Sights or just me


PDA






Bowfishrp
April 9, 2012, 05:39 PM
Why is it I feel more like I shoot better with my fathers 1911 than on my glock 21. His 1911 is a Colt series 70 with original sights. I feel like I cant shoot my glock 21 as accurately and it makes me wonder if it is the sights or not. It has the Glock night sights but they still feel pretty fat and bulky to me. I had been thinking about a reddot sight but would rather stay away from them right now.
I know my glock can shoot as well as his 1911 so figure its got to be in my head.

Just dont see all that much difference between my night sights and the trijicon or mepro.

If you enjoyed reading about "Sights or just me" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
9mmepiphany
April 9, 2012, 09:05 PM
You'd shoot better if you took off the 3-dot sights and replaced them with plain black ones. The dots are perceived by your subconscious as language and it is trying to read them.

Steve C
April 9, 2012, 09:18 PM
A single action trigger is almost always easier to shoot better than a double action type like in your Glock 21. The SA trigger has less finger movement, is generally lighter and easier to get the surprise break needed for top accuracy.

You should be able to shoot your G21 as good as your dads 1911, assuming its a non modified standard pistol, it just takes more work and practice to overcome the difference in triggers.

Bowfishrp
April 10, 2012, 10:19 AM
I would agree...still getting used to the 3 dot sights and not sure I like them in the daytime. I find myself trying to line up the dots across the target instead of just below it. Going to try out some different sights and see if I cant make it better.
Thanks.
Robert

ForumSurfer
April 10, 2012, 10:38 AM
You'd shoot better if you took off the 3-dot sights and replaced them with plain black ones. The dots are perceived by your subconscious as language and it is trying to read them.

I agree. I also didn't agree until I tried xs big dots, tru glows and pretty much everything out there. Being hard headed stinks. I could have better spent that money on more ammo and training. Years later, this is m preference on a carry/home defense gun:

http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p188/johnnnyhgmail/glock_26_sevigny/70eb7378.jpg
or
http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p188/johnnnyhgmail/glock_26_sevigny/4d69bb2f.jpg

dsb1829
April 10, 2012, 12:06 PM
I would say it's a little of both. GI sights easier to be accurate with in slow-fire for me as the front sight is narrow and fills the rear notch. That said, they are slower for action or rapid-fire. I typically use a fiber optic front and serrated rear for my game/competition guns. The sight picture is what forumsurfer put up except that the fo is brighter/easier to pickup fast.

Shoobee
April 10, 2012, 12:13 PM
Actually I really like the 3 dot system that is popular on most semi-auto's now.

My CZ is much easier to shoot accurately with them than my 1911A1 Springfield was.

But my CZ is a double and single action, so after you fire the first shot double action, the rest are single action, and the single action is always more accurate than shooting double action.

So I think you are finding out that you would have preferred a single-and-double action rather than strictly a double action hammer-concealed mechanism.

ForumSurfer
April 10, 2012, 12:13 PM
I would say it's a little of both. GI sights easier to be accurate with in slow-fire for me as the front sight is narrow and fills the rear notch.

Really? I'm far more accurate when I have plenty of light on both sides of the front post...especially at distance with small targets when the sight picture completely covers a small target if the rear notch is filled.

I typically use a fiber optic front and serrated rear for my game/competition guns.

I have a couple with serrated rears. The smooth ones have grown on me. :) I like the FO front, but my game gun is also a home defense gun at times. That's why you see a tritium dot on the g34 slide above.

Sorry, my camera skills are awful.

ForumSurfer
April 10, 2012, 12:24 PM
Actually I really like the 3 dot system that is popular on most semi-auto's now.

My CZ is much easier to shoot accurately with them than my 1911A1 Springfield was.

I can be accurate with just about any sight. I won't argue that the three dots are less (or more) accurate. :)

But when I try to shoot defensive drills or competitions...the extra rear dots slow me down. For some reason my brain initially tries to shift my focus to the rear sight, too. Does it do it every time? Nope...but I don't like it when it does. The black rear fixes that for me.

daytodaze
April 10, 2012, 03:17 PM
Practice dry firing your glock. Once you get the trigger into position, it is pretty smooth at the break. I would consider trigger time and possibly a lighter spring before i started swapping out sights.

9mmepiphany
April 10, 2012, 04:15 PM
Actually I really like the 3 dot system that is popular on most semi-auto's now.

