24 replies to this topic

[Maks_H]

Since I have a new gun I have a very narrow .095 with .040 fiber insert front sight. I am missing steel and hitting a lot of C's when I am to sloppy with sight picture. Because I have huge amount of light left and right it happens to me that I am braking a shot when sights are not properly aligned but I can still see front sight through rear notch and light on both sides just not equal amount on both sides. It just happens to me that I sub-concisely break the shot when I see front sight through rear notch on paper or metal. Do you think that with wider front sight I would became more precise. My theory is that because seeing less light on sides it would eliminate some of the aiming error. If I would still break the shot sub-concisely seeing the whole sight through rear notch. Wider sight should be more aligned then narrow in cases when unequal amount of light is visible on sides. I believe that with wider front sight it would take me more time to pick it up in rear notch but it should be still much faster then missing a steel or dropping points hitting the C's. What do you think???

Edited by Maks_H, 29 July 2012 - 08:22 AM.

[Jonathan Taliani]

While many prefer the thinner sights, I tend to like a somewhat wider front sight. I find it considerably easier and quicker to center the front sight with a little less light on each side. I think it's all a matter of what your eyes pick up best. My preferred total gap is ~15-20 thousandths. This still gives plenty of light for me while allowing a fast centering of the sight.

The above observations somewhat change if using an all black front sight. I prefer a little more gap on each side in that case.

[mjts]

I also prefer a slightly wider front site (0.100). In theory, a larger front sight will be easier to pick up during the transitions when used with a wider rear sight notch. I'm also trying out an all black front sight rather than one with a fiber optic insert.

Mike

[DRAB81]

Here is what the sight picture looks like on my G20SF with Sevigny's (.150" rear notch, .115" wide front). My sight radius is 7 3/8":


For me, it's a perfect balance of a narrower sight & not too much daylight on the sides. Another option would be to use a narrower rear sight (.125/.130" notch). My only issue with that, is that I don't track the sights as fast with a narrower rear notch.

[Maks_H]

I've put on wider .120 front sight to see the difference and it looks better to me. I have to shoot it to know exactly which is better, but I think .115 front sight should be perfect.

Attached Files

•  Wide.jpg   66.74K   507 downloads
•  Narrow.jpg   66.96K   488 downloads

[polizei1]

I've recently been thinking about this as well. My Spartan has a very large front sight. I'm thinking if I went to a smaller front sight, it might make me focus more and get the hits. Or, on the flip side, it might be even worse and cause me to mis-align even more. Really wish I could try it.

Edited by polizei1, 30 July 2012 - 07:30 PM.

[DoubleL]

I prefer about 15-20 thousandths difference. Maybe that's considered not a very large 'light gap'. The sights MEAT posted would pose a big problem for my eyes. I'd be chasing those gaps instead of shooting! Experiment, might be surprised by what your eyes like best. I'm liking .115 FO front and a .130 rear notch right now. Maybe after my steady practice raises my visual speed I might try a thinner front just for kicks.

What's your rear notch Maks? That wide setup looks real similar to mine.

Edited by DoubleL, 01 August 2012 - 05:52 PM.

[MoNsTeR]

Thinner is better. Wide front sights cover up what you're shooting at, especially problematic with plates.

You'll be more accurate with a tighter sight picture... up to a point. But you'll be slower. You can be accurate with a loose sight picture too, if you train yourself to be patient.

[Maks_H]

I have .120 rear notch and 6 1/2" sight radius.

[daves_not_here]

A study I read said a little more light has been more accurate.

I haven't come across anything in the pistol world but when I shot smallbore rifle I read a paper on front round apature size. It stated the most accurate image is when the round hole appears almost 50% larger than the bullseye. That means 25% space on each side. The MIT shooting team brought the article to a match. Those geeks kicked our butts!

I also find it easier and faster to aquire and control a smaller front sight. Probably because of less perceived wobble.

I bet you could investigate the physics of how light behaves like a wave. This would explain that a smaller gap has a larger ratio of diffracted light adding to alignment error. You do the math.

A FUNNER EXPLANATION:

I was told that we are used to seeing where peoples' eyes are looking. We can pick up the smallest differences in the whites of someones eyes. It's like when you can tell your date is staring at the piece of spinach in your teeth. Or, when your date picks up that you're looking at something else other than their face. Hoping it's not a body part of another woman.

Women may even be better than this than us, possibly explaining some of their mind reading abilities.

DNH

[DoubleL]

I would have to totally agree on the thinner being better, to a point. Also should take in to account the whole setup as well. .015 difference might look great with a .130 rear, not so great with a .160 rear. I'll have to try a thinner front some day.

[Sin-ster]

You'll be more accurate with a tighter sight picture... up to a point. But you'll be slower. You can be accurate with a loose sight picture too, if you train yourself to be patient.

