Sights: The Dangerous (Expensive) Question.

[BWT]

So, while I feel like this is a somewhat generic thread title; I'm going to start out by elaborating why I'm considering, what I'm using currently, and hoping to obtain insights/input from others. I didn't want to do a poll, because I wanted discussion and information exchange.

Why?

So, in the last two months I've obtained a Glock 19 Gen 4 (from my lovely wife) and a SIRT Pro (from a forum member here; great transaction). I own a Glock 17 Gen 4, which was my primary carry and competition gun, and I currently am using Warren Tactical 2-dot night sights. My experiences with the Warrens have been very positive, I was highly skeptical of the shape of the rear sight playing a major factor before acquiring and installing them. However, I saw continual positive reviews (trends these days seem to indicate that the U-Notch at the least is here to stay) of the sight and the sight design. I was pleasantly surprised.

I need to install sights on the Glock 19 Gen 4 and the SIRT, so I'm looking at between sight installation costs and the sights themselves somewhere in the ballpark of $300-400. So, before I commit to two more pairs of the same sights I wanted to evaluate my decision. What better place than pistol-forum?

What am I using currently?

As I stated earlier I currently use Warren Tactical 2-dot Tritium sights; I do use the .245'' tall front sight post instead of the .215'' sight post to "shoot the dot".

However, after shooting a 1911 with my wife a few months ago and seeing trends here it seems that most are okay either shooting at the intersection of the top of the sight or a 6 o'clock hold. I will acknowledge right now that a 6 o'clock hold seems most accurate at range. However, I will also say that I find that it seems to me a shooter could start falling into the temptation of watching the target (chasing groups) instead of the sights as they bring the sights onto the target and then adjust to shoot underneath, or attempt to intersect the top of the sight blade with the target (the classic "Glock height" front sight blade). Being for defensive use and not bulls eye shooting; I think that the balance of speed with simplicity of focus (look for the front sight dot) is good. That's been my experience.

So while I'm not opposed, I wanted to see what others thought. I know some experienced shooters that swear by intersection and/or 6 o'clock hold.

- The first question is: Sight Height; what do you use and more importantly why? What have your findings been that it is either better or worse?

The second question I've come to is, I've come to really enjoy my two-dots. I found that with three dots on a 1911 that I carried before my Glock I would lose the front sight in the 3-dots. I had to take time to stop and refocus. The warrens not only have a good rear sight geometry that to me leads me to the front sight they also have a bright white outline on the front sight with a green tritium vial and a yellow and metal (silver) outline around the rear. This leads to precision when you want it and the rear doesn't distract too much but it's there if I want it.

I'm not opposed to the tritium rear and I rather like the two-dot system for being able to aim the gun in pitch black; but that begs the question. If I can't see the outlines of the sight at all, should I be shooting? My thinking is if I can't make out the sights I probably can't make out the target. However, being married with no kids if my wife is with me in bed then whoever is in the apartment in the middle of the night needs shooting anyway. That discussion leads to the next point

- The second question is: Should I consider a tritium only Front sight and ditch the tritium rear?

My third question is, I'm a strong believer in a U-Notch rear sight going at about .150'' and a front sight around .115-125". I don't see myself changing this perspective. However, I was also certain that three-dot night sights were it and a green front vial and yellow rear vials would be "it". Even after painting my front sight orange and I still found that the front sight for me was hard to find. For me, I found that wasn't necessary with the Warrens; they just worked as advertised, my eyes really did go to the front sight. It was $180 (after installation and shipping) well spent. However, I only went to them because I was willing to take a chance on new sights. I'd like to just at least briefly consider an alternative, I figure before I go much deeper into these sights as my sole set of sights get some input.

(ETA: To keep the conventions the same) The third question is: What sights other than what I'm using would you recommend if any?

So lastly, I'm going to humble myself and open my ears for this one. So in the spirit of Proverbs 15:22 "Without consultation, plans are frustrated, But with many counselors they succeed."

Here we go.

Thanks and God Bless,

Brandon.

[Alpha Sierra]

You ever thought about installing the sights yourself?

That's some serious coin you're shelling out for simple bits of metal.

I will not comment on your sight choices because my choices are dramatically different than yours. But the money you are spending on sights is crazy IMO.

[BWT]

You ever thought about installing the sights yourself?

That's some serious coin you're shelling out for simple bits of metal.

I will not comment on your sight choices because my choices are dramatically different than yours. But the money you are spending on sights is crazy IMO.

I have but from what I understand a sight tool though is another 100$.

The base sights are $130.

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/772425/warren-tactical-night-sight-set-glock-17-19-22-23-24-34-35-1-dot-tritium-tactical-rear-1-dot-tritium-front-steel-matte

I did have a front sight tool at one point; I need to find it. The front sight is not a dovetail in Glocks either. So, sight tool and sight pusher.

[Up1911Fan]

I have but from what I understand a sight tool though is another 100$.

The base sights are $130.

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/772425/warren-tactical-night-sight-set-glock-17-19-22-23-24-34-35-1-dot-tritium-tactical-rear-1-dot-tritium-front-steel-matte

I did have a front sight tool at one point; I need to find it. The front sight is not a dovetail in Glocks either. So, sight tool and sight pusher.

So you paid $50 to install one set, don't wanna buy a $100 pusher but are going to pay to have 2 more sets installed? Am I tracking here?

[cosine]

This is what I use for a Glock front sight tool: Wiha 26547 Precision Nut Driver (http://amzn.com/B000O5ILUM)

[BWT]

So you paid $50 to install one set, don't wanna buy a $100 pusher but are going to pay to have 2 more sets installed? Am I tracking here?

I didn't see the thread going this way. But what if I get the wrong pusher? Or break the vial? The gunsmith is on the hook for the installation; not me. Broken or damaged parts mean they're replacing/repairing the items.

What sight pusher do you recommend out of curiousity?

I don't exactly change sights regularly or have plans to.

ETA: Thanks for the recommendation cosine. The last tool I bought was the $20 Ed brown front sight tool apparently.

[pangloss]

I bought a Maryland Gun Works rear sight pusher. I have used it twice in 5 years and would buy it again. I think the likelihood of breaking a tritium vial with this pusher is very very low. I have two pistols with Warren Tactical sights and one with 10-8 Performance sights. I like them all.

[Up1911Fan]

MGW. Should cost around d $100. You can always sell it later on if you decide to keep the sights you have, confirm their zeroed and have no plans of adding another Glock.

[41magfan]

I'll second the notion that you need to consider learning to do your own sight installs if you're going to experiment much with various sighting configurations. A mechanical sight pusher works with some sights but not all, so my default method is a hammer and a suitable gizmo to serve as a punch between the hammer and the sight. Natural hardwoods work great as do replacement hammer faces made from hard acrylic. Neither of these materials mar the finish on anything and they are inexpensive to replace when they get battered. You can even get by without a vice if you have some extra hands to hold the slide in place.

Lastly, if you need great force to obtain fitment then your sight base is too large for the dovetail. Get an appropriate file and learn how to use it and you won't break any ampules or disfigure any metal.

[BWT]

Alright, in the spirit of humility; I will consider the sight pusher. It's true; it's not a bad idea. I don't have plans to acquire more Glocks but if I bought the tool installed the sights and was happy. I could resell it and recoup some costs. Noted and I appreciate the input.

I'd say you're right too 41Mag, the gunsmith did have to file the Warren rear to get it to fit. So, I wouldn't be surprised to see that again.

[tomr]

check out the Dawson precision website. They've produced some really great sight installation videos. Think they're also on You tube. You don't need a sight pusher and they'll show you how. What happens if the expensive install you were contemplating isn't quite right? You're gonna need to be able to adjust.

[Maple Syrup Actual]

I have no idea how many sets of sights I've installed, on different guns. Twenty maybe? Thirty? Not sure.

One day maybe I'll buy a sight pusher, I guess. So far, judicious taps with a soft-faced dead blow hammer have worked on every gun I've ever done. Mine, other peoples', whoever.

[littlejerry]

I have no idea how many sets of sights I've installed, on different guns. Twenty maybe? Thirty? Not sure.

