Sight Picture
16-Apr-09 – 12:25 by ToddGTalk to a few shooters, and you’ll hear a lot of terms to describe the proper sight picture. Talk to enough shooters, though, and you’ll hear those same terms used to mean different things for different people. That makes discussing a proper sight picture pretty complicated.
A regular contributor on SIGforum who goes by the screen name NavyGuy put together this excellent graphic:
Some people prefer a “6 o’clock hold.” Which one of the above images is that? Depending on who you ask, it could be #1 or #2.
Others shoot for “point of aim = point of impact.” Which one of the above images represents that? Depending on who you ask, it could be #2 or #3.
How do you think gun companies zero their guns? One guy will tell you that a company uses #2, another will tell you it’s #3. Setting aside the fact that half the pistol manufacturers no longer bother to test fire or zero their pistols (especially the ones going to the commercial non-law enforcement market), I’m not sure how people come to these conclusions. I’ve worked for two different major handgun manufacturers and both would produce guns that sometimes got hits with #2, and others with #3. Why? Because the difference is so slight that it falls within the acceptable margin of error during the testing, and because the companies didn’t have a formal method for testing.
For the record, #2 is the traditional “action shooting” sight picture that most experienced people refer to when saying point of aim = point of impact.
Personally, I’ve been using #3 (which I’ve always called driving the dot) for a decade. When I worked at SIG, the SIG Academy also taught this as an alternative for fast short-range work; Dir. of Training George Harris refers to it as float the dot & shoot the shot. In theory it should be less precise, but I’ve used it to hit targets at long range (<50yd) with a pistol many times.
Which do you use?
Train hard & stay safe! ToddG
22 Responses to “Sight Picture”
I use #2.
#1 looks like it might be OK if you’re bullseye shooting the same targets every day, but you can’t guarantee there’s always going to be a prominent marker exactly six inches below where you want to hit, or however far down you’ve zeroed it to.
#3 seems a reasonable alternative, but not all of my guns have dots on the sights, so I naturally always gone with #2.
By Paul on Apr 16, 2009
I try and have all my handguns sighted in for #2
By G34Shooter on Apr 16, 2009
#2 — I don’t like dots on the rear site because my eye naturally seems to focus on them instead of the front site. When I push for speed I think I revert a little more towards 3.
By LOKNLOD on Apr 16, 2009
I use #2, but I plan on experimenting with #3 now.
By The_Katar on Apr 16, 2009
My sight picture looks most like #3. I used to shoot pretty well with three dot sights, but I’ve gone away from that to black rear sights and dots or tritium up front. It’s much easier to focus on one thing, rather than trying to focus on one thing that looks like two other things, except that the one thing looks smaller because it’s farther away.
On my current favorite, an MnP 9mm FS, I had the Novak rear replaced with a 10-8 Performance unit that is the HEAT! I didn’t think that “U” shaped notch would make that much of a difference, but it really is faster. I recommend the heck out of ‘em.
By Haji on Apr 16, 2009
Started out at #1 30 years ago, mostly shooting Bullseye. Went thru a strange and sloppy period where I did #1 and #2 depending on what kind of shooting I was doing, and I only shoot #2 now.
By Steve on Apr 16, 2009
I have always used number 3 as if looking thru a scope where the target is on the center, but I will experiment with #2 to see if it will help me improve my time, the dots at the rear can be confusing. IF it doesnt work I will try covering the rear dots first
By Maraf on Apr 16, 2009
I use #2 if I have time, or distance… and # 3 if I have neither.
By citius on Apr 17, 2009
I grew up using the traditional 6 o’clock hold (#1), and still think it is very versatile at handgun velocities and ranges. However, I now prefer #2 for fighting pistols. Although I find #3 very frustrating for slow fire precision work, and am encountering it increasingly on the newer SIGs and HK P2000s, I have found it to be very intuitive at the very close ranges encountered in IDPA/USPSA. All in all, #2 is the most practical for me, presuming a 25-yard zero, where engaging closer targets effectively translate to a #3 sight picture as the bullet’s trajectory is still shy of the top of the front sight blade. Every handgun should have a practical and predictable trajectory to 50-yards, where I want the bullet to strike above the front sight blade, not under it.
Tim
By Timothy Slemp on Apr 18, 2009
I prefer #2 and try to setup all my guns that way.
By KevH on Apr 19, 2009
Good post. Thanks for breaking it down.
By Blurboy on Apr 20, 2009
I seem to switch between #2 and #3 depending on the lighting. The white rings around my tritium capsules aren’t thick or vivid, so when things are bright to mid twilight, I end up using #2. When it’s dark enough (around me: the target is still illuminated enough to identify, ie. Using a flashlight) I use #3.
By Mort on Apr 20, 2009
I am starting to use #3 now, especially on “2 dot” and “1 dot” sighting systems ala Warren Tactical and 10-8. The Army taught me #2 back in the day on the M9, though when I left the Army most of the trainers were teaching #3. My Springfield 1911 shoots low with #2 and hit dead on with #3 at 10 yards, YMMV.
By decodeddiesel on Apr 20, 2009
I think every make still has a tendency to favor one sight picture over another. There will be variation but it will be centered around some median value.
By Ariel Weisberg on Apr 21, 2009
#3 has always been the way I shoot. I use it at all distances with my pistols.
By Rob E on Apr 23, 2009
I prefer number 2…but what I’ve found is that variations in lighting can dramatically effect the sight picture I need. For instance: Glock 17 using Warren Tactical sights and 124 grain Blazer Brass FMJ ammo. On the indoor range near my home I have to use sight picture number 1 to hit the X. On an outdoor range in say South Hill Virginia in the sunlight, I can use sight picture number 2 and hit the X.
By John_Wayne777 on Apr 24, 2009
JW777 — Must be all those photons forcing your bullets downward when you’re shooting outdoors.
By ToddG on Apr 24, 2009
I have always used #2. I think covering a large part of my target with the front sight as would be done in #3 is not helpful. So for me it all comes down to seeing as much of my target as possible. However, as pointed out, the difference between #2 & #3 in actual point of impact is less than the best group size the pistol can produce.
By David on Oct 2, 2009
LOL. I have always preferred #3. I think it is just because the HK pistols I grew up on were sighted that way. I always thought I was doing it the wrong way– but didn’t care.
By Greg Bell on Dec 13, 2009
Remember the reason for the different aiming and sight picture techniques…..#1 is an old school technique used for adjustable sights positioned to hit center where the shooter always knows that by shooting at 6 o’clock he can see where his hits will be made…..shoot for bottom of black bulls-eye and you will hit center….sights were adjusted for that shooting…..this would not work for a point of aim point of impact sighted gun…..you would always end up shooting at 6 o’clock….low…also useful if shooting long distances when taking into consideration the that at a certain distance the bullet travels high and then slowly drops…old method when people were shooting from longer distances knowing the bullet rises then drops…..#2 is most accurate and useful with most of today’s combat fixed sight handguns, which are almost all set to point of aim point of impact…..#3 is where people miss the idea…..the dots were not designed for accuracy and aiming at all….they were designed for quick acquisition of sights in combat situations…..look for the dots line them up and pull (squeeze) the trigger knowing you will hit center mass…..not designed for target shooting because you will most likely always shoot high….not to mention you will not hit what you are aiming for but always above it……best way for al practical purposes is to shoot using method #2 …..cut your target in half using the straight line made from the top of your front sights to the top of your rear sights and squeeze the trigger…..always placing your hits where you aimed…..for those who have problems…..try using what I think is my technique unless someone else created it…..I teach my students to slowly say the word squeeze as they are aiming and squeezing the trigger……take a deep breath and as you press or squeeze the trigger you slowly say the word squuuueeeeeze and repeat the process until the gun goes off…..using my degree in psychology ….the technique helps regulate your breathing as any sniper will tell you is important….also it allows you to consciencly focus on the top of the front sight which should be clear as day….the rear sight slightly out of focus and your target a large blur….your eyes can only focus on one object at a time….then by saying squeeze your trigger finger slowly and automatically moves in a slow smooth manner allowing to make an accurate shot….when saying the word squeeze slow…..sometimes you will finish the word but the gun has not fired…..that ok…..slow and controlled……just repeat the word and your finger will continue squeezing or pressing the trigger until the gun goes off……as you get better at controlling the trigger finger….the faster you say squeeze the faster you can get off a controlled shot…..this will also help you avoid the anticipation shot and shooting the ground …..hope this helped.
By Instructor Ray on Dec 24, 2009
Instructor Ray’s comment is excellent. My added point is to say that if you are using #1 or #3 and it is working well I would not change.
By JRMtwo on Jan 4, 2010
When I was a kid the British Army trained me with a “tin hat” target, the top half of which was black. You could take a point of aim hold as in #2 above and still see the sights in the light coloured area below. I make the targets myself now and they work well. I tend to think that SIG factory sights are designed for #1 though. Any comments?
By Malcolm McGregor on Jan 13, 2010