TargetTalk

In comparing standard pistols there is quite a difference in their geometry in terms of where the rear sight is with respect to the trigger face (eg roughly 110mm in the case of the Walther SSP compared to 60mm for the Hammerli 280), and the distance from the trigger face to the muzzle. The position of the magazine has a large bearing on the matter. Does a more "aft loading" pistol eg AW93, MG2, SSP have a better balance than one that has a magazine forward of the trigger eg CM22 or Pardini SP. Which style do you expect would give the better recoil recovery? Is it more preferable to have the sights further back toward the aiming eye?

I think you can boil your questions down to two talking points - one of which has factual backing and one which is personal preference.

- Regardless of distance/arrangement of sights, trigger, and muzzle; a longer sight radius is (I believe) proven to be advantageous to a shorter one. I tend to think an inch or two closer to the eye is irrelevant, but there are likely some very scientific types here that might argue :)

- Fore vs aft magazines has a pretty strong bearing on balance (which weights can, of course counter). But, in my experience... Pistols with mags in front of the trigger tend to be a more front-balanced than those with grip-mags. This, of course, is the personal preference. I like the way a front-heavy pistol "sits" on the target. Neutral or rear-balanced (if there is such a gun) pistols, tend to have a "whippy" feel to me, where the sights are easily disturbed by the trigger pull.

So "better" is a term you use on a per-person basis.