[natedog]

Which do you prefer: traditional sights, such as the ones on this Hi-Power http://www.fnhipower.com/images/MKIIIcarry.jpg

or the new styled "Snag-free" sights, like those on this Hi-Power http://apollo.demigod.org/~zak/pictures/2003-05-12-bhp/88.shtml ?

I've heard arguments from both sides of the coin:

1) Snag free sights will prevent your pistol from being snagged on a shirt or concealment garment, slowing the draw.

2) Traditional sights will allow you to rack the slide one handed by catching the sights on a pocket or waistband.

[Johnny Guest]

- - For the very reason you gave under 2).

The traditional style sights may be "snag proofed" with just a couple of strokes of a file - - A very small radius both fore and aft and side to side will do the trick - - and then cold blued. This will prevent the sharp corners from digging into either clothing, or into the hand is ever you need to do the rearward sweep to get rid of a stove piped empty.

Nice stocks on the P35 - - Who made 'em?

Best,
Johnny

[dwestfall]

I prefer snaggable sights, but my Kimbers came with snag-free sights and since they're well-regulated and hard to replace I'll live with 'em until the Tritium runs out. I did change to a standard FLGR in case one-handed malfunction clearing becomes necessary.

I have never had any clothes snag on the sights of a handgun during a draw. Muzzle yes, sights no!

I don't think there are many 1911 mfgs who ship their fighting guns with night sights that are anything BUT snag free.

[cratz2]

Your number two reason is an important issue, but I think for most civilians, having the sights as snag free as reasonably possible would outweigh the 'racking the slide while wounded' ability in my mind.

I must say that I've rarely had a problem with non-snag free sights snagging... Even S&W revolver sights haven't given me much of a problem.

[clipse]

I'm big on traditional sights for the racking the slide one handed thing.


clipse

[SADshooter]

I've got Trijicons on a Para P-13. Not as aesthetically "sexy" as Novak or Heinie, but they work. High-profile doesn't necessarily equal insta-snag.

[DMK]

Why are "snag free" sights sloped in the front anyway? It seems to me that would only prevent them from snagging when you re-holster your weapon. :confused:

And did you ever notice that most guns with "snag free" sights have huge front sights? It would seem to me that the front sight would be the most likely to snag, not the rear. :scrutiny:

[Zach S]

I prefer taditional sights, just like I prefer something without front cocking serrations. Not a big issue for me. My 5" Kimber has both the snag-free sights and the front serrations.

Why are "snag free" sights sloped in the front anyway? It seems to me that would only prevent them from snagging when you re-holster your weapon. I cant help but laugh at the older Kimber "snag free" sights, with the slope on the rear sight going the wrong way.

[C. H. Luke]

Using the rear sight to rack the gun is an overblown technique that in truth would be vary rare to have to use. It's premise is having the time to do it witout being in line of fire. Even if you do consider it viable you need an alternate method to back it up.

[cratz2]

With the 'one handed cocking' thing, I understand it's always best to prepare for 'what-ifs' but how likely is it to really be required? I mean, if you are right handed and you get shot/cut/maimed/mutilated on your right arm or hand, you shoot the gun dry, the slide locks back, you drop the mag, insert the other mag and drop the slide release... on most guns. The main situation I could see needing a one handed cock (no jokes please :p ) would be if you ran the gun dry, dropped the mag and inadvertantly pressed the slide release.

I know it can happen and I have no doubt that it has happened, - and heck, I've even done it in training - but I can't personally imagine it being such a regular or likely event to require much though or even sight selection.

I must admit that I think DMK hit the nail on the head... I think on most modern pistols worn IWB or OWB but under a cover garment, the front sight is more likely to snag.

I can honestly say that I have never bought a gun because it had snag free sights nor have I passed on a gun because it lacked them. But between the rear sight on the CZ PCR or the rear sight on the CZ P-01, I'd rather have the Novak-esque PCR sight.