Why isn't the M28 fixed-sight?

[jhvaughan2]

What was the issue with .357's and fixed sights? Looking at the post war period of the 20th century. K-frames and N-frames were available in fixed and target sights for everything but .357 and 44 mag. (OK maybe not .45 colt.)

In my crude graph below there shows a big hole where the 38/44, 44 special, 45 acp and even 41 magnum were available with fixed sights. .357 had to wait until the model 13 in the mid '60s And besides the rare 520 for one year we did not get a N-frame .357 with "service" sights.

This is why it always seems to me that the Highway Patrolman / 28 should have been fixed-sighted. Didn't LEA's want an heavy-framed fixed-sighted .357?

I can understand why no 44 mag, but what gives with the .357? Was the "magnum" just to politically incorrect for LEO before the '70s?

IN the '80s the 5/681 came out so the concept did not die (at least not until the LEO revolver did.)

Any thoughts or experiences with this?

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

I am not now nor have I ever been employed by Smith and Wesson nor have I ever even talked to anybody who was, nor have I ever seen their archives, but it seems to me a lot simpler (and more profitable) to take
a batch of N frames originally intened to be M-27s, give them the plainer finish of the M-28-no checkering on the top strap, e.g., relabel them "Highway Patrolman-and sell them that way. Also it seems to me part of the .357 "mystique" is that it's a cartridge of such accuracy and power that adjustable sights are a must to get the most out of it. Plus
the introduction of the Combat Masterpiece in 1949 that a "service" revolver could-and should-have adjustable sights. IIRC the first fixed sighted S&W .357 would be the M-13.

 

[jhvaughan2]

simpler (and more profitable) to take a batch of N frames originally intened to be M-27s, give them the plainer finish of the M-28

It would have been even simpler to take a batch of 38/44's (Model 20's) and make them into .357. So, I don't think it was all about cost.

 

[Pisgah]

It has always been my impression that the 28 was intended to be the "working man's Model 27" - in other words, with all the durability and mechanical refinement of the "Cadillac" Model 27, but at a price the average Joe could justify. A fixed-sight version wouldn't have done it.

It would have been interesting, if for no other reason than to be able to compare sales between the different sights. I suppose S&W figured they knew which would sell. I love the adjustables, but I once toyed with the idea of converting a beater 28 in to a fixed-sight gun tailored around a 170 Gr. Keith SWC load. That would be a fine gun for just about any practical handgun use.

 

[Jack Flash]

I thought the Highway Patrolman came about when Police Departments wanted the .357 Magnum (Pre-27), but raised a howl when it came to talking price. That is, they really liked that precise model revolver, as it was, but just choked on the cost.

Sacrificing the finish may not have been a big deal for a holster gun that would be in and out of vehicles in all kinds of weather. Sacrificing other features may have been a deal killer. Remember that Colt was no doubt eagerly pursuing these same contracts. Start eliminating too many features and Colt's Lawman, Trooper, or whatever they called it, might start to look like a better deal.

 

[Göring's S&W]

Well other people were supposed to buy it too!

Also consider that despite it being known as the "Highway patrolman" and being bought by many police departments, S&W also intended for other types of people to buy it. Adjustable sights appeal to hunters and target shooters since the 357 is accurate out to 100+ yds and effective on medium game out to 75 yds in most cases, as long as the shot is well placed. Keep in mind too that the highway patrolman pre dates the 44 mag so if you wanted the big magnum back then, it was t he 357 and since it was the most powerful thing going (factory production wise) it should have adjustable sights.

Its kind of like the old High standard Citation vs the fancier Trophy. Many competitive shooters actually bought the Citation because it had the same features other than the cosmetics which have no effect on function.

With a highway patrolman the only thing a target shooter or hunter was sacrificing by passing up the model 27 was the partridge front sight which I think is better. On the other hand, a baughman is better for drawing from a holster.

 

[jhvaughan2]

I may have phrased my question from the wrong point of view. I was not wondering why the 28 was good. I understand the reasoning for a "lower-end" 27.

My question really was why did S&W not think a fixed sighted .357 was needed for ~40 years? When it made fixed sighted 44s, 38s & 45s and e even 41 magnum.

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

My question really was why did S&W not think a fixed sighted .357 was needed for ~40 years? When it made fixed sighted 44s, 38s & 45s and e even 41 magnum.

An argument could be made that nobody needs a fixed-sight gun unless he's concerned about the sights catching on something. This would not ordinarily be the case with a Highway Patrolman, which was not really intended for carry under a jacket. Furthermore, a .357 Mag is more in need of adjustable sights than almost any other gun, considering the number of bullet weights and power levels available. This was originally not true for most or all of the other cartridges you mention, and, except for the .38 Spl, is hardly even true today.

It doesn't look like Colt pushed them out of the .357 market with fixed sights. I don't think Ruger did it, either.

If any cartridge screams "Help, I need adjustable sights!", it is .357 Mag.

