|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Senior Member
Focal band?
That is depth of field, which will depend the amount of light available and how the iris is 'stopped down'. More light the larger the zone of focus. Less light, the less in focus. Get dark enough and there has to be a minimum depth of field. I would think that is still shorter than that sight radius.
Hell, my problem is getting anything in focus when it gets dark, that's why I went to RDSs.
The Second Amendment ACKNOWLEDGES our right to own and bear arms that are in common use that can be used for lawful purposes. The arms can be restricted ONLY if subject to historical analogue from the founding era or is dangerous (unsafe) AND unusual.
It's that simple.
Member
Do defensive sights need to be as precise as target sights?
Sent from the future using Squid Telepathy
Originally Posted by MistWolf
Senior Member
Please DO!
The obedient always think of themselves as virtuous rather than the cowards they really are.
Site Sponsor
Regarding focus in dimlight:
In one night tactics class I went to, the material indicated that the best possible visual acuity was 20/180 after 30 minutes of dark adaptation. As a reference, in some states 20/200 is legally blind. That visual acuity is wasted by bright white light, possibly bringing you back down to somewhere between 20/400 and 20/800 until you adapt again.
This adaptation and re-adaptation is why many folks believe we should operate at the lowest level of light possible. Additionally, your light leads the bad guy right back to you. (ETA - this doesn't mean you shouldn't have a WML and a backup. just that we should be judicious in their use.)
The reason for the loss in acuity is that our best dimlight receptors, the rods, are most densely clustered out side the point of central vision. At 5 degrees off the point of central focus, acuity is 20/70 in bright conditions, acuity drops to 20/200 at 20 degrees off the fovea centralis.
At night the rods are our primary sources of vision. Since they are predominantly located outside our point of central vision, visual acuity in dimlight can never approach visual acuity in bright light, regardless of what the iris does. The photography depth of field model does not directly transfer to dimlight vision because we see through input from neurological receptors of varying sensitivity that are not evenly clustered throughout the retina.
Last edited by 26 Inf; 08-01-17 at 22:29.
Senior Member
Interesting idea. Longer sight radius magnifies the movement between the front and rear sight which is a good thing for accuracy. For example I can shoot my G17L more accurately than my G26 and that is one reason why. But making the rear sight sharper to the eye is also a good thing. There seems to be a trade-off here, with factors like old eyes, low light, short arms or extension of arms favoring this new sight system. How blurry does the rear sight have to be before it starts getting ignored by the brain? How much sight radius is ok to lose in sacrifice of sharper sight picture?
Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk
Last edited by P2000; 08-01-17 at 22:55.
Senior Member
Meh. Looks like a gimick. Maybe it works well with RIP ammo.
His grasp of history and the development of small arms is... off: Historically, the rear sight on a rifle was not placed back near the eye. The modern pistol sights are similar to historical rifle and carbine sights. Interestingly, this sight is a bit of a throwback to older rifles and carbines which had the rear sight mounted on the rear of the barrel.
If short sight radii were superior to long radii, the G17L and G24 would never have been banned from action pistol shooting and there never would have been a need for the G34/35. If a short sight radius were superior to a long sight radius, Jerry Miculek would be running snub nose revolvers. If the short sight radius were superior, G19 and G17/22s would be winning action pistol, not G34/35s. Guys shooting 1911 Commanders would sweep the floor with guys running 1911 Governments, &c., &c., &c.
" Nil desperandum - Never Despair. That is a motto for you and me. All are not dead; and where there is a spark of patriotic fire, we will rekindle it. "
- Samuel Adams -
Member
I have no dog in this fight, ie, I have not been there, done that to the point that I can weigh in with credible knowledge. But Fjallhravn's post sparked an observation I had the first time I shouldered the SKS and AK platforms- why are the rear sights so far forward? It made me question the whole east vs west mentality of solving the same problem. In this case, the problem is, how do we make a combat accurate sight picture that the average grunt can use under duress? Regarding Mr. Graham's claim that FAST sights solve an issue with sight picture and target acquisition I am eager to test his theory. My biggest concern with my own hand guns is keeping a clear front sight picture under duress. I have lost my focus when presenting my weapon under duress in real life...training pays off, I can say that.
Member
This reminds me of the ft bullseye from meprolight.
At least with the meprolight it has tritium, fiberoptic, and the dot can only be seen when you are aligned right. This doesnt seem better than the ft bullseye eye. It looks more gimmicy, but time will tell.
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
Last edited by daniel87; 08-02-17 at 01:02.
Senior Member
If this setup had an advantage in speed and accuracy,
I suspect Production and Limited shooters would have figured it out by now.
Versus the opposite,
Where guns like the CZ have rear sights projecting backwards from the dovetail for an extra 5/8" or so of sight radius.
Senior Member
I predict Bullseye shooters won't be lining up to buy the FAST sights. This system may be a little faster to acquire and index on target under some conditions. One of the environments I would like to test the FAST sights in is low to no light while using a flashlight.
It might work for some people and it might not. I would not be inclined to offer a definitive opinion without testing the sight.
Train 2 Win
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks