Question on Sight Alignment and Zeroing

Status
Not open for further replies.
earlthegoat2

earlthegoat2

Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
10,013
Location
SE GA
This link to Wayne Novak's site will need to be utilized

http://www.novaksights.com/work order.htm

This is the worksheet for custom work.

About halfway down there is a section on sight picture, point of aim, and point of impact. I am immensely curious as to why option number 3 is "not recommended"

Why offer it at all then.

The reason I ask is that this the method that HK P7 sights are zeroed for.
 
Option #3 is probably offered because "the customer is always right...even when they aren't." Especially when that customer is paying the kind of money Novak's charges for a full-custom pistol and waiting as long as they have to, every detail should be the way the customer desires, not necessarily what the gunsmith thinks is best.

When you have the front sight completely obscuring the intended point-of-aim(#3), this is an inherently less precise sight picture than the recommended zero-hold sight picture(#2) - with a zero-hold, you can see your POA and POI(point-of-impact) just above the front sight blade. The 6:00 hold(#1) is meant for bullseye competition, as you hold VERY precisely at the bottom edge of the black(no visible aiming markers) bullseye circle to align the muzzle so as to place the shots in the center of the bullseye - it's a deliberate mis-alignment of the POA and POI for competitive purposes, and it can lead to confusion on the shooter's part in a fast, high-stress defensive shooting situation.
 
I have not really tested my sights from a bench to see just EXACTLY where they shoot. I never found a need to since I can hit the pie plates and bowling pins with relative ease at moderate speed during league play.

I just read somewhere about them being regulated so the front sight covers the target.
 
#3 is just less precise. It is common for many combat arms and is adequate for center mass shots, but not as suitable for target shooting. My understanding was that HK used #2 as their method of sight alignment.
 
My understanding was that HK used #2 as their method of sight alignment.
Click to expand...
that is my understanding too.

if you compare it to #1, it does cover the target...just not as much

#3 is sometimes referred to a "driving the dots" and i first heard it in connection with the Beretta 92 Elite II. it is not as precise as #2 as you are covering the target...how do you hit what you can't see? when you target is big enough to see "around" the front sight, it is close enough to hit using just the top of the slide.

#3 actually excells under certain conditions, general use isn't one of them
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top