[Rob Longenecker]

Pistolsmiths of the world - what say you?
There are many posts preferring fixed sights for a combat pistol and I don't disagree.

I have always had Bo-Mars on my pistols, mostly in the past for competition over thousands of rounds of practice, etc.

I don't have LEO experience and only 3 years of daily carry experience.

How many times do you see Bo-Mars that have failed due to hard use? I can't recall my buddies having problems either. Is it just that I operate in a different set of circumstances? Are there Bo-Mars flying off pistols or rear blades breaking off when bumping up against door frames?

Is there a real problem? I'd like to know what you all see coming across your bench.

 

[abnranger]

Not using a 1911 for duty in years as a MP, in recent years I have seen a number of competitors have these moving objects on the slide. They call them Bomars with broken pins and the sight flaps back and forth.

Eliason sights on Gold Cups were more notorious for this. The replacement Wichita Sights are more substantial.

Actaully Glock adj.s are least prone to breakage. MMC Sights I have not seen break.
Obvious reason for this is very few moving parts, no pins, etc.

 

[stipilot]

They call them Bomars with broken pins and the sight flaps back and forth.

I've never seen a real Bomar come apart on the range. I've seen numerous Bomar clones fall apart.

That's not to say Bomars never fail but failures with real Bomars are rare.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: stipilot on 2001-10-11 08:42 ]</font>

 

[Dane Burns]

"That's not to say Bomars never fail but failures with real Bomars are rare."

True enough, Bomars are good sights. There are better sights avaible these days, starting with the Bomar knock off from 20 years ago, Heinie's original. The sight picture and the durability is better.

No reason to have an adjustable on a 45 these days if the gun is built right unless you are shooting bulls eye. Lots of reasons to have a better sight picture and easy enough to do.

 

[Larry Pomykalski]

Real Bo-Mars seem very durable, and I don't think anything likely to damage the rear sight will leave the front sight (or the rest of the gun!) intact.

The real issue is dehorning-I've never gotten one to where it won't slice and dice.

Larry

 

[Dane Burns]

I have wrecked two rear sights that took some serious rebuilding or replacement to fix. How? Once dropping the gun, the other time running into the edge of an open jail lobby door, made of 1.5" thick glass. Neither time did I damage the gun or the front sight.

The way I use to carry a Bomar was sighted in and filled with Locktite 271. Either incident, one wrecking a Novak and the other a damaging a Heinie, would have most likely sheared the pin on the lever of the Bomar and / or snapped off the rear blade I suspect. The fixed rear sights were at least usable until they could be replaced. Nothing wrong with a Bomar other than the rear blade could use more serrations, serious melting and a bigger notch. Depth of the notch needs to be deeper but the design on the Bomar doesn't allow that. Like I said, Bomar is a good sight, but there are better ones made now.

As a adjustable sight, I would still use a Bomar given the choice...with a liberal dose of locktite when I get it sighted in :smile:

 

[usmcgrunt]

Dane, what do you think of MMC adjustable sights? I have seen them on one maybe more of Les Baer's pistols a while back. One of which comes to mind is a commander pistol named "TDP"!

_________________
Semper Fi!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: usmcgrunt on 2001-10-19 00:13 ]</font>

 

[Dane Burns]

As you know I always have an opinion :grin:

The MMC sight design is hell for stout and protected! The notch and sight picture could be a LOT better IMO.

I want sight picture first...the rest is a poor second when it comes to sight design in my mind.

For what ever that is worth :roll:

 

[Richard Heinie]

Here I go dating myself again, but I feel I
need to throw in my two cents on this subject.
Back in the early days of IPSC Bo-Mar Sights
were the hot ticket, because they gave you so much better sight picture, than the factory sights or the other adjustables that were on the market. I am talking about in the early 70's. However occasionally they would come apart and also change elevation. Many of the Top Shooters of the days would sight their Pistols in and then fill the sight with Red Loctite or Epoxy. Gee now you have what? A Fixed Sight. This is the reason I designed and started manufacturing my first Sight. Which gave you the same or better sight picture of the Bo-Mar without the shortcomings. Remember this was in the days of Hardball 45,with very little in the way of reduced loads, and standard Recoil Springs.
You weren't considered a "Real IPSC Shooter"
if you used wimp loads for practice.
This was also the learning time for those of us building Pistols. Much has been learned over the last few years on how to build a Pistol last will last longer.
I have several broken Bo-Mars in a box. What I saw most was the Rear Blade loosening and flapping. This isn't to say the B0-Mar is a weak sight, it isn't. This is to point out some of the reasons for the Fixed Sights. Personally I don't see a need for an adjustable sight on any of my Pistols. I don't shoot Bullseye and I have never found a wide variation Point Of Impact with different loads. I installed one on a Longslide 10MM Pistol and after I shot it I wondered why.
It is also much easier to make a Fixed Sight
that is user freindly. Like no sharp edges more contouring, etc.
Before somebody says, well I have shot XXXX
number rounds of Hardball thru my Pistol and it hasn't broke. Just remember Bo-Mar has also improved their product. If I have a customer that just has to have adjustable sights, I use a Bo-Mar or and STI which is a
knock off of the Bo-Mar.
I also have a design for an adjustable to replace a Bo-Mar, but at this time don't see a need for it. I will stick with the plain old non-adjustable.

 

[GrandmasterB]

This is a very accurate and well-said statement...

On 2001-10-19 00:19, Dane Burns wrote:
I want sight picture first...the rest is a poor second when it comes to sight design in my mind.

I have owned handguns for 10 years, but only started shooting IPSC and IDPA about a year and a half ago. It has changed the way I look at shooting, and has increased my awareness of sight picture, and how important it is to being able shoot well.

I shoot these sports for fun. In fact, I often shoot a variety of guns, taking a different gun to each match I go to. It has taught me a lot about what works well and what doesn't for me.

I've shot IPSC with a Glock 23 (Limited class, before Production and L10 were even introduced), with an STI Trojan, with a 9mm Hi Power (yes, I got "killed" on the scoring, but it was fun) and with my Caspian Gold Cup that I built. (for more on that subject, see this thread http://www.pistolsmith.com/viewtopic.ph ... 1&forum=12 )

The Glock has three dot Trijicon night sights. The STI Trojan has STI's Bo-Mar copy, but the rear blade is fully serrated and has rounded corners and I recently changed from the plain balck front to a Dawson Fiber optic. The Hi Power has plain black Heinie's and the Gold Cup has the Colt Accro rear and a dimpled front with a dot of gold paint.

I shoot the best with the Trojan and the Hi Power. Here's why: Sight Picture

I've found that the best sights for my eyes are ones that give a sight picture like a Bo-Mar, are fully serrated and I also like a wide, deep rear notch and I like to see a lot of light on either side of the front sight when it is centered in the notch. As for dots, bars, etc., I have found that black on black is very good, if the notch is deep and wide. I do like the narrow .090 fiber optic front for competition. It is great!

I have had MMC's in the past, but I won't have them again. They are very strong, but the sight picture doesn't work for me. Neither does the Novak. (YMMV :smile: ) I also don't think much of three-dot sights anymore. For fast target acquisition, nothing works for me like the Bo-Mar/Heinie sight picture.

I adjusted the rear sight on the Trojan about a year ago. I shoot the same loads in competion and practice, so I've never needed to adjust it again. On the Hi Power, I haven't noticed any appreciable difference between shooting 115gr 9mm factory ammo and 124gr reloads. They go pretty much where I put them at IDPA distances.

I guess the moral of the story is: Find what sights give you the best sight picture, allowing you to shoot to your potential, and you won't go wrong. Don't get all wrapped up in what is stronger or more durable. you might find yourself with a durable sight that doesn't work for you because the sight picture is no good.

_________________
Byron Simpson

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: GrandmasterB on 2001-10-21 17:41 ]</font>

 

[Kyle Farris]

Wilson makes a Bo-mar that is hardened. I have no experience with it. The bigdogs on one of the competition forums say it is the ticket in the Bo-mar design.

 

[Ken Sham]

I agree that Bo-Mars (or its clones) need a real melt job to make them more carry friendly.

A few weeks ago, I was shooting my 1911 with Heinie Slant Pros. I rack the slide hard all the time without looking, and never had a problem. I then was shooting my friend's Kimber Gold Match, which has their Bomar knock offs. I went to do a quick slide rack, and man...that rear sight nearly tore some skin off my left hand!

 

[SF]

For a serious gun, I have come to favor no-snag fixed Bar-Dot tritium sights, with a .100" wide front sight, serrations on front and rear. While I like the profile of the Novak on the gun than the Heinie, the Heinie has a better sight picture than Novak or Wilson's, IMO.

In the past ~3 years I've used a variety of sights in ISPC: Bomars with .100" wide and .085" wide and fiber optic front sights, rear sights with squared and rounded corners, Elliasion, Wilson Nite eyes, Trijicon 3-dot.

As to the Bomars, both have cut my off hand when cycling the slide. For concealed carry, the bomars catch on clothing and doorways. The Bomars have been durable, except for needed loctite. I like the sight picture of the Bomars, and the thin front sights. The .085" with a red fiber is very quick to pick up, but I want tritium for a social gun.

The roll pin on the Elliason broke. It's a more vulnerable sight than the bomars, and the sight picture isn't as good. The front sight is WAY too wide and if I kept the gun, I'd narrow it to .100. I can't carry this gun, as the sights are sharp and don't have tritium. If I wanted to carry the Gold Cup, I'd have to have the Elliason cut welded up and a new cut machined: expensive. Wilson does make a very stout adjustable that will fit the Gold Cup, but it's HUGE.

I've been pleased with Wilson's nite eyes. Durable, no-snag. After 6 years the dots are still bright. However, the front sight is too wide. Again, the sight picture on Heinie's sights is better.

Ditto for the comments on Trijicons.

On my newest full-custom gun I've spec'd Heinie's with a narrowed front sights.

FWIW,

SF