Other than a nebulous "it works at short ranges and is snag-free", I can't point to point to anything quantitative. I think that's in part because the design is uncommon.
Trench sights show up every now and then (e.g., Colt New Agent), but the Guttersnipe is (and I think remains) unique in that the sight channel was tapered. For the sight picture, imagine a square divided into 4 triangles: left, right, and bottom would be from the sight, and the 4th would be an open triangle on the target. When sighting, one would balance the three sight triangles, and put the v notch that is formed on the target.
There are some that claim that simple geometrical shapes, like triangles, have a speed advantage in optimizing the sight alignment (e.g., Advantage Tactical with their "pyramid" shape, or Steyr's trapezoid sights) over the more familar notch and post. That sounds like something that should be easy to test, but I'm not aware of a well-conducted study (amateur or otherwise) that sheds useful light on the question.
Edit: Just occurred to me, the Guttersnipe does have a far shorter track length than conventional sights. Not sure how that is meaningful in practice though.
I'm immediately skeptical of any article that calls a "magazine" a "clip."
As my CHL instructor said many times, "A clip is something you put in your hair."
Do some research on the terminology of the thing you are writing about, please.
Steyr arms has a line of handguns with a similar sighting system that, from my experience, is superior to blade sights. In my tests giving an inexperienced shooter some verbal safety training and handing them a Steyr gets better accuracy than taking the same random person with the same information and handing them, say, a Glock or a Smith, or some variant of a 1911.
Yes, yes, I know, caveats about with anecdata like that: I get it. Not at all conclusive.
I'm not entirely sure, but I think the Steyr sights are conceptually modeled after the Theodore sights. But I could be wrong.
Sorry if I sound like a Steyr shill. I'm not. Just a big fan. I just think they are really great guns.
Handguns really need to be point-and-shoot. The reality of uses for these outside a shooting range isn't pinpoint accuracy like you sometimes see on TV.
The use of sights needs to be quickly and immediately obvious. People don't shoot at targets greater than 3-7 yards with any regularity when using handgun. I used to shoot coyotes and bobcats that were attacking my parent's sheep when I was a kid at 20-50 yards with a colt 1911.
I feel bad about that now because I could have done a much more humane job with a rifle and a scope. Yes, I hit the predators and saved our sheep. But probably not in the most humane way.
I've changed that now. When I go home to my family farm and I shoot predators, I use the most sophisticated technology I can to make sure that the kills are as quick and painless as possible for the animals that I'm killing.
> The FBI reportedly ordered up a 12-shot clip board that undercover cops could use to take out hostage takers.
The only mention of a "clip" in the fine article as of now is: "The FBI reportedly ordered up a 12-shot clip board that undercover cops could use to take out hostage takers." I imagine Trevithick id not talking about a board of magazines, but an weapon in the guise of an old-fashioned clipboard (not the computer kind).
And HN's War On Headlines continues, changing the headline from the one used in the article ("This Weapons Designer Was a Real Life Man of Mystery") to something that completely obscures one big reason why this story is interesting, namely how much secrecy still surrounds the man and his work ten years after his death.
I know HN regards "clickbait" the way ISIS regards shaving, but replacing headlines with alternatives that make the story sound so boring nobody would ever in a million years click on it is not an improvement.
A better way to make a comment like this is to suggest a title that conforms to the HN guidelines (i.e. is neither linkbait nor misleading) and does better than the one currently up. It isn't easy to get this right every time, so we appreciate it every time someone in the community figures out a better one.
But junking the guidelines, which is what keeping that ridiculously baity title would amount to, is not an option. They've been this way for years and serve HN well, despite the imperfections of those trying to uphold them.
