Handgun Front/Rear Sight Width Tradeoff

[rdtompki]

I installed some Dawson sights (black rear/FO front) on my M&P 40 used for range, IDPA and steel competitions. I really like the sights versus stock, but I'm wondering about my decision to go with a .135" rear notch, /115" front post. I find I like the additional light available on either side of the front sight from the standpoint of front sight acquisition, but I feel as though the larger gaps are actually slowing down sight alignment in the vertical.

This is clearly going to be a very individual aspect of shooting, but I'd be very interested in others' experience in this area. I'm probably going to order a .125 rear sight in any event.

[JV_]

I run a .150" or .156" rear with a .115" front and I don't feel it slows me down. It may not be idea for something like bullseye, but I don't do much of that anyway.

We've had a slew of discussions about "light bars" around the front sight, and width comparisons, you should search on this a bit. I'm sure you'll find some good threads.

[GJM]

A lot of the cool boys are running a fiber optic in conjunction with a narrow rear. The idea is fiber optic speed, but better accuracy due to the smaller rear notch.

My problem is that the narrow rear notch provides insufficient light for me to see the post part of the front sight, which ends up causing my accuracy to suffer when I am using the post and not the fiber optic. I have Taran sights like this now on a Glock, and am about to remove them.

I do best for shooting groups at 25-100 yards with a Trijicon HD arrangement, because there is enough light to see the substantial front sight clearly. I can use the edge of the front sight (there is a small strip above the orange or yellow ring) or even the orange/yellow ring if I can't see the edge.

[JV_]

http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.p...nt-Sight-Width

http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.p...-Sight-Choices

There are more, but those were two close to the top of the search result list.

[rdtompki]

Thanks for the quick, informative responses and apologies for not using the search function: I looked for a pull-down at the forum "level" and neglected to see the search window in the upper right-hand corner.

I think I'm going to stick with my current setup - one time at the range and one IDPA match isn't really enough to reach any conclusions. The other issue I'm dealing with is progressive lenses - if I tilt my head down at all I'm looking through the distance part of the lens and have very poor sight picture; not much of a problem at the range where I can easily correct, but in any sort of competition (and I'm new at IDPA) I'm probably not paying any attention to focus. Next time I get my prescription updated I may consider RX inserts with a broad central focus at the sight distance, but those inserts aren't cheap.

[HopetonBrown]

The Taran Butler sights are a 115 front with a 135 rear. Ron Avery recently wrote an article on Police One wherein he professed his love for them. They seem to work pretty well for Bob Vogel and many other shooting luminaries. I don't count myself among them, but I do prefer it to the more traditional 125/145 combo that seems to be the more standard size.

Frank Proctor is working with Ameriglo on a 125/125 combo.

[PPGMD]

Frank Proctor is working with Ameriglo on a 125/125 combo.

I am running a .125 rear with a .125 front for Bianchi.

For USPSA/Steel/IDPA (when I shot it) I was using .150 rear with a .115 front. I've recently made the switch to a .125 rear with a .100 or .105 front. I like the smaller front sight for longer head shots on some USPSA stages.

[littlejerry]

I'm running 115 front 150 rear in USPSA. I've settled on warren tactical rears over sevigny and Dawson's. I'm not sure if it is the narrow rear posts or the rounded bottom corners but I find it easier to "see what I need to see" with warren TAC rear sights.

I've also switched to green FO so that I see more than just a searing red dot.

[Stuffbreaker]

The consensus among many competitive shooters in USPSA is the front sight should be 70% to 80% of the width of the rear notch. Having enough light bar on either side of the front site is important for quick alignment and calling shots, but if the light bars are too wide, accuracy suffers at speed. Oddly, slow fire accuracy is better with narrow light bars. My set up is .115 front to .135 rear, which is relatively thick at the front with an 85% ratio. A GM I know runs 70%, while a former national champ favors closer to 85%. The factory Novaks on my M&P Pro were closer to .135/.135, or 100%. This was great for bullseye shooting, but slow to align with light bars too narrow to accurately call shots at speed.

[GJM]

The consensus among many competitive shooters in USPSA is the front sight should be 70% to 80% of the width of the rear notch. Having enough light bar on either side of the front site is important for quick alignment and calling shots, but if the light bars are too wide, accuracy suffers at speed. Oddly, slow fire accuracy is better with narrow light bars. My set up is .115 front to .135 rear, which is relatively thick at the front with an 85% ratio. A GM I know runs 70%, while a former national champ favors closer to 85%. The factory Novaks on my M&P Pro were closer to .135/.135, or 100%. This was great for bullseye shooting, but slow to align with light bars too narrow to accurately call shots at speed.

Helpful post, thanks. Took me a while to find the info, as it didn't seem to be there on the Taran website, but there is apparently only .10 difference between front and rear width on the Taran sights, explaining why they seem so tight. I need a taller front sight on my 17 with them.

It is my impression that for a given width, the longer the slide, the wider the light bars feel. In other words, the same sights on a G26 will look tighter than when on a Glock 34.