My CZ is much easier to shoot accurately with them than my 1911A1 Springfield was.
I'd take from this that you aren't shooting very quickly

But my CZ is a double and single action, so after you fire the first shot double action, the rest are single action, and the single action is always more accurate than shooting double action.
That may be true for your style of shooting, but the double action trigger press has proven to be just as accurate, out to 20 yards for me, when shooting quickly. It is all a matter of trigger management. There is a reason revolver shooters don't usually go SA on longer shots in IDPA, ICORE or USPSA...it isn't more accurate

So I think you are finding out that you would have preferred a single-and-double action rather than strictly a double action hammer-concealed mechanism.
While a Glock's trigger being DAO is often the subject of heated discussion, I don't think there has ever been a disagreement about it not having a hammer

Skylerbone
April 10, 2012, 06:55 PM
Perhaps a fresh Sticky on sights and the reasons for choosing them is long overdue.

No one seems to make the combination I'd like to see which would be a plain black serrated rear with a square notch and forward rake and a front with a square light "tube" staked to the top of the sight ala the 1911 ejector. Something like an S&W revolver with a red ramp front minus the white outline and adjustability.

I hate lining up round dots in square notches and round dots in round notches still don't seem right when the top edge is what I'm supposed to focus on. I prefer a wide front when target shooting for accuracy and a wider rear notch when shooting for speed.

Robbins290
April 10, 2012, 08:43 PM
i can shoot a 1911 accuratly all day, i shot my baretta, and i cant hit the side of a barn. same thing when i shoot my wifes g30. but i can shoot a sig p226 better then a 1911.

9mmepiphany
April 10, 2012, 08:57 PM
I would suspect the fit of the gun in your hand.

The 1911 trigger will allow more cheating as to technique, but a SIG 226 and Beretta 92/96 are on pretty even footing as to trigger...so it has to be hand fit

coalman
April 11, 2012, 03:20 AM
IMO the 1911 platform sets the standard for trigger and accuracy. Stock Glocks are great for what they are, but they don't compare. It's pretty common to target shoot a good/quality 5" 1911, with lighter single action trigger and tighter frame/slide fit, better. Trick that Glock out (lighten trigger, better sights, etc.) and you can close the gap some; the main change being how well you can shoot it.

Doghandler
April 12, 2012, 01:08 AM
Subconscious language perception? Reading the dots? I could loose sleep over stuff like that.

HarcyPervin
April 12, 2012, 01:23 PM
Has anyone tried the two-dot system?

Sight picture lines up something like this:

0
0

Let me see if I can find a link: http://www.skdtac.com/Warren-Tactical-Sight-Tritium-2-Dot-Set-p/wrt.202.htm

I believe the carcano has them as well.

ForumSurfer
April 12, 2012, 01:35 PM
Has anyone tried the two-dot system?

Sight picture lines up something like this:

0
0

Let me see if I can find a link: http://www.skdtac.com/Warren-Tactica...-p/wrt.202.htm

I believe the carcano has them as well.

I have.

I like two dot better than three dot, but less than one dot. I still greatly prefer to have just one dot up front, for both accurate work at distance and for speed. For me, one narrow blade up front and a wide, all black rear notch is better for all tasks. I have a set of heinie straight 8's on one of my handguns. I colored the rear one with a green sharpie so that the tritium shines through at night but it almost looks flat black in the daytime.

9mmepiphany
April 12, 2012, 04:14 PM
Has anyone tried the two-dot system?

Sight picture lines up something like this:

0
0

Let me see if I can find a link: http://www.skdtac.com/Warren-Tactical-Sight-Tritium-2-Dot-Set-p/wrt.202.htm

I believe the carcano has them as well.
Those are usually referred as Straight Eights...after it's originator Richard Heine. I too like them better than the 3-dot but not as much as the single front dot

JN01
April 12, 2012, 05:59 PM
If you have a tritium dot on the front sight only, how do you accurately sight without any point of reference on the rear sight (night shooting)?

9mmepiphany
April 12, 2012, 06:15 PM
You look through the notch in the rear sight as you always do...the rear blade is silhouetted against the target. If there isn't enough light for that, you wouldn't have enough to identify your target

KJS
April 12, 2012, 06:20 PM
While a Glock's trigger being DAO is often the subject of heated discussion

I just bought a Glock 34 last month, after renting a G17 (closest rental to a G34 they had) and finding I really liked it and fired it accurately (by my novice standards).

I personally don't care if it's deemed DAO or not. I know the ATF officially declares Glock to be DAO, not that any of this matters in the least. All that matter to me is how a gun performs.

While others can debate DAO or not till the end of time, I can state that a Glock trigger feels absolutely nothing like a DA revolver trigger. I doubt there's any heat generated by that obvious statement.

KJS
April 12, 2012, 06:24 PM
Plain black sights drive me nuts with their total lack of contrast.

I'm fine with a plain black rear, but the front sight needs to stand out for me. I gather there are others who feel the same with all the guns one can find that have plain black rear and fiber optic front, a set up I very much like.

Skylerbone
April 12, 2012, 07:05 PM
For those who like the straight 8 configuration night sights in low light and a plain rear for daytime Harrison Custom makes a rear sight with a recessed tritium lamp.

dsb1829
April 12, 2012, 07:06 PM
Really? I'm far more accurate when I have plenty of light on both sides of the front post...especially at distance with small targets when the sight picture completely covers a small target if the rear notch is filled.


Everyone is different. I would say the narrow sight does more for me than the filling of the rear notch.

offtarget
April 12, 2012, 11:21 PM
My favorite sights were the ones I used in the early 70's, they were just so much clearer before my eyes got old. Seriously, I have tried plain, fiber optics, tritium, tfo, xs, about all of them. I think it all boils down to how much you practice with a sight. You can learn to shoot well with all of them, but for old eyes that have not aged that great, you can not beat the tfo's for fast shooting that is combat accurate. For target, I just work harder with plain sights, no dots, fibers, or gimmicks. Just my opinion.

xXxplosive
April 12, 2012, 11:47 PM
So the 3 dot system requires a 6 O'Clock hold...?

Skylerbone
April 13, 2012, 12:30 AM
Three dot requires you eyes to align the tops of the front and rear sights while simultaneously trying to ignore the brightly colored dots underneath the sight plane. Ever try ignoring the most distinguishing feature in your field of view? It will slow you down whether you practice with it or not, same with juggling while shooting.

Unless sights aren't regulated to the distance at which you are shooting, there should be no reason for them to obscure the target entirely, regardless of size. If you're shooting that far away at that small a target you're simply wasting ammo.

GLOOB
April 13, 2012, 02:41 AM
Sights are very personal. So it could be the sights AND you.

The trigger is very different, too. A surprise break helps to tighten up groups in slow fire. With the Glock trigger, you can feel it start to let go just a hair before the sear releases. You might be jumping the recoil. Try using a few snap caps, or something. For moving targets and rapid fire, I think the predictability of the Glock trigger is a plus, given enough practice and familiarity.

ForumSurfer
April 13, 2012, 01:40 PM
Three dot requires you eyes to align the tops of the front and rear sights while simultaneously trying to ignore the brightly colored dots underneath the sight plane. Ever try ignoring the most distinguishing feature in your field of view? It will slow you down whether you practice with it or not, same with juggling while shooting.

That's a good description of my issues with three dots. It messes with my focus. :) I honestly think most shooters I see use the dots for reference instead of the actual sight picture.

Unless sights aren't regulated to the distance at which you are shooting, there should be no reason for them to obscure the target entirely, regardless of size. If you're shooting that far away at that small a target you're simply wasting ammo.

I shot a match once and to end the match, you had to hit a 4" steel plate at around 25 yards. From shooting plates at home which were the same size with the same load I was running, I knew I could hold the front sight at the tip of the target and knock it down. Factory glock sights obscured it with a 12 o'clock hold. That isn't an unreasonable sized target.

I like to shoot quite a bit of reactive targets, so fat sights that could cover a plate/object fairly easily and I'd hardly call that kind of shooting a waste of ammo. Maybe I'm not understanding your statement. My sights are a point of reference meaning that I know they hit dead center at X distance. At some point I'll be holding left, right, high or low to get hits depending on my position and distance.

Skylerbone
April 13, 2012, 02:29 PM
My meaning is simply that you do not have sights regulated to that distance. In that match you compensated for one target and I'd bet you can attest to others having mixed success at that distance. One round does not warrant a radical overhaul but a 50 yd bullseye shooter would not choose to aim 4" above the black all match long.

ForumSurfer
April 13, 2012, 02:45 PM
Gotcha. I don't care for bullseye shooting or matches. I prefer practical shooting matches where it's more real world and you're guessing multiple distances. It doesn't get interesting for me until you're in an awkward cover position with the pistol tilted somewhere between 45 and 90 degrees and trying to figure out just where to put your sights and hit the target. :)

Blackstone
April 13, 2012, 03:04 PM
Surely within practical match distances, there's no need to calculate holds, especially since the scoring areas are so big?

9mmepiphany
April 13, 2012, 08:02 PM
Surely within practical match distances, there's no need to calculate holds, especially since the scoring areas are so big?
Well...the "A" zone on the head of a USPSA target is about the size of a 3"x5" card turned sideways.

If your wobble zone at 25 yards is 3" and your POA much off center, you'd stand a pretty good chance of missing if you didn't know to hold high or low

If you enjoyed reading about "Sights or just me" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!