Anybody put better sights on pocket pistols
- Thread starter Hunter2011
- Start date
- Status
I don't own a crystal ball so I can't predict if the gunfight I encounter will be at 15 inches or 15 yards so I prefer that my pocket gun also has some decent sights on it. It doesn't have to be adjustable or target sights, they just have to be useable. I pocket carry a little Kahr PM40. It's easy to point shoot in cramped quarters and has a front sight that's easy to focus on and place on target when needed.
I'm not worried about target shooting with my LCP. If I'm going to get something with real sights, it's going to be carried OWB. My LCP is a compromise of ergonomics, accuracy, and firepower for when I'm too lazy to carry a real gun.
kBob
Member
Sharpsdressedman,
This is what having two brain haves is all about! Half my brain is going "WOW, look at the neat thing he did to that old Colt." and the other half is going, 'AAAIIEEEE, look at what he did to that classic collectable old Colt!"
While my brain halves fight it out I am just going to say I love the finish and the grips whatever they decide about the sights.......
-kBob
This is what having two brain haves is all about! Half my brain is going "WOW, look at the neat thing he did to that old Colt." and the other half is going, 'AAAIIEEEE, look at what he did to that classic collectable old Colt!"
While my brain halves fight it out I am just going to say I love the finish and the grips whatever they decide about the sights.......
-kBob
Ok that's a little confusing! Does that mean that you won't buy a pocket pistol if it has "real sites" and also that you don't consider the LCP a "real gun"?
That's pretty much what I mean. Sights designed for accuracy have several disadvantages for pocket carry. I'd rather something slimmer and slicker if I'm going that route.
Maybe "serious gun" is the better word. Essentially, something isn't going in my pocket because it's the most amazing thing to ballistics since the rifled barrel was invented. It's going into my pocket because I'm too lazy to carry something that requires a belt. I don't need more incentive to be lazy.
Maybe "serious gun" is the better word. Essentially, something isn't going in my pocket because it's the most amazing thing to ballistics since the rifled barrel was invented. It's going into my pocket because I'm too lazy to carry something that requires a belt. I don't need more incentive to be lazy.
Night sights may not be totally practical on small guns, but they are very comforting in a totally dark room. My PM9 came with a great set of night sights and my Shield got a set the day they were available. Neither hang up on the draw from pocket or holster. Both my snubbies carry CT lasergrips.
PRD1
Member
highorder
Member
Agreed.
The odds of 15 inch gunfight are greater, but the stakes in the 15yd shot scenario (mall, theater, etc.) weigh on me enough to practice those longer aimed shots.
The very good night sites that came standard on my P238 have not been a problem when drawing from my pocket and as for serious, I would consider being shot with an LCP or any other 380 pretty serious, especially since a guy was shot with one here in my town and the round was a through and through.
It entered his chest, penetrated completely through his heart and exited his back and that IMO is pretty serious.
M2 Carbine
member
I had a bunch of trouble with my P238 but the sights weren't one of them.
The gun was very easy to hit with at 52 yards (standing, two hands).
I had to get rid of the gun because it was totally unreliable, after trips back ti SIG.
Another gun that does well, because of decent sights, at 52 yards, is the Micro Desert Eagle.
Archie
Member
Yes
Any firearm worth shooting deserves decent sights.
I collect old pocket pistols. Among other things, I test fire them all to check velocity with a standard load AND to determine usable accuracy from the various types. They are all more accurate than I ever suspected.
For instance, I have a small pistol, a Beretta 418 in .25 ACP. The attached photo shows a five shot group fired from 25 yards (indoor range). The target shown in small part is a regulation B-27 (Police Pistol Competition) target. The second photo is the same pistol fired at 7 yards at the center of a standard size sheet of typing paper (for the younger people - copier paper). The third photo is the pistol itself. Not just a pocket pistol, but a vest pocket size pistol.
The sights shoot to the point of aim. The only draw back is they are tiny and hard to acquire. (The trigger pull doesn't help either, but that's a different discussion.)
For a concealed pistol - and especially a pocket pistol - adjustable sights are not needed. However, a set of decent fixed sights, large enough to be used and small enough not to cause problems with snagging either on holstering (pocketing?) or drawing are not all that hard to accomplish.
Normally, 'small pistol' sights are problematic in the sights are too narrow, not too short. Typically, a small width rear sight can be 'fixed' with a small file; simply widen the notch and make it flat bottomed and square. Front sights can be more difficult. One approach is to have the front sight 'built up' with TIG welding to simply bulk up the size, and then apply a file to remove all the material which does not look like a front sight. If the front sight is attached by a mortise and tenon arrangement, a new front sight can be made from steel or brass stock.
The paragraph immediately above presumes the pistol has greater value as a defensive shooter than a collector item. (I'm not going to further alter the Beretta shown, for instance.)
I suppose guns without sights or without functional sights are suitable for one who does not use sights. However, when reading the accounts of police involved shootings resulting in injuries to non-involved people, I shudder at the concept of 'point shooting' in any but contact range situations.
Any firearm worth shooting deserves decent sights.
I collect old pocket pistols. Among other things, I test fire them all to check velocity with a standard load AND to determine usable accuracy from the various types. They are all more accurate than I ever suspected.
For instance, I have a small pistol, a Beretta 418 in .25 ACP. The attached photo shows a five shot group fired from 25 yards (indoor range). The target shown in small part is a regulation B-27 (Police Pistol Competition) target. The second photo is the same pistol fired at 7 yards at the center of a standard size sheet of typing paper (for the younger people - copier paper). The third photo is the pistol itself. Not just a pocket pistol, but a vest pocket size pistol.
The sights shoot to the point of aim. The only draw back is they are tiny and hard to acquire. (The trigger pull doesn't help either, but that's a different discussion.)
For a concealed pistol - and especially a pocket pistol - adjustable sights are not needed. However, a set of decent fixed sights, large enough to be used and small enough not to cause problems with snagging either on holstering (pocketing?) or drawing are not all that hard to accomplish.
Normally, 'small pistol' sights are problematic in the sights are too narrow, not too short. Typically, a small width rear sight can be 'fixed' with a small file; simply widen the notch and make it flat bottomed and square. Front sights can be more difficult. One approach is to have the front sight 'built up' with TIG welding to simply bulk up the size, and then apply a file to remove all the material which does not look like a front sight. If the front sight is attached by a mortise and tenon arrangement, a new front sight can be made from steel or brass stock.
The paragraph immediately above presumes the pistol has greater value as a defensive shooter than a collector item. (I'm not going to further alter the Beretta shown, for instance.)
I suppose guns without sights or without functional sights are suitable for one who does not use sights. However, when reading the accounts of police involved shootings resulting in injuries to non-involved people, I shudder at the concept of 'point shooting' in any but contact range situations.
Attachments
Roadking Rider
Member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 466
I personally do not see a need for sights on what is basically a up close point and shoot pistol, but I know Ruger changed the slide on the latest version of the LCP and it does have improved sights on it than the older version.
highorder
Member
It's only a "up close point and shoot" pistol if your target is up close.
What if its 30 feet away, between you and the exit door?
What if its 30 feet away, between you and the exit door?
Highorder, that's the issue with self defense - you're always paranoid in how much you prepare, until it happens that you need that preparation.. The chances of needed to defend yourself are already low. The chances of that occuring outside the normal effective range (for your average joe) of a pocket pistol are even slimmer.
M2 Carbine
member
I've never understood this type of statement.
I doubt there is a rule in the criminal's book of conduct that says,
"As a criminal it is forbidden that you shoot anyone beyound "up close" distance if the victim is armed with a gun that is considered a up close "point and shoot' gun."
So, just what the heck are you going to do if the criminal decides to shoot you at a distance greater that say, 3-10-15-25 yards?
Run?
IMO, if you can't shoot the gun effectively, within the distance and conditions that the gun can be effectively used, you are just fooling yourself that you are competent.
There is no such thing as a "up close gun". There are just "up close shooters".
Archie
Member
Hear! Hear!
I must second the comments of M2 Carbine.
I must second the comments of M2 Carbine.
SharpsDressedMan
member
With regards to the Colt .25, it had little to no finish, but no pits or dents, when I got it, so not much collector's value. A friend who doubles as a part time gunsmith milled down a Novak sight for the Colt .380, and milled the slide to take that and a front dovetail to match. The grips are mastodon ivory, and the finishing was done by the late Bill Adair, a master at Colt restoration. The gun ended up being very unique, and as "shootable" at 25 yards as any other combat auto....although it isn't going to knock anyone over. I made a gift of it to my brother, as it fit his 300+ pound stature in a contrasting sort of way. He considers it "cool", and I was glad it pleased him. He never carries it, but he loves owning it.
allaroundhunter
Member
These are both worthy signature lines.
