TargetTalk

I am curious as to which is the preferred front sight diameter. 18 mm or 22mm. I have been shooting my P-70 with the 22 mm front sight and a 4.0 dia. clear front sight insert. Recently I started shooting an RWS 75S, with an 18 mm dia. front sight.

I do not have any sight enhancement devices on the front or rear sights on either rifle. I am a little far sighted and use a +1.25 lense in pistol and have no problems with that.

I seem to have a problem with the 18 mm front sights. I tried the Anschutz clear front sight in several different sizes.

I can't seem to get a real clear view of the ftont sight ring. Not blury but appearing to ovalize, and one side of the sight ring appears thinner than the other. Moving head position will sometimes fix the problem for a second or two but if I don't get the shot off real quick, the former sight view reappears. I am currently using the OEM front sight insert in a 4.4 size and this seems to work better. The steel front sight has a thick ring and the cross bar.

I have no problem with the FWB 22mm sight.

I would appreciate any input on this. I have replaced the front weight on the RWS 75 with a MEC tube, not to extend the sight radius, but to give me more choices as to front sights. The sight radius remains the same, with the forward end of the MEC tube flush with the end of the barrel. This modification will allow the use of the original front sight and offers the ability to change front sight assemblies, if necessary.

The sigths are aligned on the rifle. The MEC tube comes with a riser block for the rear sight, and it has been installed.

Does anyone offer the 18 mm front sights with a thicker ring? I would like to avoid the use and expense of an adjustable front sight and/or rear sight if possible.

What are the top shooters using for front sights on 10 m rifles?

Respectfully,
Dan Hankins

Dan,

If the problem resolves itself when moving your head, even if only momentarily, it sounds like the diameter of the insert is not the problem. Check to see that the cheek piece is high enough to allow you full, comfortable contact while looking precisely through the rear sight. When you move your head I bet you are looking straight thru the rear sight, but your neck muscles then relax and you go back to the original head position. Try some pieces of old target on the cheekpiece (duct taped) to see if this helps.

Pat,
You set off in the right direction. The RWX 75S TO-1 has an adjustable cheek piece. I measured the demintions of my P-70, measuring the relationship of the sight line to the cheep piece placement. The FWB seems to fit fine. So, I figgured that I could save some time by attemping to duplicate the adjustmet of the FWB by measurements.

While this method seems logical apparently it is not completely efficient.

Your post brought my attention to the RWS cheek piece. I lowered the cheek piece, by taking out all the spacers. Then I put in an Anschutz front aperature 4.2 dia., and shot the rifle. Most of the porblem with the visibility of and the distortion of the front sight ring was resolved by this action. We will now work on cheek weld/placement.

Thank you for the kind and well thought out response to my plea for assistance.

Respectfully,
Dan Hankins

I have a copy of a Front Sight Aperture Selection Chart in a pdf. format for anyone who is interested. The study was conducted by Dan Durben and JP O'Connor, both coaches on the National Development Staff. The study was based on the distance from the eye to the middle of the front sight in relation to the size of the aperture itself. Shooters, including myself, were then put on a NOPTEL Trainer and shot on a target using various aperture sizes and the scores were tallied up. From this, they obtained the aperture size that best fit the shooter.

donavaneason wrote:I have a copy of a Front Sight Aperture Selection Chart in a pdf. format for anyone who is interested. The study was conducted by Dan Durben and JP O'Connor, both coaches on the National Development Staff. The study was based on the distance from the eye to the middle of the front sight in relation to the size of the aperture itself. Shooters, including myself, were then put on a NOPTEL Trainer and shot on a target using various aperture sizes and the scores were tallied up. From this, they obtained the aperture size that best fit the shooter.

I would be interested in looking at their findings. We are currently doing similar, less advanced, testing. Please email me a copy if possible.

Thanks.


Jay V
jverg@att.net

Same here please e-mail


Thanks

Moe.

Mee Too!

Send email.

Thank you.

Tom

I sent all of you replies with the chart, just wanted let you all know.

Got it! Thank you!

Tom

donavaneason wrote:I sent all of you replies with the chart, just wanted let you all know.

Thank you.


Jay

donavaneason wrote:I have a copy of a Front Sight Aperture Selection Chart in a pdf. format for anyone who is interested. The study was conducted by Dan Durben and JP O'Connor, both coaches on the National Development Staff. The study was based on the distance from the eye to the middle of the front sight in relation to the size of the aperture itself. Shooters, including myself, were then put on a NOPTEL Trainer and shot on a target using various aperture sizes and the scores were tallied up. From this, they obtained the aperture size that best fit the shooter.

Would be grateful for a copy also. Thanks.

Hi,

The aperture chart that Donavan is sending around is a DRAFT and is based on 1) preliminary technical research that I have done, and 2) my actual experience working with athletes. The chart was not the result of the experiment that was referenced, nor was the chart intended to be published or distributed, since research is still underway. However, you may use it unaltered and with the copyright notice, but you must realize that it is a DRAFT and that I may well revise it in the future. You may NOT publish it. If you do want to publish it, contact me. Also note, that it does not currently have any write up to accompany it to explain the rationale and the issues. That is all still in my head. The aperture size issues run deeper than first glance might suggest.

The experiment that Dan Durben (1988 Olympian, 2000 Olympic Team Coach) and I conducted was to attempt to explore some of the technical and psychological issues and effects of front aperture size on the shooter and the shot process. We wanted to test my hypothesis on this topic (thus also testing my chart) and to learn more about the sensitivites of aperture size that I had observed. So, the chart is not the result of the experiment... it is the other way around... the experiment is a result of wanting to confirm the chart (or provide a sound basis for revision of the chart) and improve our understanding of the problem domain on a scientific basis. Please note that the description given in Donavan's post describes only a small, peripheral aspect of that day's experiment ... it was much deeper and more comprehensive.

Many people will argue that the sizes called for in the chart are way too big. I know a number of athletes that felt that way.... until I worked one-on-one with them and worked through a test protocol with them. Each has been amazed and some of them have shot at very top levels with this as just one of the many reasons for their success. Apertures that are "too small" (i.e. smaller than called for on my chart) are typically used in the interest of visual precision. Small apertures usually cause the athlete to fight the shot due to the psychological effects of the resultant visual input. Time and space limitations do not permit a write up at this time, and I feel that there are exceptions to the "rule" in a few certain, specific, and carefully defined situations. Whether you agree with the sizes or not, I know a lot of very good athletes who swear by the chart after seeing dramatic and instant results.

I will publish everything within the shooting community after Dan and I have completed our experimental work and formally published the results. This will be several months from now at the earliest. Nothing is available from me at present.

If you or someone you know has done or is involved with research related to front aperture size, or if you are aware of published items on this topic, please contact me. I would very much like to speak with other researchers and study other articles on this topic.

---

As an aside, and on the original topic, head placement (already addressed) and then rear aperture size should both be looked at.

---

"Feel Center!"

-JP



Moe D: I have a reminder on my computer to email you... I've had too much going on and have not been in touch with folks lately... you aren't alone, sadly. Thanks for your email! I'll be in touch soon.

Sorry about the misleading post everyone, I didn't quite realize how in detail JP's work was!

Though I understand it is just a draft, I would like to view the chart. I would appreciate it if you could email it to me also.

I am very curious on the maximum end of things. Is there a point that is too large or just slowly diminishing returns. All but 1 of my 20 shooters use 4.0+ apertures, mostly 4.5's but up to 5.0.

Thanks,
William

willbresnahan@yahoo.com

If you'd like a copy of this work, everyone see JP (JPOC). It's his work, let him share the wealth as he chooses.