Yesterday I was training with some guys and had them shooting what I call Performance Grouping at 50 yards. (we do it at other shorter distances too but 50 yards shots are a very real possibility in the practical applications of pistol shooting) In the exercise I push shooters to put 5 rounds on target as quickly as they can. Being able to group well on small targets is important but I think the time factor is a very real thing in the practical application of pistol shooting. I typically look for shooters to get 5 hits on a piece of 8.5×11 copy paper at 25 yards in 6 seconds or less from the holster.
Back to yesterday at 50 yards. During the exercise a guy came up to me and said…man my front sight is so big I can’t see the target at this distance. That’s a problem folks. We were shooting at 14 x 20 ish steel roughly the size of a man’s chest. I looked through his sights and sure enough the front sight covered the entire target at that distance, makes it hard to aim at what you can’t see. This is a problem that a lot of pistol sights cause especially the night sights. He was using a very popular style of night sight that offers tritum and some bright orange paint. The front sight is .135” wide. In my experience as a pistol shooter and a tactical shooter night sights offer more disability to shooters than capability. The front sights are generally too big and the rear notch is also very big and allows too much room for sight mis-alignment which is the biggest problem for pistol shooters on small targets. Another disadvantage of most night sights is there is no contrast in the font and rear i.e. 3 dots that all look the same. Our eyes see extremely fast but the 3 dot sight slow the eyes down because they have to interpret what they are looking at (which of the 3 dots is the front and which is the rear) From spending a lot of time with my eyes behind a pistol seeing and shooting fast, I have found that a contrast between the 2 sights makes it much easier for the eyes to work at the speed they can. I prefer a black rear and fiber optic front (red for me) I have found a .115 wide front to be very durable and narrow enough that it doesn’t cover a reasonable size target at distance. I’m sure some will bash that the fiber will break and that you have to have night sights for shooting in low light. If installed correctly fiber has lasted as many as 10000 rounds for me. I’m not sure how long it would go because I replaced it at that point. As far as low light shooting: if you have to shoot at night in a defensive or tactical shooting situation, you need a light to ID what you are shooting at, hand held or weapon mounted, either one of those will show you the sights.
That’s what I’ve got for now, rock on and train to win!
-Frank Proctor
Frank Proctor has served over 18 years in the military, the last 11 of those in US Army Special Forces. During his multiple combat tours in Afghanistan & Iraq he had the privilege to serve with and learn from many seasoned veteran Special Forces Operators so their combined years of knowledge and experience has helped him to become a better operator & instructor. While serving as an instructor at the Special Forces Advanced Urban Combat Course he was drawn to competitive shooting. He has since earned the USPSA Grand Master ranking in the Limited Division and Master ranking in the IDPA Stock Service Pistol division. He learned a great deal from shooting in competition and this has helped him to become to become a better tactical shooter. Frank is one of the few individuals able to bring the experiences of U.S. Army Special Forces, Competitive Shooting, and Veteran Instructor to every class.
All this experience combines to make Frank Proctor a well-rounded shooter and instructor capable of helping you to achieve your goal of becoming a better shooter.
Gunfighter Moment is a weekly feature brought to you by Bravo Company USA. Bravo Company is home of the Gunfighters, and each week they bring us a different trainer to offer some words of wisdom.
excellent & thank you
I disagree. Shooting 50 yards with a pistol is the absolute exception. Pistol is up close and personal, which is why big front sights should be preferred. Its all you need to pick up at close distances and start putting hits on target.
Analyze any real life pistol shooting. There is no refined aiming involved, shooters look for the front sights and unload.
somebody has trijicon hd’s on their gun
Haha, right? I just got rid of my Trijicon HDs for exactly what Frank is talking about. Even up close I don’t care for them since the space on either side of the front sight, in the giant U, makes it hard for me to take precision shots, even up close…
i had Trijicon HDs on my fullsize pistol and really liked them, but I found that I couldn’t make those precise shots at distance or even on small targets at medium range because I couldn’t see the targets. I switched to FO fronts and my shooting has improved because of it. I still rock the HDs on my subcompact single stack 9mm which I occasionally carry in the summer. So I would have to say I came to the exact same conclusion as Frank.
ThisIsWrong,
Big wide front sites do not magically make you faster close up, but they do decrease accuracy at distance. I will agree with not needing refined aiming at close ranges, there maybe exceptions however. Through repetition over time your body mechanics are putting the gun where it naturally needs to be, pointing at the target. It just so happens your sights maybe visible at the same time. Doesn’t mean you need them or are actually using/focusing on any of them when you pull the trigger at a close target. I challenge you to find 1 single piece of evidence that would lead you to the conclusion that wide front sights produce faster or more accurate hits on targets at close ranges.
