Less than 1/2 of a second, more than a 1/4th a second on average, depending on lighting. Why does it beg the question? Checking to see if I actually knew the answer or are we going to go down the "well then buy a Glock" road? Cause #2 ain't gonna happen. Every pistol has tradeoffs, I'll deal with a compromise in sight acquisition and retain the other features I prefer that Glock doesn't offer. I am already planning to see what my Ophthalmologist can do to help me next time I go in.
I'll answer the second part first: I don't care if you buy a Glock or not. Don't know how you even thought I was implying you should. If you think a certain sight picture helps you see the sights faster, then you can put a pair of similar sights on nearly any gun.
I was asking to see if you knew how fast,
exactly you were shooting. You do not. You said: "Less than a half second, more than 1/4 second," but that answer is not very precise, nor is the shooting very fast. (less than 1/4 second is approaching "fast")
Ankeny (former Grandmaster) knows that proper ergonomics are very beneficial when it comes to shooting fast accurately. But you totally dismiss ergos and state that it only has to do with how you can focus on the sights. Subconsciously you're fighting the ergos of the Glock,
which takes time, but you still think you're shooting fast.
What gun(s) do you think fit you, yet shoot slower?
If you can duplicate the Glock sight picture (or find something better) on a gun that has good ergonomics for you, then you'll get those splits well under 1/4 second. Why in the world would you willingly compromise on speed of sight acquisition??
If all I had to do to cut my split time in 1/2 was to change sights, I'd do it yesterday!
My go to handgun is a no frills, Colt/Talo O1970A1MA. I was 40 years old when I bought it. Many full size handguns of various calibers and styles, came before and several have come after. This is the only pistol I own that my son will not get until I die.
