« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

Author Topic: sights vs. no sights  (Read 7293 times)

Offline MRC

  • Grand Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 1597
Re: sights vs. no sights
« Reply #30 on: November 23, 2010, 12:39:45 PM »
I know Larry Seecamp's reason for not having sights, but if he would offer them both ways I bet ones with sights would outsell those without 20 to 1. IMO   Guns with sight are just more fun though they probably would lead to bad habits,
Logged

Offline kcub

  • Sharpshooter
  • **
  • Posts: 59
Re: sights vs. no sights
« Reply #31 on: November 23, 2010, 12:50:33 PM »
What's the primary job of a fishing lure?

To catch a fisherman.

If it never catches a fisherman, it can never have any chance of catching a fish.
Logged

Offline yankee2500

  • Grand Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 4650
Re: sights vs. no sights
« Reply #32 on: November 23, 2010, 04:14:12 PM »
Quote
Sights are really not needed on the r9 or seecamp IMO. Just thought I would throw that in  ;D

I agree they are not needed but the Rohrbaugh brothers saw fit to add them to the guns at the request of owners and future owners. It is not always a bad thing to listen to the customers, if the figure Corey presented is anywhere near close to accurate I would say they did the right thing adding sights. (although not needed)
  Want and need are often two very different things. JMO

John
« Last Edit: November 28, 2010, 12:09:48 PM by yankee2500 »
Logged
"THE KING OF BATTLE"


"Cha togar m' fhearg gun dìoladh"

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
Thomas Jefferson

Offline kjtrains

  • Grand Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 8107
Re: sights vs. no sights
« Reply #33 on: November 23, 2010, 04:16:17 PM »
Logged
Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it.  Abraham Lincoln

Offline yankee2500

  • Grand Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 4650
Re: sights vs. no sights
« Reply #34 on: November 23, 2010, 05:00:37 PM »
Logged
"THE KING OF BATTLE"


"Cha togar m' fhearg gun dìoladh"

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
Thomas Jefferson

Offline kjtrains

  • Grand Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 8107
Re: sights vs. no sights
« Reply #35 on: November 23, 2010, 08:07:16 PM »
Logged
Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it.  Abraham Lincoln

Offline 08055

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Re: sights vs. no sights
« Reply #36 on: November 24, 2010, 10:31:22 PM »
I like the fact that we have a choice in the Rohrbaughs and I do not think I will be a Rohrbaugh owner if it the R9 has no sights.
 I will buy a Seecamp if they have sights.   ;)
Logged

Offline chameleon

  • Grand Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 538
Re: sights vs. no sights
« Reply #37 on: November 28, 2010, 10:51:48 AM »
Well we did get off the beaten path here that was what sold more, R9s with sights or without. It was enlightening reading all these posts.


For those that won't buy a pocket pistols without sights, you are missing something.Really missing something and not the sights.
Maybe the fear of spending the money, that comes to mind as I heard all sorts of excuses why a person refuses to buy a beautiful pocket pistol like the Seecamp. I heard every excuse for many years, they didn't like the magazine catch, or it was DAO, truth is, the Seecamp is the most powerful pistol for it's size, and the most pocketable.

Then the R9 comes along, similarities close to the Seecamp, same magazine catch, DAO, only Rohrbaugh offers sights, then you hear from those that won't buy an R9 because it is all alloy, or they don't like DAO, truth is, they probably can't afford one.

I agonized over an R9 with or without sights, not the cost, not the DAO or anything else, I knew it was a quality piece.
The fact that the R9 I was about to buy had these little sights, I thought that as small as they are, I could still use them, I feel I was wrong, they are not needed.
I eventually opted for a sighted R9, something I regretted since it arrived.I called the factory and wanted the sights removed, they would have done it, but I never sent the R9 back. Its performance was grand as it should have been, and there was no issue with the sights getting in the way of carry, but when I shot the R9, I did not feel I needed sights, so I sold that R9 and bought one without sights. I some what regret selling that R9 as it was a great shooter.
I may in the near future buy another R9, and it too will not have sights.

The Seecamp, I laugh when I read those that want sights on them, look at some of those small pistols with sights, are you for real, can you use them? Can you use them in a hurry, in an instant when you need that gun? No, I doubt it, draw, look at the front of the slide, aim and shoot.
Glue a BB on the end of the Seecamp, there ya go, you have a sight.

Logged

Offline theirishguard

  • Grand Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2707
  • In Memoriam: 1941 to 2013
    • irishguardfirearmsltd.com
Re: sights vs. no sights
« Reply #38 on: November 28, 2010, 11:12:03 AM »
nice to have options. ;D   Tom
Logged
Tom Watson, DVC , Quis Separabit ,  Who dares wins, Utrinque Paratus

Offline chameleon

  • Grand Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 538
Re: sights vs. no sights
« Reply #39 on: November 28, 2010, 12:37:34 PM »
Ya know Tom, you said it before, that's why there is chocolate and vanilla.

Oh, but if you don't like Vanilla, don't condemn Baskin Robbins.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2010, 12:38:30 PM by chameleon »
Logged

Offline 08055

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Re: sights vs. no sights
« Reply #40 on: November 28, 2010, 03:56:42 PM »
Quote
nice to have options. ;D   Tom



I agree,  it is nice to have options.   This is why  I bought R9S.    
Logged

Offline 08055

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Re: sights vs. no sights
« Reply #41 on: November 28, 2010, 03:59:39 PM »
Quote
Ya know Tom, you said it before, that's why there is chocolate and vanilla.

Oh, but if you don't like Vanilla, don't condemn Baskin Robbins.


I agree,  people who  like those pocket pistols without sights    should not condemn those who like  the  pocket pistols with  sights.  ;)
Logged

Offline kjtrains

  • Grand Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 8107
Re: sights vs. no sights
« Reply #42 on: November 28, 2010, 04:22:24 PM »
Quote
I have an R9 with sights and one without;  like 'em both.  

Most certainly.  To each his own.
Logged
Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it.  Abraham Lincoln

Offline yankee2500

  • Grand Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 4650
Re: sights vs. no sights
« Reply #43 on: November 28, 2010, 04:36:29 PM »
I think my preference for the sights is driven more by the looks than the thought I would have time to use them if I needed to bring the pup into quick life saving action. I don't practice with my carry guns using just the sights, point shooting should be part of everyones practice routine.

John
Logged
"THE KING OF BATTLE"


"Cha togar m' fhearg gun dìoladh"

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
Thomas Jefferson

Offline tracker

  • Grand Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 5391
Re: sights vs. no sights
« Reply #44 on: November 28, 2010, 04:46:53 PM »

I agree with John. Pistols with sights just look better than without and that is one big reason they sell more. Functionally, as has been stated here already, it makes little difference on the R9.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
« previous next »