This has been discussed before, but I can't find the answer from old posts.
When using center hold for 10M AP, what is the preferred front sight width, 5 or 4.5mm? What is the preferred gap, narrow or wide?
Center hold front sight width and gap
Moderators: pilkguns, m1963, David Levene, Spencer, Richard H
Forum rules
If you wish to make a donation to this forum's operation , it would be greatly appreciated.
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/targettalk?yours=true
If you wish to make a donation to this forum's operation , it would be greatly appreciated.
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/targettalk?yours=true
Re: Center hold front sight width and gap
Preferred is an individual thing, and the foresight width(s) depend partly on the length of your arm and how you prefer to visiualise the sights. Try the different options and see what works for you.miacdc wrote:This has been discussed before, but I can't find the answer from old posts.
When using center hold for 10M AP, what is the preferred front sight width, 5 or 4.5mm? What is the preferred gap, narrow or wide?
Rob.
As stated, it is hard for someone else to state which width, as it will depend on barrel length, (sight radius) and arm length as well (if you are holding it further away, it will appear smaller).
I use a wide front blade, that covers the black about 75%. It might be a bit too wide, but I used that for many years.
I prefer wide rear sights, with wide white areas on each side of the blade. When I was younger I could manage with narrow white bands.
You need to decide what sight picture works for you with the front blade, and then find out what is comfortable with the rear blade width and the white bands.
I use a wide front blade, that covers the black about 75%. It might be a bit too wide, but I used that for many years.
I prefer wide rear sights, with wide white areas on each side of the blade. When I was younger I could manage with narrow white bands.
You need to decide what sight picture works for you with the front blade, and then find out what is comfortable with the rear blade width and the white bands.
For center hold I would recommend a front site blade wider than the black or the same size as the black. This way you can see the gaps on the side of the front site.
As for the dimensions you have to measure the distance from eyeball to front site and to target. Then do some math and determine the width. You could also just put the 5mm on and see what it looks like and try it out for a while and see if you like it.
I recently changed to a very wide site on my free pistol and I have been very happy.
As for the dimensions you have to measure the distance from eyeball to front site and to target. Then do some math and determine the width. You could also just put the 5mm on and see what it looks like and try it out for a while and see if you like it.
I recently changed to a very wide site on my free pistol and I have been very happy.
-
miacdc
I shot nothing but center hold today. 95/95/95/89/91/91
This is better than my sub-six hold, ever.
Those initial 95's proof to myself center hold is very viable. If I could only sustain that the entire match. I was overjoyed by those initial decent scores, I think I overhold, looking for a better score. The result was just bad overholding.
But I am encouraged by how center hold could produce very good scores compared to my previous sub-six.
My new +0.75 lens really helped in seeing sight picture clearly in face of the target.
This is better than my sub-six hold, ever.
Those initial 95's proof to myself center hold is very viable. If I could only sustain that the entire match. I was overjoyed by those initial decent scores, I think I overhold, looking for a better score. The result was just bad overholding.
But I am encouraged by how center hold could produce very good scores compared to my previous sub-six.
My new +0.75 lens really helped in seeing sight picture clearly in face of the target.
Re: Center hold front sight width and gap
RE:>
I shot nothing but center hold today. 95/95/95/89/91/91
This is better than my sub-six hold, ever.
Those initial 95's proof to myself center hold is very viable. If I could only sustain that the entire match. I was overjoyed by those initial decent scores, I think I overhold, looking for a better score. The result was just bad overholding.
But I am encouraged by how center hold could produce very good scores compared to my previous sub-six.
My new +0.75 lens really helped in seeing sight picture clearly in face of the target.
Congratulations.
However, without throwing rain on your parade, you made several different changes in your shooting style and equipment. Any one of these changes could have accounted for the better score, and any one of these changes could have increased your attention on the basics of sight picture, trigger control and follow through, which might have increased your score without changing style or equipment.
Again; well done, congratulations.
Go shoot this style/equipment for several weeks, and let us know how your scores are averaging.
I shot nothing but center hold today. 95/95/95/89/91/91
This is better than my sub-six hold, ever.
Those initial 95's proof to myself center hold is very viable. If I could only sustain that the entire match. I was overjoyed by those initial decent scores, I think I overhold, looking for a better score. The result was just bad overholding.
But I am encouraged by how center hold could produce very good scores compared to my previous sub-six.
My new +0.75 lens really helped in seeing sight picture clearly in face of the target.
Congratulations.
However, without throwing rain on your parade, you made several different changes in your shooting style and equipment. Any one of these changes could have accounted for the better score, and any one of these changes could have increased your attention on the basics of sight picture, trigger control and follow through, which might have increased your score without changing style or equipment.
Again; well done, congratulations.
Go shoot this style/equipment for several weeks, and let us know how your scores are averaging.