Do you really need that rear sight?

Although poo pooed by many as a mouse gun, my Seecamp has neither a front or a rear sight.

Although it took some getting used to, last time I had it out, I was getting 50% hits on a bowling pin at 25 yards, slow fire.

I think the brain just memorizes what the top of the slide "should" look like, in essence using the whole thing as a sight.

Same thing, on the same day, with a friend's AMT .45, which just had a groove along the length of the slide.
 
Erick-
I'm not advocating the disuse of the rear sight. This was an excersize to demonstrate that we needn't get picture perfect with that sight picture at defensive ranges and only bolsters your argument for a "flash sight picture".

OTOH, the very decision to go to an Ashley Big Dot front is a trade off. I've done it because this damn computer has taken enough of my near vision to deteriorate my ability to see the front site. That decision, I'm not so sure I'd attempt that 25 yard head shot in any case....the Big Dot is not conducive to longer range precision shooting. So, back to square one....is that rear sight really necessary in this case?
Rich
 
Rich, when I was a lad, I read a book my father had that was called Instict Shooting-the Lucky McDaniels Method. McDaniels was famous for teaching people how to shoot by using a Daisy air rifle with no sights, period. He could shoot thrown BB's out of the air with no sights. He recounted a story in which he gave a 7 year old girl about 10 minutes of quiet, one-on-one instruction, after which she immediately began to shoot the crap out of anything he put out there. He coached many an Olympic shooter. It can be done.
I've noticed that at times, when I'm "in the groove", there's no rear sight involved; just the front sight and a fuzzy target.

I wouldn't want a gun without a rear sight (except a wingshooting shotgun) because you never know when you might have to make a slower, precise shot or a long range shot; for most fast defensive encounters, however, I'd say that the rear sight "ain't worth doodley-squat."
If I had the $$, I'd like to try an experiment in which I'd have a 1911 slide flattoped, then install a shotgun bead as a front sight. I'd be willing to be that in short, fast shooting, this will do as well as anything else. Frankly, I've wondered if the same could be accomplished just by putting a bright line of paint correctly positioned above the muzzle.

------------------
Shoot straight & make big holes, regards, Richard at The Shottist's Center

[This message has been edited by 45King (edited September 16, 2000).]
 
When you think about it, anybody got a snubby (ie. Mod 60) that has a "rear" sight. And we been hitin' the target(kinda)with them for years.
 
A while back, at the end of a 4-day training weekend at Front Sight, the rifle rangemaster commented that one of his practical rifle students had lost his rear sight halfway through the course, and had done pretty well without it.
 
I thought long and hard about bumping this thread and really hesitated to do so, but I have found very little discussion on this subject pretty much anywhere on the internet and it seemed like any new thread on this subject would inevitably get linked back to this thread, which raises a lot of points that I think still seem poignant 15 years later.

Lately, I too have been pondering whether the rear sight is truly necessary, for a simpler reason: I do not have a rear sight on my shotgun and within 100 feet I can shoot it more accurately than any other gun I own.

I used to practice shooting water bottles with slugs. I had no problem exploding a water bottle at distances of 50 - 100 feet. I am so confident in the accuracy of the shotgun that I lent it to a friend, who had some shooting experience but didn't own a gun, to go deer hunting with. He dropped a 150 lb. doe with a broadside shot to the lungs at about 65 feet is what my buddy said. It was, by his accounts, a clean kill. That's not exactly long-distance rifle ranges, but I think it's far enough to show that you can indeed make accurate shots at moderate distances with only a bead or front sight. 50 -100 feet is well beyond what we think of as self-defense range.

And anyone who has hunted birds or shot clay pigeons can tell you how wonderful it is to use the bead for moving targets. To be honest, I can't imagine using anything else. It seems like it would be near impossible to actually aim at targets moving that fast with both front and rear sights. You'd have to be Jerry Miculek or something. But most people can learn to shoot a clay pigeon out of the air with a bead: it's just that much better for lining up a shot at a moving target.

Now I get there are some big differences between shooting a pistol with a sub 5" barrel and shooting a shotgun with a 28" hunting barrel. I get that there's also a big difference between shooting shot, and shooting slugs. At the same time, if you can shoot slugs accurately at 100 feet with a bead, why not with a front-sight only pistol? And If you can shoot moving targets in the air with shot, why not a man sized target moving at 15 feet with pistol slugs?

Have there ever been any in-depth testing of front sight only handguns?

I'm really tempted to try removing the rear sight on my LC9s and see how well I can shoot it without the rear sights, however, I'm afraid I won't be able to get it back on as snugly or with the proper alignment :o
 
Last edited:
I think the problem with comparing a shotgun to a pistol is that you have a consistent rear "sight" - eye - location due to the cheek weld to the stock; how accurately could you hit birds, real or clay, with one of those pistol-gripped "cruiser" shotguns?
 
My experience says it has merit,,,

Now my experience is mostly just informal shooting at targets,,,
I am not and never will be a competition shooter,,,
But I don't use the rear sight very much.

As a young Airman in 1971 I made friends with the range-master at Hahn AFB,,,
His admonition was to "focus on the front sight" and ignore the rear sight.

What he meant was to put all of your mental focus on the front sight,,,
Stop trying to align the front and rear sights perfectly.

His meaning was that if you always put your front sight where it should be,,,
The rear sight will eventually follow and align itself.

I know it sounds counter-intuitive but it seems to work.

I've introduced a lot of newbies with this technique,,,
With a very few exceptions it's worked well for them all.

Aarond

.

But then what does Rob know?
He'll pass up a glass of Dewars for one of Jack Daniels!

Rob knows there is never a good reason to drink inferior scotch. ;)

.
 
Back from the dead after 14 years! I don't know if that's a record, but its got to be up there...although I do understand you line of thought..

I see no reason for a "front sight only" pistol. Absolutely NO argument a person can be accurate at close rage or hit moving targets using only a front sight, or bead. Been there, done that, etc.,

In one way a rear sight is like the emergency brake on your car. (especially an automatic) You may never need it, and never use it, but if you do, you will be very glad it's there. And, if you want, you can use it any time its appropriate (parking brake).

Certainly there are times when taking the time to line up the front an rear sights are detrimental. But no one is making you do that, if you don't want to, are they?

I'm not a big fan of fixed sight revolvers, but I'm fine with the fixed sights on a my Colt Agent snubnose, as I won't be looking at the rear sight for that one anyway.

Focus on the front sight, only, or point shooting, or what ever style or name you give it, many people can do fine without the rear sight for some things. But for those other things, its really good to have.
 
Ed McGivern stated emphatically that the sights are as critical in the fast shooting he did as in slow-fire shooting. Perhaps the one gun shooter who has practically bonded with his handgun to the point where it is an extension of him can do without the rear sight but for the rest of us mortals I think that rear sight is as necessary as the front one.
 
I think its sort of a progressive thing, depending on how Im shooting too, of course. For most close range shooting, I dont think you need the sights at all, nor should they be your focus.

Shooting as I normally practice, at close ranges (10-7 yards and in), I really dont use the sights much at all, unless Im deliberately aiming at something specific on the target. Even then, if Im using the sights, Im mostly using the "dots", and not a traditional sight picture. Im usually moving and shooting too, and using a "meat and metal" index of the gun, and shooting "over" it when I do.

Once I get out past 10 yards or so, I start looking more at the sights and and dont really stop using the dots until Im out at 20-25 yards.


A lot of this is going to be how youre shooting too. If youre simply bullseye target shooting, youre going to use a different technique than you are running and gunning.
 
I think the rear sight would make less of a difference on a revolver, but in my experience with it, any gun with a hammer serves just fine as a sight alignment indicator. Keep the top of the gun straight and your elevation should be good enough.
 
FYI, my experience was with an old Arminius Titan .38 Spcl lacking the rear blade. Worked just fine lining up the hammer for range use.
 
In the days when I could do a lot more shooting in a remote area, I used to pop beer cans at 15 yards or so with a K-22, DA point shooting. In other words, no sights at all, just point and pull. Now I couldn't keep nickel size groups that way like I could using the sights, but a beer can isn't all that big either.

Jim
 
In his book - "Guns, Bullets, and Gunfights - Lessons and Tales from a Modern-Day Gunfighter" - ISBN 0-87364-877-3 Jim Cirillo, highly decorated former NYC Detective spends some considerable time on this topic, with lots of info on shooting without the benefit of sights. This book should be in the hands of anyone who takes personal protection seriously. Sound advise from a man who has "seen the elephant."
 
I did a quadruple take when I saw the date of the original post lol

But in all seriousness I think I definitely could see the rational behind a gun with only the front sight post. As long as it was known that the reason for it was to help speed up shooting in self defense situations. Just you wait this will be the next Magpul "C-clamp" hahaha

Good topic
 
This might explain why my favorite rear sights are all lack. No lines, no dots. They are there when I need them for distance precision work, and they fade into the background during up close speed shooting. :cool:
 
If you think about it the XS sight system is pretty much front sight only and the rear V is a reference point. Some really good shooters swear by that system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top