Is it really just me? Minimal sights, question!

[Nushif]

Alright, final thread for me to create today ...

But I read yet another review in which the small "military" sights (the tiny ones on top, the ones that aren't honkin' HUGE) are once again called bad sights. This has always kinda confused me as I find myself being able to shoot substantially better, the smaller the front sight blade is. so the standard GI sights on 1911s are actually better for me than the dovetailed ones. the same goes for the wife's 1903 and my Helwan and my Norinco. I am more accurate with the smaller sights. I don't know *why* but for some reason I appear to be the only one.

I guess I never got the allure of the "Big Dot" sights, for instance. Am I really the only one who prefers more minimalistic sights?

 

[MikeNice]

I never understood the thought that the original GI sights were bad. I know several people that shoot Colt's with small sights. They can all out shoot me on any given day.

I think it is a sign of the "tactical" culture. Everybody expects their gun to run like a custom shop model. They want 2" groups at 25 yards shooting free hand. Plus most of the gun crowd is getting older. They need larger sights to see adequately.

 

[wh!plash]

Totally agree here.

The 3 huge dots are great for bringing up the weapon and getting on target quickly. But for really taking the wings off a fly, I'd rather have really thin target type sights with no dots at all, with a thin blade up front.

Same with the old-style colt sights like mentioned above. In fact, I was just shooting a friend's SAA today (blade up front, basically a 1mm deep groove in the rear). Funny since we were just having this discussion

(those are 1" squares on that target, btw)

 

[9mmepiphany]

I guess I never got the allure of the "Big Dot" sights, for instance. Am I really the only one who prefers more minimalistic sights?

Please don't confuse the dislike of the minimal sights on a GI 1911 or 1911A1 for approval of the Big Dot sights (which I consider a triumph of marketing over function). But I do like taller front sights,because it allows a deeper rear notch...which allows better horizontal sight alignment. The worst sights I've ever encountered on a military pistol were on a P-08.

They want 2" groups at 25 yards shooting free hand.

If you don't mean one-handed, when you say free hand, I'd expect most competent shooters to be pretty close to that at that range...at least with a service sized gun

 

[BCRider]

9mm', If you think freehand two handed groups of 2 inches at 25 yards is normal for most competent shooters then I'd say you're hanging around with a skilled and gifted group that is far from being a "normal" bunch of shooters.

I've met a lot of shooters over the last three years since I got into the sporting side of shooting handguns. I'd say that those which can do a 2 inch group at 25 represent the upper 10 to 15% of the "normal" shooters. The big middle portion would likely manage groups of 3 to 5 inches with the right sort of target and with good lighting.

 

[MikeNice]

9mm, most shooters I know are posting 4" groups at 25 yards. The older "guru" type guys regularly do better. The average guy with a middling interest isn't spending enough time at the range to get that kind of 2" accuracy.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I'd say you're hanging around with a skilled and gifted group that is far from being a "normal" bunch of shooters.

I do tend to hang around shooters who are better than I am, I'm hoping to pick up on their techniques to become a better shooter. While there is a certain ego boost to being the best shot in a group, I find I improve more if someone is pushing me.

The average guy with a middling interest isn't spending enough time at the range to get that kind of 2" accuracy.

I wasn't referring to the average guy with a middling interest. I was referring to folks who practice to stay competent with their carry guns.

If bullseye guys are shooting one-handed groups smaller than 4" at 50 yards, wouldn't it make sense that a practiced two handed shooter could better that at half that distance. If I can take a new shooter and with a couple of hours of instruction have them shooting inside 1" at 7 yards, how much worst do you think they'd be shooting at 25 yards...the first 4 shots were on top of each other, the 5th was a flyer to opened the group out to an inch

 

[smince]

The 3 huge dots are great for bringing up the weapon and getting on target quickly.

That is the reason.

Getting on target quickly with sights that you can see quickly (and get decent hits with) is more important than having gilt-edged accuracy during a fight.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

The 3 huge dots are great for bringing up the weapon and getting on target quickly.

That is the reason.

Getting on target quickly with sights that you can see quickly (and get decent hits with) is more important than having gilt-edged accuracy during a fight.

Me three. You could actually get by with just highlighting (by whatever means) the front sight.

 

[Nushif]

Getting on target quickly with sights that you can see quickly (and get decent hits with) is more important than having gilt-edged accuracy during a fight.

Can't say I've ever been in a fight with a handgun, but isn't there a lot of point shooting and "natural index" going on when in those? I mean, think about it, we assume people can't hit jack anyways, to the extend where we assume that they can't reload, hit a slide release or will drop the gun ... so wouldn't *any* sights be borderline useless?
Isn't the idea to use the front sight almost exclusively in those cases? And in that case ... does size matter? (Hehe. Dirty.)

 

[Ankeny]

If bullseye guys are shooting one-handed groups smaller than 4" at 50 yards, wouldn't it make sense that a practiced two handed shooter could better that at half that distance.

I would think the same shooter with the same gun could expect to "hold" the same accuracy potential at 25 and 50. Still, I wouldn't expect to find many shooters who are not in the higher classes of the precision shooting sports that could reasonably expect to shoot 2" at 25 yards cold and on demand day in and day out.

 

[AethelstanAegen]

I personally also like the "GI" style 1911 sights...I suppose they're small, but I've never had any trouble with them. I like my XD 45 alot too, but it has some huge, blocky sights that often cover up the target (say a tin can a certain distance) leaving my aim somewhat up to guess work. With my WWI-style 1911, I have no trouble seeing the target and hitting it. I guess the double magazine capacity of the XD somewhat makes up for that but I like to be able to know I can hit my targets where I intend to...not that the XD is inaccurate (it does a good job). However, when I took the two to the range the other day, the difference was pretty apparent..maybe it helps that the 1911 points so well but I didn't feel I was any slower aquiring a target with the "small" military sights (certainly fast enough for close targets) and the 1911's more refined sights made longer distance shots easier (a lot less guesswork).

 

[420Stainless]

The younger me had no problems with minimal sights. The older me likes big notches, big blades, fiber optics, white dots, and probably lasers soon. Nothing wrong with compensating for old eyes.

 

[Ankeny]

There is a reason why target shooters ditched the mil-spec sights...they suck.

 

[Zerodefect]

You can run a thin blade front sight and get the same effect.

A thin .090" blade and a wide .156" notch is more acurate for me and faster for CQB than anything I've tried aside from point shooting.

The thinner I make the front sight the better. A fibre optic helps with speed in the daytime.

 

[David E]

I suspect the folks that like small sights are not shooting very fast. I also suspect that they are really focusing on the small sight more than they do the larger sights.

If the larger sights are festooned with dots, dots and more dots, then the problem becomes more complex. Often, the 3-dot sights do not align properly with the iron sights they are supposed to assist. So if one aligns the dots and not the sights, the shot won't go exactly where intended. 3-dot sights unnecessary clutter up the sight picture.

To be accurate with speed, the shooter needs sights he can see at speed. I've done some of my best work with black sights that were large enough to see while going fast.

Small sights may work for slowfire, but that's it.

 

[MikeNice]

I have used my .38spl with a notch and blade to sucessfully deter harm twice. In the heat of the moment they were no slower than big sights.

I think it comes down to whether you are going for competition settings or "combat" ease. The difference between good enough to do the job and good enough to win the gold. I don't plan on competing. I don't need to be able to hit 3" circles for 300 rounds. I need to get 3 shots in a 5" circle in three seconds. Different needs call for different tools.

 

[CrankyOldGuy]

Thin "military" front sights work well for deliberate fire in decent light for young eyes. They are great for accurate shooting at the range.

But we shoot quite a bit in less than ideal lighting and the thin front sights disappear. Some of our older shooters can't see them at all.

No one is going to argue that big dots and big blades are more accurate. It just ain't so. A thin front pin or blade allows for precision. Big dots, stripes, and tritium tubes are simply far easier to acquire quickly, in less than ideal conditions. Two different styles of sights for two different situations.

The evolution of the human eye created a very precise focal point that unfortunately has no rods, which are our sensitive low light receptors. Viewing off-axis to use areas of the retina with more rods works well in many low light situations, but not so much for precision tasks like gaining a sight picture. Bigger, brightly marked sights help.

Here is a good graph of the eye's receptor distribution that helps to understand this.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/rodcone.html

For target shooting in good light, I always expect smaller front sights to work better. For less than ideal lighting, thin sights are a handicap.

