Heinie Straight 8 sights - Combat hold , Center hold, 6 o’clock?

[Rmiked]

I have a Dan Wesson Specialist. It has straight 8 style sights. DW days the dovetail cuts are Novak front and Novak Lo Mount rear. So while they are like Heinie sights, the Heinie website says their dovetail cut is proprietary. But my question is not about the dovetail, it is about the hold. I really like the sight picture but my experience is that IF you try to put the front circle on top of the rear , there is some dark space due to the black steel above the rear dot. I hold the top of front blade even with top of rear U. This puts some black space between the 2 circles. Then I use a center hold verses 6 o’clock. By center hold I mean I can still see the top half of target circle. With my Beretta 92 A1 using the factory 3 dot , white dot sights, I use a Combat hold where I cover the target circle or I shoot low. I shoot mainly at 10 and 20 yards. If I use a 6 o’clock hold with either the Beretta 3 dot OR the straight 8 style sights on my 1911, I shoot low. Does this sound like the correct POA-POI use for these straight 8 style sights?

[CCT125US]

It depends. I've had Heinie Straight Eights on 6 different guns. They were visually correct on one, and I have since moved on. For me, depending on sight radius, and amount of arm extension, the sight picture did not work.

I could go into more detail if you would like, at a later time.

Also, coupled with the fact that half the notches were off center, added to my dislike.

[Evil_Ed]

The dots are there to give you a rough alignment in low light; you need to clean up the sight picture from there if you're not in an emergency situation. You should ideally aim like you would with other sights; front sight blade center and even with the top of the rear sight.

Whether it's a 6 oclock hold, drive the dot/combat, or center hold really depends on the sight manufacturer's intentions, how the barrel sits in the gun, etc. It's entirely possible that a sight manufacturer will tell you the sights are designed for a center hold (that is, the top of the front sight bisects where you want the bullet to go) when on your example they're more drive the dot/combat hold (that is, the round lands underneath/behind where the top of the front sight is). Barrel fit, sight height, how you hold/perceive the sights, etc can and will all play a part.

FWIW I don't really like u-notch rears; to my eyes, it makes me want to bury the dot in that u-notch which makes me hit really low if I'm not really attentive to how my sights are aligned/if I'm looking at the dots more than the top of the blades. Weirdly I don't have that problem with standard square notch sights...a software issue, but YMMV.

[TC215]

This is from the Heinie website. I used to be a big user of the Straight 8 sights (probably 15+ guns with them), and this is how they always worked for me.

[Jim Watson]

The POA-POI is whatever the POA-POI is for that gun, those sights and the shooter.
While I think TC215's drawing is "correct", you cannot count on manufacturing tolerances and shooter hand and eye letting it work that way every time for everybody.
Manufacturers are installing fewer and fewer adjustable sights, SA dropping the RO lineup. People are buying fixed for adjustable replacement sights that cost more than the adjustable did in the first place.
I am of the generation that thought installation of adjustable sights was the leading gunsmith job.

I agree with Evil Ed, too, the currently popular deep U notch works the same way for me. It looks like they took a regular square notch and ran a ball cutter through it. The odd looking SA Emissary has a shallow U notch for its big front bead. Too shallow. I think I will just be square. Again.

[TOTS]

The factory 25 yd zero on my example of a 9mm DW Valor 5 in looks like TC215s diagram above. From contact till about 10-15, centering the poi behind the tritium dot gives me poi = poa. After about 15, im back to the diagram till about 40-50. Then, I’m driving the dot again.

I agree, though, you have to map your gun with your ammo.

[Rmiked]

TOTs, that’s a good description of the bullet being initially below line of sight, rising up to line of sight, then dropping off again. Mapping your gun and ammo with sights is a good way to describe it.

[DDTSGM]

I have a set of Straight-8's on my High-Power. They are the weakest tritium sights I've ever used. Aside from that the vials are too small, IMO.

[358156hp]

I have a set of Straight-8's on my High-Power. They are the weakest tritium sights I've ever used. Aside from that the vials are too small, IMO.

I'm not arguing with you Dan, or criticizing you in any way, but there are people in some occupations who want the rear night sights subdued a bit. I've had some pistols with night sights that were so bright that I could clearly make out my facial features in a mirror across a dark room, call it ten yards or so. That's too much backlighting for my comfort. I asked a friend about the situation and he told me to use a black Magic Marker to subdue the rear sights a bit. He's one of those "well experienced" types, and his recommendation worked perfectly for my tastes. The two rear dots seemed to be the primary offenders in my situation. Since then, I've noticed that some sight manufacturers seem to subdue the rear sights a bit, and my experience seemed to demonstrate why that may be. A decently bright front sight seems to be a comfort though, and offers contrast to subdued rears.

[Rmiked]

I watched and interview with the designer of the sight. He mentioned that point about wanting the front sight to be more pronounced in your vision than the rear. Not saying you could not get a defective sight for sure. I like the way mine appear in daylight and dark. There are many preferences and many sight options available. I’m sure it comes down to what looks comfortable to the shooter.