View Full Version : Thoughts on the Graham Combat FAST Sight
Straight Shooter
08-01-17, 07:29
A little long- but Id like initial thoughts on this. Groundbreaking or meh?
https://youtu.be/o5FK9uLQh34
You might want to mention Graham Combat in the title. I wanted to read first and the first manufacturers page to come up on a Google search for "FAST Sight" is some kind of receiver extension extension that pivots....although they do have a few nice cleavage pics. :)
A little long- but Id like initial thoughts on this. Groundbreaking or meh?
https://youtu.be/o5FK9uLQh34
I'd have to shoot it. Seems like an interesting idea, makes you wonder though Why hasn't anyone ever thought of this before?
I'd have to shoot it. Seems like an interesting idea, makes you wonder though Why hasn't anyone ever thought of this before?
this sight system has been used by Caracal on their pistols
this sight system has been used by Caracal on their pistols
I'll rephrase based on this information - Why hasn't the firearms industry adopted it as a standard?
i think because of the huge no fix recall they had a few years ago, they never took off, it was a great pistol otherwise. they were also available with traditional sights so not that many people owned the ones with the quick acquisition sights.
This appears to progress from rapid sight acquisition techniques. I would be interested in trying the sight system when it becomes available.
Straight Shooter
08-01-17, 10:14
I'll rephrase based on this information - Why hasn't the firearms industry adopted it as a standard?
This appears to progress from rapid sight acquisition techniques. I would be interested in trying the sight system when it becomes available.
Kinda my thoughts on the subject. It SEEMS to have some merit- but Id have to have some serious time with it before deciding.
Straight Shooter
08-01-17, 10:15
FIXED IT-THANKS for the heads up!
I wonder if this might have been what Detonics was thinking on the Combat Master?
Also, read more than a few articles (usually focusing on XS Express sights) where the author had tried only a front sight on a pistol and didn't have many problems getting hits.
Didn't ASP have this back in the 70s-80s? Made by Paris Theodore. Didn't he call them gutter sights?
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Didn't ASP have this back in the 70s-80s? Made by Paris Theodore. Didn't he call them gutter sights?
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Not exactly. That was the guttersnipe.....no front sight, just line up a channel and it was all behind the ejection port.
Luger artillery had a forward mounted rear sight, but it had the front extended forward and was really geared toward being a shoulder stocked carbine so not sure if there is any info on shooting it same the snap on stock.
Coal Dragger
08-01-17, 12:35
So if a short sight radius is so great shouldn't a snub nosed revolver be the most accurate and easy to shoot platform ever?
The smells of BS to me.
1.8in barrel. DA trigger and lack of grip. At least these are the reasons why I can't shoot a snub nose well. Add a longer barrel and over size grips and I do better
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
It's possible the rear sight being a greater distance from the eyes would make it easier to pick up more quickly, because it's nearly the same focal length from the eyes as the front sight. One of the things I demonstrated in the past at handgun classes was getting reasonable hits on targets at 25 meters without the benefit of a rear sight on a Gen 1 Glock 17. The rear sight on this system would be more accurate than no rear sight at all.
I am a bit skeptical about the short sight radius myself. I would like to install one of these sights on a Glock 17 and test it by engaging targets at 100 meters and compare it to a G17 with conventional sights.
The FAST sight is something I would want to evaluate hands on and put through it's paces before classifying it as a dog or a gem.
I've known Matt for several years. He's an exceptionally intelligent individual and wouldn't be pushing this idea if he felt it didn't have merit. Like most of you who have been around firearms and the firearms industry for any real length of time I am skeptical when someone says they have reinvented the wheel but I look forward to working with the FAST Sight and seeing for myself what it is capable of.
It seems that it would shine in close fast engagements (IE: most handgun fights) but I'm not sure about shooting at distance and that's where I'd really like to have a chance to test it. Luckily I will see Matt in a few weeks and I'm sure I'll get a chance to see for myself how the system works. Once I do I will report back.
He lost me at the 5 minute mark. "The sights are already aligned, you can't shift the front sight." If that's true, it's because the rear notch is too big. Your gun is either pointed at the target or it's not. The sights don't pull the gun onto the target.
Also, he said a sight is as accurate as the front sight width.
When I see GMs, LAV and Vogel running them, ill look into it...
Until then my current sights offer a rear when I need and, and I don't use it when I don't need it.
For up close, I could see an advantage for new or intermediate users, potentially, but nothing revolutionary.
That said,I guess I can't say for sure without actually using them, it just sounds like if of those too good to be true things..
I put a few hundred rounds thru a couple caracals with their non standard sight. I found them to be fast and plenty accurate, but at 20-30 ft, a slick slide will get rounds on target imo.
Thinking a way to get a preview test for cheap would be to file a glock plastic rear dovetail to a proper height (probably open the notch too), use one of the rubber enhanced cyanoacrylates like Gorrilla makes to stick it forward of the port, mark the rear sight location, and slide the rear off.
Acetone clean up after playing with it and slide the rear back in to witness marks and it is like it never happened.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-01-17, 18:52
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.
Dionysusigma
08-01-17, 21:25
Do defensive sights need to be as precise as target sights?
Straight Shooter
08-01-17, 22:16
I've known Matt for several years. He's an exceptionally intelligent individual and wouldn't be pushing this idea if he felt it didn't have merit. Like most of you who have been around firearms and the firearms industry for any real length of time I am skeptical when someone says they have reinvented the wheel but I look forward to working with the FAST Sight and seeing for myself what it is capable of.
It seems that it would shine in close fast engagements (IE: most handgun fights) but I'm not sure about shooting at distance and that's where I'd really like to have a chance to test it. Luckily I will see Matt in a few weeks and I'm sure I'll get a chance to see for myself how the system works. Once I do I will report back.
