PDA

View Full Version : Iron Sights - Point of Aim - Point of Impact, 6 O'clock Hold, Combat Sights, etc.



chosos
04-09-2014, 10:09 AM
This was something that confused me early on, and now that we have an optics forum, I wanted to discuss the topic to read some of your thoughts.

My first pistol was a 2nd Gen Glock 23 that I shot exceptionally well. When I first moved from that G23 to a SIG SP2022 (which I love), one of the major things I noticed was that I was still trying to shoot it exactly the same as my G23, and I shot it horribly compared to my G23! I wasn't doing anything different, so how could that be?

My Glock was set up for a Center hold, which means my bullet would impact right above the top of my front sight. This was great for impressing myself with my own accuracy at the range. It turns out, my Sig came from the factory set up with combat style sights. Like an idiot, I figured that just meant they were a more rugged sight and that if I line it up, it'll shoot the same. Wrong.

http://pistol-training.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/sightimages.jpg

My G23 was set up to shoot using sight picture #2.
My SIG SP2022 was set up to shoot using sight picture #3.
I don't think I own anything that shoots #1.

Why the difference you ask?
Sight Image #1 was designed for target shooting. It allows for precise aiming, generally at a static target, so it works well for that purpose.

In the field, or even in self-defense, you may have to shoot from multiple ranges, at targets of varying size/shape.

I am faster on target with a combat sight picture, but I seem to always sacrifice a little of my accuracy for that extra speed. At the range, I prefer a 6 O'clock hold, because it lets me see my point of impact in relation to my point of aim (so I know if I screwed the shot). I feel like it helps me work on my fundamentals.

If I take my SP2022 or even something with a set of those XS Big Dot sights, I tend to group my shots a little worse, because I'm basically covering up my target with the dot on the front sight. If I send my target to the back of the indoor range, a set of XS Big dots cover the entire paper target as I lob lead down range.

I see value in both, but I think I still prefer 6 O'clock over Combat style sights, since most of my time is still at the range.

For Reference, we'll borrow our terminology from CMP.
http://www.odcmp.org/0907/default.asp?page=USAMU_SIGHTPICTURE


Sight Image #1 6 O’clock – With the 6 O’clock hold the front sight is placed at the bottom of the aiming black. For many shooters, this hold allows precision placement of the front sight. The ability to accurately call your shots will come with time and experience. Light changes, which alter the appearance of the target, may affect shooters who utilize the 6 O’clock hold.


Sight Image #2 Center Hold – With a center hold the front sight placed directly in the center of the target. A center hold is great in different light conditions. On a bright day the target appears small. On a dark day the target appears large. In these different light conditions the center of the target is always in the center. A shooter who has problems with elevation shots in various light conditions may benefit from a center hold.


Sight Image #3 Frame Hold (Combat Sights) – With the frame hold, just like with the other holds, the front sight is in the center of the rear sight. The front sight can then be placed at the 6 or 12 O’clock position on the frame when there is no visible aiming point. This hold is typically reserved for foul weather and poor light conditions. By placing the front sight at the top or bottom of the frame, a shooter may hold better when there is little target to see. It can be difficult to hold a tight group this way, but it may add more hits in bad conditions. This technique is normally applied when shooting longer ranges such 600 or 1000 yards (rifles).


Sub 6 Hold – The sub 6 is just like the 6 O’clock hold, only there is a small line of white between the front sight and the aiming black. Many shooters have a problem determining the exact 6 O’clock position with their front sight, but by using a sub 6 or line of white they may be able to better estimate their hold.

What are your thoughts?

dhrith
04-09-2014, 11:56 AM
You're either confused with what you understand, or how you wrote it. Based on your paragraph 3.
#1 Is a 6 o'clock hold, , works great known size target known (possibly more accurate to say constant) distance.
#2 is what you should be using. "COM hold" , "Bullseye hold" I almost hesitate to use that because it to me is just asking to confuse with #1 which is for...."bullseye shooting"
#3, covering my target so I can't see it? ****ing stupid. Barely functional shorter distances, retardness apparent at longer.
It's functional for quick short range running and gunning but why potentially impose a hinderance for any potential longer distance shot.

chosos
04-09-2014, 12:08 PM
You're either confused with what you understand, or how you wrote it. Based on your paragraph 3.
#1 Is a 6 o'clock hold, , works great known size target known (possibly more accurate to say constant) distance.
#2 is what you should be using.
#3, covering my target so I can't see it? ****ing stupid. Barely functional shorter distances, retardness apparent at longer.

You're partially right. The problem - All 3 of those pictures/terms are incorrectly interchanged pretty frequently. I've heard 6 O'clock hold lumped with both image #1 and image #2, since you're aiming "6 O'clock low" below the point of impact. I'm going to update the initial post to reference CMP's terminology. Hopefully that removes some of the confusion.

I believe #2 and #3 to be the most common. My G23 was set up for #2. I think #1 is used for Bullseye shooters like you said, and it often takes a front / rear sight adjustment / change. Actually anyone can change the point of aim / impact with a sight change, so if you buy a SIG and want it shoot using a Center hold, you can change your front or rear sight height.

#3 is a typical SIG & HK sight picture - it is fully functional for the intended purpose of those firearms. I'm not sure if suppressor sights are still set up for combat sight pictures. I own 3 SIG pistols, all 3 are set the same way from the factory.

Your comment is actually the purpose for this topic though.

TomE
04-09-2014, 01:04 PM
I use #2 for the G19,CM9,CW9 and Security Six. I also put the FSB at center hold. I like to KISS

JDG
04-09-2014, 02:48 PM
I hate Sigs with that combat sight picture.....
I prefer #2
#1 is dumb, as different target sizes will need to held over or under.

usmcpaul
04-10-2014, 07:23 AM
#3, covering my target so I can't see it? ****ing stupid. Barely functional shorter distances, retardness apparent at longer.
It's functional for quick short range running and gunning but why potentially impose a hinderance for any potential longer distance shot.

Since the OP is referencing advice from one of the best shooting teams in the world (the Army Marksmanship Unit or AMU), you may want to rethink your wording. Better yet, if you don't believe me, go to Camp Perry this year and shoot along side them and then get back with me. I think you'll understand why after a match or two.

I have shot along side the AMU many times, and to say they are incredibly good is an understatement of the highest magnitude.

To anyone else reading the referenced article, it is almost as good as the Word of God, so pay very close attention to it.

Oreo57
04-10-2014, 06:52 PM
I've never liked combat sights. You're sacrificing precision across the board for incrementally better (read: negligibly better) accuracy under pressure.

Also, Glock's current sight picture is more like the second image below:

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT6BX6-Jej0_25qL2qIbnJ9MRy1lt_D0D9nfeAC85eS0uCNCZU1GA

If you "build a castle" point of aim and point of impact meet at 10ish yards. If you put the dot in the box, it's out further.

dhrith
04-10-2014, 09:48 PM
Since the OP is referencing advice from one of the best shooting teams in the world (the Army Marksmanship Unit or AMU), you may want to rethink your wording. Better yet, if you don't believe me, go to Camp Perry this year and shoot along side them and then get back with me. I think you'll understand why after a match or two.

I have shot along side the AMU many times, and to say they are incredibly good is an understatement of the highest magnitude.

To anyone else reading the referenced article, it is almost as good as the Word of God, so pay very close attention to it.

#1 The referenced link was for purposes of terminology.
#2 When we started the post, that link wasn't present however his references to his two pistols were and the picture.
#3 While the AMU is a premiere training AND shooting unit, with some fantastic shooters. Most of their work is long gun oriented, with what I would humbly argue a 50/50 split between line work and real world work. Everything in the link, is referencing long gun line work. The closest relevant paragraph to picture three is this one

Frame Hold – With the frame hold, just like with the other holds, the front sight is in the center of the rear sight. The front sight can then be placed at the 6 or 12 O’clock position on the frame when there is no visible aiming point. This hold is typically reserved for foul weather and poor light conditions. By placing the front sight at the top or bottom of the frame, a shooter may hold better when there is little target to see. It can be difficult to hold a tight group this way, but it may add more hits in bad conditions. This technique is normally applied when shooting longer ranges such 600 or 1000 yards. The reason it works is because you have known, constant sized targets and a static distance. In a real world civilian or hell, ....combat situation none of this is true.

SO, again I'll give them their kudos when due as it relates to the application of a long gun. It however has little relevance with a pistol from 3-100yds.

You can even find the closest relevant GENERAL comment in their own first paragraph.

Which is correct? There are a myriad of sight picture options that shooters have used to great effect over the years. The sight picture that allows you to consistently shoot the smallest group, with a minimal shift in zeros, is the correct one. In the next few paragraphs we will explore a few of the more commonly used sight picture options. Remember, for any shooter to be successful, consistent sight picture must be complemented by front sight focus and sight alignment.

Keep in mind when the OP started this he directly quoted his two pistols so, perhaps erroneously, I assumed it was for what he was asking knowledge on. If you want to through in "general knowledge", or "long guns", or "line work at perry" ...;p in the bag we can indeed expand it and clarify.

dhrith
04-10-2014, 10:02 PM
OH,
..and much like everything thing else in life and with ....<cough> ...the bible
....metaphorically speaking----> http://www.odcmp.org/0907/default.asp?page=USAMU_SIGHTPICTURE

6. A way to increase your concentration on the sight is to use a blinder. By relaxing the non-firing eye and lowering the light from sides, your firing eye will be more relaxed. Besides who wants to see the guy moving around next to them? Also, wear a hat.


If you clear a structure at night.......with a blinder.....in order to increase your concentration...because USMCPAUL says THIS IS THE GOSPEL!!! You might just deserve to be shot.
So don't take the gospel out of ......context. ;p

wsr
04-10-2014, 10:17 PM
You're either confused with what you understand, or how you wrote it. Based on your paragraph 3.
#1 Is a 6 o'clock hold, , works great known size target known (possibly more accurate to say constant) distance.
#2 is what you should be using. "COM hold" , "Bullseye hold" I almost hesitate to use that because it to me is just asking to confuse with #1 which is for...."bullseye shooting"
#3, covering my target so I can't see it? ****ing stupid. Barely functional shorter distances, retardness apparent at longer.
It's functional for quick short range running and gunning but why potentially impose a hinderance for any potential longer distance shot.

How much of your target do you need to see? XS Big, dots which are huge cover around 4" at 25yrds and a little less than a inch a 7 yards

usmcpaul
04-11-2014, 07:49 AM
Dhrith, I was not trying to flame you. I was simply pointing out that your #3 was a little harsh considering it does have its merits in certain situations. I am sorry if you thought I was attacking you, I was not.

If I thought the OP was strictly talking about pistol shooting then I would have referenced this instead http://www.bullseyepistol.com/amucover.htm (http://www.bullseyepistol.com/amucover.htm)

When I read his thread, he only referenced the "Rifle Team" section so that is why I made that comment, my comment was not intended to start something.

usmcpaul
04-11-2014, 08:15 AM
On the lighter side of things...

OP, these links have some good links to videos that might be of better value (pistol wise that is)


http://www.shootingusa.com/PRO_TIPS/USAMU2/usamu2.html

http://www.shootingusa.com/PRO_TIPS/USAMU/usamu.html

dhrith
04-11-2014, 02:43 PM
No sweat. ......I probably poked back harder than I needed. ;p

This biggest confusion no doubt came from both of us updating our respective posts midway through and altering original intent and response both.

dhrith
04-11-2014, 03:02 PM
How much of your target do you need to see? XS Big, dots which are huge cover around 4" at 25yrds and a little less than a inch a 7 yards

You tell me?

Everything is situational.

Keep in mind after chasing someone around a block (LEO of course, ***scenario off the top of my head***) You're group sizes are going to roughly what???? Double? How about in the dark? Again, ......a doubling?
Would you rather go from 0" to 4"? (A good chance to still hit a head/arm poking around a corner firing back) or 4" to 8" (A good chance to miss the same thing)

I endeavor to not say "good enough" as infrequently as I can. The closer to perfection I, no pun intended, shoot for, ultimately the more cushion I have on the back end for things/elements/situations unseen.

We talk about COM all the time, but don't forget situations out of the blue like hollywood where someone might be, let's say, armored up and you might be looking for a more precise, let's say ocular shot.

Caliper
04-11-2014, 04:24 PM
#1 is dumb, as different target sizes will need to held over or under.

You are right about the 6:00 hold being tailored for one target, but it is not dumb. A 6:00 hold will give smaller group sizes especially on a black target where your black sights can get lost in the targets. You are also able to get a more precise hold because you are not blocking any of the target with your sights. Most match shooters (talking bullseye or high power here) will use a 6:00 hold for that reason.

wsr
04-11-2014, 06:53 PM
You tell me?

Everything is situational.

Keep in mind after chasing someone around a block (LEO of course, ***scenario off the top of my head***) You're group sizes are going to roughly what???? Double? How about in the dark? Again, ......a doubling?
Would you rather go from 0" to 4"? (A good chance to still hit a head/arm poking around a corner firing back) or 4" to 8" (A good chance to miss the same thing)

I endeavor to not say "good enough" as infrequently as I can. The closer to perfection I, no pun intended, shoot for, ultimately the more cushion I have on the back end for things/elements/situations unseen.

We talk about COM all the time, but don't forget situations out of the blue like hollywood where someone might be, let's say, armored up and you might be looking for a more precise, let's say ocular shot.

the "combat sight" hold is not less accurate...it may be less precise, but only in certain instances like target shooting or when the the sight is bigger than the target you are trying to shoot
The precision difference looks worse when the sight pictures are imposed on a target with a bull vs the sight pictures imposed over a blank silhouette

a example would be a head shot at 25yrds with big dots...you put a 4" dot in the middle of the head [roughly the same amount of head showing around the dot

dhrith
04-11-2014, 09:29 PM
the "combat sight" hold is not less accurate...it may be less precise, but only in certain instances like target shooting or when the the sight is bigger than the target you are trying to shoot
The precision difference looks worse when the sight pictures are imposed on a target with a bull vs the sight pictures imposed over a blank silhouette

a example would be a head shot at 25yrds with big dots...you put a 4" dot in the middle of the head [roughly the same amount of head showing around the dot

I articulated that whole thing rather poorly, but you clearly see where my comments are relevant in application. Precision is actually a MUCH better word.
...and if you carry your last statement out to it's logical conclusion , at 50 yds you see no head (using your numbers, I don't use/have the sites to go outside and do some actual measuring), above 50 yds you don't even have a reference. That should clearly show how hard it would be to apply it(sighting style). Is it likely to be common? Of course not. But why set yourself up when there are more relevant choices. Sighting method two, can ALWAYS be used. Kind of like owning a GT40 and putting a 55MPH governer on it.

Only you and each individual can decide how often it might be relevant for you and in conclusion how much importance you want to give it.

wsr
04-11-2014, 10:21 PM
I articulated that whole thing rather poorly, but you clearly see where my comments are relevant in application. Precision is actually a MUCH better word.
...and if you carry your last statement out to it's logical conclusion , at 50 yds you see no head (using your numbers, I don't use/have the sites to go outside and do some actual measuring), above 50 yds you don't even have a reference. That should clearly show how hard it would be to apply it(sighting style). Is it likely to be common? Of course not. But why set yourself up when there are more relevant choices. Sighting method two, can ALWAYS be used. Kind of like owning a GT40 and putting a 55MPH governer on it.

Only you and each individual can decide how often it might be relevant for you and in conclusion how much importance you want to give it.

I don't think trying to optimize a self defense handgun for 50yard + head shots is a more relevant choice

Assuming your pistol is sighted in at 25 yards, at 50 yards your bullet has dropped 2" give or take [9mm] so you would have to use the "combat sight" picture

You only get the precision that you are talking about at one range [give or take five yards] anything outside of that and the bullets are not impacting at the top of the front sight

dhrith
04-12-2014, 11:51 PM
I don't think trying to optimize a self defense handgun for 50yard + head shots is a more relevant choice

Assuming your pistol is sighted in at 25 yards, at 50 yards your bullet has dropped 2" give or take [9mm] so you would have to use the "combat sight" picture

You only get the precision that you are talking about at one range [give or take five yards] anything outside of that and the bullets are not impacting at the top of the front sight

Optimization is a pretty big stretch. I consider it....Just making it flat out possible. Unlikely? Sure I'll give you that. Everything we do and why we do it is "statistically" unlikely. But we do it anyways because the risk isn't against a $5 bet. It's potentially against our, and our loved ones lives.

No, actually you're wrong here again. What I would do is put my aiming "point" on his fore head or sternal notch respectively. e.g. Something someone using aiming style 3 would only be able to guess at. These shots might not be likely, but as Hollywood shows, DO come up. I for example live out in the country. If I'm out in the barn and some hood rats come down the drive at some speed running from cops or looking to do a home invasion. I'd like to be able to keep them from getting to or into the house where all my precious stuff is. Anyone living on a farm can quickly and easily see those ranges on that three legged triangle of me, house, hood rats can easily be 50-75 yds.

Correct, BUT the difference is I can actually see what and where I need to put that magical POA on to get them to drop onto what I want, exactly where I want.
For style 3 you're trying to use Dot of aim/Dot of impact at best.

The simple fact is I have yet to encounter a tier one trainer or unit that teaches that sighting method. That should tell you something.

What I find humorous is a VERY similar thread on the sig site mirroring ours.
http://sigforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/430601935/m/1300022843/p/11

This is all I had the energy to find on M4C
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?85004-Pistol-Point-of-Aim-Point-of-Impact

The hide
http://forum.snipershide.com/snipers-hide-side-arms-k-bars/244692-preferred-pistol-sight-picture.html

This is a good guy and his site has some good comments/input.
http://pistol-training.com/archives/1361


In the end I just don't have a dog in the hunt which you use. I've provided all the input and info I care to spend time looking up and you can keep or discard which parts you want. I wish you the best both with your training and life in general. cheers

MI-1911
04-13-2014, 01:03 AM
XS Big Dots were never intended for accuracy. They are for fast sight acquisition, and close combat. They are perfect for that application, and one of my favorites. The sight picture should look like this when using them:

JDG
04-13-2014, 08:05 AM
You are right about the 6:00 hold being tailored for one target, but it is not dumb. A 6:00 hold will give smaller group sizes especially on a black target where your black sights can get lost in the targets. You are also able to get a more precise hold because you are not blocking any of the target with your sights. Most match shooters (talking bullseye or high power here) will use a 6:00 hold for that reason.

Dumb was not the right choice of word...

No factory fixed sight gun would use it, but adjustable target sights, for a specific target is a good application.

wsr
04-13-2014, 08:08 AM
Optimization is a pretty big stretch. I consider it....Just making it flat out possible. Unlikely? Sure I'll give you that. Everything we do and why we do it is "statistically" unlikely. But we do it anyways because the risk isn't against a $5 bet. It's potentially against our, and our loved ones lives.

No, actually you're wrong here again. What I would do is put my aiming "point" on his fore head or sternal notch respectively. e.g. Something someone using aiming style 3 would only be able to guess at. These shots might not be likely, but as Hollywood shows, DO come up. I for example live out in the country. If I'm out in the barn and some hood rats come down the drive at some speed running from cops or looking to do a home invasion. I'd like to be able to keep them from getting to or into the house where all my precious stuff is. Anyone living on a farm can quickly and easily see those ranges on that three legged triangle of me, house, hood rats can easily be 50-75 yds.

You are talking about using "Kentucky elevation" for lack of a better term, and it is and that can just as easily be applied to guns sighted in either way. All it takes is shooting you gun at different ranges

So you need to be able to get head shots at 50-75yds to keep people out of your house?

Correct, BUT the difference is I can actually see what and where I need to put that magical POA on to get them to drop onto what I want, exactly where I want.
For style 3 you're trying to use Dot of aim/Dot of impact at best.

So if you know your gun is 2" low at 50yds and I know mine is 3" low at 50" why cant I get mine to drop "exactly where I want" like you???


The simple fact is I have yet to encounter a tier one trainer or unit that teaches that sighting method. That should tell you something.

Really silly to get into the who uses what argument but...
I know of at least one TIER 1 unit that uses sig 226's and just got HK45c's care to guess how those manufactuers sight their guns???
What I find humorous is a VERY similar thread on the sig site mirroring ours.
http://sigforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/430601935/m/1300022843/p/11

This is all I had the energy to find on M4C
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?85004-Pistol-Point-of-Aim-Point-of-Impact

The hide
http://forum.snipershide.com/snipers-hide-side-arms-k-bars/244692-preferred-pistol-sight-picture.html

This is a good guy and his site has some good comments/input.
http://pistol-training.com/archives/1361

While I appreciate the effort is there anything of substance in the first three links besides other people discussing the same?
As far as ToddG you might want to read the link you posted he doesn't exactly make you case

In the end I just don't have a dog in the hunt which you use. I've provided all the input and info I care to spend time looking up and you can keep or discard which parts you want. I wish you the best both with your training and life in general. cheers

LOL... passive/aggressive and dismissive all at once, well done
live long and prosper

chosos
04-14-2014, 06:26 AM
Guys, can we lighten this up a bit? The whole intent was merely to make newer shooters aware that there are differences in the factory sight pictures. I was referencing my personally owned pistols, because i can personally attest that different pistols come from the factory with various sight pictures. While pistols were mentioned, sight picture still applies to rifles, as well. I referenced CMP only for the terminology. I also edited my original post to use that exact terminology to eliminate the confusion.