Heh.Originally Posted by JAD
Heh.
I would be very enthusiastic if S&W would finally start shipping the 442/642s with night sights standard, or at least a dovetail. It's ludicrous that the only way to get decent sights on those things is to send them to a smith who will charge you at least the price of the gun to mill down the original FSP and replace it with something worth a darn.
Part of the reason that they're so cheap as they are is that everything to do with those guns was fully depreciated when cars still had carburettors. Just about any change they make will probably bump the cost up to where they're priced like real guns.
Just what sort of shooting do you plan to do with yours?
I'm curious, because for thirty years I fired an annual (sometimes bi-annual) 60-round qual course, which included 15 rounds at 25 yards, with a variety of .38 J frames... and never shot less than 90%.
Yes, the newer guns with the wider front sight are easier to get a flash sight picture with- but the old skinny front sights are not useless. You do gotta squint pretty hard at the 25, though...
They're belly guns, for Pete's sake.
.
Well for starters I'd love to be able to see the front sight in low light conditions.Just what sort of shooting do you plan to do with yours?
I'm curious, because for thirty years I fired an annual (sometimes bi-annual) 60-round qual course, which included 15 rounds at 25 yards, with a variety of .38 J frames... and never shot less than 90%.
Yes, the newer guns with the wider front sight are easier to get a flash sight picture with- but the old skinny front sights are not useless. You do gotta squint pretty hard at the 25, though...
They're belly guns, for Pete's sake.
.
Okay. Sounds like you're using one for a primary. In that case, there are several options... but you already know about those.
My point was, the "target group" of these guns is not the serious pistolero; it is cops who need a back-up or off-duty piece, Chip and Muffy who are afraid of/unable to operate a semi-auto, and old farts like me who need something to keep a miscreant off our back.
Part of my retirement dream was to completely forego the hassle of carrying a "real gun"; shorts, T-shirt, flip-flops, and an airweight J frame with a Speed Strip would be my new uniform. The human garbage that Katrina blew in here killed that idea.
I still wear the shorts and flip-flops, but had to go with Hawaiian-style shirts for the extra concealment needed for the service piece.
MY point here is...if you use a J frame for a primary, you shouldn't squawk about having to spend more money getting it "right" for you. IMO, anyway...
.
Most modern firearms, big and small, include a front sight that is easily swapped for a replacement part. I do not think it is controversial to suggest that S&W consider following this lead, given that they already clearly are aware of the inadequacy of the sights as they ship.
I'm not asking for a 20rd 9mm in a .380 sized package - just the same gun, same size, and maybe a little bit more foresight with regards to aftermarket modifications. I do not find this controversial.
Neither do I.
But it IS unrealistic.
.
Why unrealistic? Look at the Night Guard revolvers. Look at the versions with the light tubes. Look at the one with a pinned sight such as the New Model 60.Neither do I.
But it IS unrealistic.
.
http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/w...layErrorView_Y
I admit I am happy with my 638/no lock as is with its slightly better sights and +P capability compared to my older Model 38. Even so I would like a front night sight on it BUT the Kahr PM9 has one and is the primary pocket pistol I carry now. I will get by.
I thought we (GJM, anyway) had established that some of the newer guns have the replaceable/interchangeable front sight capability? My 342, of 1998 vintage, and my 360PD, of 2002 vintage, both have that feature. I'm assuming that the source of the complaint here is that the lower "tier" offerings- 442s, 642s, etc.- have fixed front sights milled into the barrel, like they did it on the pre-95 guns.
I say unrealistic for two reasons: first, its a belly gun. Not everyone may share this opinion, but if you need better sights to be able to make a COM hit at 25 yards, then you need more gun IMO. And while I understand the desire for a visible-in-dim-light front sight, again... its a belly gun.
Second, S&W was forced to drastically change its manufacturing processes in order to stay competitive. The milled/machined internal parts of the pre-95 era are long gone, because the factory artisans who crafted those guns all retired and could not be replaced economically... hence we now have MIM parts and other production shortcuts/expedient measures. I would imagine that the extra machining steps needed to create an integral slot for a replaceable front sight would push the cost of these plain vanilla/bottom "tier" offerings past the point S&W marketing wants it to be. The "better" guns now all feature it, yes?
I had a PM9. Okay little pistol. But have you ever considered what is likely to occur if you must make a contact shot? And let's be real... these little guns are mainly for last-ditch defense, where your attacker stands a good chance of being on you physically.
There is a perception that the pre-95 J frame revolvers (when they went to the so-called "magnum" frame) are better than the new MIM offerings. In all fairness, I have put over 5K rounds through my 360PD in the 11 years I've owned it- mostly .38s of various power levels, but a few .357s- and that puppy is still good to go; MIM parts and all. Plus, its ultra light weight makes it a joy to carry. I have several older J frames, including a 1967 vintage 37, that I really enjoy. But the bottom line, I think, is that the current offerings are just as good, from a reliability/durability standpoint. If you want a better front sight, just pay the extra money for the "deluxe" models.
.
Reply With Quote
