sight to stay a uniform brighness regardless of sun position and brightness. I guess everyone has their own ideas but most guns designed for bullseye shooting have undercut or straight Patridge front sights. "
Thats what I remember from when I bullseye shot too.
But I used a S&W M41, S&W M19 6" & a Colt Goldcup.
Was best with the Goldcup...
__________________
|
05-06-2012, 05:02 AM
|
|
SWCA Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 14,006
Likes: 5,023
Liked 7,720 Times in 2,632 Posts
|
|
I understand the point about undercut vertical surfaces on target sights, and I am not about to argue with the preferences and policies of experienced bullseye shooters. But it strikes me that the modification to this front sight essentially makes a ramp out of it -- not a rejected configuration in the target shooting world.
Somewhere I recently saw a photo of a McGivern bead front sight in which the upper portion of the protruding bead had been beveled back toward the blade in which it was inserted, presumably to catch more light. I hadn't seen that before, but understood the asserted reason for the modification.
I imagine target shooters undertook a variety of sight modifications looking for an edge in competition. Some would want to lighten their front sights, others darken them. Shooting in open sun is probably different from shooting under cloud cover.
Gil, I understand your observation, but I would think simple leather preservation could be achieved with a much smaller bevel or even a bare rounding over at the top of the vertical face of a Patridge blade. A cut as pronounced as this one is would seem to me to be about accuracy, not easy extraction from a holster.
__________________
David Wilson
|
05-06-2012, 11:57 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Carmen, Idaho
Posts: 4,293
Likes: 5,570
Liked 3,587 Times in 1,298 Posts
|
|
The 1950 .44 Target HE is one of my favorites too.
circa 1955 S139941
__________________
Memory of Randy Freas-Rimfired
Last edited by Mickey D; 05-06-2012 at 12:02 PM.
|
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
|
|
05-06-2012, 01:42 PM
|
Banned
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Montana
Posts: 2,142
Likes: 2,064
Liked 3,137 Times in 644 Posts
|
|
Interesting background for your photo Mickey!
Here is my 1950 .44, a few years back with a 25 yard target. My fav .44 for sure.
|
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
|
|
05-06-2012, 02:37 PM
|
US Veteran Absent Comrade
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 20,361
Likes: 24,260
Liked 16,155 Times in 7,409 Posts
|
|
gunfish-
Was that factory ammo? What? Have you tried the 200 grain lead SWC-HP from Federal? Not sure they still make it.
|
05-06-2012, 03:25 PM
|
|
SWCA Member Absent Comrade
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The kidney of Dixie.
Posts: 10,509
Likes: 49
Liked 13,413 Times in 3,291 Posts
|
|
They seem to shoot better if you cut the barrel to 5".
__________________
No life story has happy end.
|
The Following User Likes This Post:
|
|
05-06-2012, 05:27 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: CA
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 223
Liked 828 Times in 236 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaxonPig
They seem to shoot better if you cut the barrel to 5".
|
SaxonPig:
Very Pretty as well ! I have always loved that one !
Jerry
__________________
.38/44 Outdoorsman Accumulator
|
05-06-2012, 06:20 PM
|
|
US Veteran Absent Comrade
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: At the Range
Posts: 261
Likes: 56
Liked 114 Times in 32 Posts
|
|
DCW,
Please don't forget, McGivern was NOT a target shooter, to the best of my knowledge he never entered an event or a Pistol Match anywhere, he was an exhibition shooter, believe me when I say there's a BIG, BIG, difference between putting on a show and shooting a 95 on a target with one hand at 50 yds.
In the real target shooting world this mod would get the shooter nowhere. And would be rejected in the target shooting world, at least by a decent target shooter it would be.
Target shooters of the time that revolvers were being used for target shooting used Patridge front sights for one reason and one reason only, because it helped them win events more so that any other type of front sight, rck281 has it correct and must be a target shooter or at least was a target shooter at one time.
Further more target revolvers were / are never carried in a holster, at least not by top target shooters, so I would think that the mod was not made for target shooting, probably made for carrying in a holster for hunting.
Regards
H. M. Pope
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCWilson
I understand the point about undercut vertical surfaces on target sights, and I am not about to argue with the preferences and policies of experienced bullseye shooters. But it strikes me that the modification to this front sight essentially makes a ramp out of it -- not a rejected configuration in the target shooting world.
Somewhere I recently saw a photo of a McGivern bead front sight in which the upper portion of the protruding bead had been beveled back toward the blade in which it was inserted, presumably to catch more light. I hadn't seen that before, but understood the asserted reason for the modification.
I imagine target shooters undertook a variety of sight modifications looking for an edge in competition. Some would want to lighten their front sights, others darken them. Shooting in open sun is probably different from shooting under cloud cover.
Gil, I understand your observation, but I would think simple leather preservation could be achieved with a much smaller bevel or even a bare rounding over at the top of the vertical face of a Patridge blade. A cut as pronounced as this one is would seem to me to be about accuracy, not easy extraction from a holster.
|
|
05-06-2012, 08:37 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Indiana
Posts: 437
Likes: 297
Liked 325 Times in 119 Posts
|
|
Texas Star, I used some cowboy type LRN I got at a show.
As for the front sight, I think target shooting was not what this gun was used for. It shows holster wear on the barrel and on one spot on the cylinder down to metal like it was carried some.
__________________
Dennis
|
05-06-2012, 09:50 PM
|
|
US Veteran Absent Comrade
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: At the Range
Posts: 261
Likes: 56
Liked 114 Times in 32 Posts
|
|
That's about what I figuered, it would be just about impossible to do any type of precision target shooting with a front sight that would enhance shine or glair, in a standard 90 shot match the shooter would probably end up with such eye strain that in the end he would end up with a headache.
H. M. Pope
|
|
Tags
|
bullseye, colt, leather, m19, m27, m41, model 19, model 27, model 41, patridge, smith & wesson, smith and wesson |
Posting Rules
|
|
|
|
|