as mentioned in my last post, i took my chl with 9mm hp. what kind(s) of sights are the best for the hi power? i like mmc's night sights and would like to know what other sights can be had, their +'s and -'s fro concealed carry.
Hello, sir. What constitutes the "best" sights for the HP is very subjective,i.e.: what I like might not be your cup of tea!
Novak fixed sights as well as Heine's are considered top fixed sights for the HP; I'm told that the latter brand are made of harder steel, but cannot confirm that as I've not dinged my Novaks.
On a couple of my MkIII 9mms, I had a local smith install plain black-on-black Novak fixed sights with a semi-post (serrated). I had the rear sight notch opened a tad for these aging eyes.
Guess what? When firing either of these HPs against a MkIII with its factory fixed sights, I gained nothing in speed/accuracy and in bullseye shooting, groups were equivalent! Still, I wouldn't change them back as they add a bit of class or a panache to the gun's looks!
I had an officer under my command who had a set of the MMC adjustable sights put on his .40 BHP. They held up well to the rigors of patrol duty and he was able to hit with them and they did seem to hold "zero" once set. I find their sight picture a bit cluttered, but, again, that's subjective.
One of my HPs has Bomar adj sights low-mounted and they've held up good for twenty years as have a set of S&W K-frame adj sights on my oldest HP. I'm not sure if they're still made, but I had one HP fitted with Wichita sights, kind of like Bomars on steroids. The sight seemed good, but was just too big for the gun in my view.
Maybe it is just me, but does this BHP site mounting look a bit odd to you?
*PIC LINK NOT WORKING* Go to:this link instead and scroll about half way down to the BHP.
Stangely, it comes from a gunsmith who I very much respect his abalities, APG member Jim Stroh. As Mr. Stroh explained, "The BoMar must be moved forward, as shown. If it is installed to the extreme rear, as 1911 installations, the hammer will strike the sight instead of the firing pin."
I am just curious if anyone has a BHP with a similar site installation. I am sure it is very functional, but I just can't help but feel it looks out of place somehow.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Desert Dog on 2001-04-10 00:44 ]</font>
DD, your pic didn't work, but I think you're describing the "protected" mount for a Bomar. C&S does a version of that with the blade about 1/4" forward of the back of the slide. I've seen a Behlert done that way too. Is that what you're describing?
Hello, Desert Dog! I cannot see the picture, but it is done for the reason stated: If mounted in the more conventional manner, the HP hammer will hit it. My Bomar-sighted HP is mounted farther back in the conventional manner and the 'smith removed part of the blade, kind of a wide inverted "U" to allow the hammer to pass freely through and still allow plenty of windage. It sounds worse than it is. Most never have noticed. I suspect that my gun's sight is not as stout as one that's not been so altered, but it's lasted 20+ years of fairly continuous shooting.
Here's a 40 BHP that Cylinder and Slide did for me about six years ago. It has the forward mounted Bomar. Seems to be the standard way that this sight is mounted to the HP. Pistol has C&S hammer and sear, matted front and back straps, Spegel grips and Black T finish. It works well, but in my opinion the 40 is not as accuarte as the 9mm or 45 acp. This hp will only do 3-4" at 25 yards. I want to have my 9mm done by Kurt Wickmann sometime. The Wickmann/Novak no hammer bite mod works better than the C&S commander hammer.
<a href=http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=1639491&a=12543361&p=46320068>See my photo, bhp40 at PhotoPoint</a>
Hope this photo link works.