Physical Sight Height Mechanics Question.

[Magsz]

Ok guys, im not really sure if this is the appropriate section but after working two different types of sights for the past several months and switching between both platforms ive realized that i like certain aspects of one set and certain aspects of the other. I am currently trying to determine which sight set will operate the best for my eyes but i wanted some feedback from you guys as to the actual mechanics or (potential) truths behind my theories.

Sight set #1.

Warren Tactical .115X.215 fiber optic front paired with a Warren Tactical Rear.

Sight Set #2

Kyle Defoor Ameriglo .115X.160 serrated black front blade with the Defoor Square Notch .150 sized rear.

Both sights are supposed to be a six o'clock hold at 15 yards and on my G17 i found that to be true.

Now, here is my dilemma. I am finding it hard to index and find my front sight during my press out with the taller sight set, ie the Warrens. I am shooting high at speed almost 100% of the time. I am also finding that with the taller sights perceived wobble appears significant whereas with the shorter Defoors i feel steadier in my ability to hold the sights both front and rear on the same plane.

Am i nuts? I know it is a training issue as you can learn to shoot anything well but what exactly IS the reasoning behind taller front sights versus shorter sights? I am extremely curious as to the mechanics behind the way each sight set works when it comes to indexing the sight, watching them lift in recoil and then the recovery process.

The only thought that i have as to why the shorter sights appear "steadier" for me is that i am more apt to index off of the top of my slide then go to the front sight whereas with the taller sights, all i see on my press out is some mixture of front and rear sight, never the slide.

Feel free to call me nuts as i know this is not an apples to apples comparison as i am comparing a fiber optic front with a u-notch rear to an iron blade with a square notch rear.

Looking forward to your thoughts guys, thanks!

[JV_]

I am shooting high at speed almost 100% of the time.

I don't have a lot of help to offer, except to offer a a data point. I missed high a lot more frequently when I painted the whole front sight orange (Heinie) , now I just paint the top 1/3rd and it's helped a lot. I think I was seeing the orange on the bottom of the front sight entering the notch and pull the trigger ... resulting in a high shot.

This has me thinking about the new lower profile Combative Applications Pistol (CAP) sights...

[zml342]

I think I was seeing the orange on the bottom of the front sight entering the notch and pull the trigger ... resulting in a high shot.

I have been having this same issue when shooting at speed, especially on a 3x5 card. My first shot would be on the card and the second shot would be just high. I was wondering if it was due to the same scenario you stated above.

I'll have to try painting just the top 1/3. Thanks for the tip, JV!

[Magsz]

JV,

When i was running my defoors i had painted a very thin strip of orange at the top of the blade.

I have never found painting the whole blade to be of much use for anything but high probability targets at 7 yards an in.

I think i am just indexing the fiber and shooting high at this point. I need to settle the front sight and shoot the blade or aim lower lol.

My original question still stands as to the differing theories behind different sight set heights. Anyone got any ideas?

[EJO]

Anyone have any thoughts on the OP question?

I shoot 4" groups at 25 yards with my Glock 19 using Heinie straight eight ledge sights and ammo it likes. I picked up a buddies Glock 34 and plain old Trijicon 3 dot night sights and shot a 2" group with cheap blazer ammunition. Now I know the 34 is inherently more accurate than the 19 but I was truly shocked with the groups I was getting with the 34. I can't help but think the shorter sights may have helped...? Then again maybe they had nothing to do with it.

I also noticed that with the 19 the group was more scattered and with the 34 it was tighter or more constant if that makes any sense.

I shot a 17 for years with Henie sights and never produced groups like I did with that 34. In fact my groups with the 17 mimicked my groups with the 19 and when I had to down size, I went with the 19 just because I felt the 17 never really gave me an edge.

I really wonder what if any differnce shorter sights bring to the table when compared to a taller sight.

[JHC]

Magsz, are you committed to that narrow width FO front? The relative thinness may contribute to the perception of its movement was where I'm going with that. I think a worthy FO front sight would have the tiny FO tube of that narrow Warren but be a solid .125 wide. Seems like thicker FO fronts all have much thicker FO tubes. Too much of a bright thing IMO.