You do realize there are shootings with pistols that don’t occur at “close range” right? Real life as you put it. Big sights don’t make you faster
A fiber front is brighter and more easily acquired at speed than a fat Trij HD front sight, and in a .115 front allows for more precise aiming at those “exceptional” long distance shots. You do sacrifice a low-light capability, but in general if it is dark enough that you cannot see your sights, you’re going to have a difficult time identifying your target, too (I do acknowledge that there are SOME scenarios in which I may be in the dark and my target in the light, but those are few and far between).
Preach, brother.
Night sites are most definitely needed. I have had zero problems getting hits on 8″ steel poppers at 100 yards with night sites. It’s about your fundamentals and knowing your gun.
I’ve never needed night sights.
You’ve never done anything
What width was the rear sight you used with the .115 front? And…what sights were you using?
This is why I like the Trapezoid sights from the Steyr M. The triangular front sight is HUGE for close range fighting while the tip of the sight allows precise aiming at a distance. Even old eyes have no problem finding the sights and hitting the target. I am currently looking for a Makarov which I plan to install the Steyr front sight with a custom rear notch sight (the Steyr rear is far too big to mount on a Mak) as my EDC. The Steyr sights never got the attention they deserved (much less the guns) because they were too different and required a great deal of mental adjustment in people wedded to traditional sighting arraignments. I suggest people try the Steyr sights and I think most will find they work very well.
As for gun fights, your fight will be your fight, not the one noted in FBI statistics. Statistics are simply a good way to go wrong with confidence.
I recently snagged a lightly used 17L that had a set of “Speed Sights” installed, which have a similar, triangular/diamond front sight as the Steyr, but with a more traditional rear sight.
So far I really like the concept. The wide diamond profile provides a very large amount of visible surface area, while the thin tip allows precise aiming at distances – the tip is quite fine, so it covers less of the target then a 0.09″ fiber optic.
Closest thing I’ve found to “having my cake and eating it” in terms of sights.
Going to have to say the issue isn’t the sight, but the idea that we no longer precisely zero our guns. If you zero your gun so the POI is just above the top edge of the front sight at 25 yards it will only be 1.8″ low at 50 yards. Which is easy to work with.
There is a reason why competition sights are sold in heights that vary by hundredths of an inch.
My G19 is almost dead on at 25Y, but ihabe to aim 6-8″ low at 50Y to get good hits. This is with 124gr American Eagle (and according to their chart, it should be 1.8″ low just like you said).
When I posted this phenomenon on a forum, others had experienced the same thing. This was with Dawson f/o front and a black rear.
—
I also have found a .115 front to be MUCH better than anything .135 and larger (for me).
I can appreciate the training aspect in that for the same reason your training runs should be longer than the actual race, 50 yd shooting may help fundamentals at shorter distances. But with all due respect to Mr. Proctor, I’d be hard pressed to think of a scenario where a civilian would be legally justified in making a 50yd shot with any firearm. Same for most law enforcement.
With respect to the orange ringed radioactive elephant in the room, the Trijicon HDs, I do agree with his conclusions. They do make precise 50yd shooting more difficult than other thinner options, but I defer to my above point. Moreover I’m fairly positive that these sights weren’t really designed with this in mind. He may be technically correct but that’s kind of like taking the Ferrari for a couple of laps around the track full out and then lambasting it for its lousy fuel economy and lack of cup holders.
I respect Mr. Proctor, but to treat a 50 yard drill as a realistic scenario for what 99.999% of us would ever fact in a real life situation strikes me as incorrect. I can see working on getting accurate shots at 50 yards to be a great way to hone fundamentals, but not as a practical fighting pistol scenario.
His point about a front post being “too large” at that distance, is certainly true, or can be, depending on the width of the front post, of course.
I have to give LawDog’s remark a but THUMBS UP.
How long is the average aisle in your local grocery store? Target? Walmart? Granted, it may be difficult to positively identify a threat at at longer distances, but I can certainly ID a threat at 50 yards with good lighting. Is there a high probability of needing to take a shot at that range? No, nor is there a high probability I’ll ever need need to shoot someone, period. But I don’t carry a gun because I’m planning for the best case scenario.
Now that I’ve got my internet posturing out of the way, I do agree that for the majority of folks, the benefit of shooting at 50 yards is not so much being prepared for 50 yard engagements, but rather to make close range shots that much easier.