Switching from Fiber Optic to Irons

[Seth]

I don't doubt for a second that the F/O is faster to find. Its out there waving at you, FORCING you to find it.

What I found is that the QUALITY of the sight picture suffered because I wasn't able to line up the top of the sight consistently. What I did was float the F/O rod in the notch, making a 25 yard shot impossible to call accurately.

[Walküre]

I don't doubt for a second that the F/O is faster to find. Its out there waving at you, FORCING you to find it.

What I found is that the QUALITY of the sight picture suffered because I wasn't able to line up the top of the sight consistently. What I did was float the F/O rod in the notch, making a 25 yard shot impossible to call accurately.

Hence why I made the point that I feel that I am getting a superior sight picture on the 1911 now.

[Seth]

Having run a 10-8 U notch rear and F/O front, I'm intimately familiar with your sight picture. At speed, the u made no difference for me... in fact, it proved to be a gimmick. What I needed to see was proper alignment of the tops of the sight. The fiber distracted my eye and prevented me from seeing that alignment, I think.

I, Me. Your miles may vary.

[Merlin Orr]

I am pretty well convinced that I can see the standard sight better than the FO. It REALLY hit me how different your sight picture can be as I shot an indoor bowling pin match with an FO on my pin gun.. The light on one side of the small indoor range had been hit by some splatter and knocked out. The first 2 runs I made my accuracy was dismally lacking even with me really concentrating on my second run. I finally noticed the lighting being uneven and blacked out my FO with a sharpie and .. what a difference. I could pick up my sight quicker, my times improved and no more side hits on the pins....

Perhaps it boils down to lack of discipline with the FO in lining it up properly with the rear..? but I believe that the FO draws so much attention to the front that it "overwhelms" the rear picture and it is harder to get a quick and accurate alignment.

I "think" that if the sun is directly in line with or overhead that the FO may be OK but if the sun (or lighting) is from the side or at an angle the FO "lies" to you when you align it. I Know that a bright FO contributes to MY tendency to just find the front sight on the target and break the shot without confirming the front to rear alignment..

I am replacing the sights on a couple of guns with good quality black standard front sights to see if this is the real deal or just a "trick of the day" type thing......

[el pres]

I am replacing the sights on a couple of guns with good quality black standard front sights to see if this is the real deal or just a "trick of the day" type thing......

I was also thinking trick of the day but I have put in the time to test both in all occasions. What I did is put a plastic black broom bristle into my FO sight, melted in like a fiber. I could then go back and forth between an FO and a black sight. I tried

every type of practice and at multiple matches, I think you see the results much clearer in a match setting then practice.

When your pushing time is when it shows up !! I now have a real permanent iron sight installed, yes, there was a trick of the day feel with changing to either one because it was something new to look at, but that wears off quickly both ways.

I have "no" doubts I have made the right choice.

Now where do you order areally trick serated front iron sight ?? I just installed a standard STI competition, as long as the

corners are sharp I'm alright !!

[Merlin Orr]

I am replacing the sights on a couple of guns with good quality black standard front sights to see if this is the real deal or just a "trick of the day" type thing......

I was also thinking trick of the day but I have put in the time to test both in all occasions. What I did is put a plastic black broom bristle into my FO sight, melted in like a fiber. I could then go back and forth between an FO and a black sight. I tried

every type of practice and at multiple matches, I think you see the results much clearer in a match setting then practice.

When your pushing time is when it shows up !! I now have a real permanent iron sight installed, yes, there was a trick of the day feel with changing to either one because it was something new to look at, but that wears off quickly both ways.

I have "no" doubts I have made the right choice.

Now where do you order areally trick serated front iron sight ?? I just installed a standard STI competition, as long as the

corners are sharp I'm alright !!

Pardon me for saying but... When your best friend is Benny Hill you don't worry..or care.. about the "details."

[Dan Sierpina]

I don't know if this has turned into an "old eyes" thread or not, since it seems that various age shooters are posting.

I do know, that when I started playing this game again, I put fiber optic in the front sight. It was one of the .110 Dawson's. Green seemed to be okay, but heck, I tried a red insert. It was a bad thing for me. In bright sunlight, I was shooting over targets, and not long distance ones. Out came the sight black, sprayed the front sight only and took the "edge" off of the red, toned it down. Hits started going where they should have. That sight was replaced with a serrated plain sight, narrowed to the .110 dimension.

Next phase was to combat the arms getting shorter. A 6" gun was built. Soooo much better than the 5" gun that now gets carried as a spare.

My wife, who started shooting after a 15 year layoff, tried both guns. She said the light 6" snapped a bit too much, but, she was hitting steel that was missed with 2 5" guns. Another gun gets built. This one with the same Dawson fiber optic that I had, she wanted to try the fiber optic. After a couple matches, this one too gets sight black on it. That gun was shot in the white, and before it goes for Ion Bond, it will have the front sight replaced with a serrated plain sight.

