[arthury]

What's the standard semi-auto pistol factory setting like in terms of how the gun is tuned for which sight image when shooting? Is it different for each manufacturer and types of pistol? I am curious which ones are default setting for 1911's, M&P's and Beretta's.

http://pistol-training.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/sightimages.jpg

[brickeyee]

Why don't you ask the manufacturers?

One and two have both been around a long time.

[Sam1911]

The question must be paired with a related question: What ammo was considered the standard for this gun design? A 9mm that puts 115 gr. bullets right in the x-ring with the "center" hold will need a hold more like the "lolipop" hold (left sight picture) to have the same point of impact with 147 gr. bullets.

Adjustable sights make that issue moot, as you can pick what kind of sight picture you prefer and adjust the sights to put your preferred bullet into the center of the target with that hold.

Fixed sight guns, back in the old days, often had a pretty tall front sight which could then be filed down to raise the point of impact until your preferred ammo was on target with your preferred hold.

Now, with all the 3-dot and similar sights that's not possible, or not AS possible. So you may have to play with what ammo you're using to get the sight picture you want, OR change your sight picture to use the ammo you prefer. Or both.

[Hk Dan]

Oh, Sam...Ordinarily your posts are Gospel to me, but this one is in diret contradiction to my personal experience. I've not noticed one iota of difference in POI with 115 to 147 grain loads within 25 yards. Out past that the 147s tend to shoot lower, and at 100 it's fairly significant.

[rcmodel]

It is a fact that heavy bullets shoot higher out of a handgun then lighter bullets.

It is caused by recoil moving the gun more before the bullet clears the barrel.

It is especially noticable with hard kicking revolver calibers.

If you notice, the front sight is way higher then the rear sight, and the muzzle is pointed down in relation to the line of sight.

rc

[9mmepiphany]

I've not noticed one iota of difference in POI with 115 to 147 grain loads within 25 yards.
Sounds like you either aren't shooting precisely enough to see the difference or the gun isn't accurate enough, as it is pretty easy to see on a target as close as 7 yards...maybe even as close as 3-5 if your gun is accurate enough.

For the OP:
#1 is mostly used forr know distance shooting...as the distance varies, the height of the bull above the POA will change.

#2 is more accurate for varying distances as it provides a clear bisection of the intended POI

#3 is the least accurate as it obscures the whole area of the intended POI and grows larger as distance increases.

Different manufacturers will use different sight alignments for their guns and will even used different alignments for different models in their lines

[BCRider]

I'm on side with Sam and the others that can see impact point differences in different weight bullets. My own expeirence is spot on with their observations.

Arthury, the sight picture the guns are set up for will depend on what they are intended to do. Target guns shot at specific targets at specific ranges will use the first "6 o'clock" or "lollipop" style of hold. Self defense and general use handguns should be set according to the second image. The third likely has some validity for glow in the dark sights. But if you think about it the third setup is a copy of the second option. But the bullet would strike about 1/8 inch or so higher than aimed. The sights and glow tubes being parallel to the upper edges after all. So really two and three are the same other than what you focus on.

For daylight target shooting option 3 tends to block the target with the sights. So I would not expect the groups to be quite as tight as with option 2. But in they dark where you really don't see the black sights but instead see the glowing dots it would certainly work "well enough".

[xmanpike]

My buddy has a Sig P220 carry that shotos low. He called and asked why, they explained to him that their guns are set up for the front sight to cover the target, as that is what the police requested??? Its annoying to him. I can understand, I definitely want to be able to at least see your sight image 2 and actually prefer sight image 1

[allaroundhunter]

My buddy has a Sig P220 carry that shotos low. He called and asked why, they explained to him that their guns are set up for the front sight to cover the target, as that is what the police requested??? Its annoying to him. I can understand, I definitely want to be able to at least see your sight image 2 and actually prefer sight image 1

Sigs have always used the combat sight picture. I don't prefer it, but you can easily change the sights to make it a 6 o'clock hold.

[Deus Machina]

IMO, it depends on the sights.

My problem with #1 is the shifting POI. If it was a competition, at 25 yards every time, I wouldn't mind. But practice, I aim the other ways and adjust vertically for distance.

My .22's and revolvers use #2. My 9mm carry gun uses #3.

The reason: The .22's and revolvers have solid notch and post sights, so the visible portion is the top. The 9mm has tritium sights, where the most visible parts are the dots.

[JohnKSa]

What's the standard semi-auto pistol factory setting like in terms of how the gun is tuned for which sight image when shooting? Is it different for each manufacturer and types of pistol? I am curious which ones are default setting for 1911's, M&P's and Beretta's.I have not been able to detect any significant difference in the way different fixed sight guns are set up from the manufacturers in terms of point of impact/point of aim.

Regardless of what gun/manufacturer is involved, it's been my experience that one of two situations exists. Situation one is that the gun is set up for something pretty close to sight picture 1 at 25 yards. Situation 2 is that it's pretty clear that the factory didn't make any serious attempt to get the sights regulated. Situation 1 is, by far, the most common.

There's a complication (or two) that I have observed that can cause confusion.

The distance involved definitely makes a difference. A gun that is set up to shoot to sight picture 1 at 25 yards will shoot to sight picture 2 at about 5 yards and sight picture 3 at extremely close ranges (a few feet).

That is due to the fact that the bore is below the sights. Visualize sight picture 1 and then think about drawing a line through the sights to the target aiming point and then a second line through the bore to the target impact point. You'll see that initially the line for the bore starts below the sights (sight picture 3) at very close distances but that it eventually ends up above the sights (sight picture 1) at 25 yards. If you do the math, the two lines cross (setting up sight picture 2) at about 5 yards.

Another complication is that new pistol shooters commonly shoot low (or low and to one side). Low and left is a very typical complaint for a new pistol shooter who is right-handed. This affliction often seen to a lesser extent when a shooter is getting accustomed to a new pistol with a trigger that is significantly different to what he's previously used. So a lot of new shooters or shooters with new guns find themselves shooting low. It's pretty common for them to blame the gun.

The final complication is that people will try to make an assessment of the sight setup of a pistol based on groups that exhibit significant shooter error. I recently went through a debate on another forum with a person who claimed that all Berettas were set up to shoot to sight picture 3. The first problem with his claim is that I've been shooting Berettas for decades and they all shoot to sight picture 1 at 25 yards. Yes, if you shoot them at very close ranges, they shoot to sight picture 3, but that doesn't mean anything as explained above.

The second problem with his claim was Beretta's website which states that they set their guns up for sight picture 1. (See the link below.)

http://berettausa.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/766/kw/sights/session/L3RpbWUvMTMzNDMwNDc4OS9zaWQvdlFpNnh3Vms%3D

The third problem was that the person was using 6" groups at 10 yards or so as his rationale for "proving" his contention. In my experience, a decent quality autopistol will shoot sub-1" groups at that distance. That means that the shooter is trying to assess the point of aim of his pistol using groups that have a huge error component. If the gun can shoot sub-1" groups at the tested distance, the only explanation for why it's shooting 6" groups at that distance is human error. Human error can cause not only larger group size than the gun is capable of, it can also shift the point of impact. Basically, the same flinch/inconsistency that's making the groups more than 6x larger than they should be, could also be moving the center of the group around (down is the most common direction as mentioned earlier) on the target by a similarly significant amount.My buddy has a Sig P220 carry that shotos low. He called and asked why, they explained to him that their guns are set up for the front sight to cover the target, as that is what the police requested???I'll admit that I don't have a ton of experience with SIGS. That said, the two I have shot both shot to sight picture 1 at 25 yards--perhaps even a bit higher than sight picture 1, truth be told. My guess is that SIG gives that pat answer to people who call complaining of the gun shooting low (see my earlier explanations of why that happens) to keep things simple.

I guess that might seem callous of SIG, but from a practical perspective, if someone's happy with 5" groups at 5 yards then it's not really a big deal if they're behind the front sight or a little higher on the target. They're not aiming at little stuff anyway if they're happy with those group sizes.A 9mm that puts 115 gr. bullets right in the x-ring with the "center" hold will need a hold more like the "lolipop" hold (left sight picture) to have the same point of impact with 147 gr. bullets.This is true, however the effect is not as noticeable with autopistols as it is with revolvers because most of the initial recoil motion of an autopistol is reciprocating slide/barrel motion which doesn't result in the same amount of muzzle lift as you see with a revolver. In a revolver the muzzle lift is a significant component of recoil from the beginning. In an autopistol, the frame/muzzle doesn't lift as much initially--instead the slide and barrel move nearly straight backwards until the barrel stops against the frame. At that point there is significant muzzle lift, but, of course, the bullet is long gone.

[arthury]

Insightful discussions, gentlemen. I am learning quite a bit here.

One thing which I am still puzzled when you guys talked about adjusting the elevation; as far as I know, almost all of service-type pistols do not have elevation adjustments on their sights. What do you do with these?

[9mmepiphany]

You can install a higher rear sight or a lower front sight to raise the POI, you'd do the opposite to lower it

[arthury]

Thanks for the response. That's probably a way to do elevation changes but it not something that can be adjusted at the range, like windage adjustments.

[arthury]

[...]
The second problem with his claim was Beretta's website which states that they set their guns up for sight picture 1. (See the link below.)

http://berettausa.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/766/kw/sights/session/L3RpbWUvMTMzNDMwNDc4OS9zaWQvdlFpNnh3Vms%3D
[...]


Incidentally, besides Beretta, Les Baer and S&W have also confirmed that they use #1 as their standard sight image for their factory testings.

[9mmepiphany]

Incidentally, besides Beretta, Les Baer and S&W have also confirmed that they use #1 as their standard sight image for their factory testings.
Do you have links?

