Do we all perceive our sight pictures differently?

[El Cid]

I am looking for ideas on why two shooters using the same equipment (in this case handguns) get different results. A buddy of mine, who is an excellent shooter, has a G19 with the Trijicon HD sights. The front blade is .245”, and the ammunition is 147gr bonded Ranger. I have the same configuration and ammunition.

At 25 yards, I must lollipop the bullseye (6 o’clock hold) to get my rounds in the 10 ring. He however splits the bull with the top of his sights for the same result. Now, I have tested a couple of G26’s, and 3 different G19’s at 25 yards and this is what led me to getting the .245” front sight. I even called Trijicon because the duty ammo was several inches above the bullseye and they informed me that a LEO in Georgia had done all the research and figured out that the shorter Glocks using 147gr pills need the taller front sight.

As a control, I had a coworker who is also a very good shot use my G19, a 6 o’clock hold, and our 147gr duty ammo. His rounds impacted low and appeared that they would have all gone in the 10 ring if he had split the bullseye. My first friend believes I’m somehow perceiving the sights in such a way that causes me to think I’m using a 6 o’clock hold. I don’t know how that could be, but am hoping y’all can shed some light. Now that I’m the odd man out, it’s a bit tough to debate with my friend.

Now I will say my vision is just fine. I can see the 7 and 8 ring from 25, and can usually see my hits even if the sun isn’t behind the target. The thing is, I don’t see how I could push the gun upward as the shot breaks. I do suspect them nosing the gun downward is more likely, but I’m at a loss overall and now outnumbered. I can see how iron sights on a long gun could have this problem – I see the front post as centered in the aperture, but someone else sees it centered in a slightly different location. I just don’t understand how when I see the tops of my sights lined up at the bottom of the bull, it can be anything different.

Has anyone else come across this while instructing, or experienced it yourself?

Anyone else using the HD's with this combination? If so, what hold do you use?

Thanks!

[GJM]

Yes. Individual eyes, differences in grip and in in the way you work the trigger all can influence zero. Even sun angle, and as you mentioned, different weights and brands of ammo change POI. This applies to red dot and conventional reticle scopes, not just iron sights. I have also found that my POI can change with time, as my technique and perhaps eyes change.

It is a reason that I really, really like an adjustable rear sight on my game CZ pistols, as it allows me to fine tune the exact zero to a specific load, without drifting rear sights in the dovetail and changing out front sights.

[okie john]

I am looking for ideas on why two shooters using the same equipment (in this case handguns) get different results. A buddy of mine, who is an excellent shooter, has a G19 with the Trijicon HD sights. The front blade is .245”, and the ammunition is 147gr bonded Ranger. I have the same configuration and ammunition.

At 25 yards, I must lollipop the bullseye (6 o’clock hold) to get my rounds in the 10 ring. He however splits the bull with the top of his sights for the same result. Now, I have tested a couple of G26’s, and 3 different G19’s at 25 yards and this is what led me to getting the .245” front sight. I even called Trijicon because the duty ammo was several inches above the bullseye and they informed me that a LEO in Georgia had done all the research and figured out that the shorter Glocks using 147gr pills need the taller front sight.

As a control, I had a coworker who is also a very good shot use my G19, a 6 o’clock hold, and our 147gr duty ammo. His rounds impacted low and appeared that they would have all gone in the 10 ring if he had split the bullseye. My first friend believes I’m somehow perceiving the sights in such a way that causes me to think I’m using a 6 o’clock hold. I don’t know how that could be, but am hoping y’all can shed some light. Now that I’m the odd man out, it’s a bit tough to debate with my friend.

Now I will say my vision is just fine. I can see the 7 and 8 ring from 25, and can usually see my hits even if the sun isn’t behind the target. The thing is, I don’t see how I could push the gun upward as the shot breaks. I do suspect them nosing the gun downward is more likely, but I’m at a loss overall and now outnumbered. I can see how iron sights on a long gun could have this problem – I see the front post as centered in the aperture, but someone else sees it centered in a slightly different location. I just don’t understand how when I see the tops of my sights lined up at the bottom of the bull, it can be anything different.

Has anyone else come across this while instructing, or experienced it yourself?

Anyone else using the HD's with this combination? If so, what hold do you use?

Thanks!

If you were getting this kind of result with everyone shooting one pistol, then yeah, it's the shooter. But along with all of the stuff that GJM pointed out, Glocks are notorious for not hitting where the sights point, so in this case, it's likely that one of the guns is not regulated properly. On the other hand, you could say that your pistol hits under the dot, and that you'll probably use the dot as your POA at night, so it hits where it should.


Okie John

[jetfire]

I've seen POI vary on one gun with fixed sights depending on what shooter was using it. I've always believed that despite being told exactly how to look at the sights the same way, everyone reads their sights a little differently. So a perfect hold for me may not look like a perfect hold for you.

[YVK]

My 1911 gunsmith, Ned Christiansen, and I have 4" vertical difference in POI at 25 yards with the same gun and ammo.

[Clusterfrack]

Interesting. I recently got my first set of Trijicon HDs for my P320c. It took me a while to get a proper sight picture after being used to Ameriglo Operators or competition FO sights. I found that my eye perceived the front sight to be higher in the notch than it really was. The blur of the rear sight is what causes the ambiguity, I think. When I stuck a piece of tape over the notch to create a thin line, I could see that I was aiming lower than I thought. Now I've got it figured out.

[Lomshek]

Interesting. I recently got my first set of Trijicon HDs for my P320c. It took me a while to get a proper sight picture after being used to Ameriglo Operators or competition FO sights. I found that my eye perceived the front sight to be higher in the notch than it really was. The blur of the rear sight is what causes the ambiguity, I think. When I stuck a piece of tape over the notch to create a thin line, I could see that I was aiming lower than I thought. Now I've got it figured out.

That's a really good idea! I'll try that next time at the range as a method to tighten up my vertical spread.

[P.E. Kelley]

Truly some of what we see...is what we see. And others see it differently.

Sometimes it is physics.

The amount of resistance to muzzle rotation during firing makes a decided difference in vertical impact.

[SLG]

For most guns, if they are actually "zero'd" they are zero'd for everyone who is capable of realizing it. The gun doesn't know who is looking at it. As others have mentioned, not everyone looks at things and understands them the same way.

There certainly are exceptions, both in rifles and in pistols. Glocks are some of the worst offenders, from what i've seen. Irons can be way worse in this regard than optics, as can flexible frames.