Sight Pictures!

[Mr_White]

Sight Pictures!

I had an idea for a fun diversion of a thread. As we were discussing red vs. green fiber optics, I decided to borrow an idea from Claude Werner and actually see what different front sights look like in various lighting and background conditions. So I took some extra front sights that I have, installed them on a little piece of cardboard, then taped that to a comb (to serve as a handle.) Now I have this little thingy with a bunch of sights on it that I can freely handle pretty much anywhere because it doesn't look like I'm handling a gun.

Here's the basic setup. From left to right, the sights pictured are:

1. Dawson front, .105" wide, .040" small green fiber optic, with black Sharpie swiped on the top edge of the rod

2. Dawson front, .105" wide, .040" small green fiber optic

3. Dawson front, .105" wide, .040" small red fiber optic

4. Ameriglo Operator, .125" wide, white ring around tritium repainted with Testor's Model Enamel (florescent red)

5. Ameriglo Operator, .125" wide, white ring around tritium repainted white (Tru Glo white sight paint, IIRC)

6. Ameriglo Defoor, .125" wide

7. Ameriglo yellow TCAP, .125" wide

8. Stock Glock front sight, not sure the width

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1652/26140490490_4c88e1d929_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FPWR6U)20160412_145127 (https://flic.kr/p/FPWR6U) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr



As I get pictures of these sights in different lighting conditions and with different backgrounds, I'll post them. I'm attempting to get both in-focus and out-of-focus pictures to simulate both sight focused and target focused sight pictures.

Maybe others can post up their pictures if they take any - there are some important front sights that other people have and I don't. I'd be really interested if anyone can post up similar pictures of HDs, Ameriglo Hacks/Pro Glo, orange CAP or TCAP, larger diameter FOs, etc.



Indoors, good bright light
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1460/26321397942_255cdd3aa7_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/G6W3zU)20160412_145133 (https://flic.kr/p/G6W3zU) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1689/25811029233_68d5b7e735_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FjQgKp)20160412_145137 (https://flic.kr/p/FjQgKp) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1605/25808976244_a037347bcf_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FjDKt3)20160412_154320 (https://flic.kr/p/FjDKt3) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1467/26347655301_2d63f96106_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/G9fBYZ)20160412_154344 (https://flic.kr/p/G9fBYZ) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr



Outdoors, early in the morning, not full daylight yet
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1494/26141045570_c65d5417ed_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FPZG7f)20160412_062026 (https://flic.kr/p/FPZG7f) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1580/26347721051_a4df9cf08a_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/G9fXwB)20160412_062020 (https://flic.kr/p/G9fXwB) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1514/25811176283_d377c40758_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FjR2sK)20160412_065618 (https://flic.kr/p/FjR2sK) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1501/25809093504_e8251fe218_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FjEmjL)20160412_065624 (https://flic.kr/p/FjEmjL) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr



Outdoors, middle of day, overcast
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1554/26347835501_52248951d5_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/G9gxxT)20160412_122427 (https://flic.kr/p/G9gxxT) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1603/25809179664_4c15f6e2e5_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FjEMWh)20160412_122420 (https://flic.kr/p/FjEMWh) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr



Outdoors, late in the afternoon, partly cloudy
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1591/25809226214_fd00382559_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FjF2LS)20160412_165629 (https://flic.kr/p/FjF2LS) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1712/26347889981_71f0aeab9f_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/G9gPKc)20160412_165640 (https://flic.kr/p/G9gPKc) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr



Outdoors, mid-afternoon, getting pretty sunny - just could not get the camera to focus on the sights in a couple of these
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1687/25810450964_d4875c14fd_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FjMiRf)20160413_152850 (https://flic.kr/p/FjMiRf) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1494/26322852102_fd55530346_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/G74uRC)20160413_150639 (https://flic.kr/p/G74uRC) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1694/26322840322_93c5146cb8_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/G74rmw)20160413_150749 (https://flic.kr/p/G74rmw) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1475/25812442273_7ddf187584_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FjXvNa)20160413_151003 (https://flic.kr/p/FjXvNa) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1501/26322871452_0348df6707_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/G74ABf)20160413_151015 (https://flic.kr/p/G74ABf) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr



One from in the car with the sights blurry because there was motion - good example of how easy it is to see 'high visibility' front sights when they are in motion - not that the same can't be done with black sights...
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1630/26414093715_d9398ef1d7_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Gf88NT)20160412_063610 (https://flic.kr/p/Gf88NT) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr



Bunch of pictures from indoors, with varying levels of light and varying backgrounds
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1558/25809306814_8691e28f32_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FjFrJw)20160412_060221 (https://flic.kr/p/FjFrJw) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1612/26321807302_789abdf884_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/G6Y9gQ)20160412_060253 (https://flic.kr/p/G6Y9gQ) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1614/26348061841_ba9cd38fdb_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/G9hGQi)20160412_090726 (https://flic.kr/p/G9hGQi) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1450/26321896102_ddc2dda0a5_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/G6YAES)20160412_090739 (https://flic.kr/p/G6YAES) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1508/25811514703_d35ea15b71_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FjSL4z)20160412_181536 (https://flic.kr/p/FjSL4z) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1522/26414272985_bcea2a6c14_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Gf946K)20160412_181552 (https://flic.kr/p/Gf946K) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1674/26322301272_8821d61d83_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/G71F7y)20160412_181624 (https://flic.kr/p/G71F7y) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1700/26388708336_ff301d4223_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GcT2BW)20160412_181625 (https://flic.kr/p/GcT2BW) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1665/25809820784_9fdccdb476_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FjJ5w5)20160413_062008 (https://flic.kr/p/FjJ5w5) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1645/26141824250_5af2f66370_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FQ4FzL)20160413_061953 (https://flic.kr/p/FQ4FzL) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1617/26348556731_ed89cd67aa_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/G9keWT)20160412_060555 (https://flic.kr/p/G9keWT) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1584/25811969863_81c12ebebe_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FjV6na)20160412_060516 (https://flic.kr/p/FjV6na) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1473/26414784715_bd3d891906_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GfbFdF)20160412_060628 (https://flic.kr/p/GfbFdF) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1497/26322440112_4e7535d434_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/G72oom)20160412_060652 (https://flic.kr/p/G72oom) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1641/25810014784_a1eb3a2986_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FjK5bU)20160412_053935 (https://flic.kr/p/FjK5bU) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1532/26414863585_b055ff163e_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Gfc5Ev)20160412_053955 (https://flic.kr/p/Gfc5Ev) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1488/26388931846_9d19e6d195_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GcUb4y)20160412_060723 (https://flic.kr/p/GcUb4y) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1628/25810054034_a222cb9ccf_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FjKgRC)20160412_053803 (https://flic.kr/p/FjKgRC) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1589/25810047304_0046e64a01_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FjKeRA)20160412_053854 (https://flic.kr/p/FjKeRA) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr



And a couple more, because tee hee hee
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1528/26348747521_90f5c995eb_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/G9mdEn)20160412_173018 (https://flic.kr/p/G9mdEn) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1473/26348756381_35915d37a3_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/G9mgi8)20160412_173007 (https://flic.kr/p/G9mgi8) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr

[voodoo_man]

good idea, I'll try to get shots and post them...

[Clusterfrack]

Thanks for posting this, Gabe. Very useful.

The difference between the green and red FO in early morning is similar to my perception: green FO sights seem crisper in some lighting conditions. Not sure why.

Also, a big take home for me is that if you want to shoot at cocks, the yellow TCap is the way to go.

[UNK]

Incredibly useful thread! Fantastic idea!

[Gewehr3]

Nice to see others here who have an eye for fine arts.:p

[CS Tactical]

Awesome! Thank you for posting that Gabe.

[BillSWPA]

Very good idea and very telling pictures, Gabe!

Some observations:

in reduced light, but not quite low light, as well as against the forest background, the sights that are dark, non-reflective black (such as 1-3) stand out over the sights that are not quite as dark (such as 4-6).

As light conditions get darker, the difference between green fiber optic and red fiber optic becomes apparent.

As light reduces even more, the value of tritium becomes apparent.

In reduced or low light, the white ring around the insert of sight 7 is shown to be helpful.

If one is not going to install tritium or fiber optic, the Glock factory sight is not bad. I am probably in the minority, but I never disliked the factory Glock sight picture.

If one is shooting in competitions in reasonably good light, I can see the value of the Dawson sights with the fiber optic, particularly the green.

If one is carrying a gun for defense, I can really see the value of tritium with a big white circle around it in front.

None of these sights is ideal in all light conditions. Some compromises are going to have to be made in optimizing for what one believes to be important.

[camsdaddy]

To my eyes I noticed #2 & #8 in the most pictures a long a broader plane

[Jay Cunningham]

Cool thread!

[Lomshek]

Cool thread!


Anyone have some they can do with the TFX and HD's in the same kind of idea?

[BaiHu]

Now if someone came up with a chameleon front sight that went for contrast instead of blending in, we'd be billionaires.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[UNK]

+1


Anyone have some they can do with the TFX and HD's in the same kind of idea?

[spinmove_]

Very cool idea. I wish I had a collection of front sights like that so I could do some of my own testing. I'm curious though. I know you did some various light work indoors with those, but would it be possible for you to do the same lighting conditions but with a rather dark or even black background? Reason being is that sometimes you might have to take a shot at a black steel target or a threat wearing all black or very dark clothing.

[BobLoblaw]

I've noticed the same thing with the yellow TCAPS. They're not hard to find when the light is behind you but wash out against a white/tan/gray background when the light is in front of you.

Thanks for the demo, Gabe. Now, I literally see the allure of FO.

[GRV]

Great thread!

Are the pictures matching up with what you're actually seeing?

My feeling is that due to the way cameras focus, white balance, etc. it's almost impossible to get a photo of sights that look like what you actually see. Especially when you're trying to show different lighting conditions. But, maybe it's easier than I'm imagining. If anyone else does some of these pictures, take a glance at the sights themselves, maybe jot a note or two down, and see if the picture matches up with reality.

[Talionis]

Nicely done, Gabe!


Great thread!

Are the pictures matching up with what you're actually seeing?

My feeling is that due to the way cameras focus, white balance, etc. it's almost impossible to get a photo of sights that look like what you actually see. Especially when you're trying to show different lighting conditions. But, maybe it's easier than I'm imagining. If anyone else does some of these pictures, take a glance at the sights themselves, maybe jot a note or two down, and see if the picture matches up with reality.

I can attest that #'s 1-3 match up with my own observations in those types of various lighting conditions.

[BN]

7231

7232

Left to right:
.140 wide Warren with white ring around Tritium
.105 wide Dawson .40 green fiber optic
.125 wide Dawson .40 green fiber optic
.140 wide Ameriglo yellow ring around Tritium
.125 wide Warren with white ring around Tritium.

[MGW]

I really like the first Dawson sight from Gabes post. Oddly enough the stock Glock sight stands out just as well for me in most of those lighting conditions. I guess it explains why I've switched over to green from red. Green just seems to work well in a wider variety of lighting conditions.

[Mr_White]

Glad you guys like the thread idea!!! It's definitely fun for me to run around with my Comb Of Sights and see front sights on all kinds of things I would very rarely or never point a gun at.


I've noticed the same thing with the yellow TCAPS. They're not hard to find when the light is behind you but wash out against a white/tan/gray background when the light is in front of you.

I tried the yellow TCAP at one USPSA match a while back. I was expecting it to wash out on steel targets painted white, but what really shocked me is how much it washed out and how hard it was to see against brown/buff cardboard targets. I did not expect it to be so hard to see against that dark of a target...


Are the pictures matching up with what you're actually seeing?

I hear you there dove, and I was pretty concerned about that before I took the pictures. I think there is some inherent subjectivity to it, and my pictures are definitely not perfect, but I was really surprised at how much the pictures do seem to match what I see. Wasn't nearly as much of a problem as I thought it would be. I thought maybe I would end up with a bunch of pictures that were just garbage. Many were garbage, but I thought lots were still representative enough to be useable too.


I know you did some various light work indoors with those, but would it be possible for you to do the same lighting conditions but with a rather dark or even black background?

I tried to address that with the brown curtains and dark asphalt backgrounds, but I also took some more pictures with black clothing backgrounds today. Plus a few other ones.



Here are a bunch with a black shirt as the background, in different light, from different directions, different rooms, indoors/outdoors. A lot of these pictures from today are out of focus - I would have needed three hands to hold the sights, hold the camera, adjust focus, and press buttons...
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1502/25829253233_482c95ce8c_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FmrF7i)20160414_060200 (https://flic.kr/p/FmrF7i) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1712/26159217240_21a9e1ca88_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FRAPUU)20160414_060205 (https://flic.kr/p/FRAPUU) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1705/25829281553_99bd722435_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FmrPwz)20160414_060237 (https://flic.kr/p/FmrPwz) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1475/26159247250_c6c73c4973_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FRAYQj)20160414_060316 (https://flic.kr/p/FRAYQj) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1662/26406201196_312384da29_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GeqFCY)20160414_060434 (https://flic.kr/p/GeqFCY) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1597/26339797822_7a8af12d79_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/G8ymed)20160414_062643 (https://flic.kr/p/G8ymed) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1627/26365989181_041ff1e8c0_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GaSA1n)20160414_070540 (https://flic.kr/p/GaSA1n) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1673/26365989971_b287d17a86_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GaSAeZ)20160414_070623 (https://flic.kr/p/GaSAeZ) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1597/25827336264_4cfa934c28_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FmgRg7)20160414_070801 (https://flic.kr/p/FmgRg7) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1669/26406249716_750fa44ccb_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GeqW4w)20160414_070738 (https://flic.kr/p/GeqW4w) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1461/25827350724_ac7cee9e7a_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FmgVyq)20160414_071108 (https://flic.kr/p/FmgVyq) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1658/25827351334_b02693e97a_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FmgVJW)20160414_071114 (https://flic.kr/p/FmgVJW) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1441/26432215015_934e7eb638_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GgJ1D6)20160414_071134 (https://flic.kr/p/GgJ1D6) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1588/25827364334_137bf5ec8b_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FmgZB5)20160414_071137 (https://flic.kr/p/FmgZB5) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr



A couple in the car against the black floor mat:
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1633/26366060751_893b5df0e7_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GaSXhk)20160414_064002 (https://flic.kr/p/GaSXhk) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1533/26432235235_37dd2c8ac6_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GgJ7DH)20160414_063955 (https://flic.kr/p/GgJ7DH) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr



Here are some with my light blue shirt as the background:
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1697/26406344556_702f3cd91e_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GerqfG)20160414_073601 (https://flic.kr/p/GerqfG) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1502/25827433014_20f9d80082_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Fmhm2d)20160414_073609 (https://flic.kr/p/Fmhm2d) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1466/26366122081_dcbd0c81d6_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GaTgvK)20160414_073620 (https://flic.kr/p/GaTgvK) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1524/26432305305_7d4792457c_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GgJttP)20160414_073701 (https://flic.kr/p/GgJttP) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1454/26366137641_d355fd296c_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GaTm92)20160414_073710 (https://flic.kr/p/GaTm92) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1498/26406380846_d1da171d98_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GerB3o)20160414_073732 (https://flic.kr/p/GerB3o) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1555/26406392416_22214a2f50_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GerEtS)20160414_073743 (https://flic.kr/p/GerEtS) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1647/26159487660_87b7955d87_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FRCdij)20160414_073951 (https://flic.kr/p/FRCdij) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1531/25827501484_157becb2f5_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FmhGnJ)20160414_073959 (https://flic.kr/p/FmhGnJ) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1586/25827502604_dfe379b0a5_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FmhGH3)20160414_074004 (https://flic.kr/p/FmhGH3) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr



A few with my face/skin color/eyeglasses as the background:
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1647/26406499946_43c9602cbb_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GesdrQ)20160414_070547 (https://flic.kr/p/GesdrQ) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1557/25827587174_b6b0882514_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Fmi8R9)20160414_070703 (https://flic.kr/p/Fmi8R9) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1700/25827607054_52a6635125_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FmieKU)20160414_074019 (https://flic.kr/p/FmieKU) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1533/26159618460_abf3da9012_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FRCTbu)20160414_074031 (https://flic.kr/p/FRCTbu) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1703/26159616040_e9de1f0c5c_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FRCSsL)20160414_074045 (https://flic.kr/p/FRCSsL) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr



Multicolored backgrounds:
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1671/25827642224_c9c10c63fa_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Fmiqdh)20160414_074824 (https://flic.kr/p/Fmiqdh) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1478/25829688643_5868e473f3_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FmtUxn)20160414_074836 (https://flic.kr/p/FmtUxn) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1602/26340166402_6cd8e581d4_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/G8AeN3)20160414_074843 (https://flic.kr/p/G8AeN3) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1671/26406599156_59fffd192c_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GesHWm)20160414_074919 (https://flic.kr/p/GesHWm) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1471/26432532455_9fce7b8da3_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GgKD1c)20160414_074928 (https://flic.kr/p/GgKD1c) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr

[BN]

I'm laughing at how often that stock Glock sight shows up best. :)

I'm leaving the stock sights on my G-43 for now. They seem to work OK.

[Wondering Beard]

I'm laughing at how often that stock Glock sight shows up best. :)

I'm leaving the stock sights on my G-43 for now. They seem to work OK.

Pure white is, by definition, what reflects light best.

I found it quite interesting how well the green fiber optic (for a an FO) can be seen when the light gets lower.

[GRV]

Tom Givens recounted an excellent history of the development of night sights during his low light lecture at Tac Con. It was mostly focused around the experiments of a Border Patrol (?) agent. One of the things he tried, and maybe even ultimately settled on, was iron sights with natural ivory inserts. Tom said the natural ivory has a property that makes it particularly good at collecting/reflecting light. I haven't done any research on what that actually is.

I wonder if the plastic white dot of the stock Glock sight has a similar property, or if a solid white paint dot would perform equally well.

[Surf]

OK, just to stir the pot, note the level of light at which the fibers become hard to pick up. At these lux levels should you be shooting at things with only the trits and without the assistance of a white light anyway? And if we have a white light, what happens to the trits? I'll check back after a few pages pass. :)

[GJM]

Gabe's front sight board is so old school, here is today:

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg251/GJMandes/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsfodtadls.jpeg (http://s250.photobucket.com/user/GJMandes/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsfodtadls.jpeg.html)

[GRV]

Very interesting, the Glock OEM steel sights seem to use a white plastic insert, not paint. By comparison, Ameriglo makes white dot sights for Glock which are painted.

Each front sight is ~$15. Mr_White, I'd be willing to throw some dollars your way if you're interested in adding those two fronts to the collection and forming some thoughts on them.

[BillSWPA]

OK, just to stir the pot, note the level of light at which the fibers become hard to pick up. At these lux levels should you be shooting at things with only the trits and without the assistance of a white light anyway? And if we have a white light, what happens to the trits? I'll check back after a few pages pass. :)

A light would absolutely be used for identifying the target, but not necessarily left on to engage the target once it has been identified.

[LSP552]

Tom Givens recounted an excellent history of the development of night sights during his low light lecture at Tac Con. It was mostly focused around the experiments of a Border Patrol (?) agent. One of the things he tried, and maybe even ultimately settled on, was iron sights with natural ivory inserts. Tom said the natural ivory has a property that makes it particularly good at collecting/reflecting light. I haven't done any research on what that actually is.

I wonder if the plastic white dot of the stock Glock sight has a similar property, or if a solid white paint dot would perform equally well.

Flip up ivory beads were very popular with dangerous game rifles back in the early days of African hunting.

[EVP]

Gabe's front sight board is so old school, here is today:

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg251/GJMandes/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsfodtadls.jpeg (http://s250.photobucket.com/user/GJMandes/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsfodtadls.jpeg.html)

I don't think your deltapoints batteries would last long enough to snap a few pics like Gabes.........j/k:D

[Sasage]

Makes me want to put some white paint on a Defoor front I have lying around.

[GJM]

I don't think your deltapoints batteries would last long enough to snap a few pics like Gabes.........j/k:D

I resemble that comment!

[Clobbersaurus]

Good stuff Gabe!

Here's a portion of a post I did a few years ago in the "Fiber Optics on a carry gun thread":



Sights are Ameriglo Hacks and HiViz Overmolded. All photos taken in the late morning.

Gun room. Lights off, blinds closed. Any darker and it would closely represent night conditions in the house, which means most things are reasonably visible.

http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r151/clobbersauras/DSC03561_zps2a9d26ce.jpg (http://s143.photobucket.com/user/clobbersauras/media/DSC03561_zps2a9d26ce.jpg.html)

Darkest hall in the house, lights off.
http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r151/clobbersauras/DSC03563_zps3337c080.jpg (http://s143.photobucket.com/user/clobbersauras/media/DSC03563_zps3337c080.jpg.html)

Brightest area in the house, lights off.
http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r151/clobbersauras/DSC03564_zps1c61322e.jpg (http://s143.photobucket.com/user/clobbersauras/media/DSC03564_zps1c61322e.jpg.html)

Brightest area in the house, lights on.
http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r151/clobbersauras/DSC03566_zps65b82dae.jpg (http://s143.photobucket.com/user/clobbersauras/media/DSC03566_zps65b82dae.jpg.html)

Gun room, lights off, TLR-1 activated.
http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r151/clobbersauras/DSC03567_zpsad9c672d.jpg (http://s143.photobucket.com/user/clobbersauras/media/DSC03567_zpsad9c672d.jpg.html)

[Clobbersaurus]

I'm laughing at how often that stock Glock sight shows up best. :)

I'm leaving the stock sights on my G-43 for now. They seem to work OK.

When shooting my 92D I have no trouble picking up the front sight, which was a tritium lamp with white around it. I do have to keep it clean though and it was amazing how dull it got after even one range session.

[Wondering Beard]

Tom Givens recounted an excellent history of the development of night sights during his low light lecture at Tac Con. It was mostly focused around the experiments of a Border Patrol (?) agent. One of the things he tried, and maybe even ultimately settled on, was iron sights with natural ivory inserts. Tom said the natural ivory has a property that makes it particularly good at collecting/reflecting light. I haven't done any research on what that actually is.

I wonder if the plastic white dot of the stock Glock sight has a similar property, or if a solid white paint dot would perform equally well.

This (http://www.harrisoncustom.com/Static/FrontSights.htm) is John Harrison's (one of the top 1911 smith out there) take on front sights and he talks about white dots (more of a bead if you look at pics of his work) at the bottom.

The stock Glock sights have somewhat close properties but being painted and flat, the reflectiveness goes away pretty fast in my experience, while the green FO (the only one I have) stays visible longer as the lights go down. Still, best, for my eyes, of the non trit sights for low light is a gold bead, preferably larger than what Harrison talks about.

[spinmove_]

The more I look at these pictures, the more I find that the white ringed tritium front sight is the most consistently visible in just about every lighting condition you run into. The second most consistently visible front sight is the black post with white dot. To my eyes anywho. As much as I love the concept of a fiber optic front sight, I don't really see much of a point in giving up more versatility and consistency in visibility to gain more visibility in a more limited spectrum. I'm not saying they're a bad option and shouldn't be chosen, I'm simply saying that I don't think they're necessarily for me. At least not at this time anywho. Maybe one day if I have enough resources and time to spec out a pistol specifically for competition. But even then I almost think I'd be just as well served by a black on black set with some white paint on the front sight.

[JCS]

Very cool idea! The tcap sight really stands out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pennzoil]

Anyone have some they can do with the TFX and HD's in the same kind of idea?

I currently use the Glockmeister TFX sights on my Glocks with green fiber and painted the front white then orange.

After I switched to the TFX I did a similar test in varying light conditions from AZ sun to night shoots against different color clothing over targets.

The TFX isn't the end all be all but helps me in dusk like shooting conditions when it's difficult to see the sights but not dark enough for the trit to kick in on standard night sights. It helps in my house also as the lighting varies a lot creating the same condition. If that makes sense.

Not sure if the image will help but here is one starting left to right. MEP night sight, TFX, defoors painted, cz red fiber, cz green fiber.

7310

I set up a rig with different sights measured distance how I hold the gun, different color shirts, varying light etc. I couldn't get the camera to capture what I was seeing but I have zero camera skills.

[Pennzoil]

Here is what I got with a good camera trying to focus the sights at my normal length I hold the gun. With the flashlight all sights looked black but camera still picked up the trit. Also the rear sights have Sharpie and more subtle in person. The rest are pretty much what I see. My Gorilla tape bubba fixture reflects some light.

