What does a 33% sight radius increase get you?

[feudist]

Practically speaking in self defense.
Suppose you go from a Glock 19 to a Glock 34-is there a real world payoff? Or is this one of those "better is better" measurements but only under artificial conditions that are designed to separate out small differences?

[PD Sgt.]

This is going to be pretty subjective, particularly regarding pistols that are meant to be employed rapidly such as defensive use.

As an example, I know of several shooters that prefer a G19 length slide solely due to the fact that their eyes do not focus as well when the sight is further out such as on a G17 or 34. They are trading sight radius for optimal focus.

[Robinson]

Are you asking in regard to the sight radius alone, or as part of the overall package?

For me, 5" guns carry AIWB better than compacts, plus are just a little easier on my ears at an indoor range. I would add those factors along with the sight radius factor in my own evaluation.

[feudist]

I didn't think about the other factors but I can see them as adding up.

But, if you were to shoot a series of drills with identical guns would there be a higher hit percentage with the longer radius?

Drills balancing speed and accuracy?

[okie john]

Practically speaking in self defense.
Suppose you go from a Glock 19 to a Glock 34-is there a real world payoff? Or is this one of those "better is better" measurements but only under artificial conditions that are designed to separate out small differences?

I suspect that you MIGHT see a difference on shots beyond about 15 yards. Not sure that I'd give up the overall smaller size of the G19 for that, though.


Okie John

[Robinson]

Some shooters claim the shorter guns shoot flatter and transition faster from target to target. They can also be better for people whose eyes are aging and the longer guns make it harder to focus on the front sight.

I think there is probably truth to the above. But I still prefer full size, longer pistols like Government model 1911s and Glock 34s because I like the longer sight radius and the way the guns balance and carry.

[Sal Picante]

What does a 33% sight radius increase get you?

... better popularity with the ladies?

Oh, you said "self-defense"...

[spinmove_]

... better popularity with the ladies?

Oh, you said "self-defense"...

Maybe he’s “defending” himself against hordes of ladies...


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

[Artemas2]

If you follow Kyle Defoor's facebook, a stock G43 is a 50 yard gun. I ain't him though:(

I think a good sight combination (like Dawson .120 rear with a .100 front) negates most of the perceived advantages. I however do think a longer radius exaggerates the overall movement of the front sight like how a MRDS does, which gives you more data on the actual placement of the front sight in relation to the target, particularly at 25 yards and back. Of course none of this matters if the trigger press/grip is crap.

[Mark D]

Added sight radius doesn't do much for me, based on my Steel Challenge results. My match results are 10 - 15% better with a G19 than a G17, and the guns are set up identically. Strange but true.

[GuanoLoco]

Calling Mr_White - I'm pretty sure Gabe isn't carrying a G34 by accident and I've seen in person and in video what he can do with that thing.

I'm G19/P-07 sized currently but I've considered G34/P-09 for exactly that reason. I haven't tested it side-by-side though.

[olstyn]

I noticed a significant improvement in USPSA scores going from a P99c to a P99 (basically G26 to G19), but it's impossible to separate out how much of that improvement came from the full size grip and how much came from the additional sight radius. If I had to guess, I'd attribute more of it to the grip size, but I would still say that the increased sight radius is beneficial.

[cheby]

I have always shot a G17 better than G34.

[HopetonBrown]

I saw Kyle Defoor write he shoots a G19 85% as well as a G17.

[holmes168]

Calling Mr_White - I'm pretty sure Gabe isn't carrying a G34 by accident and I've seen in person and in video what he can do with that thing.

I'm G19/P-07 sized currently but I've considered G34/P-09 for exactly that reason. I haven't tested it side-by-side though.

Why would you go from G-19 to 34- skipping the G-17?

[modrecoil]

Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but it gets me no measurable advantage. But I'm far from an expert on the subject.

[feudist]

Why would you go from G-19 to 34- skipping the G-17?

Well, yeah. But I asked first:cool:

[Mr_White]

This is going to end up too long but oh well.

I used to shoot the Gen3 G17. I took a quick detour to the early Gen4 G17 and shot my first match with that in 2010 (GSSF) and amazingly walked away with four gun certificates. That was the theoretical maximum - three as an amateur, promoted mid match to master, then one as a master. I had previously been unable to tell the difference when shooting a 17 vs 34, but I tried my friend's 34 and shot a good group with it, plus I had plenty of 17s, so I sent away for four Gen3 G34s and got back a set of consecutive serial numbered guns. They are special to me and I carried and shot them for about eight years and have done almost all my shooting accomplishments with them. Over time I've had various barrels, slides, and frames replaced on a couple of them.

After getting them, I was able to notice that they were a bit softer shooting than the 17, and I did seem a bit more accurate with them on longer shots. In GSSF, I posted my best scores with them, the G17 barely behind, and the G26 noticeably behind that. I've never really gotten into the 19.

The 34 isn't slower for me to draw or transition, it just takes a little different character of effort to drive it around.

Last December I got some Gen5 G17s because I wanted to change things around a little bit to refocus my attention and I also just wanted to try them (the Gen5 G34 wasn't out yet.) I think the Gen5 is a great gun and the 17s are doing very well for me. I just got through hitting 6/8 Turbo runs in the demos for score in the Oklahoma PSS class last weekend. I look forward to writing a new chapter with them. I'm still carrying them in a G34-length holster (Keeper) because of the better safety and concealment leverage with AIWB.

I believe the people who say they shoot G19s better than the longer Glocks, but I have definitely always done the best with the 34 and 17.

[Mr_White]

A point I meant to make is that my choice of the G34 for so long was partly whim and largely psychological - I won them. They were an early part of a cycle of success and that's more why I ran them for so long rather than any other reason. Though I did seem to perform best with them AFTER the choice was made. But was that the gun or the psychology? Who knows.

[willie]

As far as shooting smaller groups is concerned, increasing sight radius increases precision of aiming. I think that when a shooter moves from a Glk 26 to a Glk 17, he would see gains. It follows that moving to a Glk 34 would enable some of us to shoot higher scores. But then shooters vary in vision acuity, age, ability, and other differences so variables are at play. And then there are timer/speed concerns. My opinion is that for defense shooting there would be diminishing returns when adopting longer sight radii.

[Mr_White]

I'm not completely sure I'm right, but I think slimmer sight dimensions can do essentially the same thing as a longer sight radius.

[bofe954]

I'm not completely sure I'm right, but I think slimmer sight dimensions can do essentially the same thing as a longer sight radius.

I think you're right.

Isn't the experiment to take aim at a point, then move the front sight so it is touching the left of the rear sight instead of centered and fire, move it to the right and fire. You see how much effect the sight deviation actually has on POI. Longer the radius, or the narrower the rear sight, the less the deviation will be, right?

[GuanoLoco]

I'm not completely sure I'm right, but I think slimmer sight dimensions can do essentially the same thing as a longer sight radius.

I prefer a skinny post - I prefer a 0.090” width on my guns, about as narrow as Dawson will even make then for a 1mm fiber. The thought process was better for speed than precision, but that is an interesting observation.

There is some loss of durablity with narrow front sights though and fibers fall out on occasion.

[strow]

I prefer a skinny post - I prefer a 0.090” width on my guns, about as narrow as Dawson will even make then for a 1mm fiber. The thought process was better for speed than precision, but that is an interesting observation.

There is some loss of durablity with narrow front sights though and fibers fall out on occasion.


I just checked with Dawson and unfortunately they can not do a 0.090" Glock front sight because of the mounting screw dimensions. I have a set of their new G34 Gen5 (0.105") sights that should be here tomorrow.

I should be picking up a new G34 Gen5 this weekend. I am interested to compare my shot calling, sight tracking, and recoil impulse of the longer G34 slide with my G17 and G19 Gen3 times on the FAST, The Test, and Gabe's Turbo Pin goals.

My time's and splits are pretty similar between the G19 and G17. I just tend to throw more C's and 9's with the G19. I also have a G19 cut to a G26 frame length. My consistency, times, and score are markedly poorer with this set-up.

[okie john]

I saw Kyle Defoor write he shoots a G19 85% as well as a G17.

I've seen other similar instructors comment on that trend in their students as well.


Okie John

[willie]

I think you're right.

Isn't the experiment to take aim at a point, then move the front sight so it is touching the left of the rear sight instead of centered and fire, move it to the right and fire. You see how much effect the sight deviation actually has on POI. Longer the radius, or the narrower the rear sight, the less the deviation will be, right?

Width of sight notch or thinness of front sight are not factors in deviation, if this term is defined as movement of point of impact. The longer radius allows more precise alignment. Said another way, the shooter can move the poi in smaller increments on the area at which he's aiming. Wider notches and thinner front posts aid in rapidly attaining a sight picture but not in shooting small bullseye target groups, which is not our purpose here. Actually they would detract. But, it's all a matter of balancing sight radius and sight combination.

[Mr_White]

I think you're right.

Isn't the experiment to take aim at a point, then move the front sight so it is touching the left of the rear sight instead of centered and fire, move it to the right and fire. You see how much effect the sight deviation actually has on POI. Longer the radius, or the narrower the rear sight, the less the deviation will be, right?

That's a drill I actually run regularly in classes. Many people have already done it, but some haven't, and its value is critical in illustrating that the basic condition of the front sight essentially being somewhere/anywhere within the rear notch, when combined with a quality trigger press, is sufficient gun/target alignment for a great many shots. A person's recognition of that is very important in handling and shooting at speed and with the sights in motion.

As I've done that drill over time, I do find exactly what you say there - bigger light bars in the sight picture lead to more deviation within the scope of that drill.

[HopetonBrown]

Wider notches and thinner front posts aid in rapidly attaining a sight picture but not in shooting small bullseye target groups, which is not our purpose here. Actually they would detract.

My purpose is to hit what I'm shooting at, which is probably why we're all here.

Mike Pannone says in this video that he did not see an increase in times when using a thinner notch.


https://youtu.be/kzSHXemDSm0

Frank Proctor has similar results.


https://youtu.be/pR59nBTGxLU

[theJanitor]

So my brother, who’s started to get serious with pistols in the past couple years, has moved to the rmr camp. He started with a 19.4, then realized he can focus much better with a mrds. Then he went the way of the Roland special. But after shooting a lightly modified g34, and realizing 95% of the benefits the comp and barrel, he decided to build a g34, with a grip chop to g19 dimensions. He carries AIWB in a holster for g34/x300u

So what does it all mean? It means that even using an RMR, which negates all sight radius variables, he would rather have the recoil/tracking characteristics of a g 34.

ETA: He does 90% of his work at 25yards on a B8. so mechanical accuracy is a priority for him as well

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180919/02a20cfb483300ad32a0a102c5c70c71.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mr_White]

Mike Pannone says in this video that he did not see an increase in times when using a thinner notch.

I'd agree with that, but I'd also add that I think a tighter rear notch is more index-sensitive (easier to pull a slightly bad grip and not find the front sight as easily.)

[DAVE_M]

So my brother, who’s started to get serious with pistols in the past couple years, has moved to the rmr camp. He started with a 19.4, then realized he can focus much better with a mrds. Then he went the way of the Roland special. But after shooting a lightly modified g34, and realizing 95% of the benefits the comp and barrel, he decided to build a g34, with a grip chop to g19 dimensions. He carries AIWB in a holster for g34/x300u

So what does it all mean? It means that even using an RMR, which negates all sight radius variables, he would rather have the recoil/tracking characteristics of a g 34.

ETA: He does 90% of his work at 25yards on a B8. so mechanical accuracy is a priority for him as well

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180919/02a20cfb483300ad32a0a102c5c70c71.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I did the same.

I prefer the G34 much more than a G19 or G17. I tried multiple comps on a 19, with multiple ammo types. The juice wasn't worth the squeeze, and I still shot better with a 34.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4738/39550759572_0b5d88b2a7_z.jpg

[JohnO]

Simply put a 33% increase in sight radius provides slightly more visual reference of sight misalignment. It comes down to basic geometry.

Lets use 9" sight radius and 33% less 6". Plug those numbers into Brownells Sight Correction calculator. In a perfect world: At 25 yards a 1" error with 9" sight radius is the result of a 0.010" sight misalignment. That same 1" error at 25 yards with a 6" sight radius would be a 0.007" sight misalignment.

Which sight radius and sight misalignment do you think would be easier for the eye to perceive?

https://www.brownells.com/aspx/learn/learndetail.aspx?lid=13093

[DAVE_M]

Simply put a 33% increase in sight radius provides slightly more visual reference of sight misalignment. It comes down to basic geometry.

Lets use 9" sight radius and 33% less 6". Plug those numbers into Brownells Sight Correction calculator. In a perfect world: At 25 yards a 1" error with 9" sight radius is the result of a 0.010" sight misalignment. That same 1" error at 25 yards with a 6" sight radius would be a 0.007" sight misalignment.

Which sight radius and sight misalignment do you think would be easier for the eye to perceive?

https://www.brownells.com/aspx/learn/learndetail.aspx?lid=13093

That doesn't even begin to account for preferences in front sight/rear sight widths.

[JohnO]

That doesn't even begin to account for preferences in front sight/rear sight widths.

Doesn't matter it's either centered or not.

[OlongJohnson]

Nobody has mentioned the fundamental optics issue yet.

When the sights are farther apart, if you have a crisp focus on the front sight, the rear sight will be farther from the plane of focus, and thus more blurry. This may offset some or all of the precision gained by the increased resolution in slide angle for a given misalignment of the sights, or it may lead to an increase in time to obtain a satisfactory sight picture.

I suspect that within the range of sight radii typically available on typical pistols, shooting at speed, it's probably a wash, and other factors are more important.

[feudist]

I-I'm just...confused?

[Jeff22]

I personally shoot a little better with a G34 or G35 than I do with a G17 or G19.

The increased sight radius probably has something to do with that. I also like the way the longer gun balances.

[DAVE_M]

Doesn't matter it's either centered or not.

Of course it matters...

If you have a very skinny front sight and a wide rear notch, the margin for error when centering the sights is increased exponentially.

[GuanoLoco]

I-I'm just...confused?

From the viewpoint of the shooter, the front/rear sight picture of a shorter sight radius and wider front post might be difficult to distinguish from a longer sight radius and a narrower front post.

That is not to say that they are the same.

A longer sight radius given more "mechanical" advantage with respective.

A narrower front sight might be faster to acquire, but a wider front sight may be easier to precisely center - given time to do so.

[Matt O]

Of course it matters...

If you have a very skinny front sight and a wide rear notch, the margin for error when centering the sights is increased exponentially.

I believe JohnO is referring only to how a longer slide can theoretically deviate "more" from center in terms of sighting than a shorter slide and still result in the same POI given the angle of deviation increases the closer you, or in this case the sight/muzzle, move towards the target.

Your point regarding sight dimensions and the effect this has on the shooter's perception and management of said dimensions, is connected to his point, but still subtly different.

[98z28]

There are so many moving parts that it is difficult to predict what your individual results will be. I'll say the obvious only because I haven't seen it explicitly stated yet: try the experiment yourself and see what happens under the conditions you care about.

In my experience with iron sights, shorter-barrelled guns tend to offer the best potential accuracy, and longer-barrelled guns tend to offer better practical accuracy. This conclusion is over many tests with similar guns setup with similar sights (e.g. G26, 19, 17 and 34; M&P compact and M&P full size, all equipped with the same sights). When shooting these guns at 25 yards from a rest, I consistantly got the best groups from the smaller guns (G26 and M&P compact compared to G17/34 and M&P full size). When I take the guns off a rest and start shooting free hand under time pressure, I tend to get better groups from the larger guns.

There are too many factors in play to declare my results as the rule, or even for me to expect it to repeat with a different brand or sample of guns.

[DAVE_M]

I believe JohnO is referring only to how a longer slide can theoretically deviate "more" from center in terms of sighting than a shorter slide and still result in the same POI given the angle of deviation increases the closer you, or in this case the sight/muzzle, move towards the target.

Your point regarding sight dimensions and the effect this has on the shooter's perception and management of said dimensions, is connected to his point, but still subtly different.

Conversely, a short sight radius with a wide front sight and narrow rear will cause a similar effect.

Sight radius is relative to sight width. Otherwise, a 15 degree deviation is identical regardless of the length of the slide.

[JohnO]

Conversely, a short sight radius with a wide front sight and narrow rear will cause a similar effect.

Sight radius is relative to sight width. Otherwise, a 15 degree deviation is identical regardless of the length of the slide.

What we as shooters are ultimately trying to do is align the bore axis with the intended impact spot on the target. You can't look down the bore so another method is required for accurate alignment. Sights on a pistol are that indicator of bore axis alignment. How well the sights are regulated and how skilled the shooter determines the accuracy of the weapon system.

Additionally a bore axis misaligned by 15 degrees (angular distortion) will manifest itself as a increasing error as distance increases. However slide length, barrel length, sight width or sight radius is irrelevant.

I agree that sight width and sight radius can effect things. For one a wide front sight paired with a narrow notch rear sight may work better on a longer radius depending on dimensions. If for example the front sight when viewed through the rear aperture fills the entire aperture it may be difficult to determine if it is properly centered. Transplant those same sights on a longer sight radius and now you have space around the front sight in the notch enabling equal light around the sight (centered).

Still as I said initially a longer sight radius (all other things being equal because the original poster asked 'what does a 33% increase in radius get you?") the longer radius enhances the ability to visually perceive a misalignment. It doesn't by itself make a longer version (with longer sight radius) of a particular gun more accurate. However some skilled shooters welcome a longer sight radius because they understand the relationship and how to exploit it.

[HeavyDuty]

I didn’t look at this thread before because the title didn’t pull me in.

I shoot my 34 (and 41) better than my shorter guns due to the longer sight radius - but it’s a focus issue, not due to inherent precision. The longer slide puts the front sight in a better position for me and my bifocals, I get a much sharper front sight picture than I can with my 26, 19 or similar.

[Gio]

What we as shooters are ultimately trying to do is align the bore axis with the intended impact spot on the target. You can't look down the bore so another method is required for accurate alignment. Sights on a pistol are that indicator of bore axis alignment. How well the sights are regulated and how skilled the shooter determines the accuracy of the weapon system.

Additionally a bore axis misaligned by 15 degrees (angular distortion) will manifest itself as a increasing error as distance increases. However slide length, barrel length, sight width or sight radius is irrelevant.

I agree that sight width and sight radius can effect things. For one a wide front sight paired with a narrow notch rear sight may work better on a longer radius depending on dimensions. If for example the front sight when viewed through the rear aperture fills the entire aperture it may be difficult to determine if it is properly centered. Transplant those same sights on a longer sight radius and now you have space around the front sight in the notch enabling equal light around the sight (centered).

Still as I said initially a longer sight radius (all other things being equal because the original poster asked 'what does a 33% increase in radius get you?") the longer radius enhances the ability to visually perceive a misalignment. It doesn't by itself make a longer version (with longer sight radius) of a particular gun more accurate. However some skilled shooters welcome a longer sight radius because they understand the relationship and how to exploit it.

JohnO nailed it. Putting all the subjective good feels aside, a longer sight radius will help with any kind of defensive or action pistol shooting, all else being equal. You may not personally notice a difference, based on your ability, the difficulty of drills you're shooting, and not using a solid measuring or tracking system, such as scoring your results in hit factor and plotting them over time, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. A longer sight radius will absolutely be more forgiving than a shorter one.

We strive to make a perfect shot when the front sight is perfectly aligned in the rear notch. With a G34 and a G26, with perfect sight alignment and identical mechanical accuracy, they will shoot the exact same group size off a sandbag or ransom rest. The problem is we don't always have a "perfect" sight picture when we add any kind of time component, and we shouldn't have one outside of bullseye-type shooting. The goal is to shoot as fast as your sight picture allows you to, based on the distance and difficulty of the target you're trying to hit. If I'm trying to hit an A-zone at 7 yards, my front sight doesn't have to be anywhere near perfect alignment in the rear notch. At 25 yards on a bill drill or other fast drill, it has to be closer to perfect for each shot, but it still doesn't have to be perfect.

A G34 with the front sight aligned slightly off-center in the rear notch is going to have a much smaller angular displacement of the shot impact down range than a G26 with the same slightly off center front sight. Therefore, you can have a much wider range of acceptable sight pictures on a G34 than a G26.

[strow]

I don't follow the USPSA/IPSC standings anymore but are there any super squat level shooters who are shooting iron sighted pistols with slides shorter than the G34 when not required to by rules? Butler, Voigt, Sevigny, Vogel, etc. Just curious.

[feudist]

I don't follow the USPSA/IPSC standings anymore but are there any super squat level shooters who are shooting iron sighted pistols with slides shorter than the G34 when not required to by rules? Butler, Voigt, Sevigny, Vogel, etc. Just curious.

That's a good question.

Also, GJM, because he mentioned sight radius in the LTT Custom thread about the sight radius effect of a 92 vs a PX4 compact.

[NH Shooter]

Practically speaking in self defense.


IMO, the longer-barreled pistol is more of a liability than an advantage for everyday civilian SD purposes.

In comparing my 5-inch PPQ (7.125" sight radius) to my PPS (5.375" sight radius), the longer sight radius of the PPQ allows me to more easily see any sight misalignment. Theoretically this should allow me to align the sights more precisely, but seeing "perfect alignment" and having the ability to actually squeeze the shot off with them remaining so are two different things. If the trigger breaks with the sights well-aligned, the shot goes where I want it. If I have the time to perfectly align the sights and carefully squeeze the shot off, the longer sight radius is an advantage. The PPQ is a very pleasant pistol to shoot as well.

On the other side of the coin, the main (and considerable) disadvantage of the PPQ for me is the long slide offers too much real estate for an assailant to grab hold of in a CQC encounter. While the longer slide and sight radius are an advantage for longer-range engagements, it seems to me a major disadvantage at arm's-length battle.

I've always been able to shoot the PPS well. Even out to 20 yards, I'm able to hold carefully-squeezed shots on a 3X5 card. At 7 yards and under, I am able to drill the shots with great speed to where they need to go. Though the PPS is only 8 + 1 maximum capacity, at close range I actually prefer it because there's little for anyone to grab hold of in front of the trigger guard, leverage advantage remains firmly with the person whose hand is on the grip. Of course, the PPS carries and conceals well.

If I knew I was going to be in a protracted gun battle with only a pistol, the PPQ and extra 17-round mags would be a no-brainer for me. But for EDC and the SD scenarios I'm most likely to be placed in, the PPS is my preference.

PS - I am a student of William Aprill and his disarming techniques course.

http://www.canonshooter.com/photos2/walthers-1.jpg

[JohnO]

IMO, the longer-barreled pistol is more of a liability than an advantage for everyday civilian SD purposes.

In comparing my 5-inch PPQ (7.125" sight radius) to my PPS (5.375" sight radius), the longer sight radius of the PPQ allows me to more easily see any sight misalignment. Theoretically this should allow me to align the sights more precisely, but seeing "perfect alignment" and having the ability to actually squeeze the shot off with them remaining so are two different things. If the trigger breaks with the sights well-aligned, the shot goes where I want it. If I have the time to perfectly align the sights and carefully squeeze the shot off, the longer sight radius is an advantage. The PPQ is a very pleasant pistol to shoot as well.

On the other side of the coin, the main (and considerable) disadvantage of the PPQ for me is the long slide offers too much real estate for an assailant to grab hold of in a CQC encounter. While the longer slide and sight radius are an advantage for longer-range engagements, it seems to me a major disadvantage at arm's-length battle.


I would not spend too much intellectual capital on the potential disarming vulnerability of a large verses small handgun. More important consideration would be the efficacy of deploying a handgun at bad breath distances. The gun is not always the solution to the problem.

[NH Shooter]

The gun is not always the solution to the problem.

True, but sometimes there may be no other options. At "bad breath distances" I'd much prefer something that is more difficult for an assailant to take control of.

[NH Shooter]

Too late to edit my post above but would like to add this clarification;

If the close engagement distance happens before the gun is drawn, then I concur 100% with JohnO's point above: if there is no room to deploy and room cannot be made, then other action is required.

My point however is in the context of the pistol already drawn and the distance closes to arm's reach length. It is under those circumstances that I believe a compact pistol that is more difficult for an adversary to gain control of would be an advantage. Yes, there are retention techniques that would come into play but the shorter-barreled pistol would still be an advantage, IMO...

In any case my experience has been that the longer sight radius does offer some advantage for greater accuracy, but for purely SD in crowded spaces I'm not certain that benefit outweighs what I see as potential liabilities.