1911 GI sights vs Novaks ?

I may be the oddball but I really like the old GI sights. I recently traded into a High Standard 1911 (Armscor) that was about as basic as you can get. The GI sights are right on at 15yrds with my reloads and give me a precise enough picture to be accurate.
 
Gee, g.willikers, I am kind of the other way 'round.
The faster I shoot, the more I want big bright sights.
I like fibre optic fronts and whatever black square notch rear happens to fit the gun. Too bad King's is out of business, I really like their National Match sight that fits the GI dovetail but gives a "barn door" sight picture like a Bomar.
 
Those easy to see sights will definitely let you know if you're right on target or not.
But they won't make you faster or more accurate; only your form and skill will do that.
The sights just relay the message.
I know, I know, it's a hard concept to grasp.
Everyone begins with a dependence on the sights to hit the target.
Using them for reference to verify one's ability to put the gun on target seems to contradict that.
 
Last edited:
It is all about sight picture. Whatever you are used to and comfortable with is what is best. What is best is very subjective.

That said for me I think that the more modern sights allow for a faster sight picture which allows me to shoot faster. When you see the sight picture you press the trigger. The wide open sight picture of a Bomar or Bomar style sight helps me shoot faster.

For slower more accurate shooting I find the older GI sights work well maybe even better than the wider sight picture but most of the shooting sports like IDPA only require you to hit a man sized target at speed.



 
...a sight is a front post and rear block with a slit no matter if basic or novak.
Click to expand...
While that is true, it is not the complete story. As others have already posted, in order to quickly align the sights (consider someone already shooting at you), they must be bigger and white dots or white outline is an obvious advantage. The truth is, G.I. sights were and are a poor choice (slow to find, hard to align), for a tool that you may have to trust your life to.
 
There is something about the GI sights and the look that they provide. For many it is the classic 1911 that they know from their time in the service or their youth. They are much better than most people give them credit for IMHO.
Click to expand...
I agree...G.I. sights are better for emotional nostelgia...when actually using them however, it will quickly become apparent that they are pitiful when compared to Novaks. One must ask: What am I choosing the sights for? Looking at, or shooting.
If the original 1911's had been equiped with White-dot Novaks, would anyone have ever invented the standard G.I. sights and replace them?
 
BBBut, it's not the sights that get you on target fast, it's one's ability to do so.
The sights are just to verify you have, at a mere glance.
And anything that serves that purpose will do nicely.
Big, little, bright, whatever.
It is a hard concept to grasp, but an important one.
If the sights aren't there, realigning you, the gun and sights until they are is slooow. too slow.

For example, I always scored better on falling plates and the mover in NRA action pistol matches with the lowly GI sights.
I was only depending on them to tell me the gun was on target, and those little sights did that very well.
Actually putting it on target was up to me, though.
 
Last edited:
BBBut, it's not the sights that get you on target fast, it's one's ability to do so.
The sights are just to verify you have, at a mere glance.
And anything that serves that purpose will do nicely.
It is a hard concept to grasp, but an important one.
If the sights aren't there, realigning you, the gun and sights until they are is slooow. too slow.
Click to expand...
If that is your conviction, then you must be an advocate of point-shooting...without any sights to "slow you down".

Once you "get on target", you may find that G.I. sights being so small and non-contrasting (especially in low-light),you cannot find the G.I. sights, or at least take much longer to find than Novak's, to verify that, indeed you are pointing the gun at the target.

If the original 1911's had been equiped with White-dot Novaks, would anyone have ever invented the standard G.I. sights and replace them?
 
No, the sights are important.
But for verification, not aiming.
The aiming is a function of form and skill.
Yes, that does make point shooting easier, too.
See, it's a hard concept to grasp, is it not?
But once accomplished, makes sights less of a major concern.
If fishing around for the sights is needed, the fault is not with the sights.
 
BBBut, it's not the sights that get you on target fast, it's one's ability to do so.
The sights are just to verify you have, at a mere glance.
And anything that serves that purpose will do nicely.
It is a hard concept to grasp, but an important one.
If the sights aren't there, realigning you, the gun and sights until they are is slooow. too slow.
Click to expand...

BBBBut all things being equal being able to see the sights when you press is an advantage is it not? If I am running the gun being able to see the sight picture clearly faster is an advantage isn't it, all things being equal. Assuming you can run your gun.

You seem to be taking peoples post as if they are implying that modern sights correct shooter error. I do not think that is what anyone is arguing yet you seem to be objecting to that notion which no one has put forth.

It is not that one cannot run a gun with GI sights it is that they offer no advantage over more modern sights. IMHO. Again I am not against them per say, I have left them on a lot of guns. It is just that they are not the best tool for every job again IMHO. If a tool offers an advantage why not use that advantage.
 
Exactly what is uncivil about it?
Depending less on equipment and more on oneself has always been the goal.
And what I've been trying to describe is a hard concept to grasp.
It took me a long time to get it.
If you're not interested, no hard feelings.

If that repeated BBB upset you, it wasn't me.
It's my goofy keyboard.
It often doesn't register a key being depressed without punching it.
When the curser isn't jumping lines, all together.
And I didn't notice.
Like the old tv station error screen said:
"It's not you, it's not us, it's them".
 
