"When opportunity knocks!!!"

[G.T.]

Hi Rick, hey, I value, and accept, your input without hesitation... you have that, " been there done that" experience that is impossible to get anywhere else.... If you say something, you can bet your butt, I'm listening! I still have a lot to learn, and i'm not going to get there with out help from my forum friend / family! But, more important, using the .200" to .220" as a standard blade starting point... what would you recommend for increments...?? Good to hear from you Rick... best to all, til...lat'r...GT..

[Kiwi Mark]

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.]

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.

[John Sabato]

Originally Posted by DonVoigt

Also, a 9mm(and all other rounds) drop just like a rock from the time they leave the muzzle!

Tis' true... all things (including moving bullet projectiles) drop at the rate of 32 feet per second, per second...up until the time they reach maximum resistance to the moving air based on their mass and physical size...

I remember that from General Science class back in the middle of the last century... and I don't think they have repealed the laws of physics...(at least not just yet)...

[Robert in NC]

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.]

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.

[DonVoigt]

Using 4"(barrel length" accounts for a factor of "two" when the sight radius is nearer 8".

Roberts calculation of a change of 0.001" = 0.22" at the target, sounds reasonable, if a pistol is shooting 4" high 4/.22= 18.2 or 18 thousandths more height required, add .018 to 0.022 original height and get a sight blade of 0.40 required.

Some how Robert made a compensating error of 10 in the calculation, since if one uses the 8.1",
one gets the 0.22"

So in this case, two wrongs Do make a right!

[Robert in NC]

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!

[Rick W.]

I concur with your calculation. I went back to my scribbling, and plugged in the total sight radius.......8.1 I assume, and got the 0.22222222" number as you did. You did it more easily than I did, but in the end, agreement. Guess we both are hoping to help hit the mark.

I went on the Brownell's deal and it concurred as well with the 8.1 sight radius. Now........is that the real sight radius that is in mind?...

I flubbadubbed the barrel length by using 4 inches(stupid on my part), rather than the total sight radius, so my initial numbers were out of wack. Sorry about that, but has been a long week here and then some.

[G.T.]

First, thank you Kiwi Mark... Can you tell me what you ended up with in over all height of the front sight blade from top or sight base to top of sight?.. I'm guessing around .250" overall... And also thank you Robert, Rick, and Don.. you guys have opened my eyes some in the method behind the madness!!!! ... Well, here's the final S.O.S!!! I need a couple of samples of original P.08 front sights... in "AS NEW" condition?..... Let me know price and trade preference, I'm at your mercy!... I need two ro three.... and will listen to all offers... Let me know Guys! Best to all, til....lat'r....GT

BTW, at this point, still looking like .225" / .250" / .300" ... still listening for suggestions though???.....

[DonVoigt]

Some applications could use a 0.350".
You can always make one shorter!

Not sure why you need the one that is the same as "standard"; unless they are much cheaper than the original. Not many folks will need an original height sight. JMHO.

[G.T.]

As I can't find any, new or old, reasonably priced.. I think my fist offering will be the just slightly taller standard unit... and in my own experiences, I've found a need for the .250" offering... after that, it gets a bit iffy? Meaning it is hard to maintain the Luger profile and still have a tall blade...Profile lines don't line up very well on the tall sights....... I'm thinking .300" is about max within the original design parameters? That is why I'm asking? Do taller blades exist? What did the Germans do?... .... Not a lot of info out there... best to all, til....lat'r....GT

[DonVoigt]

GT,
a guy that needs and wants a tall sight is not using it to "restore" to the original outline or appearance. They want it to shoot to point of am, so IMO, it is ok for the sight blade to be different in profile.

One can't have it both ways, original height= original appearance; shoot to point of aim= taller sight and slightly different apearance. JMHO.

What did the Germans do? They were targeting for 100 meters( and minute of man ) IIRC; so it was less of an "issue".

[G.T.]

Hi Don and all.... a good example is the Mauser parabellum offering in the 70's.. the sight is significantly taller, I'd say approx. .275" O.A.H and it has a drastically different look than the original war time P.08?.. My concern it what the initial design will stand? As they are NOT going to make separate from scratch sights for all three or four heights desired?... we will see?... best to all, til...lat'r...GT...

[DonVoigt]

GT,
You will "never" get a consensus on this, so just pick what You want and go with it!

[G.T.]

Hi Don, yes, I think you are correct!.... I was hoping for a little more tried and true measurements.... but, we will press on... Thanks and best to all, til....lat'r......GT...

[G.T.]

I have requested 5 different heights, starting with standard, at approx. .200" the going up in the following heights, .225", .250", .275", .300"..... If push come to shove... it will be .200", .250", .300" that's if I have any choices at all when the numbers come back... I'm trying.. just don't know if the horse I'm riding has long enough legs!........best to all, til...lat'r...GT...

[G.T.]

I'm not too good at explaining what I'm after on the sight height equation... but lets start from the very beginning! And it starts like this! I can't see worth a damn, never have had good eyesight, and I think I was absent or in the can when they were handing out good eyesight, because I missed it... by a long way? But, I still like to hear the gun go bang and the dust jump up and the target run away... most likely 100% of the time... So, when I look at a Luger sight picture... I see all kinds of fuzzy lines and dots and fuzzy targets as well.... just like described above, the sight height means little or nothing to me, OTHER, than, I realize there are those who can see.. and every little increment of height actually make a difference to them, and the target! So, if you put the top of the front sight blade, lined up straight with the top of the rear sight, and hold the point dead center at approx. 25 yards.... Is that where your luger shoots... ??.. Don't care about left and right, just up and down... If your luger shoots anywhere close to center, then I would like to know the height of the front sight blade from the top of the sight block, to the top of the blade... It will probably be anywhere from .200" to .218" ... but I would like to know if it shoots to point of aim with that height?.... Let me know, as I have finalized an order for couple of 100 units of different heights, and I'd really like some more feedback from you shooter guys to finalize the different quantities... ... best to all, til...lat'r....GT

[SteveM]

You guys make my head hurt...but getting back to it, when I used to shoot my 1900 Eagle regularly 40 plus years ago(before I knew better) the poi was dead on at 25 yds. The front sight was a replacement Marbles and I don't think it was the standard factory height. Maybe you can find what the heights of those sights were offered at.

[G.T.]

Well, I talked with the manufacture today, and we are going forward with 4 of the 5 sizes I outlined above... I am purchasing them in a fairly small quantity, as, even in quantity, they are kind of expensive per part... ... but, the die is cast, it's going to happen! I will have test samples in 45 days, and product 45 days past that.... So, at the very least, I will be able to install proper sight blades in the GTS/T offerings that I will make more of soon! And you shooter guys, will have some options to play with?... Thanks to all for your input and help.... Best to all, til.....lat'r....GT