testtest

XD-M Elite vs. SA-35: Does New Outpace the Old?

blues_hawk said:
That's what I was afraid of. Both distance from and size of the target bull come into major play when this theory is used. If the sights are high when splitting the bull they need to be fixed. This is not just my opinion in this case. It's been debunked a thousand times and is in all the training manuals. Sad to see it in an SA article. :/
Click to expand...
I see it as a means to orient the sight picture consistently on a bull's eye. It is far easier to aim at the bottom of the bull than at the center if the ten ring is so small it can't be defined. Use the six o'clock and adjust the sights until you have zeroed at the POA at the six o'clock. I use this same method when shooting old military rifles with issue sights at 100 yards. The ten ring on most targets at the rifle range is far too small for my older eyes to see, and even then it is a struggle. I'm thrilled if I can do 4 MOA with a 1903 Springfield or such. Anything better than that is a fluke or some god has taken pity on me or is having fun.
 
Bassbob said:
Yep.

For me the answer is neither. Outside of the XD Mod 2, which I own, none of the striker guns from SA appeal to me in the least and have never been on my radar at all, although I have no doubt they are all good guns and function as intended. As for the SA 35, even if I was inclined to pick up a BHP clone it definitely wouldn't be that one. Way too many horror stories. And if I may dive in a little bit deeper even, I'll pass on any of the SA 1911s as well. Just on this forum there are so many people complaining about issues with them that I don't think I would ever consider one. My rationale may not be exactly fair here since 1911s are notoriously finnicky and there is no doubt SA's customer service department is apparently top notch, but the fact is Bassbob is not known for his patience. I will trade money for time.
Click to expand...
As always to each his own and your likes and dislikes are ok I have found every striker fired SA handgun to be great shooting guns and fit my hand perfectly. As for SA 1911’s I’ve purchased two and own one and have found them flawless.
 
I do like my XDm Elite compact, it fits my hand great, about the same size as a G19 just less capacity which doesn’t matter to me one bit, I concentrate on shot placement not how much ammo the gun holds, also really like my XDs Mod2, also fits me good, better then my Hellcat or P365 hate to say, but true
 
Keystone19250 said:
As always to each his own and your likes and dislikes are ok I have found every striker fired SA handgun to be great shooting guns and fit my hand perfectly. As for SA 1911’s I’ve purchased two and own one and have found them flawless.
Click to expand...
Well I will admit to never having handled any of them other than mine and an XDS. My lack of appeal for them is purely aesthetic.
 
Bassbob said:
Well I will admit to never having handled any of them other than mine and an XDS. My lack of appeal for them is purely aesthetic.
Click to expand...
Aesthetic are important to me also and I’ll admit to liking the looks of my XDM’s
And XD. I will honestly say there are many guns shown by other members that to me are fugly, but again to each his own.
 
Keystone19250 said:
Aesthetic are important to me also and I’ll admit to liking the looks of my XDM’s
And XD. I will honestly say there are many guns shown by other members that to me are fugly, but again to each his own.
Click to expand...
I like the look of the XD/XD Mod 2. And it isn't that I think the other options are fugly as much as it is that I think there are other guns I want more.

Today I had a Shadow Systems Glock clone in my hand. It had the interchangeable 1911 grip panel on it. It felt very nice. It's a nice gun and I see one in my future. I also found out that apparently if you are in a SD shooting and the police take your gun as evidence, SS will give you a new gun. They don't want them to be safe queens.
 
DDTM said:
I see it as a means to orient the sight picture consistently on a bull's eye. It is far easier to aim at the bottom of the bull than at the center if the ten ring is so small it can't be defined. Use the six o'clock and adjust the sights until you have zeroed at the POA at the six o'clock. I use this same method when shooting old military rifles with issue sights at 100 yards. The ten ring on most targets at the rifle range is far too small for my older eyes to see, and even then it is a struggle. I'm thrilled if I can do 4 MOA with a 1903 Springfield or such. Anything better than that is a fluke or some god has taken pity on me or is having fun.
Click to expand...

Having just squinted past the set of buckhorns on my 1894c trying to see the paper much less the bull at 100yrds I agree that old eyes struggle and know where you're coming from for sure. I moved in to 50yrds which is a much more likely range for the little carbine, and still had trouble splitting the sight in diamond from the bullseye. It was then that I realized the round front bead is a nuisance at any sort of range.

I still prefer to teach splitting the bull because not all targets are the same size or the same distance. I.e. If you set your sights to hit the center while you aim at the bottom of a 6inch black dot, when you shoot a 3 inch dot, it is going to hit high, and the same will happen on a larger target, hitting low when held at the bottom.

I hit the paper both times btw... just not the center, and I had to push my glasses up. :)

I just can't bring myself to scope the little .357mag carbine. Even the smallest scope looks like somebody strapped a jet engine on an rc car. I also tried to put a peep sight(gmrs?) on it again. It was never good in low light but I can't see through my old target peep at all in low light now. hence the return to the original buckhorns. Some things are just nicer in their historical clothes I reckon.
 
blues_hawk said:
Having just squinted past the set of buckhorns on my 1894c trying to see the paper much less the bull at 100yrds I agree that old eyes struggle and know where you're coming from for sure. I moved in to 50yrds which is a much more likely range for the little carbine, and still had trouble splitting the sight in diamond from the bullseye. It was then that I realized the round front bead is a nuisance at any sort of range.

I still prefer to teach splitting the bull because not all targets are the same size or the same distance. I.e. If you set your sights to hit the center while you aim at the bottom of a 6inch black dot, when you shoot a 3 inch dot, it is going to hit high, and the same will happen on a larger target, hitting low when held at the bottom.

I hit the paper both times btw... just not the center, and I had to push my glasses up. :)

I just can't bring myself to scope the little .357mag carbine. Even the smallest scope looks like somebody strapped a jet engine on an rc car. I also tried to put a peep sight(gmrs?) on it again. It was never good in low light but I can't see through my old target peep at all in low light now. hence the return to the original buckhorns. Some things are just nicer in their historical clothes I reckon.
Click to expand...
I must concur. I put a peep on my Finnish M39, but the distance to my eye is too far as like the 03. I reinstalled the original square notch rear sight. My 1917 Enfield is better as is the M1 Garand, but a set of 20 year old eyes beats any of the irons. The FAL and Arsenal milled receiver SAM7R both have optics, and both need them with the issue sights. My original 1911 has been altered with the addition of the old Micro sights installed over 50 years ago. It does as well as any of the other 1911's I have or the Browning HP with Novak sights. Now the three revolvers (S&W 586, Python, and a Ruger Super Blackhawk) are a different story. Any one of the revolvers are more accurate than any of the pistols excepting the M41 in my hands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top