Trijicon Sights

[BillinPittsburgh]

Thanks for letting us know and please keep us informed.

It seems that my front sights are always dimming out before my rear sights, regardless of pistol or brand of sights, but this is the first time I have heard of this occurring.

[BillinPittsburgh]

After posting the above, I remembered a similar thread on the NAA forum.

http://www.naaminis.com/discus/messages/2/1621.html?1091289619

Apparently, the "gutter snipe" sights offered by the NAA custom shop are not available on the .32 NAA caliber guns in part because the inserts tend to pop out under recoil and slide movement.

There have been generally no problems with the Novak tritium sights on my .380 (identical to the .32NAA except for caliber), although 1 1/2 years later, the front sight is noticably dimmer than the rear but still usable.

[Kim]

I see all is not well in the world of night sights. Thanks for the link. Talked to Karl at Rohrbaugh and he did not encourage putting the night sights in because the metal is so thin in the front. At least if need be Karl said I can send the pistol back and they will fit a new slide. After reading the above link I don't hold out much hope for the Trijicon sights to stay in one piece very long. So unless there is something Toolteck can do to make the front insert strong enough to take the recoil. I don't recomend spending the money on this.

[Richard S]

I have Tritium sights on my NAA G-380, and I appreciate them.  However, I have always wondered if I were not attempting to "guild a Lilly" by having them installed.

The Rohrbaugh 9mm series is, in my opinion, the ultimate pocket pistol yet made -- given the current state of the art in such things.  It is in the nature of human beings to stretch the limits.  However, I wonder if "glow-in-the-dark" sights are actually appropriate in a pistol which was designed to be a last-resort, up-close-and personal defensive weapon.

As with aircraft, sailboats, and ships of war, every handgun is a compromise of one kind or the other, depending on the mission and purpose.  The Rohrbaughs are the lightest, smallest, most efficient, and most powerful 9mm pocket pistols ever seriously offered to the public.  I simply wonder if we should not accept the Rohrbaughs for what they are --  the lightest, smallest, most efficient, and most powerful 9mm pocket pistol pistols ever seriously offered to the public.  

I have a Colt 1911-type which started out its life as a standard, "Plain Jane," Government Model 1991A1.  It is now one of the "loveliest lillies of the field," courtesy of Clark Custom Guns.  You can do that with a 1911-type, with which the sky is the limit.  With a Rohrbaugh, you are already very near to the edge of the envelope when you take the pistol  out of the box.  

All of the above comments are just some random thoughts as I wind down after a difficult day.  No offense is intended to anyone.  However, I think that I shall leave my R9s as it is, except for some personal engraving on the slide and some sterling-silver grips -- which I am told by my individualistic but gifted silversmith friend may be ready in the next week or two.  (If he pulls it off, I shall attempt to post a photograph.)

RS

[Kim]

Richard_S
As I have been thinking about this problem with the sights through the day you have put into words my thoughts.

[BillinPittsburgh]

If there is any way possible to put night sights on the Rohrbaugh, I think it is a good idea.  

Granted, it is a pocket pistol, and even a 9mm pocket pistol will have its limits as compared to a larger, more standard "primary" carry gun (sight radius, grip size, etc.).  

However, the weapon you choose will not determine the threat you face, and your pocket pistol may be all you have for one reason or another.  I think the reason the rohrbaugh has so much appeal in the first place is that we all realize that anything and everything we can do to maximize the capabilities of such pocket pistols is worth doing for that reason.

Right now all of the pistols you are most likely to find me with are equipped with night sights.  While they don't yet have the durability I'd like, I still consider them to be a near-necessity.

[rtw]

And, there are those who feel that sights do not belong on this "belly" gun-given its intended backup role (ala a Seecamp).I wonder what the order mix has been so far (sights, no sights)and what The brothers forecast of mix is.

 I have ordered them on mine, but will forego night sights until a durable solution is found.

I have a bar (rear) and dot (front) arrangement on my 1911, which works very, very well.

[Kim]

There is no answer yet but I have thought of a solution. Two slides one with night sights to carry and one to use when practicing of course this can get quite expensive and I would reather spend the money on an other gun. I'm in the position to do this as I already have a slide with the night sights installed and if the front sight insert keeps breaking I will get another slide to use when I shoot the pistol and carry it with the night sights.

[BillinPittsburgh]

Agree with not getting night sights until the durability problem is solved.

However, I can't imagine wanting it without sights.

Focusing on the intended role of the gun misses my point above:  the gun you carry won't dictate the situation you face.

In one state-mandated concealed handgun licensing course, I was taught a method of point shooting that involved holding the gun at chest level with 2 hands.  I passed the qualification, but with one of the worst-looking targets I ever shot.  I had previously experimented with Bill Jordan style hip-shooting from a fast draw, and found that I missed my target about 1/3 of the time at 20 feet.

By bringing the gun up to the line of sight, I not only increased my hit probability, but also decreased the amount of time it takes to put a hit on target.

The only exception is drawing to a pectoral retention position to engage a target less than 5 feet away, and the difference in speed is then no more than 0.1 to 0.2 second.

I would also hate to have to defend a lawsuit for hitting an innocent bystander after firing without sights at a distance beyond retention distances.  If you couldn't visually confirm where your bullet was going to go, then why wasn't it negligent for you to shoot?

I would be willing to bet that most of those who don't think the gun should have sights have little or no experience with unsighted shooting.  There is absolutely no reason not to have the sights, even if they will not be used in all situations.