L Frame tighter (Patridge) sight?

[dcnblues]

I've got a lovely blue 6-in 586 (-3 I think), but I don't like the stock sights and I'd like to replace them with what I had on a similar gun in the 80s. A patridge front (but I can't remember how tall, on the shorter end I think) but possibly a different sight blade on the rear sight? The important thing is that all the daylight on each side of the front sight was eliminated. Just two rectangles fitting nicely together. I really don't understand how anyone can hit anything without that or with the stock sights.

It's my impression in the front patridge blades aren't any wider than the red ramp. So obviously that's not the total solution. If anybody knows what I'm talking about, I'd be grateful for more information.

 

[ms]

Two things:

If the two rectangles fit perfectly they will only do so at one distance. If you move the gun slightly further from your eye the the front rectangle becomes effectively bigger then the rear, so you can't tell if windage is correct.

Second, most good shots (my observation, and much supported in various competition forums) like lots of light on the sides.

 

[dcnblues]

Don't know what to tell you. I shot falling plate pretty well with greatly reduced light on both sides. The Patridge blades I'm seeing on eBay all seem the same width.

* I also think pistol competitions stress shooting under a time limit. I don't care about that. I like hitting what I aim at.

 

[1sailor]

Barrel length plays a major role also. I once had somebody remark how much they liked the thinner front sight on my 8 3/8" M27-5. I pointed out to them that it was the exact same width as on my 4" just greater distance between the sights. A sight that fills the rectangle at 4" may not do it at six. I can see how Smith wouldn't want to have to make a different sight for each barrel length.

 

[SmithNut]

Almost universally modern S&W revolvers have 1/8" wide front sights, regardless of style (i.e. plain black, red ramp or Patridge style sights), with the only exception I know of are the M686 CS-1 revolvers made for the U.S. Custom's service, those were made with a narrower 1/10" front sight blade.

When S&W made the next version - the M686 CS-3 versions - they went back to the traditional 1/8" wide sight blades.

I have changed lots of front sights on my revolvers over the years and have been able to get Patridge sight blades directly from S&W and other sources, Brownells has a selection of sight blades (or at least they used to).

Just checked with Jack First gun parts and they do have Patridge sights for guns that were made with replaceable front sights, the ones I saw were for 1/8" wide slots (for $45 ea - ouch )

 

[dcnblues]

Yeah that's what I'm thinking. My '80s 586 had standard width Patridge in the front, and a tighter rear sight blade in the rear. But I can't find anything like that on the internet.

 

[dcnblues]

Barrel length plays a major role also. I once had somebody remark how much they liked the thinner front sight on my 8 3/8" M27-5. I pointed out to them that it was the exact same width as on my 4" just greater distance between the sights. A sight that fills the rectangle at 4" may not do it at six. I can see how Smith wouldn't want to have to make a different sight for each barrel length.

I think you nailed it. I'll bet that front sight was designed for service pistols that were not fitted with a 6-in barrel. It sure would be nice to find a rear sight blade that was...

 

[Nightowl]

Most L frames with ramp sights are integral to the barrel, so changing requires machining. I have seem some that are pinned, though. Don't know why. Many of the ones with Patridge sights are integral too. I have noticed the late manufactured ones are pinned, but not the earlier ones.

If yours is pinned, you should check with Protocol Design for a .10 front sight if you are wishing a narrower one than .125.

 

[glenwolde]

I had front sight problems with my Model 66 and they were going to have to machine it off anyway. Might as well install a DX front sight base and be done with it forever.

 

[Bullet Bob]

"The important thing is that all the daylight on each side of the front sight was eliminated. Just two rectangles fitting nicely together. I really don't understand how anyone can hit anything without that or with the stock sights."
________________________________________________-

There was a famous Russian handgun shooting coach in the 1950's and 60's who advocated having an amount of light on either side of the front sight blade equal to the width of the front sight blade itself, and they did extremely well in international competition.

Gunwriter Skeeter Skelton used to request 1/10" front sights from S&W instead of the 1/8" standard front sights.

But your view evidently had some believers as I used to own a model 1955 .45 acp that was shipped in January 1956, and someone had added a rectangle of blued steel to the back of the front sight to give a very narrow window for any light. I could show you a picture of it if the jerks at fototime.com hadn't disappeared in the night.

 

[ms]

Look at

Don't know what to tell you. I shot falling plate pretty well with greatly reduced light on both sides. The Patridge blades I'm seeing on eBay all seem the same width.

* I also think pistol competitions stress shooting under a time limit. I don't care about that. I like hitting what I aim at.

the serious precision stuff. Look at 10-meter and standard pistol. Slow fire. The huge majority of the good shooters have lots of light on each side.

If you take the time to research the serious competition forums for specific disciplines you will see this is correct.

 

[1sailor]

While I have found that with daylight on each side of my front sight I can fire much tighter groups. I have also discovered though that I am faster with follow up shots when the rectangle is filled as with my 2.5" M66. Not sure if it's the sights or shorter barrel but definitely faster on target.