TexasCHLforum.com

Hello.

OK, I'm going to test the theory that there's no such thing as a dumb question.

I wanted to hear from owners/shooters on using the sights on a .38 revolver. Specifically a S&W 642 or similar.

Here's the deal and keep in mind that I'm fairly new to revolvers.

Before I ever shot the gun it seemed that by looking straight down the top of the frame that the front sight looked elevated higher than the rear sights.

After the first few rounds I realized my shots were hitting high so I adjusted my aim so that the top of the front sight was even with the top of the rear sights and I was on target.

Is this right ? I just need confirmation that the top of the sights should be aligned as I would do with any semi auto that I've fired.

Thank You.

The principles of marksmanship do not change based on the pistol. Assuming a post front sight and a notch rear sight, the top of the front sight should always be aligned with the top of the rear sight. This is true for revolvers, semi-autos, and single or two shot derringers.

And this is not a dumb question. The way some rear sights appear to be just a groove cut into the top of the frame of the weapon, it is easy to think they were designed for some different type of use. After all, a lot of shotguns are sighted by just looking down the top of the frame like that.

Thank you for your input srothstein. You've put my mind at ease.

srothstein wrote:Assuming a post front sight and a notch rear sight, the top of the front sight should always be aligned with the top of the rear sight.

That's exactly what I've always thought.

srothstein wrote:The way some rear sights appear to be just a groove cut into the top of the frame of the weapon, it is easy to think they were designed for some different type of use.

This is what threw me off.
The rear sight is nothing more than a groove along the top of the frame, while the front sight is noticeably higher as illustrated in these photos....



As mentioned in my OP, once I lined up the sights in the traditional way, I was hitting the target where I should be.
It's been a week ago that I was at the range but this has been nagging me ever since.

I believe this particular gun was designed for close range use and there may be no time or need for the sights but it would be nice to be as proficient as possible using them in the rare event I would ever have to take a long/more precise shot.

USA1 wrote: I believe this particular gun was designed for close range use and there may be no time or need for the sights but it would be nice to be as proficient as possible using them in the rare event I would ever have to take a long/more precise shot.

Absolutely! Besides, it's a challenge you might enjoy. In the process, you might surprise yourself with the accuracy possible.

threoh8 wrote:
you might surprise yourself with the accuracy possible.

I believe that. Especially after I saw a guy on youtube hit a steel target at 80 yards with this gun.

If you do much shooting at moderate distances (from roughly 15 to 25 yards), do not be surprised if, with the same sight picture, heavier bullets (like 158g semiwadcutters) group somewhat higher than lighter bullets.

Yep, it's somewhat contrarty to intuition. But, this is due to the fact the heavier bullets are typically slower - and therefore in the upward recoiling barrel for a a few miliseconds longer than lighter bullets (which can typically be driven faster).

there may be no time or need for the sights

"We don't need no stinkin' sights."

Greybeard wrote:If you do much shooting at moderate distances (from roughly 15 to 25 yards), do not be surprised if, with the same sight picture, heavier bullets (like 158g semiwadcutters) group somewhat higher than lighter bullets.

Yep, it's somewhat contrarty to intuition. But, this is due to the fact the heavier bullets are typically slower - and therefore in the upward recoiling barrel for a a few miliseconds longer than lighter bullets (which can typically be driven faster).

I would have believed the opposite would be true...(that a heavier bullet would be pulled down due to gravity)
... but what you say makes sense when you think about it.

casingpoint wrote:

there may be no time or need for the sights

"We don't need no stinkin' sights."

I agree for the most part.

USA1 wrote:

threoh8 wrote:
you might surprise yourself with the accuracy possible.

I believe that. Especially after I saw a guy on youtube hit a steel target at 80 yards with this gun.

How about 100 yards?
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=6_b3dAbKoJ0[/youtube]

USA1 wrote:

So, based on the photo - the gun (and therefore the bore) will appear to be canted slightly downward at the muzzle, while in fact the bore is lined up straight with the target (or at least where the sights are pointing)? That's what it looks like with my LCR, anyway.

That was my 'dumb' question, too. I know that the gun hits where the sights are pointed (with the proper sight picture), but it seems counter intuitive that the gun is 'tilted' downward when aimed properly.

"upward recoiling barrel for a a few miliseconds". Whatcha bet that took some "trial and error" many decades ago. ?

USA1, this is a great question, I have a 642 and I had the same exact question, it took a little while to get used to the sight picture, but once I did, its not a problem to have extremely tight groupings at 10 yards. Those pistols are very accurate. Do you have the lock or no lock version? If you have the lock versin Have you removed the lock in yours?

JAguirre wrote:USA1, this is a great question, I have a 642 and I had the same exact question, it took a little while to get used to the sight picture, but once I did, its not a problem to have extremely tight groupings at 10 yards. Those pistols are very accurate. Do you have the lock or no lock version? If you have the lock versin Have you removed the lock in yours?

Mine is the lock version.

I have watched a couple of very comprehensive videos instructing how to disable/remove the lock
and I feel confident that I could do this if I wanted to. I haven't yet attempted it though.