This report covers:
- Glock 19 clone front sight
- Front sight too wide
- Defense sights
- Front sight
- What is precision?
- Markpoint sights
- No optics!
- Summary
Today we will look at gun sights— a fundamental part of shooting technology that new shooters seem to be doing everything possible to ignore.
What prompted this report was a question I read in a chat forum about a particular airgun’s sights and also the comment of Will S. about my mention of the Glock 19 clone’s sights being crude, “Would you please elaborate on the crudeness of the sights, vs sights that are made for precision?”
I gave Will a quick answer but decided that more was needed. Then, after reading a comment on a chat forum about the sights on the Umarex Markpoint, I knew I needed to say more about them as well. Today I do both
Glock 19 clone front sight
You know—sometimes BB Pelletier gets it wrong. Yes, he does. I wouldn’t fool you. After reading Will S’s comment I took the time to examine the Glock 19 clone sights in detail, I was surprised.
After that day when I shot 50 rounds through the pistol I was certain these sights were crude. And they are, but not for the reason I thought.
Front sight too wide
When I shot the pistol at the indoor gun range I felt the clone’s front sight blade was too wide for the rear notch. Now that I’ve had longer to examine it I see that it is ever-so-slightly smaller than the rear notch when the pistol is held at arm’s length. But only in [erfect lighting. The design of this front blade means that in all but perfect lighting (target lit brightly and the sights in the dark) the front sight appears to fill the rear sight notch completely, leaving no room for a proper sight picture.
Only when the light is perfect can a thin sliver of light be seen in the rear notch on either side of the front ramp. Most of the time the front sight appears to fill the rear sight notch completely, and without that sliver of light the shooter cannot tell when the sights are centered on the target.
Defense sights
Defense pistol sights are designed for rapid acquisition. That makes them ideal for defense use. At the distance that used to be considered the maximum for self-defense, which was 21 feet, the sights are good enough for a quick center-of-mass shot. The center-of-mass refers to the center of a human torso. Most of the time that’s good enough, but not always.
In the church shooting at West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, Texas, on December 29, 2019, the perpetrator was shot in the head from a distance of about 40 feet by a church security guard. That shot killed the shooter instantly, but it required great skill. This is a situation where great sights are needed.
The Glock 19 clone I reported on would not be a pistol for such a shot. I might be able to make it with my Sig P365, but even then it would be a tough shot. Look at a closeup of my blue silhouette target from the Glock clone report and see what I mean.
These head shots were taken with the Glock 19 clone after my hand was stinging from the recoil. I was sniping the target because of the pain at this point. The distance was only 21 feet!
Front sight
The front sight on the Glock 19 clone is narrow enough to fit inside the rear sight notch. if the lighting is perfect (bright light on the target and no light on the sights), this sight might work for a precision shot. I say might because of the huge white dot in the middle of the front post.
The Glock 19 clone front sight has a large white dot. It’s good for rapid target acquisition but lousy for precision.
What is precision?
For what we are discussing in this report, precision would be the ability to place all shots in a 2-inch circle at 40 feet. Don’t fixate on those numbers. What I mean by this definition of precision is you should be about to hit the orange in a bowl of fruit and leave the bananas alone. With a defense pistol you should be able to hit the bowl of fruit. That large white dot helps you hit the fruit bowl quickly, but you’ll only hit the orange by luck.
When I sight with the Glock clone the front sight seems to fill the rear sight notch. The dot is easy to put on a target but to hit something as small as an orange at 40 feet it won’t work‚ at least not for me. So it’s good for defense but not for precision.
Markpoint sights
Now I’ll discuss the sights on the Umarex Markpoint pistol. I saw on a forum where a shooter said he did not like those sights. That may have been his personal preference or he could have been a newer shooter who just doesn’t know how to use open sights on handguns. I find these particular sights almost like training wheels. Use them properly and you can’t miss, or at least you shouldn’t be able to. But they are strange-looking.
Markpoint sights. The front blade is thin and tall. It appears odd, but is easy to align.
I will say that with sights like these you notice every little shake of the gun. Maybe that’s why the person doesn’t like them.
The reason I say these sights are so good is because they are so easy to see. The front blade is narrow so there is a lot of room to center it in the rear notch. And the top of the rear notch is flat, making it easy to level the front sight. Do that and put your target on top of the front blade and you’ll hit your target!
No optics!
These days shooters seem insistent on using optical sights on their long guns. Even many of the armies of the world now have optical sights on their rifles. What that means is people are forgetting how to use open sights like the ones we have been discussing.
That’s all well and good until it isn’t. What will a shooter who doesn’t know how to use open sights do when there are no optical sights available? It’s like asking someone who was not trained to read cursive to read a handwritten note—it doesn’t work.
Sure, a scope reticle is easier to use than a post and notch, but when the erector tube fails and the scope won’t zero whaddaya gonna to do? I prefer to use optical sights, too, but I still practice with non-optical sights a lot—just to keep the skill alive.
Summary
Non-optical or open sights are basic. Using them is a fundamental part of the shooting sports. It’s not the one we talk about or even think about, but using them is a basic skill every shooter should master.
B.B.
Amen to this topic! Last time I shot my pistol, it was shooting so low that I had to hold a” lunar eclipse” hold to be anywhere near the center. I still do not understand “hold-over” when shooting my LP-8 at distance. I usually try and figure out the pellet drop and just adjust my normal sight picture, just high. Kind of blocking out the target, there has to be a better way?
-Yogi
PS do I have this right? To raise the POI, you adjust the rear sight down?
Yogi,
Move the rear sight in the same direction you want to pellet to move. Move the front sight opposite the direction you want the pellet to move. Want the pellet to hit higher? Lower the height of the front sight (make the sight post lower).
BUT ALWAYS HOLD THE TOP OF THE FRONT SIGHT LEVEL WITH THE TOP OF THE REAR SIGHT—OTHERWISE NONE OF THIS WORKS.
BB
Yogi,
You could (I imagine) place a white horizontal line across your front sight where you find yourself holding over to consistently hit your target. Elmer Kieth used to put gold inlays on his front sight for long range shooting.
Siraniko
“Elmer Kieth used to put gold inlays on his front sight for long range shooting.”
Siraniko,
Yes! There was some great stuff written by him in his (now out-of-print) book, Sixguns.
I read that book many times, then passed it on to one of my grandsons to foster his interest in shooting.
Blessings to you,
dave
BB,
Great topic!!! I am no fan of fat front sights, or any front sight that fills the rear notch; I like to see enough daylight on both sides of the front blade. My Ruger Single-Six has a 1/8″ blade on the front; it’s been painted orange. The rear sight is black, but has a white outline (an outline that was there and I filled it in with white paint). The barrel length is 5-1/2″, which gives sufficient length to see plenty of daylight around the front sight. These sights are super easy to align! With .22 Magnum ammo (Winchester Super X 40-grain jacketed hollow points), I sighted this gun to hit dead on to the center of the top of the front sight at 25 yards (typical hunting sight in, not a target shooter’s sight in). A friend of mine questioned how accurate this gun might be; since we were in the woods on his property (a few thousand acres…nice!), I stuck a dot a little bigger than a quarter on a board, stepped back 25 yards, and put a bullet in the center of it (usings two hands rested across my knees). That made him a believer that a handgun could be used for hunting. These sights are easy to see even at dusk; if there is any ambient light at all, they work well. Of all the handguns I have, both air pistols and firearms pistols, this is the easiest one to shoot well, all due to excellent easy-to-see sights and a nice crisp trigger.
(Note: I just measured it; the rear notch is also 1/8″ wide, and the sight radius is 7″.)
The next easiest pistol to shoot is my customized Crosman 1322; with a 12-1/4″ barrel (giving a 14-1/2″ sight radius), a .100″ wide front sight, and a .117″ rear notch the sight picture looks similar to the Marksman sight picture if you were to cut off the top half of your diagram…in other words, there is plenty of light around the front sight; and yes, you will see every shake with this pistol, but it is well-balanced and it’s actually hard to miss with it, LOL! 😉
Once again, I commend you on an excellent and most important topic.
Blessings to you,
dave
P.S. Here is a pic of both pistols I was describing; the Crosman 1322 is the pistol I shoot most often.
The Ruger Single-Six, with its capability of switching to a .22LR cylinder, and its ability to use shotshells,
is the gun that has accounted for more varmints on the farm that all other guns combined.
P.P.S. I need to give a shout out to my wife; both pistols were gifts from her; I married well. 😉
dave,
You married well indeed!
BB
Amen! 🙂
Nice looking-hardware there, Dave. FM had the privilege of shooting his friend’s Single Six, fortunately in the era when eyes were better, and will second your accuracy endorsement. His is a Bicentennial Model. That time was the first experience with the .22 WMR, thought it was a good stand-in for a .38 at short distances. This is only FM’s opinion. He’s no ballistics expert.
Very thoughtful Mrs. you are blessed with; surely it goes both ways. 🙂
Thanks, FM; the .22WMR is a great little cartridge; and yes, I am blessed. 🙂
FM,
You may not be a “ballistics expert”, but most of them are not either.
Appreciate the compliment, RR. 🙂
Sights are one of my favorite subjects here on this blog. Well done report BB! Adjustability is another factor that wasn’t touched upon in this article. But I think it can be important if we are needing precision. You were very complimentary of the sights in your report on the inexpensive Barra 1866 Cowboy rifle. Even though on the rifle you were testing the sights were not able to be adjusted low enough. But this report demonstrates some of the reasons why you were still complimentary of those sights.
I recently received my Barra 1866 Cowboy multi-pump rifle. Thankfully the sights do align with the barrel such that the point of impact at 10-meters is about midway on the adjustment. Your reports on this rifle are spot on with my experiences so far. I think if my eyesight was better I could get smaller groups than I do. On the first generation of this rifle we have no choice but to use the open sights. The second generation has provisions for mounting optics and a groove that should make loading pellets easier. I have the first generation rifle. This will force me to use the open sights, which I think is a good thing.
Maybe because I am an old, fat, bald headed geezer, I prefer the older style sights, at least on rifles. On my rifles I prefer the rear V notch with the perlkorn on the front sight. The V helps me to center the front sight and the perlkorn helps me to find the top of the front sight quickly. I can then align the top of the perlkorn with the flats on the rear sight and easily center the front sight in the sight picture.
I have the squared sights on my Webleys and all my other pistols and at short ranges they work great, but for longer shots I like to use my 1906 BSA or my FLZ.
I like optical sights also, although I do not care for the high-power scopes much because where I live the woods are thick and abundant and seeing one hundred yards is typically very difficult at best. Almost all of my scopes are less than twelve power and most have the thicker reticles that show up well in the heavy canopy.
I do have one scope that goes up to sixteen power and has a very fine glass etched reticle, but it is saved for precision shooting at longer ranges.
Yeah, I am a contrary curmudgeon, so what? 😉
“I prefer the older style sights”
RidgeRunner, as one curmudgeon to another, I must concur with you, LOL! 😉
Dave,
A lot of thought went into those old sights. They can be more difficult to make, but they seemed to work well.
Yep, they work well for me as well; a lot of younguns don’t realize the thought that went into them. 😉
The person who commented they didn’t like the Markpoint sights was me. I’ve been shooting pistols for over 40 years so I’m no stranger to open sights. I agree that having enough light either side of the foresight is a good thing, but I much prefer a wider sight. I also don’t like the red/orange inserts in the rear sight and the lack of adjustability. I just think Umarex could’ve done a little better with this one.
Ade,
Thanks for letting us know. I didn’t know if you just didn’t prefer these sights, which now seems to be the case, or you were unfamiliar with all open sights.
BB
Tom,
Iron sights are all I care about for now since I don’t have a range long enough to warranty use of a scope.
Siraniko
PS Section Front sight too wide
1st paragraph 3rd sentence: “But only in [erfect (perfect) lighting.”
FM done a lotta shooting with fixed sights, starting with his Ruger 10/22, though originally it came with a low-power Bushnell scope; liked shooting without “visual aids” which is why he’s never been a fan of guns that don’t come so equipped. However, now that the eyes have gone somewhat South, the optics have brought back some of the lost joy of actually hitting a target somewhat accurately. Your tips and explanations have certainly helped there, BB.
When he wants to challenge the eyes and shooting skills, such as they are, the “sproingers” come into play with their fixed sights; results by no means can be classified as “FM’s Finest Hour” level but the experience is still fun. Besides, not challenging oneself to do better is boring. And, finally – the Marauder arrived; thank you for not losing it, USPS! Now to do a pressure and chrony test, then work on choosing an optic that works for FM.
FM,
The Marauder, being the Max brothers’ bigger sibling, will very likely be a welcome addition to your shooting lineup.
From what you have described to me, you should not need more than a nine to twelve power scope for that air rifle, that is unless you are thinking of going FT on me. Then your limitation is only your wallet.
If you for some reason are not happy with the Marauder or have a strange urge to get rid of one of the Max brothers, do not forget about RRHFWA. 😉
Promise you have first bid privileges should that come to pass; unlikely at this time but anything is possible. Unboxed the Marauder last night, everything seems to be in good order. The seller threw in even more pellets than expected – most are Gamo pells, but there were three tins of H&N Terminators…who’s complaining? Not FM. Believe this will be a welcome new resident of Casa FM. Now, where are the iguanas?!
Here are some:
BB,
Thank you for addressing this topic of open sights in greater detail. Knowing the distances that crude vs precision open sights are used gives us a greater understanding of what a particular pistol is made for. One can tell right away by holding the pistol and sighting with it. This is good information!
Regards,
Will
BB
Hitting what you’re aiming at involves many skills and practice. What I’m about to mention is a subject you and competition folks know well. It is helpful if the gun’s balance and fit suit you. When getting on target quickly is needed, your gun should automatically be there when you lift it up. A good example is shooting quail in a covey rise. Your shotgun should fit you so well you only have to look at the target. The gun sights should already be lined up. Lots of repetition is required for this to work.
I make no claims to being an expert, just my opinion formed over nearly 86 years of shooting.
Good report.
Deck
Deck,
“ONLY” 60 years of shooting experience here but as a youngster I totally agree with you! 😉
IMHO, with any hand held weapon (shotgun, rifle, pistol, bow, slingshot) you should be able to look at (lock on to) your target, close your eyes, raise the weapon, then be aligned, on target and ready to break the shot when you open your eyes.
If not, your form and/or the fit of the weapon needs to be assessed and corrected. Lots more practice is recommended.
In a real situation, eyes remain open of course… it’s look, decide, and commit (raise and shoot in one smooth motion).
Wiggle-farting around to get settled behind the weapon if fine for static target shooting but in a dynamic situation there’s no time for that.
I love those cops and robber TV shows where the cop chasing the bad guy (waving his pistol all over), yelling STOP and the perpetrator just runs away. Obviously, the cops learned to shoot at stationary paper targets on a well lit shooting range and are in no way really for a real world situation. A couple of tin can plinking sessions or a walkabout shooting targets of opportunity would go a log way to remedy range-learning block.
People say that I shoot very fast, call it “snap shooting”. I don’t, I take as much time as most people, I just do all my assessing (target identification, safety considerations, range, hold over, wind compensation, etc) before I raise the weapon. Once decided, making the shot takes half a second.
I would think that in a dynamic, self defense situation, sight are of little use and you had better be able to shoot well instinctively.
Just my two cents. Have a great weekend! 🙂
Hank
B.B., Deck, and Hank,
B.B.: totally enjoyed your Blog today and hope it resonates with at least a few new to shooting readers.
Deck and Hank much is written about the draw of a defensive handgun when compared to the next step in the process and that is typically referred to as Presenting the handgun or PRESENTATION phase of bringing the gun on target. Most of the writing is about speed and not about the repeatable cycle that is mostly learned with DRY FIRE DRILLS.
The best defensive shooters actually do use sights on defensive engagements; mostly the FRONT but if the distance is great then the REAR sight gains in importance quickly. Once more, the familiarity gained through frequent DRY FIRE practice, practice, practice…is paramount to getting and retaining the SKILL. Tom writes this: “The dot (front sight) is easy to put on a target…” and does it with the ease of someone who has shot/dry fired handguns enough to not even recognize the incredible value of that statement as a major defensive training point for iron sights or night fighter sights!
Errata: in What is Precision? “What I mean by this definition of precision is you should be about (able) to hit the orange in a bowl of fruit and leave the bananas alone.
Or the the correct head in a hostage situation.
Everyone: DRY FIRE MUCH MORE!
shootski
Shootski,
Interesting how the pistol experts shoot silhouettes with sights. Watched a couple of videos on the subject, looks impressive.
Living in a backwards country where intruders have more rights than the homeowner an exchange of gunfire is unlikely. We have to resort to blunt objects (I keep a cane in the bedroom) as even sharp, pointy things would be considered “excessive force” by the courts.
Fortunately, outside the big cities, handgun use is less prevalent and familiarity with the layout of the house offsets the surprise of the intruder to a degree. Bonus is the nearby swamp for disposing of bodies 😉
Rambling aside, I agree that practice and experience is paramount but have to question the reliance on sights in a home defense situation. Laser and Dot sights excepted, what use are sights, in a dark environment, at dynamic targets, at point blank range?
I’ve no experience with nighttime intruders but lots of experience with game, at close range, in heavy cover. No time for sights, you have half a second to react, accurately, or there’s no venison. All the deer hid in the dense alder swamps (20 foot visibility) after the opening morning hoopla, my favorite place to fill my tag. 🙂
We spent hours practicing and checking alignment. Adjusting the equipment and/or technique as required. Then hundreds of shots speed-shooting to be able to hit a tin can without hesitation. It’s kinda like an old west gunfight, speed and accuracy let’s you walk way… except the tins don’t shoot back.
It’s interesting where theory and real world applications meet.
Cheers!
Vana2,
“…exchange of gunfire is unlikely.” There should be NO exchange of gunfire; regardless of the leanings of a countries justice system and Weltanschauung! The engagement needs to end before it becomes an exchange.
Before Night Vision training for night fighting was an interesting endeavor and not many were even moderately good at it. The central area of the field of vision is NOT very usable at night in the human eye. Muzzle Flash is/was almost a certain death sentence for the Night Fighter. Having excellent night vision and training in how to use/preserve the limited amount humans possess was critical. Suppressors can suppress more than just loud BANGS. The addition of Radium or Tritium sights is the point at which it became substantially easier to more rapidly engage an opponent in the dark.
shootski
“IMHO, with any hand held weapon (shotgun, rifle, pistol, bow, slingshot) you should be able to look at (lock on to) your target, close your eyes, raise the weapon, then be aligned, on target and ready to break the shot when you open your eyes.”
Hank, that’s some sound wisdom there. 😉
What do I know, but when faced with a self defense situation, the heart beat starts racing, adrenaline starts pumping, conscious though gets a little iffy and instincts kick in. It’s fight or flight for us regular dudes. In that situation, does anyone really remember to focus on the front sight and take their eyes and focus off the adversary? My niece’s husband’s (Deputy Sheriff) department just switched to red dot sights. Same focus, Dot on the Target.
I tend to agree with Vana2. Practice to hit where you look because when it comes to wingshooting and gunfights, there’s does not seem to be much time for aiming.
Roamin Greco,
You (and every other person who tries to prepare for defensive night engagement) need to go to a range that has minimal light shooting sessions and see what the unsuppressed muzzle flash does to your night vision regardless of your choice of sight system…Red/Green Dot reflex sight, LASER beam, or anything else that exists.
