Yeager On A Gun’s Sight Radius

Hmmmmm:

James-Yeager-Quite-Formidable-ArmyNow he’s just making shit up.  Sure, a couple people have probably said the “longer sight radius makes the gun more accurate”… but I’m sure they don’t actually believe it somehow makes the gun itself better through magic.  They just don’t realize what they are saying… and mean that it’s easier to BE accurate with the gun if you have a longer sight radius.

What’s next?  Black colored guns shoot better than white colored guns due to the amount of light absorbed v.s. reflected?  GTFO.

Thoughts?

27 COMMENTS

JUMP DOWN ↓ TO ADD ANOTHER

Seb January 3, 2015 at 04:27 am

Here’s what I said in the comment section just to bust his balls for being derp:
_________________________________________________________________________

James do you even listen to yourself when you talk like this?

“…putting sights on a gun make the gun aimable, makes it shootable…” :37 – :42

Aimable and shootable are different things. They are not synonyms. Just like you opening up about, “Stupid Internet Gun Stuff” in reference to accuracy, sight radius, shootability, and aimability.

What exactly is, “more shootable” anyways? Shootable is the ability for the gun to be shot. “MORE shootable” would then mean that the gun has more of this ability to be shot. Sights have dick to do with the ability of the gun to be shot James. And you know this. Yet I just heard you say it. Why?

“So educate yourself about these things and so you don’t sound as stupid when you are talking and keep in mind when you are on the internet nobody knows you’re a re- a ret-retard OK so when you go into a gun shop and there’s some guy blabbing you just ignore that guy well that guy on the internet you can’t tell he’s a fucking idiot except for what you read…” 1:00 – 1:22

And yes you CAN tell when someone on the internet is a fucking idiot. Case in point look at these people you are calling out…or even better look at you. Next time take your own advice from this little video. I suggest you might want to sit down and watch these videos multiple times before you post them. The irony is strong here Jimmy.

Yeah yeah yeah…I know, I’m just a troll, and a hater, and I should be disregarded and blah blah blah. Am I busting balls? Absolutely. But it’s literally the same attitude he is presenting so I see no reason why he shouldn’t be treated as he wants to treat others.

Geez…”More Stupid Internet Gun Stuff” indeed.

Am I dick? It is a destinct possibility.

Reply

MrMaigo January 3, 2015 at 05:09 am

Wow, I managed to watch a whole minute of Yeager with out wanting to kill him. This guy is such a douche bag of dicks.

Reply

Angry Vet January 3, 2015 at 06:03 am

Jesus … what a pedantic dickhole.

Reply

John Fritz January 3, 2015 at 06:58 am

I couldn’t help but notice that Mr. Y. was wearing a somewhat loose fitting t-shirt in this video. As compared to his customary painted-on selections.

I like the new look.

Reply

JohnnyIShootStuff January 3, 2015 at 08:20 am

The worst part about this is that sights just don’t matter at defensive distances. They just don’t. This is where practice repeatable actions comes into play. Yeager, and others are stuck in the mindset of having to hit a little red circle inside of other circles, this is how we grew up shooting – static position and bullseye shooting. Defensive shooting is nothing like bullseye, you only need to be accurate to grouping within a about a 9″ paper plate – or center mass. The IDPA guys I shoot with all agree that no one is using sights at less than 10 yards. It’s only the longer shots where we’re is checking sights. If you’re running a Mozambique drill and checking sights, you’re doing something really wrong and your wasting precious time.

Reply

Josh L January 5, 2015 at 05:30 pm

Take a force on force class and tell me if sights matter. IDPA is not serious gunfighting. Get some competent training so you can formulate correct opinions. World class IDPA shooters come to force on force classes…..and miss. Why? They don’t use their front sight.

Reply

JonnyRocket January 3, 2015 at 08:51 am

It is very hard to explain presentation drills to someone who has never done them. My shit poly arms sights are all the way over (35 clicks) and they still don’t function properly. What he said didn’t make sense. Did he mean more consistent opposed to more shootable? It seems that the further the distance of sights the more accurate the sights would be if using them?

Reply

H.P. Swagxxter January 3, 2015 at 09:33 am

Stupid Internet Gun Stuff – James Yeager

Reply

Seb January 3, 2015 at 09:37 am

Indeed

Reply

TheBear January 3, 2015 at 01:34 pm

Yeager is such a douche. He’d never get laid if not for less popular/viewed/whatever gun youtubers who will ride that pole for some more views.

Reply

sam January 3, 2015 at 04:23 pm

Yeah, I mean, this is nonsense. He picks one possible, particular wording of the fundamentally sound “longer sight radius = better accuracy” idea and vents internet-wise-ass hot wind about it. I’m glad he’s not threatening anyone in this video though, he seems to have that under control now.

