Tangent sight on Belgian Hi-Power


May 24, 2008, 07:27 AM
Anyone else think these a bit over the top?

Did they really expect to hit someone at 500 meters? :rolleyes:


If you enjoyed reading about "Tangent sight on Belgian Hi-Power" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
May 24, 2008, 07:32 AM
Ah, the El Capitan.

May 24, 2008, 07:47 AM
Does yours have the slot in the butt for the shoulder stock? I think that was the point--area fire just to make the bad guys take cover.

May 24, 2008, 10:17 AM
Mausers, Enfields, Springfields have sights graduated to 2000 meters/yards. Area fire can be an effective tactic. You kept the enemy from moving freely and would kill or wound with a lucky shot.

May 24, 2008, 02:02 PM
With the under 5-inch barrel on the Hi-Power, I consider the 500-meter notch a tad optimistic. Though lobbing a round in on someone, will get their attention.

May 24, 2008, 02:29 PM
Regardless of function they LOOK COOL

May 24, 2008, 05:57 PM
As the proud owner (and user) of a tangent sighted Inglis HP, I think I can say no. Stevens comments in his book that FN in the 1930s thought it was a pointless frill, but kept it as an option for purchasers who couldn't live without it.:scrutiny:

Reportedly the Chinese of all political persuasions loved them. They probably should have named them "The Warlord Special". :neener:

May 24, 2008, 05:59 PM
Indirect Fire perhaps? :D


dagger dog
May 24, 2008, 06:17 PM
With the enemy at 500 meters and the full 13 rnd mag you could give 'em a squirt to keep their heads down, then have time to reload a fresh mag before they over ran you.
By the next mag they would be close enough, you might be able to get a few rnds where it counts , the shoulder stock would increase the chances.

Old Fuff
May 24, 2008, 07:41 PM
Just for the record:

Back in the 1880's the U.S. Army's manual covering the 1873 Colt .45 Revolver had trajectory tables going out to 1000 yards! :what:

Obviously some of today's shooters can't measure up to those old-timey troopers. Tis sad to see how marksmanship has declined... :neener:

Of course the Army's intent was to (literally) drop slugs on concentrations of enemy troop at that distance.

I suspect that Fabrique Nationale had the same idea. It worked for the Mauser 1896, and the Browning p-35's that came with the tangent rear sight also had a detachable shoulder stock.

Also some experiments were conducted with the first S&W .357 Magnums on a single silhouette target at 600 yards. Oh, and they did hit it. Also for the record, the Army tested both a .357 S&W and Colt 1911A1 with detachable shoulder stocks. Don't think they were limited to 15 yards either.

May 25, 2008, 01:08 AM
Did they really expect to hit someone at 500 meters?

Actually, the earliest tangent-sighted Hi Powers had graduations out to 1000 meters.

If it's slotted for a shoulder stock, I don't think it's unreasonable. Otherwise, it's still a cool contraption to experiment with at the range. I imagine you'd find certain loads that hit better close-range, and some that hit better at the longer ranges.


Just Jim
May 25, 2008, 10:27 AM
The only way to know for sure is to try them out. Looks like it would be fun.


May 26, 2008, 12:33 AM
I've always liked the tangent sight on a BHP but have yet to have owned one. I haven't tried too much 500yd shooting with a hnadgun byt it can be done, I think Elmer keith wrote of it.

I've surprised myself at 100 yards or sometimes farther here and there.

May 26, 2008, 12:46 AM
Don't believe anyone would consider it accurate, but only for elevation. As stated above, for broad scatter fire.

Jon Coppenbarger
May 26, 2008, 08:00 AM
I shot my inglis hi power at 600 yards a few years ago. It also had the stock on it. Only shot one mag and had someone looking threw a spotting scope to tell me where the impacts were. Out of a mag I had one hit on a nra highpower target. Did not have anyone in the pits as I did not want one coming in on the concrete wall and bouncing back.


May 26, 2008, 12:02 PM
I would suggest that the range of the weapon is actually how far the bullet travels... and for "aimed fire", there is only a limited range of accuracy. If you shoot any gun long enough, you could learn how much windage, drop, etc. that you had to employ for shooting any cartridge long range, but essentially you're "lobbing them in" at the extreme ranges of the weapon.

There's a reason they put longer barrels on rifles... longer sight pattern for higher ballistics and longer ranges. Pistols are more "short and medium range" weapons, and unless someone thinks they're capable of accurately hitting targets at the extreme ranges of the cartridge they're using, and practice to accomplish that goal, it makes more sense to employ the right weapon for the needed firepower.

I have different weapons for different purposes, and if I have a 300 yard shot to make, I'll use my 7.62 x 39 or .300 win mag... not my 9mm pistol... and unless the target is larger than "man sized", even that range would require some skill. I shoot pretty well for an old ex-LEO with bad eyes, but "range requirements" for weapons are pretty standard unless you're in a war zone.
Over 50 yards, I'd start looking for a long gun to make my shots... and while I've done some good shooting with pistols, I know and understand their limitations.

If all I wanted to do was keep their heads down, my 9mm would do fine... it has 18 rounds and lots of spare clips... but for long range accuracy... pick a better choice of weapons. The first thing I learned as a cop was that "bravado will get you killed"... so don't underestimate your adversary. They may be shooting back with the right kind of weapon... a long gun at extended ranges... so then, who's range choice is important?

Your choice of weapons is based on whether you're dodging bullets yourself at longer ranges... so, like cigs, "smok'em if you got'em"...


May 26, 2008, 05:40 PM
Nope- I'm not going to hit anything a 500 meters with any handgun. BUT- I'll not replace the tanget sights on my High Power. I can still hit with it at 7 yards.

Vern Humphrey
May 26, 2008, 06:13 PM
The problem with most shoulder stock designs for handguns is that they are modeled on rifle buttstocks, and place the sights too close to the eye. A better design would put the gun at arm's length, and have a comb that allowed the shooter a "heads up" stance.

May 26, 2008, 10:24 PM
One more thing about the buttstock, it puts a nice resonance chamber under your right ear. Just the thing to leave your ears ringing after a magazine or two. Clever design, that.

If you enjoyed reading about "Tangent sight on Belgian Hi-Power" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!