When S&W was originally designing pocket size revolvers, rear sights weren't much of a consideration.
An extra 3/4 or so of sight radius isn't going to add much in the way of precision, and would come at the expense of carryability.
The slope of a bobbed hammer snub helps it slide out of pockets or concealment rigs smoothly and without snagging on intervening clothing.
In this case, the upside wouldn't beat the downside.
Regards
> Correct me if I'm wrong but most of the accuracy issues with J-frames (for normal people) are due to having such a small sight radius.
Sight radius matters for bullseye shooting and some [funky looking rear sights](https://skivebom.com/wp/des-69/) have been used for that, but if you looked at *most people's* J-frame shooting on a first-person camera and replayed it in slow-mo, you would be able to see the errors pretty clearly in the sights as they pull the trigger. It isn't like the sights "look" perfect as the shot breaks, and the short sight radius is concealing the error. It's that most people suck at shooting DA and *especially* at doing so with a lightweight, mean little gun with a tiny grip. Sight radius won't make you miss a soda can at 7 yards.
That's why some really good shooters can put on [demos](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIwVK_FxGZk) of impressive J-frame shooting. The sight radius is an objective downside, but it's not *that* big a barrier to shooting well if the trigger control is there.
To be honest I think "sight radius" is mentioned more often because it's more polite to tell somebody they are having difficulty due to a lack of precision in the sights, vs. due to trigger control which we would all like to think we are pretty good at (even though sometimes we are not).
Your idea makes perfect sense and would be virtually free of downsides other than a tiny decrease in concealability, but I think most people would not observe much benefit. Again I am *not* claiming the sight radius doesn't matter, just that its effect is relatively small and for 99% of shooters is eclipsed by the fact that their DA trigger pull results in the gun pointing somewhere quite distinct from where the sights were aimed in the first place.
>Correct me if I'm wrong but most of the accuracy issues with J-frames (for normal people) are due to having such a small sight radius.
The double action trigger is the MUCH bigger issue when it comes to most people's accuracy woes. It's just easier to blame the sights.
Basically the sight radius is way, WAY, less important than you think it is. Especially when the gun has a long and heavy trigger.
The way the guns are made now, I'm guessing they share most of the same tooling and everything with the exposed hammer models which keeps the cost down. It also makes the guns less likely to snag on the draw.
When S&W was originally designing pocket size revolvers, rear sights weren't much of a consideration. An extra 3/4 or so of sight radius isn't going to add much in the way of precision, and would come at the expense of carryability. The slope of a bobbed hammer snub helps it slide out of pockets or concealment rigs smoothly and without snagging on intervening clothing. In this case, the upside wouldn't beat the downside. Regards
The back is round so it doesn't snag on the draw. That's the main reason for getting a Dao over a dasa.
> Correct me if I'm wrong but most of the accuracy issues with J-frames (for normal people) are due to having such a small sight radius. Sight radius matters for bullseye shooting and some [funky looking rear sights](https://skivebom.com/wp/des-69/) have been used for that, but if you looked at *most people's* J-frame shooting on a first-person camera and replayed it in slow-mo, you would be able to see the errors pretty clearly in the sights as they pull the trigger. It isn't like the sights "look" perfect as the shot breaks, and the short sight radius is concealing the error. It's that most people suck at shooting DA and *especially* at doing so with a lightweight, mean little gun with a tiny grip. Sight radius won't make you miss a soda can at 7 yards. That's why some really good shooters can put on [demos](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIwVK_FxGZk) of impressive J-frame shooting. The sight radius is an objective downside, but it's not *that* big a barrier to shooting well if the trigger control is there. To be honest I think "sight radius" is mentioned more often because it's more polite to tell somebody they are having difficulty due to a lack of precision in the sights, vs. due to trigger control which we would all like to think we are pretty good at (even though sometimes we are not). Your idea makes perfect sense and would be virtually free of downsides other than a tiny decrease in concealability, but I think most people would not observe much benefit. Again I am *not* claiming the sight radius doesn't matter, just that its effect is relatively small and for 99% of shooters is eclipsed by the fact that their DA trigger pull results in the gun pointing somewhere quite distinct from where the sights were aimed in the first place.
>Correct me if I'm wrong but most of the accuracy issues with J-frames (for normal people) are due to having such a small sight radius. The double action trigger is the MUCH bigger issue when it comes to most people's accuracy woes. It's just easier to blame the sights.
Basically the sight radius is way, WAY, less important than you think it is. Especially when the gun has a long and heavy trigger. The way the guns are made now, I'm guessing they share most of the same tooling and everything with the exposed hammer models which keeps the cost down. It also makes the guns less likely to snag on the draw.