My guns have Bo-Mar rears...unaltered. My wife's has a Caspian, also unaltered.

As far a U notches....only the tops of the sights really matter. I've seen all kinds of sights over the years. T shaped front sights, altered rears that have been widened only at the bottom....kind of a T style, but not really, sights that were cut with dovetail cutters, wide on the bottom, narrow on the top. The one style that remains...is the square post and notch. The others were fads.

[bdpaz]

I've found that I need a "U" rear notch if I use a FO front. With a rectangular rear and a FO front I tend to tip the front up until I'm sure I see the entire dot (not intentionally, it just works out that way). With a "U" notch I can quickly drop the dot in the "U" then ignore the dot and transition to the top edges for precise alignment.

[Walküre]

As far a U notches....only the tops of the sights really matter. I've seen all kinds of sights over the years. T shaped front sights, altered rears that have been widened only at the bottom....kind of a T style, but not really, sights that were cut with dovetail cutters, wide on the bottom, narrow on the top. The one style that remains...is the square post and notch. The others were fads.

Indeed, it is only the top that matters. But what about other factors? I have three theories as to why the combo on my 1911 is working so well for me:

1) The "U" is providing a ghost-ring type of effect, causing your brain to instinctivey place the FO dot at the center as soon as you pick it up. Thus, this speeds proper alignment (and final alignment still takes place with the edges, not the dot). That is, you are automatically driven to natural alignment or near-alignment without actual effort - thus reducing the total effort required for a final sight picture, resulting in greater speed of very accurate shots.

2) The "U" affects how the depth & width of the rear notch is perceived - perhaps due to a change in the apparent (not physical) depth/width ratio, or due to a change in perceived lighting effects.

3) The "U" really isn't the issue, but rather the physical depth & width of the rear notch is simply ideally suited to match the front sight on that setup (for me).

With a "U" notch I can quickly drop the dot in the "U" then ignore the dot and transition to the top edges for precise alignment.

I think this is really what is getting lost on people, and hence the trend (at least in this thread) back to straight irons. If you concentrate on the dot, of course you will be getting an inadequate amount of information. The FO helps to draw your attention and set your focus at the proper distance plane. Trying to use the dot for final alignment will indeed result in degraded accuracy over using the edges (or a straight iron front).

BE hit the nail on the head when he commented earlier about people just getting "color on target" with FOs. A FO dot is there to speed up focal acquisition, not to serve as a replacement for sight alignment.

Edited August 16, 2009 by Walküre

[Seth]

The reason this thread exists is because I've been struggling with my precision accuracy at great distances and learning to call my shots out beyond the freethrow line.

Its conceivable that I lack the mental acumen to find the f/o, neatly tuck it into some U, then line up the tops, and pull the trigger. I am 100% certain that I cannot do that with more than combat accuracy. Obviously I CAN do it... I have been doing it for a while now and I don't miss a lot. BUT... I've been trying for 2 years and have never been consistent, no matter the amount of practice. What I can tell you is that my absolute sight alignment suffers because the fiber was always distracting my attention from the top corners of the front sight.

I went chasing a change because I believed that I was getting robbed of the information that I needed to make a solid head shot at 25 yards. It turned out that I was right. For ME, the fiber distracted my attention when I should have been focused on the absolute sight alignment, I was looking at the red dot.

I would prefer to keep this on track and not discuss the U-notch further, if you don't mind. I'm interested in the thoughts of those that have gone back and forth and what they learned from the process. I don't need to be sold any new gear. I have no problem buying the latest greatest gizmo on my own, without regard to whether or not its of value.

[Classic_jon]

I have a Question as I am about to switch from a plain stock 3 dot to a red front/green rear FO.

One thing I noticed throughout this discussion is that it seems to me that a lot of people switched to FO to find the front sight better (that is why I am doing it too) and after learning how to find it with the fiber optic basically "training them" where to look ...switched back to a standard black now now that their brain was "trained" where to look. Could it be that in this situation the FO was a training aid?

Would that be a true statement or am I missing something?

[Aircooled6racer]

Hello: I would use a fiber on the front sight only. The plan black rear sight is the way to go. I have tried rear fiber with same colors and different colors. It takes me longer to find the right dots With the plan rear sight it takes that out of the equation. I have not tried a plan front sight on my comp pistol but use one on the Browning Buckmark. I want to try the plan front sight just to see. I will try the sight black on the fiber or some spray paint. I use a thin front sight between 0.090-0.105. Thanks, Eric

[nashvillebill]

Classic jon-

Perhaps, (big help, right?). I put a fiber optic sight on my gun pretty early in my development as a shooter to "help me find the front sight". It helped me find it, but I was looking at the target and breaking the shot at the first glimpse of green. Once I became aware of what front sight focus really was, I found the brightness (even paint) to be glaring and distracting. I don't think the fiber optic trained me where to look, but somewhere along the way I learned to "actually look" at the front sight. Some people can sight perfectly fine with a fiber optic, some people shoot very well using the fiber like an open shooter uses the dot and there are those few who have no sights at all on their gun and do very well. Anything can work, but it takes work to learn how to make it work for you. There is no magic attachment that gets the hits.

Edited September 4, 2009 by nashvillebill

[lugnut]

The one style that remains...is the square post and notch. The others were fads.

I'm with you on this Dan- nice and simple for my brain- and I'm dead serious about this- I don't need any extra clutter when I'm trying to see an acceptable sight picture. I haven't used a gun with FO in months and I'm quite happy. I think it's better for IDPA, USPSA, steel, accuracy, etc. Only time it's really bad is in low light conditions.. and in IDPA we get to use flashlights in low light... usually- and in those cases- I get the cleanest sight picture imaginable.

[MartinLei]

I just came back from Ohio Sectional with a stage shooting a couple of targets in a dark tunnel. I ran a Glock with stock sights (front white dot & rear white outline) and the only thing I could see are front dot & rear outline. If I had black iron sights, it would have been impossible for me to see the sights against the targets in the dark. Perhaps F/O has the advantage in this senario.

[Dan Sierpina]

I just came back from Ohio Sectional with a stage shooting a couple of targets in a dark tunnel. I ran a Glock with stock sights (front white dot & rear white outline) and the only thing I could see are front dot & rear outline. If I had black iron sights, it would have been impossible for me to see the sights against the targets in the dark. Perhaps F/O has the advantage in this senario.

If there is litle ambient light, the fiber optic has nothing to channel. I'll stay with black on black.

[ausshooter]

I'll be the odd man out here and say I hate FO's. I've tried to shoot them a few times and while it's easier to pick them up when close, at any sort of distance they are impossible to get a crisp sight picture. I did some shooting at 50 yards with a FO and with a normal sight - FO I hit almost 10% normal 90%. I also tend to shoot and focus on the top of the front sight and then the sides in relation to the rears. With a FO, the "blooming" effect it has makes the top of the sight almost impossible to see, and very difficult to judge the amount of space on the sides of the front sight as well.

I began USPSA (and IDPA) shooting the guns I carry, and they all have Trijicon night sights. I've carried that on into the competition world and it has paid off for me several times. This year at Double Tap in the dark stage I was the only one who could see his sights and it showed on the scores! I've never found them to be a detriment and the clean sight outline makes it quick to pick up.

My .02$

A

[twodownzero]

I have one gun with FO and the other all plain black.

I prefer the plain black, but strangely, I shoot better with the FO. I'm going to shoot a little more with my production gun this fall, but I don't see myself switching.

[Seth]

There's something truly spooky about seeing what others talk about.

I shot the Lim gun again today outdoors in another IDPA match. Same result. 20 yard shots, down zero. Multiple instances of seeing the serrations at speed plain as day.

I'm pretty jazzed to have seen what I've been missing. The front serrations thing has me absolutely baffled. I had outstanding sight pictures. Clean, clear and totally accurate.

The only issue was on an all steel stage I had trouble finding the sight a couple of times on the dark backdrop. Otherwise, it was just awesome.

[usmc1974]

Last month I shot a 34 round stage that was, I don't know but it covered a lot of ground. I shot it in about 25 seconds. First couple shots was at about 1 second(fast for me anyway) Did I even see the front sight? I could not honestly tell you. Timer sounded and I started shooting and moving, got all my hits.

[Seth]

7 months later, I'm still glad I dumped the F/O. Accuracy is still much improved and speed hasn't suffered a lick.

And I DO see the front sight on every trigger pull.

[Dan-O-Mite]

What works for one person may be way off for another. Keep experimenting with your setup and you'll find what works for you. For me, a too narrow front sight sucks. I really like the front sight to be the same width as the rear notch on a typical 5" setup. If I have too much light on either side of the front sight, the tight shots are harder to make. Good luck.

Eddie

+1

[Corey]

this was an interesting thread. Im still using stock fixed sights on my gun (white dots front and back). thinking taking a sharpie and blacking out the backs and maybe the front as well to see some difference if any.

[benos]

this was an interesting thread. Im still using stock fixed sights on my gun (white dots front and back). thinking taking a sharpie and blacking out the backs and maybe the front as well to see some difference if any.

My prediciton: You will shoot just as quickly and more accurately if you get rid of the white.

be

[kgunz11]

I guess I just like the little red dot up there on mine. The bouncing red dot in recoil commands my focus and keeps me from looking at the target. I watch the front sight more instead of just indexing and pulling the trigger. I have no issues properly lining the front sight post square with the top of the rear blade. I reckon the difference is I use the dot as a reference, but I still use the front post to aim. IMO, the width of the front sight is more important than rather or not it has a FO in it. For a 5" gun, I like a 0.100" wide, for a 6" I like the 0.110" wide. I would have troubles using a 0.125" on anything in a standard bomar notch. I like a little light on each side of the post, but not a lot.