[Sam1911]

Incidentally, besides Beretta, Les Baer and S&W have also confirmed that they use #1 as their standard sight image for their factory testings.
Do you have links?

Seconding the call for citations.

Not saying it can't be true, but for comapies like S&W which sells a lot of fixed-sighted sidearms to law enforcement and self-defense minded types, that wouldn't make a whole lot of sense. That's a bullseye target sight picture, not very appropriate for a "combat" or "practical" weapon.

[GLOOB]

IIRC Glock was the first major manufacturer to use #3. Nowadays, FN also uses it on the FNX pistols.

As for bullet weight affecting POI, I see a huge difference only in my revolvers. If there's any difference in my locked breech semiautos, it's so small as to be nearly insignificant.

[JohnKSa]

That's a bullseye target sight picture, not very appropriate for a "combat" or "practical" weapon.As noted, even if a pistol is sighted for sight picture 1 at 25 yards, at closer ranges (5-10yds), due to the normal misalignment between sight plane and bore line, sight picture 1 changes to sight picture 2 and at very close ranges it changes to sight picture 3.

It's one of those rare situations where the unavoidable physics of the situation actually helps. At long distances where the precision of a bullseye hold (1) is needed, you get a bullseye sight picture. At closer ranges where a traditional hunting/combat hold (2) is ideal, that's what you get. And at very close ranges you just cover the target with the front sight and press.Glock was the first major manufacturer to use #3.I own about a half-dozen Glocks from 2nd through 4th generation and all of them shot to sight picture 1 at 25 yards out of the box with stock sights.

[Blackstone]

The club I go to's glock 17s all shoot a little high at 10 metres

[JohnKSa]

...first major manufacturer to use #3. Nowadays, FN also uses it on the FNX pistols.According to the FNX manual, the pistols are sighted for sight picture 2 at 20 yards.

"20. Sighting
The sights are factory set for a combat hold (point of aim equals point of impact) at 20 yards. This may vary slightly with different types of ammunition."

http://fnhusa1.com/manuals/2010_FNX_OM.pdf

At closer ranges, due to the sightline/boreline misalignment the guns should shoot to sight picture 3 and at longer ranges the bullet will impact above the front sight.

[GLOOB]

According to the FNX manual, the pistols are sighted for sight picture 2 at 20 yards.

"20. Sighting
The sights are factory set for a combat hold (point of aim equals point of impact) at
As I understand it, combat hold (as opposed to bullseye hold) is sight picture #3, not #2. My FNX shoots to sight picture #3 at 20 yards. And there's no mistaking, as tall as the sights are. A lot of people tend to shoot this gun low, even compared to Glocks, because of the combat hold plus tall sights. I have to explain it to people when they pick up my gun and start kicking up dust.

All my Glocks also shoot with a combat hold, except my G27 with a LW barrel shoots to sight picture #1. Was busting soda cans at 35-50 yards using sight picture #3 with my G21 the other week. I understand the parallax issue. But IMO, they are definitely sighted for #3 throughout the heart of the most useful range.

One of the interesting things about a combat hold is that it minimizes parallax. Adjusting POI to the top of the front sight increases parallax and makes for bigger adjustments for distance.

[JohnKSa]

...combat hold is sight picture #3, not #2...Point of aim = point of impact is sight picture 2 (bullet impacts where the center of the top of the front sight is on the target) which has traditionally been called a combat or hunting hold.

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q4/speed_rrracer/Screenshotat2012-01-07202638.png
http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/4563/1911pointofaim.jpg
http://thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/6oclock.jpg
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r259/jdlv4_0/SIghtalignment-sightpictureEDITED.jpg


My FNX shoots to sight picture #3 at 20 yards.What ammo and what size groups?So do all my Glocks,Ditto.

[GLOOB]

What ammo and what size groups?
All ammo:
170 gr PMC Bronze
180 gr Winchester White Box
155 gr Rangers
155 gr Nolser JHP over 7.6 gr AutoComp
180 gr Nolser JHP over 6.2 gr AutoComp
155 gr Berry's over 7.1 gr UN
155 gr Berry's over 7.6 gr AutoComp
165 gr Zero JHP over 7.1 gr AutoComp

Size groups? I can regularly shoot a 2" group at 15 yards with my G21. 1 1/2" some days. Standing, unsupported. I haven't done much paper punching with the FNX40, but I can keep a soda can dancing at 15-20 yards, using sight picture #3.

So do all my Glocks,
Ditto.
So trust me when I say that my FNX shoots to the dot, like my Glocks. It took me awhile to adjust. Even though I am used to shooting Glocks, I was consistently shooting low (but accurate, not jerking the trigger or anticipating) in fast shooting, cuz the sights are so tall (hence the dot is farther underneath the top of the sights). First time I shot it was at 6" steel plates perched atop a 1" metal frame, and I was consistently nailing the frame below each plate, shot after shot. This happens to everyone (who's a good shot) to whom I lend this gun. Once I realized I was using the silhouette of the sights during fast shooting, it was a matter of mental adjustment for the difference in sight height compared to a Glock. Now I'm just as accurate with it, if not a bit more, as with my G19.

