TargetTalk

Does Pardini offer replacement front sights? I just got mine last week from Larry's Guns and tried to zero at 25 yds. (shooting center hold). With the rear sight all the way down, it still shoots 3 inches high. Pardini's website seems to indicate in their description that they do offer different fonts sights yet Larry has none. Has anyone else had to solve this problem with the late Don Nygord? Am I an oddball trying to shoot center hold?

Thanks,

Lonnie Meyers

Did you bench the gun first???? BTW ( be careful benching the Pardini as the slide catch tends to rip itself apart on any bench rest---ask me how I know). It seems improbable that the gun would be that far off---or there is a problem with your rear sight. I use a centre hold on all my guns which include an SP & HP in the repertoire. If you are consistently shooting high and you have previously benched the gun satisfactorily, then I suggest the problem is you. If Larry Carter doesn't have the parts you may need try contacting Pardini directly----

No, you are not addballing aiming center. Some very good shooters do, more do not.
Let me ask why you do aim center? What are the benefits to you over the more commonly used low 6-o-clock hold?
I am curious, because I have tried both, and I have not, after many years now, made a final decision about this matter.
I find it more convenient, though, especially during matches of high tension, to use a low hold.

No, I did not bench the pistol. I used Eley Pistol Match and Aguila SE std. velocity, both shooting to the same POI on a bullseye 25 yd center. Since I can shoot clean targets 90% of the time in timed/rapid fire and slow fire averages mid 90's with an iron sighted SW41, I don't think my skills are in question. The pistol gave great groups and no failures, even with the dimpled Eley EPS ammo. I did notice that the base of the new rear sight blade (now with adj. width) hit the top of the grip before the body of the sight bottoms on the milled out portion of the frame. This amount would still not get me to the x-ring where I need to be. I have noted that many on this forum predominately shoot six or sub-six holds and do it with European machinery. This led me to believe I was an oddball shooting center hold. Perhaps you are right about the rear sight. It may not be defective, just that the designers didn't take into account it's marrying to the existing front sight.

Thanks for you input.

Lonnie

I was taught to shoot center from an Army AMU shooter. Rebelling as I did and trying six, I found I focused more when I had to pick the black sight out of the black target and consistantly scored better. It also has the advantage of not having to calculate and record different zeros in my diary for different target types/sizes (intl. rapid/std, 50/25 yd bull, 50 ft. bull). Just habit for me now. Others do much better at six, especially with aging eyes.

Thanks for asking...

Lonnie

Thank you, Stan.

That's what I thought and what I was afraid of. Looking at the manual it seems as if the K-2 sight was adapted to the SP new model and the engineers overlooked the geometry in reference to the existing front sight. Obviously a minority (shooting center), I am not optimistic about Pardini coming to my rescue with a replacement front sight any time soon.

On another note, Larry Carter of Larry's Guns in Maine has always been professional, polite, and pleasant to deal with in the past and in this purchase of the SP New Model I know we'll work something out.

Lonnie

I have two Pardinis, one SP and one HP(.32), and I´ve been forced to bend the front sight upwards just where the dove-tail ends.
The dove-tails were pretty tight on both pistols and didn´t allow much shimming, certainly not the 2-2,5mm I needed, bending worked fine though, I did the bending with the front sight in a vice not on the pistol.
My pistols are pretty old by the way, ten years or so.

Maybe I should add that I seem to shoot about 6 inches higher than most people.

If your into ISSF events you pretty much have to be able to aim center, rapid fire stage in CF or Sport and RFP is much easier if your able to do so ;-)

/Anders

It would seem that, if Pardini wants shooters under the new RF rules to use the new model SP, the company must supply sights that accomodate center hold - there's really no other way to hold on those big targets. And if Lonnie's assumptions about the new SP's sights are correct, Pardini must soon supply either a taller front or a lower rear.

So, my suggestion to Lonnie would be to ask Larry Carter for the loan of an old-style rear sight blade to use while waiting for Pardini to make things right. I believe (could be wrong) that the rear blades, whether the new width-adjustable type or the old fixed type, attach with 2 tiny screws - a very easy thing to switch.

HTH,
FredB

Anders wrote:

If your into ISSF events you pretty much have to be able to aim center, rapid fire stage in CF or Sport and RFP is much easier if your able to do so.

Says who??
In the WC-centerfire-sportspistol disiplines? Realy? If you aim at the bottom of the target during both precision and duell stage, there will be only minor adjustments. Some shooters of eastern Europe and Asia used to do so, and still does.

This has always been a matter of debate, however. I think there are individual preferences. It is not fair to "postulate" that the one is preferable over the other.

Some very good rapid fire shooters aim at the white stripe at the bottom of the target.
The benefits are: Less lift angel of your arm. More rapid sight aquisition. Less tendency to focus at target.

Have you tried this out for a few weeks, Anders?

guest wrote: Some very good rapid fire shooters aim at the white stripe at the bottom of the target.
The benefits are: Less lift angel of your arm. More rapid sight aquisition. Less tendency to focus at target.

Have you tried this out for a few weeks, Anders?

Guest,
You seem to forget that the barrel is pointing in exactly the same direction irrespective of aiming point (otherwise it isn't going to hit the centre) - so there is exactly the same amount of arm movement. I would also suggest that centre aiming prevents focussing on the target because it's half hidden whereas the below black hold makes target focussing more likely (at least tha's how I experience it).

