explain again. snubby with adjustable sights?

Can someone knowledgeable hopefully, explain why they make a snubby with adjustable sights. That seems counterproductive?
Aren't the 2 inherently opposite functions?

Seems funny.

Morgan88
All
I going under the albeit limited thinking(but it's all mine) that a snubby is a "bad breath" gun. The general intent precludes neither distance or time for much aiming with sights?
BTW, snubby to me is 2.5inch or less. Snubbys are the coolest IMHO.
Morgan88

Morgan88 said:

Can someone knowledgeable hopefully, explain why they make a snubby with adjustable sights. That seems counterproductive?
Aren't the 2 inherently opposite functions?

Seems funny.

Morgan88

Click to expand...

I think it may depend on whether you are drawing from a pocket or from a holster. My 642 goes in a pocket holster and the M 19 goes OWB.

If there's a market...;-)

arjay said:

If there's a market...;-)

Click to expand...

Bingo!

Smith & Wesson has always tried to cover
all the bases.

Most snubbies are more accurate than the person shooting them, so adjustable sights aren't totally crazy IMO.

That said, I have no actual use for adjustable sights on any pistol.

What is your definition of a "snubby?"
The long standing definition is "barrel 3 inches or less," and I don't have any 3 in barrel revolvers that aren't adjustable sights. Set your coffee cup at 20yd and kiss it goodbye.


IDPA has chosen to define the "BUG" snubby revolver as a max of 2 1/2in barrel, and they expect it to shoot some targets up to 20yd.

It is really very simple, there is a market for adjustable sight snubs, so companies make them.

I live in the sticks carry different revolver all most everyday a short barreled 38 with adj. sights is nice to carry and you can sight it in to hit point of aim with the same ammo you use in your 14s and 15s a little harder to hold steady especially with small grips (stocks)

Morgan88 said:

Can someone knowledgeable hopefully, explain why they make a snubby with adjustable sights. That seems counterproductive?
Aren't the 2 inherently opposite functions?

Seems funny.

Morgan88

Click to expand...

Just handle a Model 15 2” and tell me the “cool factor” doesn’t kick in. Not everything in my life at least, has to make sense or even be that utilitarian.
MTCW

In the late 1970s I read Roy Jinks book on History of S&W. In fact, I read it, cover to cover, several times. Still till this day, I pull it out and read it again, cover to cover. That book set me on a quest to find some of the more "unusual" and scarcer S&Ws.

I always liked the Chief's Special. Seeing photos of a Chief's Special Target, in Roy's book, set me wondering ... WHY ?? It was the ugliest thing I ever saw, or so I thought at the time. AND ... to what pursose ? Who the heck is ever going ot consider a 2" ANYTHING for target purposes.

I was quite content with my full size, longer barreled S&W Target variations in .22, .32, .38, .44 Special & .44 Magnum until I saw that darn 2" Chief's special target.

The 2" Chief's Target is like a PUG. It is so ugly, it's beautiful. AND, the very limited 100 of the 1st model made it even more appealing. Also had subsequent short runs of 2" Chief Special Targets but not many.

I went on a quest, back in the pre-internet days to find a first model Chief's Special Target. It took nearly 20 year to find my first Chief's special target. Shortly after my 1st CST the offers starting coming in from collectors and dealers who had these.

My CC gun is a model 60-1, Ashland, Chief's Special Target in stainless with a pair of Crimson Trace grips as I would not even risk hurting any of the few of the original 100 ( I have 3 factory engraved, too), nor the later 1950s group, nor the Model 36 marked 2" (NIB), nor 36-1, 3" (NIB) nor any of the Model 50 marked. I sacrificed one of the Ashland 60-1 for CC piece.

From reading Roy's book there were many others that excited me. In the interim I found a model 52A in the box, a pair of 147As, early SN pre-39s but it took years until I found the Chief's Special Target.

Once you own one of the 2" Chief's Special Target models you will stop wondering "WHY" or "WHAT PRACTICAL PURPOSE" a Chief's Special Target has, if any.

I should note, when using the target sights I get a much better grouping then a similar 2" Chief without Target sights.

NOW, if you add a pair of Crimson Trace grips to either a Target sighted or standard configuration Chief's Special and it doesn't matter which one you have.

2 1\2 and 3" K Frame magnums are MORE than capable of taking care of business at 50 yards (and farther), hence the adjustable sights on the model 19 and 66.

I too have one of the Ashland M-60 targets from around 1985. Sorry if no one else likes it, but it is my favorite J frame. It's been a carry peice since I bought it new. I appreciated the excellent sight picture when qualifying twice yearly from 25 yards. A very accurate handgun.

We tend to believe whoever our "experts" may be at the time. And, we have to choose carefully.

In the '60s, '70s and '80s I was a fan of Skeeter Skelton, who, probably owned at least one "real" snubby. (barrel less than 3") In one article, he recommended adjustable sights for any handgun...good enough for me. Over the years, I have found that good advice.