Starting left to right. MEP night sight, TFX, defoors painted, cz red fiber, cz green fiber.


7319732073217322732373247325

[GRV]

The more I look at these pictures, the more I find that the white ringed tritium front sight is the most consistently visible in just about every lighting condition you run into. The second most consistently visible front sight is the black post with white dot. To my eyes anywho. As much as I love the concept of a fiber optic front sight, I don't really see much of a point in giving up more versatility and consistency in visibility to gain more visibility in a more limited spectrum. I'm not saying they're a bad option and shouldn't be chosen, I'm simply saying that I don't think they're necessarily for me. At least not at this time anywho. Maybe one day if I have enough resources and time to spec out a pistol specifically for competition. But even then I almost think I'd be just as well served by a black on black set with some white paint on the front sight.


I disagree. Really interesting to see different opinions from the same pictures. I think sights are more psychological than even being about individual eye differences.

From those pictures, it looks to me like white-ringed tritium is poorly distinguishable across basically all conditions. Yes, you can roughly see it everywhere, but that's about it. In my limited experience running drills to test sights, I've found that "roughly see it" doesn't cut it. It's either very visible, or you have to fall back to using it like all-black sights. The white-outline tritium, based on the pictures, looks like it doesn't make the visibility cut I'm imagining, in basically every lighting condition. I should note, before this thread, I was expecting that my next set of sights would be Dawson tritium 3-dot with a white outline front. I'm doubting that now.

I do agree, however, that the stock Glock sight seems super visible in a shocking number of those pictures. Straight down to relatively dim lighting, it is the most visible sight or a close second. I never thought I'd say this, but the white-rod sight option is now on my RADAR for future sight options. I'm wondering if the difference between that and the tritium is: (1) the size of the dot vs. the outline, (2) the concavity of the outline which lends itself towards shadowing, or (3) the paint vs. plastic.

Personally, I'm going to rerun my low-light livefire experiments with the TCAP front, then switch to Dawson chargers for a while to develop opinions about them first hand. I'm not sure where I'm going to go after that.

Here's an interesting article by Spaulding: http://www.handgunsmag.com/tactics-training/tactics_training_combativep_061207/

Spaulding talks about using sights in a way that is eerily similar to what Sean M has said in another thread about actual real-world pistol iron sight use. I'd really like to hear some other SMEs (particularly those who have used pistols with iron sights in multiple engagements) chime in on this. From time to time, I wonder if we should be doing limited livefire training using the target-focused sighted fire approach. eyemahm and I tried it once and found it surprisingly easy to make shots to 2" dots at 5-7 yards. Probably an experiment worth revisiting. Recent experiments have continued to convince me that the minutiae of "proper" sight usage technique is just that, and trigger control is orders of magnitude more important.

Based on Spaulding's article, I wonder if something like TruGlo TFX is really the answer for maximizing real world performance via target-focused peripherally-referenced coarse sight alignment. I also have a feeling that after a sufficient amount of skill building, making precision shots with thick sights (like the TFX) stops becoming so daunting. That may even be doubly so with a target-focused approach.

Having said that, Spaulding once said something like "the front sight is the greatest training aid ever invented". I think the type of sights one uses has a big impact on their training progression and directly causes them to build certain skills in certain ways at certain rates. I think a person who starts out shooting, say, Trijicon Bright and Tough and never switches to anything else will have a very different set of sighted-fire skills then a person who spends a lot of time training with different sights over the years before finally settling on the same Trijicon Bright and Tough sights. The two people will have the same sights, but they will use them in very different ways. I think the sights you train with over the years, in the order you train with them, actually matters. It's a concept I've been calling "sight preference hysteresis" lately.

[BillSWPA]

While I agree with the idea that the tritium surrounded by the white ring is visible under the greatest number of conditions, I would qualify that statement by saying that putting that white ring inside a sight that is as black, dark colored, vertical, and nonreflective as possible really increases the variety of conditions in which the sight is visible. At least to my eyes, this seems to ensure that some contrast exists between the white ring and what is immediately around the white ring.

The Trijicon Bright and Tough sights are a good example of this. I have used these sights for years and am generally happy with them, but they are not quite as black and nonreflective as the Dawson sights. There are a small number of light conditions wherein the Bright and Tough sights will be less than optimally visible. My next sight purchases will likely be Dawson.

I will add that, for my eyes, there is a big difference between a fresh set of tritium inserts and a set of inserts that is only 75% as bright as a new set. The former will be visible in a much greater variety of conditions.

[spinmove_]

I disagree. Really interesting to see different opinions from the same pictures. I think sights are more psychological than even being about individual eye differences.

From those pictures, it looks to me like white-ringed tritium is poorly distinguishable across basically all conditions. Yes, you can roughly see it everywhere, but that's about it. In my limited experience running drills to test sights, I've found that "roughly see it" doesn't cut it. It's either very visible, or you have to fall back to using it like all-black sights. The white-outline tritium, based on the pictures, looks like it doesn't make the visibility cut I'm imagining, in basically every lighting condition. I should note, before this thread, I was expecting that my next set of sights would be Dawson tritium 3-dot with a white outline front. I'm doubting that now.

I do agree, however, that the stock Glock sight seems super visible in a shocking number of those pictures. Straight down to relatively dim lighting, it is the most visible sight or a close second. I never thought I'd say this, but the white-rod sight option is now on my RADAR for future sight options. I'm wondering if the difference between that and the tritium is: (1) the size of the dot vs. the outline, (2) the concavity of the outline which lends itself towards shadowing, or (3) the paint vs. plastic.

Personally, I'm going to rerun my low-light livefire experiments with the TCAP front, then switch to Dawson chargers for a while to develop opinions about them first hand. I'm not sure where I'm going to go after that.

Here's an interesting article by Spaulding: http://www.handgunsmag.com/tactics-training/tactics_training_combativep_061207/

Spaulding talks about using sights in a way that is eerily similar to what Sean M has said in another thread about actual real-world pistol iron sight use. I'd really like to hear some other SMEs (particularly those who have used pistols with iron sights in multiple engagements) chime in on this. From time to time, I wonder if we should be doing limited livefire training using the target-focused sighted fire approach. eyemahm and I tried it once and found it surprisingly easy to make shots to 2" dots at 5-7 yards. Probably an experiment worth revisiting. Recent experiments have continued to convince me that the minutiae of "proper" sight usage technique is just that, and trigger control is orders of magnitude more important.

Based on Spaulding's article, I wonder if something like TruGlo TFX is really the answer for maximizing real world performance via target-focused peripherally-referenced coarse sight alignment. I also have a feeling that after a sufficient amount of skill building, making precision shots with thick sights (like the TFX) stops becoming so daunting. That may even be doubly so with a target-focused approach.

Having said that, Spaulding once said something like "the front sight is the greatest training aid ever invented". I think the type of sights one uses has a big impact on their training progression and directly causes them to build certain skills in certain ways at certain rates. I think a person who starts out shooting, say, Trijicon Bright and Tough and never switches to anything else will have a very different set of sighted-fire skills then a person who spends a lot of time training with different sights over the years before finally settling on the same Trijicon Bright and Tough sights. The two people will have the same sights, but they will use them in very different ways. I think the sights you train with over the years, in the order you train with them, actually matters. It's a concept I've been calling "sight preference hysteresis" lately.

The more I've looked at and discussed sights with other people the more I am convinced that sights are definitely a personal thing. For psychological as well as physiological reasons. Personally, I keep finding myself craving simpler sight pictures with only white (not any other color) on the front sight. I not only find these kinds of setups the least distracting, but I find that I have no accuracy difference between having a blacked out rear vs. a rear with stuff on them (provided I can simply focus on what I need to focus on and shoot). Conversely, something like the CAPs or TCAPs I find ultimately not useful because I find that the orange/red variant to go dark way too soon in certain lighting conditions and the yellow variant washes out in too many lighting and color conditions. I find that neither of them gives me enough black around them to properly contrast in the previously mentioned compromised conditions. This is why I've found the white dot and the white circled tritium dot to be the most visible for me and my eyes.

Having said that, I just moved in a few weeks ago with my future brother and sister in law for a short period before getting married. They happen to have two dogs that I end up letting out every morning for their constitutionals. One happens to be black and the other white. I find that, while my eyes are still adjusted to the light I can most definitely see their white dog in the reduced light while, if it wasn't for his LED lighted collar, wouldn't be able to see their black dog without the aid of my flashlight. During this early morning light, or lack thereof largely, I would be able to see the tritium about as well as a white dot front sight (a la standard Glock front). Would I be able to ID a threat in this same environment? That depends on a bunch of different factors, to which if there were enough of those factors that would make me question it, I'd still have to use a white light. Based on this thinking and experience and the fact that I still haven't had any low-light training (yeah, I know, I really need to get on that) I think I'm going to hold off on buying any more tritium sights until I'm able to verify that I do actually need them. I think I need to be able to test and verify for myself before I can truly justify the extra expense and application. I say this as simply something that I've discovered for myself and myself only. I think if you're a person who can justify actually needing tritium, rock on with your bad self. But this thread, as well as some others, have sort of opened my eyes and given me something to truly think about and examine instead of simply spending money on something that I might ultimately not need.

Totally digging this thread though. Interesting discussion.

[BN]

(2) the concavity of the outline which lends itself towards shadowing,

This is the very most important thing for me. The white rings around Tritium sights that are recessed disappear for me unless the light is behind me. I always thought the XS big dot only with a flat top and using a regular rear sight would be a good thing. The .140" wide Warren front with a Warren Wave rear is almost ideal for my eyesight.

7339

[BillSWPA]

The more I've looked at and discussed sights with other people the more I am convinced that sights are definitely a personal thing. For psychological as well as physiological reasons. Personally, I keep finding myself craving simpler sight pictures with only white (not any other color) on the front sight. I not only find these kinds of setups the least distracting, but I find that I have no accuracy difference between having a blacked out rear vs. a rear with stuff on them (provided I can simply focus on what I need to focus on and shoot). Conversely, something like the CAPs or TCAPs I find ultimately not useful because I find that the orange/red variant to go dark way too soon in certain lighting conditions and the yellow variant washes out in too many lighting and color conditions. I find that neither of them gives me enough black around them to properly contrast in the previously mentioned compromised conditions. This is why I've found the white dot and the white circled tritium dot to be the most visible for me and my eyes.

Having said that, I just moved in a few weeks ago with my future brother and sister in law for a short period before getting married. They happen to have two dogs that I end up letting out every morning for their constitutionals. One happens to be black and the other white. I find that, while my eyes are still adjusted to the light I can most definitely see their white dog in the reduced light while, if it wasn't for his LED lighted collar, wouldn't be able to see their black dog without the aid of my flashlight. During this early morning light, or lack thereof largely, I would be able to see the tritium about as well as a white dot front sight (a la standard Glock front). Would I be able to ID a threat in this same environment? That depends on a bunch of different factors, to which if there were enough of those factors that would make me question it, I'd still have to use a white light. Based on this thinking and experience and the fact that I still haven't had any low-light training (yeah, I know, I really need to get on that) I think I'm going to hold off on buying any more tritium sights until I'm able to verify that I do actually need them. I think I need to be able to test and verify for myself before I can truly justify the extra expense and application. I say this as simply something that I've discovered for myself and myself only. I think if you're a person who can justify actually needing tritium, rock on with your bad self. But this thread, as well as some others, have sort of opened my eyes and given me something to truly think about and examine instead of simply spending money on something that I might ultimately not need.

Totally digging this thread though. Interesting discussion.

I completely agree that, once you turn on a light, tritium is irrelevant, at least until you turn the light back off. I will add that I prefer that my light not be behind my sights, so that I can see my sights silhouetted against the light. Once the target has been identified, it may or may not be desirable to leave the light on to engage the target, or to turn the light off to avoid being engaged by other threats, depending on the situation.

I have spent a lot of time in urban and suburban areas wherein there was sufficient light to identify a threat, but insufficient light to see the sights without some sort of low light visibility aid. This is where tritium really shines, and is also where the difference between relatively new inserts will have a huge advantage over inserts that are multiple years old. I probably replace my tritium sights about every 6 years, making them worthwhile only for guns that I use for home defense or for carry.

[Mr_White]

I agree with dove on quite a few of the points that have been raised.

1. This is definitely all very subjective. There is a LOT of variation in how people see with their eyes and perceive with their minds.

2. The typical arrangement of black sights with light colored (usually white) markings is typical because it has a large chance of being at least nominally visible in a wide variety of conditions against a wide variety of targets and backgrounds. If the target is really dark, you can use the light colored markings. If the target is really light, you can use the dark sight posts. At least that's the theory.

3. I used to give #2 above more weight than I do now. Not because universal visibility isn't a desirable thing, but because for me 'universally visible' seems to often equate to, 'visible across a wide range of circumstances, but not all, and in a significant number of the conditions where it is visible, it is rather poorly visible.' Of the sights I already have - the ones I've been using for the pictures in this thread - the standard Ameriglo Operator is the most universally visible in theory. Black post, white ring on the front post, self-luminous. In practice, I've found plenty of lighting conditions where it really wasn't very visible - much less so than some of the non-night sights that have serrations. And a bunch of those lighting conditions are heavily represented in #4 below...

4. I don't go out much at night. I am really a day person with a very daytime-oriented life. I'm the opposite of a cop working swing and graveyard shifts. I think the stuff that makes sights better in daytime, like high-visibility elements (regardless of self-luminous capability), serrations that help ensure precision ability, and the subjectively advantageous dimensions of non-night sights, apply well to what I think are my likely needs.

5. In looking at front sights against a wider variety of backgrounds and in various lighting conditions, I don't really think any of them stand out as head-and-shoulders better than another. There are trade-offs with all of them.

6. High visibility sights (I define that as having light/bright colored markings or elements), particularly the front sight, have a few benefits. They can help you remember the sights exist, and also locate the sights with your eyes and mind. Importantly for many people, the high-visibility elements can remain visible and noticeable even when target-focused.

6. Odd thing for me and I'm probably a tiny minority on this - after all the work I've done with sight-focused shooting, it is much more difficult to make myself target-focus than sight-focus. That probably increases the utility of low-visibility (black) sights for me and makes high-visibility sights (brightly colored) somewhat less important. I think that's especially the case for me where the high-visibility element of the front sight overpowers the black front post itself. For me, that is when the high visibility element is physically large and takes up a lot of the surface area of the front sight, and even more so when the face of the front sight is smooth and not serrated.

Many thanks to those who have contributed pictures and discussion to the thread!!!

[spinmove_]

I completely agree that, once you turn on a light, tritium is irrelevant, at least until you turn the light back off. I will add that I prefer that my light not be behind my sights, so that I can see my sights silhouetted against the light. Once the target has been identified, it may or may not be desirable to leave the light on to engage the target, or to turn the light off to avoid being engaged by other threats, depending on the situation.

I have spent a lot of time in urban and suburban areas wherein there was sufficient light to identify a threat, but insufficient light to see the sights without some sort of low light visibility aid. This is where tritium really shines, and is also where the difference between relatively new inserts will have a huge advantage over inserts that are multiple years old. I probably replace my tritium sights about every 6 years, making them worthwhile only for guns that I use for home defense or for carry.

And that is exactly why I need to take a low-light class. I need to get out and train for this sort of thing in the varying light conditions as the class progresses.

I also think that there are situations in the day time where a sighting system that would give me a great sight picture during that brief dusky window where I could ID a threat and not need a light could also be a hindrance in certain bright light situations. Situations that I could equally find myself in just as easily as the dusky situations. I think the common theme here is that there isn't any one sighting system that is perfect for everything. They're all trade offs for one another based on perceived needs. I work and am out and about the vast majority of my time in the daytime hours, much like Mr_White. Yet there are situations where tritium could be beneficial. There are people that work 3rd shift all the time, yet there are situations where FO or bright paint/insert would be beneficial.

I think, ultimately, the big take away here is find something that does trip your fancy and get to know very well what it can and cannot do for you, but you better damn well have a good and solid light on you too.

[GRV]

6. Odd thing for me and I'm probably a tiny minority on this - after all the work I've done with sight-focused shooting, it is much more difficult to make myself target-focus than sight-focus. That probably increases the utility of low-visibility (black) sights for me and makes high-visibility sights (brightly colored) somewhat less important. I think that's especially the case for me where the high-visibility element of the front sight overpowers the black front post itself. For me, that is when the high visibility element is physically large and takes up a lot of the surface area of the front sight, and even more so when the face of the front sight is smooth and not serrated.

I'd be very curious to see a target-focused sighted-fire DotW, with comparison against sight-focused sighted fire. Not to be confused with unsighted fire or "point shooting". I'm going to do some testing of this next week.

nyeti and others have repeatedly debunked the myth that you can't see or use your sights in a real gunfight. I believe most of us on PF understand that you absolutely can. However, we have not spent much time at all talking about how realistic it is to use your sights in a front-sight focused manner in a real gunfight, or more specifically, under what conditions you can or can't practically do so.

Here's what Sean had to say about this when I asked him:


................ can you discuss what is going on with your visual and mental focus throughout these encounters? For example, are you keeping a hard front sight focus visually throughout the entire threat presence, but mentally focusing on the peripheral vision, looking for positive indicators that the threat has ceased? Do you hard front sight focus at all in practice, if so when does do the focus shifts happen (e.g. pressout?)?



To be perfectly honest............I don't know.

I have never had video of my performance under those conditions, so I can't say for a fact what is actually happening. I also have very few handgun encounters, so my experience in the specifc realm of iron sighted pistol is quite limited.

That said, I don't have different actions or tactics when shooting rifle, shotgun, or pistol, so I can tell you what I believe (and hope) I am doing, even if I don't have hard evidence to back it up.

I rarely use a hard sight focus for actual fighting, and prefer to use a blurred sight picture. The exception to this is when presenting to the target, I do have a tendency to find and focus on the front sight (or RDS), even if only for a split second. I don't know if this is good, bad, or indifferent, nor do I have a method to measure or prove which, if any is the answer to the question.

I generally focus on the target, while my sights (or RDS) are blurred. This allows for immediate & continuous assessment of the threat, his/her actions and reactions, and status, without being distracted by switching back and forth bewteen the sights and the threat. My opinion is I can shoot "good enough" with blurred sights at most CQB/CQC ranges(distances), and the person who is the threat is the center of my visual attention, as well as my mental focus. I do not concern myself terribly with peripheral vision for the most part. Depending on pucker factor, there can be the tunnel vision issue, which can be trained and conditioned to minimal impact, however it sometimes happens anyway. The big reason I don't concern myself with the peripheral is that I am engaging a lethal threat right now, and that is more important than anything else at that moment. The rules of Close Quarters Combat say to take your threats as they come to you. If I allow myself to be distracted by something other than the immediate danger, I am less effective and less effecient in dealing with said danger. I will deal with the next threat when I am done with the first, and I don't need the extra headache of trying to OODA more than one problem at a time. Once I have an initial assessment that the hostilities between myself and the lethal threat I have been engaged with are over, I intentionally and methodically search for my next threat using my eyes to focus on potential threats with blurred sights, my firearm matching my eyes in where it is pointed. I then return to assess the initial threat, and one more search for next threat. Assuming there is none, I then close on the initial threat, and determine his/her actual status.

This is NOT something I recommend and I would NOT do this in a self-defense/home defense situation. In a SD/HD situation it does nothing for you but place you in danger after you have gained the tactical advantage, and it is completely unnecessary. Continue to hold on the threat, wait for the police to arrive, and follow their instructions to the letter.

The process to shift visual focus from the initial threat to clearing the area, back to the initial threat, and again visually looking for the next threat takes only a split second to complete, but it does take a lot of training and a lot of practice to develop proficiency, effeciency, and ensure you are effectively seeing everything you need to see, and positively identifying/assessing threats. The good news is that this is something easily practiced, even without a gun, and just about anywhere you go.

Interestingly enough, when shooting plate racks, or other falling steel/reactive targets, where assessing the effectiveness of each round is required, I tend to hard focus on the front sight. Why? I'm not entirely sure. I hypothesize it is because subconsciouly I know I am playing a game with a plethors of targets that should fall with one hit versus very few targets, each of which are actually dangerous, and will generally require multiple rounds to remove them from the equation.

Did that make any sense? Hopefully it did, and was helpful to someone.

This sounds very much like what Spaulding is saying in the article that I linked to earlier (http://www.handgunsmag.com/tactics-training/tactics_training_combativep_061207/):


A precise sight picture, in which the front sight is sharp with the rear sight fuzzy and the target fuzzy, will not happen. This sight picture is great on a stationary range where the target is not moving and no one is shooting back at you, but when the shooter is trying to find a moving target, move from target to target or track a threat that is trying to shoot him (with Airsoft, of course), the best that can be achieved is the insertion of a contrasting image into the eye target line.


I'd like to hear more experts chime in.

Now, even if the above is the most accurate characterization of optimal sight usage in real situations, it does not mean that's the way one should practice on the range. Perhaps one should always practice sight-focused, or perhaps the target-focused sighted approach is something best saved until after sufficient time has been spent practicing sight-focused sighted shooting. Going back to Dave Spaulding's comment about the front sight as the best training aide ever, I would believe that front-sight focused fire is perhaps the best way at improving other elements of shooting, such as grip and trigger control, and is thus perhaps the best pedagogical tool for the job.

However, if the target-focused sighted fire approach turns out to be universally supported for real scenarios, it may be worth influencing sight selection. You'd want something extremely visible, unfocused, in the relevant lighting conditions. You'd quite likely want a front/rear visible setup, like 3 dot. Moreover, if you go try this yourself at home, you'll notice that the front sight doesn't obscure as much of the target when you are target-focused, so thick front sights are no longer as much of a detriment to precision marksmanship.



Many thanks to those who have contributed pictures and discussion to the thread!!!

Agreed. This is an excellent thread.

[Mr_White]

More sight pictures.

Outdoors, grass, water, pilings, Columbia River, boats, etc.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1486/25907631133_58c434a89d_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Ftno8p)20160416_132605 (https://flic.kr/p/Ftno8p) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1516/26510452035_ba6bff2b6d_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GoCZMe)20160416_132611 (https://flic.kr/p/GoCZMe) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1536/26510600225_9214a168bb_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GoDKQe)20160416_132612 (https://flic.kr/p/GoDKQe) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1689/26237765010_6fd393d9c9_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FYxpqN)20160416_132641 (https://flic.kr/p/FYxpqN) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1536/25907795253_124a9690dd_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FtodV4)20160416_132643 (https://flic.kr/p/FtodV4) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1452/25907785633_47ff3eb41e_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Ftob4c)20160416_132658 (https://flic.kr/p/Ftob4c) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1470/26237844940_6eba26cd26_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FYxPbU)20160416_132700 (https://flic.kr/p/FYxPbU) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1521/25905756334_727a6febf5_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FtcLPh)20160416_132715 (https://flic.kr/p/FtcLPh) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1555/26238147120_44784fc040_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FYzn1U)20160416_132842 (https://flic.kr/p/FYzn1U) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1712/26444868481_f8591c4b19_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GhQS5i)20160416_132844 (https://flic.kr/p/GhQS5i) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1680/26511011915_3081629037_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GoFSdk)20160416_132859 (https://flic.kr/p/GoFSdk) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1699/26238177440_3952e668e4_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FYzw2E)20160416_132915 (https://flic.kr/p/FYzw2E) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1526/25906150254_5df96a7175_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FteMV1)20160416_141246 (https://flic.kr/p/FteMV1) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1649/26238216190_de0fb785ae_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FYzHxL)20160416_141250 (https://flic.kr/p/FYzHxL) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1552/26238258360_0a3e79d5b8_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FYzW5Q)20160416_141256 (https://flic.kr/p/FYzW5Q) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1687/25908232443_31d6d17afc_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FtqsSP)20160416_141259 (https://flic.kr/p/FtqsSP) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1624/26485217756_ac98d4fe0a_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GmpEvs)20160416_141321 (https://flic.kr/p/GmpEvs) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1494/25908299433_675b12ae86_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FtqNMP)20160416_141339 (https://flic.kr/p/FtqNMP) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1570/25908345513_9f7f519561_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Ftr3ui)20160416_142229 (https://flic.kr/p/Ftr3ui) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1566/26445087051_dbbd620104_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GhRZ3K)20160416_142232 (https://flic.kr/p/GhRZ3K) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1686/26485249036_83da2587ec_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GmpPNL)20160416_142239 (https://flic.kr/p/GmpPNL) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr

[breakingtime91]

man I am surprised by how much green and white stick out!

[taadski]

Do they make plain vanilla white dot Glock sights for Sigs? :p ;)

[breakingtime91]

Do they make plain vanilla white dot Glock sights for Sigs? :p ;)

nah, gotta go with the sweet white from the factory :cool:

[Mr_White]

More dim/dark/low light/indoors/outdoors/street lights/interior lights/mixed lights/light to dark/dark to light/etc.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1524/26238463480_dee640a07d_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FYAZ4o)20160417_045043 (https://flic.kr/p/FYAZ4o) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1693/26418964352_66ceb0f58e_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Gfy6Fo)20160417_045049 (https://flic.kr/p/Gfy6Fo) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1470/26445232241_b8b71de70d_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GhSJd2)20160417_045053 (https://flic.kr/p/GhSJd2) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1581/25908473993_423e366779_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FtrGFt)20160417_045059 (https://flic.kr/p/FtrGFt) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1713/25906438084_d04963f9ea_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FtggtA)20160417_045103 (https://flic.kr/p/FtggtA) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1529/26485405676_684dc5a811_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GmqCns)20160417_045116 (https://flic.kr/p/GmqCns) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1479/26445279681_93ef76d22f_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GhSYiX)20160417_045119 (https://flic.kr/p/GhSYiX) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1461/26445275921_9678e8346d_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GhSXc8)20160417_045129 (https://flic.kr/p/GhSXc8) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1685/26445307281_91dafdf7fd_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GhT7vP)20160417_045131 (https://flic.kr/p/GhT7vP) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1638/26419069622_29ba7efa84_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GfyCYo)20160417_045135 (https://flic.kr/p/GfyCYo) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1597/25906517124_008e549b6a_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FtgEYm)20160417_045137 (https://flic.kr/p/FtgEYm) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1661/25906512324_59f4984bdb_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FtgDxA)20160417_045141 (https://flic.kr/p/FtgDxA) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1705/26419131262_4768b24420_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GfyXi9)20160417_045144 (https://flic.kr/p/GfyXi9) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1513/26511449785_1bd2cc95b4_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GoJ7nP)20160417_045147 (https://flic.kr/p/GoJ7nP) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1614/25908628413_2ba660daff_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FtsuzT)20160417_045150 (https://flic.kr/p/FtsuzT) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1692/26511474065_a79c612062_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GoJeAr)20160417_045155 (https://flic.kr/p/GoJeAr) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1633/26419188452_0be2dd3fd8_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Gfzfib)20160417_045158 (https://flic.kr/p/Gfzfib) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1706/26511509685_48c1bdac13_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GoJqbz)20160417_045201 (https://flic.kr/p/GoJqbz) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1544/26485602366_8bec538dcb_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GmrCQE)20160417_045202 (https://flic.kr/p/GmrCQE) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1702/25908682653_c404331088_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FtsLH4)20160417_045428 (https://flic.kr/p/FtsLH4) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1618/26238743430_dce46074a5_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FYCqh7)20160417_045430 (https://flic.kr/p/FYCqh7) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1552/25906656714_1fc50fb24a_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Fthot5)20160417_045433 (https://flic.kr/p/Fthot5) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1572/26238781070_b00b831e80_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FYCBt5)20160417_045434 (https://flic.kr/p/FYCBt5) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1646/25908746493_81871b3619_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Ftt6FK)20160417_045441 (https://flic.kr/p/Ftt6FK) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1464/26445545491_a1eec45372_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GhUkjT)20160417_045445 (https://flic.kr/p/GhUkjT) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1524/25906725704_490c130521_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FthJYy)20160417_045450 (https://flic.kr/p/FthJYy) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1446/26485793436_9d352131ff_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GmsBCY)20160417_045452 (https://flic.kr/p/GmsBCY) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1463/26419397162_fc4bef1f24_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GfAjkC)20160417_045455 (https://flic.kr/p/GfAjkC) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1657/25908916593_7c583bf28b_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FttYfv)20160417_045458 (https://flic.kr/p/FttYfv) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1560/25908907033_fb83ac52e7_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FttVpF)20160417_045501 (https://flic.kr/p/FttVpF) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1459/25908938863_719b4284a9_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Ftu5St)20160417_045658 (https://flic.kr/p/Ftu5St) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1594/26445687841_7844960535_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GhV4Dc)20160417_045701 (https://flic.kr/p/GhV4Dc) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1469/26238982930_96fc325311_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FYDDtq)20160417_045709 (https://flic.kr/p/FYDDtq) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1566/26445710391_0b41062b3f_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GhVbkZ)20160417_045711 (https://flic.kr/p/GhVbkZ) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1599/26445775091_2eb431766c_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GhVvzv)20160417_045715 (https://flic.kr/p/GhVvzv) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1654/26445770021_48305588fc_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GhVu56)20160417_045728 (https://flic.kr/p/GhVu56) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1587/25906984904_76439487d7_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Ftj52w)20160417_050011 (https://flic.kr/p/Ftj52w) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1484/25906979264_9c3090e17e_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Ftj3mh)20160417_050015 (https://flic.kr/p/Ftj3mh) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1546/26419605342_0023ecf674_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GfBodW)20160417_050017 (https://flic.kr/p/GfBodW) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1619/25907015834_5a09bf48b1_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FtjedN)20160417_050041 (https://flic.kr/p/FtjedN) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1716/26239162630_1abf2fbab0_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FYEyTG)20160417_050047 (https://flic.kr/p/FYEyTG) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1492/26419662322_4db225f244_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GfBFam)20160417_050050 (https://flic.kr/p/GfBFam) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1484/26486200896_970b36c6d4_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GmuGL9)20160417_050053 (https://flic.kr/p/GmuGL9) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1713/26512131825_8ffb6129cb_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GoMB88)20160417_050056 (https://flic.kr/p/GoMB88) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1680/25909271833_cfb5494025_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FtvMRk)20160417_050101 (https://flic.kr/p/FtvMRk) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1560/25907258754_91a26139b7_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Ftktr5)20160417_052655 (https://flic.kr/p/Ftktr5) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1521/25909313463_cb06d12a8b_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Ftw1e6)20160417_052703 (https://flic.kr/p/Ftw1e6) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1674/26446064711_46bc45c0b8_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GhWZEX)20160417_052718 (https://flic.kr/p/GhWZEX) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1467/25909378803_8a963c52a4_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FtwkDD)20160417_052720 (https://flic.kr/p/FtwkDD) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1507/26239394120_018c4ddb7b_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FYFKGU)20160417_052740 (https://flic.kr/p/FYFKGU) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1617/26446127041_81076c4741_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GhXjcB)20160417_052748 (https://flic.kr/p/GhXjcB) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1626/26446192771_7ce96254ae_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GhXDJT)20160417_052800 (https://flic.kr/p/GhXDJT) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1670/26419958632_5feff74bfb_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GfDcf9)20160417_052825 (https://flic.kr/p/GfDcf9) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr

[GRV]

Wow. This latest batch has a lot of really nice things to say about green fiber. Not really what I was expecting, but it looks like, in a lot of realistic dark environments, the green fiber is a better "night sight" than the tritium...

Also, just based off playing with the pictures, I'm starting to think that my eye sees the green better in my periphery (i.e. the whole target-focused sighted fire thing) than it does the red, whereas I find it easier to become fascinated by and focus on the red directly.


ETA: It looks like in some of those pictures that the green fiber takes on the yellow color of the building light. Mr_White, can you confirm whether or not you saw that in reality? I could certainly understand why that'd happen with the green fiber.

[BillSWPA]

My impression of what is most likely to be visible remains the same: a sight that is as black, dark, and nonreflective as possible with a white ring surrounding a tritium insert. If there is little contrast between the sight and the environment, then at least one can hope for come contrast within the sight itself.

The number of photos in which none of the sights are easy to see is disturbing. These pictures really make the case for having an optic or laser sight if such is an option.

[breakingtime91]

My impression of what is most likely to be visible remains the same: a sight that is as black, dark, and nonreflective as possible with a white ring surrounding a tritium insert. If there is little contrast between the sight and the environment, then at least one can hope for come contrast within the sight itself.

The number of photos in which none of the sights are easy to see is disturbing. These pictures really make the case for having an optic or laser sight if such is an option.

RMR 06 seems like a good option for sure..

[StraitR]

Epic Gabe, simply epic. Thank you for doing this. I may be putting more FO sights on my pistols at this point. Color to be determined as the thread progresses. Good news is, rods are cheap and easy to swap.

[Mr_White]

I'm also impressed with how visible the green FO is under a lot of dimmer conditions, but a true night sight it is not. In some low light conditions, it surprisingly ends up being even more visible than a tritium night sight, but mostly the tritium outshines it. A green FO does seem to be a step or two in the direction of a night sight though. I think if a person has a big personal priority of sights being visible in very very dim or dark conditions then a real night sight is the answer.

dove, I'm going to have to look again next time I am at the range before it gets light out. I don't really remember if the FO changed color under the yellow lights. Other observations between the unaltered green FO and the Sharpied green FO: the Sharpied green FO definitely looks smaller to me and does take on a slightly lighter color tint than the unaltered green FO (irrespective of the yellow lights.) I don't think I'd call the Sharpied green FO "less visible" though. Seems to hold out into just about as low a level of light as the unaltered green FO.


The number of photos in which none of the sights are easy to see is disturbing. These pictures really make the case for having an optic or laser sight if such is an option.

I'd agree to an extent. When I look at those pictures, and when I was there taking them, I felt like they made a huge case for a flashlight more than anything else.

My feeling (and I'm using that slippery subjective term deliberately) is that threat ID and assessment is a stickier issue than is sometimes given credit for in these discussions of low light.

I recognize that there are situations that can be reasonably clear even in very low light or darkness, like literally seeing muzzle flashes coming at me in the dark, or a behavioral element that provides vital context, like a person holding a dark object that I can't identify well, but they are saying "Give me your money" or something similarly clear.

However, in instances where behavior is ambiguous, and threat ID and assessment more strongly hinges upon the identification of an object in someone's hand, amazingly high levels of low light make that very, very difficult. In evaluating that type of circumstance, adding artificial light is the only answer, and I think it will be necessary at such a high level of light that glowing tritium isn't even visible yet.

That's all 'my personal feeling.' The data I deem among the most relevant (Rangemaster students' experiences), appears to strongly suggest both that a flashlight will be unnecessary for successful decisionmaking, and night sights will be unnecessary for successful engagement.


Epic Gabe, simply epic. Thank you for doing this. I may be putting more FO sights on my pistols at this point. Color to be determined as the thread progresses. Good news is, rods are cheap and easy to swap.

Thanks Craig!

Yep, very fun that it's so cheap to swap between red and green FO.

I certainly am not trying to turn anyone away from night sights or sell anyone FOs. Don't let me stop you from using whatever you want. Just make an informed decision, whatever you decide. I'm sure you will!

[Surf]

I'd agree to an extent. When I look at those pictures, and when I was there taking them, I felt like they made a huge case for a flashlight more than anything else.

My feeling (and I'm using that slippery subjective term deliberately) is that threat ID and assessment is a stickier issue than is sometimes given credit for in these discussions of low light.

I recognize that there are situations that can be reasonably clear even in very low light or darkness, like literally seeing muzzle flashes coming at me in the dark, or a behavioral element that provides vital context, like a person holding a dark object that I can't identify well, but they are saying "Give me your money" or something similarly clear.

However, in instances where behavior is ambiguous, and threat ID (lets be sure to remind everyone that we also need to properly ID our environment to include backstop and surroundings and those things change rapidly when things go kinetic) and assessment more strongly hinges upon the identification of an object in someone's hand, amazingly high levels of low light make that very, very difficult. In evaluating that type of circumstance, adding artificial light is the only answer, and I think it will be necessary at such a high level of light that glowing tritium isn't even visible yet.


Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding!

Man I hate the fiber v. tritium topic as much as .45 v. 9mm, so I generally avoid forum discussion of this topic (PF included) like the plague as there is definitely strong or deep seeded beliefs on the topic especially as far as traditional LE doctrine advocates. I have existed and lived in an area which is more often than not "outside of the box" when it comes to my profession and peer groups and that often causes conflict in courses of action. I have always used the "trust but verify" belief throughout my career and throughout my entire life for that matter. Now I am not saying that I am right or wrong about anything but I like to base my decisions out of first hand experience, vetting or personal verification and not to solely rely on information that has been passed down as doctrine, which is often the case in LE training. Now many here on this site, especially those with a lot of experience will be similar in the trust but verify belief, however admittedly their own experiences may differ from even mine.

Having said that, take a close read at what Mr. White has concluded as a hypothesis and could push to further testing in theory, to where he can potentially come to a real self conclusion. Self realization or self learning is more often than not a much more powerful tool than just learning by taking information passed on by others and relying on it as being true. Now this is a generalization and yes there are times where we are unable to verify or have not had enough sufficient personal experience to formulate a reliable answer to a problem and we must hedge our actions based off of information of others and that is fine. But self learning / realization is often the most impressionable way to acquire new knowledge. Hopefully we gain that via our experiences through training and further vetting from real life experience that matches and be successful.

As for the topic, I will not say that there is not a time and place for various types of sights. I will also note that most critical incidents that involve firearms are dynamic and fluid in nature. Target, backstop and surroundings change rapidly and we are responsible for proper identification of all 3 and not just strictly the target. Could the threat stop being a threat in an instant? If we go "lights on, lights off", can we properly identify and maintain proper ID of the target, backstop, surroundings and be able to articulate that threat if we had not maintained visual ID via a light? Could we see in that split second of darkness when we go "lights off" that our threat at some point in the darkened engagement became a non threat, or were we able to see that other non-threats became part of the backstop and / or surroundings during the engagement? Are we able to accurately or effectively ID an active threat with a white light source, turn off that light, find our tritium sights and effectively engage the target while maintaining good ID of all three things mentioned earlier in those split seconds of pure chaotic hell of potentially life ending conflict, or should we ID with a white light and dominate with that light, or is that not in our best interest due to the situation? Are we proficient enough or has our training and experience given us the ability to make those instant tactical type of decisions based off of what is unfolding in front of us?

Of course there are a myriad of "what-if's" and I am not going to give any definitive answers as that is all but impossible, but rather suggest that if we don't have any personal first hand knowledge about what the answers may be for ourselves, then perhaps these might be areas worth exploring and getting answers to, especially if you are out in darkness a lot and do you even carry a light? What I might suggest or concur with what Mr. White has mentioned above is that we are probably far better served with having a quality white light source and some basic training / techniques to utilize that white light instead of being overly critical about sights.

Even this simple thread might guess that no matter the sights, by the time that any sight starts to be more effective in low light than another sight it is probably too dark to make or maintain a good and proper ID of the target, backstop and surroundings. Prudence would then 99.9% of the time probably dictate the necessity for the use of a white light source, since we have the obligation to properly identify our target and everything unfolding around us. And if that white light source is being used, all of the sights look the same. Now some users mileage may vary, but I would guess that number would definitely be the much much more of the exception and not the norm.

So for perhaps Mr. White and I might suggest most individuals, the white light and knowing how to use it is 99.9% more important than what sight you have in low light. Now for Mr. Whites situation where he lives the majority of the time in the daylight, does the fiber actually give him such a distinct advantage in his shooting over a non-fiber sight that happens to be tritium? I dunno, but that would be for him to find out.

[BaiHu]

Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding!

Man I hate the fiber v. tritium topic as much as .45 v. 9mm, so I generally avoid forum discussion of this topic (PF included) like the plague as there is definitely strong or deep seeded beliefs on the topic especially as far as traditional LE doctrine advocates. I have existed and lived in an area which is more often than not "outside of the box" when it comes to my profession and peer groups and that often causes conflict in courses of action. I have always used the "trust but verify" belief throughout my career and throughout my entire life for that matter. Now I am not saying that I am right or wrong about anything but I like to base my decisions out of first hand experience, vetting or personal verification and not to solely rely on information that has been passed down as doctrine, which is often the case in LE training. Now many here on this site, especially those with a lot of experience will be similar in the trust but verify belief, however admittedly their own experiences may differ from even mine.

Having said that, take a close read at what Mr. White has concluded as a hypothesis and could push to further testing in theory, to where he can potentially come to a real self conclusion. Self realization or self learning is more often than not a much more powerful tool than just learning by taking information passed on by others and relying on it as being true. Now this is a generalization and yes there are times where we are unable to verify or have not had enough sufficient personal experience to formulate a reliable answer to a problem and we must hedge our actions based off of information of others and that is fine. But self learning / realization is often the most impressionable way to acquire new knowledge. Hopefully we gain that via our experiences through training and further vetting from real life experience that matches and be successful.

As for the topic, I will not say that there is not a time and place for various types of sights. I will also note that most critical incidents that involve firearms are dynamic and fluid in nature. Target, backstop and surroundings change rapidly and we are responsible for proper identification of all 3 and not just strictly the target. Could the threat stop being a threat in an instant? If we go "lights on, lights off", can we properly identify and maintain proper ID of the target, backstop, surroundings and be able to articulate that threat if we had not maintained visual ID via a light? Could we see in that split second of darkness when we go "lights off" that our threat at some point in the darkened engagement became a non threat, or were we able to see that other non-threats became part of the backstop and / or surroundings during the engagement? Are we able to accurately or effectively ID an active threat with a white light source, turn off that light, find our tritium sights and effectively engage the target while maintaining good ID of all three things mentioned earlier in those split seconds of pure chaotic hell of potentially life ending conflict, or should we ID with a white light and dominate with that light, or is that not in our best interest due to the situation? Are we proficient enough or has our training and experience given us the ability to make those instant tactical type of decisions based off of what is unfolding in front of us?

Of course there are a myriad of "what-if's" and I am not going to give any definitive answers as that is all but impossible, but rather suggest that if we don't have any personal first hand knowledge about what the answers may be for ourselves, then perhaps these might be areas worth exploring and getting answers to, especially if you are out in darkness a lot and do you even carry a light? What I might suggest or concur with what Mr. White has mentioned above is that we are probably far better served with having a quality white light source and some basic training / techniques to utilize that white light instead of being overly critical about sights.

Even this simple thread might guess that no matter the sights, by the time that any sight starts to be more effective in low light than another sight it is probably too dark to make or maintain a good and proper ID of the target, backstop and surroundings. Prudence would then 99.9% of the time probably dictate the necessity for the use of a white light source, since we have the obligation to properly identify our target and everything unfolding around us. And if that white light source is being used, all of the sights look the same. Now some users mileage may vary, but I would guess that number would definitely be the much much more of the exception and not the norm.

So for perhaps Mr. White and I might suggest most individuals, the white light and knowing how to use it is 99.9% more important than what sight you have in low light. Now for Mr. Whites situation where he lives the majority of the time in the daylight, does the fiber actually give him such a distinct advantage in his shooting over a non-fiber sight that happens to be tritium? I dunno, but that would be for him to find out.
Great post. Lots of great posts here. Thanks.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[GRV]

[snip]

So...basically you're saying fiber optics are better than tritium. Right? ;):p


All joking aside, excellent post.

[spinmove_]

Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding!

Man I hate the fiber v. tritium topic as much as .45 v. 9mm, so I generally avoid forum discussion of this topic (PF included) like the plague as there is definitely strong or deep seeded beliefs on the topic especially as far as traditional LE doctrine advocates. I have existed and lived in an area which is more often than not "outside of the box" when it comes to my profession and peer groups and that often causes conflict in courses of action. I have always used the "trust but verify" belief throughout my career and throughout my entire life for that matter. Now I am not saying that I am right or wrong about anything but I like to base my decisions out of first hand experience, vetting or personal verification and not to solely rely on information that has been passed down as doctrine, which is often the case in LE training. Now many here on this site, especially those with a lot of experience will be similar in the trust but verify belief, however admittedly their own experiences may differ from even mine.

Having said that, take a close read at what Mr. White has concluded as a hypothesis and could push to further testing in theory, to where he can potentially come to a real self conclusion. Self realization or self learning is more often than not a much more powerful tool than just learning by taking information passed on by others and relying on it as being true. Now this is a generalization and yes there are times where we are unable to verify or have not had enough sufficient personal experience to formulate a reliable answer to a problem and we must hedge our actions based off of information of others and that is fine. But self learning / realization is often the most impressionable way to acquire new knowledge. Hopefully we gain that via our experiences through training and further vetting from real life experience that matches and be successful.

As for the topic, I will not say that there is not a time and place for various types of sights. I will also note that most critical incidents that involve firearms are dynamic and fluid in nature. Target, backstop and surroundings change rapidly and we are responsible for proper identification of all 3 and not just strictly the target. Could the threat stop being a threat in an instant? If we go "lights on, lights off", can we properly identify and maintain proper ID of the target, backstop, surroundings and be able to articulate that threat if we had not maintained visual ID via a light? Could we see in that split second of darkness when we go "lights off" that our threat at some point in the darkened engagement became a non threat, or were we able to see that other non-threats became part of the backstop and / or surroundings during the engagement? Are we able to accurately or effectively ID an active threat with a white light source, turn off that light, find our tritium sights and effectively engage the target while maintaining good ID of all three things mentioned earlier in those split seconds of pure chaotic hell of potentially life ending conflict, or should we ID with a white light and dominate with that light, or is that not in our best interest due to the situation? Are we proficient enough or has our training and experience given us the ability to make those instant tactical type of decisions based off of what is unfolding in front of us?

Of course there are a myriad of "what-if's" and I am not going to give any definitive answers as that is all but impossible, but rather suggest that if we don't have any personal first hand knowledge about what the answers may be for ourselves, then perhaps these might be areas worth exploring and getting answers to, especially if you are out in darkness a lot and do you even carry a light? What I might suggest or concur with what Mr. White has mentioned above is that we are probably far better served with having a quality white light source and some basic training / techniques to utilize that white light instead of being overly critical about sights.

Even this simple thread might guess that no matter the sights, by the time that any sight starts to be more effective in low light than another sight it is probably too dark to make or maintain a good and proper ID of the target, backstop and surroundings. Prudence would then 99.9% of the time probably dictate the necessity for the use of a white light source, since we have the obligation to properly identify our target and everything unfolding around us. And if that white light source is being used, all of the sights look the same. Now some users mileage may vary, but I would guess that number would definitely be the much much more of the exception and not the norm.

So for perhaps Mr. White and I might suggest most individuals, the white light and knowing how to use it is 99.9% more important than what sight you have in low light. Now for Mr. Whites situation where he lives the majority of the time in the daylight, does the fiber actually give him such a distinct advantage in his shooting over a non-fiber sight that happens to be tritium? I dunno, but that would be for him to find out.

That's basically the same exact conclusion that I came to with a post earlier in this thread, however, definitely not so eloquently put nor do I have the time, training, or experience to back up those thoughts and conclusions. I can, however, say that I won't be buying any sights other than black on black until I've had some low light training. I might get something in FO to contrast with the tritiums that I do currently have, but I'm going to keep things basic for now until I have a significant reason to change. Thanks for the verification, I really do appreciate everyone contributing to this thread as it's definitely one of the more interesting ones as of late.

[11B10]

Mr. White - everyone here - may I offer my most sincere thanks for the best thread - the most information I have ever seen in one place - about sights. I 'll be revisiting these pictures many times down the road. I have spent entirely too much $$$ on sight "experimentation" for a blue collar budget and this really helps. The info here is priceless.

Much appreciated!

[GRV]

I vote for sticky.

[BillSWPA]

I vote for sticky.

Add my vote.

[MichaelD]

I vote for sticky.

Seconded.

ETA: Thirded, even.

[BillSWPA]

I completely agree re: the need for a light, and if someone's financial situation permitted a choice of either a light or more highly visible sights, I would take the light every time. Since that is not the situation for most of us, I would favor making sure that the sights are visible in as many light conditions as possible, and also always carrying a light.

I have seen plenty of light conditions wherein target identification was not an issue, but seeing the sights was - or likely would have been - an issue. As an extreme example, the sights on my Colt Detective Special (ramped front extending the entire length of the barrel) will disappear in anything less than perfect light conditions - including a bright sunny day with the sun in a less than optimal position relative to the direction I am shooting. It was this sight picture more than anything else - magazine capacity, reloading speed, flatness, etc. - that ultimately caused me to move to a semiauto for carry and defense.

[BaiHu]

Stickaaaayyyy...sticky-stick-sticktastic.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Mr_White]

Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding!

Man I hate the fiber v. tritium topic as much as .45 v. 9mm, so I generally avoid forum discussion of this topic (PF included) like the plague as there is definitely strong or deep seeded beliefs on the topic especially as far as traditional LE doctrine advocates. I have existed and lived in an area which is more often than not "outside of the box" when it comes to my profession and peer groups and that often causes conflict in courses of action. I have always used the "trust but verify" belief throughout my career and throughout my entire life for that matter. Now I am not saying that I am right or wrong about anything but I like to base my decisions out of first hand experience, vetting or personal verification and not to solely rely on information that has been passed down as doctrine, which is often the case in LE training. Now many here on this site, especially those with a lot of experience will be similar in the trust but verify belief, however admittedly their own experiences may differ from even mine.

Having said that, take a close read at what Mr. White has concluded as a hypothesis and could push to further testing in theory, to where he can potentially come to a real self conclusion. Self realization or self learning is more often than not a much more powerful tool than just learning by taking information passed on by others and relying on it as being true. Now this is a generalization and yes there are times where we are unable to verify or have not had enough sufficient personal experience to formulate a reliable answer to a problem and we must hedge our actions based off of information of others and that is fine. But self learning / realization is often the most impressionable way to acquire new knowledge. Hopefully we gain that via our experiences through training and further vetting from real life experience that matches and be successful.

As for the topic, I will not say that there is not a time and place for various types of sights. I will also note that most critical incidents that involve firearms are dynamic and fluid in nature. Target, backstop and surroundings change rapidly and we are responsible for proper identification of all 3 and not just strictly the target. Could the threat stop being a threat in an instant? If we go "lights on, lights off", can we properly identify and maintain proper ID of the target, backstop, surroundings and be able to articulate that threat if we had not maintained visual ID via a light? Could we see in that split second of darkness when we go "lights off" that our threat at some point in the darkened engagement became a non threat, or were we able to see that other non-threats became part of the backstop and / or surroundings during the engagement? Are we able to accurately or effectively ID an active threat with a white light source, turn off that light, find our tritium sights and effectively engage the target while maintaining good ID of all three things mentioned earlier in those split seconds of pure chaotic hell of potentially life ending conflict, or should we ID with a white light and dominate with that light, or is that not in our best interest due to the situation? Are we proficient enough or has our training and experience given us the ability to make those instant tactical type of decisions based off of what is unfolding in front of us?

Of course there are a myriad of "what-if's" and I am not going to give any definitive answers as that is all but impossible, but rather suggest that if we don't have any personal first hand knowledge about what the answers may be for ourselves, then perhaps these might be areas worth exploring and getting answers to, especially if you are out in darkness a lot and do you even carry a light? What I might suggest or concur with what Mr. White has mentioned above is that we are probably far better served with having a quality white light source and some basic training / techniques to utilize that white light instead of being overly critical about sights.

Even this simple thread might guess that no matter the sights, by the time that any sight starts to be more effective in low light than another sight it is probably too dark to make or maintain a good and proper ID of the target, backstop and surroundings. Prudence would then 99.9% of the time probably dictate the necessity for the use of a white light source, since we have the obligation to properly identify our target and everything unfolding around us. And if that white light source is being used, all of the sights look the same. Now some users mileage may vary, but I would guess that number would definitely be the much much more of the exception and not the norm.

So for perhaps Mr. White and I might suggest most individuals, the white light and knowing how to use it is 99.9% more important than what sight you have in low light. Now for Mr. Whites situation where he lives the majority of the time in the daylight, does the fiber actually give him such a distinct advantage in his shooting over a non-fiber sight that happens to be tritium? I dunno, but that would be for him to find out.

Surf, I appreciate the post. Lots of great points and thoughts there, particularly about assessing background/environment in addition to threat. I'm also not a fan of 'light on and assess, light off and engage' for the same reasons you cite. Not that it can't ever be valid, it's just that I think the proverbial snipers hiding in the bushes in the pitch black, waiting to shoot us when we turn our light on but are otherwise unable to locate and engage us, is a concern far afield for my context. It can only take a very little bit of ambient light to locate, track, and engage a person, but it takes a lot more light to make fast and accurate decisions.

I phrased things fairly lightly in this discussion, because the beliefs I have mostly come from range work and other training. But what I've said "I think", I actually believe pretty strongly.

I set up a low light exercise for one of our classes where students first shoot some targets in low light, without a flashlight. The silhouette targets are not difficult to locate and successfully engage, even without night sights. Then I change the targets to ones with shirts, faces, and photocopied objects somewhere on them (all normal and realistic objects, no gotcha objects like a cordless drill or hair dryer aimed at the student like an SMG.) The exercise is repeated with those targets and in the same level of low light, no flashlight, same as before. But now the exercise includes basic decisionmaking. Since the targets lack behavior, I stipulate to the students that the target in front of them is a person of roughly equal physical stature and characteristics (no disparity of force present, except possibly gender), at the actual distance on the range (7 yards) but not currently advancing, and acting hostilely toward the student with whatever object is depicted on the target. Students have limited time to make a decision and carry out that decision.

Any students who use force, threaten to use force, or visibly prepare to use force (like exposing a gun), are asked to explain to me what they saw, heard, or otherwise perceived, that made them do that. Some mistakes are made, some good decisions are made, and there is a lot of inaction because it is simply very hard to identify objects in that level of light, even though it is not challenging to shoot the target.

Then we do some work with flashlights for a while, and finally repeat the decisionmaking exercise (different targets but same setup) and WITH the flashlight available as an option. Decisionmaking immediately improves dramatically. Dramatically isn't even really a strong enough word. The decisionmaking improvement is beyond dramatic.

I do recognize that there are times that good decisions can be made in low light without the aid of an artificial white light, however, I think that is very very far from guaranteed. In all fairness, the Rangemaster data does give me some pause on that.

But Surf, you are absolutely right about self-guided discovery making a powerful impression. When I first set up that exercise years ago, I was blown away at how low a level of light still allowed successful shooting without night sights or artificial light, and at how high a level of low light still could make decisionmaking exceedingly difficult.

FOF is where more in-depth decisionmaking action is going to be, but that usually deemphasizes the gunhandling and shooting, and we usually don't have the same sights as on our real guns, which is why I'm bringing up the example of a square range live fire exercise in the context of this discussion about the sights themselves. My personal conclusion basically boils down to that if there is any doubt (ambiguity) whatsoever, there is no doubt - add white light and make a better decision.

[BillSWPA]

Surf, I appreciate the post. Lots of great points and thoughts there, particularly about assessing background/environment in addition to threat. I'm also not a fan of 'light on and assess, light off and engage' for the same reasons you cite. Not that it can't ever be valid, it's just that I think the proverbial snipers hiding in the bushes in the pitch black, waiting to shoot us when we turn our light on but are otherwise unable to locate and engage us, is a concern far afield for my context. It can only take a very little bit of ambient light to locate, track, and engage a person, but it takes a lot more light to make fast and accurate decisions.

I phrased things fairly lightly in this discussion, because the beliefs I have mostly come from range work and other training. But what I've said "I think", I actually believe pretty strongly.

I set up a low light exercise for one of our classes where students first shoot some targets in low light, without a flashlight. The silhouette targets are not difficult to locate and successfully engage, even without night sights. Then I change the targets to ones with shirts, faces, and photocopied objects somewhere on them (all normal and realistic objects, no gotcha objects like a cordless drill or hair dryer aimed at the student like an SMG.) The exercise is repeated with those targets and in the same level of low light, no flashlight, same as before. But now the exercise includes basic decisionmaking. Since the targets lack behavior, I stipulate to the students that the target in front of them is a person of roughly equal physical stature and characteristics (no disparity of force present, except possibly gender), at the actual distance on the range (7 yards) but not currently advancing, and acting hostilely toward the student with whatever object is depicted on the target. Students have limited time to make a decision and carry out that decision.

Any students who use force, threaten to use force, or visibly prepare to use force (like exposing a gun), are asked to explain to me what they saw, heard, or otherwise perceived, that made them do that. Some mistakes are made, some good decisions are made, and there is a lot of inaction because it is simply very hard to identify objects in that level of light, even though it is not challenging to shoot the target.

Then we do some work with flashlights for a while, and finally repeat the decisionmaking exercise (different targets but same setup) and WITH the flashlight available as an option. Decisionmaking immediately improves dramatically. Dramatically isn't even really a strong enough word. The decisionmaking improvement is beyond dramatic.

I do recognize that there are times that good decisions can be made in low light without the aid of an artificial white light, however, I think that is very very far from guaranteed. In all fairness, the Rangemaster data does give me some pause on that.

But Surf, you are absolutely right about self-guided discovery making a powerful impression. When I first set up that exercise years ago, I was blown away at how low a level of light still allowed successful shooting without night sights or artificial light, and at how high a level of low light still could make decisionmaking exceedingly difficult.

FOF is where more in-depth decisionmaking action is going to be, but that usually deemphasizes the gunhandling and shooting, and we usually don't have the same sights as on our real guns, which is why I'm bringing up the example of a square range live fire exercise in the context of this discussion about the sights themselves. My personal conclusion basically boils down to that if there is any doubt (ambiguity) whatsoever, there is no doubt - add white light and make a better decision.

Excellent points and excellent training exercise!

We has an incident locally several months ago wherein a LEO was getting ready for work in the very early morning hours. It was still mostly dark outside, and he was fully uniformed and almost ready to leave when his burglar alarm indicated the garage door opening. He went outside, and thinking he had sufficiently identified a threat, fired his .40 duty pistol. The next thing he heard was "Daddy, it hurts" from his daughter. She had chosen that time to sneak back in from a night of partying, thinking the alarm would likely be off. The LEO placed his daughter in his patrol car and tried to rush her to the hospital, crashing the car on the way. Both were life-flighted to the hospital, and both survived. The LEO was fired.

When I emphasize the importance of sights that are visible under as many conditions as possible, I absolutely do not want to diminish the importance of carrying and using a light when one needs a light. I just believe in keeping my abilities and options maximized to best deal with whatever situation may present itself.

[GRV]

Drifting, but:

One of the other issues that make the light thing not sexy is that it requires SHO shooting. Bottom line, almost none of the techniques allow you to execute 2H shooting normally. The ~1 that does cannot easily and quickly be executed with all flashlights, which limits its usefulness for EDC-gear purposes.

I think we underemphasize the importance of SHO shooting.

[spinmove_]

Drifting, but:

One of the other issues that make the light thing not sexy is that it requires SHO shooting. Bottom line, almost none of the techniques allow you to execute 2H shooting normally. The ~1 that does cannot easily and quickly be executed with all flashlights, which limits its usefulness for EDC-gear purposes.

I think we underemphasize the importance of SHO shooting.

Most definitely. This is why I try to incorporate it as much as I possibly can. It's also the reason why I'm kind of wanting to try to get my hands on the Surefire XC-1. SHO/WHO (OSHO for you positivity people) is most definitely a needed skill and should be practiced as often as possible in both live fire and dry fire.

[Mr_White]

Mr. White - everyone here - may I offer my most sincere thanks for the best thread - the most information I have ever seen in one place - about sights. I 'll be revisiting these pictures many times down the road. I have spent entirely too much $$$ on sight "experimentation" for a blue collar budget and this really helps. The info here is priceless.

Much appreciated!

Glad you like it 11B10. Thanks for saying so! I'm enjoying it too.

[Mr_White]

dove and spinmove_, I agree with you guys about SHO gunhandling and shooting. Confidence in that helps enable my strong inclination to get out a flashlight.

[BillSWPA]

The key to any of the supposedly 2-handed flashlight techniques - Rogers/Surefire, Harries, etc. is to apply only light pressure to the shooting hand with the support hand. Light pressure provides some stabilizing effect. More than that changes the pressure too much from non-flashlight 2-handed shooting and does more harm than good.

A weapon mounted light generally appears to be best operated by the support hand, making this useful only with a 2-hand grip. The biggest limitation I have seen to using a weapon mounted light is holster availability, which seems to be getting somewhat better lately.

