Sight Systems (split from "Who carries a wheel gun?")

[Curare]

I was asked about the test results so here they are:

The course of fire I used was my Snub Core Skill Test, which is attached. Since most self-defense ammo comes packaged in 20 round boxes nowadays, the Course of Fire is 20 rounds and I shot it once for each sight system. The ammo I used is Bill Rogers' Bianchi wadcutter load, which runs about 746fps (chronoed) / 110 power factor out of a snub. It's quite a bit hotter than mid-range wadcutters, but comfortable to shoot for longer sessions.

Shot between 5PM-6PM on a sunny day but I was in a shaded bay. The lighting was probably equivalent to a well-lit indoor room.

I used three snubs with four different sighting systems.
640-1 with standard sights as supplied
This was the cold run, so it's possible some training effect could have taken place for the subsequent runs, but I don't think it was a material factor.
640-1 with XS Standard Dot front sight, notch rear as supplied on the gun.
642 with front sight painted orange (laser off)
642 with CT-405 Laser Grip
If anything, I was feeling a little tired and rushed for the laser run.

Target used was the AZ DPS TQ-19 (www.letargets.com/estylez_item.aspx?item=TQ-19TCA-AZDPS)

Scoring Method
IDPA adapted scoring
Headshots in triangle and center chest shots = -0
Next ring on body/head = -1
Hits on body outside second ring = -3
Since I wanted to use this as a sight test, I eliminated the time for the reload and subsequent shot in the calculations. I did include the time for the first shot of that string. I also did not wear a concealment garment because I didn't want to induce a variable of hitching the draw due to a concealment garment.
I calculated the results using several different penalty factors. Standard IDPA penalty is .50 second. Rob Leatham came up with .20 second penalty version, which yields a result close to IPSC Comstock scoring. My personal choice is .25 second penalty . As it turns out, the penalty factor did not affect the relative results.

End result
The XS finished last in every case.

The laser, which was quite visible, did the best except for the final 5 shot string. It was noticeably slower for me to track it in recoil on a long string vis-a-vis iron sights.

All strings less reload time
.20 Second Penalty
Orange 17.94
Black 18.30
Laser 19.06
XS 19.85

.25 Second Penalty
Orange 18.04
Black 18.40
Laser 19.16
XS 20.15

.50 Second Penalty
Orange 17.79
Black 18.15
Laser 18.91
XS 19.40


5 shot string removed
.20 Second Penalty
Laser 15.28
Orange 15.41
Black 15.94
XS 16.42

.25 Second Penalty
Laser 15.28
Orange 15.46
Black 16.04
XS 16.47

.50 Second Penalty
Laser 15.28
Orange 15.71
Black 16.54
XS 16.72

This test is only representative of my skill level with my eyes. As a result of this test, I am going to remove the XS Sight and put on a Meprolight night sight with the black part painted orange. I do my own pistol-smithing.

Interesting data, and thanks for taking the time to do the testing and post your results. However, I think you would be the first to agree that the only conclusion we are left with is that more testing needs to be done.

The two biggest weakness in the data are the small sample size of runs (one per variable), and shooter sight experience prior to the testing.

Given these weakness, other shooters cannot claim that these data "validate" their experiences. Incorrect results may "agree" with other incorrect results.

[ToddG]

Given these weakness, other shooters cannot claim that these data "validate" their experiences.

Yes, actually, I can. When a well-known and experienced shooter/instructor does his best to perform an honest & unbiased test, and his results mirror my own, I call that validation.

You're also jumping to the conclusion that none of us did more than shoot one group with the various sight setups. I know for a fact that HeadHunter has, and I am pretty darn sure I did. :cool:

Any sight system that takes me months & thousands of rounds to "benefit from" is not a sight system I need.

[HeadHunter]

Interesting data, and thanks for taking the time to do the testing and post your results. However, I think you would be the first to agree that the only conclusion we are left with is that more testing needs to be done.
I love testing things and aggregating data. Philosophically it's my weakness and empirically it's one of my greatest strengths.

What are your thoughts about the further testing that needs to be done?

[Curare]

In the case of the picture I posted, it's not paint. It's tape. A step by step how-to should be going up within the next couple of days.



Yes, actually, I can. When a well-known and experienced shooter/instructor does his best to perform an honest & unbiased test, and his results mirror my own, I call that validation.

