Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pistol sights

yarchive.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 331 posts

Re: Pistol sights

#41

Post by omginternets »

binarytransform wrote: post #29
duncan_bayne wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Circumstances requiring engaging with pistols == bad day for everyone I've shot a bit, but only rimfire long guns, air rifles, and air pistols. The pistols were harder to shoot by a _long_ margin, and I can imagine it'd get orders of magnitude harder w/ more recoil, noise to promote flinching, etc. etc. So with your comments in mind, and my own limited experience, do you have any idea why every Police-critter here…

I have no LEO experience but I'd imagine increased mobility, decreased chances of rounds exiting the target and hitting an innocent bystander, and cost are the primary reasons.

Concerning over-penetration, that's largely a function of ammunition. Hollow-point rounds from a submachine gun don't (practically speaking) over-penetrate any more than those fired from a handgun.

Re: Pistol sights

#42

Post by gadders »

binarytransform wrote: post #24
Inconel wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mean to turn this into a CoD/Splinter Cell nerdfest, but while I've seen many vets post on HN, I don't recall anyone from JSOC doing so, do you mind sharing anything about your experiences? Assuming there is anything you are able to share freely. Does what you did in JSOC have anything to do with your current career? Are there any skills or lessons that you have found particularly useful in your civilian life…

Don't want to derail the thread too much so I'll keep it short. I did technical "things" that correlate to my current civilian career. Lessons: biggest one was to eat humble pie and realize past performance =/= future success when different domains are involved (mil vs civ). Useful things: I'm generally pretty chill when things are going wrong. I.e. client meeting goes horribly -> "Hey at least we're not in X country…

Please do derail the thread. The thread is interesting, but so would your input be.

Re: Pistol sights

#43

Post by gadders »

pc86 wrote: post #32
gadders wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TBH, I was lying for comedic effect. I mostly play Borderlands 2 now. I don't like anything with too much strategy. //edit// Sorry if that sounds too rude. Email in my profile if you want my Steam ID.

> Call of Duty > strategy You've outed yourself, I'm afraid.

Maybe strategy isn't the right word. Maybe stealth would have been better.

Re: Pistol sights

#44

Post by lostboys67 »

binarytransform wrote: post #16

Former JSOC dude here. Circumstances requiring engaging with pistols == bad day for everyone, so only a few things matter. Front sight focus (which implies maintaining equidistance from the rear sight posts), both eyes open, fast presentation, parallel grip, smooth trigger pull, reacquire, repeat as necessary. And optical sights = more things that can break / run out of batteries / fall off and make noise / etc etc.

That reminds me of the quote for we where soldiers once and young

"Lt. Colonel Hal Moore: I think you oughta get yourself an M-16.

Sergeant Major Basil Plumley: Sir, if the time comes I need one, there'll be plenty lying on the ground. "

Re: Pistol sights

#45

Post by fivestar »

binarytransform wrote: post #16

Former JSOC dude here. Circumstances requiring engaging with pistols == bad day for everyone, so only a few things matter. Front sight focus (which implies maintaining equidistance from the rear sight posts), both eyes open, fast presentation, parallel grip, smooth trigger pull, reacquire, repeat as necessary. And optical sights = more things that can break / run out of batteries / fall off and make noise / etc etc.

I have not personally been in a gunfight (thankfully) but a couple different people I know have. It went something like this: "Oh shit" followed by the gun being drawn and fired in very close quarters with no aiming whatsoever because the person/people was/were knife distance away. I know that's not how all encounters go down, but my takeaway from these stories is that contact distance is the norm and you should expect to fire a lot of rounds and not achieve very good hits if any. Bad day indeed.

Re: Pistol sights

#46

Post by fivestar »

danso wrote: post #33
duncan_bayne wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Circumstances requiring engaging with pistols == bad day for everyone I've shot a bit, but only rimfire long guns, air rifles, and air pistols. The pistols were harder to shoot by a _long_ margin, and I can imagine it'd get orders of magnitude harder w/ more recoil, noise to promote flinching, etc. etc. So with your comments in mind, and my own limited experience, do you have any idea why every Police-critter here…

Police officers' main roles, ideally, are not to display a show of force. Think about neighborhood beat walks, to writing tickets to motorists, to handing out citations and doing stop and frisks. In all of those situations, handling a rifle is extremely cumbersome never mind socially awkward. FWIW, in some/manyjurisdictions, patrol vehicles come equipped with a shotgun.

Based upon the huge number of surplus police shotguns presently for sale, I suspect that most patrol cars now have rifles in them.

Re: Pistol sights

#47

Post by steverb »

electrograv wrote: post #7

If you're interested in the science behind this, you may be even more interested in learning how peephole style rear iron sights almost eliminate the dual sight alignment problem of goal-post style rear sights (as commonly found on pistols). The rear peep sight on rifles take advantage of actual "optical effects", without any glass -- much like a pinhole camera can actually magnify images without any lenses or mirror…

When I shot competitively (rifle in HS, almost 30 years ago) I was a big fan of the double peephole sights. All you had to do was center the target in the aperture and make sure the aperture was circular.

Takes all the work out of sight alignment and then you can focus on breathing, heartbeat and trigger squeeze.

Re: Pistol sights

#48

Post by fivestar »

arthur_trudeau wrote: post #8
electrograv wrote: post #7

If you're interested in the science behind this, you may be even more interested in learning how peephole style rear iron sights almost eliminate the dual sight alignment problem of goal-post style rear sights (as commonly found on pistols). The rear peep sight on rifles take advantage of actual "optical effects", without any glass -- much like a pinhole camera can actually magnify images without any lenses or mirror…

Palma competitors routinely hit out to 1000 yards with iron sights (in reality, aperture sights). They are extremely effective.

Palma rifles don't have post front sights. They use adjustable front and rear apertures. You still generally focus on the front sight. All you do with the rear is center up the front in the rear and the target is blurry but centered in the front one. This is the same for really any distance from 50 feet up to 1000 yards. And yes, I have been involved in those competitions.

The hard part is having a solid hold and body control, reading the wind, and having super consistent ammunition that you intimately know all the elevation adjustments for. The remainder is how much money you spent on your barrel and how many rounds it has down it. A tight shooting coat helps a great deal, too.

I got bored with the whole thing when it occurred to me that I was just throwing money at barrels and other gear. Not to say that the game isn't highly competitive, but like auto racing, it's a money thing. Similar to many such pursuits, to take it to the max you will pretty much end up divorced.

Re: Pistol sights

#49

Post by Tuna-Fish »

wyager wrote: post #30
duncan_bayne wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Circumstances requiring engaging with pistols == bad day for everyone I've shot a bit, but only rimfire long guns, air rifles, and air pistols. The pistols were harder to shoot by a _long_ margin, and I can imagine it'd get orders of magnitude harder w/ more recoil, noise to promote flinching, etc. etc. So with your comments in mind, and my own limited experience, do you have any idea why every Police-critter here…

Handguns are drastically easier to carry than rifles. Hollow point handgun rounds drastically reduce the danger of over-penetration present with rifle rounds for likely police scenarios. Most plausible scenarios where an officer would be forced to discharge a weapon wouldn't really benefit from a larger, more cumbersome weapon. Police usually have to shoot in close-range engagements that end in a few short seconds. C…

Your third point hits the nail on the head imho, but this:

> Hollow point handgun rounds drastically reduce the danger of over-penetration present with rifle rounds for likely police scenarios.

Isn't really true anymore. There are modern cartridges for 5.56 that have great ballistics while in the air, and then very reliably dump all their energy into the first thing they hit, to the point where if you shoot drywall they will make a huge hole in it but not significantly harm a person standing a few meters behind it. If you are concerned about overpenetration, today it should guide your selection of ammo, not your weapon.

Re: Pistol sights

#50

Post by jabl »

fivestar wrote: post #45
binarytransform wrote: post #16

Former JSOC dude here. Circumstances requiring engaging with pistols == bad day for everyone, so only a few things matter. Front sight focus (which implies maintaining equidistance from the rear sight posts), both eyes open, fast presentation, parallel grip, smooth trigger pull, reacquire, repeat as necessary. And optical sights = more things that can break / run out of batteries / fall off and make noise / etc etc.

I have not personally been in a gunfight (thankfully) but a couple different people I know have. It went something like this: "Oh shit" followed by the gun being drawn and fired in very close quarters with no aiming whatsoever because the person/people was/were knife distance away. I know that's not how all encounters go down, but my takeaway from these stories is that contact distance is the norm and you should expe…

I vaguely recall reading somewhere about some study where they found out that when the police fire their pistols, at a range of 5 meters they hit about 50% of the time.

Having spent a fair amount of time in my youth shooting with a BB pistol in my parents garage, I find the above statistic entirely believable. Shooting a pistol accurately is much more difficult than it looks, so I can certainly imagine that in a high stress situation where your own life may be on the line you'll make simple mistakes that cause you to miss..

Post reply on HN