Do you really need that rear sight?

R

Rich Lucibella

Staff
What if someone suggested that one could shoot more quickly, at defensive distances, without a rear sight? Would you call him crazy or inexperienced?

This is a theory proposed by none other than my good friend, Ashley Emerson, during a hunting trip this weekend. Had it come from anyone else, they'd have lost me as an audience quite quickly. But Ashley isn't "anyone else"; in addition to being one of the finest (and fastest) pistol and rifle shooters I've ever seen, this man has forgotten more about practical sights and sighting techniques than most of us will ever know.

To prove his point, Ashley knocked the rear sight off my Glock 30 and had me shoot, from the holster, with nothing but the front sight (an Ashley big dot). The target was a standard silhouette at 21 feet. Guess what? After a bit of practice, the center mass shots were every bit as tight as with the rear sight!

Conclusive evidence, this is not. I did not, for instance, time the differnt shoots. Nor did I try it with a 1911...perhaps the flat top of the Glock assisted with alignment?

But I'll say this....given the source of the theory, it's worth further investigation.
Rich

[This message has been edited by Rich Lucibella (edited September 13, 2000).]
 
Now that I think about it ... when I do slow shooting at 75 feet, I use both sights but when I do rapid fire at 25 feet, I usually just line up the front sight because it takes to long to line up both sights after each shot.
 
Worked for me. Was changin rear sight on GI .45, wondered how would work with NO rear sight. Results bout what you described.

My 12ga slug slammer has no rear sight and will do nicely out to 50yds with all eight in a plate.

Sam....so I get heavy into the math when teachin sight picture.
 
Once you align the front sight, your eye becomes the rear sight, like with a shotgun. I would think horizontal (side-to-side) alignment would be as fast or faster (like shooting trap or skeet), and that at defensive distances, vertical alignment would not present much of a problem.

One issue: if you remove the rear sight, you practically disable the pistol as a longer-range (15 yds+) weapon. There's no assurance that your social encounter won't require shooting at distance as well as up close. Solution: as FUD said, train to just use the front sight unless you need the rear.

Regards,

Ledbetter
 
Well Rich,
The most important aspect of firing a handgun is keeping track of that front sight.
And that fat Ashley Dot is a big help in that area.
Most shotguns are sold without a rear sight and nuthin but a big dot (okay - they call it a bead) up front.

I think the concept has merrit - especially since the Ashley rear sight is cut away in such a wide V shape as to out of the way as much as possible.

[This message has been edited by George Hill (edited September 13, 2000).]
 
I agree that for defensive shooting the rear sight is pretty much unnecessary.
I think that with a little practice most of us would be faster and accuracy would be about the same

But then with a little more practice we wouldn't need the front sight either. Think about it.

------------------
You have to be there when it's all over. Otherwise you can't say "I told you so."

Better days to be,

Ed
 
This may or may not address the question, but since I got my trifocals I can't see either the front or the rear sight unless I want the target to disappear. So I focus on the target and shoot at it virtually without sights. I manage to hit the paper. As for defensive-type shooting, the following may not count as a big achievement, but when shooting at a silhouette during the practical exam for my concealed carry license, I actually got the best score on the firing line. So, for me, the bottom line is that sights--and good vision--aren't everything. They'd be nice to have, though, as an option! ;)




[This message has been edited by jimmy (edited September 14, 2000).]
 
Anyone remember the John Wayne movie 'The Shootist'? No sights. Supposedly this was based on fact. [[course I was about 9 when it forst came out so whadda I know?]]

Have considered removing the sights from one of my forearms and just using natural 'point-nshoot' and see how it goes.
 
Rich,

Didnt we use to have an administrator named Rob who made the same claim?....or was his view with out the front sight as well?...fubsy.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rich Lucibella:
What if someone suggested that one could shoot more quickly, at defensive distances, without a front sight? Would you call him crazy or inexperienced?

[/quote]

I'd say that you could expect better results without a rear sight. ;)

What would you say to a rear sight that could be left folded flat for short range shooting, then flipped up if needed for long range shooting?
 
I agree totally. In fact, if you think about it, in a defence situation, you may not even have time to aim.
 
Read the most recent edition of Fronsight magazine. At the Area 1 USPSA shoot third highest overall (I think) was taken with a 1911 style pistol with no rear sight. In fact, there wasn't a front sight either.
 
I'm old fashioned. I'll keep my front sight. And my rear sight. And my practice to grab that quick front sight sight picture before pulling the trigger. It works for me.

J.B.
 
I did this experiment with my Glock 26. Front sight was a Trijicon. After about 2 mags, I got used to it, and could do fairly well at 15 ft in slow fire, and rapid fire was OK too. Greater distances were challenging, groups quickly spread to 6-8" at 25 ft and beyond (it seemed like there was a constant dispersion, not one proportional to range).

Compared to a lot of plain black blade & notch sights, I felt the lone Trijicon front was better for "bad breath" ranges. For ranges beyond 15 ft and short of 25 yds, I like Ashley's Express sites (currently have tritium Big Dot set on the model 26, want to try standard tritium A.E.s next).

I'm a mere novice, but I look at it as a percentage game. According to folks who've looked at the self-defense problem, the vast majority happen within 15 feet. So I'll happily accept a reduction in group size at 25 yards to get faster and better hits at 5 feet. Solve the most common problems first. Heck, if some gangbanger lets loose at 25 yards, I'm probably better off running for cover as he'll probably hit everything *except* me. YMMV.




[This message has been edited by Ivanhoe (edited September 14, 2000).]
 
outside of 25yd shots i never use my rear site. of course my practicing more at 25yds with handguns have definately made a big difference on my closer yardage groupings.
on all my pistols i have black magic markered the rear site. a few people i have shot with who couldn't hit a damn thing at any distance, i have shown them how to shoot using their front site only. after a few rounds their overall groupings as well as COM shots have improved noticeably.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top