You're also jumping to the conclusion that none of us did more than shoot one group with the various sight setups. I know for a fact that HeadHunter has, and I am pretty darn sure I did. :cool:

Any sight system that takes me months & thousands of rounds to "benefit from" is not a sight system I need.

Todd,

You can not use a sample size of one to establish statistical significance. I think we should all be in favor of gathering more information.

I also am not here to advocate any sighting system, and I disagree that it would be silly to spend thousands of rounds to "benefit from" a sighting system. Are you currently running the same sights you will have for the rest of your life? Of course not. You've probably bought half a dozen sets of sights in the last few years. You will not spend months and thousands of rounds to get there. You will spend tens of thousands of rounds and years to get there.

I am very interested in seeing which is the "best" sighting system for the J frame seeing that a prelock 640-1 is in my pocket at all times. This generous and helpful test could be improved by adding more runs, in varied lighting conditions, with shooters who have experience with all the different types of sights used.

The intersting thing is there is a "best" sight system for most. Currently there is little debate for two platforms--carbines with red dots, and race guns with a FO front. These systems have consistently demonstrated their superiority. The jury is still out with defensive handguns, but I have a feeling that the best will feature 24/7 capability with a high visibilty FS.

I personally use the standard partridge blade and I have been searching for a replacement orange insert front sight for my J frame. I enjoyed swapping out the original FS which had been machined crooked, and wouldn't mind fitting a new FS blade.

[ToddG]

You can not use a sample size of one to establish statistical significance. I think we should all be in favor of gathering more information.

Nowhere did I type the phrase "statistical significance." If you'd like to pay for a test in which 1,000 random people try each sight system for multiple iterations of a standardized shooting test under varying conditions, knock yourself out. I'll be happy to publish your results.

In the meantime, when a well respected, skilled, experienced instructor does a test and the results mirror my own, I consider that validation of our respective results. You don't have to agree with them, you don't have to follow them, but it's not just random chance.


I also am not here to advocate any sighting system, and I disagree that it would be silly to spend thousands of rounds to "benefit from" a sighting system. Are you currently running the same sights you will have for the rest of your life? Of course not. You've probably bought half a dozen sets of sights in the last few years. You will not spend months and thousands of rounds to get there. You will spend tens of thousands of rounds and years to get there.

You're quoting me completely out of context. What you've done is essentially spun my comment into something completely different. There are two separate issues in your statement:

First, spending thousands of rounds to benefit from a sighting system. I maintain that any sighting system that requires thousands of rounds of dedicated practice before it starts to deliver is a bad system. This is the excuse used by the snake oil salesman when people try their sights and can't do well ... "you're just not used to them yet!" BS. It's one thing to need a few groups or an hour on the range to get accustomed to something. But having to re-learn fundamental marksmanship skills just on the chance that one of these new cure-alls will actually work is a fool's errand.

When I started using the orange tape on my front sight at the recommendation of John O. Stewart, it took me maybe ten minutes to figure out that it needed a little tweaking to work for me, and once the fix was made it was an instant improvement. If I wasn't getting some benefit out of it by the end of the first range sessions, I would have gone looking for a new solution.

Second, spending years and 10,000's rounds to find the perfect sight is a complete red herring. The time I spend practicing isn't "searching for a new sight system." It took me about 60 seconds of shooting with the Warren sights to realize they were an improvement for me. It took me about 60 seconds of shooting with an Aimpoint to realize it was easier than using iron sights. If something better comes along, I'll happily switch to it. But in the meantime, during all of those years and tens of thousands of rounds, I'm not searching or testing, I'm practicing.


The jury is still out with defensive handguns, but I have a feeling that the best will feature 24/7 capability with a high visibilty FS.

Agreed. That's why I gave the XS sights (they were called Ashley's back then) and the TFO sights a chance. In the end, neither of them provided advantages to outweigh the disadvantages, at least for me. For now, I'm happy to stick with the do-it-yourself "tape on the front sight with a hole cut out for the tritium" approach because it provides me with greater visibility for quick shots without compromising anything for times when maximum accuracy is needed as fast as possible.

The downside is that it's a little time consuming to set up and it isn't a permanent solution ... you probably need to redo it once in a while depending on how much shooting you do. One nice thing about it, though, is that you can try it and if it isn't working for you by the end of a day at the range, you can just take it off and be right back where you started. No significant expense, no "try it for six months and see" silliness. Install it, try it, judge it, and drive on.

[HeadHunter]

This generous and helpful test could be improved by adding more runs, in varied lighting conditions, with shooters who have experience with all the different types of sights used.

We are somewhat limited by constraints particular to the J-frame, e.g., people's tolerance to recoil is somewhat low in the platform and most people can't run a double action gun for very long without the trigger finger getting tired.

However, what about
* three runs; 1 in bright daylight, 1 in subdued daylight such as I used, 1 in low light similar to parking lot light at night.

-- Some dryfire familiarization with the XS Sight and an untimed livefire warmup would be appropriate, although not to the point of trigger finger fatigue.

* three shooters in the IDPA Marksman to Sharpshooter class.

Do you think that would be a good test?

[ToddG]

The article on how to DIY with the JohnO High Visibility Front Sight (http://pistol-training.com/articles/the-johno-diy-high-visibility-front-sight) (i.e., putting orange tape on your front sight) is now online at p-t.c for those who have inquired.

http://pistol-training.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/johnodiy-350x233.jpg

[HeadHunter]

The article on how to DIY with the JohnO High Visibility Front Sight (http://pistol-training.com/articles/the-johno-diy-high-visibility-front-sight) (i.e., putting orange tape on your front sight) is no online at p-t.c for those who have inquired.

Why no online? Should be online!

[Alpha Sierra]

XS Sights work best when used in conjunction with threat/target focused shooting. When Modern Technique zealots try to use them as conventional sights, the results are predictable and all too aparent here.

Anyone who comes from a point shooting background (shotgunners, mostly) gets it.

[HeadHunter]

XS Sights work best when used in conjunction with threat/target focused shooting. When Modern Technique zealots try to use them as conventional sights, the results are predictable and all too aparent here.

Anyone who comes from a point shooting background (shotgunners, mostly) gets it.

I am not sure I understand, if you are point shooting, then what do you need any sights for?

[Alpha Sierra]

I am not sure I understand, if you are point shooting, then what do you need any sights for?
Of course you do not understand. There is a sight continuum that MT zealots dismiss out of hand and turn every discussion about handgun aiming into a black and white world of sights/no sights.

I will drop it here because this place is extremely hostile to anything that deviates from Gunsite dogma.

[Jay Cunningham]

Alpha Sierra,

Tone down your rhetoric.


~Thekatar

[John_Wayne777]

XS Sights work best when used in conjunction with threat/target focused shooting.


That seems to be a pretty accurate statement. When I tried them they were most useful at closer ranges with a threat focused approach to the target.

...but not vastly moreso than conventional sights, in my opinion.



When Modern Technique zealots try to use them as conventional sights, the results are predictable and all too aparent here.

Anyone who comes from a point shooting background (shotgunners, mostly) gets it.

To quote a couple of gentlemen wiser than I:

"There's a time and a place for point shooting."

That time and place is at fairly close distance (10 yards and in...for some folks, maybe 15 yards).

The problem is that the farther back you get, the less useful the threat focused approach is when you are trying for a precise shot. A small misalignment of the sights is no big deal at 5 yards....at 25 that exact same misalignment can put the bullet a long way away from where you wanted it.

Threat focused shooting is a viable technique...but like all viable technique it has a range of application where it is most beneficial.

The problem a lot of folks have is taking something that's useful in a particular set of circumstances and trying to stretch it to cover ALL circumstances. In real life there's a time for threat focused shooting....but there's also a time for front sight focus. Conventional sights can be used quite effectively with the threat focused technique....but the XS sights don't seem to be as useful when it comes time for front sight focus for a lot of shooters....even very experienced, well trained shooters.

This only becomes a problem when someone gets offended at the notion that somebody doesn't like their pet sight system. That's a proclivity I see on ARFCOM all the time. People like their Glock/Bushmaster/whatever and then proceed to believe that they are the greatest thing ever made and react to any assertion to the contrary like you slapped them and told them their momma sells it on the street.

I personally don't understand it. I've said over and over and over again that sighting systems are intensely personal things. What works great for one person in one set of circumstances may not work very well for another person in another set of circumstances. I don't get offended if somebody likes XS sights or says that they use them very well.

I'm at a loss to understand why others get offended when someone shares that they haven't had the same success with them despite a good faith effort with them.

EDIT -- Since "this site" was mentioned, I'll mention that part of the reason I'm on this site is to hear the input from different people on various topics. I figured out a long time ago that there's much I don't know and that sometimes you can find some good input from somebody that helps a lot. Input from people on this site is why I tried the M&P (which I love), why I tried CT grips on my J frame, why I tried Warren sights, and why I tried training with Larry Vickers. Personally I'm glad I listened to others on all those decisions as they've all been things that have worked out well for me.

