Red vs Green Fiber Optic Front Sights

[GRV]

Can't believe I couldn't find such a thread.

Which color fiber optic do you prefer and why?


I don't want to hear how "the human eye is most sensitive to green" because that's a precise statement about an equal comparison in a vacuum....and has little to do with whether Fiber Optic Products fluorescent green fiber or fluorescent red fiber is a better choice for a front sight. On the other hand, I'm happy to hear things like "green, because it appears brighter and is easier to see for me".

I used to think almost everyone shot red, and that's basically all I ever see in the competitive world. I was starting to take it as a "clue", but then recently I found out LAV and Pannone shoot green. Now I'm wondering if there is a pattern due to specific reasons.

[MVS]

Just watching Paul Sharp's latest video on this subject. He prefers the green as well. I use red to keep it the same as my RDS guns. Maybe that is not a great reason, but it works for me.

[TheRoland]

Can't believe I couldn't find such a thread.

Which color fiber optic do you prefer and why?


I don't want to hear how "the human eye is most sensitive to green" because that's a precise statement about an equal comparison in a vacuum....and has little to do with whether Fiber Optic Products fluorescent green fiber or fluorescent red fiber is a better choice for a front sight. On the other hand, I'm happy to hear things like "green, because it appears brighter and is easier to see for me".

I used to think almost everyone shot red, and that's basically all I ever see in the competitive world. I was starting to take it as a "clue", but then recently I found out LAV and Pannone shoot green. Now I'm wondering if there is a pattern due to specific reasons.

Green. It generally glows brighter for me.

But it's so close that all of my fibers that originally came in red are still red, because the difference isn't worth the couple of minutes it would take to swap.

[BCL]

I prefer red because it is easier for me to see (color vision issues - can't see green as well as red). Green is brighter than red and easier to pick up in low-light. Stoeger (and I believe Vogel) also use green.

If either color is too bright, you can sharpie the rod a little to tone it down. On really bright days, the fiber (especially green) can bloom out the entire front sight post, making low-probability shots particularly difficult.

[GRV]

Wait, Vogel runs green!? I thought for sure he ran red. Not only have I seen pictures of such, and no pictures of green, but his signature sights come with red fiber and no extra green to swap.

FWIW, my guess going into this thread was that competitive shooters use red because of better contrast or something and the .mil types use green for better low-light visibility. Though, now that I think about it, I'd imagine green better contrasts with all the cardboard and dirt found in action shooting.

[pr1042]

I've always used red but am trying green when my replacement front sight comes in (forgot to add loctite...)

IIRC from the podcast, Stoeger switched to green after shooting a match in with some targets in the shade/darker area and couldn't see the red.

[BCL]

Wait, Vogel runs green!? I thought for sure he ran red. Not only have I seen pictures of such, and no pictures of green, but his signature sights come with red fiber and no extra green to swap.

I don't know what he is currently running, but in the Vogel for TTI video, he had green fiber on his G35.


https://youtu.be/u7WkpOM-bW8?t=3m20s (no idea how to embed a video properly.)

I personally think green is better overall, especially if you run a sharpie down the rod a little, as you have better performance in low light. I just can't see green that well unfortunately.

[olstyn]

Though, now that I think about it, I'd imagine green better contrasts with all the cardboard and dirt found in action shooting.

My Dawson front came with red installed, and I haven't felt the need to swap it out. There's a ton of grass and a lot of trees and other foliage at the range at which I most commonly shoot USPSA anyway, so I figure the red is better for me, but I could be completely wrong. :p

[Clusterfrack]

I've used both, and prefer green. The green dot appears sharper, and comes into focus faster for me.

[ReverendMeat]

Green. Definitely seems to pop more, red always looks too dark to me.

Either is better than blue, though. Saw a new Colt 1911 with blue FO front sight (to match the blue grips) and it didn't work worth a shit.

[LOKNLOD]

I use red. The green is marginally brighter, but for me the red just seems to contrast better against a wider variety of targets - including when it is not at optimal brightness. In those lower light conditions, the green seemed yellowy and washed out - more like a hole in my front sight, than a part of it.

I'm willing to concede there may be some confirmation bias as red/orange colored front sights are simply what I'm used to seeing. I think either is plenty bright.

[aboveandbeyond]

I definitely prefer the green. In lowlight situations or overcast weather, the green FO sticks out much more to me.

Red washes out rather easily to my eyes.

[spinmove_]

When I do use fiber optic sights, I find that red is much easier to find. I'm not sure if its just the green fibers from Dawson or if its my eyes, but whenever I've used green I've always found myself actually hunting for the fiber. With red, that's not the case.

[PNWTO]

I don't think I have ever tried green... been using FOs for about 5 years now. Will report back.

[Luke]

I've always run red. A few weeks ago I switched to green. I'm not gonna lie, I took a stoeger class and he had green so I switched. I think I like it. Not sure if I can see it better or there is a placebo effect.

It does seem brighter in sun and shadow though. Could be my glowing fanboyism lighting it up or it might actually be brighter.

[Talionis]

I used to think almost everyone shot red, and that's basically all I ever see in the competitive world.

Don't be too sure of that. Most high level competitive dudes I know run green. Not really a difference in daylight for me, but I see the green better indoors and low light.

[StrikerFire]

Ameriglo CAP/tritium insert in red.

Its like a big red neon sign. I find it instantaneously.



7029

[MGW]

Green. I always ran red before. My M&P pro came with green installed and it is a lot easier for me to track compared to red. Installed yellow HDs on my Glock 19 and while not exactly green I find them easier to track compared to orange also.

[Jim Watson]

I am like TheRoland, I prefer green but not by enough to change inserts just to be changing color. If a red one breaks or kicks out, or gets dull, I put in green. But in the meanwhile, I shoot that gun with red.

