Front sight width 1.25 vs 1.00?

[Glockdirtyfour]

Hello,

I am currently running a 1.25 front fiber optic dawson sight. I am thinking about what the difference between 1.00 vs 1.25. I appreciate if you fellow forums members give me your impressions on the both 1.25 vs 1.00.

Thanks.

[The_Vigilante]

Will be interested in hearing the responses to this question. I use a black serrated .100 Dawson Precision because I see more daylight between the rear sights and the front sight.

[Skydiver]

If you like more light bars, the thinner one is the way to go.

Depends on your shooting style. If you do the "front sights are in the notch, good enough" the thicker sights maybe better because it gives you a bigger margin. If you are a bullseye shooter who likes everything precisely lined up, the bigger light bars will give you more feedback.

[DonovanM]

I think you mean .125 and .100

I used to run a .100. Combined with a .150 rear sight, I thought it was a little too thin. It was harder to get the vertical alignment down with such a thin sight. Now I'm running a .115 with the same .150 rear and I really dig it - if anything it's a little on the thick side. Maybe I'd prefer a .105 or .110, I dunno.

Edited October 11, 2011 by DonovanM

[EkuJustice]

I have found I shoot better without much light on either side. If I have too much light, its fine up close but gets very sloppy at distance. Currently switching mine over to a fatter front sight. I think I am going to order a .120 front with a .125 rear for my 6 inch gun.

[DT Guy]

I have found I shoot better without much light on either side. If I have too much light, its fine up close but gets very sloppy at distance. Currently switching mine over to a fatter front sight. I think I am going to order a .120 front with a .125 rear for my 6 inch gun.

I used to agree with this, but as I aged and my eyes went South, I found the bigger light bars a great help; I shoot a .100" on everything now, and shoot better than I have in years.

I will add that if you're using a FO sight, having a BRIGHT FO in the narrower sight helps a lot.

Larry

[Racer377]

I think you mean .125 and .100

I used to run a .100. Combined with a .150 rear sight, I thought it was a little too thin. It was harder to get the vertical alignment down with such a thin sight. Now I'm running a .115 with the same .150 rear and I really dig it - if anything it's a little on the thick side. Maybe I'd prefer a .105 or .110, I dunno.

What gun are you running that on?

[DonovanM]

I think you mean .125 and .100

I used to run a .100. Combined with a .150 rear sight, I thought it was a little too thin. It was harder to get the vertical alignment down with such a thin sight. Now I'm running a .115 with the same .150 rear and I really dig it - if anything it's a little on the thick side. Maybe I'd prefer a .105 or .110, I dunno.

What gun are you running that on?

SIG P226ST. I think I might like the .115 a little better on a gun with a longer sight radius.

Edited October 12, 2011 by DonovanM

[Aircooled6racer]

Hello: I like a 0.115" wide rear sight gap and a 0.100" front sight width. You need a narrow front sight to see those small plates at 50 yards Thanks, Eric

[gunfixer]

I replaced the .100's on both my .40 Edge and my 9mm Trojan w/ .125's,

and both have the factory adj. STI/ Bomar. (Soon my Edge will have a 2nd Gen Tripp rear though.)

I prefer very little light on either side of my sight blade, my thinking is that I adjust

more rapidly by "Turning Down" the light on the side that I see more on than I do by trying to "Center"..

It's something I've done on my 5" Glock's and my 5" S&W M&P's and I like it allot.

(But.. I'm no expert, just determined..! )