Does anyone know the the reasoning behind having a front sight that is wider than the rear sight notch?
Does anyone know the the reasoning behind having a front sight that is wider than the rear sight notch?
"There is magic in misery. You need to constantly fail. Always bite off more than you can chew, put yourself in situations where you don't succeed then really analyze why you didn't succeed." - Dean Karnazes www.sbgillinois.com
I ll call Mike next week and ask him. Mike is far from a buffoon and is one of the folks out there with a very solid real life background.
Just a Hairy Special Snowflake supply clerk with no field experience, shooting an Asymetric carbine as a Try Hard. Snarky and easily butt hurt. Favorite animal is the Cape Buffalo....likely indicative of a personality disorder.
"If I had a grandpa, he would look like Delbert Belton".
"There is magic in misery. You need to constantly fail. Always bite off more than you can chew, put yourself in situations where you don't succeed then really analyze why you didn't succeed." - Dean Karnazes www.sbgillinois.com
I suspect you can still see light on each side as perspective and distance will allow it but the visible gap is awfully narrow. This would also allow the brass to be larger and catch more light. Being cut on an angle does the same.
Sent from my Nokia 3310 using an owl
Last edited by orionz06; 09-03-2016 at 06:49 PM.
Think for yourself. Question authority.
I am far from an expert, but I do like big dots (as in TCaps or HDs) and beads (preferably gold because they reflect light better than brass and don't tarnish).
The Christiensen 1911 which I showed in another thread had a gold bead that is a little wider than the front sight blade; the rear sight is .130 wide and the front blade is about .115, but the bead is probably close to .130. What you get is a super easy front sight to pick up at speed when you "drive the dot", even at dusk when FO sights barely glow, and for longer distances the tip of the front sight is still plenty thin for that precision shot.
I don't know, aside from the photos by the OP, how that combo is supposed to look like as a sight picture when you bring your gun up, so I can't speak to those sights in particular, but if the intended effect is anything like what I asked Ned to do for the 1911, it should work quite well. Moreover, aren't the Proctor sights similar in that the rear sight opening is thinner than the front sight blade?
I just wouldn't dismiss that set up out of hand before getting some experience with it.
Another great question. And one I am curious about as well. I have gone back to 3 dot simply because I need the feedback. Lately relying on the top edge left me sliding back and forth on that edge and getting horizontal stringing. Truly wondering what this sets out to solve.
Taking a break from social media.
My preferred setup is a .125 front sight and a .156 rear. I like having the ability to really center the front sight in the notch. I prefer a decent amount of light around my front sight.
Last year I attended Frank Proctor's pistol class. Frank actually advocated for a front sight wider than the rear sight notch. Frank's primary rational for this setup as he explained it was accuracy based on less margin of error. Frank's rational: shot dispersion from FS in left side of notch to FS in right side of notch is reduced by filling the notch with a wider Front Sight. Visual processing factored into the discussion. What you see and process as a perfect or Good Enough sight alignment at speed can be improved by reducing the margin of error. Frank also added that although a front sight wider than the rear sight notch sounds counter intuitive the geometry works and it visually fits from the shooters perspective.
I didn't go out and change all my guns. I like what I have.
"There is magic in misery. You need to constantly fail. Always bite off more than you can chew, put yourself in situations where you don't succeed then really analyze why you didn't succeed." - Dean Karnazes www.sbgillinois.com