Slowfire: irons vs. dot

I shot 7 targets of 20 shots each. 4 with a dot on my new Marvel mounted on a 3.5 pound trigger lower and then 3 using 2 pound standard pistol Pardini. 25 yard slowfire target and Aguila ammo for all groups.

I guess I am not perplexed at my results but somewhat surprised, but I believe I know why.

All three slowfire targets with the Pardini had a higher score and less fliers. only one shot off call and fewer out of the 9 ring.  smaller groups overall but not as many stacked on top of each other. The dot targets all had fliers out of the main group, I believe from poor follow through, but I called all of them there. The worst dot target was 10 points lower than the best iron sighted target, the best dot was 5 points lower.  a 190-5x is a pretty good Pardini day for this expert and I did that twice.

I believe this happened because even though I could see plenty of movement using the irons it just seemed to sit there better after looking at the movement in the dot. Therefore I just smoothly pulled the trigger and maintained follow through whereas with the dot I had a tougher time following my routine because there was visually more movement.  I can't remember ever shooting smaller groups and higher scores consistently with irons over dots. I think it is because I shot the irons right after the dot, but I have done this many times and seen such a big delta in groups and scores. Yes, I wrote my shot process down.

Recently my calls are just on the money with the dot, no surprises when scoping. I even stopped scoping the bad shots, why look when I know it's outside my group?

Anybody ever get results like this? Hopefully there is some discussion here.

It would have been nice if you had done a apple to apple test. Your 2lb trigger Pardini shot better slow fire groups then your 3.5 lb Marvel. I suspect that if your young enough that your eyes like (focus) on steel sights then it would be easy to shoot better with the better pistol no matter what sights you use. Try the same test when your 66 and get back to me. I shot my best slow fires with steel sights. But, dots were not even invented back then.

The triggers could make a difference.  So could the dot vs irons if you are trying to dress the dot holding too long.  Actually dot dressing can cascade into trigger faults and you may not interpret the original indicator.

Trying to get the perfect sight picture with dot or scope  changes the control of the trigger. When the scope or dot moves out of perfect alignment, the trigger squeeze is stopped and restarted. 

With iron sights, alignment is not as visible or  precise. Trigger control is much better.    IMO.

Len,
this was in no way a test, simply a practice session and I noted the results. I agree though I would have more quality results if I used the same pistol with two different sights. I agree the trigger does play a part in the differences seen. I am certainly a fan of the Pardini trigger.

I was trying to do the same process for both pistols but I do admit to changing some because of the dot with all its extra visible movement. I had a shot go off early with the dot because I squeezed to aggressively while moving into the center. always trying to improve the process.

Trigger control is king. When that dot or front sight for that matter, is bouncing, it takes a lot of guts to maintain proper trigger control. The more movement (the dot) the more guts it takes.

to quote the Triple Distinguished, Olympian that I am fortunate enough to shoot alongside of from time to time:

"The trigger is your life." Arnie Vitarbo

robert84010 wrote:to quote the Triple Distinguished, Olympian that I am fortunate enough to shoot alongside of from time to time:

"The trigger is your life." Arnie Vitarbo

Hey, next time you see Arnie tell him I said hello
Jon

robert84010 wrote:Len,
this was in no way a test, simply a practice session and I noted the results. I agree though I would have more quality results if I used the same pistol with two different sights. I agree the trigger does play a part in the differences seen. I am certainly a fan of the Pardini trigger.

I was trying to do the same process for both pistols but I do admit to changing some because of the dot with all its extra visible movement. I had a shot go off early with the dot because I squeezed to aggressively while moving into the center. always trying to improve the process.

I would also note the sights they use on Pardinis are pretty excellent and when combined with a long sight radius its an exceptional iron sight gun. Don't believe me? I would trade for that Pardini any day for my EIC Nelson which is running a 2.7 pound trigger. From a rest, both will hold under 2 inches at 50 yards easy but the Pardini will shoot under 2 inches when in the hand.

Irons verses dots:
Remember the National record is still held by Hershel Anderson shooting iron sights back in 1974, 2680-159X.

- Dave

I have a love/hate feeling about my dots, but shoot them because I feel like I have to support the score boost they provide.  

I feel so calm and happy behind my iron sights and seldom feel that way about the dot.

  I could just hold that .45 up all day looking over irons.  5-seconds of dot sweeping and bobbing across the target in .22 slow fire just seems to get to me.

I just spent a long time installing my first rail/dot on a .45 and shot the tightest group I have ever managed in .45, but for some reason I just don't feel happy about it.

Ugh, the cognitive dissonance of it all.  

I checked my Slow Fire averages from last season.   Red Dot 88, Iron Sights 82.   Red Dot on a Marvel Conversion, Iron Sights on a Nelson, both mounted on Kimber .45 frames and 2 7/8# triggers.   Difference in total scores are about the same ratio.