I get the appeal of the short sights too though. I have one 17 set up with a hybrid set. A traditional short fat Trijicon front with the Defoor rear. POA/POI is great. I like the tighter rear window for precision. As described in another thread re sights, it feels fast like throwing up a shotgun with bead sight is fast. I can't say I've been able to measure any performance edge vs others with Warren Sevigny Carry sights and Trijicon HDs however. I'm obsessive about tinkering with sights. Probably not a good thing.

[JHC]

Anyone have any thoughts on the OP question?

I shoot 4" groups at 25 yards with my Glock 19 using Heinie straight eight ledge sights and ammo it likes. I picked up a buddies Glock 34 and plain old Trijicon 3 dot night sights and shot a 2" group with cheap blazer ammunition. Now I know the 34 is inherently more accurate than the 19 but I was truly shocked with the groups I was getting with the 34. I can't help but think the shorter sights may have helped...? Then again maybe they had nothing to do with it.

I also noticed that with the 19 the group was more scattered and with the 34 it was tighter or more constant if that makes any sense.

I shot a 17 for years with Henie sights and never produced groups like I did with that 34. In fact my groups with the 17 mimicked my groups with the 19 and when I had to down size, I went with the 19 just because I felt the 17 never really gave me an edge.

I really wonder what if any differnce shorter sights bring to the table when compared to a taller sight.

Could be sights of course but I'd lean more to thinking it was the sight radius of the 34 first, then maybe the minus connector unless you've already got a minus in your 19. I shoot 17s and a 34 when I had one considerably better at 25 yds than a 19. Regardless of sight combos.

2" at 25yds is great from a rest and insane from offhand. Nice.

[EJO]

That makes sense JHC. And the groups were shot from a rest, I was trying to squeeze out as much accuracy as I could.

[okie john]

Ok guys, im not really sure if this is the appropriate section but after working two different types of sights for the past several months and switching between both platforms ive realized that i like certain aspects of one set and certain aspects of the other. I am currently trying to determine which sight set will operate the best for my eyes but i wanted some feedback from you guys as to the actual mechanics or (potential) truths behind my theories.

Sight set #1.

Warren Tactical .115X.215 fiber optic front paired with a Warren Tactical Rear.

Sight Set #2

Kyle Defoor Ameriglo .115X.160 serrated black front blade with the Defoor Square Notch .150 sized rear.

Both sights are supposed to be a six o'clock hold at 15 yards and on my G17 i found that to be true.

Now, here is my dilemma. I am finding it hard to index and find my front sight during my press out with the taller sight set, ie the Warrens. I am shooting high at speed almost 100% of the time. I am also finding that with the taller sights perceived wobble appears significant whereas with the shorter Defoors i feel steadier in my ability to hold the sights both front and rear on the same plane.

Am i nuts? I know it is a training issue as you can learn to shoot anything well but what exactly IS the reasoning behind taller front sights versus shorter sights? I am extremely curious as to the mechanics behind the way each sight set works when it comes to indexing the sight, watching them lift in recoil and then the recovery process.

The only thought that i have as to why the shorter sights appear "steadier" for me is that i am more apt to index off of the top of my slide then go to the front sight whereas with the taller sights, all i see on my press out is some mixture of front and rear sight, never the slide.

Feel free to call me nuts as i know this is not an apples to apples comparison as i am comparing a fiber optic front with a u-notch rear to an iron blade with a square notch rear.

Looking forward to your thoughts guys, thanks!


I don’t think your problem is the height of the sights. I think it’s the difference between front sight types and how your eye reads them at speed.

You said that both sets of sights require a six-o’clock hold. I’d guess that you verified the need for a six-o’clock hold with the Warrens by shooting slow fire, and that you used the top of the front sight (the square black frame that holds the fiber optic rod in place) and not the rod itself as your elevation index.

I think that when you hurry, your eye is reading that big blob of fiber-optic color and using it as your elevation index and throws your shot high. The fact that you’re having trouble finding the fiber optic front sight at speed could make this worse.

To verify this, you need to isolate the color variable. I’d do that with sight black (http://www.brownells.com/.aspx/pid=4964/Product/SIGHT-BLACK). It will you’re your fiber optic sight completely black, and you can wipe it off with a rag. This will give you a black front sight instead of the blob of color, so you can compare POI.

Let us know how it works.


Okie John

[MEH]

I think it’s the difference between front sight types and how your eye reads them at speed.


Agreed. Measure the actual difference and I think you'll find a much larger delta with the Warren's than the DeFoor's. That should explain hitting high with the Warren's.