 

[jad0110]

If the larger sights are festooned with dots, dots and more dots, then the problem becomes more complex. Often, the 3-dot sights do not align properly with the iron sights they are supposed to assist. So if one aligns the dots and not the sights, the shot won't go exactly where intended. 3-dot sights unnecessary clutter up the sight picture.

To be accurate with speed, the shooter needs sights he can see at speed. I've done some of my best work with black sights that were large enough to see while going fast.

I fall in line with David's statement as well. To each his own I suppose, I do okay with 3 dot sights but find them cluttered too. The best sights I've found thus far are the partridge style sights on my S&W K-22 and Model 14, as well as the all black units on my Model 28 and Model 15. And the fixed sights on my Ruger Police Service Six (also all black) are the best fixed sights I have yet found, for me anyway.

I used to dislike the low profile GI sights on the 1911s, but they've kind of grown on me a bit. Still, they aren't as easy for me to pick up as the aforementioned sights.

 

[BADUNAME13]

I would like to remind everyone as Col Cooper said:

"Sites you can see"

The 1911 and 1911A1 sites work just fine if you have the time.

 

[BCRider]

My 1911 has sights that are a tad higher than pure military issue. But only by the merest amount. I find that I can aim it just fine. In fact it's one of my nicer shooting guns when I can concentrate past the smack of the .45acp ammo and hold my sights steady.

Yep, I got nothing against minimalist sights as long as they are accurate. Either that or give me a front that's a touch too tall and a rear that I can tap back and forth for windage and I'll file the front and tap the rear until I like what I'm seeing then just make sure that I use the right ammo. For a 1911 that's easy. 230 ball in either FMJ or cast lead and just the right amount of Tightgroup.

I've also got a S&W Model 10 and a couple of Pietta "cowboy guns". The sights don't get any more minimal than on those. A front blade and a notch in the upper receiver. Yet I've used the Model 10 in some Speed Steel events and done as well as I do with any other center fire gun. Maybe better since I seem to shoot .38Spl revolvers more accurately than my semis.

Yep, I don't mind minimal sights. At least not for the sort of conditions I shoot in.

 

[David E]

Cooper said, "Sights you can see at speed."

 

[BCRider]

Cooper said, "Sights you can see at speed."

(I closed the italics for you)

That's the thing. I'm finding that I shoot my first shots faster regardless of the height of the sights if I bring the gun up to engage with the muzzle slightly high so I have the front sight clearly visible. As the front sight comes up on the target I continue to raise the gun while pivoting my wrists to keep the front on level and centered as the rear notch comes up into line of view and adjusts to "cradle" the front blade. During this the trigger is pulling back so the final part of the stroke occurs just as the target, blade and notch all come into alignment.

Is this the fastest possible way? LIkely not. It would be better if I shot with the same gun for all my shooting so that I can bring up the gun from the holster and present it with the sights already aligned.

But I have this sickness.... I've got SOS or Shiney Object Syndrome. So I own a variety of Shiney Gun Objects from .22's to .44Mags and from SA revolvers to a 92fs Beretta. So I've got a lot of grip angles and styles as well as sights to deal with. This "muzzle high" method ends up being optimum in my case.

With this method the rear sight isn't as big a deal for me. So a minimal "combat" sight or the typical cowboy or S&W receiver notch is as good as the Novak style "bump" on the rear of the gun.

The only one I find is a big upgrade is on my CZ Shadow with the red fiber optic front sight. That thing is like a huge beacon of light on a dark and stormy night and makes getting that first sight picture all the easier.

Once the first sight picture is in place I don't find that I have much of an issue with moving the gun during a match. But I do concentrate on keeping that front blade and notch aligned and swing my head and shoulders in a locked manner to keep the sight aligment solidly in place as I swing to the next target.

There's no doubt in my mind that my shooting in multiple target competition matches has really helped me on this issue.

 

[Chris Rhines]

The traditional tiny sights on the USGI 1911A1 can produce fine accuracy if you're taking your time.

I find them much more difficult to track on multiple shot strings, and harder to pick up when attempting a fast first shot from the holster.

-C

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

They are not bad, but cause a lot of people to be slower in lining them up. I can shoot a Colt 1911 and Colt 1903 auto very well with the tiny sights. I like the fact that they NEVER snag.