Reply

El Cid January 3, 2015 at 04:37 pm

Ok, that’s it. I’m never clicking on another JY video no matter what kind of derpiness is in it. I cannot watch this fool any longer.

Reply

JonnyRocket January 3, 2015 at 06:13 pm

Okay, this has been bothering me all day. What did he mean, any ideas?

Reply

dave January 4, 2015 at 08:52 pm

Ok. So what he’s getting at is that people on the internet wrongly say that longer sight radiuses make guns inherently more accurate. It doesn’t. Accuracy is a mechanical term, and if anything the increase in accuracy is due less to barrel length and more to the tightness of the lockup between the barrel and slide. At the distances we commonly use handguns at (lets say 10-75 feet) the mechanical accuracy of a Glock 19 and a Glock 34 are negligible, however it might be easier for your hand and eye together to align and keep aligned sights that are farther apart from each other.

Terms like accurate vs. precise and clearances vs. tolerances get thrown around interchageably in the gun community. I actually think Yeager had a valid point with this video, although his style and delivery with confused some and irritated others.

Reply

Al T. January 4, 2015 at 06:53 am

Buck has been drinking his own piss for sometime. Someone mentioned steroids awhile back, seems legit.

Reply

Jim Coker January 4, 2015 at 07:35 am

He is correct. Sights allow YOU to aim the weapon, which would be easier with a fairly long sight radius, but if you put a rifle in an immovable rest and fire 5 rounds, then lengthen the sight radius by 12 inches, the MOA of the group shouldn’t change on the next group. Yes, he IS knit picking with semantics, but isn’t semantics how the anti-gunners attack us? We call military look-a-like rifles “modern sporting rifles” because they work and are easy to shoot well, but the antis call them “assault weapons” because they look like military weapons, which are REALLY select fire assault weapons.
I this day and age where normal people are judged on their every word, and the anti-gunners are not, does it do us harm to be correct in our semantics?

Reply

Johan January 5, 2015 at 12:39 pm

No, it doesn’t harm us to be correct in our semantics, provided we are actually correct in our semantics. If you start using technical terms incorrectly, you look like a moron.

Yeager is using Accuracy when he means Precision.

The statement he said, “A longer sight radius doesn’t improve a gun’s accuracy.” is completely wrong.

The statement he meant to say, “A longer sight radius doesn’t improve a gun’s precision.” is correct.

Reply

Orangejoe January 4, 2015 at 10:14 am

On this one, you are wrong and Yeager is right.

The average web commando thinks that short barreled guns are inaccurate. Period.

If you asked them if putting a laser sight on that North American Arms 1.25″ barreled single action revolver will allow them to hit a soda can at 25 yards, they will look at you as if you are crazy. They truly believe the gun itself is incapable of accuracy. Just tryasking next time you are at the gun counter, you’ll be surprised.

Reply

Seb January 4, 2015 at 10:19 am

Whole lotta assumptions OJ

Reply

James YeagerfromTacticalResponseThanksForWatching January 4, 2015 at 12:56 pm

This is copyright material.

Reply

Seb January 4, 2015 at 01:08 pm

:D

Reply

Cp January 4, 2015 at 08:55 pm

Lol

Reply

Jim Coker January 4, 2015 at 08:53 pm

James, I enjoy your videos, and while I consider myself relatively well educated, I rarely fail to learn something new, or esoteric knowledge in addition to what I previously had learned. Thanks for your dedication, and if I ever get the opportunity, I’d love to take some of your classes.

Reply

ENDO-Mike January 4, 2015 at 08:56 pm

LOL nice one

Reply

Clicker January 4, 2015 at 08:59 pm

Then require a membership to watch your videos through the tactical response website and charge a membership fee. Don’t expect YouTube videos to not be linked and don’t pull copyright only when things don’t go your way. You have some thin skin for the hard-ass you portray yourself as.

Reply

Angry Vet January 4, 2015 at 09:28 pm

LMFAO. Well plaid.

Reply

Johan January 5, 2015 at 12:27 pm

What Yeager is actually talking about is Precision vs Accuracy.

Being James Yeager, he is of course totally wrong.

In order to have a competent discussion first we must define the terms Accuracy, Shootable (sic), and Precision.

Yeager defines Accuracy as a gun’s inherent capability to hit the same place every time. For the rest of the English speaking world this is the definition of Precision.
His is correct that sights do not affect a guns Precision.

Yeager defines Shootable(sic) as the ability to hit a specific target. For the rest of the English speaking world this is the definition of Accuracy.

So for all of us who speak English, a longer sight radius does make a gun or Accurate, but will not make a gun more Precise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision

PS. He also wrong about the nobody knowing you’re and idiot on the internet, but he does a really good job proving it.

Reply

LEAVE A COMMENT:

Previous post:

Next post: