{"id":5857,"date":"2017-03-15T12:00:32","date_gmt":"2017-03-15T16:00:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.luckygunner.com\/lounge\/?p=5857"},"modified":"2021-07-30T11:03:22","modified_gmt":"2021-07-30T15:03:22","slug":"snub-nose-sights-matter","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.luckygunner.com\/lounge\/snub-nose-sights-matter\/","title":{"rendered":"Snub Nose Sights: Do They Matter?"},"content":{"rendered":"

In my last\u00a0article<\/a>, I addressed the myth that it’s impossible to use your sights under the stress of a violent encounter. That discussion was primarily focused on the “software” side of the equation — if we train to use our sights appropriately in practice, we can rely on those\u00a0well-honed habits under stress as well.\u00a0I also briefly touched on the hardware side of the issue. The more visible your sights, the more useful they are likely to be\u00a0in a real encounter.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

This argument for modern, highly visible sights often meets resistance when it comes to the snub nose revolver. More so than any other type of handgun manufactured today, snubby revolvers are frequently equipped with diminutive sights that can be difficult\u00a0to see under a variety of lighting conditions. However, considering the short sight radius and the inherent challenge\u00a0of shooting these guns accurately, would altering the sights really make any worthwhile difference? I wasn\u2019t sure myself\u00a0and thought it was worth testing with\u00a0a simple experiment. As the Mythbusters taught us, the only\u00a0difference between science and screwing around is writing it down, so I set out to test various sights,\u00a0armed with a set of targets, a timer, and a notepad.<\/span><\/p>

The LCR Front Sight Experiment<\/strong><\/h2>

I chose to use the Ruger LCR revolver for the experiment. Small frame revolvers like the LCR and the Smith & Wesson J-frames are common everyday carry guns. Additionally, the front sight of the LCR is easy to change with nothing but a punch and small hammer, making it\u00a0an ideal platform for a test comparing multiple front sights. The LCR has a fixed trench-style rear sight so I did not have to worry about lining up new sights or changing the style of the rear to match the front.<\/span><\/p>

I decided to first test the factory black ramp front sight as the control. Following that, I would test a low dollar change to the front sight, followed by a more expensive change. I purchased two bottles of nail polish — one white and one green — at a dollar store for a grand total of $2. With the low cost and the ease with which the polish can be\u00a0applied and removed, it is simple\u00a0to try various colors to find out\u00a0what works for your eyes. For the more expensive option, I purchased a $50 Novak \u201cMega Dot Tritium\u201d front sight. I was able to install it in about two minutes with a 1\/16-inch\u00a0punch and hammer, so neither option is labor intensive.<\/p>

It was quickly apparent that the Novak’s white insert surrounded by black\u00a0was easier to pick up against a host of different colors and in various lighting conditions. Either the black or the white was always contrasted against the background, whereas each of the\u00a0single color options had some condition in which they\u00a0were difficult to see. I also discovered the green was much too glossy and reflected light in a distracting manner. I\u00a0could tell right away that this particular green was unsuitable for me, so\u00a0I did not test it further.<\/p>

\"\"<\/a><\/p>

To determine if there was any real difference between the remaining three options, I would need to try them out at the range. In order to provide as accurate a comparison as I could, I shot each set of sights “cold” (with no prior warm-up shots) with two weeks in between each session. I fired from\u00a0the same lane at the same indoor range under the same lighting.<\/span><\/p>

For lighting conditions, I did my best to simulate a lit parking lot at night. I had most of the overhead lights off and the light source was up and to my right, as though from an overhead security light. The result was lighting conditions very similar to those where\u00a0defensive pistol use often\u00a0occurs. I also know that with plain black sights, I tend to bias my shots a bit toward the light source under these conditions and I wanted to see if I could improve that.<\/span><\/p>

Timed Test Results<\/strong><\/h3>

For the timed testing, I timed my press-out (gun in strong hand by rib cage, ready to press out to meet the support hand as it is extended toward the target) rather than my full draw stroke in order to eliminate variables in the draw and to show that any differences were strictly the speed at which I could acquire the front sight.<\/p>

All shooting was done with 148 grain lead wadcutters<\/a>\u00a0from a distance of 7 yards on a silhouette style target. With each sight, I attempted\u00a0both head shots and body shots. Only hits inside the head area and the center scoring zone of the body were counted toward the average time for each sight.<\/p>

\"\"<\/a><\/h4>

Black Front Sight<\/strong><\/h4>

Head shot average:\u00a01.45 seconds
<\/span>Body shot average: 1.28\u00a0seconds<\/span><\/em><\/p>

Observations: My shots were biased right (toward the light source) with the\u00a0white background of the head, but not with the\u00a0orange background in the center of the body. Further experimenting showed that acquiring a sight picture on a black background was difficult. <\/span><\/p>

White Front Sight<\/strong><\/h4>

Head shot average: 1.38 seconds
<\/span>Body shot average: 1.31 seconds<\/em><\/p>

Observations: My first two shots were high and\u00a0barely touch the head. My eyes quickly adjusted to the new sight picture, though, and then I was marginally faster compared to using\u00a0the black sights. I also did not have the problem of biasing toward the right\u00a0with the white background. There was no substantial difference with the orange background.<\/span><\/p>

Novak Mega Dot\u00a0Front Sight<\/strong><\/h4>

Head shot average: 1.18 seconds
<\/span>Body shot average: 1.18 seconds<\/span><\/em><\/p>

Observations: The Novak Mega Dot changes the sight picture away from the traditional \u201cequal height\/equal light\u201d where the front sight is centered and the top of the front sight post is even with the top of the rear sights (explained in detail below). Once I got used to this, I did find the sights quick and intuitive to use, and they worked\u00a0equally well against multiple colors.<\/span><\/p>

Sights vs. Point Shooting<\/strong><\/h3>

I also did a quick experiment to find out how unsighted fire, or “point shooting,” would compare to the various sight options for the LCR. When I spoke to the acclaimed competitive shooter Gabe White for my previous article, he pointed out that there is typically\u00a0little to no time difference when comparing sighted versus unsighted fire at close range, but accuracy will drastically improve\u00a0when the sights are used. To test this theory, I ignored the sights while using a target focus (eyes focused on the intended point of impact) and attempted the same press-out to head shot at seven yards as I had tested with sighted fire. I aimed solely by indexing the revolver.<\/p>

My average time was 1.37 seconds, which was marginally faster than the black sight, about same as the white sight, and slower than Novak sight. However, my accuracy suffered while using this technique and I only hit the target an average of three out of every five shots.<\/p>

This was right in line with Gabe’s observations. Particularly with easy to acquire sights, I am both faster and more accurate. I\u2019ve continued to practice with the Novak Mega Dot sights\u00a0since\u00a0the LCR is my personal backup gun. I\u2019ve been able to reach a 1.07 second average time to hit on the press-out to headshot drill as I\u2019ve gotten used to the new sight picture.<\/p>

Accuracy Testing<\/strong><\/h3>

Following\u00a0each of the \u201ccold\u201d timed tests above, I used 2-inch circle targets at seven yards to see if any of the sights offered an accuracy advantage. These were shot in the same low light conditions, but without any time pressure and after I had\u00a0figured out the sight picture from the \u201ccold\u201d tests.<\/span><\/p>

<\/p>

\"\"<\/a><\/p>

Precision shooting showed the same biases as the timed shooting. While the black sight grouped well,\u00a0my shots veered toward the\u00a0right. The white sight was very easy to shoot precisely and was well centered. The Novak was a bit more challenging, but still very acceptable.<\/span><\/p>

Point of Impact Testing<\/strong><\/h3>

Based on the above testing, I elected to stay with the Novak sight.\u00a0The final step was to confirm that my normal carry ammunition would shoot to point of aim with the new sight installed. Using Winchester PDX1 Defender .38 Special +P<\/a>, I fired another cylinder\u00a0at one of the 2-inch circles and got a nice group right in the center. Snubby revolvers are particularly prone to point of impact changes when switching\u00a0from one load to another, so it’s always important to test\u00a0your defensive load to verify that it will make hits in the same spot you\u00a0aim your sights. If the sights are not adjustable (and most are not) you may have to change to a different load to get the point of aim and point of impact to agree.<\/span><\/p>

As touched on earlier, the Novak Mega Dot is larger and taller than the OEM front sight and does require a modified sight picture. For precise shot placement, the center of the front sight dot\u00a0must be horizontally aligned with the top of the rear sights as shown in the sight comparison graphic\u00a0above. The bottom of the dot sits on\u00a0the bottom of the rear sight notch. This will cover your intended point of impact, making longer distance precision shots more challenging, but\u00a0it works very well for closer distances. This is less complicated than it sounds\u00a0and is very intuitive because when the sights are properly aligned, you can see the entire white circle, but not the top of the barrel.<\/span><\/p>

At distances of 15 yards and less, the Novak Mega Dot is a pure upgrade for me. I can acquire the sight faster than the OEM black front sight and with no loss of accuracy, resulting in a faster time to first shot. I can also track the sight easier, making multiple shot strings less challenging. <\/del><\/span><\/p>

Extended Range with the Snub Nose<\/strong><\/h2>

Some simple experimentation confirmed that improvements to the sights on a snub nose can make quick and accurate hits easier at close range. The trade-off comes\u00a0with longer distance shooting. You will frequently hear from the purveyors of gun shop lore that snubby revolvers are \u201cbelly guns\u201d and \u201caren\u2019t accurate past bad breath distances.\u201d This is quite simply false.<\/span><\/p>

Snubbies are not inherently less accurate than revolvers with a longer\u00a0sight radius (the distance between the front and rear sights), but they do require more skill to employ at longer ranges. Small misalignment of the sights increases the angle much more with\u00a0the short sight radius of a snubby than they do with a full-size 4-inch revolver, so you must be more precise when centering the sight. The shorter barrel also means reduced velocity, which leads to greater bullet drop.\u00a0While that\u2019s seldom a concern in realistic self-defense shooting distances, it does come into play at longer ranges.<\/span><\/p>

With enough practice and proper technique, the snubby can be quite accurate at even extreme distances, as demonstrated by Jerry Miculek.<\/span><\/p>