"When opportunity knocks!!!"

G.T. · 03-13-2017, 11:28 AM

Hi To all, OK, here's the deal..... I have just contacted a company that makes front sight blades and has been it the business for many decades.. They have informed me that they will run a minimum quantity of Luger front sight blades for me, at two additional heights? all I have to do is submit a print, and also determine what blade height we (we meaning me and my Luger forum family!..

) would require and /or desire?... I have the standard blade print and sample... If anyone on the forum has any knowledge or suggestion on the subject, NOW is the time to speak / step up.. as the opportunity to get a large manufacture mess around with such a small quantity doesn't happen very often if ever?... So, your homework assignment is, what are the three sight heights desired? 1) standard 2)_______? 3)______?
So, come on guys... let's see if we can pull this off. They will be offered for sale at Luger Docs as are all GT Specialties offerings...

.. best to all, til....lat'r.....GT

DavidJayUden · 03-13-2017, 12:52 PM

I know I've been squawking about this issue for a long time, but i fear that my needs are so far outside of the norm that they would benefit no one else. I just measured the front sight on my Navy, (it is a "tall K98 sight" by the way) and it goes right at .398" tall from the bottom of the dovetail to upper tip. And the gun STILL prints a bit high. Someday I may buy a ridiculously tall sight blank and start working it down.
dju

ithacaartist · 03-13-2017, 01:08 PM

If need is sufficient for them, one size that is designed to be "worked down" to what's required might be worth considering. It's easier to remove excess material then it is to "stretch" a piece.

G.T. · 03-13-2017, 06:33 PM

Yes, I've considered that... but the trick is to make the increments that are the most, "usable" for the majority of shooters needs... as in, starting with the basic blade, should the next size be .030" or .050" next?, next? etc. etc. That's where experience comes in.... First, we need to measure and / or find out what was originally offered?... Measure your navy and arty. sights and let's start there?... measure from tallest part of the blade to the top of the sight block, as barrel dia. differs and is not a reliable benchmark... Let's go guys, calipers and numbers!!!!!

.....best to all, til....lat'r....GT

DonVoigt · 03-13-2017, 08:33 PM

GT,
I just measured some blades, top of blade to sight block.

4" average 0.200 and some 0.220
45/8" .30 cal- is 0.180

Artillery - 0.205

Navy - 0.205

A guy that wanted to calculate how much 1/1000 at the front sight would move the point of impact at some yardage- could do that if he were so inclined. I'm not!

The very tall sight on my 5" bull is 0.370 and would be as tall as anyone could realistically use, IMO.

If you had "tall" sights of 0.250, 0.300, and 0.350 made; that would cover any eventuality, again JMHO.

Robert in NC · 03-15-2017, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonVoigt

GT,

A guy that wanted to calculate how much 1/1000 at the front sight would move the point of impact at some yardage- could do that if he were so inclined. I'm not!

.

I'm that guy. For a Luger with a 4 inch barrel a change in height of the front sight of 1/1000 inch will change the point of impact by 0.22 inches at 50 yards.

G.T. · 03-15-2017, 02:09 PM

So, ...each .025" will result in approx. 5.5" of change at 50?..... Now there's a whole'nother'dog in the fight!

... Would it be half that at 25 yards? Good job Don & Robert.... Keep thinking and pondering... it's helping me make a decision...

...GT

gunbugs · 03-15-2017, 05:10 PM

The formula is simple, sight radius x error on target, divided by distance to target,all measurements in inches. This tells you how much to move the sight.

DonVoigt · 03-15-2017, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunbugs

The formula is simple, sight radius x error on target, divided by distance to target,all measurements in inches. This tells you how much to move the sight.

I did not mean to imply it was not simple, just that I was lazy!

Robert in NC · 03-16-2017, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert in NC

I'm that guy. For a Luger with a 4 inch barrel a change in height of the front sight of 1/1000 inch will change the point of impact by 0.22 inches at 50 yards.

Here's my math if anyone's interested. I can't say I never make mistakes but I'm pretty sure this is correct. Of course the change would be different for different sight radii.

Rick W. · 03-16-2017, 01:50 PM

I am far from being right at times, but the attempt is still there. One has to get beat on for whatever to keep the faith sorta speak.

you might take a look at the first equation for tangent of the angle. Is it 8.1 or 81.1?

My stuff is not completely right either, as used a component of barrel length rather than sight radius.

Thanks for the nice presentation and pictorial; lot more than I did.

regards,

Rick W.

Robert in NC · 03-16-2017, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick W.

I am far from being right at times, but the attempt is still there. One has to get beat on for whatever to keep the faith sorta speak.

you might take a look at the first equation for tangent of the angle. Is it 8.1 or 81.1?

My stuff is not completely right either, as used a component of barrel length rather than sight radius.

Thanks for the nice presentation and pictorial; lot more than I did.

regards,

Rick W.

Opps! I did the calculation with 8.1 but mis-typed 81.1 on the figure. 81.1 inches would make a mighty long pistol barrel! The math as shown is correct with 8.1". I have corrected the image. Thanks for catching that!

ithacaartist · 03-13-2017, 08:46 PM

1917 Arty ~0.20" from top of block to top of blade...same for a 1917 P.08, although the barrel was probably depot-replaced after WWI to create it from an Arty.

DavidJayUden · 03-13-2017, 09:43 PM

It appears that we are measuring in 2 different fashions.
The tall sight in the Navy measures .398" overall height from the bottom of the dovetail to the very top of the blade. Measuring from the top of the blade down to the top of the dovetail measures right at .285".
And it could stand to be just a bit taller to bring the POI down a bit.
dju

G.T. · 03-13-2017, 10:00 PM

Hi David, that is really tall!!!..

..... But, if you want, I think I could modify one of the Mauser custom sight blades by hand? I would make it into a luger profile barleycorn and you'd be set to go?... We would / could, have anything below .370 as Don mentioned below?... best to you, til...lat'r...GT....

DonVoigt · 03-14-2017, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidJayUden

It appears that we are measuring in 2 different fashions.
The tall sight in the Navy measures .398" overall height from the bottom of the dovetail to the very top of the blade. Measuring from the top of the blade down to the top of the dovetail measures right at .285".
And it could stand to be just a bit taller to bring the POI down a bit.
dju

Yes, two reference points; GT asked that we measure from the top of the blade to the top of the ramp- i.e. the top of the dove tail.

GT-
The luger drawings show the height of the blade in both ways of measurement. Converted to inches the way you asked for the measurement is : 0.20 to 0.213 in.

The drawing would be suitable for the mfg to use, though changes would need to be made for the height increase.

G.T. · 03-14-2017, 12:12 PM

Hi Don, I've measure several standard 4" originals and they fall easily into that .200" to .220" range... I was thinking .225" for my standard blade, .250" for the next increment... and .300" for the tall, tall blade? If I made them sharp enough at the inverted "V" part, it would be relatively easy to slightly shorten any or all if situation demands?... For some reason, a lot of the custom barrels have needed a .250+ blade height to be on zero?..

..... keep the measurements coming guys... we're still straddling the fence on final dimensional decisions....

...GT

DonVoigt · 03-14-2017, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G.T.

Hi Don, I've measure several standard 4" originals and they fall easily into that .200" to .220" range... I was thinking .225" for my standard blade, .250" for the next increment... and .300" for the tall, tall blade? If I made them sharp enough at the inverted "V" part, it would be relatively easy to slightly shorten any or all if situation demands?... For some reason, a lot of the custom barrels have needed a .250+ blade height to be on zero?..

..... keep the measurements coming guys... we're still straddling the fence on final dimensional decisions....

...GT

Sounds reasonable, I did not realize you wanted to make a "normal" sight too!

If you can get them to make 4 sizes- I'd add the taller one of 0.350, as it is needed if one uses and adjustable rear sight.

With filing, the 4 should cover any and all needs, JMHO.

Kiwi Mark · 03-16-2017, 02:22 AM

I milled up a front for my 4 inch barrel as it was shooting too high. I made 3mm higher and went out test fire for 25 yards. At 1st it was shooting so low it wouldn't hit the paper. I filed down at the range and keep test firing and filing till it was smack on centre with a 6 o'clock hold. The new sight ended up .030 higher. My feeling is go a lot higher and file to suit.

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.

03-13-2017, 11:28 AM	#1
G.T. Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Chandler Arizona Posts: 3,523 Thanks: 1,321 Thanked 3,707 Times in 1,012 Posts	"When opportunity knocks!!!" Hi To all, OK, here's the deal..... I have just contacted a company that makes front sight blades and has been it the business for many decades.. They have informed me that they will run a minimum quantity of Luger front sight blades for me, at two additional heights? all I have to do is submit a print, and also determine what blade height we (we meaning me and my Luger forum family!..) would require and /or desire?... I have the standard blade print and sample... If anyone on the forum has any knowledge or suggestion on the subject, NOW is the time to speak / step up.. as the opportunity to get a large manufacture mess around with such a small quantity doesn't happen very often if ever?... So, your homework assignment is, what are the three sight heights desired? 1) standard 2)_______? 3)______? So, come on guys... let's see if we can pull this off. They will be offered for sale at Luger Docs as are all GT Specialties offerings... .. best to all, til....lat'r.....GT

03-13-2017, 01:08 PM	#3
ithacaartist Twice a Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Atop the highest hill in Schuyler County NY Posts: 3,369 Thanks: 7,432 Thanked 2,611 Times in 1,378 Posts	If need is sufficient for them, one size that is designed to be "worked down" to what's required might be worth considering. It's easier to remove excess material then it is to "stretch" a piece. __________________ "... Liberty is the seed and soil, the air and light, the dew and rain of progress, love and joy."-- Robert Greene Ingersoll 1894

03-13-2017, 06:33 PM	#4
G.T. Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Chandler Arizona Posts: 3,523 Thanks: 1,321 Thanked 3,707 Times in 1,012 Posts	increments? Yes, I've considered that... but the trick is to make the increments that are the most, "usable" for the majority of shooters needs... as in, starting with the basic blade, should the next size be .030" or .050" next?, next? etc. etc. That's where experience comes in.... First, we need to measure and / or find out what was originally offered?... Measure your navy and arty. sights and let's start there?... measure from tallest part of the blade to the top of the sight block, as barrel dia. differs and is not a reliable benchmark... Let's go guys, calipers and numbers!!!!! .....best to all, til....lat'r....GT

03-13-2017, 08:33 PM	#5
DonVoigt User Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: near Charlotte NC Posts: 4,681 Thanks: 1,443 Thanked 4,355 Times in 2,041 Posts	GT, I just measured some blades, top of blade to sight block. 4" average 0.200 and some 0.220 45/8" .30 cal- is 0.180 Artillery - 0.205 Navy - 0.205 A guy that wanted to calculate how much 1/1000 at the front sight would move the point of impact at some yardage- could do that if he were so inclined. I'm not! The very tall sight on my 5" bull is 0.370 and would be as tall as anyone could realistically use, IMO. If you had "tall" sights of 0.250, 0.300, and 0.350 made; that would cover any eventuality, again JMHO. __________________ 03man(Don Voigt); Luger student and collector. Looking for DWM side plate: 69 ; Dreyse 1907 pistol K.S. Gendarmerie

03-15-2017, 02:09 PM	#7
G.T. Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Chandler Arizona Posts: 3,523 Thanks: 1,321 Thanked 3,707 Times in 1,012 Posts	so.......if that's so... So, ...each .025" will result in approx. 5.5" of change at 50?..... Now there's a whole'nother'dog in the fight! ... Would it be half that at 25 yards? Good job Don & Robert.... Keep thinking and pondering... it's helping me make a decision... ...GT

03-13-2017, 12:52 PM	#2
DavidJayUden Patron LugerForum Patron Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 4,047 Thanks: 578 Thanked 1,414 Times in 887 Posts	I know I've been squawking about this issue for a long time, but i fear that my needs are so far outside of the norm that they would benefit no one else. I just measured the front sight on my Navy, (it is a "tall K98 sight" by the way) and it goes right at .398" tall from the bottom of the dovetail to upper tip. And the gun STILL prints a bit high. Someday I may buy a ridiculously tall sight blank and start working it down. dju

03-15-2017, 05:10 PM	#8
gunbugs Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Fairbanks, Alaska. Home of the best moose. Posts: 672 Thanks: 371 Thanked 1,202 Times in 407 Posts	The formula is simple, sight radius x error on target, divided by distance to target,all measurements in inches. This tells you how much to move the sight.

03-16-2017, 01:50 PM	#11
Rick W. User Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 339 Thanks: 81 Thanked 359 Times in 198 Posts	I am far from being right at times, but the attempt is still there. One has to get beat on for whatever to keep the faith sorta speak. you might take a look at the first equation for tangent of the angle. Is it 8.1 or 81.1? My stuff is not completely right either, as used a component of barrel length rather than sight radius. Thanks for the nice presentation and pictorial; lot more than I did. regards, Rick W.

03-13-2017, 08:46 PM	#13
ithacaartist Twice a Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Atop the highest hill in Schuyler County NY Posts: 3,369 Thanks: 7,432 Thanked 2,611 Times in 1,378 Posts	1917 Arty ~0.20" from top of block to top of blade...same for a 1917 P.08, although the barrel was probably depot-replaced after WWI to create it from an Arty. __________________ "... Liberty is the seed and soil, the air and light, the dew and rain of progress, love and joy."-- Robert Greene Ingersoll 1894

03-13-2017, 09:43 PM	#14
DavidJayUden Patron LugerForum Patron Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 4,047 Thanks: 578 Thanked 1,414 Times in 887 Posts	It appears that we are measuring in 2 different fashions. The tall sight in the Navy measures .398" overall height from the bottom of the dovetail to the very top of the blade. Measuring from the top of the blade down to the top of the dovetail measures right at .285". And it could stand to be just a bit taller to bring the POI down a bit. dju

03-13-2017, 10:00 PM	#15
G.T. Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Chandler Arizona Posts: 3,523 Thanks: 1,321 Thanked 3,707 Times in 1,012 Posts	tallest? Hi David, that is really tall!!!....... But, if you want, I think I could modify one of the Mauser custom sight blades by hand? I would make it into a luger profile barleycorn and you'd be set to go?... We would / could, have anything below .370 as Don mentioned below?... best to you, til...lat'r...GT....

03-14-2017, 12:12 PM	#17
G.T. Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Chandler Arizona Posts: 3,523 Thanks: 1,321 Thanked 3,707 Times in 1,012 Posts	height variations? Hi Don, I've measure several standard 4" originals and they fall easily into that .200" to .220" range... I was thinking .225" for my standard blade, .250" for the next increment... and .300" for the tall, tall blade? If I made them sharp enough at the inverted "V" part, it would be relatively easy to slightly shorten any or all if situation demands?... For some reason, a lot of the custom barrels have needed a .250+ blade height to be on zero?....... keep the measurements coming guys... we're still straddling the fence on final dimensional decisions.......GT

03-16-2017, 02:22 AM	#19
Kiwi Mark User Join Date: Jan 2017 Posts: 23 Thanks: 0 Thanked 7 Times in 6 Posts	I milled up a front for my 4 inch barrel as it was shooting too high. I made 3mm higher and went out test fire for 25 yards. At 1st it was shooting so low it wouldn't hit the paper. I filed down at the range and keep test firing and filing till it was smack on centre with a 6 o'clock hold. The new sight ended up .030 higher. My feeling is go a lot higher and file to suit.

03-16-2017, 08:54 AM	#20
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.