Elevation sight regulation and mid range shooting

[GJM]

Yesterday, I had a big shoot-em-up on eight inch steel out to 75 yards with two pretty much similar pistols. Gen 4 Glock 19 and Gen 4 Glock 23, TCAP sights, same trigger components with very similar feeling triggers. Federal factory ammo in both, and both shoot about 2.5 inch, five shot groups for me at 25, using my non-scientific approach of shooting five shot groups.

The only difference in the two pistols, is the 19 shoots POA/POI to slightly drive the dot at 25 yards, and the 23 shoots about two inches high at 25. What was so interesting is I shot 300 rounds through the 19, and only 50 rounds through the 23, at the end, when I was getting tired. My expectations were pretty low for the 23, between tired, and general orthodoxy that the 23 is harder to shoot.

Despite my expectations, I literally could not miss with the 23, all the way back to 75 yards. At first I was scratching my head to explain this, and then I realized with the 19, I had to cover most of the target as the distance increased. However, with the 23, I was able to hold on the bottom portion of the steel, effectively giving me a much larger target to look at. As soon as I thought about the difference in hold and visible target, it made sense, and I remembered concluding something similar shooting heads at distance, with it harder when you need to cover most of the head box with the front sight, versus holding near the bottom of the head box.

Anyone else come to a similar conclusion? (Sure makes the RDS even more appealing, since you can just look at the full target, and not worry about covering it with the front sight.)

[littlejerry]

Yesterday, I had a big shoot-em-up on eight inch steel out to 75 yards with two pretty much similar pistols. Gen 4 Glock 19 and Gen 4 Glock 23, TCAP sights, same trigger components with very similar feeling triggers. Federal factory ammo in both, and both shoot about 2.5 inch, five shot groups for me at 25, using my non-scientific approach of shooting five shot groups.

The only difference in the two pistols, is the 19 shoots POA/POI to slightly drive the dot at 25 yards, and the 23 shoots about two inches high at 25. What was so interesting is I shot 300 rounds through the 19, and only 50 rounds through the 23, at the end, when I was getting tired. My expectations were pretty low for the 23, between tired, and general orthodoxy that the 23 is harder to shoot.

Despite my expectations, I literally could not miss with the 23, all the way back to 75 yards. At first I was scratching my head to explain this, and then I realized with the 19, I had to cover most of the target as the distance increased. However, with the 23, I was able to hold on the bottom portion of the steel, effectively giving me a much larger target to look at. As soon as I thought about the difference in hold and visible target, it made sense, and I remembered concluding something similar shooting heads at distance, with it harder when you need to cover most of the head box with the front sight, versus holding near the bottom of the head box.

Anyone else come to a similar conclusion? (Sure makes the RDS even more appealing, since you can just look at the full target, and not worry about covering it with the front sight.)

Makes me wish there was a durable low profile adjustable rear sight for glocks.

The ones I've seen all require .300+ tall front sights

[psalms144.1]

I had a similar experience shooting steel at 100 yards with a Gen4 G17 wearing Trijicon HDs. The front sight was SIGNIFICANTLY larger than the target from my perspective, so I had to cover the target and sort of hope until I got "dialed in." Once I was, the hits were repeatable, but I wouldn't want to try that trick off the range...

[GLB]

Personally I like a 50 yard zero for my Glocks. This gives me a slight hold under at 25 and makes hitting at 100 simpler.

[41magfan]

I agree with the "can't hit what you can't see" element when using irons that obstruct the target but for me, a gun that shoots a just a smidge high is a bit more forgiving at distance when I lean on the trigger just a little too much.

:^)

[okie john]

Anyone else come to a similar conclusion? (Sure makes the RDS even more appealing, since you can just look at the full target, and not worry about covering it with the front sight.)

Yes.

Driving the dot drives me nuts. I've shot some good groups that way but I much prefer for the group to be at or just above the tip of the front sight.


Okie John

[Malamute]

Being able to see the target is the reason for the method of raising the front sight in the rear notch when shooting at distance. Covering the target with something larger than the target makes it hard to be consistent. I understand many drive the dot, which seems to work well fast and close, but seems like a built in handicap for distance.

Different strokes and all that.

[psalms144.1]

I'd LOVE to have my pistols shoot to the top of the front sight at 25 yards or beyond, but, unfortunately, none of the sight manufacturers I know of are regulating their sights that way. Every GLOCK I own shoots to the "dots" at 25 yards with every sight I've tried on them.

I'd be interested to know what sights are regulated to the tip of the sight - to the point that I've looked at the Dawson adjustables, but, you know, dying on the streetz and all that with adjustables (unless you're way mo' Operator than I am)...

[JHC]

I'd LOVE to have my pistols shoot to the top of the front sight at 25 yards or beyond, but, unfortunately, none of the sight manufacturers I know of are regulating their sights that way. Every GLOCK I own shoots to the "dots" at 25 yards with every sight I've tried on them.

I'd be interested to know what sights are regulated to the tip of the sight - to the point that I've looked at the Dawson adjustables, but, you know, dying on the streetz and all that with adjustables (unless you're way mo' Operator than I am)...

It might depend more on the pistol than the sight brands. Almost every Glock I have shoots to either a couple inches above the front blade POA at 25 yards with standard sight sets or WAY higher and then requires a .245 tall front to get into that range.

My OD Gen 3 G17 shoots just above POA with HDs at 25 yards with the OEM barrel but with the KKM it shoots the dot. Which is tricky and I don't prefer that at all.

My Sig Mk25 P226 is a great pistol but shoots the dot at 25 and I've found that tricky also, I haven't managed better than 4" or so out of it for 5 at that distance.

[psalms144.1]

I think ammo plays a part as well. Our A260 (147 gr JHP) is definitely hitting "on the dot" for me.

[okie john]

I'd LOVE to have my pistols shoot to the top of the front sight at 25 yards or beyond, but, unfortunately, none of the sight manufacturers I know of are regulating their sights that way. Every GLOCK I own shoots to the "dots" at 25 yards with every sight I've tried on them.

I'd be interested to know what sights are regulated to the tip of the sight - to the point that I've looked at the Dawson adjustables, but, you know, dying on the streetz and all that with adjustables (unless you're way mo' Operator than I am)...

The magic lies in the difference in height between the front and rear sight. In sights sold as sets, this dimension is nearly always the same as for OEM sights, so if the pistol doesn't regulate with factory sights, then it won't regulate with those sights. You have to buy individual front or rear sights until you get a combination of heights that works for that pistol. Trijicon has (finally) started selling their HD front sights in different heights for Glocks so users can regulate their pistols.

After years of grappling with this, I broke down and bought a bunch of plain black front sights for Glocks of varying heights from Ameriglo. Now I can determine the correct height(s) quickly and order the appropriate tritium blade if I want to go with fixed sights. The problem is that you can only get so close with fixed sights, and even then you're only zeroed for one load, so most of my semi-autos have adjustable sights.

Adjustable sights do not equate to a death wish. Tons of cops have survived their entire careers carrying S&W revolvers equipped with them. Pat McNamara had adjustable sights on his work guns, and other folks from his neck of the woods have done the same. LCD issues mean that they may not make sense for entire organizations, but the individual shooter who keeps an eye on his or her gear will be just fine with them.


Okie John

[41magfan]

With my guns and my eyes, achieving a POI at or just above the top of the front sight with Heinie's required a .250 on my Gen 2 G17 .... a .235 on my 30SF ... and a .215 on my Gen 2 G21.

[Malamute]

I'd LOVE to have my pistols shoot to the top of the front sight at 25 yards or beyond, but, unfortunately, none of the sight manufacturers I know of are regulating their sights that way. Every GLOCK I own shoots to the "dots" at 25 yards with every sight I've tried on them.

I'd be interested to know what sights are regulated to the tip of the sight - to the point that I've looked at the Dawson adjustables, but, you know, dying on the streetz and all that with adjustables (unless you're way mo' Operator than I am)...

The factory Glock sights have several different height rears to adjust for elevation variables. Don't know if that translates into anything useful for aftermarket sights as a height/elevation starting point.

http://eu.glock.com/english/options_rearsight.htm

[okie john]

The factory Glock sights have several different height rears to adjust for elevation variables. Don't know if that translates into anything useful for aftermarket sights as a height/elevation starting point.

http://eu.glock.com/english/options_rearsight.htm

I had no idea these were available. I'm interested because they're cheap and I could use them to get the right dimensions for real sights.


Okie John

[Malamute]

I had no idea these were available. I'm interested because they're cheap and I could use them to get the right dimensions for real sights.


Okie John

They are marked with simple dashes etc on the right side to indicate which size they are.

[Irelander]

I have never tried them but Dawson Precision has their Perfect Impact Policy. That might be a solution to get the sight package you need.

[HopetonBrown]

I've looked at the Dawson adjustables, but, you know, dying on the streetz and all that with adjustables (unless you're way mo' Operator than I am)...

The Dawson adjustable sights for Glocks look pretty nice; no sharp edges or protruding sight blades; might have to pick one up for my next Glock.


I have never tried them but Dawson Precision has their Perfect Impact Policy. That might be a solution to get the sight package you need.

I cashed in on their policy 2 weeks ago. They couldn't've been friendlier or easier to work with.

[okie john]

The Dawson adjustable sights for Glocks look pretty nice; no sharp edges or protruding sight blades; might have to pick one up for my next Glock.

TigerSwan used Dawsons on their Instructor Special. I've since used that sight on a couple of other pistols with complete satisfaction. One thing to remember: using a press to install them can deform the sight body and mess up the elevation adjustment. Instead, tap them into the dovetail carefully with a punch.


Okie John

[GLB]

Most Glocks shoot high for me so it's pretty easy for me to set my sights up for a 50 yard zero. I also have two set up with Dawson adjustable sights and they are GTG

[TiroFijo]

If you use a ballistic program, a 50 yds zero for a typical 9 mm load (124 gr @ 1120 fps) means your POI is only about 0.6" high at 25 yds, and about 2" low at 70 yds. This is far more accurate than what anyone can measure shooting on the range.

I like seeing the target, and that's why I prefer POI about 0.5-1.0" above the front sight at 25 yds. This has the added benefit of extended range without correction.

For longer ranges, I raise the front post above the rear sight. This is difficult for the first few shots (and even more difficult to remember exactly the hold for each distance) but you can see clearly the target no matter the size. If the target is torso sized (say, about 14"x14") with a 50 yds zero you are only about 7.5" low at 100 yds, and just rising the POI slightly on the target (with a normal sight picture) will get you good hits.

Beyond 100 yds, I prefer to raise the front post.

[nwhpfan]

Your front sight is going to conceal X amount of area on your target. The farther away, the more it conceals. If your POI is behind the sight or something like that - the farther away you are the more target area you have concealed, the more difficulty you have to aim in the exact same spot (or as close to it) to get that great group. It can be that your gun is greater of much better accuracy but you can't aim in the same spot..... At least that is my experience.

[BN]

For longer ranges, I raise the front post above the rear sight.

Try lowering the rear sight. That way you aren't covering the target. The old timers like Elmer Keith put gold lines across their front sights for different distances,

[TiroFijo]

Try lowering the rear sight. That way you aren't covering the target. The old timers like Elmer Keith put gold lines across their front sights for different distances,

That's exactly how I do it. Raise the front post above the normal position (top of front post level with top of rear sight), and align the target just above the front post.

With some experience, you can remember the sight picture for 150 and 200 yds or m. Beyond that, I doubt anyone will remember exactly the sight picture, or estimate the range correctly.

I do it quite often, just for fun, with every handgun I own. But IMO it not realistic for combat handguns, and gold lines on the front post, or tanget rear sights, etc. do not belong on defense handguns. Some S&W revolvers have a four position front sight where you can adjust each one differently, but those were for IHMSA competitions.

[ASH556]

I'm surprised to hear some of you (JHC, John, GJM) talk about issues with Glock sight POA/POI issues). As I'm sure you've read, I use the Ameriglo TCAP front/Defoor rear set on both my 17 and 19 and I get a top of blade POI at 25 yds with both using 115gr ball.

[okie john]

I'm surprised to hear some of you (JHC, John, GJM) talk about issues with Glock sight POA/POI issues). As I'm sure you've read, I use the Ameriglo TCAP front/Defoor rear set on both my 17 and 19 and I get a top of blade POI at 25 yds with both using 115gr ball.

I think it's like BTF--it doesn't happen with every Glock, but it happens with enough of them that people have come up with a cure.


Okie John

[GJM]

I'm surprised to hear some of you (JHC, John, GJM) talk about issues with Glock sight POA/POI issues). As I'm sure you've read, I use the Ameriglo TCAP front/Defoor rear set on both my 17 and 19 and I get a top of blade POI at 25 yds with both using 115gr ball.

That is what happens when you have a bunch of Glocks in varying calibers and barrel lengths.

[LSP552]

I MUCH prefer my pistols to shoot to the top of the blade. I'm happy that both Trij HDs and Ameriglo ProGlos come in different heights to fine tune specific pistols. For longer range shooting at smaller targets, I elevate the front sight to keep from covering the target. The thicker the front sight, the more important this is, for me.