I tried amber for a while, because a sight came with spares in red, green, and amber. It was not as sharp as either red or green and I soon replaced it.

[markp]

I've run both red & green/yellow and my eyes prefer the red.

[Luke]

Anybody tried the blue?

[ReverendMeat]

Anybody tried the blue?

To quote myself in post #10, "doesn't work worth a shit."

[HopetonBrown]

Red or green, don't seem to notice a difference.

[AMC]

I'm currently using the red fiber in the Warren/Sevigny sights on my competition gun. Green is brighter, but the red contrasts better for me against a wider range of backgrounds. Did better last Saturday when the match ran after sundown, too. Saw the green fibers on other guns were much harder to see at that point. Hopeton, how was your class? Looked like an enthusiastic group.

[Mr_White]

I like red a lot better.

This is subjective, but regardless of the classical 'human eye sees green the best', red is the most attractive to my eyes and mind, and stands out better to me than green. It may be that the mental aspect of noticing is a more operative factor than the physical aspect of brightness.

When I've tried green (not very extensively), it functioned like a crappy white for me. Like a white dot on a front sight that got dirty/dingy, and had lost some of its brightness, so to speak. I came away thinking that if I were going to use green, I'd rather have white instead (so I would just go back to Ameriglo Operators or something with a white dot or ring in the front.)

I also think that red has an environmental contrast advantage over green in a lot of situations. In my world, there is a lot more green and greenish stuff (mostly vegetation) than red and reddish stuff. I hear it's the reverse on some kinds of berms that are orangish or reddish.

The preference between red and green does seem highly subjective, and there are plenty of people on both sides. I'd go with what you like and not give it another thought.

---

Now that I got that written, I have been wanting to re-try a red/orange high visibility night sight. The no-cost solution for me is to stick Ameriglo Operators back on one of my guns and paint the white ring around the front tritium florescent red. I think I'd like to look at a low-light sight visibility comparison between red FO, green FO, standard Operators with the white ring in the front, and Operators with the white ring painted florescent red. I think I need to take a very specific look at how the green FO functions compared to a high visibility front night sight just above the level of darkness where tritium becomes visible.

[spinmove_]

Now that I got that written, I have been wanting to re-try a red/orange high visibility night sight. The no-cost solution for me is to stick Ameriglo Operators back on one of my guns and paint the white ring around the front tritium florescent red. I think I'd like to look at a low-light sight visibility comparison between red FO, green FO, standard Operators with the white ring in the front, and Operators with the white ring painted florescent red. I think I need to take a very specific look at how the green FO functions compared to a high visibility front night sight just above the level of darkness where tritium becomes visible.

This part interests me as I was just thinking this as I was reading through this thread this morning. Interested to see what you find.

[Mr_White]

This part interests me as I was just thinking this as I was reading through this thread this morning. Interested to see what you find.

I don't know how fast I am going to get around to it, but I do want to try.

[GRV]

Mr_White, what you've said exactly matches what I've had in my head before starting the thread, based on personal thoughts and playing around with the sights/fibers alone (haven't installed yet).

[martin_j001]

I've only used red so far in my Proctor Y-Notch sights. Have a set of TTI's on the way though, may give the green a shot for the next match and see how I like them.

[MGW]

I don't know how fast I am going to get around to it, but I do want to try.

I know none of this is new to you but my experience my help others.

Not exactly what you are thinking about but I ran black Defoor rears with an Ameriglo .125 night front all of last year. I like this set up a lot. The white front pops really well and is easy to pick up. It also stands out against different backgrounds really well.

The only thing I don't like about the tritium front is its a little wider than most fibers. The Taran Tactical sights are my all time favorite sights. The ratio between the front and rear is perfect for my eyes. The rear notch is nice and deep and I like that too. I also like the higher profile compared to the Defoors. I would sure like to see Taran make them for M&P's.

[Matt O]

In my experience, red blooms too much in direct sunlight whereas green is a more refined dot. If you are only shooting at an indoor range either should be fine.

For general use though, green does behave more efficiently to the human eye in a range of varying light levels. I have fiber optic pins on the sight for my compound bow with green, red and orange pins right next to each other for various distances. The green is the first I can see clearly at dawn and the last I can still see clearly at dusk. I chose it specifically for my 20 yard pin because of this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kennydale]

I was at a range talking to an instructor about sights. He took from his range bag 2 (UNLOADED- No Mags Slides Locked open. I checked) two of his Sigs both with Fiber optic Sights Red Rears and green Front on one. The opposite on the other. The GREEN front sight just stood out so much better, even outdoors with all the greenery

[matt7184]

Anybody tried the blue?

The new Colt Competition 1911s come with blue FO rods...From limited use with them the blue FO is pretty terrible and dull.

[Appalachained]

I've switched back and forth a few times. I couldn't tell any difference in my times. I like the way Red looks so that's what I use.

[Trajan]

Red. I've tried green, red stands out better to me. I am red/green colorblind however. I can still see colors though, just different shades appear to be different for me. Red pops out much better. It's bolder, which helps me pick it up quicker. When I used green I found I would have to pause to go from target focus to sight focus. Could just be that I'm used to red, idk.

Green in low light indoors is overrated IMO. It could stand out more because it's lighter, but it has to be pretty dark (read: you can't see your sights) for that difference to be noticeable for me.

Green in general is easier for me to see, in non-illuminated things too. Maybe it's just the lack of boldness to the green.

Blue is absolutely horrid. Played with it on that new colt gun. Might as well be black.

At the end of the day, this is 100% how your eyes work for you.

[Mr_White]

I know none of this is new to you but my experience my help others.

Not exactly what you are thinking about but I ran black Defoor rears with an Ameriglo .125 night front all of last year. I like this set up a lot. The white front pops really well and is easy to pick up. It also stands out against different backgrounds really well.

The only thing I don't like about the tritium front is its a little wider than most fibers. The Taran Tactical sights are my all time favorite sights. The ratio between the front and rear is perfect for my eyes. The rear notch is nice and deep and I like that too. I also like the higher profile compared to the Defoors. I would sure like to see Taran make them for M&P's.

This isn't about the FO itself, but one thing I have come to strongly prefer about Dawsons over Ameriglos is the presence of serrations. I have gotten bad glare many times from the smooth faces of Ameriglo sights, and it forces me to use the bright ring around the tritium since that's all that is visible. But I like the top edges and light bars for a lot of shots, and that's what I prefer about the serrations.

[MGW]

This isn't about the FO itself, but one thing I have come to strongly prefer about Dawsons over Ameriglos is the presence of serrations. I have gotten bad glare many times from the smooth faces of Ameriglo sights, and it forces me to use the bright ring around the tritium since that's all that is visible. But I like the top edges and light bars for a lot of shots, and that's what I prefer about the serrations.

I have a really difficult time focusing on the top edge of the front sight if it is anything other than all black. My problem with all black sights is they are way to slow for me to acquire in low light or most indoor ranges.

I guess that's why I gravitate to sights that will allow me to drive the dot.

[Mr_White]

I have a really difficult time focusing on the top edge of the front sight if it is anything other than all black. My problem with all black sights is they are way to slow for me to acquire in low light or most indoor ranges.

I guess that's why I gravitate to sights that will allow me to drive the dot.

I'm not at all saying this to mean you are 'wrong' or something - how we work out all of this is very personal and mine is far from the only way.

Having a hard time paying attention to the top edge of the front sight when there is also a high visibility element to the front sight (FO, bright orange around the tritium, etc.) is far from unheard of. I've read plenty of comments from people in the competition world having accuracy problems from aiming solely with the very attractive FO dot when the shot requires the finer sight alignment that would have been provided by the top edges and light bars. I think it's more of a mental attention thing, than a visual thing, unless the FO is actually blooming. A strongly recommended antidote is time with all black sights. I've been using Dawson Chargers with a FO front sight for a few years now and really like them. They have great dimensions, plus serrations. I have to say I am glad I put in a few years before that with the Ameriglo Defoors (all black) because the difficulty you note about seeing them in an indoor range, which is where I most often shoot, led to a radically increased ability to use my vision better for shooting. All the vision stuff I've written about stems from that experience. So I don't know how it will really work for you, but if you shoot at an indoor range where it takes a lot of effort but is not impossible for you to see the black front sight sharp and clear, I wonder if you might experience a similar improvement from time spent with all black sights.

[Mr_White]

I messed around briefly yesterday with some sights. Need to do it again because I only had a few minutes.

I set up a lighting condition on the range where there is enough light to locate and engage a gray silhouette target, but it was still very reduced light. If decisionmaking were to hinge upon discerning an object in someone's hand, a flashlight would be necessary. Threat behavior might make it clearer and might allow for an engagement decision without a flashlight. But it would be really really hard to tell a cell phone from a small gun.

Glock with stock sights: sights looked black and were not visible. The very reflective white on the stock sights was nonfunctional in this particular light.

Glock with old night sights: tritium was visible and useable. I guess I set up a bit lower lighting condition than I talked about before (had intended it to be just a bit brighter than when tritium becomes visible, but where ok shooting could be done with any sights.)

Glock with Dawson Chargers (red FO): sights looked black and were not visible. Still could hit the target fine, but it was from index and coarse visual alignment.

Glock with Dawson Chargers (green FO): The green FO was surprisingly visible in very little light, and was about the equivalent of the tritium on the old night sights I looked at. Very interesting.

After I got home, I took the slides off a few guns and went around my place looking at the sights in different lighting conditions. This time I looked at the Dawson Chargers with red FO, Dawson Chargers with green FO, and Ameriglo Operators (green front/yellow rear) that still have pretty strong tritium. The night sights were by far the most visible in varied dim conditions. At the in-home distances, index and coarse visual alignment would be plenty of aiming reference for most shots, so it's not like the non-night sights wouldn't work, but the tritium was way more visible. The green FO was like a really gimpy front night sight - pale, visible, small, not very bright. The red FO disappeared for the most part.

I do want to mess around with this some more. I need to paint the white ring on the front of one of my Operators florescent red and try that. I want to play around with the green FO some more, both in dimmer conditions and daylight. I was saying I think I want to try the green FO in the local USPSA match this weekend, but I'm not so sure now. In light where the FO is glowing, my brain hates the green. I just don't like how it looks. It's pale and does not look 'right' to me, which could just be reflective of the time I have spent with red FO so the green looks wrong. Subjectively, the red stands out much better. I would consider going with the green if it ends up being a pseudo-night sight, but I think that might be more credit than it really deserves.

[spinmove_]

I messed around briefly yesterday with some sights. Need to do it again because I only had a few minutes.

I set up a lighting condition on the range where there is enough light to locate and engage a gray silhouette target, but it was still very reduced light. If decisionmaking were to hinge upon discerning an object in someone's hand, a flashlight would be necessary. Threat behavior might make it clearer and might allow for an engagement decision without a flashlight. But it would be really really hard to tell a cell phone from a small gun.

Glock with stock sights: sights looked black and were not visible. The very reflective white on the stock sights was nonfunctional in this particular light.

Glock with old night sights: tritium was visible and useable. I guess I set up a bit lower lighting condition than I talked about before (had intended it to be just a bit brighter than when tritium becomes visible, but where ok shooting could be done with any sights.)

Glock with Dawson Chargers (red FO): sights looked black and were not visible. Still could hit the target fine, but it was from index and coarse visual alignment.

Glock with Dawson Chargers (green FO): The green FO was surprisingly visible in very little light, and was about the equivalent of the tritium on the old night sights I looked at. Very interesting.

After I got home, I took the slides off a few guns and went around my place looking at the sights in different lighting conditions. This time I looked at the Dawson Chargers with red FO, Dawson Chargers with green FO, and Ameriglo Operators (green front/yellow rear) that still have pretty strong tritium. The night sights were by far the most visible in varied dim conditions. At the in-home distances, index and coarse visual alignment would be plenty of aiming reference for most shots, so it's not like the non-night sights wouldn't work, but the tritium was way more visible. The green FO was like a really gimpy front night sight - pale, visible, small, not very bright. The red FO disappeared for the most part.

I do want to mess around with this some more. I need to paint the white ring on the front of one of my Operators florescent red and try that. I want to play around with the green FO some more, both in dimmer conditions and daylight. I was saying I think I want to try the green FO in the local USPSA match this weekend, but I'm not so sure now. In light where the FO is glowing, my brain hates the green. I just don't like how it looks. It's pale and does not look 'right' to me, which could just be reflective of the time I have spent with red FO so the green looks wrong. Subjectively, the red stands out much better. I would consider going with the green if it ends up being a pseudo-night sight, but I think that might be more credit than it really deserves.

That's interesting. I might have to toss a green FO rod in the Dawson front that I have lying around and see how it looks to me. I don't remember it being all that great when I installed green last time, but its possible I didn't install it correctly either.

[GRV]

Very curious to see you continue to test this, Gabe.

[Mr_White]

I'm interested too - certainly interested enough to play around with it - but I doubt I will find much of anything definitive that isn't already widely known, or is necessarily true outside my own subjective experience. Yesterday really just reinforced what I've already tentatively concluded from fooling around with this stuff a couple years ago. I like the look of red FO when there is enough light for it to work. I don't like the look of green FO in the same kind of light, but green does seem to remain visible into lower levels of light than red. Night sights are the most reliably visible in the widest conditions, but are also not perfect. They lose out (by how much, and does it matter?) to black and FO sights when it comes to dimensions and serrations (depending on the night sights we are talking about), which are factors that push me toward non-night sights. No matter the sights we choose, I think there is a target/background combination, circumstance, or lighting condition out there somewhere, just waiting to screw us over.

[spinmove_]

I'm interested too - certainly interested enough to play around with it - but I doubt I will find much of anything definitive that isn't already widely known, or is necessarily true outside my own subjective experience. Yesterday really just reinforced what I've already tentatively concluded from fooling around with this stuff a couple years ago. I like the look of red FO when there is enough light for it to work. I don't like the look of green FO in the same kind of light, but green does seem to remain visible into lower levels of light than red. Night sights are the most reliably visible in the widest conditions, but are also not perfect. They lose out (by how much, and does it matter?) to black and FO sights when it comes to dimensions and serrations (depending on the night sights we are talking about), which are factors that push me toward non-night sights. No matter the sights we choose, I think there is a target/background combination, circumstance, or lighting condition out there somewhere, just waiting to screw us over.

I completely agree with your last sentence. It seems that regardless of what sighting system is chosen, there are circumstances where said sighting system is at a disadvantage vs. another. Lately I've been doing some homework regarding rifle shooting and I've been really itching for the weather to start getting consistently nicer (not ridiculously cold and sleety) so I can spend some time experimenting with what I can do at medium ranges as my experience with rifles is extremely limited.

One thing I've found interesting though is the fact that, at least from what I've seen/read, not many people are nearly as picky about irons on a rifle as they are on a pistol. Now I'm sure the options and proliferation of optics has A LOT to do with that, but if you're relying on irons as a backup means of acquiring a sight picture in an emergency situation it strikes me as at least a little bit odd that more "visible" solutions other than black on black peep/ghost ring/notch and post setups aren't more widely found. I don't know about you, but I've heard plenty of people telling me that AKs are plenty accurate at medium ranges and, if you're not using an optic on one, you're using a fairly coarse and tight notch and post setup that is black on black yet still making good hits out to 400 yds.

It makes me wonder if all you really NEED on a pistol is just a black rear notch with a front post that has both tritium and MAYBE white paint of some sort.

[Mr_White]

It makes me wonder if all you really NEED on a pistol is just a black rear notch with a front post that has both tritium and MAYBE white paint of some sort.

Irrationally, if I am going to use night sights, I really prefer front and rear tritium. Ironic because I'm also ok with tossing the tritium altogether in favor of the other nice things that non-night sights have. But I pretty much agree with you there. Black sights that have white/light colored markings on them, plus tritium, I think are pretty much going to be the most universally visible. That's why what we know as traditional night sights are the way they are.

---

I swear I am not going to turn this thread into my daily sight observation journal, but I made myself keep working with the green FO in dry fire yesterday. Maybe it is growing on me? Maybe? As I worked with it, the green FO is definitely 'brighter' than the red. I'm kind of liking that maybe. Though my brain still seems to get grabbed better by the red. I still don't know which I am going to use for the match tomorrow. I really don't want a sliver in my mind all day, but I really do want to try green FO, and outdoors is my best chance to do it...

[GRV]

You're more than welcome to post tons of observations here. Your sight opinions seem to be very close to my own, so your testing and observations are very valuable to me.

...just don't go blaming me if you blow your match tomorrow ;)

[BillSWPA]

One thing I've found interesting though is the fact that, at least from what I've seen/read, not many people are nearly as picky about irons on a rifle as they are on a pistol. Now I'm sure the options and proliferation of optics has A LOT to do with that, but if you're relying on irons as a backup means of acquiring a sight picture in an emergency situation it strikes me as at least a little bit odd that more "visible" solutions other than black on black peep/ghost ring/notch and post setups aren't more widely found. I don't know about you, but I've heard plenty of people telling me that AKs are plenty accurate at medium ranges and, if you're not using an optic on one, you're using a fairly coarse and tight notch and post setup that is black on black yet still making good hits out to 400 yds.

It makes me wonder if all you really NEED on a pistol is just a black rear notch with a front post that has both tritium and MAYBE white paint of some sort.

On a pistol used for serious purposes, I absolutely would not be without tritium front and rear if there is any way to have them. Most of my serious purpose guns currently have Trijicon "bright and tough" (not HD) sights with the green front and yellow rear. These sights work reasonably well for me under a wide variety of light conditions, and I prefer the narrower rear notch as compared to the HD.

I tried a tritium post on my AR at a class taught by Protective Shooting Concepts. The post was really hard to see in the middle of a sunny day, and even when I could see it, the width of the sight really hurt my accuracy. The instructors persuaded me to switch back to a standard A2 post. Immediately after the class, I switched to my A2 post, and sighted in. Shooting into direct sunlight - facing west near the end fo the day - I was able to clearly see the front sight and had the gun sighted in at 50 yards in very little time. I would not even have been able to see the post iwth the tritium insert under these light conditions. It is not that people are less demanding of rifle sights, it is just that the higher visibility options come at a heavy price in terms of visibility during the day as well as accuracy. Low light visibility is one of my biggest motivating factors in looking into illuminated optics for rifles.

While this is less of a factor than the overall visibility of the post, a standard A2 post can be adjusted for elevation by rotating in quarter turn increments, for 1/2 minute of angle for each quarter turn. Replacing this with tritium limits the user to full turns, or 2 minute of angle adjustments.

D.R. Middlebrooks offers a set of pistol sights including a fiber optic front with a rounded top, and a rear sight with either a standard U notch or an Ashley Express style sight with a deeper V. His theory is that half-circle top of the front sight forms a precise point at the top of the sight, unlike a more traditional rectangular front sight. While I have not tried his sights (and likely will not unless he offers them with Trijicon (not just tritium, but Trijicon) inserts), my experience with the rifle causes me to believe that his theory has merit.

Turning back to the discussion of serrations, for those of you using front sights with tritium and/or fiber optic, is there enough surface area left over on the front sight for serrations to make a difference?

[Mr_White]

On a pistol used for serious purposes, I absolutely would not be without tritium front and rear if there is any way to have them.


It is not that people are less demanding of rifle sights, it is just that the higher visibility options come at a heavy price in terms of visibility during the day as well as accuracy.

Your second sentence is pretty much how I feel about night vs. non-night sights on pistols.

Sounds like you see night sights as a must on a pistol, but choose in favor of the other nice things you get if you forego night sights when it comes to rifle. I think this is a great example of different people making different decisions balancing what they think is needed, what they want, and what they consider reliable or vetted enough to use. Or same person making a decision in favor of certain factors when it comes to a one thing, but a decision in favor of other factors when it comes to something else.

I don't mean this to attack you or even criticize your choices AT ALL, Bill. I do this myself and I think we all probably do it. It's just a dynamic I keep seeing over and over in many discussions.

Speaking to some underlying issues of the discussion of night sights vs. non-night sights: My personal feeling is that outside of having clear behavioral cues to observe, if threat ID and assessment hinges on identifying an object in someone's hands, low light makes that very difficult very quickly and a flashlight is likely to be needed. And that in that same kind of lighting condition, shooting isn't made nearly as difficult, especially if we also include the likely distance being pretty short.

However, despite my feeling, in Tom Givens' student data, which I think is among the best information available to our training communities, exactly no one has needed either a flashlight or nights sights to make decisions or successfully engage. However there are a few tight/long shots in there.


Turning back to the discussion of serrations, for those of you using front sights with tritium and/or fiber optic, is there enough surface area left over on the front sight for serrations to make a difference?

For me, the answer is YES, especially when it comes to FO. Using the Ameriglo Operators for example, in some lighting conditions I get massive glare on the smooth-faced front sight and am left with a big white ring around the tritium, which isn't a fine enough aiming reference for some shots. Serrations absolutely help that. I'm sure the smaller surface area left for the serrations isn't as good in that regard as a larger surface area. In this specific aspect of the discussion, I do think FO is a lot better than a high visibility night sight - a small, .040" FO rod leaves a lot more of the available face of the front sight for serrations than the big white/orange/yellow rings and squares surrounding the tritium on HDs, Hacks, Pro Glo, CAP, TCAP, Operators, etc.

[BillSWPA]

Gabe, not only to do you make your point with class, but I know the level at which you train and shoot, so if you felt that something I was doing needed some criticism, I would welcome it.

I am aware of Tom Given's statistics, and they are tough to argue with. I counterbalance that with the amount of time I have spent in urban and suburban nighttime lighting conditions wherein I do not believe I would be able to see my sights well without the tritium, but I can see well enough to make a shoot/no shoot decision. I rarely have an issue seeing the tritium sights during the day, but I will not say never. Particularly at dusk if I am shooting into the sun, seeing the sights can be problematic. It is entirely possible that, at the level at which you are shooting, you are going to notice such visibility penalties more than I would notice them. It is also possible that I would experience some improvement if I could find a way to mitigate the visibility compromises, which is one reason I have been following this thread.

Having tried Trijicon, P-T/IWI, and Meprolight tritium inserts, there are some big differences in how long the tritium inserts last, with Trijicon being the best by far. I suspect that serrated back sight faces would be helpful, and would be very tempted to try the Dawson sights being discussed here if I knew that their inserts were made by Trijicon. Does anyone know the source of their inserts?

On a rifle, the visibility and accuracy penalties I experienced with the tritium sight were far greater than anything I have ever experienced on a pistol. During the class, the instructors referred to my front sight as a "Helen Keller sight," and they were right. I do have a light on my rifle, but even so, I would not have given up the nighttime visibility without a very strong reason to do so.

[Mr_White]

Bill, I think your reasoning makes about as much sense as anything. As long as someone is not being an idiot, I think there is a whole lot of room for a reasoned personal preference to dictate these kinds of decisions, even when there are different answers for different people/places/contexts/desires.

And thanks for letting me know I didn't come across like a jerk - didn't want to do that at all. :)

I just checked with Dawson Precision. They say yes, Trijicon lamps in their night sights.

[BillSWPA]

Bill, I think your reasoning makes about as much sense as anything. As long as someone is not being an idiot, I think there is a whole lot of room for a reasoned personal preference to dictate these kinds of decisions, even when there are different answers for different people/places/contexts/desires.

And thanks for letting me know I didn't come across like a jerk - didn't want to do that at all. :)

I just checked with Dawson Precision. They say yes, Trijicon lamps in their night sights.

Thank you for checking!

I have followed your posts elsewhere as well as here, learned from them, and cannot imagine you coming across as a jerk. Still, even private email communication can have a tone of its own, completely unintended by the writer, and it is far worse on a public forum, so I recognize the wisdom of being sensitive to that point.

Next time my tritium dims out I am taking a close look at those serrated Dawson sights.

[BN]

The very best fiber optic sights I have seen are the Dawsons. They have serrations with a recessed .40 fiber optic. Other brands of sights do not recess the fiber optic rod which is what causes the glare and starring.

I have been recently using Warren tritium front sights with the big white ring around the tritium.

I voted for green fiber optic. They are easier for my eyes to see.

[GRV]

I'm most impressed by the exact 50/50 split the poll has held for the duration of the thread thus far.

[taadski]

Next time my tritium dims out I am taking a close look at those serrated Dawson sights.


Bill,

Dawson tritium front sights aren't serrated. Only the FOs and the all black versions. Unfortunately. They're still my choice for a duty sight though, being available in a thinner (.125) blade and in a slew of heights for fine tuning purposes. FWIW, I'm also unwilling to give up a front and rear tritium combo for a defensive gun.

Green Dawson fibers (.090W in a .115W rear notch) are my goto sights for action pistol type activities. And I tend to dim them substantially with a sharpie. I shoot almost exclusively outdoors these days though.


t

[YVK]

I'm most impressed by the exact 50/50 split the poll has held for the duration of the thread thus far.

I just voted only to mess it up.

Although green is more visible, I prefer red.

[BillSWPA]

Bill,

Dawson tritium front sights aren't serrated. Only the FOs and the all black versions. Unfortunately. They're still my choice for a duty sight though, being available in a thinner (.125) blade and in a slew of heights for fine tuning purposes. FWIW, I'm also unwilling to give up a front and rear tritium combo for a defensive gun.

Green Dawson fibers (.090W in a .115W rear notch) are my goto sights for action pistol type activities. And I tend to dim them substantially with a sharpie. I shoot almost exclusively outdoors these days though.


t

Thanks for letting me know. It could be that the big white circle is more helpful than serrations, in addition to the benefits you mention. I still think they are worth a try.

[GRV]

I just voted only to mess it up.

Although green is more visible, I prefer red.

That was a setup to see who'd do that ;)

[littlejerry]

To my eyes the red appears too harsh in daylight. I've found myself focusing on the dot, not the whole sight picture, when using red.

Green is easier on my eyes and the edges of the front sight appear sharper(in daylight). I see more than just a dot when shooting quickly.

Indoors I seem to favor red. Stands out a bit more. This is with warren/sevigny combinations.

For precision I really like black serrated sights. Clean and easy on the eyes.

[Nephrology]

I prefer red because it gives me consistency with my Ameriglo Hackathorn tritium sights on my carry guns. I also pick up the red faster. I agree the green is easier to see, but it doesn't "click" like red does.

[dsa]

This thread has caused me to do some experimenting. I am vetting a new back up gun and put a red fiber optic on it, my primary is green. I find the green easier to acquire at speed on close targets (10-12 yds) but there isn't any difference on the timer between the green and red. The interesting thing is I seem to be slightly faster and more accurate with the red at longer distances i.e., 25 yard partials and head shots. My theory is the green seems to be easier to pick up so my eyes are more drawn to it and I focus less on the top edge of the sight. The red allows me to focus on the top edge of the front sight easier.

[YVK]

This is exactly the reason why I prefer red, I just didn't have enough time to verbalize it when I typed my earlier post.

[GRV]

This is exactly the reason why I prefer red, I just didn't have enough time to verbalize it when I typed my earlier post.

Which?

[YVK]

What dsa said about diverting visual attention from the top edge. Top edge is my default aiming point on all distances and the dot is just an aid in picking the sight up. It may end up being an aiming point but only when I am target focused which is not that often. There have been times when I asked myself if I did notice the dot during a run after completing it. The answer is usually yes but at times I have to think of it and for me it is exactly how much I'd like to depend on the dot.

[taadski]

I've found that any of the fibers can have the propensity to draw attention away from the edges of the blade itself and hinder precision at speed on more difficult targets. In particular in bright sunlight. Both red and green need to be dimmed significantly for *me* to be content with them. Otherwise the dot just overpowers my vision. With some of the other fiber manufacturers, with larger FO tubes, this phenomenon is even worse than with the small Dawson ones.

[YVK]

T, I am partially color blind in a red-green part of the spectrum. My eyes don't react to red as strongly, for the lack of a better word, so it helps in this particular case. I could easily see, pun intended, that a person with normal vision may see even red too brightly.

[taadski]

T, I am partially color blind in a red-green part of the spectrum. My eyes don't react to red as strongly, for the lack of a better word, so it helps in this particular case. I could easily see, pun intended, that a person with normal vision may see even red too brightly.

That makes sense bud. I think human vision and perception of color is so unique and individual, folks have to do their own trial and error to find what they like. The cool part, at least with the Dawson options, is that with a razor and a lighter, you can swap rods in about 90 seconds and fiddle until one's heart is content. ;)

I just got an envelope from Dawson in the mail yesterday. Maybe I'll leave the red in and futz with it a bit. Been a few years since I last compared them side by side. Like I said before though, for me the width relationship between the front and rear sights is of much more significance for me than the color of the dot.


t

[CSW]

I chose Green, because the red "flares" with my eyes.

[Mr_White]

...just don't go blaming me if you blow your match tomorrow ;)

Tried out a green fiber optic at the match. Looked unfamiliar (I'm used to red) but wasn't a problem. I think I will stick with for now.

Whole bunch more thoughts tomorrow when I have more time.

[GRV]

Tried out a green fiber optic at the match. Looked unfamiliar (I'm used to red) but wasn't a problem. I think I will stick with for now.

Whole bunch more thoughts tomorrow when I have more time.

Good timing. I'm planning on installing Chargers with red in the next week or so. If you hadn't switched to green, I would have finally caught up with you in the sight-preference hysteresis curve :p

[Mr_White]

Couple more red vs. green thoughts after using green at an outdoor match:

Green was fine and I'm going to continue using it for now. I really like both the red and green and I think I'd be pretty happy either way.

My 'attention' seems to be caught better by the color red. I look at the red FO, and just say 'Yesssssssssssss.'

The red is a lot 'darker' than the green, and I feel like the 'brightness' of the green makes up for the fact that my attention is grabbed better by the red color, so they both end up being very noticeable for me.

The green FO has a lot more contrast with the black sight post, giving it more of the effect you get with traditional night sights, where if the target is light, you can use the dark sight post to aim, and if the target is dark, you can use the light colored (usually white) marking on the sight post to aim. With the red FO, the whole sight is 'darker' and contrasts somewhat less with dark targets than with the green FO.

The green FO definitely remains visible into lower levels of light than the red FO. It isn't a night sight, but it is definitely a step in that direction, at least compared to red FO or plain black sights. And that leads to...I have an idea for a new thread that I will probably start tomorrow. It will be kind of a fun diversion, but it is broader than red vs. green FO, though that will definitely be an important part of it.

[GRV]

My 'attention' seems to be caught better by the color red. I look at the red FO, and just say 'Yesssssssssssss.'


Great way to put it. I know how you feel. I'm definitely in the same boat. I've been doing some half-assed experiments staring at red/green traffic lights too, with the same conclusion :rolleyes:




The green FO has a lot more contrast with the black sight post, giving it more of the effect you get with traditional night sights, where if the target is light, you can use the dark sight post to aim, and if the target is dark, you can use the light colored (usually white) marking on the sight post to aim. With the red FO, the whole sight is 'darker' and contrasts somewhat less with dark targets than with the green FO.


Exactly what I was interested to see. Do you find it practically easier to cope with dark targets with the green?



And that leads to...I have an idea for a new thread that I will probably start tomorrow. It will be kind of a fun diversion, but it is broader than red vs. green FO, though that will definitely be an important part of it.

Mind shooting me a PM when you start it? I don't want to miss this, but I probably will otherwise.

[Mr_White]

Sight picture thread started: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?20098-Sight-Pictures!

[Trajan]

Thought of this on the drive home from the gym this evening: The green FO is the same color as a green light. Is it possible that we've been conditioned since 15 to ignore green? If the light is green you just keep on going. Red light, red sign, brake lights, etc = stop/pay attention.

[YVK]

I am glad they don't have yellow, conditioned response hit that gas pedal harder.

[Luke]

So on all of GJM's rmr'd guns, when the dot blinks in recoil does that mean he just treats it like a stop sign?

[Mr_White]

treats it like a stop sign?

You mean sawing it off and putting it in your bedroom?

[Luke]

You mean sawing it off and putting it in your bedroom?

Is that really how you Yankees get them?? We just unbolted them from the post.

[Mr_White]

Is that really how you Yankees get them?? We just unbolted them from the post.

I'm a total wiener and would never actually take a stop sign down, I was just cracking wise.

But I do have a more serious question - about whether I am a Yankee or not. I recognize that Oregon is north of the Mason-Dixon line, so is that what makes me a Yankee? Or am I not a Yankee because Oregon wasn't a state during the war between the states? This one time, a kid from Arkansas called me a Yankee because I was from Oregon, and it confused me. It was also a little funny, because a major portion of my family is from Arkansas.

[jh9]

I'm a total wiener and would never actually take a stop sign down, I was just cracking wise.

But I do have a more serious question - about whether I am a Yankee or not. I recognize that Oregon is north of the Mason-Dixon line, so is that what makes me a Yankee? Or am I not a Yankee because Oregon wasn't a state during the war between the states? This one time, a kid from Arkansas called me a Yankee because I was from Oregon, and it confused me. It was also a little funny, because a major portion of my family is from Arkansas.

You're from "out west" until you do something stupid. Then you're a damn yankee. :p

[Luke]

Washington and Oregon people are "hipsters". Did not mean to confuse you with the yanks. But judging from the pictures you posted, you live in a beautiful part of the world. We're I live it's so boring. Nothing to see.. Nothing to do. We don't even have a SINGLE burger place mentioned in the other thread other than what a burger :(

[Mr_White]

You're from "out west" until you do something stupid. Then you're a damn yankee. :p

I like that answer, thanks!


Washington and Oregon people are "hipsters". Did not mean to confuse you with the yanks. But judging from the pictures you posted, you live in a beautiful part of the world. We're I live it's so boring. Nothing to see.. Nothing to do. We don't even have a SINGLE burger place mentioned in the other thread other than what a burger :(

But you guys have Chick-fil-A. I enjoyed getting taken to that place for the first time after day 4 at Rogers a couple years ago. Quite a treat, especially right then. I really liked the part of Georgia I was in, not that I did a lot besides hang out at the hotel and go back and forth between there and Rogers (in April, so I didn't get the real hot South in the summer experience either.)

Hipsters....FML. You are exactly right, at least when it comes to the Portland and Seattle areas. The rest of Oregon and Washington are more sane, or at least mixed between the sane and the hipsters. I thought Portland was really cool when I was a teenager. Now I see it has a large amount of obnoxious self-absorbed people who think they are cooler and smarter than everyone else.

[Drang]

But I do have a more serious question - about whether I am a Yankee or not. I recognize that Oregon is north of the Mason-Dixon line, so is that what makes me a Yankee? Or am I not a Yankee because Oregon wasn't a state during the war between the states?

Orygun became a state in 1859.
Oregon in the American Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_in_the_American_Civil_War)


You're from "out west" until you do something stupid. Then you're a damn yankee. :p
I am one, and I know you spelled damnyankee wrong... :p


Washington and Oregon people are "hipsters".
Mister, when you call me that, smile...

[Mr_White]

Orygun became a state in 1859.
Oregon in the American Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_in_the_American_Civil_War)

Sonofabitch! That article makes it sound like I might in fact be a damn Yankee.

If I were to give myself a label, I would quote the great leftist poets Rage Against The Machine and call myself FuckyouIwon'tdowhatyoutellme. And that's great because it trolls the hipsters when I take that attitude from that source and say it in righteous indignation against whatever deterministic, non-free-will-having, non-freedom-of-speech-having, non-freedom-of-association-having, fascist crap they are superficially and idiotically infatuated with. No, I don't actually like or listen to Rage Against The Machine anymore.

[Drang]

Sonofabitch! That article makes it sound like I might in fact be a damn Yankee.

If I were to give myself a label, I would quote the great leftist poets Rage Against The Machine and call myself FuckyouIwon'tdowhatyoutellme. And that's great because it trolls the hipsters when I take that attitude from that source and say it in righteous indignation against whatever deterministic, non-free-will-having, non-freedom-of-speech-having, non-freedom-of-association-having, fascist crap they are superficially and idiotically infatuated with. No, I don't actually like or listen to Rage Against The Machine anymore.

Good post for April 19th.

[BillSWPA]

Even though this poll is a bit old, I received my first fiber optic sight this week, and as a result, voted for green.

I started teaching my daughter how to shoot last summer, and she is looking forward to going again. Due to the location and time when we typically go, she is often shooting into the sun. In an attempt to make things easier for her, I wanted to replace the all black sight on my Browning buck mark with fiber optic to give her something more clear to see when looking at black sights over a black or silhouetted target. The Dawson front sight came with a red insert installed, as well as extra red and green fiber.

Looking at the front sight in my well-lit office, there was little difference between the fiber optic sight and an all black sight. When I held the spare red and green fibers next to each other, with a significant portion exposed to light, the green was much brigher. The red fiber is getting replaced by green before the sight goes on my gun.

Dawson deserves mention for the multiple quick, helpful answers to my questions.

[Duelist]

Even though this poll is a bit old, I received my first fiber optic sight this week, and as a result, voted for green.

I started teaching my daughter how to shoot last summer, and she is looking forward to going again. Due to the location and time when we typically go, she is often shooting into the sun. In an attempt to make things easier for her, I wanted to replace the all black sight on my Browning buck mark with fiber optic to give her something more clear to see when looking at black sights over a black or silhouetted target. The Dawson front sight came with a red insert installed, as well as extra red and green fiber.

Looking at the front sight in my well-lit office, there was little difference between the fiber optic sight and an all black sight. When I held the spare red and green fibers next to each other, with a significant portion exposed to light, the green was much brigher. The red fiber is getting replaced by green before the sight goes on my gun.

Dawson deserves mention for the multiple quick, helpful answers to my questions.

I recently installed my first fiber optic front sight. It is red, bright, and I like shooting with it indoors or out. Doesn't take much to change it - I'd give the red a try on a gun at the range before you change the rod.

[cornstalker]

I started with the red insert in my Dawson's. Had difficulty seeing it in lower light. Switching to green improved that for me.

[BillSWPA]

Dawson ships the sights with red because that is apparently what most of their customers want. When I described my findings so far, they indicated that red/green preference is highly dependent on the individual shooter and their particular set of eyes. They thought my eyes favored green. Since my daughter is genetically at least part like me, she is likely to be similar.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[spinmove_]

I literally just switched to green to try out again last night. I find that green picks up and transmits way more light in indoor artificial lighting conditions and doesn’t appear to bloom anywhere near as much as red does. I’ll probably be switching all my fiber fronts to green for extended testing. So far I’m liking how much more visible it is with where I spend most of my dry and live practice.


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

[BillSWPA]

I replaced the red fiber with green, and then put the sight on my gun. When I first installed the fiber, I was a bit underwhelmed even with the green. However, when I put it on the gun and looked at the sight picture, my impression changed. That tiny green dot was a definite improvement in the visibility of the front sight. At least for my eyes, fiber optic is a poor low light solution and would never replace tritium on guns for serious purposes, I do see the benefit for recreational and competition shooting. We will see what my daughter thinks the next time I take her shooting.

[jeep45238]

Green pops more for me. Just been lazy about switching my last red out.

[BN]

I sometimes switch from one to the other. Trick of the day. ;)

[NH Shooter]

Green because it's brighter and easier for me to see than red.

[CSW]

Still using the green.
Two years now.