My first thought on seeing this sights was "oh, just like a G26."Originally Posted by Dagga Boy
My first thought on seeing this sights was "oh, just like a G26."
#RESIST
Gunsamerica article on the modifed S&W model 39 aka the Asp:
Cold War Mystery Pistol? The Story of the Revolutionary 9mm ASP
"You can't win a war with choirboys. " Mad Mike Hoare
Yeah, gonna be interesting to see the price point.I really think having the plane of the top of the slide visible behind the rear sight will help people (without a good/strong index) get the sights aligned quickly (which is my "vent rib" theory). I'd like to try a set, but I suspect they are going to be "expensive".
#RESIST
I'm always down for cool new ideas; however I also feel like this is trying to give people the advantages of a red dot (shorter/zero focal plane) without actually going whole hog and putting a red dot on the slide. I especially can't think of a reason that I'd want to have a shorter sight radius on a gun I was planning on using for self defense.
The numbers to compare are the barrel length and the sight radius. Both are available on the Glock website.
The sight radius of a G26 is 5.39" and a G19 is 6.02".
The barrel length including the chamber hood of a G17 is 4.48", a G34 is 5.31", and a G17L is 6.02".
If you mount the front sight as usual, close to the muzzle, and you mount the rear sight just in front of the chamber, the sight radius is going to be a bit shorter than the barrel length number above. I don't have access to a Glock or ammo to check right now, but google says the OAL of 9mm is about 1.2", so you probably have to subtract roughly that much from the barrel lengths on Glock's website. The chamber is only as long as the case length (0.75"), but the front sight is also not quite at the muzzle.
That suggests that things start to get interesting for the G17L, and there may be some value to wring out of a G34 particularly if you mount the rear just behind the chamber instead of in front.
Iron sights on a pistol are a simple physics equation.
If your front sight is perfectly centered in the rear notch, you are going to hit the target (assuming gun is mechanically zeroed for the distance you're shooting) regardless of whether your sight radius is 8" or 2". The problems begin when you break the shot with any deviation from a perfectly centered front sight. Unfortunately for short sight radius designs like this one, in any type of action shooting you will regularly break shots without a perfectly centered front sight because you don't have time to wait for the sights to completely settle and make micro adjustments to get that perfect sight picture. On this design, that translates into a larger angular displacement of shots down range, regardless of the distance.
Last edited by Gio; 08-01-2017 at 03:21 PM.
Part of the trouble is the perception of that deviation. In my gun, a misalignment of .009 translates to 1-1/2 at 25 yds. Even if my gun is zeroed top dead center at 25yds a wobble of .009 compounded with movement at trigger break can add up quick. I just don't see a shorter radius being easier to perceive deviation at distance.
ETA: posted in agreement if that wasn't clear
Last edited by CCT125US; 08-01-2017 at 03:39 PM.
Taking a break from social media.
Add me to the list of people who see no advantage in giving up sight radius in the vast majority of cases.
One exception: On the first generation Kel-Tec P-32's, the factory sights were pathetic. David Clay of DRC Custom Guns (whose website i have unfortunately not been able to find in years) put a tritium channel sight on mine. This involved milling a channel from the back of the slide to just behind the ejection port. A tritium vial was placed at the closed end of the channel, just behind the ejection port. A pair of tritium vials were placed on either side of the channel. It cut the sight radius by a third, but was more visible than the factory sights under all conditions, particularly low light, so it was worth the loss of sight radius. David Clay also welded material to one side of the hole in the slide that supports the muzzle, and cut material from the other side, to move the barrel slightly to the left, correcting a gun that originally shot to the right so that it shot to point of aim, at least in terms of windage. I was very happy with this sight on this gun, but I would never do something like this on a gun for which decent standard post and notch sights were available.
If one is careful and consistent about how the gun is gripped during the draw, the front sight will come up where it is supposed to come up in the rear notch. If a fast shot is needed, then an imprecise sight picture can be used. if an accurate shot is needed, I want the option of delivering it.
I have seen numerous deviations from the basic idea of a front post and rear notch as far apart as possible, and have yet to see one that I am in any hurry to spend my own $ on or to mount on one of my guns.
I'd try such a sight out if it could be temporarily attached with double back tape. (Just remove the existing rear sight.) It either would work for me, or not.
But why does some guy promoting what he calls the FAST sight, talk so damned slow ? We got what he was proposing within the first few sentences. I couldnt stand listening to the whole slllooooowwwww sales talk.
I’ve been following Graham on social media and forums for, I don’t know, six or more years (until I deleted FB a year ago).
He may be a great guy and a great instructor (I wouldn't be surprised if he is), but his social media persona and accomplishments are puffed up a bit, which I despise.
But at the same time, I get it. He was a local cop and then a FAM riding airplanes for a few years. No matter how great of an instructor you are, it’s tough to compete against the new crop of Tier 1 mil instructors and the mystique/fame they have. I absolutely would train with a local cop or FAM, but many others are looking at the Panones and Vickers and TMacs first. So, he says a plane ride becomes a 'mission' he completed. Fine, whatever, but it's is a pet peeve of mine and it means I don't trust what he says.
And in his online persona, he makes simple shit everyone already does seem profound and wise, which is mildly annoying.
In short, I don't trust him and I’ll wait for proof before I believe nameless but real deal guys are using it.
(Tom – not doubting your conversation. But the whole “x guys are using it” is so easy to manipulate and twist while still keeping a bit of truth.)
Last edited by BigD; 08-02-2018 at 05:36 PM.
Reply With Quote