That sums it up quite well.

I find that you can be notably faster when working with an acceptable sight picture at closer ranges, if you run a narrow front post and/or wider rear notch.

For longer shots, you have to train yourself to have visual patience and focus on the tippity-tip-top of the front post. Though it takes some work, you can still be very accurate at very fast speeds on these long/tight/precise shots as well.

[torrpd]

I like a wider front sight less margin for error at longer shots.

[nmcferro]

I find for me that the narrow front sight allows me to be more accurate on the longer shots as it does not obscure the target, or better yet the A zone.

[Flexmoney]

That is pretty good. I hate getting into too many measurements, as there are other variables at play. I like to go by what it "looks" like. Here, you have a left light bar that is about 25% of the rear notch, then about 50% of the rear notch is the front sight, then a right light bar that is another 25%.

Light - Front Sight - Light
--25%-- ----50%---- --25%--

[JaeOne3345]

I JUST went through this ordeal myself.

I experimented with .080, 0.085, 0.090, and .100 over the past six months.

I used to believe that for me the narrow sight was best, but in my case, personally, that was wrong. I have done so much better with the wider front sight.

My vision is corrected with contact lenses. I can see the serrations on a .080 sight with no problem at all. My vision is not the problem. I am able to tell when a wider front sight if off center MUCH faster than a narrow sight.

My theory: Take a wide object and thin object and put them in the same hallway, centered. A super thin object is harder to tell when slightly off center. The large object is gonna be closer to the walls of the hallway, revealing error in alignment faster/easier.

Now I do agree you can go too far to each extreme. My finding are with a .110 rear bomar notch. My accuracy has gone through the roof (compared to before) by switching to a .100/.110 set up. Keep in mind these are just my personal findings.

I don't necessary buy the "I can see small plates better" argument either. I can clear plate racks shot for shot from 20 yards if I do my part. I sight my gun is so that the top of the front blade is the point of impact, like most people, I presume. Therefore I am only bisecting half of my intended target anyway, unless there is some absurd hold over/under.

My new findings have also got me wanting to re-evaluate my HATRED for all things fiber. I realize I was using too thing of of a blade before, so the glow was just overpowering the outline of the front sight, which should be used as the final authority in sight alignment/shot calling.

Edit: What is "narrow?" That's all relative to the shooter and his/her eyes, in my opinion.

.100 in a .110 notch is wide to many, but the Sevigny front on my Glock is fat as hell at .115. I actually wanna get rid of the .150 rear notch and try a .125/.130 rear notch.

Edited by JaeOne3345, 28 September 2012 - 08:18 AM.

[digby7]

i have tried SOOO many different combinations of this:

.125/.125
.09/.125
.09/.135
.100/.145
.125/.145
.100/.133
.100/.112
.100/.110

and i'm so tired of it.

recently i just jumped from a .100/.133 to .100/.110(on my limited gun) mainly because the sight picture on my singlestack(.100/.112) seemed to work so well for me. great hits and fast acquisition. I shot SS for a while and did well with it, jumped back to limited and started getting far more c/d's so i thought i'd tighten up the sight picture. have had one practice with it so far and theres a ton more A's but it feels slower - much slower. I think i need to spend some time with it but .100/.115 is probably about right for me.

[megarush]

I absolutely love my .100/.125 setup on my 5" 1911. My .125/.150 on my G17, however, is another story entirely.

[benos]

On a 5" SVI, I think I remember settling on a .105 / .130.
be

[Simpleman71]

I run .125 on rear and .105 on front, glock 34 it works for me.

[Xarmyguy77]

Shouldn't you practice at different ranges to figure out exactly how much slop will still give you a hit. Like say from 0-15 yards any amount of slop in my sight is an acceptable hit. At 20 yds I need to clean it up. At 30+ yds I need it to be pretty much dead on.

This is what i did anyway. Takes no time to set up and execute and then you know exactly what you need to see.

[Bob DuBois]

Like .100 and the stock width STI rear think it's 125. Works better for me with distance shots in close is point anyway. Wider front and opening up the rear didn't work out for me.

[JaeOne3345]

Like .100 and the stock width STI rear think it's 125. Works better for me with distance shots in close is point anyway. Wider front and opening up the rear didn't work out for me.

STI rear is .110. Standard Bomar notch.

I went to a .110 front (had a .100), to go along with my .110 Rear. Both Infinity. I like it a lot.

[ricardo28]

I believe, and BE can confirm, Rob L, will change out his front sight depending on the ranges at different stages in a match.

[Sin-ster]

I believe, and BE can confirm, Rob L, will change out his front sight depending on the ranges at different stages in a match.

That seems like exponentially more work over what xarmyguy is talking about.

I just learned over time what each sight picture meant at each range. If you run a narrow front and wide rear, you'd be surprised at what you can get away with...