My G34 WAS a tackdriver, but........

[vrex]

I was really pumped to get the sevigny competiton sights on my g34, They were practically designed for that gun and used by a champion, but after shooting with them, they seem good for quick target acquisition but the point of impact and basic precision of the sights seem way off when compared to my stock glock adjustables which were pinpoint accurate. I dont know what it is, maybe because they are soooo tall....where is yout point of aim? and the wide rear lets so much daylight in that its hard to center the front sight, Opnions/advice welcome.

[Arc Angel]

:) Wrong! You need to learn the new sight picture. A narrow front sight should help you to place shots more accurately - Not the other way around.

Where my point-of-aim is not important. The real question is; 'Where is YOUR point-of-aim?' You need to find it.

Give it some time and keep sending rounds downrange. Sooner or later you should tune in and get used to working with a new sight picture. ;)

[soundwave]

I agree that you must get used to them.

I recently put some Ameriglo Pre Operators (wide rear, slim front) on my G27. Once I was used to the new sight picture, I was blasting VERY well. Definitely allows more precise aiming.

[vrex]

:) Wrong! You need to learn the new sight picture. A narrow front sight should help you to place shots more accurately - Not the other way around.

Where my point-of-aim is not important. The real question is; 'Where is YOUR point-of-aim?' You need to find it.

Give it some time and keep sending rounds downrange. Sooner or later you should tune in and get used to working with a new sight picture. ;)


Glad to be wrong, Ill give it another try.

Thanks

[Arc Angel]

:) I think you'll get used to it and, eventually, not want to go back. Only question is how is your eye sight? If it's good, that narrow high front blade should put you right in there. Good luck! ;)

[sidewinder6]

I have discussed this with other competition shooters who drifted away (play on words intended) from the wide rear because of this. Their long game went to the trash bin and forced them to purchase new sights. This kept me from getting a set.

Tell what would be a cool thing, Sightfest. Pistol of your choice with a set of each of the highly regarded/debated sights in a range that had stages of various lighting, down to none. The errornet discussions dont resolve all the questions.

[Arc Angel]

The errornet discussions dont resolve all the questions.

:freak: Agreed, but, ain't it fun! How about that Richard Heinie actually modifying his excellent line of night sights in order to offer wide rears and narrow front blades! Ameriglo, too! Anyway, what - the heck - do these guys know?

This is the, 'errornet'. The less you know and the less you check before posting, the more fun you're going to have!

:cheerleader:

[vrex]

I went again today, not going to say I am a pro level shooter by any means, but I can qualify on any LE qualification easily, and have hung with some of my friends who are seasoned IPSC and IDPA guys ( I cannot say beat, because I have never been in an actual comp yet, there arent many around here.)
The wide rear lets a lot of light in. and is FAR superior for quick drawing applications, but this is not "put the dot in the bucket and cover the target" simplicity. I am posting my worst groups ever in slow fire at 15 and 25 yards, but I am shooting a little better in rapid fire as this sight picture is much easier to pick up in recoil.

I don't know what I am going to do right now, this is a tough one.

[RayB]

I have to agree; my Meps, with their fat front blade, and close blade to notch ratio, are better bull's-eye sights than the Trijicons or DP Adj/FOs.

Still, better shooters can actually navigate the area of the bull's-eye, and place finer shots on a hostage target at distance, with the Trijicons and DP Adj FOs.

On a good day, I can center-core a target at 30-40 feet, with two magazines from any of the guns equipped with the three sights mentioned above, but that's me.

My son has produced a few all 10's targets with the DP Adj/FOs on my G17, but that's youth! He has not been able to do so with the G19/Trij or G21/Mep set ups. I guess the G17 is his gun!

I expect that the AmeriGlo Operators on my someday G30, will prove excellent for me, based on my experience with the above-mentioned sights.

--Ray

[GlockRik]

The wide rear/narrow front was not developed for more accuracy, but for quick hits on fairly close up targets in IDPA/IPSC competition. The more light around the front sight, the more precisely it has to be centered for a longer range tight shot. You don't need bull's eye preciscion for an IDPA target @ 15 yds.

Heinie, Dawson and the others started making these sights because action competition shooters wanted them. I use a .125 rear with a .105 front. If I were going for accuracy only, I would use a wider front.

Best, Rik

[Arc Angel]

:) I haven't, 'target shot' in so long that I'm like the last person who should comment. What I do with a handgun is all about, 'front sight management' though! Quite frankly the best precision I can get out of either the: XS System, 'Big Dot', Meprolight, or standard width red ramp fronts on my pistols is to put everything - at speed - onto a 9" plate at 15 yards. That's it! I'm not any better than that; nor, do I feel that I need to be.

If I want to shoot precisely, which is getting harder for me to do at my present age, I need to see a clearly defined front blade. I've, probably, shot at a subconscious level for years now. The mantra is front sight, front sight, front sight. Realistically, this means that I'm not keenly aware of what's happening at the rear of the pistol. My own rear sight serves as little more than a, 'fast acquisition braket' in order to get me onto the front blade as quickly as possible.