I don't know what "combat hold" meant, originally. But a lot of people are using it to describe #3, nowadays. If Glock sights their guns in this way (and that also appears to be a matter of contention), then you'd think it deserves its own name.

[JohnBT]

Interesting Beretta link. I do have a question or two though.

From the link: "Beretta pistols are targeted for a "6 O'Clock Hold," meaning that the sights should be aligned at the base of the target or "6 O'Clock" position on the target."

What size is the target? Is that a 6" circle or a 9" circle or what? Small paper plate or large? At what distance? With what ammo?

[JohnKSa]

So trust me when I say that my FNX shoots to the dot, like my Glocks.What can I say? FN says your FNX should be set up to use sight picture 2 at 20 yards which would have it printing right on the top of the front sight at that distance and slightly above the top of the front sight at 25 yards. I'd say that perhaps you have an FNX that shoots lower than it should except for the fact that you claim all your Glocks shoot that way too.

Basically you're saying all your guns shoot lower than they should but that I should believe it's the guns and not the shooter even though the FN factory disagrees with you and even though I have a lot of the same guns you do and all of mine shoot they way they should. I'm sure that sounds a lot more confrontational than I really intend, but that's really the bottom line--no sense in dancing around it.I don't know what "combat hold" meant, originally. But a lot of people are using it to describe #3, nowadays. People use lots of terms incorrectly. A lot of people nowadays use the term clip to refer to a magazine.

Anyway, although there may be some question about what "combat hold" means to "a lot of people...nowadays", it's not really relevant here because FN clarifies by stating precisely what they mean. They say that "combat hold" is "point of aim=point of impact". It's clear what that means.One of the interesting things about a combat hold is that it minimizes parallax. Adjusting POI to the top of the front sight increases parallax and makes for bigger adjustments for distance.I'm assuming that what you actually mean is that sight picture 3 minimizes parallax.

You can't change parallax by adjusting the way the gun is sighted. Parallax is error (or change) in observed position of an object (or the relative position between two observed objects) induced by changing the position of the viewer.

Assuming you have a gun that's really set up for sight picture 3, you could make the argument that having the point of impact lower than the sights effectively reduces the initial ofset between sight line and bore line. But that's something entirely different from parallax.

The effect of reducing the height above bore of the sights would be to minimize how low the gun shoots below the sights at very close ranges. However, since you can't eliminate the trajectory arc, you're still stuck with the reality that the bore will still have to be angled upwards to counteract the effect of gravity and that means the bullet will still describe an arc.

The arc will mean that at different ranges the bullet must hit at different elevations on the target and there's no way to eliminate that effect unless you're in zero gravity and you set up the bore and sights to be perfectly parallel.

[JohnKSa]

Interesting Beretta link. I do have a question or two though.

From the link: "Beretta pistols are targeted for a "6 O'Clock Hold," meaning that the sights should be aligned at the base of the target or "6 O'Clock" position on the target."

What size is the target? Is that a 6" circle or a 9" circle or what? Small paper plate or large? At what distance? With what ammo?The target size ambiguity is one reason many people advocate using sight picture #2. However, as I've mentioned a couple of times, no matter what sight picture you use, the bullet will impact at different elevations on the target at different distances because the sightline and boreline MUST be misaligned to counteract the effects of gravity on the bullets.

Basically the answer to all your questions is that no matter what sight picture the gun is set up for, it won't shoot to that sight picture at ALL distances with ALL targets and ALL ammunition. There's no way that can happen.

I can tell you what I've seen with the half-dozen or so Berettas I've owned and it's pretty much what I've seen with all of my fixed sighted autopistols regardless of brand.

At 25 yards they shoot more or less to the center of a 6" bull with a 6'OClock hold on the bull. That's with the bull "resting" on the top of the front sight.

At somewhere around 5-7 yards, they put the bullet on top of the center of the front sight.

At ranges closer than 5-7 yards they put the bullet below the top of the center of the front sight.

[arthury]

Do you have links?

The Beretta one was provided by JohnKSa several postings above this.

As for Les Baer, I have written directly to them and they told me that in the email.

For S&W, I have sent my M&P9 to them and they tested it in S&W HQ, and sent back the paper target indicating where they POA was and the holes.

[rskent]

Very interesting topic.
For me…
Glocks all shoot high and need a low six hold. #1 or more
Sigs, colts, and pretty much everything else shoot center mass. #2
Most pistols with night sights cover the target. #3

I am pretty sure it would be different for others depending on your hold, eyesight, trigger control, whatnot.
Steve

[GLOOB]

I'm assuming that what you actually mean is that sight picture 3 minimizes parallax.
Yes, that's what I meant.

You can't change parallax by adjusting the way the gun is sighted. Parallax is error (or change) in observed position of an object (or the relative position between two observed objects) induced by changing the position of the viewer.

Assuming you have a gun that's really set up for sight picture 3, you could make the argument that having the point of impact lower than the sights effectively reduces the initial ofset between sight line and bore line. But that's something entirely different from parallax.

All I meant was the lower the sight height, the less the parallax error. If I'm using he word incorrectly, I think you still know what I meant. If you adjust POI to the middle of the sight, you're effectively using a shorter sight. Perfect example of why your Berettas with 6'oclock regulation have so much parallax error between 5-25 yards, which my Glocks and FNX do not exhibit to a noticeable degree. (My 686, OTOH...)

from Wikipedia:
Parallax in sights

Parallax affects sights in many ways. On sights fitted to small arms, bows in archery, etc. the distance between the sighting mechanism and the weapon's bore or axis can introduce significant errors when firing at close range, particularly when firing at small targets. This difference is generally referred to as "sight height"[23] and is compensated for (when needed) via calculations that also take in other variables such as bullet drop, windage, and the distance at which the target is expected to be.[24]


Basically you're saying all your guns shoot lower than they should but that I should believe it's the guns and not the shooter even though the FN factory disagrees with you and even though I have a lot of the same guns you do and all of mine shoot they way they should. I'm sure that sounds a lot more confrontational than I really intend, but that's really the bottom line--no sense in dancing around it.
No, not all my guns. Just the ones I mentioned. My Ruger MKIII shoots to #2. My fixed sight GP100 shoot between 1 and 2, depending on the ammo. My SW 686 shoots to #1 (or even higher with some ammo). It's adjustable. I just haven't fixed it, yet. My milsurp 9x18's shoot to #2. My friend's Glock 19 with aftermarket Tru Glo sights shoot to #2. My friend's LCP shoots to #2 with factory ammo, but to #3 with my reloads.

even though the FN factory disagrees with you
I'm a pretty decent shot, if I say so myself. A legend in my own mind, really. :) And, as I stated, it's not just me. It's everyone that shoots my FNX. Maybe it's just mine.

.... or maybe it's not:
http://fnforum.net/forums/fn-fnx/18987-possible-help-all-you-low-shooters.html
http://fnforum.net/forums/fn-fnx/26330-low-shooting-new-guy.html
http://fnforum.net/forums/fn-fnx/23415-fnx-9-sights.html

There's a lot of back and forth with many people presenting the same arguments and advice as yourself. But I find it unlikely for this many people to have the same issue and it's all in their heads. Here's a choice excerpt from the third link I posted that supports my own experience. This was not posted by me! I just came across these threads with a few minutes of searching the FN forums.

When I shoot the gun using the sites "correctly" I shoot the ground. And so does everyone else Ive handed my gun to. So far Ive shot a baretta 9mm, a glock 9mm, S&W 40, Rugar 45 and 22, colt 45 1911, and some POS 1911. And I was dead on with everyone of them. With the FNX if Im not using the dots Im shooting the ground.

The current crop of FN pistols, the FNP and FNX, are all sighted with a "combat" sight picture. This would be the number 3 diagram posted above.[same diagram as posted in this thread] These pistols were not intended for target shooting competition.
^ I've read this same thing on the FN forum before, in another thread. I have even once posted something to this effect, and you might come across my post if you go through all those links. But you'll see I'm not alone in my opinion.

[JohnBT]

"Basically the answer to all your questions is that no matter what sight picture the gun is set up for, it won't shoot to that sight picture at ALL distances with ALL targets and ALL ammunition. There's no way that can happen."

I didn't mean to make you type all of that. I was just poking a little fun at Beretta's site for the complete lack of specifics about what they were saying.

John

[allaroundhunter]

JohnKSa, a "combat sight picture" is in fact #3. It is the same hold that Sig Factory pistols are designed for. Idea being that POA=what the front dot is covering, not what is just above the front sight blade.

Here (http://www.sigsauer.com/customerservice/klunker.aspx) is a link about it.

And here I will quote it (without the accompanying picture):
From Sig Sauer
Most shooters use a "6 o'clock" hold, which means your front and rear sights are lined up with one another and aimed at the center of the target. Our pistols are configured with a combat hold (12 o'clock), which mean you want to cover your target. Looking at the picture below, most people use a combination of the # 1 / #2 sight picture. Our pistols are set up for #3.

When they reference the sight pictures by number, they are referencing the same sight pictures in post #1

[Lonestar49]

...

Same with Beretta's even though the outdated FAQ speaks of long ago but here's the words from BUSA themselves..

From Matteo:
MRecanatini
Social Media Manager,
Beretta USA Corp.

Re: Some input from within..

"Ok... so I'm getting some input. Some prefer 6 o'clock and others prefer point of impact.

In the end, the consensus seems to be that 6 o'clock is an outdated sighting that works at the range, in stable conditions.

For combat use, the POA-POI sighting (all of our guns are now sighted like that) is preferred, and accounts also for aiming devices.

Additionally, pistol engagement is much shorter than, say, rifle with iron sights, so POA-POI is the way to go.

Ben points out, however, that most people won't be able to tell you how their handgun is sighted, at 25 yds."


Ls

[JohnKSa]

Our pistols are configured with a combat hold (12 o'clock), which mean you want to cover your target.SIG may use the term that way. FN, per the quote provided earlier, uses the same term as I've traditionally seen it used to apply POA=POI which is sight picture 2.

And again, the few SIGs I've shot actually printed higher on the target than I usually see with other pistols.

By the way, I'm not sure that the SIG link is a great one for verifying correct terminology. Clearly whoever wrote it was having some problems that day.Most shooters use a "6 o'clock" hold, which means your front and rear sights are lined up with one another and aimed at the center of the target.A "6 o'clock" hold absolutely does not mean "aimed at the center of the target". Not by any stretch of the imagination.I was just poking a little fun at Beretta's site for the complete lack of specifics about what they were saying.It's a good point. Due to the inescapable misalignment between boreline and sightline, stating a sight picture without a range to go with it leaves a lot to be desired.Parallax affects sights in many ways. On sights fitted to small arms, bows in archery, etc. the distance between the sighting mechanism and the weapon's bore or axis can introduce significant errors when firing at close range, particularly when firing at small targets. This difference is generally referred to as "sight height"It is indeed "generally referred to as sight height", or perhaps just as "trajectory". I've never heard it described as parallax and it doesn't fit the definition of parallax.

You can't really have parallax with iron sights used properly because, used properly, the gun, sighting eye and target must all be in the proper relation to each other and that eliminates parallax. If you change the position of the viewer/shooter without moving the gun or target, the sights are no longer properly aligned. There would indeed be a sighting error at that point, but it wouldn't be a parallax error, it would be a sight misalignment error. That wiki article is the only place I've ever seen that equates sightline/boreline/trajectory issues with parallax and also one of the very rare sources that suggests that parallax with properly aligned iron sights is possible.If you adjust POI to the middle of the sight, you're effectively using a shorter sight.And using a shorter sight does reduce the sight height. From a practical standpoint what you're doing (if you want to minimize the trajectory arc along with sight height) is making the boreline closer to parallel with the sightline. That can be done as long as you don't mind having to start holding over (aiming high) at closer ranges than you would otherwise have to. If you bring the sightline and boreline closer to parallel you flatten the initial trajectory by reducing midrange rise. Flattening the midrange rise must be paid for and the payment is having to hold higher at shorter ranges than you would otherwise have to. You can't get something for nothing.But you'll see I'm not alone in my opinion.I see that. What confuses me is that I have a lot of firearms, have a lot of friends with firearms, buy a new firearm now and then and even rent one on occasion to try it out. I'm simply not running across any of these guns that are sighted for the "cover the bullseye" sight picture (#3) unless you count shooting them at very close ranges.

What adds to the confusion is that I find that it's common to see people who advocate this new sight picture (that never seems to affect any of my pistols) also often seem to state things that are clearly contrary to what manufacturers say about their own guns.

I do see a lot of shooters hitting low on their targets with pistols, (most commonly new shooters or shooters with pistols that are new to them) but it's very rare that it has anything to do with the sights.

Now, I'm not saying that there's no such thing as a gun that slips out of the factory shooting lower than it should. I once bought a pistol that shot about a foot low & a foot right at 15 yards--that turned out to be a screwup by the factory.

The best explanation for this situation that I can come up with is that one, maybe two gun companies are actually using sight picture 3 (at some unspecified distance--probably very close) and that at least one of them is incorrectly calling it a "combat sight picture". Due to the common ailment of shooting low, a lot of shooters have seized on that explanation as a reason for their trials and tribulations, a situation that is compounded by the apparently widespread confusion about precisely what the definition of "combat sight picture/combat hold" is. And to really top things off, an experienced shooter or two who happen to own guns with sights that are actually misaligned per the factory's own definitions then appear to corroborate the story."Ok... so I'm getting some input. Some prefer 6 o'clock and others prefer point of impact.

In the end, the consensus seems to be that 6 o'clock is an outdated sighting that works at the range, in stable conditions.

For combat use, the POA-POI sighting (all of our guns are now sighted like that) is preferred, and accounts also for aiming devices.

Additionally, pistol engagement is much shorter than, say, rifle with iron sights, so POA-POI is the way to go.What's sort of funny about this, in a sad sort of way, is that a 6 oc'clock hold on a 6" bull at 25 yards (sight picture 1) with a typical autopistol works out to also provide a POI=POA hold (sight picture 2) at about 5-7 yards as well as a sight picture 3 hold at ranges well inside 5 yards.

In other words, since the quote does not include the range at which the guns are sighted, as JohnBT pointed out, it doesn't really provide a conclusive answer.Ben points out, however, that most people won't be able to tell you how their handgun is sighted, at 25 yds."Yeah, and that complicates the issue even more. In our discussion on the Beretta forum, someone chimed in to support the idea that Berettas indeed use sight picture 3 (although none of mine--including older 92FS pistols and a newer PX4--ever have) by posting 6" groups at 15 yards. It should be clear why it's not possible to accurately assess the point of aim of a firearm while shooting groups that are many times larger than what the gun is capable of. If there's that much shooter induced error showing in the group size, it's reasonable to expect that there's also shooter induced error showing in the group position.

At any rate, I can believe that Beretta's "Social Media Manager" might believe that their pistols are now set up for sight picture 2 and he might even be right--as long as we're talking about single digit yardage ranges. Because that would mean the same guns would still shoot nearly identically to Berettas set up to shoot roughly to the center of a 6" bull at 25 yards using a 6 O'Clock hold--the way all mine shoot. I'll take his claim a lot more seriously when he provides a range to go with his comment about sight picture and the Beretta FAQ is changed so that their official response matches his.

By the way, here's a fun shooting test showing exactly what I've been talking about when it comes to varying ranges affecting the point of impact on the target even when the SAME hold is maintained. A 6 O'Clock hold is used on all the targets shot. Had he shot a target inside 5 yards, the point of impact would start to move lower than the point of aim demonstrating that the same gun can shoot to all three sight pictures discussed here depending on the range.

http://berettaforum.net/vb/showthread.php?t=85418

By the way, the tester's 25 yard results are similar the results I have obtained with my PX4 and with more than one or two 92FS pistols over the years.

[ForumSurfer]

You know...you guys spent more time discussing this than it actually takes to go out, shoot it, see where the holes are and adjust your sight picture as needed for distance. :)

I just mount up the sights I prefer and see what happens. It is just a reference point, anyway.

[GLOOB]

That can be done as long as you don't mind having to start holding over (aiming high) at closer ranges than you would otherwise have to. If you bring the sightline and boreline closer to parallel you flatten the initial trajectory by reducing midrange rise. Flattening the midrange rise must be paid for and the payment is having to hold higher at shorter ranges than you would otherwise have to. You can't get something for nothing.
Edit: ahh, I see what you're saying. Yes, if you care about long range, you want a certain ideal sight height that'll be a good compromise out to your max intended ranges. Very true. Same reason why a laser sight mounted below the bore totally sucks except at short range.

it doesn't fit the definition of parallax.
I understand your objection to the term parallax for the disparity between bore line and sight line. It's because you're a "gun guy" that perceives the term as that which describes the error of the reticle when it's not centered in the middle of the scope.

The term parallax wasn't invented to describe the reticle of a scope. It came into being long before the first scope was invented. It describes the difference in perspective between two viewpoints, and how it changes with the target's distance. It can properly be used to describe the different vantage point between the bore axis and the sight axis just as well as being used to describe the behavior of a scope reticle (IMO)!

Now, as for your shooting observations... I happened to go shooting the day before, and I brought out my Glocks and my FNX to doublecheck. Shooting from 20 yards. I did in fact notice that my Glock 19 shot pretty much to sight picture #2, as you said it should. But my G21, which was my first Glock by a couple years, shoots to sight picture #3. I probably got used to that and now I know why I always seem to make the shot when it counts with my G21, even though I can get similar group sizes with the G19, lol. My FNX with my ammo is still clearly hitting spot on to #3. With the number of others making the same observation, and with the huge difference between the dot and the top of the sight on these particular sights making it practically impossible to be accounted for by ammunition, I dunno what's up with that. Perhaps some part of the manufacture process changed after they wrote that manual. Or maybe the manual was actually written by someone using the trendy, incorrect definition of combat hold as some of us noobs have somehow come to understand it.

[exavid]

I use the #1 sight picture for iron sight Bullseye shooting and #2 for most every thing else I shoot. I like #1 for Bullseye because it's easier to set the front sight on the bottom of the bull than estimate where the middle of the thing is. The pistol is sighted in at the target distance so put the poi dead center when the hold is at the bottom of the bull's black edge. Bullseye shooting takes a bit more precision.

[arthury]

So, I thought there was an accuracy issue with my M&P9 when shooting longer distances (i.e. further than 7 yrds).

Based on the S&W suggested POA (which is sight image #1), I re-tested the gun using both 115 gr and 124 gr ball ammo and they shot reasonably OK. I did not expect it to match my 1911's 5" models but it was significantly better than using sight image #2. For a while, I lost confidence in that gun but my confidence level has improved markedly now.

And, based on empirical results, using sight image #2 in shorter distances (7 yards or less) seemed to produce decent results.

So, this brings up a question: do experienced shooters change their sight image, based on estimated distances, in a real CCW or LE or military encounter with a culprit?

[ForumSurfer]

So, *this brings up a question*: do experienced shooters change their sight image in a real CCW or LE or military encounter with a culprit?

I'll be honest, you put more thought into your post than I do into a day of shooting.

I typically just see where I'm hitting at a set yardage and adjust holdover as needed for distance. I'll experiment at 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and other random yardages just to see where my group is at. It's just never seemed like a big deal to me.

Is that proper? I don't know, but it puts little holes in the correct target zone at practical shooting events. Yardages are never preset and you'll have multiple targets at varying yardage both moving and stationary. I consider that to be a pretty decent"real world" simulator.

I also have zero combat or LEO experience.

[Bmac1949]

This has been an excellent thread for me because I've never been that worried about the technical aspects of how sights are set up. I've hunted and shot recreationally all my life. While I don't shoot competiton I'm an accurate shooter. I've always either adjusted my sights to what's comfortable for me or adjusted my shooting to compensate for fixed sights and never worried about it. But, for precision shooting I like what I've picked up in this thread and I'll do my homework on what I've learned at the range. I don't see much in this thread that would apply to close range SD situations from 10 to 15 feet because those situations would be covered best by keeping both eyes open and covering the target with the front sight. To do this effectively takes practice of course. I do have a question. How would you adjust your sight image for shooting a pistol at longer ranges if at all.

[JohnKSa]

I understand your objection to the term parallax for the disparity between bore line and sight line. It's because you're a "gun guy" that perceives the term as that which describes the error of the reticle when it's not centered in the middle of the scope.Believe it or not, my first experiences with parallax did not involve guns. It was with needle style gauges which must be read from directly in front of the gauge to avoid parallax induced errors.

The sight height above bore doesn't really fit any definition of parallax whether it involves guns or not. That said, I have seen at least one other person calling the misalignment (not the sight height above bore) between the boreline and sightline parallax. Don't know how something like that got started, but at least it doesn't seem to be terribly common.My FNX with my ammo is still clearly hitting spot on to #3.Could be you got a problem gun, could be FN goofed with the sights on that gun like Beretta goofed with the EII sights. A good number of them shot very low out of the box with the stock sights.

You know, it would be a heckuva lot more fun to get together and shoot all the guns we're talking about and take some measurements rather than doing all this typing... :DSo, this brings up a question: do experienced shooters change their sight image, based on estimated distances, in a real CCW or LE or military encounter with a culprit?Yes but not probably not in the way you think. At very close ranges, since sight alignment isn't critical for SD type targets, some expert shooters/trainers will advocate simply putting the front sight on the target and shooting without worrying too much about sight alignment.

At midrange, they will pay a bit more attention to sight alignment and at longer ranges they really knuckle down and get everything lined up precisely.How would you adjust your sight image for shooting a pistol at longer ranges if at all.Just like you would with a rifle. Shoot the gun at varying distances and keep track of the point of impact on the target.

For practical purposes, look at the link in the last post I made. From muzzle distance out to 25 yards, you're not going to see much more than about a 4" difference in point of impact with a typical self-defense cartridge out of a typically sighted pistol.

[9mmepiphany]

How would you adjust your sight image for shooting a pistol at longer ranges if at all.
That is one of the advantages of shooting a 9mm...or it's bigger brother the 357SIG...it shoots pretty flat out to 100 yards, aiming at COM, from a rollover prone position using sight picture #2

[exavid]

It all depends on where you zero your sights in. With the M14 when I was in the Army we set battle sight zero at 250yds. That way you could pretty well hit anything from close up to 500yds. It would help a bit if you held a bit low or high if the target was much off 250 yards but the vertical error wouldn't be all that great. Looking at the handgun trajectory chart in this link if your pistol was zeroed to 50yds you wouldn't have a problem with a center of mass shot from close up to 100yds. Of course no one other than a target shooter would be likely to set their sights on 50yds since that's not a likely range to use a pistol on for real. It really doesn't take much thought to adjust your hold for longer ranges in practical shooting. Target shooting is different of course because the purpose of that isn't defense but precision.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_trajectory_table.htm

[larryh1108]

Good stuff!
It's a thread like this that brings me back to THR.
Experience mixed in with links and intelligent thoughts.
Thanks, guys!

[Bmac1949]

"Target shooting is different of course because the purpose of that isn't defense but precision. "

I didn't mean to reference my question to SD. I was refering to target shooting and I didn't make it very clear. The handgun trajectory chart is going to be very helpful. Some of these shooters are out there ringing a gong out at about 200 meters with a .45 acp and I'm thinking "how in the world are they doing that". Of course he was using a Dan Wesson. This inspired me to see if I can shoot longer distances with my Colt 1911 and from the data on the chart it looks like it will shoot pretty flat out to 100 yards before having to hold over well above the target. Thanks for the feedback guys, I appreciate it.

[Bmac1949]

"...it shoots pretty flat out to 100 yards, aiming at COM, from a rollover prone position using sight picture #2 "

I think that I might be able to get the 1911 to shoot flat for about that far. I'll have to do a little work on finding the right bullet. A bullet with a decent drag coefficient for .45cal and load it towards the high end of what the loading data suggests. I don't imagine that my pretty little 185gr swc's will work for this one:)