Meprolight FT Bullseye Micro Optic - No front site ?
- Thread starter Darth
- Start date
Phazer
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Interesting. I'd like to try it.
gun_slinger_boy
.338 Win Mag
I think the design makes sense for its purpose. It seems to be marketed as a self defense accessory and in self defense natural point and shoot is what will emerge. Getting one point of the sight radius on target is enough. Especially at close range. This is pretty much the inverse of a traditional shotgun.
ETA: This seems like an almost direct rip off of an old technology. Nothing new.
Last edited:
Greywolf224
6.5 Creedmoor
Would definitely require getting used to. Concept sounds good just not sure.
Meprolight bought the patent, but then added tritiium.
Phazer
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Okay....now I need to buy another Glock to put one on and try it out. I was looking for a reason to get a Glock 22. 
Phazer
.450/400 Nitro Ex
What is the proper sight picture for this? 6 o'clock hold or dot covering target?
Wow, cool. I'd like to see a version for my Shield.
Has to be POA/POI I imagine.
Vati
9mm
interesting
ECU Pirates
.308 Win
Why not just have a bright front sight? Looks like a gimmick to me but a navy seal is pushing it so I'm sure many active seals will start using it.....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
I don't see how you can get accuracy out of having no front sight. Your elevation would be off.
gun_slinger_boy
.338 Win Mag
I think that's the point. Well not the point but the understanding. Again, I think it's pretty apparent that this is marketed for self defense. What do you need meprolight for? To see in the dark. When will you be shooting in the dark? Most likely a self defense situation (close range up close and personal). Either that or you're a navy seal on a night op or a mafia assassin. Get the sight somewhere on center mass and fire.
Combination of point shoot + this would put you pretty damn close. After doing a lot of point shooting unless you are shooting out past 6 or 7 yards you kinda stop using your sights altogether.
meketrefe
.450/400 Nitro Ex
This thread brings up an interesting dilema for many:
In what plane is the main focus on your pistol shooting?
Do you actually aim the sights or you actually focus on the target and point letting your brain put the sight picture in 2nd place?
I am going to assume that if one is a tactical shotgun shooter is going to be conditioned by one factor of the shotgun.
I am talking fast, tactical, "Oh shit", shoot while running for cover type of shooting.
We know some people are going to be great shooters and somehow this becomes natural to get consistent but do you know how that happens?
Of course it is not a shotgun and it is not a rifle or a target pistol.
I think there is a potential flaw with any closed sights if you know what I mean.
In what plane is the main focus on your pistol shooting?
Do you actually aim the sights or you actually focus on the target and point letting your brain put the sight picture in 2nd place?
I am going to assume that if one is a tactical shotgun shooter is going to be conditioned by one factor of the shotgun.
I am talking fast, tactical, "Oh shit", shoot while running for cover type of shooting.
We know some people are going to be great shooters and somehow this becomes natural to get consistent but do you know how that happens?
Of course it is not a shotgun and it is not a rifle or a target pistol.
I think there is a potential flaw with any closed sights if you know what I mean.
Isn't the front sight supposed to be the focus? Honestly since most defensive shootings occur at point blank range and given their chaotic nature bet the sights aren't even used in most cases. Look at that video that was posted here earlier with the woman charging down on three home intruders. She just ran in gun blazing one handed a killed one guy. That was definitely not aimed fire but she was nonetheless effective. When the shit hits the fan technique and training go right out the window.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
In the Marines before red dots and Acogs came out, one of my Sergeants at the time taught us in close quarters to just use the front sight post like a shotgun.
In a live fire exercise (I can't remember the range. It was way less than 100 yards), I tried it and low and behold, I was getting hits. No groups to speak of of course but nonetheless I was hitting the target. (the man sized one.)
I don't know how that would work with just the rear sight.
Wouldn't the front of the barrel be all over the place?
The most important sight is the front one. No?
In a live fire exercise (I can't remember the range. It was way less than 100 yards), I tried it and low and behold, I was getting hits. No groups to speak of of course but nonetheless I was hitting the target. (the man sized one.)
I don't know how that would work with just the rear sight.
Wouldn't the front of the barrel be all over the place?
The most important sight is the front one. No?
ECU Pirates
.308 Win
I was taught to look at the front post. Most instructors say the same. Maybe they are trying to make some money here hahahaha
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Hmmm. I don't know what to think of that. I guess that would work.
But now you have a hole in your slide.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Where the front sight is supposed to be. No?
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Then what's the point? I'm OCD. That would drive me crazy.
meketrefe
.450/400 Nitro Ex
That is an interesting observation and where I was going with this.
The way we humans learn and do certain things has not changed much for thousands of years.
Some things are hardwired in our brains like estimating distances, trajectory, detecting movement, etc...
They might be dormant skills due to modern life but they are there.
I am not saying we don't need sights but I want people to think about this for a minute.
Any skeet or sporting clay shooters here might have some some additional ideas.
Do we really need front and back sights?
ECU Pirates
.308 Win
Front yes rear no in my opinion (for up close work).That woman in the video scored lucky hits from close range while running and shooting one handed. Better lucky than. good but looking at the front sight tends to increase luck greatly! Just my opinion and observations.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
meketrefe
.450/400 Nitro Ex
I agree she got lucky but lets put the woman aside and think how we can see a clear picture.
Also how our brain assembles what we are doing in an effective way for us.
Also how our brain assembles what we are doing in an effective way for us.
gun_slinger_boy
.338 Win Mag
To answer your question meketrefe no. I don't think we need sights except for long distances. Even then you can walk in your shots with a spotter. As far as front OR rear I don't think it matters much if the sight is on the same plane. On a shotgun the sight is on the front because it's the furthest away from your eyes/shoulder making it easier to pick up. With a pistol you'd be giving up 3 maybe 4 inches if it was on the rear? If you can train well enough for the sight (back or front) to be like a red dot you'd be in business. But would you have time to look at even one sight anyhow?
meketrefe
.450/400 Nitro Ex
In the shotgun we point and the main focus goes on the target. Proper position and the ocular axis itself becomes your directional reference. We point, we dont aim. Things are moving fast so aint got time for that! Lol there is a lot more than putting things in the same plane. Specially because our brain does not work like that when it comes to trajectory and it pics up clues from periferal input.
I firmly believe that shooting a pistol tactically and fast it has more to do with skeet, archery, etc..than it does with aiming like we do with a rifle.
I firmly believe that shooting a pistol tactically and fast it has more to do with skeet, archery, etc..than it does with aiming like we do with a rifle.