Sights or just me

[offtarget]

Sight picture from 35 years ago

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]

So the 3 dot system requires a 6 O'Clock hold...?

 

[Skylerbone]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Surely within practical match distances, there's no need to calculate holds, especially since the scoring areas are so big?

 

[9mmepiphany]

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