LugerForum Discussion Forums - View Single Post

Rick W. · 03-16-2017, 08:54 AM

G.T.,

Kinda getting to feel like the evening national news around here. Felt good to be bashed again for no real reason; just an internet thing I reckon; not a big deal anymore huh?

I only used basic trig to do my own calculation on the 0.001" increments on kinda a 4" barrel.

The Brownell's little software piece allows for playing around with movements. Basic formula that was mentioned in an earlier posting I believe; just made more convenient than from scratch. One has to trust the accuracy of the software calculated result in the blind without knowledge of the limits(rounding etc).

Put in the software(inch orientated): 0.225", kinda 4" barrel, 25yds in inches.

error ......... 0.225
sight radius....... 4
distance...........900

correction is 0.001"..........tis the number suggested in earlier postings as something useful resolution-wise to get from one height to another.

This is the same number that I got with a calculation using trig. have to admit I have not used trig for a long time, but my calculation and the software agreed. So that made me jittery on the original numbers. I think the number in an earlier positing is off by a factor of two. Perhaps the original poster will chime in and straighten me out.

In order to do the calculation or software input, one has to have sight radius, and not only the barrel component in Luger references. I do not know how accurate the software calculation is, but does give an easy indication of possible what if's; to play around with. Trig will get right close.

I think if I had a vote, I would vote for a tallish sight to make to work, necessary dovetail and boss, with a tallish blade. Thickness of blade will come into play as you well know. I believe measuring or looking at prints for original sights will give some guidance, but not necessarily today's needs, just a starting point to ponder and if needbe use what is thought best.

I am not sure of the intention of the new sights, more to the collector side of things(cosmetics, old factory specs) or something for the shooter types. I feel the perceived need for mainly fixed rear sight applications, but as you know others are out there in smaller numbers though. As I said earlier I am more into rear adjustable and optical sights now, my Luger exploits are kinda varied now with calibers and barrels; fixed sights I abandoned years ago; just my own trip. I am sure others have the fixed need.

One might consider a multi-thickness type sight ala the early 1900 type, the topmost thinner in width sight could be modded by the user downwards easily without losing the cosmetics I would think, just a thought. Downside is that does not match the vast majority of later Luger sights in looks.

I think we oughta remember the Luger in its most basic form is a military pistol, which means usually that the sights were never intended to be used a lot, be rugged, and if used; be used at almost touching range; ie quick kill senerios; just my opinion. I do not know many from actual encounters with a pistol that used the sights, just instinct.

One of the basic problems is that the 0.001" calculations or whatever, tells you how much to move the sights from the previous point of impact. Does not do much for you to find out where it will hit in the first place. Obiviously the end point of all of this is impact on the target, which has a lot of variables, to include sight physical configurations.

I have no dog in the fight or selection of whatever, but one needs to be sure of theoretical numbers if that enters into the equation along with the empirical or previously measured sighting systems.

all of this is just here for conversation, no real thought or time given to the project like I am sure you have done.

I also know a sandbagger when I see one..........

my best to your and yours,

Rick W.

a late thought: the number from bore centerline to top of sight of existing barrels might be interesting to know on the models. One probably uses white box ammo in the various rebarreling or custom barrels, that number from centerline of bore to top of front sight might have some good about it. Barrels vary in diameter in front/rear from model to model, but oddly a lot of the tapers are right similar.

03-16-2017, 08:54 AM	#23
Rick W. User Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 339 Thanks: 81 Thanked 359 Times in 198 Posts	G.T., Kinda getting to feel like the evening national news around here. Felt good to be bashed again for no real reason; just an internet thing I reckon; not a big deal anymore huh? I only used basic trig to do my own calculation on the 0.001" increments on kinda a 4" barrel. The Brownell's little software piece allows for playing around with movements. Basic formula that was mentioned in an earlier posting I believe; just made more convenient than from scratch. One has to trust the accuracy of the software calculated result in the blind without knowledge of the limits(rounding etc). Put in the software(inch orientated): 0.225", kinda 4" barrel, 25yds in inches. error ......... 0.225 sight radius....... 4 distance...........900 correction is 0.001"..........tis the number suggested in earlier postings as something useful resolution-wise to get from one height to another. This is the same number that I got with a calculation using trig. have to admit I have not used trig for a long time, but my calculation and the software agreed. So that made me jittery on the original numbers. I think the number in an earlier positing is off by a factor of two. Perhaps the original poster will chime in and straighten me out. In order to do the calculation or software input, one has to have sight radius, and not only the barrel component in Luger references. I do not know how accurate the software calculation is, but does give an easy indication of possible what if's; to play around with. Trig will get right close. I think if I had a vote, I would vote for a tallish sight to make to work, necessary dovetail and boss, with a tallish blade. Thickness of blade will come into play as you well know. I believe measuring or looking at prints for original sights will give some guidance, but not necessarily today's needs, just a starting point to ponder and if needbe use what is thought best. I am not sure of the intention of the new sights, more to the collector side of things(cosmetics, old factory specs) or something for the shooter types. I feel the perceived need for mainly fixed rear sight applications, but as you know others are out there in smaller numbers though. As I said earlier I am more into rear adjustable and optical sights now, my Luger exploits are kinda varied now with calibers and barrels; fixed sights I abandoned years ago; just my own trip. I am sure others have the fixed need. One might consider a multi-thickness type sight ala the early 1900 type, the topmost thinner in width sight could be modded by the user downwards easily without losing the cosmetics I would think, just a thought. Downside is that does not match the vast majority of later Luger sights in looks. I think we oughta remember the Luger in its most basic form is a military pistol, which means usually that the sights were never intended to be used a lot, be rugged, and if used; be used at almost touching range; ie quick kill senerios; just my opinion. I do not know many from actual encounters with a pistol that used the sights, just instinct. One of the basic problems is that the 0.001" calculations or whatever, tells you how much to move the sights from the previous point of impact. Does not do much for you to find out where it will hit in the first place. Obiviously the end point of all of this is impact on the target, which has a lot of variables, to include sight physical configurations. I have no dog in the fight or selection of whatever, but one needs to be sure of theoretical numbers if that enters into the equation along with the empirical or previously measured sighting systems. all of this is just here for conversation, no real thought or time given to the project like I am sure you have done. I also know a sandbagger when I see one.......... my best to your and yours, Rick W. a late thought: the number from bore centerline to top of sight of existing barrels might be interesting to know on the models. One probably uses white box ammo in the various rebarreling or custom barrels, that number from centerline of bore to top of front sight might have some good about it. Barrels vary in diameter in front/rear from model to model, but oddly a lot of the tapers are right similar.