adjustable or fixed sights on s&w 10xx, 40xx, 45xx?

[guns4liberty]

I have bought a couple s&w 10xx and one 4586. I want to buy a couple more and would like to hear opinions about whether the adjustable or fixed sights are "better" and why you think so.

 

[highorder]

I had a 4506 with fixed Trijicon sights.

I fired a variety of 230gr. loads and never had any need to adjust the sights.

 

[10X]

I prefer adj. sights. With all the different loads available and different points of impact, I like the ability to adjust the sights. I am a very good target shot so being off a small amount makes a big difference for me. With the S&W models you mentioned the adj. sights have the wings shielding them, so, even in a carry situation you shouldn't have snagging.

The adj. sights offer more flexibility.

 

[SwampWolf]

Plus 1 on everything 10X said.

 

[agtman]

"The adj. sights offer more flexibility."

True, if that flexibility is needed because you're constantly switching among different factory loads, or because you're shooting reloads of varying velocities using the 10mm's huge range of bullet-weights/styles.

If you want the Smith 10XX, 45XX, etc., for EDC, CCW or duty use - as a kind of combat pistol for the street - stick with the factory fixed sights. (I prefer Novak trijicons).

Besides being more rugged, you'll find that the POA/POI, especially in the flat-shooting 10mm AUTO, is more than sufficient to hit with good "combat accuracy" at normal combat distances, provided you do your part (i.e, front sight, press).

 

[mljdeckard]

For a target gun, sure. On a defensive gun, not really. The regular sights should already be good enough, and won't usually have as many sharp edges to snag and moving parts to fail.

 

[doc2rn]

defensively I like fixed

 

[John Wayne]

For a carry or rough use ("woods" or "truck") gun, I prefer fixed sights. I have a 10-7 and 442 with fixed sights. The 442 is pretty much right on with 125-158 gr. bullet weights; the 10-7 is a little more picky and likes the 148 gr. and heavier loads.

Fixed sights are much more durable and snag less. I'd rather shoot a gun with fixed sights and a load that was off by an inch or so than a gun with target sights that used to be dead-on, but aren't any more because they broke, fell off, or got knocked out of adjustment.

*edit*
My XDM9 has fixed sights too, and they're always right on target.

 

[guns4liberty]

Thanks for the feedback. I guess I'll buy a few of each type and keep the ones I like.

 

[highorder]

If you want the Smith 10XX, 45XX, etc., for EDC, CCW or duty use - as a kind of combat pistol for the street - stick with the factory fixed sights. (I prefer Novak trijicons).

Exactly my experience.

 

[18DAI]

Defensive pistol - fixed sights, for me.

Range, fun, HD - adjustable.

The 4586 was only available with fixed sights, IIRC. All the other models came with a choice. TJ

 

[SwampWolf]

IMO, way too much is made of the "ruggedness" of fixed sights over the supposed fragility of adjustables. In thirty years of le, which involved more than a couple of "tussles" with bgs, I only had one experience where an adjustable sight was damaged. That incident involved a felon whose parole was being violated and he didn't want to return to prison. We got into a roll-around during which time a part of the blade of a Smith adjustable sight was broken off. Would that have made any difference had I had to use the revolver at point blank range? Nope, it wouldn't have. My point is that if an adjustable sight is ever going to fail (get broken) it will only happen at close range and at those kind of close ranges you really aren't going to need sights of any kind. I'm talking about real world scenarios here.

On the other hand, if a handgun is going to be carried in a mode other than a holster, snagless fixed sights certainly have their place when a draw must be accomplished without a sight catching on clothing. But from leather? Give me the flexibility of adjustables any day of the year.