Fiber Optic Sight Preference

[NorthernHeat]

I am looking at replacing my Ameriglo Spartan Tactical night sights on my duty G17 with a fiber optic setup to test out.

The gun will be used from afternoon into night settings and will always have a Surefire X300U on it as well as 2 handheld lights on me.

The front runners (in no order) are:

-Dawson Charger (.125 rear with .105 front)
-Taran Tactical Glock sights
-Warren Tactical

All setup's will be black rear with fiber front

Anybody have any experience with any of the above setups or another setup they recommend and care explaining why?

I am trying to find the "best" setup to try.

Thanks

[Appalachained]

I have a few Glocks with Dawson's and recently put a set of Vicker's on an old g19 ( both plain Black rear/ FO front. Out of the Two I prefer the Warrens.
I've found I like my rear notch to be squared, but with rounded corners as opposed to round.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[leif]

I just got Proctor's .125 square notch sights for my range gun, which is kind of my testing ground for my duty gun. I only have one range session with them but I like them. I like the narrow rear, works for my eyes/brain. Similar dimensions to the Dawson's, I think the Proctor front is a little wider.

I work afternoons too, so same lighting conditions. Although most of my cop stuff is done during day light hours and the night time is spent typing. The last time I qual'ed it was at night and not seeing the f/o wasn't a big deal.

[NorthernHeat]

Right now I am kind of leaning toward the Warren's.

I like the contrast of the plain (non-serrated) black rear with serrated front.

I also like the profile of the Warren rear sight because it combines the outer corners that are "cut"/ wave profile with the rounded edges of the inner corners.

[DacoRoman]

I have the Warren Tactical .115" fiber optic front with the sevigny competition rear and so far I like it a lot. It is easy to install the fiber optic in the front sight, and the front sight is totally useable without any fiber optic at all should it break. The thin front sight and wide notch makes for very fast sights and yet I've gotten 3" groups at 25 yards offhand with win ranger +p 124grainer jhp's (using a Wilson drop in barrel).

I haven't exactly put the sights through real torture tests but I ran this set up decently hard, shooting more than 800 rounds during one day (Pistol portion of Frank Proctors Performance pistol and carbine) with drills where I would go through 3-4 full 17 rnd mags of rapid fire and my G17 was so hot at times I could feel the heat radiating to my skin through the kydes holster and pants. I've done multiple high round practice sessions since then and it's been around 9 months and I'm still on the same fiber optic insert.

I really dig em.

[Gray222]

Do they have to be low profile?

The dueck's aren't but they seem to work well.


http://i.imgur.com/N8Hu3Im.jpg

http://www.vdmsr.com/2016/02/dueck-defense-fixed-rear-red-fiber.html

[Luke]

I THINK the warrens don't have a serated rear.. Makes a huge difference for me and I have to have serated. YMMV

[DacoRoman]

I THINK the warrens don't have a serated rear.. Makes a huge difference for me and I have to have serated. YMMV

The sevigny rear isnt serrated but it's back sloped/angled in such a way that I've had no issues at all shooting in any outdoor lighting conditions super bright included. I find the smooth nature to be very non-distracting.

[littlejerry]

The sevigny rear isnt serrated but it's back sloped/angled in such a way that I've had no issues at all shooting in any outdoor lighting conditions super bright included. I find the smooth nature to be very non-distracting.

Agree. I've run both the warren, sevigny, and .130 sevigny rear sights. The .130 rear with 115 green FO is my preferred daytime setup. For indoor or lower light matches I find the 150 rear is easier to use.

Can't tell a difference between warren and sevigny shapes during use. One nice thing about the warren is you'll still see the shoulders on an IPSC silhouette at ~15 yards. Nice extra index point

[VolGrad]

I also believe Vogel just came out with a FO setup. Might be worth looking into.

[Greenie]

I have sets from 10-8 performance on a couple of guns. Nice thing about 10-8 is that they have several options for sight / notch width. Would recommend.

[LOKNLOD]

I have sets from 10-8 performance on a couple of guns. Nice thing about 10-8 is that they have several options for sight / notch width. Would recommend.

I've got the 10-8 set now too. I'm pleased.

[orionz06]

Vogel Dynamics on Amazon. (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B01BLV1QQI/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=WYRW70LG6TXM&coliid=I95DA1E4FYPR8)

Looks like they've sold quickly.

[HopetonBrown]

The Taran Tacticals are a .115 front with a .125 rear.

The Warren's are a .115 front with a .150 rear.

So really the difference is whether you want a wider or thinner rear notch. Generally people feel wider rear notches are faster, and thinner rear notches are more accurate.




I am looking at replacing my Ameriglo Spartan Tactical night sights on my duty G17 with a fiber optic setup to test out.

The gun will be used from afternoon into night settings and will always have a Surefire X300U on it as well as 2 handheld lights on me.

The front runners (in no order) are:

-Dawson Charger (.125 rear with .105 front)
-Taran Tactical Glock sights
-Warren Tactical

All setup's will be black rear with fiber front

Anybody have any experience with any of the above setups or another setup they recommend and care explaining why?

I am trying to find the "best" setup to try.

Thanks

[NorthernHeat]

Do they have to be low profile?

The dueck's aren't but they seem to work well.


http://i.imgur.com/N8Hu3Im.jpg

http://www.vdmsr.com/2016/02/dueck-defense-fixed-rear-red-fiber.html

Voodoo,

Only "low profile" enough to fit in a Safariland Duty holster.

Could you post more pics of the Dueck's?

I like that they have a plain black rear and serrated front. I also like the fact that on their site they talk about the sights being radiused of sharp edges (Warren's have been sharp if I remember right) and I also like that it looks like they have a nicely hooked area for racking the slide off the front ledge of the rear sight.

[NorthernHeat]

The Taran Tacticals are a .115 front with a .125 rear.

The Warren's are a .115 front with a .150 rear.

So really the difference is whether you want a wider or thinner rear notch. Generally people feel wider rear notches are faster, and thinner rear notches are more accurate.

Really, I'm not sure what I prefer as I think I have shot both wide and thin setups.

When I ran Heinie's with serrations on the rear sight I always felt like my eyes were drawn to the rear serrations and not the front sight.

I am also leaning toward a thinner rear notch only because I am going toward the FO for a thinner front sight for more accurate shots at a little longer distances.

With my wider front sight now, those longer shots are more difficult because the front sight is taking up almost the entire target area at 25 or 50 yards.

[Gray222]

Voodoo,

Only "low profile" enough to fit in a Safariland Duty holster.

Could you post more pics of the Dueck's?

I like that they have a plain black rear and serrated front. I also like the fact that on their site they talk about the sights being radiused of sharp edges (Warren's have been sharp if I remember right) and I also like that it looks like they have a nicely hooked area for racking the slide off the front ledge of the rear sight.

http://i.imgur.com/S2YBRih.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/DaD2b65.jpg

[NorthernHeat]

Thank you sir

[Appalachained]

This is my favorite set. Warren "carry" rear/ FO front. I have these on my g19's.
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160228/d239a15f31d4828f00158c0182114235.jpg
On my IDPA/USPS gun (G17 on the right) I have the Warren "comp" rear/FO front. I went with the extra narrow rear.
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160228/dcfb6d6cd5f81c7eef2cad3c224452b2.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthernHeat]

Thank you also for the pictures sir.

As much as we all do a great job at using words to describe physical objects, pictures always just do so much more.

[StraitR]

I've got the 10-8 set now too. I'm pleased.

I put 10-8 rears on everything, if it's an option. Really like the wide U notches, serrations, and rounded corners that prevent excess poking AIWB (or knocking my elbow against it before I switched to AIWB). I have one of their .115 FO fronts on my VP9. I like that the rod is a little more protected by a third support in the middle of the sight. I've been happy with all of my 10-8 products, this FO sight included.

Highly recommend the Armorers Tool as well. I use one of these once a weeks for something, usually not even gun related.

http://www.10-8performance.com/products/Armorer-Tool.html

[NorthernHeat]

Anybody have a problem with the 10-8 U-notch seeming too shallow of a rear notch?

[StraitR]

Anybody have a problem with the 10-8 U-notch seeming too shallow of a rear notch?

It's personal preference. I've heard that before (here on PF, actually), but I'm quite happy with the ten or so 10-8 sets I have. The first time I put a set of Warren's on a Glock around 2006ish I thought they were super tall, now they're pretty normal. People that are used to Dawson/Warren, Heinie's, and Trijicon HD's may think the 10-8's are shallow.

In other words, it depends on what you're used to.

[PPGMD]

I am a big fan of a 0.100" front with a 0.125" ish rear, with a rear notch depth of at least 0.100".

I also like serrated front and rear sights. I favor square notches these days, I don't feel the U-notch provides much benefit.

[LOKNLOD]

Anybody have a problem with the 10-8 U-notch seeming too shallow of a rear notch?

I didn't before, but now that you mention it... AARRRGGHHH!! Thanks, dude.

Just kidding. Hasn't bothered me.

[NorthernHeat]

I didn't before, but now that you mention it... AARRRGGHHH!! Thanks, dude.

Just kidding. Hasn't bothered me.

:cool:

I messed around with another persons G19 with a 10-8 gold bead front and 10-8 .140 rear (I think) and the shallow notch feeling is just the feel I got after a whopping like 30 min of messing with it, so of course that makes me an expert.:rolleyes:

I have typically heard very good reports of the 10-8 sights though.

[Chuck Haggard]

http://i.imgur.com/S2YBRih.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/DaD2b65.jpg

OK, so same sights in both pics, but different focus, right?

The one pic makes the rear sight appear to be a huge U notch

[NorthernHeat]

The one pic makes the rear sight appear to be a huge U notch

I thought that also

[HopetonBrown]

The 10-8s are nicely made but are too wide for my taste and I prefer a square notch for the 2 rectangular light bars.

[Gray222]

OK, so same sights in both pics, but different focus, right?

The one pic makes the rear sight appear to be a huge U notch

Yes, focus points make other parts blurry.

http://i.imgur.com/EuNT3NQl.jpg

[littlejerry]

6207

Here is my 130 sevigny rear with 115 front on a Glock 19

ETA the curved top is an effect from the camera

[taadski]

OK, so same sights in both pics, but different focus, right?

The one pic makes the rear sight appear to be a huge U notch

One sure looks like a square notch, while the other a U to me.

[Rosco Benson]

I THINK the warrens don't have a serated rear.. Makes a huge difference for me and I have to have serated. YMMV

I talked with Scott Warren about design of his sights at a SHOT show a decade or so ago. He strongly preferred a non-serrated rear sight face. He stated that it better allowed better focus on the front sight as the rear would ghost out to some extent.

I've got some of his sights on various pistols and I like them. I have his Novak-cut rear sight on a 1911 and that sight does have very fine serrations.

Rosco

[GRV]

Only "low profile" enough to fit in a Safariland Duty holster.


Are the Warrens, Dawsons, and TTIs all good to go for SLS/ALS duty holsters? I suppose I'll know one of these answers first hand in another week or so.

[HopetonBrown]

Are the Warrens, Dawsons, and TTIs all good to go for SLS/ALS duty holsters? I suppose I'll know one of these answers first hand in another week or so.
The TTIs are pretty tall but my friend uses them regularly in an ALS without issue.

[taadski]

Are the Warrens, Dawsons, and TTIs all good to go for SLS/ALS duty holsters? I suppose I'll know one of these answers first hand in another week or so.

Yes. In the Sig variants anyway.

I have a slide with suppressor sights, that are quite a bit taller yet, that fit fine in the ALS/SLS models.

[NorthernHeat]

Are the Warrens, Dawsons, and TTIs all good to go for SLS/ALS duty holsters? I suppose I'll know one of these answers first hand in another week or so.

I THINK they are all GTG, but not positive.

I know that HD's seem a lot taller than just about every other sight and there are guys using those in SLS/ALS holsters.

[GRV]

Awesome. Very good. I'd be in for a pretty rude surprise otherwise :rolleyes:

I remember there was some talk about front sights rubbing against the exposed metal rivet in the ALS mechanism when you draw. I wonder if that's an issue with these sights....

[Savage Hands]

I want to try either these below from Dueck Defense, Taran's or Vogel's
http://i.imgur.com/e9Mw07Z.jpg

[M2CattleCo]

I really like Warrens but the back angle on the rear sight makes for two points at the top of the rear notch that stab and/or scrape everything.

I use 10-8s almost exclusively, I still have a set of Warrens on a spare pistol.

I like the .125" fiber optic front with a .140" rear on 34s, same front with a .156" rear on 17s.

[Appalachained]

I like the Warrens. Warren carry for carry, Warren Sevigney for competition. BTW I have a set of Vickers sights ( for a G34, G35 ) if anyone is interested for $60.
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160305/3032e7277167f1f22c97c329046f1ee0.jpg
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160305/6f715daec70a91889a226880be03245b.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GRV]

What are your thoughts on the Warren profile vs the Sevigny profiles? Is the notch shape why you choose the Sevigny for competition?

[Adam78]

Anyone have an opinion on these?

http://www.amazon.com/AmeriGlo-Special-Combination-Sight-Glock/dp/B00QJO3JQS

[HopetonBrown]

Anyone have an opinion on these?

http://www.amazon.com/AmeriGlo-Special-Combination-Sight-Glock/dp/B00QJO3JQS
They are really wide. I'd check out the GFT 113. It's basically a Defoor rear with a fiber front.

[Appalachained]

What are your thoughts on the Warren profile vs the Sevigny profiles? Is the notch shape why you choose the Sevigny for competition?

I don't think the shape of the notch makes much difference except for the longer shots. I usually just line up the top of the sights and shoot which is why I also like the squared rear sight frame. The longer top horizontal line is faster to line up. With the longer shots, being that the target is square and the sights are squared makes me take time to line them up good too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GRV]

I don't think the shape of the notch makes much difference except for the longer shots. I usually just line up the top of the sights and shoot which is why I also like the squared rear sight frame. The longer top horizontal line is faster to line up. With the longer shots, being that the target is square and the sights are squared makes me take time to line them up good too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks! That's the first I've heard of the "longer top horizontal line". Makes sense. Very cool.

[Ryan77]

10-8 all-black rear .156
Ameriglo proglo front .220 height

Great combo

Although not fo may serve your purpose

[Leroy Suggs]

Vogel Dynamics on Amazon. (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B01BLV1QQI/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=WYRW70LG6TXM&coliid=I95DA1E4FYPR8)

Looks like they've sold quickly.

I just got a set of the Vogels installed yesterday on my Gen4 G17. POA/POI is dead on at 15 yards with 115 grain. Maybe .75 to 1" high with 147+p HST.

For my 70 year old eyes they are great. Enough light on each side for me to see well. They give a good sight picture and are fast to pick up.
I have Trijicon HD on my other guns. The Vogels seem to work as well as them, maybe more accuracy at distance.

Recommended!