I also was a fanatic reader of Jack O'Connor... hence, my first rifle and one subsequent was a .270.

Through the years, my faves have been Skeeter, Ed Matunas, John Barsness, John Wooters, Evan Marshall, (even if he doesn't like me much) Massad Ayoob, the fellow who has the site "Hi-Powers and Handguns", and a raft of others that I have long forgotten.

It has been a long and exciting trip!

I carry my 2" Model 15 concealed at times, and it also makes a nice trail gun. The trigger and action are very nice. I think of it as a model 36, except you get six shots, you can hit what you're aiming at, and it's actually comfortable to shoot, even with +P ammo.

These are great guns. The adjustable sights on S&W revolvers have stood the test of time, and proven they are durable and reliable. They make the gun more versatile. I have owned many of them, and never had a problem with anything breaking or snagging. Even if one does get damaged, they are easy to replace.

Morgan88 said:

Can someone knowledgeable hopefully, explain why they make a snubby with adjustable sights. That seems counterproductive?
Aren't the 2 inherently opposite functions?

Seems funny.

Morgan88

Click to expand...

Your title says "explain again." How was it explained to you the first time?

They may have a market and serve a useful purpose, but I still think target sights on a snub nose are ugly as sin!

sniper said:

We tend to believe whoever our "experts" may be at the time. And, we have to choose carefully.

In the '60s, '70s and '80s I was a fan of Skeeter Skelton, who, probably owned at least one "real" snubby. (barrel less than 3") In one article, he recommended adjustable sights for any handgun...good enough for me. Over the years, I have found that good advice.

I also was a fanatic reader of Jack O'Connor... hence, my first rifle and one subsequent was a .270.

Through the years, my faves have been Skeeter, Ed Matunas, John Barsness, John Wooters, Evan Marshall, (even if he doesn't like me much) Massad Ayoob, the fellow who has the site "Hi-Powers and Handguns", and a raft of others that I have long forgotten.

It has been a long and exciting trip!

Click to expand...

HEY sniper, I WAS ABOUT TO WELCOME YOU TO THE FORUM, BECAUSE YOU ONLY HAD 12 POSTS, BUT I NOTICE THAT YOU'VE BEEN A MEMBER FOR A DECADE OR SO. IN ANY EVENT, IMHO, THIS IS A GREAT POST.......

I'VE BEEN SHOOTING FOR 60 YEARS, AND I SHARE YOUR LIST OF FAVES. THE ONLY ONE MISSING, AND IMHO, THE GREATEST OF THEM ALL, IS ELMER KEITH. THE 3 THAT HAVE INFLUENCED ME THE MOST ARE ELMER, SKEETER, AND MASSAD......

EVERYTHING THAT I GLEANED, FROM ANY ONE OF THEM, I TREATED AS GOSPEL---AND IT SERVED ME WELL THROUGH THE YEARS. JUST LIKE YOU, IF SKEETER SAID IT, IT WAS "GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME". THE COLLECTION OF INFLUENCES FROM EXPERT SOURCES, COUPLED WITH SOME MENTORING, TRAINING, AND PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. IS WHAT MOLDED THE THE MODESTLY SUCCESSFUL SHOOTER THAT I AM.....

LIKE ELMER, I AM ENAMORED OF THE .44 MAGNUM......

LIKE SKEETER, I BELIEVE EVERY FIREARM SHOULD HAVE ADJUSTABLE SIGHTS.....

TRAINING WITH MASSAD, TAUGHT ME THE VALUE OF CRIMSON TRACE, LASER GRIPS, ON A J-FRAME.......

LIKE COOPER, I ONLY FIND ACCURATE WEAPONS INTERESTING.....

AS AN NRA CERTIFIED INSTRUCTOR, I HAVE TRIED TO PASS THE TORCH ON, FOR 30 OR SO YEARS, TO THE NEW SHOOTERS, COMING IN. THEY ARE OUR FUTURE.......

I MUST AGREE WITH YOU, WHOLEHEARTEDLY---"IT HAS BEEN A LONG AND EXCITING TRIP".....

Because I need all the help I can get!

I cant find much wrong with good sights on any gun unless it has to be as small as possible for pocket or deep concealment. Adjustable sights are generally much better sights as far as b eing able to see them well and quickly. Being able to make the load hit exaclty where one wants it to is also a huge improvement over many fixed sighted guns.

My vision is too poor for me to consider shots of twenty or twenty-five yards. My manner of living, limited severely due to health problems, makes it most likely that if I have to use my gun to defend myself it will be up close and will happen very quickly.

My carry gun is a .38 Special J-frame. Fixed sights, no laser. It makes perfect sense to me, and has for many years. I loved my M15-3 when I was able to walk the woods, but those days--and my perceived need for adjustable sights--are over. Now simple is best.