Edit to add, just found other '320 shooting low thread'

I recently purchased a 320c, been pretty happy with it and almost immediately had the GS throw on Dawson FO sights.

Unfortunately it's now shooting about an inch to inch and a half low at seven yards. Results replicated by two other shooters.

In talking to the GS and a good friend here on Sig Forum there seems to be evidence that Sig guns are better aimed with the 'Combat' method. That is to say the sight covers up the whole target. Which would explain why my shots are going low.

But I don't want to shoot like this, the damn dot is supposed to be where the bullet strikes. So what should I do? I can put the dot above the rear sight, but that's simply not right and negative training when switching to other platforms. Dawson wants me to get a calipers and measure the sight height and distance from rear to front sight as well as distance to target and how low I am.

It's frustrating because I really like the gun and can put multiple rounds into a half inch diameter at eight yards, it's just low.

I guess my questions is two fold; first, are there any other 320c drivers finding they are shooting low and second, what would you guys do?

Thanks

This message has been edited. Last edited by: evolution,

Install a shorter front sight if it is that annoying.

That's really the only way, and it's a problem that extends (as far as I can tell) across the line of 22X and 320 pistols. The problem is even worse at 25 yards (I think I stuck a paster on the target five inches above the bullseye in order to hit the bullseye when I shot a 227, 225A1 and a P250F .40 properly). I have no idea why SIG insisted on that sight set up, but it doesn't seem to make a lick of sense to anyone else.

If you're not using combat-sighting, what sight pic are you using? (Choice is probably between center-hold and 6:00 sighting, i.e. "pumpkin on a post".)

I'm a little confused. The other recent thread (if you read it) determined it was shooter error. You say the dot is where the bullet should hit. That is combat POA. Furthermore, it should be shooting a touch low at 7 yards. The bullet is still on an upward trajectory. Where is it hitting at 25 yards?

Ultimately if you want to change the POI, change the sight heights you're using. But I'm not reading anything that indicates there's an issue with the pistol.

I too am confused, or just wrong, not sure which. You state two things. You don't like the "combat" sighting and the POI should be at the dot. Aren't those the same things? Cover the bull with the front blade and the bullet strikes right behind where the dot basically is. Other than that you have the lollipop method. Someone with knowledge please elaborate. Gracias.

quote:

I'm a little confused. The other recent thread (if you read it) determined it was shooter error. You say the dot is where the bullet should hit. That is combat POA. Furthermore, it should be shooting a touch low at 7 yards. The bullet is still on an upward trajectory. Where is it hitting at 25 yards?

Ultimately if you want to change the POI, change the sight heights you're using. But I'm not reading anything that indicates there's an issue with the pistol.

I think the issue is how much lower. At 7 yards, the offset for not using combat sighting should only be around a half inch. He's reporting 1-1/2". That's over 21 minutes-of-angle!



If he's using 6:00 sighting, that could explain the large deviation (I'll wait for OP to weigh in before spinning the numbers.)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: kkina,

OK, so this is good information. I was told, or I misunderstood that combat was basically centering the sight post so the dot would be above where you actually want to hit. I thought "Well that's just stupid"

Looking at the above diagrams I use Combat sighting. I cover my intended POI with the dot.

I'm gonna try to run over to the range tomorrow and gather more information. I'll make sure I'm explaining everything correctly.

Bottom line, if you are hitting 1-1/2" low using a combat sight pic, something is askew somewhere. Whether it's the gun or technique, or something else is the question. Hopefully your range session tomorrow will shed some light. Keep us posted, definitely. It's an important topic, especially with the army's new sidearm platform (though not a "c").

I also double-checked on Dawson sights. Same basic dimensions as Sig, in the sense that my data calculations remain valid. However, we would still need to verify that the GS installed the correct size.

[Nice products, btw, those Dawson sights. Now I'm thinking of getting a set for my 229.]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: kkina,

When you go to the range use a decent rest.

Bob

Does the shooting low problem become exacerbated as you increase the distance to the target? Have you tried shooting it from a rest? I just acquired a P320 carry, which uses the same slide assembly as the compact (and I would assume the same sights), and it shoots perfectly to point of aim with a combat sight picture. It's almost scary how accurate this gun is.

What size 'group' are we talking for you discussion. In many of these discussions it seems the group that is low is really 3" in diameter and its center is perceived as low. If you have a nice 1/2" group and its not where you want it change the sights, but seriously test it from a rest and at longer distances.

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:
What size 'group' are we talking for you discussion. In many of these discussions it seems the group that is low is really 3" in diameter and its center is perceived as low. If you have a nice 1/2" group and its not where you want it change the sights, but seriously test it from a rest and at longer distances.

quote:

...multiple rounds into a half inch diameter at eight yards...

OP:

'evolution' means 'adapt or die';

from what I read above, my own impression is the front sight needs to be a little shorter, or the rear a little higher take your pick. Perhaps I'm wrong, it seems the bore of the barrel wants to be a little elevated at the muzzle for the load recipe and distance you report.

Dawson helped me sort out my own similar issue a couple years ago.

I would follow the process Dawson asks & you will likely be amazed at the result.

quote:

Originally posted by signewt:
OP:
from what I read above, my own impression is the front sight needs to be a little shorter, or the rear a little higher take your pick.

I'm sure that will work, but why was POI off in the first place? Did the GS install the wrong size aftermarket sight(s)?

Something that hasn't been mentioned is the bullet weight your sighting is regulated for.

I have a Ruger LC9S Pro that shoots about 2-2.5 inches low at 10 yards with 115 grain ammo. With this pistol it means that I have to center the dot in the top of the rear notch and use a Ball on a Tee hold to hit center.

Change to a 124 grain load and I can hit center using a Center Hold.

Change to a 147 grain load and a Combat Hold is dead on perfect. Which is flat out perfect for me because my preferred carry load is a 147 grain Federal HST. Additionally having spent many years carrying and shooting a 40 caliber P239 I have come to prefer a Combat Sight Picture.

However due to the distinct variety available in 9mm I've trained myself to use whatever sight picture works with the ammo I am shooting. BTW, I will note that it usually takes a magazine or two to remind me I need to change sight pictures but after taht I settle in rather easily. For those who complain doing this may build a bad habit I will simply remind them that I ONLY carry with ammunition that shoots to a Combat Hold.

Point is don't change your sighting until you know what your POI is with the ammunition that you want to use for carry.

All very good points. I actually refrained from discussing bullet weights as it sort of seemed like in the original post that the low-shooting happened immediately after installation of aftermarket sights, and that it was shooting OK before. But that issue is a bit unclear in the original text, thus I put off discussing it for the moment.

Your experience with the Ruger is interesting. I would not have expected shifts that large at those ranges from different weights alone.

So how did the gun shoot BEFORE the Dawson sights were installed???

Did I miss something?

First, Sig OEM sights are regulated for 25 yards, not 7 yards.

Second, have you asked the GS why the sights HE installed at YOUR request don't meet YOUR expectations?

Third, do you know definitively whether the GS actually installed the right sights?

Fourth, since Dawson seems to know something about their own sights, why aren't you following their instructions and working with them?

Fifth, you ask "...are there any other 320c drivers finding they are shooting low...". With what type of sights? Unless they have the same sights as yours, it's irrelevant how their guns are shooting.

Sixth, as stated by JRC, where did the gun shoot with the Sig OEM sights?

Seventh, POA/POI discussions are somewhat pointless, unless the shooting is done from a rest. In the thread referenced below both the OP and a friend found the gun to shoot low offhand. Shot where it was supposed to after they shot it from a rest. This happens all the time.

Eighth, the link I provided in my prior post is a comprehensive discussion on the Sig sights and sighting system. One of the best I've seen. I hope you have perused it.

Ninth, what caliber is it?

Don't know what low shooting thread you found, but if it's this one it's pretty instructive:
https://sigforum.com/eve/forums...0601935/m/5880064724

Not trying to beat you up here, but some clarity would be greatly appreciated.