[ToddG]

Why no online? Should be online!

Thanks. Edited my post to correct.


Of course you do not understand. There is a sight continuum that MT zealots dismiss out of hand and turn every discussion about handgun aiming into a black and white world of sights/no sights.

I will drop it here because this place is extremely hostile to anything that deviates from Gunsite dogma.

I'm going to assume you've never seen HH or I teach, since neither of us comes anywhere close to "Gunsite dogma."

As for what you call the "sight continuum," I couldn't agree more and teach that same concept, though I never thought to call it a continuum ... I may have to steal that. :cool:

The difference is that my "sight continuum" is intended to cover everything from belly-to-belly through maximum long range precision without requiring students/shooters to play games estimating range or making judgment calls under stress as to whether Technique #1 or Technique #2 should be used.



...but not vastly moreso than conventional sights, in my opinion.

Bingo. The high visibility front sight really makes a difference (see HeadHunter's results with the orange front sight on his snubbies, above) but the rear sight takes away a lot of the gains.


"There's a time and a place for point shooting."

That time and place is at fairly close distance (10 yards and in...for some folks, maybe 15 yards).

While it may turn out to be 10-15yd for a particular person, I'd strongly recommend against putting a range limit on the concept. I remember going through C.A.R. training and the instructor had different variations of the technique for near-contact shooting, contact-to-3yd, 3yd-to-7yd, 7yd-to-15yd, and beyond-15yd ... and honest to God, students would stop and have to ask what range they were at to figure out which technique they were supposed to use.

Proper visual reference should telegraph the degree of coarseness or finesse you need in your "sight continuum" and trigger press for each shot. This not only eliminates a lot of conditional branching, but makes for faster & easier transitions.

A great drill for many people is to have a close (< 5yd) target and a distant (> 15yd) target and engage them both with rapid multiple shots. Shoot the near one three or four times, then the far one three or four times, then back to the near one again for a few more shots. If you're doing it right, your speed will be much faster on the close target but you'll still maintain accuracy on the far target. Being able to switch gears from target to target is an immensely practical skill because whether you're going from a great big torso to a small ocular window, or from the guy swinging a baseball bat to his brother across the street leveling a shotgun at you, you can't just hit cruise control and shoot everything at the same speed.

[John_Wayne777]

Proper visual reference should telegraph the degree of coarseness or finesse you need in your "sight continuum" and trigger press for each shot.

That's precisely what I was going for, essentially that the conditions will dictate what you need to do. The 10 to 15 yard comment is more of an acknowledgment that the threat focused sighting technique has limits.

In real life folks aren't going to be on a nicely dressed shooting line and aren't going to know how far away the target is. They simply have to develop a "feel" for what technique is most appropriate for the situation in front of them that can only come from practice. There are occasions I can think of, for instance, when I want a hard front sight focus at 5 yards instead of a threat focus.

[HeadHunter]

Of course you do not understand. There is a sight continuum that MT zealots dismiss out of hand and turn every discussion about handgun aiming into a black and white world of sights/no sights.

I will drop it here because this place is extremely hostile to anything that deviates from Gunsite dogma.

Sorry I offended you. I was trying to get a clarification of your point, but I will refrain from that in the future.

An interesting take. Some Gunsite people have told me I am hostile to their dogma. Stuck in the middle again (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMrm7ZQ0aMA). :D

[HeadHunter]

There are occasions I can think of, for instance, when I want a hard front sight focus at 5 yards instead of a threat focus.
Or even 3 yards if it looked like this:
http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s91/HeadHunter_album/Threats/Heidi007.jpg

Which was taken from a re-enactment Course of Fire of this incident:
http://s150.photobucket.com/albums/s91/HeadHunter_album/Threats/th_ARKDrivewayp1800.jpg (http://s150.photobucket.com/albums/s91/HeadHunter_album/Threats/?action=view&current=62c437f2.pbw)
which occurred in Arkansas in 1999. Click on the image and a slideshow of how the incident unfolded will open.

The Course of Fire is attached.

[mayonaise]

Todd,
I personally use the standard partridge blade

Which member of the Partridge family is this named after? Hopefully Laurie (Susan Dey) I had a thing for her growing up. :D

Nevermind. I think you meant PATRIDGE instead. As in E.E. Patridge. :cool: