Wide front sight post?

[jimmythegeek]

Ken Roxburgh, USMC (ret) is a well-known coach.  He advocates a wide front sight post, .072" for an AR.   I figure two things:

1) I want a narrow sight post for more precise placement and
2) I'm always wrong. 

Can anyone explain why a wide sight would be better? I bought an .05" "National Match" front sight post.  What do the competitors use?

[olefido]

For precision shooting, I don't know if a wider post is makes any difference. People with more experience in competition could probably tell you. I know one reason the military went with the wider post from the A1 to the A2 is that the narrow post on the A1 was harder to pick up in low light.

[ShiguChan]

I don't know what "the official" reason is, but I find that a wider sight is easier to focus on. This leads to two things:

1.) I'm more likely to actually focus on the front sight
2.) My eye gets less tired from a day of shooting because it's less work to focus on the wider blade

I'd be interested to hear "the official" answer.

[airplanejoe]

There is probably more than one answer to this inquiry. Myself; .072 is what my eyeballs like. I would like to think that military folks eyeballs are a lot younger than mine, so it stands to reason that they could use a thinner post; but they don't; they also use .072. Why; I believe is all about range estimation and BSZ. If the front sight appears equal or narrower than the target (enemy combatant), then center mass aiming would result in a "hit" (BSZ theory). Front sight wider than the target, aiming would now require some kind of compensation. WAG.

High power competitors use .062, .052, .045, .040. So maybe they know something I don't know.

My final answer, for me .072,; every shooter needs to try different widths and find their answer.

aj

[jmdavis]

Actually most high-power competitors use a wide post, generally .062-.072. There are exceptions. I believe that I have posted Roxburgh's advice on this in the VA section of the forums. But the short answer is that it is easier to focus on the wide post. For many people the post is the width of the target at 600 yards and that helps to center one's hold.  It also helps one to avoid focusing on the target or on some middle distance from post to target. Finally it helps to avoid losing the post in the bull when you are shooting a centerhold at 600.

What many people don't realize is that just because you are not focusing on the target does not mean that you are focusing on the front sight when the shot breaks. You may find yourself focusing somewhere in the middle. Focusing in the middle has the same net result as focusing on the target. You will find your shots going around the X ring rather than in it.

If you are in Ohio and game for it, sign up for the Remington Advanced Highpower clinic at Camp Perry. It is 2.5 days, with one day of classroom, and 1.5 days of dryfire range work. You will be coached by some amazing shooters and learn a lot.

http://www.odcmp.com/NM/AdHPClinic.htm

Checkin/Registration is on Aug. 14 and the clinic runs the 15th, 16th and 17th.

http://www.odcmp.com/NM/2014NMCalendar.pdf


The clinic is a dryfire only event, but I believe that is a positive. I took it last year and found that my rapid scores jumped by more than 5 points per stage and my slow prone went up as well.

If anyone has questions about the Remington Clinic, I will be happy to answer what I can. It is not a casual affair. You will be worked for 2.5 days and you will learn things that would otherwise take many years of shooting to learn. It can be exhausting. But I think that it was worth every minute.

[DrRichP]

Practically speaking, the wide front sight post is also helpful in range estimation. I'm pretty sure the wide front sight post, .072" takes up 7 MOA. So if you look through your sights and a 21 inch target takes up the width of your front sight post, you know your target is 300 yards away. If the same 21 inch target takes up ½ the width of your front sight post, you know the target is twice that distance (i.e., 600 yards), and lastly if it is double the size of your front sight post, then the target is 150 yards.

[jmdavis]

With nose to charge handle on a 20" barreled upper, my .072 sight is the width of the target at 600 yards (6 feet), that makes it 12 moa. It's still somewhat useful for range estimation. A .052 front sight is around 7 moa.

Somewhere in the instructor area, both BD and I have posted tools to let you measure YOUR front sight at 25m. You can use these to check your own rifle, and print them out and use them as part of the training for KD to teach people to estimate ranges using their front sights. But, it is always best to measure your own sight to know what it is for you.

[Agrivere]

Such an interesting question, and one that I've pondered many times as well.  What width for the front sight post?

When I first started shooting Highpower matches, not long after my first Appleseed, I started with a .052 front sight post and a 6 O'clock hold.  Didn't actually put much thought into either of those choices at the time, as the .052 front post is what my first service rifle came with, and 6 O'clock hold was more "encouraged" by my Appleseed instructors, so that's what I was used to.

In theory both of these are more precise ways of sighting.  The smaller sight post gives you a more precise sight picture (aim small, miss small), and the 6 O'clock hold ensures precise shot placement as well.

Interestingly, this is one of those things that breaks down when theory meets reality.  I had a great opportunity to shoot and get instruction from the AMU a couple of weeks ago, and as many here know the vast majority of the AMU shooters use the .072 width front sight, and a center mass hold.  Why would this be, if the smaller sight and 6 O'clock hold are more accurate?

As I understand it, it largely has to do with consistency over a wide range of conditions, both external (environmental) conditions, and internal (eye fatigue, exhaustion) conditions.

As others have said, the wider front sight is simply easier to focus on, especially when eyes get tired or lighting is not good.  One thing you'll notice in either of these cases is you'll start to "lose" the corners of the front sight post, either due to low light or eye fatigue.  With a small sight post, you can almost lose the ability to focus on the front sight entirely, especially for those of us with older eyes.  I watched many members of the AMU shoot some amazing scores with their service rifles, so it's hard to argue with the wider sight post.  I still think you could make a valid argument that for a single shot or a few shots (i.e. hunting) the smaller front sight post would be more accurate, and fatigue is likely not an issue, but over the course of a longer engagement or match, the wider front sight post wins for most shooters.

I know you didn't ask about sight picture, but to me this goes hand in hand with the front sight post.  A six o'clock hold allows for a great deal of precision, since you can very precisely align the tip of your post with the bottom of your target.  The problem here lies with consistency, at least for me (and for many shooters, I think).  Everyone's eyes are a bit different of course, but for me as soon as the sun went behind a cloud, my elevation was off (lights up, sights up, as the old saying goes).  Even worse when my eyes started to get tired, as I could no longer align a crisp front sight with the bottom of a blurry target.  The target turned from a blurry silhouette into a fuzzy grey blob.  I can still align my sights with the center of a fuzzy grey blob (or even align them with the target frame if necessary), but I cannot precisely determine where to align my sights on the grey blob when using a six o'clock hold.

I'm sure many people have different experience, but my scores went up 30 points almost overnight when I switched to a center mass hold.  I'm still in the process of learning to use the wider front sight, but I expect it will gain me at least another 5-10 points (on a 500 point course of fire).

[jmdavis]

As long as you have a good position, are relaxed and can keep the top edge of the front sight crisp and in focus. You will shoot well. You might lose some points to wind, but that can be overcome with experience and practice. It is far more disconcerting to lose points to elevation problems at the end of the day at 600.

I spoke with my optometrist the other day. He is triple distinguished (Rifle, Pistol, Revolver). Two years ago, my eyecare plan for shooting days was to wear sunglasses when not actively shooting and to use my shooting glasses on the line. This plan improved my performance, but in the meantime I have had a prescription change. When I shoot practice and walk and paste reduced matches my slow prone scores are in the 90's and high 180's. When I spend 8-10 hours shooting an across the course 80 shot match, those scores drop to the 170's. Since I knew that my eye was always trying to focus (I am far sighted with a mild astigmatism), my theory was that wearing distance correction (with sunshades) should help to keep my aiming eye from becoming as exhausted as it does after a couple of days of matches. He agreed and the new plan is to wear the distance correction (even though it is not required for driving) on and immediately before shooting days. This is a change for someone who had 20/12 vision until he was 47 and is kind of hard to accept. But the bottom line is that if you can't keep that front sight clear, you can't win.

[Agrivere]

I have virtually the same problem, jmdavis, in that I can shoot low-mid 190's on a reduced range match in slow prone, but at 600 yards at the end of an 80 shot match, my eyes just give up and my last 5 or 6 shots seem hopeless, resulting in similar 170's or so at the 600 yard line.  In one recent match my last 7 shots went 10-6-X-6-10-6-6.  I had a crossfire in another recent match because by shot 15 I could no longer read the number boards.

My eyes are a bit younger than yours (46 years they have on them, almost 47), and I'm nearsighted without correction, but the results are similar.  I currently shoot with a +0.25 diopter lens in Bob Jones sights, which makes the front sight nice and crisp.  Currently experimenting with removing that lens, though, to see if it will make any difference, as well as trying out a larger 0.046 aperture in the hopes that more light will lead to less eye fatigue (currently I shoot with a 0.042 aperture).  I'm even considering trying out the Miso sight that Creedmoor offers, as it purports to help a great deal in improving focus on both the front sight and the target.

Anyway, I don't mean to take this thread of track, and maybe we should start another one, but if anyone has any good ideas I haven't thought of for reducing eye fatigue in these situations, I'd love to hear them!

[jmdavis]

We could ask Scuzzy to split it off if other people aren't interested.

[slim]

We could ask Scuzzy to split it off if other people aren't interested.

It's not like anyone's posting about Appleseed anymore. Might as well read about High Power.  At least you guys are talking about something.

[fisherdawg]

We could ask Scuzzy to split it off if other people aren't interested.

Definitely interested, 56 y.o. eyes, couldn't qualify until I went to single vision Rx in Revision Sawflies instead of progressive bifocals, love Marksmanship, HP, Appleseed and Liberty most of all. 

Totally appreciate JM & Agrivere sharing hard-won experience to allow an old noob to improve.

Credilbility of marksmanship & instruction allows us to hit the mark with the harpoon of Heritage & History.

I say leave it here, but I'll read it where ever.

[jmdavis]

Actually slim we are talking about long distance precision shooting with iron sights and the issues that come up when doing such shooting after long days. Highpower merely provides the opportunity to do that shooting.

But, Gunny Hathcock, Alvin York, and Jeff Cooper all made the point multiple times that the stress of competitive shooting was excellent  training for serious shooting.

[slim]

Totally agreed. As stated, at least I'm getting to read about something.

On a semi-related note. When I get those "I have old eyes" noobs out there and they ask what they should do, do you guys recommend going to the doctor or getting an optic? Or both?

[jmdavis]

Bad astigmatism almost always means that they will wind up needing an optic. That was the case with a one of the VA instructors 5 years ago. She knew instruction and shooting, but was unable to advance past IIT4 due to her eyesight keeping her from shooting Rifleman scores. Both VA shooter and I (and her husband) kept trying to convince her to try it with a scope. When she did, her first AQT was a 207 and her new high, the second was a 219. That day was also my first time cleaning the red coat with irons. It was a good day.

The truth is that a scope is the easiest and usually the cheapest correction for eye issues. Particularly if the shooter already has glasses. Shooting glasses can be tricky and take some experimentation. The generally accepted formula for iron sights is to at +.75 to your normal prescription. That works better for some people than others.  I would at least get the person to try a scope. If they are serious enough to want to shoot irons well at distance, then they need to make sure that there current prescription is up to date and if that won't let them see the front sight, they will need to add some positive diopter to it, ranging from +.25 (28+ inch barrels)  to +.75 (AR barrels) depending on barrel length.

But I think an important thing institutionally is to get instructors to stop thinking that shooting a good score with a scope is cheating. For someone with good eyes, it's a wash. For someone with bad eyes being able to see is a big help.

[jmdavis]

Once the person has an up to date prescription, they can try something like the lens frame from Shooting Sight, LLC to figure out what additional power they need to get a hyperfocal focus point for the front sight (~2x the sight radius). The hyperfocal provides a good enough front sight and a good enough target.

http://shop.shootingsight.com/Lenses_c14.htm

[slim]

But I think an important thing institutionally is to get instructors to stop thinking that shooting a good score with a scope is cheating. For someone with good eyes, it's a wash. For someone with bad eyes being able to see is a big help.

I wish I had a dollar for everyone who said, "Yeah, but I want to be able to do it with irons."

[TOMINCT]

 When you have someone on the line and needs some help right then I've advocated a line of white/sub 6 o'clock hold. The front sight doesn't melt into the target and is easily seen unless extreme vision issues are at hand.

[fisherdawg]

When you have someone on the line and needs some help right then I've advocated a line of white/sub 6 o'clock hold. The front sight doesn't melt into the target and is easily seen unless extreme vision issues are at hand.

+1 on Marine Corps" 6 o'clock

I was stubborn about qualifying without a scope. I'm stubborn about shooting irons as long as I can too.

V is a good resource too on this topic re Rx glasses.  No line progressive bifocals -- very common after after age 45 just won't cut it on irons, so either let them know they need adaptation via shooting glasses or scope, or at least "many people" have found that to be true.

[jmdavis]

If they can't clearly see the top edge of the sight, I can guarantee that line of white or six o'clock won't fix it. I wish it would. But one reason many older shooters move to a centerhold is that if you are holding in the center with a zeroed rifle, you are shooting in the black. This starts to break at 600 though.

I can offer one piece of advice for that situation and it can work if there is good light. I was shooting a match a few months ago, and on around shot 10 at 600 everything started going south FAST with a 7 followed by another 7. I closed my eyes and rested them for a minute. I was still losing the target but the front sight was ok. I remembered then something that VA shooter had told me about shooting irons at 1,000 yards. He said that when he was doing it in the Navy (and with young eyes) sometimes when the front sight entered the target, the bull would just disappear in less than 2 seconds. He had to break the shot as soon as he reached respiratory pause.  I tried it that day and wound up shooting my  best score at 600. But the sight was clear and the problem was with the target that day (partially due to mirage).

When the top of the sight get's blurry, there is not much that you can do. You can try to rest your eyes, and that may help a little. But once your eyes are at that point for the day, you aren't going to be able to quickly correct it.

Things you can do to help your vision on a long day.

1. Drink lots of water, start hydrating a couple of days before you plan to shoot. According to a Navy Chief Corpsman from the Fleet Matches, you should have to take a wizz at every yard line. If you don't you are not drinking enough. I try to have drunk at least 3 liters of water before I shoot 600 yards in an Across the Course match.

2. Rest your eyes by looking out at the grass with your eyes at infinity.

3. Breath to keep enough oxygen to see well.

4. protect your eyes with sunglasses and glasses. The less the eye has to work all day, the better your vision will be. For me this will mean wearing bifocals or a distance prescription all day and the day before (with flip down sun shades).

5. See your eye doctor at least once per year.

6. Don't give up

[AFTERMATH]

But I think an important thing institutionally is to get instructors to stop thinking that shooting a good score with a scope is cheating. For someone with good eyes, it's a wash. For someone with bad eyes being able to see is a big help.

I wish I had a dollar for everyone who said, "Yeah, but I want to be able to do it with irons."

I wish I had a dollar for everyone who gave up on irons, when that wasn't their problem.

It usually is the folks, who actually have poor vision, that want to stick with irons the most.
Typically, they're older and carry a little more grit and determination.

But still there are those who can see .22cal holes at 25m and their fingerprint at FS distances who feel they can't do it with irons.  Simply because they can do it better with a scope.


Very good info here!

[jmdavis]

Regardless of how much someone wants to use irons, the fact is that there are some people who's eyes just aren't going to let them shoot well with the short radius of an AR and post sights. As I noted earlier, Azwildcat2001 could not get a rifleman score until she switched to a scope. She tried for more than a year. But even with glasses she saw either 2 front sights or 2 targets. That is what astigmatism will do to you.

My astigmatism is mild, -.5 cylinder, but it still makes it very difficult to get really good front sight focus when I get to 600 yards after a long day of shooting. At this point, between vision exams and glasses, I have $1,370 in trying to see well enough with conventional service rifle irons sights to be competitive in high power and the Excellence in Competition program. And that is with mild astigmatism and a triple distinguished optometrist. In order to be competitive, I need to see the front sight well enough to average 1 to 1.5 moa groups from prone at 600 yards for 20 individual shots.

You have to see the front sight clearly enough to focus on the top edge. If you can't you need to get your eyes checked. If it is simply presbyopia, the fix is not expensive a +.5 to +.75 diopter lens will do it. If you have mild astigmatism it is more difficult but still doable. But it will take some work.  If you have severe astigmatism, you can still succeed with irons, but the cost in time and eye care may be significant.

[OutaAmmo]

I went to a .72 front sight on my AR 15 which helped a lot shooting high power for my 64 year old eyes.  I also got the rear aperture with the largest hole available for my match sights. Helped even more.  I was still having problems with the front sight not as clear as I thought it should be.  I went to my eye doctor with my AR-15 broken down in a gym bag so as not to get his other clients uproar.  He took some measurements with me holding my AR in different positions.  He made me a set of shooting glasses with an +.75 diopter lens built into my glasses for about $130.  This made a really big difference. 

I shoot with Mike at Camp Perry at the National Matches.  Hey Mike, when did you start shooting 1 to 1.5 moa at 600 yards.  Maybe you can give some pointers this year.

OutaAmmo

[jmdavis]

I can only do the 1 to 1.5 with fresh eyes, that is the problem. But that is what it takes to win matches. Last June I managed to do it in a walk and paste which was very cool, I had the top, non-highmaster service rifle score. I played around Spring 2013 shooting .22lr matches at 200 yards with a scope (I was ready to quit high power at that point). That work showed me that it wasn't  my position or fundamentals but rather my eyes that were causing the problem. With the scope and Remington Target .22lr I could consistently shoot 1.5 moa groups at 200 in any winds. And was able to shoot 1 moa on multiple occasions. To confirm that I started shooting the match rifle (aperature sights) some in practice and managed a slow fire clean on the reduced target.

[Big John]

I've shot mid 230s on the AS AQT with my scoped 10-22. I figured I'd go for a challenge and hung a Williams rear aperture
sight on my old Marlin 39-A and slung up a spare stock I had, and off to an AS I went. 190s or worse, plus I hadn't been shooting
lately. I got occasional stovepipes, about once a AQT, and I figure the old rifle needs a spring kit as it lived a hard life with
the previous owner. Trigger could use some help, and flipping the lever didn't help the npoa much.

As for sights, I had two issues. I left the Marlin stock front on there, which is a small round bead on a narrow blade. Hard to
focus, like said already on this thread, and hard to distinguish as well. It's sort of a patinaed rust brown, like the rest of the rifle is.
I don't particularly want to change it, but I may put a bright orange paint pen marker on it. Also, there is the relevant six oclock hold
factor, which changes as the targets scale.

I like the conversation, I may have the worst eyesight here, I run a -8.5 power contact in my shooting eye, and -6 in the other one.
Born with strabismus (crossed eyes), I got surgery for that at 1 year of age, so I'm missing a couple muscles pairs. Fortunately, I
have no astigmatism, and, while my vision is horrible, it's just simply horrible, not horribly complicated. Give me enough nearsightedness
correction and a bottle of eyedrops, and I'm good to go.

[jmdavis]

Does that 39a have the gold bead or is it just steel. If it is steel you could smoke it to get more contrast. But it may be that you have minute of squirrel rather than minute of aqt sights. A 190 with a lever gun is still pretty good. Good luck.

[Big John]

Neither. It appears to be a sight that formerly held a gold bead. I think it's time for a daub of paint pen.

[AdobeWalls]

I'm 62 now. In Apr 2010 I took my 16yo boy to Gainesville FL to our first Appleseed event. I had set up two Ruger 10/22s identically, except mine had a Tasco 1.5-9x variable scope, his had Tech-Sights. I shot two Rifleman scores at 25m and 100yds, earned a patch. Prouder of that than my law degree (no surprise, eh). I used the scope at 4x all through the event, and still use that setting 5yrs later which seems to work perfectly for me. On the ride home, he told me, "You know I think you were cheating, using a scope." The next month, I shot a Rifleman score on the AQT with his iron sight rifle, but it was not so easy. Two years later I could not duplicate that, and finally realized I could not sharply focus on the iron front sight. Bought a Garand from CMP. Went to the Walmart optometrist, told him I wanted glasses that corrected my focus at the distance to the front sight (my wife had helped me measure it while I was dry firing, gotta love her forever). Optometrist picked up a wooden yardstick, taped a kitchen match upside down at that precise distance. I put it to my cheek. The first lens he put in front of me was the correct lens, though he tried one or two more. I had a corrective lens made for my trigger side eye, no correction in the support eye, both polycarbonate, re-used a set of old frames. I have no other vision problem (just lucky, not pious). One of these days I will need a modification. Traded the Garand for a DPMS AP4 7.62NATO. This past Friday I discovered the front sight is 12MOA, I measured it on the Squares target paper. I think that's too much for shooting 4MOA squares at 25m, so I've ordered a finer front sight, and will continue that process until I find one that works for me, they aren't expensive, and I sort of enjoy zeroing rifles. I'm grateful people are writing on this thread about this topic. My vision situation is simple, but may not stay that way forever. My eyesight might improve! Heck, I may even make it to Heaven in spite of my profession. Just saying.

[jmdavis]

12 moa is good for squares and better for round targets and the aqt. The square will occupy the middle third with a center hold and make a nice top to the post with a 6 o'clock. But if you don't like it, you don't like it.

The first "wide" sights I ever heard of were used by the Marines on their match conditioned 1903's. They won a lot of championships in those days on the old 5v targets. M1 sights seem to range from 7-12 moa with the National Match Sights being on the wide end.  For AR's NM sights could range from .040-.072 or bigger.