I recently bought a sight tool and have finally decided to swap out the front sight on my P365. I love my P365 but seem to shoot really low with it as I can't get accustomed to the sight picture-#6 front and #8 rear/Combat Sights. I am looking to get a factory Siglite #8 front sight and was wondering if it would fit? Has anyone changed their #6 front sight to a #8? Which sight/brand did you find worked best for you? I can shoot my P226 perfectly as both sights are #8 and want to do the same with my P365. Thanks is advance.

quote:

Originally posted by patw:
shoot really low with it

How low do you shoot, and at what distance(s)? Did you purchase the P365 new, and does it currently have the original factory sights?

Although the short sight radius of the P365 would alter the actual effect to a degree, keep in mind that the difference that SIG traditionally cites for a two-number change of the front sight (e.g., from 6 to 8) is 2 inches at 25 yards. That translates to about 1.6 inches at 15 yards and ~0.6" at 7. In other words, that amount of sight number change isn’t going to help much if you’re hitting “really” low.

I would bet a nickel that if the point of impact with the P365 is really low, it’s not the sights that are the cause, but something about how the pistol is being controlled when fired. The grip size difference between a P226 and P365 can make shooting the latter much more difficult.

To answer your question, though, there would be no difference in the bases between a 6 and 8 sight of the same type. Keep in mind, though, that if they are not the same type, i.e., from the same manufacturer, a #8 by one may not be the same height as a #8 from another company.

What sight picture are you using? 6 o’clock, center, or combat hold?

quote:

Originally posted by kilyung:
What sight picture are you using? 6 o’clock, center, or combat hold?

I don’t know what a “combat hold” is, but the question of what sight picture the shooter is using is a valid one.

A “6 o’clock hold” is meaningless without specifying the type of target and its distance, so hopefully the shooter isn’t attempting that without having both clearly established.

On the other hand, at one time at least SIG stated that the sight picture should be with the sights properly aligned and the front sight dot visually superimposed over the desired point of impact. But even if the shooter places the top of the front sight blade on the desired POI (with the sights properly aligned, of course), that will change the POI only slightly, especially at short ranges.

I bought the P365 brand new and it functions perfectly and I fell in love with it's size/capacity. I have used many types of ammo.-fmj/jhp and different weights but get the same results,always lower than point of aim sight picture. I have been shooting guns,(Sigs,Berettas,Glocks,etc.), for many years now, have always had good groups and was always able to shoot what I aim at. With the P365 it seems, I have to aim a little higher than the area I am trying to hit. I would switch to my Glock or Sig MK25 or P229 and I am dead on and can literally hit exactly where I am aiming at-head, torso or arm on a standard target. I don't mean to sound like I am bragging as the guns are much more accurate than I. I have had several smaller guns, like the Glock 43/26 and a Shield 9mm and never had any issues with them, as far as accuracy is concerned.

My son and I go out shooting and he seems to shoot low with the 365 as well and he is actually a pretty good shot himself. Takes after his old man I guess . I figured I would try a lower height front sight to try to improve my shooting/aiming/hits. I know it changes the poi at certain ranges but I usually shoot at a range of 7,10 and 15 yards for the most part.

At fifteen yards, the P365 is dead on, for me: that is, it's hitting to point of aim with the front sight over the point of aim. I'd like it to be on top of the front sight, but it's a pocket pistol with small, low profile sights and I think it works fine for what it is. A lot of my Sigs hit the same place with factory sights, or aftermarket sights with the same height values.

In every case, the pistol is cable of more than I'm able to deliver. They're not tack drivers, and I don't shoot through the same hole; I'm sure others could do much better. Each of mine were purchased with one intend: to hopefully never be used to put a hole in the chest of someone who is shooting back. If I can keep everything close to the center mass, or to the intended target, and can do it with limited time, then I won't lose sleep.

Directly behind the sight, or just on top of it, if the round goes where I wanted it to go, then it's good. If the round hits behind the sight instead of on top, it seems the obvious act is to aim a little higher.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

On the other hand, at one time at least SIG stated that the sight picture should be with the sights properly aligned and the front sight dot visually superimposed over the desired point of impact. But even if the shooter places the top of the front sight blade on the desired POI (with the sights properly aligned, of course), that will change the POI only slightly, especially at short ranges.

That is the "combat hold." The front dot covers the target. And you are right, at seven yards, this makes only a small difference when compared to having the gun zeroed with the point of impact sitting just on top of the front sight blade. I don't care for the "combat hold" as it goes against too many years of expecting the POI-just-on-top sight picture.

But this probably doesn't account for the OP's shooting low. But it would be useful to know how much low at what range. By all means, change the sights. If your technique and grip is good, then change the sights as needed.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
That is the "combat hold."

Thank you. I am old, but although I am not nearly as set in my ways as some my age I am nevertheless sometimes annoyed by the proliferation of meaningless—not to mention just plain misleading—terms in our community. It seems to me that everyone who wants to stand out from the crowd of pundits believes it’s necessary to have some sort of “Look at me” gimmick. Making up meaningless terms like “combat hold*” isn’t the worst example (e.g., having students shoot while a staff assistant stands between the targets), but I sometimes wonder what new shooters think when they’re exposed to them.

* I often use the dot on the target sight picture, but never once has it been in combat. And how did all those poor saps who used weapons like the 1911, M1, M14, and M16 whose sights didn’t have any dots at all ever manage to survive in real combat involving enemies whose threats were somewhat greater than the paper cuts possible from cardboard sheets? We were forced to put the top of the front sight blade on the target in our sight pictures.

Rant off, and we now return to our regularly scheduled programming.

"Combat hold" is actually a fairly common term these days. It doesn't actually mean that you're in combat, or doesn't care much about what a pistol in WW1 had for sights. The notion is that it's not bullseye shooting: it's dot to center mass under stress and good enough. Hence, "combat hold" vs. target shooting.

Personally, I'd rather see the point of aim just above the sight, rather than obscured by it, especially when it's obscured by a large front sight. I find it a lot easier to use a fiber optic front with a small, easy to see, clearly defined dot that doesn't take up a lot of space, and that allows me to be, or at least think I'm being, more precise in placement.

I believe that if the steel target or wooden posts with cardboard stapled in between were to grow arms, legs, and start shooting back, I'd be far less concerned about the A-zone or ten ring or whatever the flavor of the day might be, and a lot more concerned that enough shots went into the target to stop the threat. In that case, I wouldn't be worried about seeing the point of aim just above the front sight and finessing it to get it within a gnats width of the last hole. Just holding the front sight on the target and pressing the trigger until I felt less threatened.

Early 1911's suffered from pathetically inadequate sights, but dots of various types have been around since the 1800's. Whether it's a blacked out burned front sight or a gold dot, favored by many, the specifics vary with the user, but dots are common and have been for nearly two centuries. If people want to call putting the dot on the point of aim and pressing the trigger a "combat hold," it odesn't seem that far removed from the truth.

patw,

I sent my 365 slide to sig to get the front sight changed to a #8.It brought the POI from a "combat hold" to about a "center hold". This is more in line with my other handguns sight picture.
It was worth the cost (60$) and the turn around time.... 6 days. This was just pre bat herpes. Might be more of both now.
I highly recommend the change.

Oscar Zulu

Thanks Oscar Zulu. I recently bought a Sight pusher and removed the front sight already and am debating what front sight to get but will more than likely get a factory Siglite #8.

I believe I have read that Sig really puts that front sight on tight. Good luck, and I believe you will really enjoy the result!
(I really like the sights that came on the gun, except for the front sight height).

Oscar Zulu

quote:

Originally posted by Oscar Zulu:
I believe I have read that Sig really puts that front sight on tight. Good luck, and I believe you will really enjoy the result!
(I really like the sights that came on the gun, except for the front sight height).

Oscar Zulu

Yes. The old style SIGs generally have the sight blades in tight. They can be hard to get moved.

The ameriglo front sight sized #8 does essentially the same thing -- at least on the XL. It's a dramatic improvement if you like to see the POI when you pull the trigger.

I ordered a set of factory sights #9357 from MGW,which I understand are #8 in front and rear, so hopefully it won't be so bad. I like the X-ray sights but hate the numbering Sig does for the guns. My MK25 has #8 in front and rear and is perfect. I bought a used Kaiser universal sight puller,(UNI-2OOL) and it removed the front P365 sight pretty easy. I am hoping it does the same for the factory ones.