Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pistol sights

yarchive.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 331 posts

Re: Pistol sights

#141

Post by maxerickson »

CapitalistCartr wrote: post #139
maxerickson wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are starting from a compromise. A reasonable thing would be to almost totally restrict pistols, but the Constitution hasn't been amended on the matter since the days when a rifled barrel on a long gun was cutting edge technology, so we have people walking around with highly dangerous concealable weapons. I mean, I wouldn't want to face someone wielding a machete anymore than I'd want to face someone wielding a bag…

When the constitution was written, repeating rifles existed. Lewis and Clark took one on their famous expedition.[0] Owning cannons was legal, and people did. During the American Civil War, wealthy men outfitted their own company of men and led them. American history has some crazy stuff in it. Private ship owners acting as privateers, for instance. My (lawyer) wife dearly wants a "letter of marque"[1] ever since she…

A curiosity that was also cutting edge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle

It seems to have taken to ~1850 for practical military repeating rifles.

edit: Your comment is still young, but I'll note for history that I replied with the wiki link before you had added it to your comment.

Re: Pistol sights

#142

Post by viggity »

plazmatic wrote: post #79
seibelj wrote: post #51

Anyone who is diehard anti-gun for personal use, I recommend taking a pistol class from a reputable organization, and keep an open mind. No one is telling you to get a license or buy a gun, just go take a class. They will teach you all about safety, how to shoot, gun cleaning and maintenance, and all of the basic skills needed to properly own a gun. Then if you are still diehard anti-gun, great! But if you have no ex…

What a ridiculous article to have here. Go find yourself a gun lovers blog to discuss your completely off topic hobby. Buh bye.

ermagerd, how dare someone talk about something extremely technical that involves math and geometry on this site.

Re: Pistol sights

#143

Post by theptip »

coredog64 wrote: post #135
rhcom2 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I couldn't agree more with this. As a liberal gun owner I've often thought that some sort of class for other progressives on gun safety, gun history and gun culture would lead to better and effective gun laws. Yeah 50 caliber sniper rifles, fully auto machine guns and AR-15s look and sound scary... but when it comes to gun crime in this country they're a drop in the bucket compared to hand guns.

I'm always shocked and amazed that progressives rail against "abstinence only" sex ed and then turn around and promote the same thing for firearms.

So by your argument, we should allow private citizens to own surface-to-air missiles, artillery cannons, landmines, chemical weapons, biological weapons, and nuclear weapons, because abstinence from weapon ownership doesn't work?

Or is it more complicated than "abstinence"?

(I'd argue that it is. There is no biological drive to own a gun, just a socially constructed one. It's a different category of activity.)

Re: Pistol sights

#144

Post by ianamartin »

ajmarsh wrote: post #52

There are improvements to be had in pistol sites that don't involve battery powered gimmicks. The trapezoid sights on Steyr M pistols for example. I rented one from my local range and it works well for new shooters.

Came here to say this. The Steyr Triangle front sight/Trapezoid rear sight is a really great improvement. Actually, the weapon itself is pretty much a work of art. I've had the 9mm and the .40 S&W versions, and they are my favorite shooting pistols of all time. Very low bore axis helps with aiming and recoil. It's technically a double action firing mechanism, but the trigger is crisp with a travel almost as short as a single action. Not at all spongy like cough some other striker fired polymer handguns.un-cough

I know this discussion is really about sites, but after all the off-tpoic-ness we've had so far, I don't really feel bad derailing a little to talk about how much better this handgun is than pretty much any other. For reasons including the sights.

Re: Pistol sights

#145

Post by gr2020 »

electrograv wrote: post #7

If you're interested in the science behind this, you may be even more interested in learning how peephole style rear iron sights almost eliminate the dual sight alignment problem of goal-post style rear sights (as commonly found on pistols). The rear peep sight on rifles take advantage of actual "optical effects", without any glass -- much like a pinhole camera can actually magnify images without any lenses or mirror…

I would presume the tradeoff here is slower acquisition - if you're not on target, it likely requires more brainpower to _get_ on target. With goalpost sights, it's far easier to be misaligned, but you can't "lose" the target. (disclaimer - I've never used a peephole sight, so this is all speculation on my part!)

Re: Pistol sights

#146

Post by kjlaaskssss »

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #71
seibelj wrote: post #51

Anyone who is diehard anti-gun for personal use, I recommend taking a pistol class from a reputable organization, and keep an open mind. No one is telling you to get a license or buy a gun, just go take a class. They will teach you all about safety, how to shoot, gun cleaning and maintenance, and all of the basic skills needed to properly own a gun. Then if you are still diehard anti-gun, great! But if you have no ex…

I used to shoot rifles when I was a kid, I even won prizes. Winning a beer mug as an 11yo kid is the height of country living, and I still use it proudly to this day. Guns definitely have their uses, for instance hunting. Target shooting is also quite fun, but these guns are rather different from the ones most gun enthusiasts like to own. I think personal ownership of guns should be restricted, thought I will not mak…

> If you're not willing to go all the way restricted, as in most EU countries, I think the Swiss model is the best.

You're not from country living. That statement you made up top seems like virtue signaling to make your seem friendly to everyone.

> Certainly I think it's much more important to manage the access to ammunition. After all, a gun is only actually dangerous when it's loaded. Sure, a gun that isn't loaded can still be used to threaten people (because even then it demands attention and the utmost respect) or even pistol-whip them. But it is very unlikely to be used to kill anyone or anything.

Gun control has historically not stopped violent crime. I'll give it to you, it restricts ACCIDENTAL shootings committed by guns. But the other side of that story is that criminals still have guns, and will still kill you with them. Baby, meet bathwater.

> Personally, I think guns belong on shooting ranges, and nowhere else, unless used for a practical purpose, such as hunting.

Again you're not a country kid. I'm from the west and my CCW is one of my most important possessions and a statement that I can and will defend the lives of my family and myself.

> I live in Denmark. Firearm ownership is very restricted, you have to have a very good justification to own anything that isn't a hunting rifle

How do you defend yourself during a robbery? Home invasion? These things aren't uniquely American. Wackos are everywhere.

> Another example could be Switzerland. You can own guns and buy ammo, but there are much tighter background checks in place compared to the US.

Background checks put unnecessary strain on honest citizens. Criminals don't need background checks - why do I?

> they have a much more developed culture for gun safety and respect for firearms, so their rates of gun violence are extremely low.

They have a culture around mandatory service in the armed forces. Their people are conditioned to see guns and aren't afraid of them - similar to pre-1970 America. It used to be that "only bad guys hid their guns" and now I have to own a CCW to defend myself because snowflakes might get offended.

> as in most EU countries

Yeah and things seem to be going SO WELL over there, right?

Re: Pistol sights

#147

Post by edraferi »

coredog64 wrote: post #135
rhcom2 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I couldn't agree more with this. As a liberal gun owner I've often thought that some sort of class for other progressives on gun safety, gun history and gun culture would lead to better and effective gun laws. Yeah 50 caliber sniper rifles, fully auto machine guns and AR-15s look and sound scary... but when it comes to gun crime in this country they're a drop in the bucket compared to hand guns.

I'm always shocked and amazed that progressives rail against "abstinence only" sex ed and then turn around and promote the same thing for firearms.

> progressives rail against "abstinence only" sex ed and then turn around and promote the same thing for firearms.

Yes! This is a great point, that hadn't occurred to me before.

The current proliferation of firearms in the US makes education the responsible​ choice. If nothing else, you should know how to render a firearm safe.

Re: Pistol sights

#148

Post by turnip123942 »

rkangel wrote: post #114
dfsegoat wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Personally, I think guns belong on shooting ranges, and nowhere else, unless used for a practical purpose, such as hunting. I take great issue with this. You say you came from 'country living' - but I find that hard to believe in light of your comment above. Anyone who lives in the country, where it will take the cops 10-20 minutes to respond, knows damn well why we have the 2A and the right to keep firearms in our…

I'm interested that you don't see this as an issue mostly with police response time. In the UK, the situation is a bit different: Rural/Country living is still much closer to urban areas because the country is much smaller The strict control over firearms means that it's very unlikely that a home invasion robbery is going to involve guns on their part. Personally, if that happens - despite the fact that I own 3 shotg…

Another thing I would like to bring up is the fact that in the United States the Police have no legal obligation to protect you from danger or harm[0] so the only reliable option is to defend yourself in the most efficient method available.

That particular precedent isn't just a one-time thing, it has been used in a variety of cases[1] since the ruling came down.

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia [1] - http://www.barneslawllp.com/police-not-required-protect/

Re: Pistol sights

#149

Post by bmelton »

maxerickson wrote: post #106
ythn wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well if one side only ever pushes in one direction and the other side only ever "compromises" to keep from being pushed too far, eventually the one side has everything they want (total gun control) and the other side has nothing. I'd like to see some compromise in the other direction too. Like "Ok, we'll relax CCP regulations or 'assault weapons' regulations so that normal citizens can have them, but in return we nee…

We are starting from a compromise. A reasonable thing would be to almost totally restrict pistols, but the Constitution hasn't been amended on the matter since the days when a rifled barrel on a long gun was cutting edge technology, so we have people walking around with highly dangerous concealable weapons. I mean, I wouldn't want to face someone wielding a machete anymore than I'd want to face someone wielding a bag…

> but at least with the machete they are going to have to physically work quite a bit to kill each person they want to kill.

Without meaning to be glib, this is exactly the reason I would not recommend a machete to my grandmother for personal defense, but I would recommend her a Ruger LCR, or a Smith & Wesson M&P.

The fact that she is physically disadvantaged against almost anyone would do her harm is a use case that the firearm solves quite nicely.

Re: Pistol sights

#150

Post by bmelton »

ethanhunt_ wrote: post #124
basseq wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I second this, if only for personal safety. If you ever find yourself in a situation where you're unexpectedly responsible for a firearm, you should know how to engage the safety, eject the magazine, clear the chamber, and ensure the safety of those around you. If you happen to find a handgun, or take one away from a child, knowledge is a virtue.

Really is a waste of time in my opinion. Despite appearances from the media, if someone in the US does not want to see firearms in their life, it is very very unlikely that they will ever see firearms (besides police officers') and even more unlikely that they would see a loose one that they should pick up to clear. It's advice on par with telling someone to set aside money in their retirement for a nuclear bunker.

I think your analogy oversteps -- it's really more akin to teaching people how to use a fire extinguisher, even though they're unlikely to ever encounter a fire.

According to the ATF[1], there are more firearms in America than people. The idea that you might live your whole life and never see one is far from a given, though rurality vs. urbanality almost certainly affects this, as well as the carry laws in the area you live. The statement is almost certainly more true in somewhere like California than it is in Alaska, but in my experience, definitely doesn't hold true for "America" on the whole.

Post reply on HN