You have to see with better eyes. It's two swans SHARING a Hersheys kiss.Originally Posted by Greg
You have to see with better eyes. It's two swans SHARING a Hersheys kiss.
I always appreciate innovation, but I don’t see how this would work for concealed carry.
Ken
BBI: ...”you better not forget the safe word because shit's about to get weird”...
revchuck38: ...”mo' ammo is mo' betta' unless you're swimming or on fire.”
Why go to a gun show and see all the weird shit on display, when you can go on the internet and get the weird shit served to you without moving from your chair...
That belongs on the same table with all the Conan the Barbarian-inspired knives and throwing stars and daggers with crystals imbedded in them. IMO.
My old man gave me a bb gun with the sights removed and taught me to mount it and shoot at cardboard with a black center. Then he removed the front sight on my 410 double, and I continued. I played with 1911's with rear sight removed and then one with post set in rear sight position. The two posts allowed me to align the handgun. I proved to myself that variations could work. However, I saw no advantage afforded by these different arrangements. I could roll cans with the weird sight presented here but could not answer the so what questions once I gave my stump, rock, and dirt clod report.
I was more hoping someone here might have experience with these to report. Yeah, it's pretty far out stuff and I agree on the looking like ducks or swans... actually came up with that on first glance before it was posted here. That said, the idea of seeing more of the target than sights is pretty unique and borders on what you get with a red dot without the electronics related failure potential and maintennance. Nobody ever mentioned how big a deal a snag hazard like and RMR or Aimpoint present on a pistol, these absolutely trump this sight in comparision IMO.
Right. I wonder if it is meant to pass IDPA rule as a "notch and post" while giving the "advantages" of a Ghost Ring.
Iron sights were optimized a long time ago. We have improved on the shiny bead with fibre optic inserts and tritium lamps, but the usage remains the same, some people still even prefer the shiny bead. I don't know of a bullseye shooter in one of the iron sight divisions using anything but Mr Patridge's 1909 design of square black post in square notch.
Code Name: JET STREAM
Everyone here, including myself, is prejudging these sights without even trying them, which is usually not an ideal response. I think they look like much more of a snag hazard than they really would be in real life. And they look like an abortion but that is irrelevant if they actually work well. That being said, I don't see how they are much different from a peep sight (ghost ring sight) which has already been tried on pistols and has never caught on. I'm guessing they are designed to be used with a target focus because if you try to focus on that tiny front post I think it will be both slower and less precise than traditional irons.
A peep sight relies on the natural ability of the human eye to place the top of the front sight in the center of the rear aperture. This sight provides no such advantage, and seems to provide far weaker reference points for both vertical and horizontal alignment of the front and rear sights.
Only thing missing is the flux capacitor.
Reply With Quote
