1911 sights

Lazy D · April 10, 2006, 08:19 AM

Which sights do you guys prefer on your 1911 and why?

I ask because I have a project gun Springfield Armory 1911 A1 Govt size. I am having sensory overload

looking at all the sights available. It is not going to be a CCW mostly just target shooting and maybe to shoot comp later.

Oh and are they wide or narrow on the front tenon. I have not removed it yet.

**Unclenick** · April 10, 2006, 02:05 PM

For speed of access in a carry gun, I like the Express Sights. For target shooting I use a medium to wide undercut front profile. I find most adjustable rear sights are a bit too narrow in the notch, however, and that I have to file them out wider and re-finish them. Perhaps by now someone has come out with adjustable rear leaves, like German air pistol sights? That would be ideal.

Small sights once dominated target shooting on the premise that a tight sight was needed to keep tight alignment and to track a small point of aim on the target. I have a pre-war K-frame .22 S&W my Great Aunt bought new for $38 during the depression. I inhereted it in the original red box, with only six rounds ever having been put through it and the originally purchased box of copper-case Remington cartridges and the factory instructions and sales slip still there. Probably should have mothballed it as a collector's item, but was young and proceeded to shoot it. It is a long-stroke DA that is as smooth as glass, has a factroy installed McGivern dot on the front sight, and a tiny little continuously adjustable rear sight blade. Terrible to try to see through clearly. I don't know what McGivern got out of that arrangement, but he sure seemed to make it work? In more recent decades, experimentation, mostly by Russian and European coaches, has shown that tiny sights cause eye strain and extra tension in the shooter. They also encourage the tendency to jerk the trigger attempting to "ambush" the ten ring when alignment is momentarily perfect.

I prefer all soot-black for bull's eye targets, since the tagboard provides plenty of contrrast. Bo-mar is traditional, but requires frame milling. There are new designs that don't. Colored lines, blade ramps and dots may be useful for nearly invisible targets, but even then I find them a distraction in all but low light. I hate white and flourescent orange outlines. They never seem to give me the same vertical alignment the actual sight profiles do. Not sure why? Individual focus issue, maybe? Tritium is useful in very low light.

Nick

auto45 · April 10, 2006, 02:46 PM

For target shooting, I like the broad flat sight picture of a Bo-mar "type" sight.
Black on black also.

So, Bo-mar, Heine sights are very good, but expensive to install.

If you want a similar sight picture with the existing dovetails, then Millet, Kings, MGW and Novak make a "drop-in" sight that's inexpensive.

ClarkEMyers · April 16, 2006, 09:30 AM

High wide flat and serrated - Bomar or looks like Bomar. I prefer the rear sight blade flush with the rear of the slide but it doesn't have to be for good results.

I have Heinie on my carry guns. Brian Enos sells the Wilson adjustable with a couple of different widths in the rear sight notch available. Layne Simpson's book on the Custom 1911 has some useful discussion of sights.

Jim Watson · April 16, 2006, 10:14 AM

What kind of "target shooting", what kind of "comp?"
If you are going to stand on your hind legs like a man and shoot at a bullseye with one hand, the Bomar will go in the GI dovetail and a tall front blade n the front mortise with little gunsmithing expense. (The front sight tenon is an oddball intermediate width. There are a few sights made for it, otherwise it takes some filing of a wide tenon blade to fit.)

Otherwise, good visible fixed sights drifted and filed to suit your ammo will do fine for things like IDPA and IPSC.

You can pay a hundred bucks or more installation for a "buried" Bomar or one of the proprietary fixed sights that Novak and Heinie have the market hypnotized into thinking are needed.

Or you can get one of several sights form King, MGW, and even Novak that give a good fixed sight picture and don't require remachining the whole back end of the slide.

Lazy D · April 16, 2006, 09:01 PM

I'm leaning more toward fixed sights.

RickB · April 17, 2006, 04:29 PM

Anything that you shoot at is a "target", so why have different sights for one kind of target than another? The failing that I most see in rear sights is not that the notch isn't wide enough, but that it isn't deep enough. I want that front post to look like a post, not a box. Front sights, from the factory, are almost always too wide; .125", or even more. With a .125"-wide notch, a .100" front is about right.

JoeHatley · April 18, 2006, 11:20 AM

The sights on this "Frankenpistol" are from www.wilsoncombat.com

They have several styles available, that fit on a "Goverment" slide without modification.

Good Luck...

Joe

Jim Watson · April 18, 2006, 11:31 AM

Wilson doesn't catalog that sight any more but MGW and King's make similar.

April 10, 2006, 08:19 AM	#1
Lazy D Senior Member Join Date: December 11, 2004 Location: Indian Territory Posts: 192	1911 sights Which sights do you guys prefer on your 1911 and why? I ask because I have a project gun Springfield Armory 1911 A1 Govt size. I am having sensory overload looking at all the sights available. It is not going to be a CCW mostly just target shooting and maybe to shoot comp later. Oh and are they wide or narrow on the front tenon. I have not removed it yet. __________________ "Fast is Fine but accuracy is final.".....Wyatt Earp.

April 10, 2006, 02:05 PM	#2
Unclenick Staff Join Date: March 4, 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 21,063	For speed of access in a carry gun, I like the Express Sights. For target shooting I use a medium to wide undercut front profile. I find most adjustable rear sights are a bit too narrow in the notch, however, and that I have to file them out wider and re-finish them. Perhaps by now someone has come out with adjustable rear leaves, like German air pistol sights? That would be ideal. Small sights once dominated target shooting on the premise that a tight sight was needed to keep tight alignment and to track a small point of aim on the target. I have a pre-war K-frame .22 S&W my Great Aunt bought new for $38 during the depression. I inhereted it in the original red box, with only six rounds ever having been put through it and the originally purchased box of copper-case Remington cartridges and the factory instructions and sales slip still there. Probably should have mothballed it as a collector's item, but was young and proceeded to shoot it. It is a long-stroke DA that is as smooth as glass, has a factroy installed McGivern dot on the front sight, and a tiny little continuously adjustable rear sight blade. Terrible to try to see through clearly. I don't know what McGivern got out of that arrangement, but he sure seemed to make it work? In more recent decades, experimentation, mostly by Russian and European coaches, has shown that tiny sights cause eye strain and extra tension in the shooter. They also encourage the tendency to jerk the trigger attempting to "ambush" the ten ring when alignment is momentarily perfect. I prefer all soot-black for bull's eye targets, since the tagboard provides plenty of contrrast. Bo-mar is traditional, but requires frame milling. There are new designs that don't. Colored lines, blade ramps and dots may be useful for nearly invisible targets, but even then I find them a distraction in all but low light. I hate white and flourescent orange outlines. They never seem to give me the same vertical alignment the actual sight profiles do. Not sure why? Individual focus issue, maybe? Tritium is useful in very low light. Nick __________________ Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor NRA Certified Rifle Instructor NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle

April 16, 2006, 09:30 AM	#4
ClarkEMyers Senior Member Join Date: November 13, 2004 Location: PacWest Posts: 455	High wide flat and serrated - Bomar or looks like Bomar High wide flat and serrated - Bomar or looks like Bomar. I prefer the rear sight blade flush with the rear of the slide but it doesn't have to be for good results. I have Heinie on my carry guns. Brian Enos sells the Wilson adjustable with a couple of different widths in the rear sight notch available. Layne Simpson's book on the Custom 1911 has some useful discussion of sights.

April 16, 2006, 09:01 PM	#6
Lazy D Senior Member Join Date: December 11, 2004 Location: Indian Territory Posts: 192	I'm leaning more toward fixed sights. __________________ "Fast is Fine but accuracy is final.".....Wyatt Earp.

April 18, 2006, 11:20 AM	#8
JoeHatley Senior Member Join Date: July 1, 1999 Location: Iowa Posts: 2,135	The sights on this "Frankenpistol" are from www.wilsoncombat.com They have several styles available, that fit on a "Goverment" slide without modification. Good Luck... Joe __________________ Go NRA

April 10, 2006, 02:46 PM	#3
auto45 Senior Member Join Date: October 4, 2002 Posts: 427	For target shooting, I like the broad flat sight picture of a Bo-mar "type" sight. Black on black also. So, Bo-mar, Heine sights are very good, but expensive to install. If you want a similar sight picture with the existing dovetails, then Millet, Kings, MGW and Novak make a "drop-in" sight that's inexpensive.

April 16, 2006, 10:14 AM	#5
Jim Watson Senior Member Join Date: October 25, 2001 Location: Alabama Posts: 18,543	What kind of "target shooting", what kind of "comp?" If you are going to stand on your hind legs like a man and shoot at a bullseye with one hand, the Bomar will go in the GI dovetail and a tall front blade n the front mortise with little gunsmithing expense. (The front sight tenon is an oddball intermediate width. There are a few sights made for it, otherwise it takes some filing of a wide tenon blade to fit.) Otherwise, good visible fixed sights drifted and filed to suit your ammo will do fine for things like IDPA and IPSC. You can pay a hundred bucks or more installation for a "buried" Bomar or one of the proprietary fixed sights that Novak and Heinie have the market hypnotized into thinking are needed. Or you can get one of several sights form King, MGW, and even Novak that give a good fixed sight picture and don't require remachining the whole back end of the slide.

April 17, 2006, 04:29 PM	#7
RickB Senior Member Join Date: March 1, 2000 Location: Boise, ID Posts: 8,518	Anything that you shoot at is a "target", so why have different sights for one kind of target than another? The failing that I most see in rear sights is not that the notch isn't wide enough, but that it isn't deep enough. I want that front post to look like a post, not a box. Front sights, from the factory, are almost always too wide; .125", or even more. With a .125"-wide notch, a .100" front is about right.

April 18, 2006, 11:31 AM	#9
Jim Watson Senior Member Join Date: October 25, 2001 Location: Alabama Posts: 18,543	Wilson doesn't catalog that sight any more but MGW and King's make similar.