Last edited:
P.S.
Since the discussion of how sights are used, rather than what sights should be used, has been criticized to be out of place here, how about a new thread on the subject elsewhere?
Coming right up in the Training section, if anyone is interested.
Unless it's already been done.
I'll check first, though.
 
Real G.I. sights, like those used on essentially all 1911-style pistols through the 1970s, are hard to use quickly, but can be very precise, for the same reason (aim small, miss small).
It's nice to have somewhat bigger sights for faster acquisition, but you don't have to mill the slide to have good sights.
I think the sights on the Springfield Mil-Spec (except for the white dots) are about the best on the market. A tall, not-too-wide front post, and a wide- and deep-enough rear notch to allow best utilization of that post.
I would not put Novak sights at the top of the list of available fixed sights; Heinie sights are better in every way, if you are going to mill the slide.
You can get perfectly good sights, including night sights and fiber optics that fit the standard rear dovetail, and utilizing the standard, stake-on style front sight installation.
 
You can get perfectly good sights, including night sights and fiber optics that fit the standard rear dovetail, and utilizing the standard, stake-on style front sight installation.
Click to expand...

Whose standard dovetail? The OP is looking a the following:

$360 for ATI
http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/p...ducts_id/75562

$420 for Girsan (I think I can make an offer for $400)
http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/p...port+wTac+Rail

$380 for RIA
http://www.southernohiogun.com/handg...arkerized.html

None of these have "Standard" sight cuts. IIRC I think there are sights out there that can work but I personally do no know which one.
 
Last edited:
Standard, as in THE 1911 dovetail. The Em-nineteen-one-one dovetail.
The links don't work, but most guns today will have standard, Novak, LPA, or Bo-mar dovetails.
There are probably more sights that fit the Novak cut than there are sights that fit any other.
 
Standard, as in THE 1911 dovetail. The Em-nineteen-one-one dovetail.
The links don't work, but most guns today will have standard, Novak, LPA, or Bo-mar dovetails.
There are probably more sights that fit the Novak cut than there are sights that fit any other.
Click to expand...

I think if you bothered to look at the guns being discussed you will find that your statement is accurate but only because it says "most". Again IIRC these guns do not not have standard cuts. I know for a fact the RIA does not.

RIA/Armscor tactical : There are only a hand full of sights which will work with these cuts without some milling. This is why they call them Novak "style" sights. The GI guns are not to any standard spec either.

RIA Tac. front sight cut .330''x65% x.085''+-.002''-.003'' deep.
RIA Tac. rear sight cut .488''x.65 x.125''?? deep?

14sjqlx.jpg


dvhjqh.jpg


IIRC the ATI rear cut is larger than the standard GI rear cut. Most people report trying standard cut sights and all of them end up being too loose.

Girsan fronts also require shimming because they are too large. Rear cuts do not work either.

Not all is lost though. Dawson precision makes sights which fit these cuts for the fronts at least for the Girsan & RIA.

Girsan: http://www.dawsonprecision.com/CategoryProductList.jsp?cat=SIGHTS+FRONT:Girsan+Front+Sights

RIA: http://www.dawsonprecision.com/Cate...=SIGHTS+FRONT:Rock+Island+Armory+Front+Sights & Rear Sight http://www.dawsonprecision.com/ProductDetail.jsp?LISTID=80001904-1390335966

These days most people take the 1911 spec not as the blueprint it was intended to be but simply a suggestion or recommendation. This is especially true in the lower end of the 1911 spectrum.

In the end to the OP if you goal is to change the sights out later you can do it but it will most likely cost you more than it would buying the sight version you want from the factory. Especially at the price point you are looking at.
 
Last edited:
WVSig said:
$360 for ATI
http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/p...ducts_id/75562

$420 for Girsan (I think I can make an offer for $400)
http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/p...port+wTac+Rail

$380 for RIA
http://www.southernohiogun.com/handg...arkerized.html

None of these have "Standard" sight cuts. IIRC I think there are sights out there that can work but I personally do no know which one.
Click to expand...
The basic RIA GI that the OP is looking at does have standard, GI-type sights. The front sight is a narrow tenon base, and the rear sight uses a standard, GI dovetail. The sights for which you show the drawings are for the RIA Tactical model. While those sights are not standard GI cuts -- they are also quite decent sights and don't need to be replaced unless you want night sights.

To the OP regarding the three choices:

Both Rock Island (Armscor) and Shooters Arms Manufacturing (who make the ATI) have been making 1911s for decades. Both are excellent, entry-level pistols. The sights on the RIA GI are almost universally considered inadequate, and most people in the 1911 game recommend the RIA Tactical over the GI.

The sights on the ATI will be adequate out of the box.

I don't know how long Girsan has been making 1911s, and I have yet to see a full review of one. The one you're looking at has a light rail, so it's not really in the same class as the other two.

I think you should compare the ATI against an RIA Tactical, and make your choice between those two.

Unless, of course, you can save up a few more dollars and buy a Colt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top