DeepSouth
Random Guy
IMO, pocket pistols (and therefore there sights) aren't designed to be easy to shoot accuratly as much as they are to be fast. I put XS sights on my pocket pistols, there not the easiest to get very accurate with, but they make it easier to quickly acquire a target and hit it. Which is what I want in a pocket pistol.
Hunter2011
Member
I could not agree more with everything you've said.
For me the point of a pocket gun is not to do extremely close range combat fighthing. The point of a pocket gun, to me, is to be able to carry it easier, therefore more regularly. Just to have a gun is allready tipping the scales in your favour. Why would you not want it too shoot accurately? If not do you really want to shoot someone only when he is 1 yard, 2 yards, or even closer from you? He will stab you with his knive even if shot at that range, most proparly. No thank you, give me an accurate gun. I want to start shooting the criminal when he is still approaching me from 10 yards of prefferable even further.
I can't see how proper sights can really interfere with a quick draw.
If you can shoot a gun without sights like Hickock45, ringing gongs at long ranges, then yes, you don't need sights. But us mere mortals, I need all the accuracy I can get.
Is shot placement not king?
There is no disadvantage to having proper sights on your weapon. There is only complacency in being satisfied with poor ones. No one can tell what shot you may be forced to take with your weapon. I prefer to have the capability to use my sights if the need should arise. I had an LCP and I currently have a BG380. Mechanically, both are more accurate than most shooters. The BG has higher visibility sights so I prefer it. Whenever I find a front night sight for mine it will have one. For those who can foresee you would never need sights why can't you foresee the problem in the first place and just avoid it? If you can do that you don't need to carry a weapon in the first place.
OregonJohnny
Member
I have both a Ruger LCP and a Kahr CM9 (same size as the PM9), and I only call one of them a true "pocket pistol" - the LCP. The Kahr, although very small and slim, is in a different size class altogether than the LCP and other micro .380's. Yes, the Kahr's sights are far better and more useful than the LCP's, but it's just not pocketable for me.
So, on my LCP, I dabbed a dot of bright white Testers paint on the front sight ramp, and on each side of the rear notch. So far, it has held up to about 2 years of almost daily pocket carry. It does help me get a sight picture faster. Short of paying a gunsmith to do an expensive dovetail and sight installation job, the paint trick seems to be the only option if you want an upgrade - at least on the LCP. Also, I believe Ruger improved the LCP sights recently, and made them just a hair taller.
My FIL has a Sig P238, which is a true pocket pistol, almost identical in size and dimension to the LCP, but much heavier. The sights on that gun are great. I don't like the cocked-and-locked single action only aspect of the Sig, but everything else about it is head and shoulders above all the entry-level micro .380's.
For quick reactive shots on man-sized targets within 3-5 yards, the practically non-existant sights on the LCP don't seem to be a problem for me, and I can't justify the huge extra cost of installing actual sights, or upgrading to a different gun - just for the pocket pistol role.
So, on my LCP, I dabbed a dot of bright white Testers paint on the front sight ramp, and on each side of the rear notch. So far, it has held up to about 2 years of almost daily pocket carry. It does help me get a sight picture faster. Short of paying a gunsmith to do an expensive dovetail and sight installation job, the paint trick seems to be the only option if you want an upgrade - at least on the LCP. Also, I believe Ruger improved the LCP sights recently, and made them just a hair taller.
My FIL has a Sig P238, which is a true pocket pistol, almost identical in size and dimension to the LCP, but much heavier. The sights on that gun are great. I don't like the cocked-and-locked single action only aspect of the Sig, but everything else about it is head and shoulders above all the entry-level micro .380's.
For quick reactive shots on man-sized targets within 3-5 yards, the practically non-existant sights on the LCP don't seem to be a problem for me, and I can't justify the huge extra cost of installing actual sights, or upgrading to a different gun - just for the pocket pistol role.
If someone is shooting at me from 30 feet I don't think shooting back would be considered anything but self defence.
I have a hallway in my house that's near 30 feet long.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked