changes in the model 37-2 airweight

Airborne423

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2015
Messages
65
Reaction score
19
Location
Chicago Illinois
can anyone tell me why smith & wesson changed the width on the front sight of the model 37-2 airweight? my model 37-2 was purchased in 1992, and i would just like to know what was so important about changing the width size of the sight. it is my understanding that the model 37 is or was not intended for target shooting, but for close range (belly gun) self defense.
 
Register to hide this ad
This was about the time all fixed-sight J frames went from the 1/10" to 1/8" front blade width, so I would guess a) someone made the decision for the change, and b) it was easier to make all the blades the same width. It does make the sight picture wider to those who use them to aim.
 
I would think it's better to pick up at speed to be wider. And preferred. And actually if you want super duper accuracy, thinner or smaller might be preferred but slower to pick up.
 
Easier and faster to see. Especially with older eyes or not-quite-so-favorable light conditions. Something that was due for a change years earlier. Nothing mysterious.

As far as being "only" a "belly gun"? Well, the little snubs can be as accurate, or as inaccurate, as the shooter.

I like to use mine to occasionally shoot small wooden clothespins positioned around the edges of the cardboard target backboard, usually out to 5-7yds. Easier to see the red/orange paint or nail polish on the wider ramp than on the old "dime thin" ramp.

Now, going out to 40-50yds and keeping my hits centered in the larger outer COM scoring box on typical silhouettes, or contained on the upper/COM silhouette steel plates, changes things just a little. Being able to take some time and use the thinner front sight on my older 649 .38, and single action, can make it easier to "zero in" more on the center of the COM area.

When I run my DAO J's on the same silhouettes and steel at those longer distances the wider front ramps let me acquire the sight/target alignment faster, meaning I can make some quicker shots strings.

Sure, at those distances the threat targets appear a bit "narrow" over the middle of the wider front ramp, but then it's more a matter of "centering" the target over the top edge of the ramp, versus having a thinner ramp to "center" and visually impose over the threat target.

Granted, the bulk of my training, drills and quals using my J's typically only runs within 3-15yds, with an occasional course-of-fire still adding 20-25yds, so for me it's more the ease and speed of acquiring that wider front ramp/rear notch alignment.

The only sighting system that's faster for me is the XS standard night sight and U-notch used on the M&P J's, but that one comes with its own quirks. The POI is the middle of the front dot at distances within 15yds, and shifts to the top edge of the dot at longer distances.

The little J's and their short sight radius are really only limited by the shooter's skills and abilities in using them, but mechanically they're still capable of pretty amazing inherent accuracy. They used to hold competitions where "2-inch" snubs were fired out to 60 meters, for score. ;)
 
I am not a great shooter but I shoot my J frames at 25 yards regularly. I can keep them on a silhouette double action. Well, last two range sessions I have. Indoors. I find it harder to do outdoors when there is wind. And there usually is.... LOL.

This was earlier this week, double action at 25 yards. The silhouette of the man is not full sized. It's more like 2/3rd size. Anything on the paper is about the size of a real silhouette.

2l49dCW.jpg


2 cylinders full double action. I did take my time though.
A1koQFQ.jpg
 
I am not a great shooter but I shoot my J frames at 25 yards regularly. I can keep them on a silhouette double action. Well, last two range sessions I have. Indoors. I find it harder to do outdoors when there is wind. And there usually is.... LOL.

This was earlier this week, double action at 25 yards. The silhouette of the man is not full sized. It's more like 2/3rd size. Anything on the paper is about the size of a real silhouette.

2l49dCW.jpg


2 cylinders full double action. I did take my time though.
A1koQFQ.jpg

Nice.

Since revolver shooters seem to be a vanishing breed among LE shooters, I typically start out the folks I help beginning at 4-5 yards on paper targets. (We operate our own agency range and can shoot at any distance we desire, which isn't always the case at public ranges.) That close range allows us to begin to work on them learning the DA/DAO revolver trigger pull, which is noticeably different than that of the average plastic pistol to which many younger folks have become accustomed, or may have learned their basic handgunning skills on. It also helps them gain a little confidence by seeing holes on the paper. ;)

As their skills and confidence develop we incrementally move out to 7, 11 & maybe 15yds. Since modern philosophies for LE quals have often involved courses-of-fire that run from 3-11yds, this is a realistic distance range for them to work on developing their DA/DAO snub skills, since it's usually going to be what they use for quals.

Now, in older days when revolvers were still prevalent as common service weapons in LE, even the average cop revolver shooter could have trouble when changing from their larger work belt gun to a diminutive snub gun for off-duty (or plainclothes). The smaller grip frame could be adjusted to a degree by adding larger grips, and some of the larger grips might even help in extending the "reach" from the backstrap to the trigger face. The shorter trigger/hammer arc, heavy DAO trigger pull and the "less tall" relationship between the cylinder/frame and the trigger could still throw some folks off, though. Not quite the same grip position of mechanical advantage as many folks enjoy with large revolvers.

Then, the shorter sight radius and the older "dime thin" front post/ramp (and correspondingly thin rear sight notch) could make it a lot harder for someone to pickup a sight alignment/picture compared to their larger duty revolvers.

Lastly, the reduced weight meant increased recoil force being experienced, and that was often compounded by having a smaller grip. Depending on the the powder used for the loads, a load designed to burn in a 4-6" barrel might mean a 2" barrel could produce some greater muzzle blast/flash. Another difference the average shooter might have some trouble trying to adjust to.

Another shooter-related factor that can cause some folks a bit of frustration is trying to "stage" the trigger when using the DA/DAO trigger. Aside from it creating more potential for a mechanical issue or disadvantage to develop (the S&W manual recommends against trying to use this "technique"), it can also introduce more time for the shooter to lose his/her POA/POI alignment. More time and opportunity for muzzle wobble, to put it simply. A smooth, consistent, firm and brisk DA trogger pull makes for less time for the muzzle (sights) to wobble off-target.

When a close friend of mine was thinking about retirement, he dug his old blued 2" 36 out and brought it to the range. He was having trouble getting all of his on paper even at close distances. Now, he'd been around for the revolver days, and he'd been carrying a full-size issued 3rd gen S&W TDA pistol for many years afterward. (The 3rd gen S&W has a shorter DA pull than a revolver, and it's typically lighter.) It wasn't like he was unfamiliar with a longer DA trigger press, but he'd apparently forgotten what it was like to use a little J-frame.

After watching his trigger technique for a few minutes I saw that he was consistently trying to "stage" his DA pull really slow, trying to "aim better" during the long pull. I pulled him off to the side and discussed how we used to shoot DA revolvers. I suggested he acquire his desired sight alignment/picture and simply use a brisk and smooth trigger press, and avoid trying to "stage" the trigger.

His next several cylinder loads had him looking more relaxed, with less obvious stress in his shoulders/arms and neck ... and less anxious. He was putting his intended hits nicely clustered COM ... and he was smiling. He sailed through the qual course-of-fire and had confidence once again carrying his little Chiefs Special.

I miss the days when revolvers were de rigueur for defense guns, as learning to master a DA revolver seemed to make for better overall handgunners. The emphasis was primarily on DA shooting, though, instead of single action. This increasingly became the case toward the latter part of the days of the service revolver, when an occasional cop thumb-cocked a revolver into SA and then unintentionally ended up shooting someone who ought not have been shot (and killed). Some agencies started converting (or ordering) their service revolvers converted to DAO.

Anyway, congrats on the 637. It's a dandy little J-frame. Perhaps if your local shooting range or club has a skilled instructor or competitor familiar with revolver shooting, he might be able to offer you some hands-on insights that may not only help you improve your skills, but have more enjoyment out of shooting. ;)
 
Last edited:
Congrats on the 637!

Not to get too far off subject but I too was a LE Firearms Instructor and I think that cops were better shooters during the days when revolvers were king. J frames have always been harder to shoot well and many officers just carried 2" K frames off duty if they carried at all. J frames take practice.
 
Congrats on the 637!

Not to get too far off subject but I too was a LE Firearms Instructor and I think that cops were better shooters during the days when revolvers were king. J frames have always been harder to shoot well and many officers just carried 2" K frames off duty if they carried at all. J frames take practice.

In many ways I still miss the days when cops were required to learn to shoot revolvers in DA.

I've long expressed that it's been my experience that it's easier to transition longtime revolver shooters to learning to shoot pistols, than the other way around.
 
I'm continually amazed at how good a good shooter can shoot a wheelgun. I'm working on getting better. I do wish I would've started off with Smith revolvers. But then I might have been burnt out on them. I shot pistols for over a decade pretty much exclusively and I later in life figured out I like revolvers better. I know people will poo poo them as being as good for self defense and I don't necessarily disagree. I just like revolvers better for me and am more confident in using them. Mainly for the added bit of safety I think they bring.

But there is just something very right about shooting a revolver double action. I can't even explain it. It just feels right to me. I kept looking for a good DAO pistol but they are few and far between and I eventually got to the point that striker fired is my least favorite to shoot. And to me the most scary to carry. To me it's ALMOST like carrying a single action with no safety.

I feel safer with a 1911 than I do a striker fired gun.
 
Last edited:
I would think it's better to pick up at speed to be wider. And preferred. And actually if you want super duper accuracy, thinner or smaller might be preferred but slower to pick up.


Every action pistol shooter I know, myself included, would disagree with this. A narrow front sight is much faster to shoot than a wide front sight.

One doesn't have to precisely line up front and rear sights that have a great deal of play, or more gap on each side. It takes more time to have to carefully, precisely line up a front and rear sight that has very little difference in width.
 
Last edited:
Ah, well I stand corrected. On the other hand someone else agreed with my assessment. I might be under the wrong impression though and hopefully my comments did not sound dogmatic. I'm not exactly sure what I think.

Other than that I like black when shooting outside but it's harder to pick up in low light. So for me it's more about color and when I painted my front sight white it seemed to work better in lower light situations. And I don't think it made it worse in the outdoors in the day.

Do you find colors help you pick up quicker or do you prefer black? I know the bullseye type shooters seem to favor a black front sight.
 
Last edited:
Do you find colors help you pick up quicker or do you prefer black? I know the bullseye type shooters seem to favor a black front sight.

For action shooting most tend to favor a bright front sight, though I'm unsure there's a true consensus. Even then, there's some variance on how to achieve that.

Focusing on the front sight is definitely a key to shooting fast, accurately. So many do use fiber optic front.

Keeping that focus on the front most prefer a black blade rear; no color, no fiber, no dots, etc.

I know only little about bullseye shooting, and nothing about doing it well. ; )
 
Last edited:
I have found that for me the overall second best color for the front sight is red nail polish. In some outdoor target conditions, black may be better. Best is a red dot from one of those cylindrical plastic light collectors.

To get back to the original question, it was important because RichCapeCod thought it was important (as did many other folks, including me), and he had significant input into the specs of the NY-1 DAO Model 60, a revolver that the NYPD was contracting with S&W to get produced. Since the 1/8" sight was by that time almost universally acknowledged as an improvement, there was no reason not to shift over for all. As I recall, Roy Jinks confirmed this, or part of it, to me personally in Alexandria VA around 1998. He also told me that this was done without enlarging the channel in the frame that constituted the rear sight. Fortunately, this was caught before shipping, and corrected, so I don't think that NYPD was even aware of it. Unfortunately, some other changes, actually unnecessary, had also been made, which ended up making the NY-1 M60 unwelcome at the NYPD. It would be unreasonable to criticize NYPD's attitude, but a properly modified (returned to standard specs except for bobbed hammer) NY-1 M60 is still a great revolver.

Thin (.10") or thick (.125") front sights, a 1.875" J frame can still be a reasonably accurate revolver. I once laundered and dried 6 rounds of Glaser ammo. No longer desiring to carry those particular cartridges as backup ammo, I fired them from a 2" M37 SB with Tyler at 25yd at a 25yd bullseye target. They were all in the black. Perhaps if the 37 had had .125" sights, they would all have been in the ten-ring, or at least it wouldn't have taken as long to fire them.
 
Last edited:
Every action pistol shooter I know, myself included, would disagree with this. A narrow front sight is much faster to shoot than a wide front sight.

One doesn't have to precisely line up front and rear sights that have a great deal of play, or more gap on each side. It takes more time to have to carefully, precisely line up a front and rear sight that has very little difference in width.


This was part of the reasoning behind some of the "combat" pistol sights that used a generous rear notch and a narrower front post. Another advantage that's been promoted is that being able to "see" more of the target appear around the front post helps see more of the target/threat in "real time, especially if there's movement involved.

One of the older examples of this was the Novak Ghost Ring rear sight base notch, which was a wide semicircular "dish-shaped" rear right in which the top of the front post floated high/centered. It was fast to acquire a general alignment, but "precision aiming" started to quickly diminish as distance increased. The top edge of the front post could align with the top ears of the wide dish, but the wide spacing on either side of the post made windage more like using an aperture sight.

I had a couple of these older Novak GR rear sights on a 3913 and 4513 for some years, with standard white dot and night sight front sights at various times. I started to have problems with getting the "precision" of aiming I desired out of them at either long distances, as well as involving close range (3-11yds) targets of small size (wooden clothespins). The 9mm GR rear sight was too shallow on the bottom for a night sight capsule to be installed, but the .45 GR rear sight had enough room, which meant the two night sight capsules could be "aligned", vertically, but the elevation required practice due to the wide spacing (vertically) between the low point rear capsule and the high point front capsule. Think "straight eight" with a lot of space separating the dots.

The wide front ramp of the newer J's can help older eyes acquire and center the ramp for the "see the front sight" folks for fast close-range shooting.

It's not uncommon for older eyes, especially in outdoor/evening quals involving variable lighting contrasts, to lift up the older narrow front blades high to try and see them, and then unintentionally elevate the front blade so much that the POI is unexpectedly elevated above the perceived POA/POI.

In the land of sighting compromise, the user has to carefully consider which compromise most ably serves his/her anticipated needs, and under what conditions. Changing eyesight doesn't help, either.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top