Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Hello y'all,
Basically, I have this one, single, solitary report that the front sight blade on older revolvers is pretty tall because the manufacturers knew that larger, heavier bullets would recoil more and lift the barrel higher as the bullet traveled down the barrel. In a manner of speaking, you had to be aiming lower at the moment of ignition, so the barrel could rise during internal ballistic recoil, and you'd be dead on as the bullet exited the barrel.
So, my question is, Is this true? Can anybody corroborate this, or cite an authority who does corroborate? Or, is this maybe something that was a theory from an earlier era, long since dispelled?
I ask this because one of my revolvers has a really high front sight, but point of impact is about four inches low at 30'. It took me a while to notice that if I used a classic lollipop sight picture, the doggone gun wasn't even close to level, the muzzle pointed noticeably down, while I was going nuts trying to figure out why the point of impact was so low (of course, you don't notice this from behind the gun with a firing grip).
And, yet, I've seen all sorts of handguns with much lower front sight blades that actually shoot to point of aim, or a lot closer than mine anyway. And, I've come across at least one point-shooting reference that recommended looking across the top of the gun rather than through the sights, which would tend to moot the height of the front sight blade, I'm thinking.
So, I seem to have evidence that contradicts the stuff represented in the first paragraph, and I'm just trying to sort it all out.
Any help would be appreciated.
Basically, I have this one, single, solitary report that the front sight blade on older revolvers is pretty tall because the manufacturers knew that larger, heavier bullets would recoil more and lift the barrel higher as the bullet traveled down the barrel. In a manner of speaking, you had to be aiming lower at the moment of ignition, so the barrel could rise during internal ballistic recoil, and you'd be dead on as the bullet exited the barrel.
So, my question is, Is this true? Can anybody corroborate this, or cite an authority who does corroborate? Or, is this maybe something that was a theory from an earlier era, long since dispelled?
I ask this because one of my revolvers has a really high front sight, but point of impact is about four inches low at 30'. It took me a while to notice that if I used a classic lollipop sight picture, the doggone gun wasn't even close to level, the muzzle pointed noticeably down, while I was going nuts trying to figure out why the point of impact was so low (of course, you don't notice this from behind the gun with a firing grip).
And, yet, I've seen all sorts of handguns with much lower front sight blades that actually shoot to point of aim, or a lot closer than mine anyway. And, I've come across at least one point-shooting reference that recommended looking across the top of the gun rather than through the sights, which would tend to moot the height of the front sight blade, I'm thinking.
So, I seem to have evidence that contradicts the stuff represented in the first paragraph, and I'm just trying to sort it all out.
Any help would be appreciated.
Last edited: