Frank Proctor Y Sights

[HopetonBrown]

Interesting design. Link to his website with lengthy description here (http://www.wayofthegun.us/proctor-y-notch-pistol-sight-set-for-glock-pistols/).

http://cdn6.bigcommerce.com/s-egdjnsq/products/163/images/439/FP_glock_blank_rear_sight_185T_x_100W_Rev_B_3__436 79.1423239210.1280.1280.JPG?c=2

http://cdn6.bigcommerce.com/s-egdjnsq/products/163/images/444/IMG_5835__10367.1423239374.1280.1280.JPG?c=2

http://cdn6.bigcommerce.com/s-egdjnsq/products/163/images/442/IMG_5841_1__78336.1423240297.1280.1280.JPG?c=2

http://cdn6.bigcommerce.com/s-egdjnsq/products/163/images/436/FP_glock_blank_rear_sight_185T_x_100W_Rev_B_2__896 85.1423239209.1280.1280.JPG?c=2

[Doug]

I am not sure I see how the Y would work for better for longer range sight pictures. It looks like he combined the old type rifle sight with a post and notch. Everyone is trying to sell a better mousetrap.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/Open_sight_types.svg/600px-Open_sight_types.svg.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Open_sight_types.svg

That said, I have taken a class with him and he is a damn good shooter. Not sure the sight would make a difference for a larger sample size of experienced or competitive shooters.

[HopetonBrown]

I believe he's just saying that the tighter sight picture is better for precise shots, which I don't think many people would argue with. And then for larger/closer targets, just use the top portion of the sight with a looser sight picture.

[JHC]

I believe he's just saying that the tighter sight picture is better for precise shots, which I don't think many people would argue with. And then for larger/closer targets, just use the top portion of the sight with a looser sight picture.


Right like two in one. I'm gonna try a set out.

[Wheeler]

Looks like an updated and slicked up version of a semi buckhorn, which is not shown in the Wikipedia referenced image above.

[orionz06]

Looks cool, I guess. I get the idea. I just find myself caring less and less with each endorsed product these days. Every instructor seems to want their name on things for the sake of having their name on things. At least these are actually different.

[SLG]

Maybe they'd be interested in a "signature" holster line. :cool:

Frank already has that:-)

[Up1911Fan]

Frank already has that:-)

And I actually really like the look's of it. Seem's really well thought out. Plan on picking one up to play with.

[orionz06]

New and Improved!

I really should refrain from trying to be funny as it usually just exposes my ignorance. :)

We could work together in an Atomic Tom Holster. Sell it with a Gadget. Coming soon.

[Savage Hands]

Definitely lavender.

[MD7305]

Flesh colored Kydex, the newest concealment fad.

[Chuck Haggard]

Apparently flesh tones are in (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/02/daniel-zimmerman/customizing-ruger-lcp-everyday-carry/).

My apologies to the OP for the off-topic non-sense. Those sights look interesting. I'd like to try a set.

He lost me at Promags

[CCT125US]

He lost me at Promags

It took you that long :)

[SLG]

He lost me at Promags

Just read the article. All I can say is wow.

[Chuck Haggard]

It took you that long :)

I scanned the page, speed reading being one of my Rain Man skills, say Promags, clicked to something else.

[rsa-otc]

While I read the whole thing, he basically lost me with his "I am Seal, bask in my awsomeness" tone. I don't get that vibe from any of the SMEs here, or folks like Lamb, DeForest, Proctor etc.

[Casual Friday]

While I read the whole thing, he basically lost me with his "I am Seal, bask in my awsomeness" tone. I don't get that vibe from any of the SMEs here, or folks like Lamb, DeForest, Proctor etc.

Because Jake Zweig.

[RevolverRob]

I want to try those Proctors, but I kind of wish I hadn't read the description. I have one of those brains, where if you explain how something should work, I spend all of my time thinking about the shoulds instead of intuitively using the product. Now all I can think about is, "Could I ever shoot those sights, without consciously or subconsciously screwing around with the sight picture?" The answer is probably no.

The Jake Zweig article is....interesting. TTAG is a weird blog.

[JJN]

This looks like an upside down Enos cut to me.

[Kyle Reese]

Just read the article. All I can say is wow.

I hope that the article is satire.


It IS an attempt at satire & trolling the target audience, right?

[SAWBONES]

I hope that the article is satire.


It IS an attempt at satire & trolling the target audience, right?


I could be wrong, but I see no clear indication that it's satire. There's too much detail and too little sarcasm for satire.

[Irelander]

After reading this (http://soldiersystems.net/2015/02/14/gunfighter-moment-frank-proctor-13/). I would like to try these sights.

However, I like to have tritium front and rear sights on my fighting gun.

[41magfan]

gim·mick

/ˈɡimik/

noun

noun: gimmick; plural noun: gimmicks

a trick or device intended to attract attention, publicity, or business.

synonyms: publicity stunt, contrivance, scheme, stratagem, ploy; informalshtick
"the trivia contest was a gimmick to sell more newspapers"

It's been the driving force behind firearms and the firearms training "business" for about 25 years now. The void of having nothing new to say has to be filled with something. I think it's referred to as the Fifth Law of Thermodynamics.

:^)

[TAZ]

Not quite sure what the sight picture looks like, so maybe someone can post images of that. He knows more about shooting than I ever will, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Shooting tends to be a very subjective activity in that what works well for my eyes may it work well at all for someone else.

[Lyonsgrid]

From Alias training's facebook feed...
https://www.facebook.com/AliasTrainingLLC/photos/a.197851883674340.41962.197061490420046/653533081439549/?type=1&theater

[Chuck Haggard]

From Alias training's facebook feed...
https://www.facebook.com/AliasTrainingLLC/photos/a.197851883674340.41962.197061490420046/653533081439549/?type=1&theater

Thanks for posting that, now I have to go buy a set........

[HopetonBrown]

That's a bold statement. The man doesn't seem like the type.

I put a set on a 34. I have a match this weekend. We'll see if I do better than my usual 14th or 15th place.


gim·mick

/ˈɡimik/

noun

noun: gimmick; plural noun: gimmicks

a trick or device intended to attract attention, publicity, or business.

synonyms: publicity stunt, contrivance, scheme, stratagem, ploy; informalshtick
"the trivia contest was a gimmick to sell more newspapers"

It's been the driving force behind firearms and the firearms training "business" for about 25 years now. The void of having nothing new to say has to be filled with something. I think it's referred to as the Fifth Law of Thermodynamics.

:^)

[41magfan]

That's a bold statement. The man doesn't seem like the type.

I put a set on a 34. I have a match this weekend. We'll see if I do better than my usual 14th or 15th place.

Not bold at all, and I meant it as no slight towards Mr. Proctor. I would feel the exact same way if Jeff Cooper or MY name were associated with them.

[Rich]

He lost me at Promags

I have one pro mag I bought during the Ban for my S&W M6906. Its a 12rd mag with a regular floor plate.

I used it for range only. believe it or not its was reliable.

[JHC]

I'll have some feedback on them Sunday PM.

[Chuck Haggard]

I have one pro mag I bought during the Ban for my S&W M6906. Its a 12rd mag with a regular floor plate.

I used it for range only. believe it or not its was reliable.

So,,, you're the guy that got the one that worked............

[Chuck Haggard]

I'll have some feedback on them Sunday PM.

Looking forward to that.

[gringop]

While I read the whole thing, he basically lost me with his "I am Seal, bask in my awsomeness" tone. I don't get that vibe from any of the SMEs here, or folks like Lamb, DeForest, Proctor etc.

http://radiosfx.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/star-trek-mccoy.jpg

Gringop

[rsa-otc]

http://radiosfx.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/star-trek-mccoy.jpg

Gringop

I meant Defoor but spell check decided otherwise. When I finished typing I had to go do something and when I came back and realized the buffoonery to much time had passed and I could no longer edit the post.

[JHC]

I put them on my RTF2 G17 that does not shoot high with std sight sets. The std HDs that came off it had POI very close above POA at 25 yds with a 6 o'clock hold I prefer.

These are a little shorter. With 115 gr Blazer POI was behind the red FO dot. Faster 124 gr +P HST an inch or two lower at 25 yds. I had a tough time holding high to drop them onto a 3x5 Trying to hold over it.

The Y affect of the rear notch was barely perceptible by 57 year old eyes and mono vision contacts tuned for front sight focus. The top of the rear notch looked more fuzzy than sloped. It might take some practice to get accustomed to insuring just so right/left alignment in slowfire using the bottom of the notch. For USPSA type match shooting, maybe not much of a factor.

Best 25 yd 5 shot I got was about 5". I can usually beat that with the HDs. Virtually always actually. I ran one El Prez in 8.70 and only dropped 1 C. Visually the transition/acquisition seemed good. I shot a 5x5 in 19.34 from OWB from under an open insulated vest and rain parka. Raw time was 15 and change but threw a bunch of C's. Looked good visually again.

So I'm ambivalent. I think I'll lose long precision to my standards. Yet to see if speed acquisition is measurably better.

[HopetonBrown]

I used the Proctor Y sights on a new-to-me Glock 34 with an X300 Ultra at a local night match on Saturday. I broke the top 10 for the first time. I'm probably not using the wider Y portion to its full potential, using more of the bottom of the Y. Cool sights, but I don't plan on replacing any sights and my new Glock 17 got a fresh set of Dawson Charges this morning.

[SLG]

FWIW, I know several GM level shooters who love these sights. I'll be shooting with some of them next month and will try the sights then. They say they are just as accurate as anything and faster too. We'll see.

[EricM]

I'm intrigued enough to give them a try. Last night I was about to take a file to a spare .110" rear sight to experiment with the concept when I noticed these had come back in stock, got a set on the way. (out of stock again as of this posting)

[JHC]

Today I shot very little volume spending a good bit of time changing sights on a G31 I just traded into and getting it zero'd then just informal fam fire.

Cold rain started so I rushed 50 rds of 9mm and started with a few FAST.

With the RTF2 and the Proctor sights

1st - got no slide lock and had to react, rack and shoot - 6.86, Clean, first hit 1.54
2nd - 5.25, down one 3x5 shot, a skosh above the card, first hit 1.00 (too fast)
3rd - 5.13 Clean, first hit 1.54

My first shot in FAST runs are typically more like 1.66-1.70. Could be my imagination but to an attribute I mentioned in first feedback, it seemed like I saw what I need to see more quickly than I'm accustomed to. Hmmmm.

[GJM]

That cost me $80.

[orionz06]

Today I shot very little volume spending a good bit of time changing sights on a G31 I just traded into and getting it zero'd then just informal fam fire.

Cold rain started so I rushed 50 rds of 9mm and started with a few FAST.

With the RTF2 and the Proctor sights

1st - got no slide lock and had to react, rack and shoot - 6.86, Clean, first hit 1.54
2nd - 5.25, down one 3x5 shot, a skosh above the card, first hit 1.00 (too fast)
3rd - 5.13 Clean, first hit 1.54

My first shot in FAST runs are typically more like 1.66-1.70. Could be my imagination but to an attribute I mentioned in first feedback, it seemed like I saw what I need to see more quickly than I'm accustomed to. Hmmmm.



Interesting.

[littlejerry]

Any new opinions or reviews on these?

I've been thinking about going to a tighter rear notch on my competition gun. Currently running .150 rear with .115 FO front and contemplating a .125 or .130 rear for better precision at 25 yards and beyond.

The proctor sights are interesting... But they are an $80 experiment in oddball sight heights. Taller than factory, shorter than Warren, Dawson, 10-8. If it doesn't work I have to scrap the whole set...

[HopetonBrown]

They're just a tighter sight picture, that's really it. If you don't like them you could sell them and be out $20.


Any new opinions or reviews on these?

I've been thinking about going to a tighter rear notch on my competition gun. Currently running .150 rear with .115 FO front and contemplating a .125 or .130 rear for better precision at 25 yards and beyond.

The proctor sights are interesting... But they are an $80 experiment in oddball sight heights. Taller than factory, shorter than Warren, Dawson, 10-8. If it doesn't work I have to scrap the whole set...

[CCT125US]

They're just a tighter sight picture, that's really it. If you don't like them you could sell them and be out $20.
Exactly. Vision / sights are so individual, it's worth giving it a try. I currently use 10-8 .156w? / Dawson Trit .125. It works extremely well for me, and I have many reps with them. Even if something was "better" I would need to give it the same number of reps before I could honestly determine that. I believe much of it is simply what one prefers and dedicates time to. I have found that sometimes better is slowed down by different, and not always given a fair shake. That whole slow down to speed up thing. Give them a try, it won't hurt.

[Jesting Devil]

Anyone have an opinion of these vs the TTI or dawson charger sights? I'm running warren/sevigny but I think I might like something tighter.



That cost me $80.

Looking forward to your thoughts.

[Jay Cunningham]

Very interesting... Proctor is certainly no slouch...

[JHC]

Anyone have an opinion of these vs the TTI or dawson charger sights? I'm running warren/sevigny but I think I might like something tighter.




Looking forward to your thoughts.

Got to bump this. I've heard a preview but he's got to fill in some meat.

[GJM]

Got to bump this. I've heard a preview but he's got to fill in some meat.

Put them on a 19, adjusted windage based on my normal slight right deflection, but no shooting verification, and did the extractor test firing three single rounds at an 8 inch steel at 50 yards. Hit with all three shots. Shot some more 25-100, dig them! Never noticed the Y feature. Like how low profile they are.

[GJM]

Just went 14/15 on an 8 inch steel at 50 yards with them. Really like them, especially how low profile and the rear sight shape and that it has two set screws. Would like to pair that rear with a grit front for carry.

[Chuck Haggard]

Just went 14/15 on an 8 inch steel at 50 yards with them. Really like them, especially how low profile and the rear sight shape and that it has two set screws. Would like to pair that rear with a grit front for carry.

A what front?

[Wayne Dobbs]

I'm wondering the same thing, Chuck! It must be one of those super secret speed shooting front sights!

[EricM]

GJM, I'd be very curious to hear your thoughts on speed up close with these sights, your relative impression shooting say 5x5 or FAST. This question coming from a guy with two pairs of these sights but nothing yet resembling speed to test with. ;)

Assuming that was meant to be "trit" front, out of curiosity, I just set a .125" tritium Dawson in front of these on a 19, has the tiniest light bars imaginable but that may not be a problem...if you can see the entire white ring through the notch you're good up close. Never shot with anything that tight though.

[Chuck Haggard]

I'm guessing "trit" front sight. Not sure they can make them skinny enough for that rear sight.

[GJM]

Wayne and Chuck, grit was just to see if you were reading carefully. Actually my device substituted grit, probably knowing Wayne is down south.

No speed work yet, but I have yet to find a FO that didn't work well close. My issue is generally will they work at distance, and they passed that test with flying colors.

[EricM]

It seems a while ago at least that a wide notch for speed was the in thing -- QWIK notch for Heinies, etc. Personally that never quite made sense to me as when I present or transition I don't really have a problem with the front sight staying in a narrower notch, it's already there and I don't have to hunt for it...but wondered if maybe I'm not going fast enough yet for it to matter. As always I'm sure personal preference and individual eyesight play into it as well.

I'm more competent when it comes to accuracy, and I agree these work well at distance. I should go back and compare side by side with some other sights I'd tried and pulled off a while back, but my recollection is I had a hard time maintaining focus on a .105" FO front sight through a .110" rear notch, I was more comfortable with say a .125" front with a .125" rear...was about to try a .105" front with .115" and .125" rears when these Y notch sights came out and I decided to give them a try. I need more time with them but the front/rear balance on these seems well thought out...and perhaps that's one of the benefits to the Y, logically speaking one would think if .105" front and .110" rear didn't work for me, these shouldn't either unless the Y changes things (even though as others have mentioned I don't really notice it while shooting). Weather's getting nicer here, need to take a day off work and get some solid range time to experiment further.

[JHC]

This weekend I'll shoot them side by side with another 17 with 10-8 FO front. I'm esp curious to see if I truly see what I thought I was seeing in my last feedback above on that 3x5 shot as fast as I can.

[JHC]

I fired 10 singles from draw (OWB under an open jacket) with each of two sight set ups. Target was a 3x5 card at 7 yards.

Gen 4 G17 with 10-8 FO set and RTF2 G17 with the Proctor sights. My consistency was pretty solid. All 20 shots combined fell into a zone of 1.52 - 1.55 sec. I was consciously pushing the speed to a single to compare them visually, fast.

10-8 FO - 9 of 10 on the card (one just cutting the top edge). Group was quite narrow left/right; like 2" wide and used up the whole 3" in height. It was the tighter group of the two if not for one striking high off the card completely.

Proctor sights - 10 of 10 solidly on the card. Groups was more dispersed laterally left/right a good bit more, using up more of the 3x5 real estate, about 4" wide and three inches tall.

Compare and contrast the groups here https://www.flickr.com/photos/78036189@N07/16773246591/

Psychologically - I felt more comfortable and confident in what I was seeing with the Proctor sights. I do perceive that visually I can more easily see the top of the front sight where I'm steering it. It's a little open up there so I'm not surprised by more lateral dispersion. The 10-8's is a tighter view for sure.

What difference does any of this make to me? IDK yet.

[EVP]

JHC I am assuming your 10-8s are .115 with .140 rears?

[JHC]

JHC I am assuming your 10-8s are .115 with .140 rears?

No it's the .125 wide FO front with the standard .140 rear U. Tight. I'd like to try that .115 FO 10-8 front though. Sounds like it might be a sweet spot. I did not enjoy a .100 Dawson front I once used.

[Trajan]

JHC: Do these work more like a larger rear, or do they really combine the best of both worlds?


Curious how these work, since the narrower bottom portion of the rear would force the sight into perfect alignment, essentially negating the more open top. At least that's what I would assume.

[GJM]

I like the set I have, but don't notice the Y feature. I like that they hit POA/POI, have two rear set screws, and are lower in height than most others.

[psalms144.1]

I like the set I have, but don't notice the Y feature. I like that they hit POA/POI, have two rear set screws, and are lower in height than most others.GJM - are the sights "standard" factory height, or some other proprietary height that only works in a set?

[JHC]

JHC: Do these work more like a larger rear, or do they really combine the best of both worlds?


Curious how these work, since the narrower bottom portion of the rear would force the sight into perfect alignment, essentially negating the more open top. At least that's what I would assume.

I shot wide Warren and Ameriglo rears (.150, .180) for a few years. Based on that I say they do NOT work like a wide rear. They are tighter where the insides of the rear notch are parallel which each other and open where the Y is up top. As GJM notes he doesn't notice the Y. I noted in my first post that the Y is not visually distinct to me but just looks like a blurred surface vs right angles. My eyes are pretty old.

[EricM]

GJM - are the sights "standard" factory height, or some other proprietary height that only works in a set?

Not GJM but I've got a set of the Proctor sights sitting here on my desk...the front sight height is 0.1815" and the rear sight height is 0.1870". Sorry, don't have any factory sights handy to measure, but hopefully that helps.

[JHC]

Not GJM but I've got a set of the Proctor sights sitting here on my desk...the front sight height is 0.1815" and the rear sight height is 0.1870". Sorry, don't have any factory sights handy to measure, but hopefully that helps.

Thanks for the measurements. Definitely shorter than the common .215 front in many sight sets.

[GJM]

I shot a group freestyle and support hand only at 25 yards this afternoon with the Proctor sights, G4 G17, 115 Blazer ammo.

Freestyle:

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg251/GJMandes/Image%202_zpstpmwmbmz.jpg (http://s250.photobucket.com/user/GJMandes/media/Image%202_zpstpmwmbmz.jpg.html)

support hand only:

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg251/GJMandes/Image%201_zpskxqsy8q8.jpg (http://s250.photobucket.com/user/GJMandes/media/Image%201_zpskxqsy8q8.jpg.html)

[JHC]

Nice. I haven't managed to shoot a decent 25 yd group with the G42 yet either. ;)

[Chuck Haggard]

Nice. I haven't managed to shoot a decent 25 yd group with the G42 yet either. ;)


I took this one just for fun, a called shot at 50 yards with my G42, shot standing freestyle, I has witnesses:

3161

The rest stayed in the "pie plate". Those little guns can shoot. I need sights on it though, still has the stock plastic sights.

[GJM]

I took this one just for fun, a called shot at 50 yards with my G42, shot standing freestyle, I has witnesses:

3161

The rest stayed in the "pie plate". Those little guns can shoot. I need sights on it though, still has the stock plastic sights.

Unfortunately, it looks like you just shot an off duty cop or a participant in the NTI events I attended.

[Chuck Haggard]

Unfortunately, it looks like you just shot an off duty cop or a participant in the NTI events I attended.

That's Manny Kapelsohn pointing a wheelgun at me, so a lawyer with a gun with his war face on, clearly a "shoot" target.


To un-de-rail the derail, I'm going to buy at least one of the FP sights sets and give them a try on my extra extra G17

[JHC]

I took this one just for fun, a called shot at 50 yards with my G42, shot standing freestyle, I has witnesses:

3161

The rest stayed in the "pie plate". Those little guns can shoot. I need sights on it though, still has the stock plastic sights.

Operative subject: the gun can shoot.

[SLG]

I just got back from a couple of days shooting with Frank and got to try the sights out pretty extensively. As I've said before, I'm fairly insensitive to what I consider to be slight differences in sights/triggers etc... I don't think the sights are for me (lack of tritium) but they do seem to work as advertised. I was just as fast and accurate as my Trijicon sights, and they didn't get in the way of anything. I didn't shoot them for group at 50 or 100 yards, but I expect they would do fine given the 25 yard shootability.

[GJM]

Hope you post your thoughts about shooting with Frank.

I asked him about a tritium front that pairs with his interesting rear (shape, size, two set screws), and he said no plans as of today.

[Chuck Haggard]

Hope you post your thoughts about shooting with Frank.

I asked him about a tritium front that pairs with his interesting rear (shape, size, two set screws), and he said no plans as of today.

If he had a high visibility tritium front sight pared with that rear then I'd buy at least two sets.

[Up1911Fan]

If he had a high visibility tritium front sight pared with that rear then I'd buy at least two sets.

Ameriglo has a .125" wide (Proctor is .117"), .180" tall (same height) front available.

[HopetonBrown]

A .125 front with a .100 rear doesn't sound like a good idea.

[Up1911Fan]

A .125 front with a .100 rear doesn't sound like a good idea.

Without having shot his sight's I agree. That's about as thin as you can get for tritium though. Just an option.

[HopetonBrown]

Was searching for a link to Frank Proctor's sights and this video came up on Google.

He describes lowering the front blade into the lower portion of the notch for distance shooting. Does anyone do this? I thought for distance shooting you just change your focus to the narrow portion, not the actual position of the front sight. I have Proctor sights but haven't shot them much, and not further than 15 yards.

About 1:14.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMuWmQm6ehE

[JHC]

That's interesting. I just heard that from another shooter with his sights that he got that instruction from Frank. I haven't tried it yet but I will. I hadn't thought of that.

[JHC]

Also I understand WOTG will offer options in front sight height as well. Some shooters with G34/35 find they need a taller front (Frank himself with his gun) and some like me would prefer a POI just above the front post vs behind the FO dot so there will be a very slightly shorter one; so I am told.

[Trajan]

I played with them briefly the other day. Don't really notice the Y, however my mind wanted to put the top of the front sight at the bottom of the "V" on the rear....

[breakingtime91]

just ordered a set. will check back in

[psalms144.1]

Was searching for a link to Frank Proctor's sights and this video came up on Google.

He describes lowering the front blade into the lower portion of the notch for distance shooting. Does anyone do this? I thought for distance shooting you just change your focus to the narrow portion, not the actual position of the front sight. I have Proctor sights but haven't shot them much, and not further than 15 yards.

About 1:14.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMuWmQm6ehE

And, yet, from the WOTG ordering page for those sights:

"These sights are NOT designed to put the dot in the lower portion of the rear notch. They are desigend to be POA=POI with the dot resting in the Y where the notch tapers down."

So...yeah...

Who's shooting them at long ranges, and where are you holding your FO "dot?"

[DacoRoman]

I just took a class with Frank last month, and I'm kicking myself for not asking to try out his sights. Interestingly Abner in the video above was at that class but I don't know what sights he used.

[CCT125US]

Curious what distance they shoot to POA. Also depends if the shooter typically uses drive the dot, center hold, or six o'clock. If the shooter needs to drop the FS in the notch, that would mean the bullet would tend to impact high at that distance. Also meaning they don't shoot flat over a wide range of distances for that shooter. This was the main reason I switched from Heinie Straight Eights to the 10-8RS and Dawson .170 tall FS. With my chosen loads, i am hitting about 1/2 high at 25yds and about an inch high at 50yds give or take human error. I also recently switched from the .125 wide tritium to the .100 wide FO. Despite what the internet says, the .156 wide rear notch paired with the thin FS is working out very well. Maybe you can't trust the internet after all.

[Chuck Haggard]

Maybe you can't trust the internet after all.


Now, that's just crazy talk right there.............

[breakingtime91]

Curious what distance they shoot to POA. Also depends if the shooter typically uses drive the dot, center hold, or six o'clock. If the shooter needs to drop the FS in the notch, that would mean the bullet would tend to impact high at that distance. Also meaning they don't shoot flat over a wide range of distances for that shooter. This was the main reason I switched from Heinie Straight Eights to the 10-8RS and Dawson .170 tall FS. With my chosen loads, i am hitting about 1/2 high at 25yds and about an inch high at 50yds give or take human error. I also recently switched from the .125 wide tritium to the .100 wide FO. Despite what the internet says, the .156 wide rear notch paired with the thin FS is working out very well. Maybe you can't trust the internet after all.


pretty positive you dont drop it into the bottom notch. you use the bottom notch to double check sight alignment then press with the top of the front lined up with the top of the Y


not my video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-HEJjSiOl4

[breakingtime91]

so I didn't realize I have to install the fiber optic myself.. never done this before....

[EricM]

Skipping ahead to the installation: Fiber Optic Replacement by Dawson Precision (https://youtu.be/1Mx2Hg06Q4Y?t=3m25s)

[DacoRoman]

Hey guys the following is a reply from Way of the Gun regarding the sights.

"Way of the Gun Good morning dude and thanks for the message. I covered that in product description for the sights. The sights are designed for standard sight alignment, top of the front even with the top of the rear. NOT designed to put the do lower in the notch like that review stated. He hit steel with that sight alignment because the steel was big. In my experience and testing standard sight alignment will give you POA=POI from 10 yards to 100 yards with standard sight alignment. Thanks again dude!"

[CSW]

I recently purchased a set of these for my Glock 34, to try a different sight from the existing 10-8 performance set.
The 10-8's had a suggested .156 rear, which worked really well, but was wide in the rear. I used a green fiber optic with the 10-8's as opposed to the standard red, as my eyes picked it up better than red.
The installation was standard Glock, with a minimal amount of fitting required to the dovetail on the sight...actually, just a few passes to both surfaces with a diamond triangle file did the trick. Front install was pure Glock.
Initial impressions at the range were good;
there was a whole lot less air between the front and rear sights in the sight picture. My feeble brain wanted to drop the front into the "Y", but after about 1 1/2 mags, I figured out that the sight picture is the same as any sight....even posts.
At 7 yards on 3x5 cards, one hole drills were even easier than with the 10-8. Controlled pairs on plates at 15 were where ever I wanted them to go.
I still found that for my eyes, a red fiber just doesn't work. I have swapped out to a green FO, thanks to Doublestack45, and I can see the front sight just as I have with the 10-8's.
I feel I still have many hours of drills to go with them to get as comfortable as with the 10-8's, but I think it is a more 'precise' sight picture.

I put the 10-8 setup on the Glock 19, my carry gun, where they are working just fine.

[breakingtime91]

So I have shot around 650 rounds since putting the proctor on my glock 19 and I really like them. My shooting performance as a whole has increased but where these sights really shine for me is distance. I think the tighter sight picture just works for my eyes and I am dead on out to 50 on a reduced ipsc steel target.

[BobLoblaw]

I wonder how useful these would be on a 26..

[EricM]

Fyi, the latest WOTG newsletter mentioned the Y sights are now available for the M&P 9/40, and the rear Glock sight is now available separately.

[Steve m]

Just put a set on my gen3 glock 17, I had ameriglo hacks, I will report back to how they do when I shoot an IDPA match this Saturday.

[Steve m]

These sights for me seemed more accurate, I was able to get good hits, (down 0) much easier and faster than with the hacks. For the close targets I lost no speed acquiring the front sight. For me they seem to work well. Now to save up for a set for my 19.

[Larry Sellers]

I hate to dredge up an older thread...

I have 2 identical 4th gen 19's, one has a set of the defoor sights and the other has the y notch sights.

I have run a few drills (dot torture, trigger stripe, FAST) and noticed that the proctor's are much easier to see. The rear notch on the defoor's is .150 I believe with a .125 front sight. The proctor is absolutely a POA-POI, just curious as to what others longer term results have been with the sights. This is my first set of F/O sights on any handgun, I've always used a mix of warren tactical/sevigny sights and the Y-notch is much easier for my eyes to pick up at speed from the holster and I did much better on the dot torture drill with them. I guess my real question is what are folks using the lower portion of the notch for if anything, and why not make the entire sight the width of the top of the Y if that is what you're supposed to use to line up your shot?

I am trying to make sure that I'm not misunderstanding anything...

Joe

[HopetonBrown]

I guess my real question is what are folks using the lower portion of the notch for if anything, and why not make the entire sight the width of the top of the Y if that is what you're supposed to use to line up your shot?

I am trying to make sure that I'm not misunderstanding anything...


The wide Y portion gives you more wiggle room to find and/or track the front sight, and for less precision shooting. For real precision shots you use the smaller light bars in the tight bottom notch portion to center your front sight. So the sights give you the benefit of both a wide rear notch for speed and a narrow notch for precision. I have a set on a 34, I think the sight picture in the .100 portion of the rear would be too tight for a shorter sight radius of a 19 for me, but that's totally user preference.

[spinmove_]

The wide Y portion gives you more wiggle room to find and/or track the front sight, and for less precision shooting. For real precision shots you use the smaller light bars in the tight bottom notch portion to center your front sight. So the sights give you the benefit of both a wide rear notch for speed and a narrow notch for precision. I have a set on a 34, I think the sight picture in the .100 portion of the rear would be too tight for a shorter sight radius of a 19 for me, but that's totally user preference.

Pretty much this. I've never used them personally, but Frank has a YT vid out there explaining the use and reasoning behind the sights. The top part of the notch is for faster and up close shooting. The tighter, bottom part, of the notch is for longer distance precision shooting. The idea is that if you're taking a 25 yd and out shot, you drop the front blade to match the lower part of the rear notch, continue to drive the dot, and shoot with the tighter light bars at distance.

I like the concept, but I ultimately don't think they're for me.

[Larry Sellers]

The wide Y portion gives you more wiggle room to find and/or track the front sight, and for less precision shooting. For real precision shots you use the smaller light bars in the tight bottom notch portion to center your front sight. So the sights give you the benefit of both a wide rear notch for speed and a narrow notch for precision. I have a set on a 34, I think the sight picture in the .100 portion of the rear would be too tight for a shorter sight radius of a 19 for me, but that's totally user preference.

Okay, If my feeble mind is tracking it really does not matter where i put the front sight in the notch or lower portion as long as it's centered with equal light etc etc, my shots should impact the same spots up close or at distance. I was concerned that after a certain distance I'd have to change my whole sight picture and that was entirely too much work for me to process.

Thanks

Joe

[spinmove_]

Okay, If my feeble mind is tracking it really does not matter where i put the front sight in the notch or lower portion as long as it's centered with equal light etc etc, my shots should impact the same spots up close or at distance. I was concerned that after a certain distance I'd have to change my whole sight picture and that was entirely too much work for me to process.

Thanks

Joe

Ultimately you don't have to change your sight picture if you don't want to. You just have the option to if you are going to use the sights as they were intended to be used.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-HEJjSiOl4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkMLQN4uz_E

[Larry Sellers]

Understood now, I can see the benefit of using the smaller notch at distance. Will have to give these a little more time to work some of the kinks out.

Thanks for the info

Joe

[BK14]

Maybe something's changed, but when I took a class with Proctor this past summer, I talked to him about these sights, and I don't think he's saying what that video is saying. It's not that you have two sight pictures, one where the dot is in the Y and one is down in the notch for distance, it's a focus shift of your eyes, to be able to shift your eyes down and see the narrower light bar. If you were to drop the front sight in the notch for distance, you'd be pushing your shots low, add in bullet drop and you've got some really low shots when you're working distance.

I could be way off base here. But I'm fairly certain it's not two sight pictures, or two front sight locations, it's one. But you can shift focus to see your lower light bars if needed for precision.

[HopetonBrown]

The idea is that if you're taking a 25 yd and out shot, you drop the front blade to match the lower part of the rear notch

No, that's not how they're used.

Equal height across the tops of the sights. The position of the front blade height in relation to the rear sight does not change.

[JHC]

Maybe something's changed, but when I took a class with Proctor this past summer, I talked to him about these sights, and I don't think he's saying what that video is saying. It's not that you have two sight pictures, one where the dot is in the Y and one is down in the notch for distance, it's a focus shift of your eyes, to be able to shift your eyes down and see the narrower light bar. If you were to drop the front sight in the notch for distance, you'd be pushing your shots low, add in bullet drop and you've got some really low shots when you're working distance.

I could be way off base here. But I'm fairly certain it's not two sight pictures, or two front sight locations, it's one. But you can shift focus to see your lower light bars if needed for precision.

My understanding is you are correct. Frank posted a few comments last year clarifying it as you have described.

[newyork]

If I didn't just buy a pair of 10-8s, I might have snagged a pair of these.

[spinmove_]

No, that's not how they're used.

Equal height across the tops of the sights. The position of the front blade height in relation to the rear sight does not change.

Ok, I must have misunderstood the explanations that I've heard/read then. My mistake.

[HopetonBrown]

Ok, I must have misunderstood the explanations that I've heard/read then. My mistake.
No problem, Abner Miranda who works for Inforce posted a video on YouTube about 2 sight pictures which confused a lot of people. Proctor specifically said the video was wrong, but instead of taking the video down, Miranda just disabled the comments section.

[Chuck Haggard]

From the WOTG page where they sell said sights;


These sights are NOT designed to put the dot in the lower portion of the rear notch. They are designed to be POA=POI with the dot resting in the Y where the notch tapers down- basically classic sight alignment.

[Larry Sellers]

Thanks for the clarification. Use them as normal sights and align as such, but use the lower tighter area for sharper focus.

[spinmove_]

No problem, Abner Miranda who works for Inforce posted a video on YouTube about 2 sight pictures which confused a lot of people. Proctor specifically said the video was wrong, but instead of taking the video down, Miranda just disabled the comments section.

Well that was super helpful of Abner... Come to think of it, I think it actually was his video where I remember hearing something about 2 different sight pictures, now that you mention it. Oh well, at least we got that cleared up.

[spinmove_]

I have to say, I'm intrigued by the sight picture, but the logical part of my brain keeps telling me it wouldn't be a good idea to toss them on a G19 when my eyes pick up white paint on the sights long after the red fiber rod has gone dark.

[leif]

I kept throwing shots high with these sights, I just bought his .125 square notch sight as a replacement and really like them, the narrow notch works well for me.

[HopetonBrown]

I kept throwing shots high with these sights, I just bought his .125 square notch sight as a replacement and really like them, the narrow notch works well for me.
Sometimes people align the fiber with the top of the rear notch, causing shots to impact higher.

[GJM]

I found them in standard config, to be drive the dot, and hit lower than I prefer. Solved this by using the shorter, large frame front sight.

I like how short they are in total height.

[spinmove_]

Just out of curiosity, how does the rear sight in this set work for one-handed work? I got to looking at the sight dimensions and, while it's nice that they're low profile, the front face of the rear sight seems to have a little more slope to it than what seems super useful for that. Then again, they could just be deceiving like the Warren rears.

[Larry Sellers]

Just out of curiosity, how does the rear sight in this set work for one-handed work? I got to looking at the sight dimensions and, while it's nice that they're low profile, the front face of the rear sight seems to have a little more slope to it than what seems super useful for that. Then again, they could just be deceiving like the Warren rears.


Decent purchase, nothing skin tearing but I think if you deliberately hook them you should be good to go.

[thward89]

So, if you are shooting these at 25 yards on an NRA B-8 where are you holding?

[HopetonBrown]

So, if you are shooting these at 25 yards on an NRA B-8 where are you holding?
I cut the bull in half. I used these in a recent Defoor class and passed his Test No. 1 which includes timed fire at 25.

[thward89]

I cut the bull in half. I used these in a recent Defoor class and passed his Test No. 1 which includes timed fire at 25.

Perfect. Thanks, man. That's what I was hoping. I just spent two days with Kyle last month and his class got me looking for a new set of sights. Will have to give these a try.

[NETim]

Have a G17 inbound. It will primarily be a game gun.

Proctor's sights yea or nay?

[GJM]

Not sure. Was planning to pull my set on a G4 17 and replace them with Dawson Chargers like Gabe runs.

[MPG]

Have a G17 inbound. It will primarily be a game gun.

Proctor's sights yea or nay?

If by game gun you mean for activities like IDPA/USPSA, then in my personal experience with the Proctor's I would recommend against them. Why? I found the sight picture too tight/narrow in that I felt I gave up too much speed for no perceived gain in accuracy under these circumstances. They were nice with slow fire though.

Much like GJM, I removed them from my G17 and replaced them with Dawson Chargers (I like Dawson's all around on my Glocks).

Again this is just my observation of them from my own personal use/experience.

[NETim]

If by game gun you mean for activities like IDPA/USPSA, then in my personal experience with the Proctor's I would recommend against them. Why? I found the sight picture too tight/narrow in that I felt I gave up too much speed for no perceived gain in accuracy under these circumstances. They were nice with slow fire though.

Much like GJM, I removed them from my G17 and replaced them with Dawson Chargers (I like Dawson's all around on my Glocks).

Again this is just my observation of them from my own personal use/experience.

Yes, IDPA/USPSA/Steel Challenge/GSSF kind of stuff. I want an FO front and wide notch plain black rear in an attempt to please my old eyes.

Been researching the options and am getting a headache for my efforts. :)

I have no issues with going with the Chargers.

[MGW]

Yes, IDPA/USPSA/Steel Challenge/GSSF kind of stuff. I want an FO front and wide notch plain black rear in an attempt to please my old eyes.

Been researching the options and am getting a headache for my efforts. :)

I have no issues with going with the Chargers.

Not to add more confusion but I was really happy with the Taran Tactical sights on my 17. The rear notch isn't really wide but it's deeper than most and made the front sight really easy to pick up. The front sight was bright but didn't get overly bright in direct sunlight.

[Chuck Haggard]

You guys keep making my paralysis by analysis worse as far as shopping for my next set of sights.

[SteveB]

What about Vogel's sights?

http://www.recoilweb.com/vogel-dynamics-glock-pistol-sights-86925.html

[HopetonBrown]

If by game gun you mean for activities like IDPA/USPSA, then in my personal experience with the Proctor's I would recommend against them. Why? I found the sight picture too tight/narrow in that I felt I gave up too much speed for no perceived gain in accuracy under these circumstances. They were nice with slow fire though.

The guy who designed them is a USPSA GM and IDPA M.

Just use the Y portion for shooting fast, a lot of room for the fiber, and if you want slow fire accuracy then you can focus on the bottom portion of the notch.

[Doug]

The guy who designed them is a USPSA GM and IDPA M.

Just use the Y portion for shooting fast, a lot of room for the fiber, and if you want slow fire accuracy then you can focus on the bottom portion of the notch.

Has anyone tried or can volunteer doing the Frank Garcia Dot drill for comparison with the proctor sights to say a regular set up like the TTI or Dawson's?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GJM]

Has anyone tried or can volunteer doing the Frank Garcia Dot drill for comparison with the proctor sights to say a regular set up like the TTI or Dawson's?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The Garcia dot drill seems so trigger and grip intensive to me, it is hard to imagine sights having anything to do with the result.

[MPG]

The guy who designed them is a USPSA GM and IDPA M.

Just use the Y portion for shooting fast, a lot of room for the fiber, and if you want slow fire accuracy then you can focus on the bottom portion of the notch.

Oh I know Frank's qualifications and have taken a handgun class with him. I understand his concept and usage of them, I've just found that "traditional" square notch rear sights, like those on Dawson's, Warrens and TTI's for example, work best for my uses and eyesight. Basically, I prefer a wider rear notch that allows a little more light around the front post than the Y's do.

[Doug]

The Garcia dot drill seems so trigger and grip intensive to me, it is hard to imagine sights having anything to do with the result.

Yes agree. But for me when using my same 34, my performance improved with TTI's over my black defoors when I switched.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[spinmove_]

Has anyone tried the Proctor Square Notch sights? I find the Y Notch interesting, but ultimately too different for my taste I think without being able to try them first.

[JHC]

Has anyone tried the Proctor Square Notch sights? I find the Y Notch interesting, but ultimately too different for my taste I think without being able to try them first.

Today in fact! I shot the DoW 300 aggregate with their .100 narrow notch rear on my G17 with KKM barrel. I shot a big jump PR of 278.

Skinniest sliver of light bars I've ever seen. I like them so far.

[spinmove_]

Today in fact! I shot the DoW 300 aggregate with their .100 narrow notch rear on my G17 with KKM barrel. I shot a big jump PR of 278.

Skinniest sliver of light bars I've ever seen. I like them so far.

I was thinking about going with the .125 rear notch. How's the build quality of the sights overall? Looks like, from other posts in this thread, the rear sight would lend itself well to one-handed clearing?

I'm currently debating going with either these (.125 square notch) or the 10-8's (.115 front, .140 rear). Both are appealing, but I like the idea of the finer fiber dot and the square profile of the notch.

[JHC]

Well made steel sights. Good ledge for a hook.

[Doge]

The trick with the Y Notch sight is to fight the urge to hold the gun lower, once you can keep the front sight aligned with the rear Y-Notch they are a great sight option that help with speed on close target splits but also provide enough of a sight picture for further shots. The front sight provided is on par with a Dawson and I like the Nitride Finish. POA-POI for the ones installed on my G19 HD/CCW gun.

[spinmove_]

The trick with the Y Notch sight is to fight the urge to hold the gun lower, once you can keep the front sight aligned with the rear Y-Notch they are a great sight option that help with speed on close target splits but also provide enough of a sight picture for further shots. The front sight provided is on par with a Dawson and I like the Nitride Finish. POA-POI for the ones installed on my G19 HD/CCW gun.

Do you find that you have any problems with the silhouette of these sights in low-light in conjuction with white light? I ask because I'm used to wider notches which seems to come in handy in those situations.

[Doge]

Do you find that you have any problems with the silhouette of these sights in low-light in conjuction with white light? I ask because I'm used to wider notches which seems to come in handy in those situations.

On my Glock19 paired with an X300U I didn't. Mine is paired with a green FO sight and since the 19 is my HD when wearing an x300u testing it and dryfire in lowlight with mini-USPSA targets is part of my dry-fire. The urge to push down was mainly when my 1911 was wearing them and only during slowfire...I later found out it was anticipation and also the front sight paired with the Y-Notch was not the right size for the 1911.

[newyork]

Sorry for the necro post but are more people using these lately? Like/dislike?

[JHC]

Sorry for the necro post but are more people using these lately? Like/dislike?

I have the Y and commented a little but currently don't have them on a gun. They're ok. I more recently tried his conventional square rear notch in the extremely tight/narrow config thinking it would be the bomb on a 17 for precision but I didn't see any improvement vs HDs which I actually find work well for slowfire precision in addition to fast/close stuff.

[newyork]

I thought in the past my .156 10-8 u notch was giving me a hard time at 25 but were good up close except there's no paint or FO that stood out on them.

[Trajan]

I have the Y and commented a little but currently don't have them on a gun. They're ok. I more recently tried his conventional square rear notch in the extremely tight/narrow config thinking it would be the bomb on a 17 for precision but I didn't see any improvement vs HDs which I actually find work well for slowfire precision in addition to fast/close stuff.

Ah, I didn't know he made a regular square one. The Y annoyed me and I always wanted to line the top of the front up with the beginning of the notch, and not the Y part.

I see it's in .100 width. I've been contemplating getting a .100 Dawson adjustable rear custom made and paring it with a .100 front. I bet that combo would be pretty sweet. I currently use .125/.125 on my carry and comp guns. Have .100/.125 on a G17 (and a 43 due to the sight radius) and haven't noticed any benifit to it. Not as accurate as .125/.125 (on the G17, G43 is stupid accurate) which I'm assuming is from the extra air. Airy sights aren't any faster for me, and are less precise.

I imagine combining the .100 rear with a Dawson .100 front would be the go to sights if you're afraid of adjustables.

[JHC]

I paired the .100 rear with a .125 front to get a tiniest light bar slivers. I had high hopes. But in my Gen 3 G17 with KKM barrel I shot about the same as I did with HDs. Pretty decent but it didn't "buy" me more skill. ;) Could be the gun's limit or mine of course.

[newyork]

Bought a 19 with Defoors on it from a friend. I nail polished the front sight but am looking around at a pair with FO front. I have a nice Dawson set on my VP9 but wanted to try something else. Proctors looked like a good balance. I could try 10-8 with a .140 rear and FO. Never gone less than .140 and wanted to try though.

[Larry Sellers]

Dawson's are really great. That's what I've migrated towards on my pistols as they're easy to order different widths and heights.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk