N/A NOT...a Huben, and, sight placement

[MikeVV]

I messed with moving the SeeAll sight back and forth on my AP16 rail, to see what difference in aiming there is. Luckily there is only a very small point of impact change in going from the back to the front of the rail on this assembly. That's a good thing for this testing !

The farther the sight is from your wrist, the "pivot point" in the system, the more difficult it is to hold steady on the target. Being 73 yrs old, some days are better than others at being steady for shooting pistols. Actually today has been a very good day for having a steady hold. But I can see a difference in the sight placement, as far as the sight moving, more side to side vs. up and down (for me).

So for more accurate shooting, it seems that the dot sight, type system, should be as far forward IF...you have a steady hand.
If your hold ISN'T so steady, a more rearward sight placement might be a better choice to hold the muzzle on target.

Time to experiment if you have the capability of moving your sight fore and aft.

This is actually more in line with what happens using open sights. This is what got me thinking about this experiment. While the rear sight (slot) is more stable (close to the wrist), the front sight (blade) will move around more because of being farther from your wrist.
So with a dot type sight, the shooter actually has a little advantage of being able to move the sight, to suit his or her capability .

Mike

 

[Long_Gun_Dallas]

So, my observations on this primarily deal with balancing the gun overall, and with it's shot cycle or hammer impulse. This pp800 is my main hunting rig, as far as pistols go. The moderator is heavy, the sight is forward. The hammer spring is relatively stiff, and the hammer is quite heavy for a pistol (although factory, un-modified). So, the shot cycle is a bit jolting due to the hammer dynamics. The forward weight in a way counters and stabilizes this. But there is a certain hold that is needed. Nice thing about the huma mods is you can shorten or lengthen them, effectively, and efficiently modifying the balance of the gun as a whole. More refined pistols have more neutral shot cycles, so sight placement and weight may be determined by overall balance of the gun as a whole, and not so much based on shot cycle. When possible, I also prefer dense wood grips like ebony, rosewood, ect. I reckon my hold may be fairly steady, however.

Another example is my 1322 pcp, as pictured, this gun is perfectly balanced. The grips are dense/heavy. The airtube is aluminum, but does add heft. It has machined baffles, shroud, ect. I believe it weighs more than a full steel fully loaded 5" 1911 / .45acp. Those are quite hefty, so that gives you an idea of what a brick this thing is. I have tried other sights on it, such as a red dot at various positions. Forward, rearward, I just cannot get the gun to balance, and it is very difficult to shoot accurately. With the long burris scope mounted as such, it balances beautifully, and is supremely accurate. Off-hand or rested.

 

[M0ist0ne]

My take on it is personal preference and it depends on the gun.

For carbine/rifles, I prefer a more mid-length mount for a red dot/reflex as it allows for me to have a broader scope of vision. I find that I have a tendency to get 'sight-locked' if I run them too far aft.

Pistols, that's another story. From a conventional standpoint, somewhat limited on where they're placed to begin with. Now from the perspective of what most pistols are used for, in those scenarios that cannot be named here, I prefer to utilize large motor groups to control aim point - eg, acts as extension of my arm - vs fine motor control. Even competitive shooting, under pressure, large motor control is more dependable imo vs fine muscle adjustments.

 

[MikeVV]

My take on it is personal preference and it depends on the gun.

For carbine/rifles, I prefer a more mid-length mount for a red dot/reflex as it allows for me to have a broader scope of vision. I find that I have a tendency to get 'sight-locked' if I run them too far aft.

Pistols, that's another story. From a conventional standpoint, somewhat limited on where they're placed to begin with. Now from the perspective of what most pistols are used for, in those scenarios that cannot be named here, I prefer to utilize large motor groups to control aim point - eg, acts as extension of my arm - vs fine motor control. Even competitive shooting, under pressure, large motor control is more dependable imo vs fine muscle adjustments.

Please explain "fine motor control" and "large motor control".

My arms, wrist only come in one size !
Although back many years, when I was doing heavy workouts regularly, my "size" was different than it is now !

Mike

 

[M0ist0ne]

Please explain "fine motor control" and "large motor control".

My arms, wrist only come in one size !
Although back many years, when I was doing heavy workouts regularly, my "size" was different than it is now !

Mike

I'm probably not explaining it correctly with the proper 'terms' if I'm being honest. But mid mounted equals a larger change on a small movement vs a rear mount, leverage if you want to look at it that way.

I'd rather count on using large muscle groups to control shot alignment vs say, adjusting with my wrist which a mid mounted sight tends to promote in my opinion. With a rear mount sight it tends to put the sight more on top of the 'pivot' (more centered on my hand, closer to my wrist), which will make a tendency for me to aim with my arm vs my wrist (sight in front of hand).

I'm terrible at explaining it, so apologies there.