Reference for combat/target sights and proper emloyment of each

[Reid Henrichs]

Had a discussion during a reload/rehydrate break today. For those that know, please inform.


1. What are combat sights? How does one employ them properly?

2. What are target sights? How does one employ them properly?

3. How does one know whether he/she has combat/target sights?

4. What are some physical characteristics to use as a guide?


Attachment 27837

Thanks in advance!

This concept was understood almost 100 years by William Reichenbach. He was a WWI veteran and well-known, accomplished bullseye shooter as well. In his book, Automatic Pistol Marksmanship in 1937, he advocated for a thick Patridge post with bright color, and a wide, deep rear sight notch that can be aligned at speed. He also mentioned ruggedness as a trait. That would mean steel sights.

From his book, “That thick front-post just has to slip comfortably into an ample rear-slot, or you will never make the grade. Battle sights I call them!”

[JAD]

Complicating things, when I was a novice in the early nineties sight picture 2 was called a “combat sight picture.”

[Talionis]

This concept was understood almost 100 years by William Reichenbach. He was a WWI veteran and well-known, accomplished bullseye shooter as well. In his book, Automatic Pistol Marksmanship in 1937, he advocated for a thick Patridge post with bright color, and a wide, deep rear sight notch that can be aligned at speed. He also mentioned ruggedness as a trait. That would mean steel sights.

From his book, “That thick front-post just has to slip comfortably into an ample rear-slot, or you will never make the grade. Battle sights I call them!”

Conversely, I hate thick front post and wide rear notch for shooting at speed while maintaining required accuracy. For my eyes, all that combination gets me over thin front/narrow rear is less precision at the same speed.

ETA: Of course, now that I think about it after considering the stock sights on my WWI colt... His definition of wide front post and rear notch might be substantially different from mine. I consider .100 nearly ideal front, but that was quite wide 100 years ago from all the guns of that era I am familiar with.

[Reid Henrichs]

Conversely, I hate thick front post and wide rear notch for shooting at speed while maintaining required accuracy. For my eyes, all that combination gets me over thin front/narrow rear is less precision at the same speed.

ETA: Of course, now that I think about it after considering the stock sights on my WWI colt... His definition of wide front post and rear notch might be substantially different from mine. I consider .100 nearly ideal front, but that was quite wide 100 years ago from all the guns of that era I am familiar with.

Yea, he was referring to sights as thick compared to the original sights on the 1911. His front sight width was .125 which isn't really that thick at all. As for a wide rear, ANYTHING is wide compared to the original 1911 rear needle eye like sight. The illustrations in his book look remarkably like the most popular sights available today, ie, Ameriglo, Trijicon HD XRs etc..!

[Talionis]

Yea, he was referring to sights as thick compared to the original sights on the 1911. His front sight width was .125 which isn't really that thick at all. As for a wide rear, ANYTHING is wide compared to the original 1911 rear needle eye like sight. The illustrations in his book look remarkably like the most popular sights available today!

Makes sense. .125 is a bit thicker than I prefer, but is very workable, and any pistol I have with night sights has that thickness front post. Very true relating to the rear notch on the original 1911's. While those sights can be very accurate and even quick if you have a really good index, there sure isn't any room for error there. Very cool about the similarity between currently accepted sights and what he proposed, I'll have to check his work out.

[Reid Henrichs]

Makes sense. .125 is a bit thicker than I prefer, but is very workable, and any pistol I have with night sights has that thickness front post. Very true relating to the rear notch on the original 1911's. While those sights can be very accurate and even quick if you have a really good index, there sure isn't any room for error there. Very cool about the similarity between currently accepted sights and what he proposed, I'll have to check his work out.

He was well ahead of his time. He was also a very accomplished competitive shooter and his book, [I]Sixguns and Bullseyes[I] he prefers a much thinner front sight on his competition revolvers. Great books if you can find them. I was fortunate to get first editions for my research, but he walked the walk in combat and in national competition. My take is that he liked thin for competition, and highly visible for concealed carry/combat.