Sitting here thinking about it, I'd have to say that the faster I shoot, the less reliance I have on the rear sight, anyway. At speed what you're doing is looking down the top of the pistol at a broadly defined target; and, the only thing that matters is where that front sight is settling in as you tap the trigger.

I don't really care how much light is present around that front blade. What I'm looking for is the blade itself! The whole process is very, 'vertical' too. I don't allow my eye to move right and left; that is what my perhipheral vision is for. What sits just above the front post is what I focus on, and what's going to be hit.

Didn't realize that we were talking about silver dollar sized groups. With pistols, I lost all interest in doing that as long ago as, maybe, two decades. Rifles, of course, are an entirely different story! Personally, I don't use narrow front blades simply because my eyes aren't up to that sort of precision; but, I do know, 'How' to use them; and, a lot of people I've shot with do; and, they shoot well.

Neither do I know what you want to do with a pistol. The fellow who stood next to me last Winter put magazine after magazine into the same 4" hole at a steady rate of fire. I double, triple, and burst fired everything in an 8" circle on the next target over. Many of the people I practice with set their targets at 10 to 15 yards and leave them there. My own targets are constantly changing distance and moving back and forth.

Through all of this it's always: front sight, front sight, front sight. The better I see both it, AND what's immediately on top of it, the better I shoot. (And the more useful I feel about my handgun skills.) I guess I don't know what sort of accuracy we're talking about, here; but, what follows are a pair of 50' (16 1/2 yard) targets that I consider to be about the best I'm able to do at my present age. It takes me between 1,000 and 1,500 rounds a month to shoot like this:

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h39/Me_2U/Typical16yardRapid.jpg

Quite frankly, unless I were hunting (Which I, also, haven't done in about 25 years.) I can't imagine, 'Why' I'd need to either slow down or be more accurate with a pistol. If I had to choose between being more accurate, or being faster, personally, I'd take faster every single time. :cool:

[happyguy]

:) put everything - at speed - onto a 9" plate at 15 yards. That's it! I'm not any better than that; nor, do I feel that I need to be.
:cool:

That's actually pretty good shooting. Way better than the typical range rat anyways.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

[Arc Angel]

:) Thank you!

Yes, those targets are pretty decent. The day I shot them I turned around, afterwards, to see an entire wall lined with police officers standing behind me laughing and pointing at the targets. (I think they originally gathered because I was making so much noise; and, they wanted to watch someone miss!) :supergrin:

If you want to learn how to shoot like that - a skill I seldom see anywhere except on television - I have repeatedly posted on this forum exactly how I handle a pistol at speed.

Your commitment? Well, like I said: About 1,000 rounds a month and several careful readings of what I've repeatedly posted in the past. In a world full of things which I neither know nor understand my skill with firearms has (almost) always stood out.

Back in 2002 I had my first heart problems. What, at the time, seemed like a bad thing turned out to be blessing in disguise. After surgery, I went the way of several other older men I regularly shot with. My pistol shooting skills deteriorated badly; I developed a wicked involuntary flinch; I began punching 6 to 9 o'clock just like any rank newbie; and, I became convinced that my former ability to handle a pistol was gone forever!

Let me tell you: It was a long hard road back! I had to: rethink, repractice, and relearn everything I'd ever known about how to shoot a pistol. It took me about 3 years to go from being really lousy to what you see in those targets; and, you may believe me when I tell you that I shot them just as fast as my Glock would go off. (I often don't wait for the rear sight; it would simply slow me down too much!)

If I didn't write another post, I've already left all of that learning and experience, here, on Glock Talk for anyone to consider. Any search under my screen name will pull it up. Frankly, I don't understand this, 'too much light' through the rear sight complaint? The only thing I want to see while looking down a pistol barrel is the very top of the front sight; and, on those rare occasions when I can't collect the front sight fast enough, then, I'm just as content to, 'square up' the back of the slide and use that instead!

It all comes back to the same thing: Make sure the top of the slide equally bisects the target's midline; and, then, rigorously control what I like to call the, 'magic spot' about midway up the pistol's backstrap. After you get a hold of that, 'magic spot' is when and where: grip, stance, arm flex, and a certain, 'conditioned response' to the sensation of recoil in your arms come into play.

Back-to-front sight pictures? IMO, that's for either postal match shooters or combat pistol shooting novices. The more you need to rely on back-to-front sight pictures the slower you're going to be. Everything - everything - happens right off the top of the front sight blade. In this regard, if my eyes were younger and good enough to use a narrower blade, then, I've no doubt that I would shoot better than I do - Period. ;)





PS: I strongly suspect that a logical extension to what I've posted here is the pistol methodology presently being taught by D.R. Middlebrook.