 

[keithherrington]

In my experience adjustable sights are needed on the 28 simply because of the wide variety of ammo used by various departments. There was an extraordinarily broad range of ammo in use by various departments, all of which had their own point of impact (POI). Not knowing which ammo would be in use (and therefore how to regulate the sights) necessitated adjustable sights. In the other calibers, except 44 Mag, the disparaty in POI is not as extreme, nor were those calibers traditionally used by police departments and therefore not an issue.
Keith

 

[M29since14]

I think the obsession with fixed-sights is an invention of the internet.

When I was growing up, no one I was familiar with, including policemen, wanted fixed-sight guns if they could get a similar model with target sights - except on guns like Detective Specials and Chief's Specials.

Then and now, fixed-sight guns often do not shoot close enough to where the eventual owner would like them to, and since the .357 was always seen as a performance-enthusiast caliber, S&W probably figured there was little market for them. That's my guess. Don't forget - there was the Model 20 or Heavy Duty (not a .357 of course), which probably gave them a good idea what they could have expected in terms of sales.

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

I think the obsession with fixed-sights is an invention of the internet.

When I was growing up, no one I was familiar with, including policemen, wanted fixed-sight guns if they could get a similar model with target sights - except on guns like Detective Specials and Chief's Specials.

Then and now, fixed-sight guns often do not shoot close enough to where the eventual owner would like them to, and since the .357 was always seen as a performance-enthusiast caliber, S&W probably figured there was little market for them. That's my guess. Don't forget - there was the Model 20 or Heavy Duty (not a .357 of course), which probably gave them a good idea what they could have expected in terms of sales.

I had warm feelings for fixed sights long before I had access to the internet. Concealed carry sometimes favors smooth non-snagging sights. What police do with duty guns mostly doesn't relate. They are usually carrying exposed.

You are certainly correct about the POA-vs-POI issue, hence my love for shooter-grade used guns purchased cheap from my local dealer who lets me try them out. Try that over the internet!

Sometimes, however, the adjustable-sight Smiths just have a better sight picture, altogether. That is the case with my improved Model 56 (AKA 2" Model 15) compared to my Model 12 revolvers, and is probably why I shoot it a little better (the weight doesn't hurt, either).

 

[sjmjax]

I think you raise an interesting question. As you note, S&W provided fixed sighted 357 revolvers in the K-Frame as well as in a wide range of other magnum and non-magnum calibers in both the K & N Frame sizes.

The special order, original model 520s indicate at least one Police Department thought it was an appropriate idea.

Would be interesting to know S&W's reason for not pursuing the fixed sight N-Frame in .357.

 

[Sully]

Ive had TWO fixed sight guns in my life...and neither one of them could I hit a bull in the rump with. I'll never have a fixed sight pistol every again.

 

[03clyde]

Let's not forget the 10-6 chambered in .357 for the NYSP.

 

[yashua-p]

Yeah, I think that the 10-6 and the 13 are essentially the same. I have the 10-6 and find that is accurate and will out shoot me any day of the week.

yashua

 

[dgludwig]

An argument could be made that nobody needs a fixed-sight gun unless he's concerned about the sights catching on something.

I think the obsession with fixed-sights is an invention of the internet.

I agree with both of you. Other than having to draw from cover (pocket, etc.), the only other time I think fixed sights come into their own is in a venue where a historical configuration is significant (i.e., "cowboy action" meets where adjustables on an 1873 Colt or a Smith Schofield would look inappropriate).

 

[bmcgilvray]

"I had warm feelings for fixed sights long before I had access to the internet."

Me too. I've had great luck with Smith & Wesson revolvers with fixed sights.

 

[Joe in SC]

The name "Highway Patrolman" may hint at one reason adjustable sights were retained when this cost reduced version of the 357 Magnum was introduced. Typically, law enforcement officers who patrolled outside the city proper, whether sheriff's deputy or state patrol/trooper, were generally some distance/time away from immediate assistance and the range of possible shots could be at greater distance. Keep in mind that the sidearm was the primary weapon except in some cases the addition of a shotgun(which was of limited range effectiveness). Adjustable sights make more sense given that set of circumstances plus the flatter trajectory/extended effective range of the 357 magnum.

Adjustables just make more sense in this case.

Kentucky windage (holding off to compensate for the inability to adjust point of impact) with a handgun at the extended ranges sometimes encountered by these officers, would almost always result in a missed shot . Not good given the circumstances.

 

[Enframe]

I think you have to consider that police qualification courses 'in the old days' favored adjustable sight guns. Single-action courses of fire were not uncommon, and precision aiming and accuracy were highly prized. Thumb-cocking to single-action was a skill taught to officers then. A fixed sight gun, in that era, did not fit the 'ideal'.

Today's 'combat shooting' techniques weren't the norm. Up until WWII, people pretty much stuck with the kind of philosophy that Ed McGivern used. Fixed-sight use and point shooting came during and after the war, pretty much. (These are all generalities, of course, and subject to time, location, preference, money, etc.)

Heck, we are still debating all this, which should be instructive. We all understand what 'fit and finish' mean to buyers. Fit affects utility, not finish. The 28 was a utilitarian gun, by design. S&W only skimped on the 'finish'. To my mind, it wasn't significant, as far as usefulness.