Please DO!
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.
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.
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
MountainRaven
08-01-17, 22:51
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.
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.
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
ramairthree
08-02-17, 02:06
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.
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.
They lost me when they claimed that the short sight radius means no rear tritium is needed. How is it possible that a short sight radius is going to prevent you from pointing the muzzle too high if you can't see the rear sight in the dark?
That was such a glaring bit of flim-flam that it made the whole thing sound like hokum.
They lost me when they claimed that the short sight radius means no rear tritium is needed. How is it possible that a short sight radius is going to prevent you from pointing the muzzle too high if you can't see the rear sight in the dark?
That was such a glaring bit of flim-flam that it made the whole thing sound like hokum.How do you see balced out rear sights? Which is fairly common
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
How do you see balced out rear sights? Which is fairly common
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
In the dark? You don't. Blacked out rear sights are only useful if there is enough light to see them. Same with fiber optics, gold beads and dots of paint.
It really does not have to be that dark that everything on the gun but the tritium lamps disappear in the gloom, yet there is still enough light to ID your target.
sniperfrog
08-03-17, 20:41
Awhile ago I shot a compact Caracal that had similar sights. I have to admit it was very fast and i didnt have any problems hitting out to 15 yards or so. I was surprised it worked as well as it did.
MountainRaven
08-03-17, 22:00
In the dark? You don't. Blacked out rear sights are only useful if there is enough light to see them. Same with fiber optics, gold beads and dots of paint.
It really does not have to be that dark that everything on the gun but the tritium lamps disappear in the gloom, yet there is still enough light to ID your target.
I've never found that to be the case.
I've never found that to be the case.
If you can see a rear sight with nothing glowing on it in the dark, why did you need a glowing front sight to see that?
These style sights are for point shooting at close distances. YMMV. Fix them up with a big glowing day/night tritium fiber optic combo and your good to go. Whether they are placed in front of the chamber or behind is a matter of preference.
I believe the one thing that hasn't been addressed is the applied grip strength. If you over do it on a long sight radius, you'll see the sights shaking. On a short one, not so much. Now mix it up and apply that logic to these style sights.
If you need anything more... you need something with a stock.
46815
MountainRaven
08-04-17, 00:24
If you can see a rear sight with nothing glowing on it in the dark, why did you need a glowing front sight to see that?
I don't use glowing front sights.
I have used tritium front and rear sights. And I have used plain black sights with fiber optic and gold bead front sights.
If there is enough light for me to identify the potential target, there is enough light for me to see my sights. If I need a flashlight to identify a potential target, the flashlight will allow me to see and use the sights. I have not found a situation where I can identify a potential target but not see my non-radioactive sights.
I don't use glowing front sights.
I have used tritium front and rear sights. And I have used plain black sights with fiber optic and gold bead front sights.
If there is enough light for me to identify the potential target, there is enough light for me to see my sights. If I need a flashlight to identify a potential target, the flashlight will allow me to see and use the sights. I have not found a situation where I can identify a potential target but not see my non-radioactive sights.
A tritium sight is a "glowing sight". At night 20/20 vision goes down to 20/200. You lose the ability to see fine detail while still being able to see a lot of things. That's why you can walk around at night even though you couldn't read in that light. You can't align sights in that sort of illumination. You also can be standing in deeper gloom than your attacker is, but that is still going to make your sights disappear.
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4792/1369/1600/pt-trijicon-mepro.jpg
If you have only a front sight, you would not have any idea if your rear sight is misaligned with it like in these pictures. And moving the black rear sight closer to the front sight isn't going to change that situation as they claim.
A tritium sight is a "glowing sight". At night 20/20 vision goes down to 20/200. You lose the ability to see fine detail while still being able to see a lot of things. That's why you can walk around at night even though you couldn't read in that light. You can't align sights in that sort of illumination. You also can be standing in deeper gloom than your attacker is, but that is still going to make your sights disappear.
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4792/1369/1600/pt-trijicon-mepro.jpg
If you have only a front sight, you would not have any idea if your rear sight is misaligned with it like in these pictures. And moving the black rear sight closer to the front sight isn't going to change that situation as they claim.
I think it's different for some people. At night with the blinds open, I could easily I'd threats, but the sights are very difficult to find without tritium. At 7yd, a front sight might not be critical, but I don't like limiting myself. Especially since I have a 20yd hall in my house.
I don't see the difference between these sights, and putting stock sw shield sights on a g17? They can be fast, they can be accurate, but very rarely both at the same time.
I don't get it. Shortening up the sight radius 3"-4" inches on a pistol with an already short SR seems like it would be less accurate not more. Why not put the rear sight an inch from the front sight to really go fast? It seems to me that any sighting error side to side or up and down would be exaggerated and induce more inaccuracy in the system. But maybe I'm wrong.
I don't get it. Shortening up the sight radius 3"-4" inches on a pistol with an already short SR seems like it would be less accurate not more. Why not put the rear sight an inch from the front sight to really go fast? It seems to me that any sighting error side to side or up and down would be exaggerated and induce more inaccuracy in the system. But maybe I'm wrong.
You're not wrong, but they are saying that the benefit in putting the sights closer to the same focal plane brings a precision that makes up for the geometry. And for fast combat shooting that may very well be true, even if it doesn't work for target shooters.
The more I shoot pistols on a clock the less important the sights on it become. Even with accuracy.
The more I shoot pistols on a clock the less important the sights on it become. Even with accuracy.
I think this is true, but I do think you are still making visual reference to the gun when you shoot, even if it seems cursory. And if you were shooting in darkness you wouldn't be shooting nearly as well, even with a well lit target.
This strikes me as a big gimmick. But hey, I guess I can't hate too much since I've never tried them, which I would be interested to do.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.