[Joey Sanders]

I know fixed are supposedly more rugged but I use my 1911 for different things and having it on for one load only is at times aggravating to say the least. What are the disadvantadges if any, to low mount bo-mars or something similar on a carry gun.

------------------
JS

 

[Rosco Benson]

The Bomar is a good, rugged sight. Low-mounted on a 1911 and with its sharp corners rounded, it is a perfectly good carry pistol sight. The sight picture afforded by the Bomar is excellent and is the very one that many fixed sights try to emulate. The rear notch can be a bit "tight" when used with the typical .125" wide front sight. The rear notch can be slightly opened up to good advantage.

Wilson Combat offers a similar sight which, I'm told, is quite good too.

Rosco

 

[jaydee]

Another alternative is the MMC adjustable sight. It's similar to a Novak, but adjustable for elevation with a screw, and windage like any other "fixed" sight.

It would seem suited for different loads where impact points may rise or fall, since windage adjustments should not really change much in most situations.

The Bomar style sights are good sights, and as Roscoe said, offer a very good sight picture... The Wilson's have a "pyramid shaped" blade as an option. While they might be a little less snag proof that a Novak, or Heinie, they are still much better than a typical rear blade found on the older, Enhanced style Colt's.

I did carry a Gold Cup at one time, and found it very comfortable, and never had a problem catching on the sight. Of course... YMMV

Good Luck...

 

[Jim V]

Return with us now to the days of yesteryear when the hot setup for adjustable sights on a 1911 were S&W K-frame sights. I had/have a 1943 Ithaca that were fitted with the S&W sights, I carried that pistol as a LEO duty weapon, off duty and shot it at the SECOND CHANCE COMBAT SHOOTs. I only had one bad experience with the sights when the retaining screw broke after 250,000 +/- rounds.

Now I carry a Norinco with the MMC sights. I like 'em. Built like a truck.

------------------
Ne Conjuge Nobiscum
Molon Labe

 

[ociebell]

I like the SW type sights on 1911's. I think the only reason it ain't the hot set up anymore is more due to fashion trends

The next one I have is gonna have these kinda of sights and I don't care what anyone says

 

[Jim V]

ocibell, King's will do the job for you. http://www.kingsgunworks.com

I know, I checked. LOL

------------------
Ne Conjuge Nobiscum
Molon Labe

 

[gyp_c]

I 've ALWAYS had good luck with that S&W sight picture. Just works for some reason!

I may try that on my next go-round as well...

------------------
>>>>>>>>>>g2<<<<<<<<<<

MWLWN LABE!

 

[Rosco Benson]

The worst thing about the S&W "K" sight on an autopistol is keeping it on. If the sight is installed in the same manner as it is on the revolver (a single screw out front and the elevation "nut" holding the rear down by slipping into that mortise cut), then the sight WILL come off. Swenson used this system, with the addition of drilling the long "leaf spring" body of the sight for stud that was press-fitted into the slide. The stud took the inertia of the slide slamming back and forth and they generally stayed on. However, sometimes the body of the sight would crack on either side of the stud.

Perhaps the best arrangement for these is where the front screw is beefed up to a larger size and the rear elevation screw & nut is replaced by a screw threaded right into the slide (this also avoids the goofy little mortise cut). S&W sights done in this manner tend to stay on.

Rosco

[This message has been edited by Rosco Benson (edited 02-10-2001).]

 

[Sport]

Over the years I've seen more problems
with front sights than rear sights.

I have Wilsons on My Colt and Kimber
Adjustables on my Kimber...Thousands of
rounds later, only one problem. The Wilsons
broke..They replaced them free.

If you reload or use different loads, the
adjustables sure are nice....

I think the advantages far out weigh the
disadvantages.

 

[Hunter Customs]

I to like the Bomar sight. As Rosco said if you round the corners and low mount the sight this makes a very good set up on a carry gun.
Regards,Bob Hunter. www.huntercustoms.com

 

[James]

Is it just me or does anyone else not really notice much change if any in their loads.

I have a fixed sight Kimber and out to 50 yards, the gun seems to hit to point of aim with 185 gr hollowpoints going anywhere from 800 fps - 1100 fps.

I have a bunch of adjustables but never really adjust them.

Am I missing something?

 

[shane45-1911]

Originally posted by James P:
Is it just me or does anyone else not really notice much change if any in their loads.

I have a fixed sight Kimber and out to 50 yards, the gun seems to hit to point of aim with 185 gr hollowpoints going anywhere from 800 fps - 1100 fps.

I have a bunch of adjustables but never really adjust them.

Am I missing something?

My point of impact seams to drop with higher velocity loads. IE, 750 FPS hits point of aim. 1000 FPS is 1 1/2" lower.

 

[James]

Originally posted by shane45-1911:
My point of impact seams to drop with higher velocity loads. IE, 750 FPS hits point of aim. 1000 FPS is 1 1/2" lower.

That really baffles me! I can understand them hitting higher with increased velocity but not lower.

 

[Wit]

Hi, that sounds plausible. The longer the bullet stays in the barrel, the higher the point of impact (due to the recoil.) This could happen with heavier bullets or lower velocity. I learned it from my experiment/experience. Any opinions in a more scientific way? Thks.

 

[abnranger]

Having seen too many Bomars becoming an additional moving part on a 1911; read it broke, I would steer clear of them. The MMC sights are cool, but the wings that the sight itself moves in can be bothersome.

Prefence is to Heinies, Novak, or Ashley Express sights in no particular order.

 

[Kevinch]

MMC WORKS FOR ME!

I had a set of their Tritium night sites installed on my Makarov. The pictures in the brochure really do not do the sights justice.

The elevation clicks are very positive. The edges are well rounded - nothing to catch clothing on. These things are built tough, but dont look bulky as I thought they would. This gun rides on my belt, wedged between the seat and the console or under the seat of my car, gets tossed into a hidden wooden storage space I have at my home, etc. - and the setting has not moved.

Earlier today I gave my dealer a deposit to order my Kimber Classic Stainless. When my budget will allow, it will wear a set of MMC adjustable sights too.

 

[OKC .45 ACP]

The reason lower weight bullets moving at higher velocity hit low is because they have a flatter trajectory than heavier bullets at slower velocity. This will result in a lower hit as the line of sight is higher than the axis of the barrel. The bullet's trajectory seems to start out lower than the line of sight, eventually comes up to the line of sight, and then drops below it. A flatter trajectory means more time below the line of sight. Actually the bullet does not rise and drop above line of sight because the axis of the bore is always lower than the line of sight and at some prefixed distance, ideally they cross and that is point of aim. In actuality the bullet always is dropping from the bore axis but crosses the line of sight which accounts for the fact that it seems to rise and fall. If the distance to the target is increased with a round with a flatter trajectory, it will hit point of aim. Confusing isn't it. Hope this helps. (I doubt it however!

)

Bob

 

[OKC .45 ACP]

P.S. The reason so many pros use fixed sights is the ballistic trajectory for most 45 ACP rounds is very similar. Hence the common experience that people with adjustable sights don't usually need to keep adjusting them for different loads. BTW I own only fixed sighted weapons at this time and don't really notice much of a change in POA especially if using only one bullet weight (230 gr RN or JHP).

Bob