What is true is that it's all down to individual preference. I personally centre aim with the rapid and rapid stages of Sport / centrefire (albeit the UK air equivalents, but shot on the same targets). I think however the point is that any gun should have sufficient sight movement to cater for either preference and should not dictate it.

Rob.

RobStubbs wrote:You seem to forget that the barrel is pointing in exactly the same direction irrespective of aiming point (otherwise it isn't going to hit the centre) - so there is exactly the same amount of arm movement.

That's not true I'm afraid Rob. The starting arm position is the same, 45 degrees. It is not dependant on the sights.

If your "on aim" arm position is, for example (without doing the calculation), 5 degrees lower than for a centre aim then you have to move your arm 5 degrees less.

Back in the early 80s when we had full length "duelling" targets it was not unheard of for people to aim right at the bas (about 1m below the centre) to reduce the required arm movement. That was obviously more extreme than reduced movement you would get now.

Ok, my observations have been that when things go fast, or when nervous, there´s a tendency to go for center aim, and I find it less than optimal to practice against that tendency.
Although there are exceptions I think you will find that the majority of shooters aim center in rapid stages.

Besides I´ve tried aiming below the rapid fire target for quite a long time, my old Sako was centered with the rear sight adjusted all the way down...

Reducing lift angle may seem fine theoretically, but in practice I´ve found no gain from it.
I personally start out well below 45 degrees, perhaps as low as 30 degrees, with my shoulder relaxed and have found that this gives me a faster and less tense lift.

/Anders

Yes, it is the very same guest again....

Occasionally, say once or twice a year I had fun firing the old (.22 short) rapid fire program. My scores were about 545 - 555 points. Mediocre, some would say. Well, yes, but I did not practice, participated in a few competitions only.

Then I was told that a very good russian shooter (don´t remember the name now) was known to aim at bottom of target.

When I did so I fired 564 and 566 in the next competitions. But then the rules were changed to .22 LR cartridge, and I have not competed since then.

The "jump" in my scores opened my eyes, though.

quarying guest wrote:The "jump" in my scores opened my eyes, though.

It's really down to what suits you and what you feel happiest with.

To be perfectly honest, the difference in the arm lifting angle is pretty small so the effect is probably "between the ears". That doesn't make the effect any less important or noticeable though.

About the front sight, ideally, you should be able to have a new one fabricated by a machine shop, or have a gunsmith built up the existing sight, or have a jeweler silver solder a shaped piece onto the sight. Should solve your problem.

David Levene wrote:

RobStubbs wrote:You seem to forget that the barrel is pointing in exactly the same direction irrespective of aiming point (otherwise it isn't going to hit the centre) - so there is exactly the same amount of arm movement.

That's not true I'm afraid Rob. The starting arm position is the same, 45 degrees. It is not dependant on the sights.

If your "on aim" arm position is, for example (without doing the calculation), 5 degrees lower than for a centre aim then you have to move your arm 5 degrees less.

Back in the early 80s when we had full length "duelling" targets it was not unheard of for people to aim right at the bas (about 1m below the centre) to reduce the required arm movement. That was obviously more extreme than reduced movement you would get now.

Excuse me if I'm being dense here, but neither the center of the target nor the 45 degrees from horizontal angle change, no matter where you adjust your sights. The barrel of the gun must start out at (no more than) 45 degrees from horizontal, and must end up pointing at the target center; therefore the amount of change in barrel angle must always be the same. Perhaps one could argue that aiming lower might reduce head movement; however I've always read that one should not be looking at the sights when the gun is at 45 degrees, in any case.

FredB

FredB wrote:Excuse me if I'm being dense here, but neither the center of the target nor the 45 degrees from horizontal angle change, no matter where you adjust your sights. The barrel of the gun must start out at (no more than) 45 degrees from horizontal, and must end up pointing at the target center; therefore the amount of change in barrel angle must always be the same.

You're wrong I'm afraid. The barrel of the gun does not need to start at 45 degrees, the arm must. If the wrist is bent up so that the barrel is not in line with the arm, as would be the case if you were aiming at the bottom of the target, then you would need to raise your arm less.

To give an EXTREME example, if the wrist was angled up at 45 degrees then in the ready position the barrel would be pointing approximately 400mm below the centre of the target. You would then only have to raise your arm by about 1 degree for the barrel to be pointing at the middle of the target. I say again that this is an extreme example and would be unlikely to be encountered in real life. An angled wrist of between 0.5 and 1 degree is quite feasible though.

As I said in a previous post, the actual difference is small, it can just feel like a lot.

If aim under the black cicle is used, then the point of impact will be rather sensitive to differences in the amount of tilt of the pistol around the axle of the arm. If aim in the centre, it is much less sensitive.

I also thinkt that the gain of less arm movement the using the low aim is almost only theoretical. Like Anders I use at much lower ready position than 45°.

Be careful building up the front sight; the ISSF Rules stipulate a 40mm (I think) dimension for the distance between the top of the front sight and the bottom surface of the barrel (including any barrel weights, etc). You may have to shave metal off the top of the rear sight instead. I had just this problem with a GSP years ago.

Jim Harrison wrote:Be careful building up the front sight; the ISSF Rules stipulate a 40mm (I think) dimension for the distance between the top of the front sight and the bottom surface of the barrel (including any barrel weights, etc). You may have to shave metal off the top of the rear sight instead. I had just this problem with a GSP years ago.

Long time no hear Jim, did you see my recent email.

Back to the subject, so far as I can remember, and certainly since 1997, the 40mm rule only applied to Rapid Fire guns. It has therefore now been dropped.