Pistol Smith Forum banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hi all,

I've been trying to figure out what sights to have put on my Kimber Custom Classic. I hate the factory sights. I have MMC's and Novaks on two other 1911's, and I love them. I noticed that the front sight seems to sit a little higher, the rear notch is deeper, and there is more "light" between the sights.

I like the "look" of the Heinie Slant Pro, but I have no way to see a set on a gun. What are the differences, in terms of sight picture between them and the MMC/Novaks?

What do you prefer and why?

Thanks for the help.

SFB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
210 Posts
Personally, I prefer the Heinie Slant Pros over ANY other sights on the market. I think it has the cleanest sight picture. Just one plane, with serrations. I'm not too crazy about the Novak sight picture. Also, I think the Heinie's look the nicest too.

Here's an editorial written by the late Brian Bilby, comparing the Heinie's and Novaks. For what it's worth, I agree with what he had to say...

http://www.gunrag.com/showarticle.php3?article=20
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
988 Posts
Bill:

I have owned many sets of Novaks, and thought they were great. Then, Dane built me a 1911 and it had the Heinie sights on it. Frankly, when I heard that, I was tentative.

After shooting with the Heinie sights for awhile now, I am hooked. Very good sight picture, very uncluttered and non-busy. You pull it up and the front sight is just THERE. Recently I sent several Glocks to Dane to have the Heinie sights installed, I prefer them over anything else I have used.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
580 Posts
On 2001-06-25 00:33, San Francisquito Bill wrote:
Hi all,

I like the "look" of the Heinie Slant Pro, but I have no way to see a set on a gun.
SFB
A pic from Heinie's site, S/P's on a Kimber:
http://www.heinie.com/355big.htm

Agree on Kimber sights being lousy. Trit. went dead on an Elite Carry in less than two years.
IMO only Novak's look great and are the most streamlined, non-snagging sights going.
Heinie's are almost as ugly as Kimber OEM except perhaps on the "square" Glock.

Novak's are excellent sights but Heinie's are probably better all around. Novak's, does however, offer many more options/combinations over S/P's, like Bar-Dot trit. etc.

FWIW, think Novak's cust. service seems lots better. Lost a Heinie front sight off a Glock {my fault} in a match. Heinie would sell me a repl. front for $24.95 but still wanted $8 postage for something that could have been tossed in a 1st Class envelope so I got it from Brownells.
Funny thing is S/P's for Glocks are $ 47.95 a set. Front alone is $24.95, rear: $34.95. The $11.95 difference is for ? Novak's would have just sent me one gratis.


_________________
"Cogito, ergo armo"



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Pistolero on 2001-06-25 14:01 ]</font>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
555 Posts
Hey Bill.

The vogue sight now to have is the Heinie Slant Pro. It is pretty nice and I like the one I have. I also have the Novak LoMount on a gun and I like that one too. I shoot both equally well and see the front sight on both very well. The difference in sight picture doesn't bother me and I am able to go back forth with no problems. I think you will like either one you choose.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
934 Posts
Everyone's eyes work differently, so you've got to try the sights to see which works for you. Myself, I find the Novak sights to align a bit faster for me. However, I have no problems with the Heinie sights. On the Heinie's I prefer the original combat sight over the slant pros.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,831 Posts
Everyone's eyes work differently....
Actually Alex, the eye works pretty much the same for everyone. It is a human thing :grin: What we prefer is based on our own exposure and experiences. The DOD, and US Army have done exhaustive studies on sight, on the effects of stress on sight, night vision and sight speed.

The physical ability of the eye to work under those conditions is enhanced by several things. Heinie sights have a better chance of allowing your eye to work at the upper level of what it is capable of in day light. That may have been by design or by accident (accident I assume because not all the details are incorporated) on Heinie's design.

The Heinie design is less cluttered to the eye's focus and visual clarity, that enables a faster focus on the front sight.

At speed your eye doesn't go dierctly to the front sight. It starts at the first focal plan (what ever it sees of the gun first, generally teh rear of the slide) and looks outward to the front sight. The less planes it has to focus on to get there the faster the acquired front sight.

Shooting speed is defined by "sight" speed. You have to see fast, to shoot fast, plain and simple. "See speed" is in part what you are born with and part what you can enhance. Leatham and Top Gun pilots have amazing "see speed". They have also worked at getting better at it.

What we prefer in sights is subjective, based generally on exposure or personal attributes not based on what is needed from a sight, which is being able to see them quickly and align them easily.

Night sites are equally confusing. I suspect even more tax payer's money has been spent on the studies of night vision. There is a reason that a dot system in a vertical pattern is used on every flight line. The eye sees it better. There are no bar dots, horizontal three dots in use there. The lights are in a vertical string, which our eye is better at aligning.

There is enough scientific data to give a person a fair idea on how to design a sight to best be used by the eye. Bomar was one of the first. Heinie admits to designing a fixed sight from the Bomar sight picture. Good move on his part IMO.

Personal preference? I find no difference that I can "shoot" between the original and the slant pro. The Original Heinie does offer some slight advantage in angled lighting.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Dane Burns on 2001-06-25 16:26 ]</font>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
934 Posts
On 2001-06-25 16:21, Dane Burns wrote:

Personal preference? I find no difference that I can "shoot" between the original and the slant pro. The Original Heinie does offer some slight advantage in angled lighting.
That is exactly why I prefer the original over the Slant Pros. That slight foward angle is just enough to cause me a problem compared to the vertical plane of the older sights.

This might have to do with your much better description of how the eyes work. I find the notch in the Novaks helps to draw my eyes in to get a proper alignment a bit quicker than the single plane on the Heinie sights.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
581 Posts
As far as pretty goes, I think the Novak wins. As far as better to use, the Heinie wins. The new slant pro looks better and tends to match the "lines" better, but I still use the old Heinie sight. I fact the new top end I put on my single stack has the old version of the Heinie.

Tom
AF Shooting Team
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
272 Posts
Dane,

Can you point me to the DOD studies on sights? Love to read the findings.

When you say the Heinie's have "a better chance" of giving the best sight picture...does that mean you think there is room for improvement? Perfect sights, are they just not out there yet?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
What about CMC night sights? I've always liked the shape and the rear seems to have that BoMar sight picture. I agree that at night, 3 dots is not the best, but. . .I like this shape -O- , but have not seen a sight with this in it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
I always thought the the sights by MMC made a lot of sense on a gun that is going to see both target & carry use. I would imagine they would work well for combat shooting also, although admittedly I have never shot in those games so I wouldn't advise their use as such.

But I do have a pistol equipped with their sights that I use for carry & the range. My particular example is a Makarov. I had MMC do the install, as it required slide machining and the sight package was put together by their technicians as they do not offer an "off the shelf" set for a Mak. I believe my rear unit is designed for a Smith 9MM, the front a Colt 1911.

Both are dovetailed into the slide, windage was dead on when I received the slide back. I adjusted the height during the initial range session & have never moved it since. The sights are rugged; I was concerned that they might look too bulky but after examining the finished product I don't think so. The elevation clicks are very definite & the sight picture is clear. The post may be a tad too wide in the rear notch for my particular taste; but that is probably due to using sights designed for a gun with a longer sight radius that the 3.5" barrel Makarov.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top