Ruger Forum banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,845 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I posted my first 20 shot target in the Range Report section. I noticed that to drop the POI (the first 2 shots were high and off the target) I had to pretty much use a 6 o'clock hold sight picture or #1 Sight Picture. I mean 6 O'clock hold with the entire black area of the target sitting on the post - not just the center portion of the target. This was out of the box with no adjustments.

I was wondering what other users of this type of sight (V notch rear - FO front) use?

Were your sights set up for 6 O'clock hold right out of the box? Did you change it? Any thoughts or remarks??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
I use a dead center hold and yes, I adjusted the sights. To me, a six o'clock hold is more for target use than for hunting/plinking use...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,952 Posts
Hi Dave

First, on an adjustable sight equipped gun, where it is sighted in out of the box is no big deal for me. I've never gotten away with just using adjustable sights the way they come from the factory. Pretty much a given you will be sighting in to your preferences and style of shooting on such guns. It's more of an issue on fixed sight equipped guns because your options are much more limited if the gun is not shooting to your point of aim. If your Hunter is not shooting where you want it, adjust the sights as needed. That's what they're for.

A six o'clock hold is a hold where the entire circle of the bull is resting on top of the front sight. It has long been the mainstay of bullseye shooters because it allows a finer hold than a dead on sight picture where you are cutting into the bull. On the few guns I have left with iron sights, I'll use a six o'clock hold on those that I use only at the range for shooting paper. On those iron sighted guns that I use in the field and for spinner targets and when I hunted, I much prefer using a dead on hold where the POI corresponds to the top of the front sight. Just a personal preference on my part, but that's one advantage of adjustable sights.

For example, on Springfield Range Officer 1911, a 1911 designed for bullseye work, I use a six o'clock hold. On my SR1911, I use a dead on hold and hold over, hold under as needed for various ranges. The SR is my all purpose 1911.

As to the Hunter, I could not get along with the v notch rear sight at all. I use a scope on mine, because the Hunter is SO darn accurate, it almost seems a shame to use iron sights. :) Just teasing, here, but the Hunter may well be the most accurate gun of any gun I own. Amazing gun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,070 Posts
Hi Dave

First, on an adjustable sight equipped gun, where it is sighted in out of the box is no big deal for me. I've never gotten away with just using adjustable sights the way they come from the factory. Pretty much a given you will be sighting in to your preferences and style of shooting on such guns. It's more of an issue on fixed sight equipped guns because your options are much more limited if the gun is not shooting to your point of aim. If your Hunter is not shooting where you want it, adjust the sights as needed. That's what they're for.

A six o'clock hold is a hold where the entire circle of the bull is resting on top of the front sight. It has long been the mainstay of bullseye shooters because it allows a finer hold than a dead on sight picture where you are cutting into the bull. On the few guns I have left with iron sights, I'll use a six o'clock hold on those that I use only at the range for shooting paper. On those iron sighted guns that I use in the field and for spinner targets and when I hunted, I much prefer using a dead on hold where the POI corresponds to the top of the front sight. Just a personal preference on my part, but that's one advantage of adjustable sights.

For example, on Springfield Range Officer 1911, a 1911 designed for bullseye work, I use a six o'clock hold. On my SR1911, I use a dead on hold and hold over, hold under as needed for various ranges. The SR is my all purpose 1911.

As to the Hunter, I could not get along with the v notch rear sight at all. I use a scope on mine, because the Hunter is SO darn accurate, it almost seems a shame to use iron sights. :) Just teasing, here, but the Hunter may well be the most accurate gun of any gun I own. Amazing gun.
Thanks for that one North country gal. I'm working on my Hunter. But I'm no where near as good as the gun. I love that gun. It's got to be the sweetest looking MK IMO. What happened to granny?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
313 Posts



For all my revolvers and pistols with adjustable target sights I use sight picture 1. For my fixed sight pistols I use sight picture 3.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,517 Posts
I believe the Ruger Mark III manual say's for the Hunter model that the sight picture is to be dead center with the front sight setting in the bottom of the V. Of course like North Country Girl said, after that you adjust them to you're liking.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
402 Posts


Country Girl pretty much cleared it up with here excellent post, I will just add my 2 cents.
Picture #one is for B/E target shooting when a fixed distance is known, and is best accomplished with adjustable sights. A target with lets say a 5" black bull is set at 25 yards. The part we want to hit is the center, 2.5" up from the bottom. The sights are simply set for 2.5 " high at 25 yards.
Using the 6 O clock hold puts the shots in the center. It does not work for plinking, or random shooting when the distance and target size varies. Unless you want to constantly use Kentucky wind-age.
Picture # 2 is the correct way to use dot sights, fixed or adjustable. The dots when lined up as shown in the diagrams give perfect sight picture, the same as should be used without dots.
The front sight is squared up side to side in the rear notch and level with the top.
Sight picture #2 is correct for a dead on hold. Not #3
#3 will block out the center of the target, with sights properly adjusted # 3 would shoot high.
Set them up how ever you choose, makes no mind to me, but, why not do it correctly.
A pistol set up as in # 3, and handed to an experienced shooter would shoot low.
Because it would be shot thinking it was set up like #2 the correct way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
I put a set of Crimson Laser grips on my Mark lll competition and you can knock holes in pennies at 20 yards all day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,952 Posts
I put a set of Crimson Laser grips on my Mark lll competition and you can knock holes in pennies at 20 yards all day.
Been thinking about laser sights, too, though I haven't tried one, yet. I see Crimson is coming out next year with a new, daylight visible, green laser sight that is still small enough to be incorporated in a grip mount. Hmmmm!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
460 Posts
I have a MK III Hunter and a S&W 317 Kit Gun, both of which came with an illuminated post front and V rear. I have found that I can’t hit the broad side of a barn with that combination, and each of my guns that came so equipped was immediately changed out for a flat, square post and a square notch rear. That is a combination I can use.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,672 Posts
I'd adjust it so where I'm aiming is the POI. This is why adjustable sights are such a wonderful thing -- you can adjust however you prefer. This is also why fixed-sight guns drive me nuts -- they never hit where I'm aiming.

I have a couple related questions:

1. Why does the Hunter have that V-notch rear? How is that better than a square -notch?:confused: I use a Hi-Viz front sight on my GP100 which works very nicely with the standard square notch rear sight that revolver comes with. I notice Volquartsen always has the same square rear sight whether the front sight is a plain black target sight or fiber optic.

2. An experienced bullseye shooter working at LGS wasn't a fan of the Hunter's fiber optic front, feeling a plain black target sight is more precise. Any opinions on this? At 65 this guy's eyes I'm sure aren't any better than mine at 39 & I find plain black sights to be a royal pain. I much prefer how a fiber optic front stands out. Definitely much easier to see & pick up quickly (which I guess you want if shooting at a squirrel that doesn't politely stand still forever like a bullseye). Not sure if plain black is "more precise" though. At 25 yards any front sight starts looking mighty fat relative to a bull.

In any case, if I wanted max precision + max fun I'd put on a red dot so none of this would matter anyhow.

And now you guys have me really wanting a Hunter. I've longed for that gorgeous fluted barrel for years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,952 Posts
I'd adjust it so where I'm aiming is the POI. This is why adjustable sights are such a wonderful thing -- you can adjust however you prefer. This is also why fixed-sight guns drive me nuts -- they never hit where I'm aiming.

I have a couple related questions:

1. Why does the Hunter have that V-notch rear? How is that better than a square -notch?:confused: I use a Hi-Viz front sight on my GP100 which works very nicely with the standard square notch rear sight that revolver comes with. I notice Volquartsen always has the same square rear sight whether the front sight is a plain black target sight or fiber optic.

2. An experienced bullseye shooter working at LGS wasn't a fan of the Hunter's fiber optic front, feeling a plain black target sight is more precise. Any opinions on this? At 65 this guy's eyes I'm sure aren't any better than mine at 39 & I find plain black sights to be a royal pain. I much prefer how a fiber optic front stands out. Definitely much easier to see & pick up quickly (which I guess you want if shooting at a squirrel that doesn't politely stand still forever like a bullseye). Not sure if plain black is "more precise" though. At 25 yards any front sight starts looking mighty fat relative to a bull.

In any case, if I wanted max precision + max fun I'd put on a red dot so none of this would matter anyhow.

And now you guys have me really wanting a Hunter. I've longed for that gorgeous fluted barrel for years.
1. I suspect Ruger wanted to do more to make the Hunter stand out from the Competition than just a fluted barrel. Some folks love the v notch, but I could not deal with it. Maybe it's just old me shooting standard sights for so many years, though.

2. Since bullseye shooters use a six o'clock hold on the bull with the blade just touching the bottom of the bull, a sharp flat topped blade is more precise than that fiber optic front. That fiber front is not exactly cut all that sharp at the top and the round "light pipe" insert draws your focus away from the top of the sight. Then, too, the top of the light pipe is not quite the top of the sight either. I found that the outline just varied too much with changing light conditions. Again, some folks liked the v notch, but not this girl. I do better with a conventional blade front target sight a la the Comp. You can, of course, get a set of standard target sights from Ruger if you don't care for the Hunter sights, though. Better yet, just get a red dot or scope.

Let us know when you get your Hunter. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,450 Posts
sight picture




For all my revolvers and pistols with adjustable target sights I use sight picture 1. For my fixed sight pistols I use sight picture 3.
I also use number 1 (6 o'clock) for everything. It allows me to see the target much better:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
313 Posts
Full sized service pistols like the Sig 226, Sig 220 and Beretta 92/M9 series have have combat type sights. This means the front sight has to cover the target therefore you use sight image # 3.

As it concerns the Beretta 92/M9 series and Sig the pistol sights are designed to use NATO 9mm (124 gr, FMJ) and this is a milspec round. There is a lot on information on the web describing the difference between different types of 9mm. The NATO 9mm is similiar to a +P Luger round. If you use a different round you can expect different results.

I have a Beretta 92FS Brigadier, modified slide and barrel (similiar to Stock)with LPA Target Sights. With this configuration I use image # 1. For my Sigs and other 92 Series with factory sights I use image # 3.

That's my story...........LOL
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
402 Posts
Full sized service pistols like the Sig 226, Sig 220 and Beretta 92/M9 series have have combat type sights. This means the front sight has to cover the target therefore you use sight image # 3.

As it concerns the Beretta 92/M9 series and Sig the pistol sights are designed to use NATO 9mm (124 gr, FMJ) and this is a milspec round. There is a lot on information on the web describing the difference between different types of 9mm. The NATO 9mm is similiar to a +P Luger round. If you use a different round you can expect different results.

I have a Beretta 92FS Brigadier, modified slide and barrel (similiar to Stock)with LPA Target Sights. With this configuration I use image # 1. For my Sigs and other 92 Series with factory sights I use image # 3.

That's my story...........LOL
I'm not trying to beat the topic up or argue about sight pictures, # 2 is the correct site picture, the dots are an aid to get you there.
However if a person has to modify a site picture in order to hit point of aim cause of different ammo, or gun Mods.well that is a whole different ball game.
I am UN-aware of any pistol that is designed or set up for a particular ammo and has the sites set up for an other than standard site picture and that is #2. LOL
Adjustable target sites can be set up however a person chooses.
If you go to this link I think in all fairness to everyone you will see
( if you read it all and the comments ) that the jury may still be out on this )

But it does make some good points, some say what's correct and some say what they need to do with some saying they don't know what's being said.
http://pistol-training.com/archives/1361
I am sure there are other sites on the net that may say different, but I think this one is a good summation of what's going on.
The long comment by instructor RAY has some interesting things to say.
We may have to agree that it's OK to disagree on some of this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,672 Posts
Let us know when you get your Hunter. :)
One negative I noticed about the Hunter is that only the lower half of the grip panels is checkered. Wood panels add further class & style to this already great looking gun, but they struck me as a bit slippery.

I assume they figure somebody who uses it for hunting might want a gun where they can quickly change hand position as they track a rapid rodent. I'm used to the fully-checkered plastic panels that cost all of $7. They don't look nearly as pretty, but provide fantastic traction. Seems they think target shooters want more traction as they fully checker the right wood panel on the Competition model.

One thing that keeps me from getting a Hunter is analysis paralysis. So many choices it's hard to decide. I know some folks (Red Leg, for example) solve this problem by simply buying 'em all.:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,845 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Thanks for all of the comments regarding the Hunter, sight pictures, etc. Thank you North country gal for your treatise on the subject.

I always end up adjusting the sights on all of my guns that have adjustable sights. I was just wondering what other users of the Hunter type sights were using before I customized it to my liking.

This afternoon I put up a more traditional target with a 3" black bullseye surrounded by the customary white with scoring rings. I gave the rear sight 10 clicks down and have been experimenting with the 6 o'clock hold or sight picture #1. With the front sight top edge just touching the bottom of (blurry to my 65 year old eyes) the bullseye, the POI was in the black. I may keep the Hunter set up this way for awhile.
As to the rear Vee notch, I find it to be better than I had heard it would be or thought it would be - so ok on that for now.

The grips are not slippery at all. The checkered portion is in your hand more than enough to make a a nice hold.

I will continue to tinker with the Hunter sights and post some more reports and target photos.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
I use #3 on my Hunter and #2 on my Mark II. I've discovered on my Hunter that I don't even see the rear sight as I've trained myself to focus only on the front sight. Once you get used to shooting this way you will find that the rear lines up naturally with no effort. In action shooting pistols you should always focus on your front sight and never the target nor the front+rear.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top