Chuck D Posted June 30, 2004 Author Share Posted June 30, 2004 Loves2Shoot : I had the opportunity to shoot a gun that was set up with a "fixed" front sight (a non-ported hybrid barrel) just yesterday. All I'm trying to get across to those that wish to comment on the idea/theory is that I found it easier to track the front sight because it moves less (in my opinion) than my Limited Division gun that has the front sight on the slide. I've likened it to "watching a dot" or using "crosshairs in a scope" meaning that it becomes a "fixed focal point" for me. I can concentrate on it's movement and I feel because to ME it moves less than a conventional set-up...it may be faster in the long run. I sought out opinions and I value each and every one of them regardless of the content. Unfortunately, your like a "dog with a bone" on this one and quite frankly I've run out of ways to explain how I feel about the modification and to explain what I've experienced first hand by shooting a gun set-up in this fashion. If my explainations are not suitable for you...I offer my apologies. In my humble opinion...question asked...question answered. No further questions...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loves2Shoot Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 Sorry, if I gave the wrong impression, I just like to know why. I was hoping for some reasoning other than feel. I know every time I pick up a new gun it seems easier to see the sights, but I think this is due to the fact it is "new" to my vision so I focus more, not that it is inherintly better or worse. I've spent thousands trying to figure trick things out, so I'm just asking questions that seem to make sense to me. It doesn't mean I have the answers, just lots of questions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.40AET Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 Just speculating...If the front sight stays in your focus point, instead of moving in and out of focus, would that be some sort of help. Your eyes can only focus on one thing or another, if you reduce the time it takes to regain focus aquisition, would you be saving some small amount of time on every shot?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcoliver Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 I think the plain and simple answer to this is that it may work for some and may not work (or have no difference) for the others. Tried it once and also got disappointed because I didn't get what I expected. But I also had to tell myself I shouldn't be expecting too much from the 5 rounds I managed to try it with. And given another chance to have another gun built, I'd probably also take this route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted July 1, 2004 Author Share Posted July 1, 2004 40AET: My thoughts EXACTLY ! Thanks for expressing them in a clearer fashion than I did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric nielsen Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 It bobs more. And you see it more clearly as it bobs. Why, I don't know. Just is. When singlestack compguns were the thing, virtually none of the top shooters (besides Tom Campbell - no comp) would shoot with the front site on the slide. To clarify, I have not shot one yet on a non-compensated gun. And as Brian says, the knowledge level and competitiveness of shooters has gone way up in recent years; people see more of what they need to see. I'm guessing this newly-legal setup will have more benefit for new shooters vs. GM shooters. But GM's will be using it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benos Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 Just speculating...If the front sight stays in your focus point, instead of moving in and out of focus, would that be some sort of help. Your eyes can only focus on one thing or another, if you reduce the time it takes to regain focus aquisition, would you be saving some small amount of time on every shot?? Like I said, I'm definitely not ready to conclude on the subject, I'm trying to rectify in my mind why: In the old days all I knew was both sights on the slide. Then we got the sight on the comp and we thought "wow, this is really cool," then years went by and I forgot about that. Then I was back to both sights on the slide again, and I felt as though I was seeing my sights better than ever before. (Approximately 10 - 12 years of serious training to that point.) Then after about 10 more years of seriously studying the affect that reading the sights had on my performance, I tried the stationary front site again but was immediately disappointed. I remember thinking that not only wasn't I impressed, but I thought it was actually a tad worse. What does all that mean? I'm not sure exactly. It could be something as simple as, with experience, not only did I improve "how I saw," but maybe I just got used to seeing things in a certain way. (Both sights on the slide.) The only quality time I spent with the experimental new setup was with a hybrid gun, and the muzzle blast and bizarre recoil cycle of that monster made tracking the front sight almost impossible. I could track my stock gun's sights so much more easily. But in the previous paragraph, I was talking about a test, non-ported barrel. But again, even though I was not impressed, I didn't give it much time. I definitely learned to see the front sight perfectly in focus, during the time it lifted till about "3 or 4 sight-heights" out of the rear notch, and for about that same distance upon it's return to the notch. It's impossible to keep track of the front sight all the time it's in recoil because it moves so quickly and at the same time goes up much higher than you normally notice it does. But you can learn to see it prefectly clear during the time you need to - as it's leaving the notch and as it's returning to the notch. Because of the illusion created by the slide's speed and travel, it looks like you're seeing the sights during their entire cycle, but you're actually not. Nor do you need to. So what I wonder from that is (and this is coming from a lot of time behind iron sights) how could seeing the front sight improve only by having it not cycle with the slide, because I'm seeing it perfectly clear during the time when I need to? The slide is moving/cycling so fast that you learn to keep track of the front sight all the time it's in a certain area - just after the gun fired and just as it's returning to where it started from. And one last thought, one thing I distinctly remember not liking (on the new setup) was how the front end of the gun "looked" while it was cycling. I lost the clear, linear looking "sight tunnel" I was used to looking through and now noticed that the front sight looked like it was on a lump way out there on the end of the barrel, while the rear sight seemed to kind of "blur out" for a bit during the gun's cycle. I didn't like "how it looked." But maybe you have to have 15 - 20 years behind conventional sights before you might notice that. When I was "on," the front sight felt like it looked like a giant building silhouetted against the skyline, and the rear sight felt like I looked through it like I was looking through a window. (When I needed to of course.) be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 It's impossible to keep track of the front sight all the time it's in recoil because it moves so quickly and at the same time goes up much higher than you normally notice it does. But you can learn to see it prefectly clear during the time you need to - as it's leaving the notch and as it's returning to the notch. BE, thanks again. This time for opening up my eyes (literally). I've been almost obsessed by the fact that with a PD gun in 9mm (loaded minor) I was able to track the front sight for almost all its movement, while with my Standard .40 I could only see it starting to lift and then reacquire it while landing in the notch (exactly the amount of travel you are describing). Now, as you have pointed out, I'm already seeing what I need to: I just need to be aware of what I'm seeing and act according, instead of trying to see the whole front sight path. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julien Boit Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 That's exactly (well almost ) the discussion I had with a friend of mine shooting one of those guns. The slide speed is too fast to fully follow the front sight during cycle, wherever the front sight is. All we need is to know where it was when it lifted, and where it will be landing (Sky, I 'm using your words, they perfectly match what I mean ) For me, the only advantage I see with that set up is a lightened slide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingman Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 I have not shot one of these setups, but I thought of another potential deal. What about the fact that the barrel drops a bit coming out of lock up. How would that affect keeping the sights aligned. I realize a gun normally kicks upward, so technically the downward shift of the front sight may not affect keeping the sight plane. But could it cause you when first trying it to always come back into picture aimed that minute amount high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted July 7, 2004 Author Share Posted July 7, 2004 If you turned the clock back to the early 90's, you'd recognize some of the same statements made about mounting "dot scopes" on Open guns. What I can't seem to wrap my mind around is why it was such a technological advancement to mount the front sight on the "non-cycling" compensator body but it isn't viewed as such when the front sight is mounted on the barrel in a Limited gun set-up. It just doesn't make sense to me and yes, I have 15-20 years behind iron sights. Both sights mounted in such a fashion "move" but they didn't "cycle" with the slide. Problem here is that each and every person "sees" things differently. What might be a problem for one could be a solution for another. With that said...everyones opinion has taught ME something. Looks like I'll be waiting a bit longer to purchase the top end for my new Limited gun. I can't wait to read (or hear) what will be said once someone wins a big match with the new set-up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingman Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 I certainly am not saying don't. Hell I still have and shoot my open single stack iron sighted super and .45 with sights on the comp. My first dot was an aimpoint 2000 on an aimtech mount on the .45. If I build a limited gun I am certainly going to try it. Also guilding 2 new open guns this winter, both will have tribird barrels with JPoints and an Iron sight on the barrel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diehli Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 I can't wait to read (or hear) what will be said once someone wins a big match with the new set-up. My guess is that Taran was using his at the 3-Gun Nats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted July 7, 2004 Author Share Posted July 7, 2004 Wouldn't it be GREAT if he "chimed in" on the subject? After beating myself up over this for weeks...I still can't seem to understand why the front sight mounted on the comp body was good but the front sight mounted on the barrel in a Limited gun set-up is bad. I give up trying to understand it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benos Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 I can't wait to read (or hear) what will be said once someone wins a big match with the new set-up. Exactly. That's why I don't actually believe anything I wrote. be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loves2Shoot Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 I still can't seem to understand why the front sight mounted on the comp body was good but the front sight mounted on the barrel in a Limited gun set-up is bad. Some things don't make a difference, that doesn't mean they are "Bad." Somethings I thought made a difference: 1. Trigger pull 2. Gun Weight 3. Mag well 4. Holsters 5. Mag pouches 6. Guide rods They don't seem to mean squat when it comes to performance. There are many that are good enough and won't win or lose a match for you. Is a stationary front sight a "magic bullet" that will make you shoot better, I doubt it, because we can't react fast enough to make it important. The sight is at the front of the gun in .05 and .1 is the best split I've ever had so it takes at least twice as long for me to react to the sight as it is moving. Just 'cause someone wins a match with X equiptment, there will people people who go buy that, but it doesn't mean that the equiptment had squat to do with their performance if it functions 100% of the time. BUT ... if YOU think it will make you perform better, it just might Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted July 8, 2004 Author Share Posted July 8, 2004 Many moons ago at the Miller Invitational , I asked J.Michael Plaxco about why guys use a certain compensator design and he said, " They allow you to make a mistake and usually get away with it." Can't help but feel that's what MOST pistol modifications are really good for. Time will tell if this modification will preform this function. It will be interesting to read/see/hear others "opinions" if this modification "takes off" or is found to be "beneficial". There MUST be a reason for this new design ... if Brian is confused about it then I don't feel too bad about being confused too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caspian_45 Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 Several years back Chuck Bradley, Jeff Cramblit, and some others tried to get the unported hybrib barrel legalized. Their reason was to have 2 barrels fit, one ported and one unported. You could have one gun, but have the ability to play in other divisions with switching barrels ie: open, modified, etc. You can't use your USPSA legal Limited blaster in IPSC modifed division. Check the rules if you doubt me. With the Hybrid Limited Blasters (HLB) legal now you can have 2 barrels for the same blaster for a bunch o'money less than 2 complete guns. Very benifical for international shooters. Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted July 8, 2004 Author Share Posted July 8, 2004 Well.... I was thinking of modifying my existing Limited gun but I'll leave that one alone. The new gun will be built with the unported hybrid barrel system. Should be an interesting winter full of "test and development". Thanks you one and all for your input. Court is in recess until February 1st. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcoliver Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 Yeah, go for it Chuck. And don't forget to revive this thread once you're ready to give your fair evaluation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KentG Posted July 29, 2004 Share Posted July 29, 2004 I read this is legal for 40 L10, is it also legal for 45ACP L10? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Bagnato Posted July 29, 2004 Share Posted July 29, 2004 If it's legal in L10 caliber wouldn't matter it's legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikW Posted July 29, 2004 Share Posted July 29, 2004 I heard David Benzick used his "Limited hybrid" gun to win the Limited match at the Golden Bullet Championship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KentG Posted July 30, 2004 Share Posted July 30, 2004 If it's legal in L10 caliber wouldn't matter it's legal. Are you sure? Id hate to order one in 45 to find out its not legal. I have a inquiry to the USPSA but havnt heard for sure from them. They only thought SVI made the 40 but I called SVI and they told me a 45 is available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Bagnato Posted July 30, 2004 Share Posted July 30, 2004 Perhaps somebody could tell me if I am reading this wrong but: Any complete handgun or components produced by a factory and available to the general public for one year and 500 produced. Prototypes are specifically not allowed. If the gun was approved in 40 cailber as a complete handgun the caliber would not affect the approval. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now