One day maybe I'll buy a sight pusher, I guess. So far, judicious taps with a soft-faced dead blow hammer have worked on every gun I've ever done. Mine, other peoples', whoever.

Hmm... I bought a delrin rod off of amazon and cut to length for a soft punch. I beat the shit out of my warren 1 dot rear installing it on a gen 4 and gem 3 gun. No issues.

Skd has good prices on warren sights.


My current take on sights:
In recent years I've tries running these combos:
Warren 1 dot rear + warren tritium front (white ring)
Warren 1 dot rear + painted warren front (orange)
Warren 1 dot rear + 10-8 tritium front (serrated black)
Warren rear + sevigny FO front
Sevigny rear + sevigny FO front
Ameriglo defoors
Ameriglo Hackathorns
Meprolight 3 dot night sights.


I prefer the Warren rear in general. Something about it allows me to look past it easily. I find myself indexing off the shoulders of targets much more readily at speed.

For competition I run a green FO front. The red FO is too bright... After I run a stage all I can remember is the red dot bouncing. The green is bright but not obnoxious.

I like the defoor sights but they are marginally slower than a FO front. Especially when not in bright daylight.

Sevigny rears seem to block everything... Didn't like running them at speed at all.

I experimented with the 10-8 front for a while before I gave in and painted it. For a carry gun I want a bright front sight.

[JM Campbell]

http://m.sightpusher.com/Handgun-Sight-Tool.html

Courtesy of JodyH, he has a thread about this sight tool.

I have used one that Justintime owns and it does work well.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

[JM Campbell]

Here is the thread.

http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?12025-Found-a-cheap-pistol-sight-install-tool-that-works&highlight=sight+pusher

[LSP552]

Sights are such a personal thing and depend heavily on preference, eye sight and intended use. I personally don't like deep U notches because they contribute to stringing at speed, FOR ME. I have tendency at speed to want to center the front dot in the U, and that does't work well. I'm also not a fan of 2 dot, straight 8, type sights because there is no way to maintain vertical alignment in dim light. It doesn't matter at much at ATM ranges but it does when you step back to 15 - 25 yards.

The key to selecting a 3 dot sight system that works is to NOT have white outlines on the rear tubes and different color trit. My personal favorite defensive use Glock sights are Ameriglo Operators with green front/yellow rears. They have no white outline on the rear to detract from the front sight and the tubes are different enough to stay focused on the front sight at night. The front sight is .125 wide with white outline and the rear has a .150 notch. They are low profile and generally follow the shape of the factory Glock sight.

What I really like about the Ameriglo Operators, at this point in my life and eyesight, is that if the dot appears centered in the notch the front sight has both vertical and horizontal alignment. I can no longer easily distinguish a sharp front sight blade and the perspective of dot in notch window is really useful now. With good eyesight, you ignore the dot and use the top of the sight during the day and the trit dot at night.

https://www.ameriglo.net/catalog/sights/pistol-sights/glock/night-sights/complete-sets/operator

I used Heinie 3 dot slantpros for many years. These also have a .125 front and a .156 notch. The big differences are they are taller than the Ameriglo, the front blade is serrated to reduce glare and there are no white outlines on the rear or front sight. These are great sights, but even painting the front blade, my eyesight has changed enough that they no longer well well for me. The deep rear notch makes it hard for me to maintain vertical alignment.

http://www.heinie.com/shop/3190p-q-heinies-glock-slantpro-qwik-3-d-night-sight-set/

Many people like a plain rear sight with front trit but that combo doesn't work well for me at any real distance or some lighting conditions. It's real easy to use a sharpie or black tape over your current sights and see how it works in different conditions before spending the money on a different rear.

I have used about every sight on the market over the years. At this point in my life (pushing 59 with failing eyes), the Ameriglo Operators are on my social 34, 17 and 19.

Your preferences and what works best for you may be completely different. Sights are a lot like holsters, we usually have to individually experiment to find what works best.

[LtDave]

You might look at 10-8 Performance, they have a plain black u notch and several choices for the front sight. I like the brass bead personally. On Glocks, I use a nylon or brass punch to install the rear. Depending on the sight, (ameriglo usually) I may remove a little from the bottom with a file to get the right fit.

[okie john]

I don't have plans to acquire more Glocks but if I bought the tool installed the sights and was happy.

I didn't either, but here we are seven Glocks later. If nothing else, a pusher makes fine-tuning your windage zero a LOT easier, which you'll need to do if you change either sights or loads very often.


Okie John

[Rich]

I haven't found any sights I like for the P30!

The closest I can come up with is the Big Dot.
Except I would use there standard size dot over the Big Dot.

I love the sig bar dot sight. I hate 3 dot sights and ramp rear sights.

So Im pretty much out of luck when it comes to the P30

[LSP552]

I haven't found any sights I like for the P30!

The closest I can come up with is the Big Dot.
Except I would use there standard size dot over the Big Dot.

I love the sig bar dot sight. I hate 3 dot sights and ramp rear sights.

So Im pretty much out of luck when it comes to the P30

Have you looked at Dawson's offerings?

[Rich]

Have you looked at Dawson's offerings?

Yes!

My old eyes would love a FO FS. I wish my gut would agree .

I could live with the 10 8 rear sight.

[breakingtime91]

I'm going through this same situation. I have my trijicon HDs waiting to go on my MP fullsize but there are no gunsmiths near me that will do it. So I'm currently eyeing up some sight tools since I have two mps now so it might be a worthy investment.

[gunner76]

I'm mot going to comment on sight choices since what I like is probably not the same as you but I think you need to learn how to install sights yourself. If you're careful you really don't need a sight pusher and can get by just fine with a light hammer, punch, and a vise.

[LSP552]

Yes!

My old eyes would love a FO FS. I wish my gut would agree .

I could live with the 10 8 rear sight.

Rich,

Did you see their tritium front sights?

http://www.dawsonprecision.com/ProductDetail.jsp?LISTID=8000179C-1388518378

[23JAZ]

I'm going through this same situation. I have my trijicon HDs waiting to go on my MP fullsize but there are no gunsmiths near me that will do it. So I'm currently eyeing up some sight tools since I have two mps now so it might be a worthy investment.
I installed my Meprolight rear sight with nothing more then a brass punch and a hammer. Then my buddy loaned me his ransom rest and after a couple more taps with the punch and hammer it was dead on. I would give it a try, as long as your not hammering the piss out of it, worse that could happen is they don't line up perfectly then you can take it to a smith. If you can't find a smith I know Trijicon will install their sights if you send in the slide.

[rauchman]

Are the fiber optic front sights ok for SD or should they be relegated to range/competition only?

[HopetonBrown]

Are the fiber optic front sights ok for SD or should they be relegated to range/competition only?

Worst case scenerio your fiber falls out and you have a black front post. With a WML that's all you see, anyway. I know Bob Vogel carried a fiber on his duty Glock 35 and I think Frank Proctor and Hilton Yam have also said they trust fiber optics for duty.

[Maple Syrup Actual]

Are the fiber optic front sights ok for SD or should they be relegated to range/competition only?

Depends who you ask. I have seen guys WAY more hard core than me use them.

I have also seen them break WAY too often for me to trust them.

Sent from my SGH-I317M using Tapatalk

[JM Campbell]

I'm going through this same situation. I have my trijicon HDs waiting to go on my MP fullsize but there are no gunsmiths near me that will do it. So I'm currently eyeing up some sight tools since I have two mps now so it might be a worthy investment.

PM me your address, you can borrow my sight pusher. Or if your local to me I'll install them for you.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

[BWT]

I really do appreciate the input guys. I'm probably going to consider a sight pusher pretty heavily. I thought about a set of brass punches, mallet combo, etc. But, that might be a little bit too ambitious for where I am right now.

I'd agree with the common theme that sights are a highly personal decision.

I don't know that I'd be comfortable going to Fiber Optic front as I simply won't be using a weapon mounted light and I'm also not Bob Vogel (just being honest). However, Wilson Combat does default to a FO front these days; so who knows.

Ironically, the rear of the Wilson Combat sights do look awfully familiar.

http://shopwilsoncombat.com/Ultimate-Speed-Sight-Serrated-Blade-Black/productinfo/590/

http://www.skdtac.com/Warren-Tactical-Sight-Tritium-Front-p/wrt.204.htm

I'll probably stick with Warrens, although LSP does raise some concerns about 2-dot systems; I've found that presenting the weapon naturally myself that I typically don't shoot low or high. I think that if I was shooting 1-dot I'm just as likely (if not more) to run into a similar issue as he cites with two-dot.

What's everyone's opinions on sight heights for concealed carry? What do you do? The Six o'clock hold, "Point of AIM", or "Shooting the dot"? (Image taken from http://www.novaksights.com/contactus/workorder.html)

What have you found faster and more accurate? Option 1, 2, or 3? What do you use and why?

2623

[KeeFus]

What have you found faster and more accurate? Option 1, 2, or 3? What do you use and why?

2623

Sight picture 2 is what I have on all my pistols. I recently changed my duty weapon front sight (M&P 45) from the factory height .160 to a Dawson .140 to get #2 (factory height would require sight picture 3). Trying to transition between 2 different sight pictures irritated me to no end. I found that I was thinking too much about which pistol I had & its sight picture on distant shots to get good accuracy that I require when shooting a match...I shoot my EDC & duty weapon in matches...one of which was in the 2012 IDPA Nationals. During that match I found that my accuracy suffered because I wasn't adjusting to sight pic #3 and was using #2.

[DonW]

option #2

[BobLoblaw]

Trijicon HDs and drive the dot. I only wish their rear trits were yellow like the Ameriglo cap front with operator rear combo. :sigh: Maybe one day..

[jdw174]

I use sight picture #2...always have. The sales people at Dawson can be very helpful in selecting the proper front sight height to go with their sight sets. Good thing about them is on many of their sight sets they include both the front sight tool (Glocks) and a drift punch for installing the rear. I installed a set of their competition fixed sights on my 34 using the punch by following their excellent video and it couldn't have been easier.

[Smaug]

Trijicon HDs and drive the dot. I only wish their rear trits were yellow like the Ameriglo cap front with operator rear combo. :sigh: Maybe one day..

Have you tried coloring in the rear vials with a red sharpie?

[BobLoblaw]

Have you tried coloring in the rear vials with a red sharpie?

Yeah, my sweat must be quite acidic because it wipes off on my skin and shirts almost instantly. Anyone know if Tooltech would be willing to remedy this?

[BWT]

I've received my SIRT back from service and it's shooting the 2 position. I have a Glock 19 with Factory sights at the 2 position.

I'm thinking we have an opportunity here gentlemen. I'm going to try the 2-position out at the range myself and see what that yields; it'll also give me time with the new Glock 19 Gen 4.

So the jury's out until that can be fired. I'll bring my Glock 17 Gen 4 and compare among the two just to try it out. Shooting #3 and #2.

[ASH556]

I always shoot #2. I'm not convinced I can be as accurate as I would like to be with either #1 or #3. #1 has you guessing at elevation depending on target size and distance to target and #3 obscures too much of the target to be precise.

Regarding sight choice, that's something I'm debating myself. I thought I had the perfect combo figured out (Ameriglo TCAP front, .120 wide with Serrated .150 notch rear). Unfortunately Ameriglo doesn't offer their .150 notch rear with serrations. The .180 notch rear is available with serrations and it does a better job with the .140 CAP front. So, if I want to stay with Ameriglo I'm debating between going back to the wider .140 CAP front and getting the serrations I want on the rear, or sticking with the .120 TCAP front and the Defoor black .150 notch rear with no serrations. I have that setup on my training gun and the factory CAP set (.140 front, .180 Luminova bar rear) on my carry gun. Not getting exactly what I want from Ameriglo has me taking a step back and evaluating other options.

For me, my eye aligns sharp edges much better than round ones. IE, the square CAP and square rear notch vs the HD dot and u-notch. I have used HD's in the past and struggled with vertical stringing brought on by the round focal points. I don't know of anyone else doing a square high-vis front besides Ameriglo and comparing the CAP/TCAP front to the all black Defoor front, I find that the high-vis front helps me do much better in tracking it under recoil with little to no accuracy tradeoff.

I'm all ears if anyone has any alternates, though.