I like my POI about 1 cm (0.4") above the edge of the front blade at 25 m. I really like the option to shoot small targets with pinpoint accuracy, and quite often practice this with small metal targets.
With a 9 mm load, this gives basically no correction up to 50 m. The bullet path does not deviate from POA more than 0.5" from 5 to 40 m, and is only about 1.3" down at 50 m.
^ this. And I really don't care if my sights are drive the dot at 7 yards. On the targets I want to hit in training or application at such ranges it does not matter to me. I just want the POI described by taadski for the tight shots at distance.Originally Posted by taadski
My goal is to have my pistols shooting top of the front sight at 25 yards. Sig stock sights (8/8 combos in 9mm) print behind the dot at distance for me, so I change them out. If Dawson didn't have such a wide assortment of front sight heights available (in your choice of tritium, black or fiber optic), I'd be tempted to try and suss out an adjustable rear solution like George mentioned. But they do. So I don't.
Fwiw, shooting the 1" squares up close, I still have to "cover the target" a bit like you mentioned b/c of the offset.
I don't have huge interest in 7 yard 1" dot drills. I've access to shoot at 25 - 50 yards and I much prefer to hone perfect presses there where the geometry of the angle of mistake can really show itself.
Last edited by JHC; 11-19-2015 at 07:19 AM.
“Remember, being healthy is basically just dying as slowly as possible,” Ricky Gervais
I learned using bullseye-style top of front post, and that's what I'm most comfortable with. May change as my eyes get worse.
For folks who drive the dot: Have you seen any advantage in picking up targets using a rear sight with lower "shoulders", such as the Warrens? I'd think they'd give you a better view downrange than a full-width rear sight.
I am not sure about the shoulder thing on my end. I believe that it may be more of the low profile of the CAP sights that allow for a quicker target acquisition.
"... And miles to go before I sleep".
I experienced this change going from the lower-shouldered Ameriglo sights to the full-width-rear Dawsons. I like the lower shoulders better. I do think it lets there be a little more of the target and downrange area visible. I also haven't found it to be any actual impediment that I can identify really, I just like the lower shoulders better. But, I'm still using the Dawsons, because despite the shoulder thing (that goes up, har har) I even more prefer the dimensions and serrations of the Dawsons. I find all that true even when the sights are regulated for the top edge instead of drive the dot. Drive the dot is a hair worse with the rear sight shoulder width issue, but still not a big deal either way.
Technical excellence supports tactical preparedness
Lord of the Food Court
http://www.gabewhitetraining.com
Never used the Novak, but I have been using adjustable sights from Meprolight or Dawson for a while. Neither is entirely satisfactory. The Meprolight tends to shift zero every once in a while without warning, but I have a fix for that--I zero the pistol, then fill the sight with blue LocTite. I've used this method on S&W revolvers for years. The sight will still adjust but the internal parts stay put.
The rear blade on the Dawson sight is spring loaded, so it can drift laterally somewhat and if it gets dirty, the screw can spin freely without making the blade move--pretty sure LocTite won't fix that. Also, the notch on the Dawson is pretty tight. I had a machinist open up the notch on a plain black model, which helped, but I don't think that's possible if the sight has tritium or fiber optics.
I've tried LPA sights on an HK USP. They're superb, but the Glock models extend past the rear edge of the slide, which strikes me as a No Go.
I'd like to try a Kensight, which I understand is a Bomar knock-off. But I'm not interested if it hangs off the rear of the slide.
John
There are things for aiming? Who knew?
Trijicon has 7 different heights rears for all their supported guns for folks who did not know.
They don't advertise them - but have them.
Last edited by KevinB; 11-19-2015 at 01:55 PM.
Kevin S. Boland
Director of R&D
Law Tactical LLC
www.lawtactical.com
kevin@lawtactical.com
407-451-4544
If I could see the bull clearly at 25 yards, that would be my goal too.
As for a one inch square at 25 yards, forget it. 😇
As it is, I insist on POI = POA with sight alignment for POA being at the exact center-top of the front sight, at 7-10 meters.
I know if I fudge the shot a tiny bit high or low, POI won't be off enough to matter. I'm less precise than I used to be, but I trust still "close enough" at need.
"Therefore, since the world has still... Much good, but much less good than ill,
And while the sun and moon endure, Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
I'd face it as a wise man would, And train for ill and not for good." -- A.E. Housman
Thanks! Makes me lean more toward the Novak as I want this to be carryable and don't want a Bomar digging holes in me or my clothes (or snagging). Novak's website is limited right now (maybe they're updating from the 1994 graphics!) but I remember seeing that they'll make the adjustable rear with a wider channel to accommodate HD width front sights and they'll do yellow tritium (my preference to not distract from the green front).
Anyone have anything negative (or positive) to say about the Novak's?
Reply With Quote
