Novak Style Sights: Why?

T

TunnelRat

New member
Hi all,
While I'm older than I might like, I'm not that old yet. As such I wasn't shooting when the Novak style of sight first came about. This makes me think that maybe I'm missing the problem that the Novak style was designed to solve.

Even today a number of manufacturers equip certain styles of their pistols with Novak sights, despite the fact that those manufacturers don't typically use Novak style sights on the majority of their production pistols (Sig, S&W, etc). 1911s often see Novak sights fitted. They are usually advertised as "low profile" sights with less of a chance to "snag". There's some irony in this marketing as today the latest trend are sights that are designed specifically to be easier to snag in terms of using the front of the sight as a ledge to assist in a one handed reload. Novak style sights of course don't allow this.

Regardless of current trends, what I don't understand is what your typical non-ramped sight was snagging on in the first place. It would seem to me that the only opportunity for snagging would be at the rear of the sight, and that only if you didn't manage to clear whatever garment you're drawing from/under. I've drawn more times than I can count from concealment and I've never had the sights snag.

So what am I missing? Is my interpretation/the current marketing of Novak sights incorrect? Were they originally for another purpose? What advantage do they bring?

Thanks,
-TR
 
I have no idea if this is correct, but my initial impression would be perhaps the hand when using overhand reloading/racking of the slide?

On most guns the sights aren't so high as to bother me with standard sights. The one gun that I really had that issue with was the PPQ. The factory sight wasn't TOO bad... though it was worse than most everything else I own(at snagging on the meat of my had).

The Trijicon HD rear sight I installed was absolutely brutal. This really sucks because the HD's are my favorite sights and I don't have that issue on their other designs(USP, HK45, M&P, Glock, etc).

Using a fast overhand method on the PPQ with bare hands would actually gouge several layers of skin off when I caught it right. This was honestly the biggest reason for me dumping the PPQ. The weird tall rear sight that liks to catch on everything - and nobody was making a ramped, Novak style rear sight for the PPQ that I could find.

So... I don't know if that's the real reason, but it makes sense to me and my shooting.
 
I'm with you.
It is certainly ironic that the Novak became everyone's favorite "no snag" sight, but we're now subjected to the latest trend in intentional snagging of sights as a "tactic".
I think the Heinie fixed sight is superior to the Novak in every way. Early versions of the former had a very upright shape, but I suspect it was losing the no-snag battle to Novak, so the Heinie was made smoother over time so it wouldn't snag.
I agree about the actual snaggy-ness of any rear sight? Were they so snaggy before that we needed the Novak to save us? And, when the Novak became almost the industry standard, why didn't handling techniques evolve away from those that required a tall, square sight?
Now that virtually every gun has Novaks, we have new handling techniques that require a snaggy sight, suggesting that we never needed a non-snaggy sight in the first place.
 
I agree about the actual snaggy-ness of any rear sight? Were they so snaggy before that we needed the Novak to save us? And, when the Novak became almost the industry standard, why didn't handling techniques evolve away from those that required a tall, square sight?
Now that virtually every gun has Novaks, we have new handling techniques that require a snaggy sight, suggesting that we never needed a non-snaggy sight in the first place.
Click to expand...

Lol, it does seem a bit bizarre.

What amuses me is that SIG, for instance, never went to a ramped sight. But now with the latest trend they can claim you can use their rear sights as a ledge for one handed manipulation. By not changing their sights at all for decades they are up to date with the latest trend. :p

I have no idea if this is correct, but my initial impression would be perhaps the hand when using overhand reloading/racking of the slide?
Click to expand...

I think that's definitely an element of it. There are also those that advocate running the hand over the slide to clear a malfunction such as a stovepipe (not something I'd do but I could see where a standard sight would kill your hand in the process).
 
Last edited:
Many of the once very popular S&W third generation handguns had some pretty large rear sites. While I’ve never had an issue with the ones on my 5903 they are still most likely more snag prone than the Novak style sites.
 
THOSE WHO DO NOT READ [ GUN ] HISTORY ARE CONDEMEND TO REPEAT IT.

The NOVAK sight solved a specific problem permanently. They were the BEST PERIOD !

READ !
 
The Novak sights on 1911's solved two problems for me. First it got rid of the too small service sights. Secondly, it gave a higher, more useful sighting system what was not prone to snagging on holstering...either drawing or re holstering. Lets face it, the G.I. sights were useless, and the high-profile target sights got in the way. In the "old days" early ramped front sights had to be silver soldered on or, (a pain in the butt,), pinned. Novak's are dovetailed...something that makes them completely stable, but still can be moved/removed at will. Novak to the rescue.
 
Last edited:
The Novak sights on 1911's solved two problems for me. First it got rid of the too small service sights. Secondly, it gave a higher, more useful sighting system what was not prone to snagging on holstering...either drawing or re holstering. Lets face it, the G.I. sights were useless, and the high-profile target sights got in the way. In the "old days" early ramped front sights had to be silver soldered on or, (a pain in the butt,), pinned. Novak's are dovetailed...something that makes them completely stable, but still can be moved/removed at will. Novak to the rescue.
Click to expand...

+1. What he said. Love mine!
 
Pre-Novak, 1911's of the tactical variety had 3 dot sights like a Colt 1991. The front sight could be knocked loose, so Novak's used a FR dovetail. The rr sights would slice and dice your hand in malfunction drills, so Novak made the wedge shape and all were happy.

Then someone opined that what if your off hand got wounded in the fight. However impossibly rare that is, we now ALL need training in one handed load and malf clearance drills that require ledge sights. Those have to be lo drag to replace the wedge and have a ledge to do this work.

Next, we'll all be forced to have adjustables that meet these requirements cause you all know perfect sight alignment is a must...

Or maybe we'll all need rectangle edge fr sights so we can malf clear by punching the edge of a counter??

Or maybe we'll need or not need FCS??

I say this all tongue in cheek as I like some of these changes and don't like others. Seems like you are best determining what works best for you. Like, I like tritium FR sight and black rr. I hate AO sights and like notch & post....but maybe I'm old and broken! I'm 41 too, but have studied 1911 evolution since I learned to read. Or maybe I learned to read by studying the 1911. In my area, it was ok to bring in books on the 1911, read them and do a book report on it as long as it wasn't every book report...besides, I had to make room for wilderness survival and Patrick McManus!
 
The Novak sights on 1911's solved two problems for me. First it got rid of the too small service sights. Secondly, it gave a higher, more useful sighting system what was not prone to snagging on holstering.....
Click to expand...

Help me with my history, but wasn't that stuff solved with the bigger sights like Kings and Colt that fit in the original holes and slots?;):confused:
 
Novaks seem to be sights that "look like they're less likely to snag" but I'm not sure that's they're that much different than many other low-profile sights. (Or maybe the Novak-type sights I've seen are just low-profile versons.) Maybe when they were first introduced? (Back in the '80s?)

If a lower profile was the big NOVAK breakthrough, I'll say that was good. But, the ramp part of the argument seems a bit like smoke and mirrors... as the ramp is on the side of the rear sight that isn't likely to snag in clothing, and even with the ramp you can still catch on the holster if you're jamming the gun down forcefully when reholstering. I'd argue that the front sight is no more "snagless" than any other lower profile sights.
 
Last edited:
But, the ramp part of the argument seems a bit like smoke and mirrors... as the ramp is on the side of the rear sight that isn't likely to snag in clothing
Click to expand...

This has been my thought as well. I don't understand how the front of the rear sight snags on a draw, unless maybe caught in a shirt?

The Novak sights on 1911's solved two problems for me. First it got rid of the too small service sights.
Click to expand...

That does make sense to me. I guess I am forgetting that the variety of sight options we have today wasn't always the case. I can also see how Novaks using a dovetail was an advantage in terms of being able to adjust the sights. Most, though not all, sights today are dovetailed on modern production pistols and it's something I imagine I take for granted.
 
This thread makes me feel old…probably because I am old (LOL). I was shooting 1911s before the Novak rear sight was introduced. There were two choices back then if you wanted a easier to see and faster to acquire sight picture. Micro hi-visiability rear sights - basically a taller version of the GI fixed rear sight with some windage hash marks etched on the base, and the S&W revolver sights - expensively mounted in the slide. Both of these options would tear up the lining of a jacket or sport coat when carried concealed. My self and many, many detectives and plain cloths officers from the 1970s will attest to this. Also, as mentioned above clearance drills where you swipe the weak hand back across the slide as it reaches it's rear travel would often leave blood on the slide and a nasty gouge in your palm.

Novak solved all of this with his low mount rear sight. It still gave you a large, easy to pick-up sight picture but didn't catch on clothing and didn't tear up your weak hand clearing a smoke-stack. The imitators, copiers and better mouse traps quickly followed but I used Novaks for years.



This is my last plain cloths and off duty gun, proudly wearing it's original Novak rear sight.

Dave
 
The main purpose of the Novak low mount is to transfer a hundred bucks from you to the milling machine operator for a proprietary fixed sight cut.

I have several sights in GI dovetails that are more visible than GI and not notably subject to snagging.

On the other hand the FRONT cross dovetail sight is a Better Mousetrap.
Too bad Novak, Heinie, and Wilson, some others, couldn't get together on the size.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top