Handgun Front Sight Thickness and Accuracy

[powell556]

I enjoy 25 yard offhand handgun shooting. In the past, I struggled with getting a sight picture because I ran tritium trijicons (15 years ago) and they were fairly wide. So not only was I trying to center the front sight in between the rear sights, I was trying to center the bullseye target in the middle of the front sight.

Several years back I decided I didn't need tritium sights (based on Tom Givens suggestions and personal threat modeling) and went to Heine all black steel sights that were, at the time, the thinnest on the market. I wound up painting them with fluorescent orange paint per Tom's advice and I really like it, but I want to explore other options, including tritiums again. I was intrigued by the G19M and the ameriglow sights that have a bright orange circle around the tritium insert. Also, it seems like they can come fairly thin.

Mainly what I want to do is re-evaluate my old assumption. Does a smaller/less-wide front site help with long distance shooting? Intuitively it seems like it should, given as mentioned earlier, the need for centering two things if the front sight is too wide. However, maybe I am always going to center two things regardless of front site width, unless the distance to the target is exactly such that the front sight perfectly fits the visualized size of the target diameter at that distance.

In the past I heard arguments against using too thin of front sight because it would slow you down at closer ranges, but subjectively, I feel like my speed of getting a sight picture is fine at close ranges. An argument may be made that it's actually faster to use a thinner front sight at close distances, with a wider rear sight as compared to a thick front sight that fits perfectly into the rear sight. Because as Tom Given's teaches, theres no need for the sight picture to be perfect at close ranges, if the front sight is anywhere within the rear sight, you'll get hits in fist-size groups. And maybe the smaller front sight actually speeds things up. Not Tom's argument, just something I wonder.

My thought on using the thinnest front sight possible is that it might maybe slow you down marginally (0.2 seconds) at closer ranges, if that, and possibly not at all. But at longer ranges, you get significant benefit. That was my thought but it's based on limited experience. I like to recheck my assumptions regularly against the collective wisdom of those more experienced than me.

[STI]

The only thing I can offer from experience is that I could not get 20-25yd groups with stock 9mm Glocks and HST under 5" until I went to a narrower front sight post than .140 tritium. One was OEM Glock Ameriglo and the other was aftermarket Ameriglo. I have young eyes corrected to 20/20. A .115 front post tightened my groups. My grip and follow through still have a lot of improvement left, but improving my sight picture alone appears to make a difference.

[RevolverRob]

A lot of bullseye folks like 6 o'clock sight holds and I am one of them. In general, I prefer the bullet to impact at the top of my front sight at 25-yards, because it means covering the target with the front sight will get me pretty damn close in fast shooting. When you run a 6 o'clock hold, front sight width is less relevant.

That said, my preferred thickness is .125" front with a .140" square-notch rear. I find this range to be very effective in shooting in general.

[JTQ]

I was intrigued by the G19M and the ameriglow sights that have a bright orange circle around the tritium insert. Also, it seems like they can come fairly thin.

I've often wondered what difference front sight width makes with the longer slide pistols.

For instance, with RevolverRob's .125 and .140 front/rear set up, would the light bars be greater on a G34 than on a G19, or are the slide lengths not significant enough to make a difference.

[RevolverRob]

I've often wondered what difference front sight width makes with the longer slide pistols.

For instance, with RevolverRob's .125 and .140 front/rear set up, would the light bars be greater on a G34 than on a G19, or are the slide lengths not significant enough to make a difference.

Interesting thought.

My spitball is that as long as the ratio of front blade width to rear notch width is the same, bigger sights wouldn’t produce a significantly different sight picture when on longer sight radiuses (just like bigger targets are smaller at distance, right?). I wonder how much difference it really makes?

If you don’t change the ratio, then yes I imagine the light on either side gets bigger. How much difference do you need though? Cool question.

Now that I think about it, the widest notch and post sights I have are on the gun with the longest sight radius.

[powell556]

Interesting thought.

My spitball is that as long as the ratio of front blade width to rear notch width is the same, bigger sights wouldn’t produce a significantly different sight picture when on longer sight radiuses (just like bigger targets are smaller at distance, right?). I wonder how much difference it really makes?

If you don’t change the ratio, then yes I imagine the light on either side gets bigger. How much difference do you need though? Cool question.

Now that I think about it, the widest notch and post sights I have are on the gun with the longest sight radius.

I actually did the math for this last year. It's not too complex. Basic trigonometry. I was also figuring out how much of the target was covered by my front sight at X distance. I might do it again and if I do, will post the results.

[OnionsAndDragons]

I find I do better work past 15yds with a thinner front sight. Closer in it doesn’t matter a whit to me.

I like the ameriglo TCAP front for my tritium sights as it is one of the thinnest, but a thin Dawson or Heinie tritium with a little paint is great too.

I’m really moving more in the direction of thin black or fiber fronts for most guns that aren’t my home defense arms and will likely keep a tritium front on one carry HK just in case I decide the circumstances warrant it.

As the OP, I have found both Tom Givens and Mike Pannone’s logic on the usefulness of tritium to be convincing. I think it is more useful in a potentially offensive circumstance than a defensive one, and my only likely offensive theatre is my home.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JSGlock34]

That said, my preferred thickness is .125" front with a .140" square-notch rear. I find this range to be very effective in shooting in general.

I think a .125" hi-vis front with a .140-.150" rear is the sweet spot.

Wilson Combat makes a number of rear sights with a .145 notch.

My major complaint about the Trijicon HD XRs or Ameriglo Agent/Bold sights is the overly wide .160+ rear, especially when paired with the thinner front sights.

[Clusterfrack]

The OEM sights on my CZ Shadow2s are Rear: 0.125" notch
Front: 0.120" (3mm) wide

For a 5” competition gun, that’s perfect for me.

Like RR, I like ~0.140 rear and ~0.125 front for carry guns. Unlike RR I do not like a 6:00 hold. I prefer top of blade at 20yds.