You (and everyone else) do not want to find out immediately after your first shot doesn’t drop your assailant(s) or at least terminate the threat to you or your loved ones. IF you were to find out just don’t forget to TURN ON ALL THE LIGHTS right now!
shootski
PS: The shorter your barrel the greater the muzzle flash typically.
Shootski,
Hence the advantage of a blunt force object… good reach, no loud noise, and no bright flash to disturb your night vision. 🙂
You gotta love a jo-staff for close in work.
Cheers!
Vana2,
A Japanese staff be it long, medium, or short is certainly a prodigious weapon in the hands of a Master. The CRACK it produces when well struck is a classic sound.
It certainly is important to be able to defend your loved ones as well as yourself with various tools of the art.
I however prefer the signature PING! of a metal Tee ball bat bouncing off of the cranium or ribs of a Perp. A full size bat is fine for outside but in confined spaces the smaller bat works like a Bo.
shootski
A bat would legally be considered a weapon, where a walking stick is considered an aid to an old guy with bad knees 😉
That the durable ironwood (hophornbeam) stick is nicely balanced, and just the right length is coincidence… right?
Hank,
My wife gifted me with a nice oak walking stick, 58″ long and about an inch in diameter.
I use it daily, walking the dog through the woods here, both in daylight and after dark.
It is stout, sturdy, and well-balanced.
For an unassuming not-viewed-as-a-weapon item, it makes a handy piece of kit to keep whatever needs to be kept at bay away from yours truly. 😉
Cheers! 🙂
dave
When it comes to attitudes-towards-perps, seems FM and shootski share some DNA in that department. Second that PING sound…now FM remembers why he held on to daughter’s souvenir Miami Marlins aluminum mini-bats, aside from nostalgic value. 😉
I’m installing the clapper on all my house lights!
Roamin Greco,
:^0
shootski
B.B.
This will preach!!!! I’ve always believed everyone should learn open sights, then go to optics if they want. I compare open sights to a manual transmission. It’s becoming an forgotten art. I myself always prefer open sights! But each to his own.
Doc
Unfortunately, seems open/fixed sights are getting scarcer, just as are manual transmissions Doc.
“…open/fixed sights are getting scarcer, just as are manual transmissions…”
FM,
That is so sadly true! My ‘new’ (to me) truck is a 1997 Ford F150 my wife found a year ago on Facebook Marketplace. Its owner had sadly passed away, and his widow kept it in a barn for 10 years before a friend agreed to fix it up for her so she could sell it. Over the phone, she told me many younguns had come to take a look at it, but they passed on it as it had a 5-speed stick shift on the floor, and they couldn’t drive it. Me: “Well I CAN drive it, and I’ll be right over to buy it; thank you!” 🙂
Blessings to you,
dave
P.S. It’s even got roll up windows…love it!
thedavemyster,
You got me in the heart with your PS! “It’s even got roll up windows…love it!”
But Dave does it have electric or vacuum door locks instead of mechanical?
shootski
FawltyManuel,
My wife and i never ever have bought a vehicle without a manual transmission with a REAL 3rd pedal for the clutch!
We have been blessed that all of our offspring have thus far continued the legacy. We hope the grandkids get to be similarly infected with the love of actually being in charge of their vehicles.
shootski
Ditto with FM – the joys of double-clutching a non-synchro transmission and developing anticipatory braking skills when the vehicle is equipped with cable-operated brakes is not to be underestimated either! No worries about window operating mechanisms when you simply remove the windows as needed.
Guys really now, do you think that the clutch is necessary for being in charge of the vehicle we drive? I know of some people who think otherwise; the names Verstappen and Loeb ring any bells?
As much as we may enjoy driving three pedals cars, the clutch is not an asset on a car. Just a step to the future that’s already here some years now.
And before you start shooting at me please note that I drive a 2012 Mini Countryman awd with a manual gearbox that brings a smile to my face every day. Except for the day I had to pay for the new clutch assembly after 100.000 miles… But the smile came back when I left the service station.
Bill,
“…the clutch is not an asset on a car.” Until it is.
Yes i understand that on racetracks a no clutch pedal transmission has advantages that are harder and harder to overcome with each generation of racing transmissions with a manual clutch equiped transmission.
But back to the driving of vehicles in various weather and road surface conditions. The most obvious case were a manual clutch gives better performance by/for an experienced and well trained driver is Winter Driving on packed snow or ice. There are other similar surface conditions in the other seasons as well that can be better dealt with by a manual clutch.
Also my vehicles are all equiped to allow me to selectively shut OFF Traction Control.
shootski
PS: I remember watching the Jim Hall built Chaparral 2J that was powered by an aluminum Chevrolet ZL1 engine, 427 cubic inches and producing 650 horsepower at 7000 RPM. It was paired to a clutchless semi-automatic three-speed transaxle. With a fiberglass resin body, it weighed hardly over 1800 pounds and was so effective it got banned after four races. That was a long time ago.
Ahh the Chaparral! Imagine that with a six or seven gears, manually selected but without clutch. Two pedals so you can use throttle and brake technique… It sounds just like today’s race cars, doesn’t it?
Regarding snow, ice and mud driving, I still believe that a manually select gearbox without clutch provides the driver all the control required leaving out one useless motion for the feet and one less worry for the mind.
Just imagine what they would have thought of a manual transmission with synchronizers only for the top two gears. Lol
I learned to drive a tricycle type tractor, shifting on the fly with no synchronizers, hand clutch and throttle controls.
Mike
bmwsmiley,
Those tractors were fun Mike unless it was really HOT-Humid or COLD-Raining…now you can ride in an enclosed cab with GPS, WIFI, STEREO, AC, Heat, and refrigerator equiped splendor!
Speaking of tricycles: https://highrollerusa.com
shootski
BB,
Talking about open sights and aging eyes reminded me of a set of sights that should only be used by twenty-somethings: the standard sights on a 1911 government model. The front sight is almost there and the rear sight follows right along. As I get older, they seem to get smaller and smaller. I assume that if I get enough age on me, they will disappear altogether!
Bill
billj,
I know a fully loaded 1911 is considered a heavy piece but you really need to stop dragging the top of the slide on the ground; that does make the sights smaller especially the one on the front ;^)
shootski
Shootski,
So, that’s it!?!
Now that I know the cause, I can start working out (with weights) to take care of the problem! ;^)
Thanks.
Bill
While we are off topic, most automatic transmissions are designed to upshift as soon as possible to get the best fuel economy, regardless of your situation. They decide what gear you ‘should ‘ be in, with some advice from the gas pedal position.
Some have an optional slap stick shift to change or remain in the gear you want but you need to go through the gears to get into the one you want.
And then there is the best, a standard stick shift with computer-controlled rev-matching synchronizing the engine speed to match the gear you choose, with the option to turn it off for total driver control.
Just step on the clutch and shift to the gear you want.
It does not however change the car speed. You still need to adjust the gas pedal, engine RPM, to match the speed you are going to be at after the shift for a smooth transition.
On top of that, you can move your car with the starter when your clutch throw-out bearing fails. Thats move, not drive.
Another option for aiming at night, a narrow beam flashlight. Works better with a shotgun. You can shoot from the hip. The idea for the Beam Shot flashlight.
There are Laser beam flashlights, so to speak. They can illuminate the target well but don’t find it like a regular white beam can. They were designed to get around night vision restrictions.
Bob M,
“…but you need to go through the gears to get into the one you want.”
That kind of shifting has a name: Granny Shifting ;^)
shootski
Shootski,
I hear what you say, but Granny Shifting is generally associated with a standard transmission / clutch shifting method.
Automatic transmissions with Electronic Range System ‘ERS’ allow what is simply called a ” Manual Shift Mode’.
But yes, they both go through the gears in the normal up and down sequence without skipping a gear, so I’ll give you a half right there.
Now, if you shift from 2nd gear to 4th gear in a standard gearbox is that Granny Shifting? I’d say no or modified Granny Shifting at best.
It can also be done with an automatic by simply shifting back into the automatic mode at the correct speed. A modified automatic manual shift?