Front sight red insert benefit?
- Thread starter rosewood
- Start date
Good question.
I certainly would not pay to have it done,
I certainly would not pay to have it done,
SnidelyWhiplash
Member
Depending on the gun it can make the front sight easier to see in dim light...and the practice predates tritium in common use.
As I've gotten older I've found nickel and stainless guns with matching front sights have become harder for my eyes to pick up on. The contrast of the orange...or even better...tritium in orange or green...is much better. Red inserts never were much of a help...that's why manufacturers went to orange pretty early on.
As I've gotten older I've found nickel and stainless guns with matching front sights have become harder for my eyes to pick up on. The contrast of the orange...or even better...tritium in orange or green...is much better. Red inserts never were much of a help...that's why manufacturers went to orange pretty early on.
.455_Hunter
Member
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 1,673
- Reaction score
- 2,349
- City & State/Province
- Front Range of Colorado
The S&W plastic red ramp insert is an aesthetic disaster. The sighting aid function could have easily be replicated by a painted, rear-facing, recessed trough (like seen on some more recent Custom Shop guns) that didn't look like a project from Bubba's X-Acto Knife and Septic Pumping Services. Any guns I have acquired with the plastic insert have been replaced with night sights.
Last edited:
Alk8944
US Veteran
There is absolutely no advantage to installing the red insert compared to just painting the sight. The paint can easily renewed as needed. You can easily experiment with what color works best for you too.
Personally I have come to prefer a medium green. I also sometimes use Forster's "Bonanza Gold", usually used for filling the markings on guns, to paint the sight which then resembles a square Gold bead. Just paint the serrated side of the sight. I only paint the top about 3/16" so when the gun is at arms length it appears as a square instead of a vertical gold bar.
Personally I have come to prefer a medium green. I also sometimes use Forster's "Bonanza Gold", usually used for filling the markings on guns, to paint the sight which then resembles a square Gold bead. Just paint the serrated side of the sight. I only paint the top about 3/16" so when the gun is at arms length it appears as a square instead of a vertical gold bar.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2018
- Messages
- 2,592
- Reaction score
- 3,418
- City & State/Province
- Southern FL, East side.
I had it on several of my work guns. I found it to be an asset for quicker sight acquisition in varied lighting conditions. There are better options now I suppose. My only complaint was in bright sun, coming in from some directions and if the plastic was very smooth, you could get glare disrupting your sight picture. It never was the best option for a target gun. That's what the Patridge option was for, and sooted up too.
For a duty gun paint just isn't durable enough with the frequent holster wear.
For a duty gun paint just isn't durable enough with the frequent holster wear.
Last edited:
OP
rosewood
Member
Some of mine are milled into the barrel and adding night sights isn't much of an option without mill work. I can easily cut a slot and add insert myself for only the cost of my time.
OP
rosewood
Member
This may be the answer why the factory did it, it was because paint would wear off in holster. Hmm.
.455_Hunter
Member
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 1,673
- Reaction score
- 2,349
- City & State/Province
- Front Range of Colorado
If the paint was placed in a correctly recessed trough, holster rub would not be a problem.
My 637, whose sight insert was recently featured in another post here, was previously painted. I also had another painted snub to A/B against the new insert. (BTW, the same bottle of Testors was used for all of these.)
I see no advantage to the insert over the paint in appearance. The paint may be ever-so-slightly better because the insert is not as shiny after filing to shape.
However, after about 3 years of pocket-holstering, the previous paint on the 637 was pretty dark. I’ll have to see how the insert holds up by comparison. I suspect it will be longer lasting. But it was also more work, and not “undoable”.
I see no advantage to the insert over the paint in appearance. The paint may be ever-so-slightly better because the insert is not as shiny after filing to shape.
However, after about 3 years of pocket-holstering, the previous paint on the 637 was pretty dark. I’ll have to see how the insert holds up by comparison. I suspect it will be longer lasting. But it was also more work, and not “undoable”.
Never cared for the red insert, always tried to find guns without it.
biblethumpincop
Member
I wonder if fitting an insert made of brass would be beneficial?
OP
rosewood
Member
I bought a 67 with the insert missing. I originally filled it with yellow glow in the dark paint, but that color was hard to see in sun. Made a new one with epoxy colored with casting dye in a reddishorange color. Turned out great, much easier to see. Have a 60 that I just painted the front red and trimmed rear in black. Made a big difference. The stainless on stainless is hard to see, but the contrast really helps.
Last edited:
SGT ROCK 11B
Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2023
- Messages
- 3,640
- Reaction score
- 5,472
- City & State/Province
- American Legion Post 1
My favorite S&W Model 19-3 has TT = target trigger. TH= target hammer. TS = target stocks. RR = red ramp (front sight) WO = white outline (rear sight) that was the setup you wanted in the 1970s. It was the "Premium" S&W.
If you had a 19 without the 3Ts and RR/WO you had a plain jane.
If you had a 19 without the 3Ts and RR/WO you had a plain jane.
SGT ROCK 11B
Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2023
- Messages
- 3,640
- Reaction score
- 5,472
- City & State/Province
- American Legion Post 1
Gold dot is a great "old school" option.
SGT ROCK 11B
Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2023
- Messages
- 3,640
- Reaction score
- 5,472
- City & State/Province
- American Legion Post 1
That would be a great replacement. I have a gold dot on one and it works great indoors or outdoors picking it up on thee draw.
My newest a 686 Plus four inch has the RR/WO and my old eyes picks up that combination too.
.455_Hunter
Member
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 1,673
- Reaction score
- 2,349
- City & State/Province
- Front Range of Colorado
At the LGS, I would instantly skip over such an over-accessorized gun without even a second thought.
Thank goodness for Plain Janes!
There is a reason why every vehicle I have ever purchased has been the base model or one step above the base model.
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2018
- Messages
- 2,592
- Reaction score
- 3,418
- City & State/Province
- Southern FL, East side.
I wouldn't have wanted that gold dot for a duty gun due to possible snag issues. That said, my 6" 686 that I did carry on duty some had a Patridge front sight.
Does any one know where i can purchase a red or orange insert for a s&w 65 the sight is milled already just want to change the inset already on the gun. I want to BUY one not do it myself thanks
chief38
Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
- Messages
- 21,186
- Reaction score
- 35,709
I've gravitated away from cutting a dovetail into the front sight in favor for Testor's brand of model paint. The paint allows you to choose a plethora of colors, shades and blends and is easily removable should you want to do so. Under normal use, the Testor's lasts pretty much forever.
I'd highly recommend 3 light coats versus one heavy coat. Apply it with a wooden toothpick after cleaning the front sight with Alcohol or Acetone and only do the same exact area that would normally have a dovetailed in insert. Let each coat dry at least 24 hours before applying the next one. Do not fret any extra paint on the sides - remove it with a new sharp razor blade when dry. IMHO, this is a much better option to cutting the front sight blade which is obviously permanent.
I'd highly recommend 3 light coats versus one heavy coat. Apply it with a wooden toothpick after cleaning the front sight with Alcohol or Acetone and only do the same exact area that would normally have a dovetailed in insert. Let each coat dry at least 24 hours before applying the next one. Do not fret any extra paint on the sides - remove it with a new sharp razor blade when dry. IMHO, this is a much better option to cutting the front sight blade which is obviously permanent.
OP
rosewood
Member
Thanks guys. You have answered my question. Was wondering the purpose/value and seems it was likely one person at S&W many moons ago that thought it was a good idea. They have since moved on to other options.
Rosewood
Rosewood
OP
rosewood
Member
I don't think they are for sale. They are cast in the sight. I bought some casting resin from Hobby Lobby and some dye but didn't like how it hardened. I ended up using some quik setting clear epoxy and used the dye to color it. Dammed around the sight with masking tape, then filled the slot with the colored epoxy using toothpicks to drop it. Let it set, trimmed off excess and let it dry for a couple of days, turned out just like factory.
Rosewood
Painting the front sight if carefully done works great on prewar guns where you dont want to make permanent modifications and can be easily scraped off with a fingernail.
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2001
- Messages
- 11,873
- Reaction score
- 19,768
- City & State/Province
- In The Woods Of S.C.
Said one man with one opinion.........Lots of us like and use RR/WO sights.
Re: SGT ROCK 11B v .455 Hunter.
Going back a few decades, when LEOs could still purchase and carry their choice of revolver (within dept specs, which was usually blue .38/357 cal, S&W, Colt and then later, Ruger, 4-6" bbl) many of us who were into shooting wanted to carry the best looking revolver we could find/afford consistent with duty needs. The duty revolver, being in plain sight, was part of the uniform, and we wanted to look as sharp as possible (one could suffer a nasty cut from the sharpness of the military creases in my uniforms).
My last personally owned duty revolver was a S&W 27-2, which I still have. It came to me as a plain jane. I quickly remedied that by having a target hammer and ranger trigger installed. I also put on target grips. Except for no RR/WO sights, since I preferred black, I was set. My preference for all black sights was due to my competitive background. For department qualifications, I wanted as precise a sight picture as I could get, and black did it for me. For night shoots, black served me well too because the sights were in silhouette. I also learned to raise the front sight, lower the aiming point, and sight just using the front sight. That was the secret to nailing the night shoots. Out of preference I worked nights until I promoted out of any rank that worked nights, so I had to be familiar with low light shooting.
That 27-2 was/is a beautiful revolver. It drew a lot of compliments just by its visibility in the holster.
The 27-2 was supplanted by the department issued mandatory carry S&W 4" (2 1/2" for detectives) 66. I still preferred my 27-2, but that era had ended.
During that early all blue era, the hot set ups were S&W 19 or 27, and the Colt Python. If one also wore the distinguished master qualification pin, that helped with status.
Much later my last duty handgun was a .40 cal Glock. Besides the benefits of greater payload, faster shooting, faster reloading, it is also supremely reliable and durable, and lighter in weight. It may not quite be ugly, more so just purposeful and efficient looking, but by no means attractive.
Despite my appreciation for aesthetics, my retirement EDC is a Glock 26.
Could it be an ultimate plain jane?
Going back a few decades, when LEOs could still purchase and carry their choice of revolver (within dept specs, which was usually blue .38/357 cal, S&W, Colt and then later, Ruger, 4-6" bbl) many of us who were into shooting wanted to carry the best looking revolver we could find/afford consistent with duty needs. The duty revolver, being in plain sight, was part of the uniform, and we wanted to look as sharp as possible (one could suffer a nasty cut from the sharpness of the military creases in my uniforms).
My last personally owned duty revolver was a S&W 27-2, which I still have. It came to me as a plain jane. I quickly remedied that by having a target hammer and ranger trigger installed. I also put on target grips. Except for no RR/WO sights, since I preferred black, I was set. My preference for all black sights was due to my competitive background. For department qualifications, I wanted as precise a sight picture as I could get, and black did it for me. For night shoots, black served me well too because the sights were in silhouette. I also learned to raise the front sight, lower the aiming point, and sight just using the front sight. That was the secret to nailing the night shoots. Out of preference I worked nights until I promoted out of any rank that worked nights, so I had to be familiar with low light shooting.
That 27-2 was/is a beautiful revolver. It drew a lot of compliments just by its visibility in the holster.
The 27-2 was supplanted by the department issued mandatory carry S&W 4" (2 1/2" for detectives) 66. I still preferred my 27-2, but that era had ended.
During that early all blue era, the hot set ups were S&W 19 or 27, and the Colt Python. If one also wore the distinguished master qualification pin, that helped with status.
Much later my last duty handgun was a .40 cal Glock. Besides the benefits of greater payload, faster shooting, faster reloading, it is also supremely reliable and durable, and lighter in weight. It may not quite be ugly, more so just purposeful and efficient looking, but by no means attractive.
Despite my appreciation for aesthetics, my retirement EDC is a Glock 26.
Could it be an ultimate plain jane?
