USGI M1 rifle- which front sight?

C

Chris_B

New member
I'm refering to the Winchester (wider 'wings') vs Springfield (narrower 'wings') front sight.

Seems to me this is more than a bit subjective from shooter to shooter; I have a '44 Springfield, all Springfield parts but not all '44 production, and for me, I do think I wish the front sight 'wings' were a touch wider. The correlation between the sights and my eye re: distance and perceived size of the front sight seems an obvious one, but where I am most comfortable shooting, the front sight seems a bit narrow for my taste. Contrast with my '43 M1 carbine, the 'wings' are a touch wider in my view through the rear peep, and I find the sight picture perfect.

However, I also realize the diameter of the rear peep plays a role. So my specific situation is:

Is it worthwhile to consider the Winchester front sight, or am I swapping one "problem" (if you could cal it that) for another? Or alternatively, is there a slightly smaller diameter USGI rear peep? Never heard of that though.
 
1

10-96

New member
You could go with a Nat'l Match rear peep- easily found on line. However, those almost always have extended hoods and change the appearance quite a bit.

As far as front sights- I have one of each, and when it comes to poking paper I really can't tell much of any appreciable difference. They're not hard to change, and if you get one and don't like it- it'll always be worth something to somebody.
 
S

Slamfire

New member
I don’t use the sight wings to aim at the target. I use the post. I don’t care whether the sight wings are wide, or short, thick or thin. However, post thickness is important depending on the type of target used. If you plan to shoot on the Army 5 V target then you ought to use the NM front. Since there are not too many 5V targets around this may not be an issue. I have shot on the 5V target and the diameter of the 5V was designed to be the width of the 03 Springfield post sight, at distance. It is tiny. I tried using a wide post on that pin point of a target and it does not work well.

If you only shoot 6 OC, then go for a thinner front post. A wide post is harder to align perfectly at the 6 OC position. If you use flat tire or center hold, then the wider front post is better as it does not disappear totally within the bull.

However, if you plan to aim with the sight wings, who needs a post?
 
C

Chris_B

New member
No need for a post if you use the wings. First I have heard of that. Respectfully I have my doubts, but if it works for you, go for it. I must report that I will continue to use the post and the wings to create my sight picture.

I think I'll be on the lookout for a Winchester front sight, and if it doesn't do what I want, I can swap the Springfield back in easy enough.
 
T

T. O'Heir

New member
A slightly smaller diameter USGI rear peep is a National Match rear sight. Mated with a NM front blade. It's 10 thou thinner than a standard blade.
However, it sounds like you're spending too much time looking at the sights and not the target. Look through the peep at the front blade and sit the bull on top of the blade. Ignore the sight protectors altogether too.
 
C

Chris_B

New member
:) Thanks Tim but no, not looking at the sights instead of the target. My trouble here isn't "I'm having accuracy troubles I can't figure out" although I can always stand to improve.

My trouble here is, literally, I prefer the sight picture on my M1 carbine. Just prefer it, no real "problem"; it feels more natural to me. I'd like to get my M1 rifle's sight picture a little closer to it. Personal preference. The "issue", (which is weird to even say, nothing's really "wrong") is probably 100% mental but I would like to make this small change on my M1 if feasible.
 
O

Orlando

New member
Many shooters prefer the IHC sights over all others,they have the widest ears. I use them on all my shooter Garands
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top