Sight trick - Will this work?

2

2DaMtns

New member
So I have been thinking quite a bit lately about the short sight radius on my pistols compared to my rifles. As all of us know, the longer sight radius on rifles makes them much easier to shoot accurately at longer distances. As I thought about it, I also realizes that, for the most part, what you end up with is a smaller front sight in comparison. So, if you were to put an overall smaller set of sights on a pistol, with a smaller sight, like the head of a pin, and a small V-notch rear site, like in buckhorn-type sight, do you think it would "fool" you into thinking you had a longer sight radius, and would therefore make it easier to shoot more accurately? I mean, I know that the actual problem is that a small movement makes a much larger difference with a 2-6" barrel than it does with a rifle-length barrel, but with these very small sights, it seems like it would be easier to correct for a small movement this way than with the larger, square type sights that are on most pistols.

I also think that it won't work, or it would have been thought of before. Also, this would be more for target pistols and hunting pistols in good light, if it would work. But come on, tell me what is wrong with this, cause it sounds good, but is way too easy.
 
I mean, I know that the actual problem is that a small movement makes a much larger difference with a 2-6" barrel than it does with a rifle-length barrel,
Click to expand...

The actual problem is that the same amount of movement or misalignment is less noticeable with a short barrel.

It's the same geometry where one moa is 1 inch (roughly) at 100 yards but 2 inches at 200 yards.

The front sight of a pistol with a 5 inch sight radius only has to be off by 1/4 the amount of the sight on a rifle with a 20 inch sight radius. (just for examples) to cause a miss by the same amount at the same distance.

For instance, if the front sight of a rifle with a sight radius of 18 inches is out of alignment by 1/10 of an inch, it would be easy to see. Such a misalignment would amount to missing your target by 20 inches at 100 yards. The same misalignment on a handgun with a 5 inch sight radius would be only 1/30 of an inch, MUCH harder to see, but it would still cause a miss of 2 inches at 10 yards.

(I believe that math is right, but I'm doing it in my head...)
 
Last edited:
Yeah, that makes sense. But still, if the front sight were narrower, as well as the notch in the rear, would it not still make it somewhat easier to shoot one more accurately? I was really thinking about it today while shooting my Single Six at about 40-50 yards. I've heard people say that the width of the front sight doesn't matter, that the center of the sight is the center of the sight, but I still think it would be easier this way, and if it didn't matter how wide the sights are, then the sights would be wider on rifles, cause a thick, square sight has to be cheaper to make than the type you see on most rifles.
 
I would guess, just off the top of my head, that what would make the most difference is a way to be more certain of the alignment. For example, the front sight should be of a width so that is appears to exactly fill the notch of the rear sight when viewed from your shooting stance. That way, any misalignment would show "light" on one side or the other between the sights and be fairly obvious.

It might be nice also if the front sight was sort of pointed on top.... for more precision on POA. So I can see what you're thinking about it being narrow.
 
Yep, that's more of what I meant, pointed at the top, and maybe just wide enough to fill the notch at the bottom so that you would know that it was centered.
 
I am thinking about trying it out sometime on my GP100, cause replacement sights are cheap, and I have already replaced the factory junk with meporlights, so I might try grinding the front down, filling in the rear with something, and then filing it out with a dremel or needle file or something. We'll see what happens.
 
No, do NOT taper the front sight to a point on top. You will not be able to control the elevation properly. Forget trying to "trick" your mind, get a set of square top front/square notch rear sights and learn proper sight picture. The pistol masters haven't used them all these years for no reason. The standard target sights allow you to judge the horizontal and vertical alignment of front vs rear sight correctly and this will allow you to shoot better if you also use proper trigger control.
 
The reason a longer sight radius helps accuracy is a direct result of the increased distance between the front and rear sight, it's not an optical effect resulting from the apparent relative size of the sights due to perspective.

Different sights may help a bit (some like small front sights, some do better with large ones) but improvements due to personal preference or individual visual acuity or defects are obviously variable while the improvements due to longer sight radius are universal.
 
The idea you have is the very reason why target sights for handguns have a narrow blade. The downside is it takes a little longer to get a good sight picture vs. the wider front combat sight.

With regular open sights on a 6" revolver hitting squirrel sized targets at 50 yards off hand is not very difficult.

If you really want precision accuracy with a handgun, especially at longer ranges, just mount a pistol scope. Then sight radius is removed from the equation entirely.
 
The idea you have is the very reason why target sights for handguns have a narrow blade. The downside is it takes a little longer to get a good sight picture vs. the wider front combat sight.
Click to expand...

I have several handguns with target sights. None has a narrow front blade. The width of the front blade is largely irrelevant, as every front sight has a centerline of infinitesimal width. ;)
 
I just went through this with my 10m air pistol. My short answer is that it's very individual, but it's certainly not a given that narrower is better. Odds are, it's the opposite.

It makes intuitive sense that smaller sights would help resolution, so I was surprised to find 10m shooters often prefer a front post that's considerably wider than I would've predicted; certainly wider than what I'd been using. The general recommendation was that the front post ought to appear the same size or slightly smaller than the black bull (see link).

A smaller sight might, in theory, help resolution, but in reality it's tougher for a shooter's eyes to take advantage of it. It also sets the shooter up for "chicken finger" and/or jerking the trigger because their mind is caught up trying to sort out the resolution to get a perfect sight picture then/or jerking the trigger when they do see a good alignment (no..wait..no...now!...pull!.. now!!).

Also important is the width of the rear notch, relative to the front post. Generally recommended that it be wide enough so the light to the left and right of the post be about half the width of the post. Too wide would be a problem, but so is too narrow, as you start getting some weird light distortions that are distracting, mess with your mind and fatigue your eyes quickly.

In my case, my pistol was set up with a 3.5mm post/3mm rear notch, and the front post looked much smaller than the bull. I swapped in a 4.5mm/4mm and the sight picture was noticeably better. I was able to focus on the front sight better, no light distortions around the post, and even my hold seemed more stable. Not surprisingly, my scores immediately improved.

Again, though, if you can, experiment to see what works best for you, but it's certainly not a given that narrower is better. Could be you might find the most improvement by simply changing the rear blade if you have adjustable sights.

Finally, you might experiment a bit with tints. I haven't done so myself yet, but will, as different tints may help or hurt the ability to resolve the fine detail of the sight picture.

http://www.targettalk.org/viewtopic.php?t=22143&highlight=front+sight+width
 
Just remember that the decline in attacks by round targets with bullseyes has fallen to essentially zero.

Target sights are not set up the same as combat sights.

Compared to combat, even rapid fire target is an eternity.

You want a front site that is easily picked up under less than ideal lighting (both dim light and non-uniform) and can be quickly centered up enough to get 'minute of bad guy.'

I used to shoot a lot of 3 gun bullseye until medical problems interfered.
I did get to impress the range master for a Gunsite course by hitting an 8 inch steel disk at 60 yards with only a single shot.
He asked how, and I fessed up to having a lot of bullseye experience.

Given time, it is not hard.
 
Mr Patridge, about 1909, concluded that a rectangular black post centered in a rectangular notch gave the most precise alignment of pistol sights and of the sights on a bullseye. It worked for target shooters until optical sights came in. Width grew until a 1/8" front post was usual. A clear eyed shooter will do well with it on a clearly defined but irregular target as for PPC, IPSC, and IDPA.

The graying generation of action shooters has discovered the fibre optic sight which puts a bright colored spot on that post. It helps with quick acquisition and adequate accuracy on a close target. You can still hunker down and concentrate on the post itself in a Patridge alignment for fine shooting. I have recently seen what appears to be better accuracy and good speed with my narrowest blade and smallest insert. I need to set up two similar guns with different blades and do a side by side comparison.

The ghost ring sight was something of a dead end in pistol shooting. The optical relationship is not the same as with a peep sight close to the eye on a rifle.

The V notch and large bead express sight has a following. I don't know any competitors using it, but there may be a point to it for close range defensive weapons.

The latest rediscovery seems to be the gold bead sight, giving a bright aim reference with about any side or rear light, and greater durability than the plastic fibre optic inserts.
This has been being coupled with another rediscovery, the U notch, where the round bottomed notch frames the bead attractively. The notch is deeper than in the 19th century and the bead is on a squared post, so again, you can concentrate on the Patridge sight picture when the target is clear and precision is needed.
 
I'll chime in on this one because I own, and shoot a CZ52 handgun, and it is what you described.

I've heard, that, the CZ52 sights are set to a 100 yards.

The front is very narrow in spectrum to the back sights.
 
Shooting more will help. Not saying that in jest. Shooting .22 rounds by the brick each time out helps get the sight alignment down. It's quite possible to hit a 5 gallon can sized target @ 200 yards with a 2" .38, but it takes some concentration to do it. Shooting more longer ranges helps also. Get used to 200 yards, and 50 seems easier. 25 seems like cheating.

After a while of that, you will be trying targets thrown in the air. Also not impossible, but it takes a lot of attention to it to get consistant hits.


Read some McGivern, and Keith also.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top