The techniques I have come to prefer are the neck index and FBI hold, both of which are strictly single hand only techniques.

[Mr_White]

The techniques I have come to prefer are the neck index and FBI hold, both of which are strictly single hand only techniques.

Me too, though I formed that preference during a time when I was using lights that worked really poorly with the Rogers technique. I have recently gotten into a couple of lights (I think you and I talked about this on TPI...) that are better suited to the Rogers technique, and it's time for me to revisit that and see if it works better now.

[GRV]

I did some informal experimentation with target-focused sighted shooting and low light shooting. Details are in my journal: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?17565-dove-s-Training-Journal-Repeated-Demoralizing-Failure&p=436118&viewfull=1#post436118.


tl;dr:

For me, there exist lighting situations where a justifiable shoot is imaginable and where 3-dot tritium sights stand head and shoulders above front-only tritium. In these conditions, I don't know what no-tritium would look like yet, or all black. But, I'm wondering how much worse than front-only tritium they'd be. I could see it going either way.

These situations are uncomfortably dark, and I'd probably want to be using a flashlight anyway, even before the situation got aggressive or lethal, but the benefit of tritium cannot be overlooked considering the tendency of things in the real world not quite going the way we plan. It is also possible that the benefit exists in brighter lighting than we tested, where the want for a flashlight is weaker, and we saw a little dryfire evidence for that.

Vial size and freshness matter.

In these situations, target-focused sighted fire does seem to lend a benefit for simple target alignment and precision, not even considering the very big identification, reassessment, and tracking benefits that it gives which are likely mission critical in this lighting. 3-dot tritium is a force multiplier for this technique.

I've done no testing, but I don't think contrasting colors would help the target-focused technique, and it may even harm it. 3 green dots seems pretty good to go there. Remember, the goal is to see everything in your periphery and to not get drawn to the front sight.

In normal lighting, target-focused sighted fire shows some promise, but substantial benefit is likely heavily dependent on having a bright 3-dot setup (e.g. green fiber front and rear) and using a both eyes open approach, utilizing the sights like a poor-man's red dot or holographic sight. Here, I think there may be some serious rewards, but I'd need more testing before committing to that claim.

I should note that much of those conclusions have yet to be confirmed in livefire. My livefire testing was limited to an orange TCAP front with an all-black rear.

[Mr_White]

It looks like in some of those pictures that the green fiber takes on the yellow color of the building light. Mr_White, can you confirm whether or not you saw that in reality? I could certainly understand why that'd happen with the green fiber.

Got back to the range this morning while it was still dark and yes, the green FO looks yellow in the yellow light.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1461/26445275921_9678e8346d_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GhSXc8)20160417_045129 (https://flic.kr/p/GhSXc8) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr

[Mr_White]

I did some informal experimentation with target-focused sighted shooting and low light shooting. Details are in my journal: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?17565-dove-s-Training-Journal-Repeated-Demoralizing-Failure&p=436118&viewfull=1#post436118.


tl;dr:

For me, there exist lighting situations where a justifiable shoot is imaginable and where 3-dot tritium sights stand head and shoulders above front-only tritium. In these conditions, I don't know what no-tritium would look like yet, or all black. But, I'm wondering how much worse than front-only tritium they'd be. I could see it going either way.

These situations are uncomfortably dark, and I'd probably want to be using a flashlight anyway, even before the situation got aggressive or lethal, but the benefit of tritium cannot be overlooked considering the tendency of things in the real world not quite going the way we plan. It is also possible that the benefit exists in brighter lighting than we tested, where the want for a flashlight is weaker, and we saw a little dryfire evidence for that.

Vial size and freshness matter.

In these situations, target-focused sighted fire does seem to lend a benefit for simple target alignment and precision, not even considering the very big identification, reassessment, and tracking benefits that it gives which are likely mission critical in this lighting. 3-dot tritium is a force multiplier for this technique.

I've done no testing, but I don't think contrasting colors would help the target-focused technique, and it may even harm it. 3 green dots seems pretty good to go there. Remember, the goal is to see everything in your periphery and to not get drawn to the front sight.

In normal lighting, target-focused sighted fire shows some promise, but substantial benefit is likely heavily dependent on having a bright 3-dot setup (e.g. green fiber front and rear) and using a both eyes open approach, utilizing the sights like a poor-man's red dot or holographic sight. Here, I think there may be some serious rewards, but I'd need more testing before committing to that claim.

I should note that much of those conclusions have yet to be confirmed in livefire. My livefire testing was limited to an orange TCAP front with an all-black rear.

A few thoughts on target-focused shooting as it relates to this discussion:

At this point, I think that practicing target-focused shooting, using high visibility sights that can be paid attention to even while target-focused, is important for a lot of people. Some people have a really tough time getting a hard focus on the front sight, or it costs them extra time to do so. I think there is a lot of potential for well-practiced target-focused shooting to be surprisingly accurate (just like well-practiced sight-focused shooting can be surprisingly fast.)

If sight-focusing is going to be done, it should be after the decision to fire has been made, and ideally while the gun is being mounted. It should not impact initial threat ID and assessment. Ongoing threat ID and assessment, during the firing itself, is more about overt behaviors (like falling down or running away) than fine details of objects in hand that were probably already identified if that was part of the initial decision to engage. In many circumstances and for many people, sight-focused shooting may be necessary to deliver responsible levels of accuracy. Anytime the gun gets dismounted, focal distance should return to objects we are looking at and we'll again have the most detail our eyes can deliver.

There are some instances I've personally found where sight-focusing can cause problems with seeing the target, but they are pretty narrow: where the target is visible and trackable if we target-focus but literally disappears if it even becomes a little blurry due to sight-focusing. This can happen in certain really really low levels of light (way past where I'd probably want a flashlight to ID and assess), at extreme long distances for the target size (think of a jackrabbit standing still in sagebrush at ~140 yards), or when there is an extreme lack of contrast between the target and the background (same jackrabbit in sagebrush example.)

[GRV]

Totally on the same page.

However, I wonder if the conditions in which we lose track of the target during front-sight focus increase in diversity when we add stress and tunnel vision into the mix.

Mr_White, since you're into the whole convergence, accommodation thing (I haven't been able to get that to work for me yet, so I rock one eye open), I figured I'd offer up the following as food for thought:

If you target focus, you only get one clear picture of the target. Closing one eye or the other will not change the location of the target in your vision. If you then cover the target with an object (front sight), depending on the way your eyes and dominance work you can actually get the perceived effect of seeing through the covering object. Based on some experiments with objects (front sight surrogates) and targets at various distances in my living room, it seems to me that you can use this visual technique to accurately center a target behind a front sight that is of similar or larger angular width. Whereas, with front sight focus, the target becomes lost and alignment is less confident.

Because the convergence is on the target, this allows one to open both eyes without making the dreaded mistake of shooting the "wrong" target (double vision) or being mentally confused by the double vision. Conversely, the sights are doubled, but the copies are far enough apart that one is less likely to get messed up by them than they would a double target.

I realize one gets these same benefits with the sight-focused convergence/accommodation split you personally advocate. However, that technique seems pretty difficult for some of us to learn, and I wonder if it is even harder to pull off under stress.

This motivates a question though: Mr_White, when you do your both-eyes-open convergence/accommodation split front-sight-focused shooting, do you get the same effect of being able to "see through" the front sight? In principal, you could, but I wonder if the hard front-sight focus causes your brain to tune out the information coming from your left eye.


In any event, the point I'm getting to is: if you have a small bright element (say a fiber), on a larger front sight, this technique would still allow you to reap the alignment precision benefits of that smaller element while 1) covering the target with the front sight, 2) keeping both eyes open, and 3) keeping the target singular and crisp. All (hopefully) with less of a learning curve and difficulty as convergence/accommodation split. The question is how well one can maintain front/rear sight alignment using this technique, which will depend on the sights being visible enough (e.g. 3-dot fiber). However, I wonder if them being too visible would hamper the usefulness by causing the eye to be drawn to the sights too much.

Aside, I think I've seen some unreputable company offer cheap rifle sights that operated on the same principle.

[GRV]

Some drawbacks I could see to such a technique would be:

- It it is probably harder to track the sights in recoil this way. So if your sights don't track somewhat well then you may find yourself losing and searching for them repeatedly.
- You lose the feedback and concentration benefits of front-sight focus for trigger control.

So, I think it is a technique whose benefits would be largely biased towards people who already have developed good grip and trigger control. It goes without saying that you already need good skill in sight alignment too. So, long story short, it emphatically would not be suitable for beginner shooters, and may even detract from the range-training benefits of front-sight-focused shooting for advanced shooters as well.

[Mr_White]

This motivates a question though: Mr_White, when you do your both-eyes-open convergence/accommodation split front-sight-focused shooting, do you get the same effect of being able to "see through" the front sight? In principal, you could, but I wonder if the hard front-sight focus causes your brain to tune out the information coming from your left eye.

I'll probably have to take this conversation back up next week. About to leave the computer and be busy most of the weekend (or at least, not have a keyboard so real hard to type.) But to answer this question, YES, I am able to pay attention to my nondominant/left eye's image and effectively see the target 'through' the intervening sights.

I have no doubt that many people may find it 'hard' to get front sight focus under stress, and that some people might not be able to do it at all. I also have no doubt that many people can do it, or can learn to do it. It's a big enabling factor to believe it can work and then practice to make it work.

[GRV]

I'll probably have to take this conversation back up next week. About to leave the computer and be busy most of the weekend (or at least, not have a keyboard so real hard to type.) But to answer this question, YES, I am able to pay attention to my nondominant/left eye's image and effectively see the target 'through' the intervening sights.

I have no doubt that many people may find it 'hard' to get front sight focus under stress, and that some people might not be able to do it at all. I also have no doubt that many people can do it, or can learn to do it. It's a big enabling factor to believe it can work and then practice to make it work.

Awesome...your sight picture sounds pretty close to ideal. I may need to spend more time trying to master eye-fu.

[GRV]

When we resume....

I'm curious what your process is for tracking the front sight in recoil. I'm having a hard time imagining how to do that without breaking target convergence.

[Mr_White]

Tracking the front sight just means paying mental attention to it while it is moving up and down in recoil, not following it with our eyes (convergence.) The eyes would stay pointed at (convergence) the target spot the whole time. The quality of our mental awareness of the front sight, as we watch it move up and down in recoil, is pretty heavily influenced by how visible the front sight is in the present lighting conditions and with the target as the background, and whether we have the additional visual acuity allowed by seeing the front sight sharp and clear instead of blurry (accommodation.)

[Holmes375]

Tracking the front sight just means paying mental attention to it while it is moving up and down in recoil, not following it with our eyes (convergence.) The eyes would stay pointed at (convergence) the target spot the whole time. The quality of our mental awareness of the front sight, as we watch it move up and down in recoil, is pretty heavily influenced by how visible the front sight is in the present lighting conditions and with the target as the background, and whether we have the additional visual acuity allowed by seeing the front sight sharp and clear instead of blurry (accommodation.)

I like the XS Big Dot front sight for this kind of application. Admittedly I have used this sight system for quite a while and have become accustomed to its size and shape. Its easy to keep track of the front sight without wandering from the focused point of aim.

I enjoy going out in the prairie late in the day and setting up quart size milk bottles and busting them at random as the sun goes down. The white golf ball sight does a pretty good job of it for my old eyeballs. I set them up in large ravines where I have a backstop on two sides. The I walk my Wyoming gauntlet ;) Afterwards, I get my headlamp, let the dog out of the truck and we go do clean up.

If I ever get attacked by a murderous milk jug its toast :)

[GRV]

I'm still having a hard time achieving "Gabe-vision". I wonder if it has to do with my myopia. Ironically, without my glasses on, the front sight is roughly how far my relaxed eye can focus, so if I just target focus with no glasses I basically get a single blurry target and a double sharp front sight. However, with glasses on, it's a different story.

When I try to mimic the magic eye feeling, my vision very quickly goes double target. I can get a tiny bit of accommodation shift before that happens, but it won't hold still, it oscillates.

[Mr_White]

I'm still having a hard time achieving "Gabe-vision".

I'm really not convinced at this point that it's worth chasing 'Gabe-vision' very much. At least maybe not beyond figuring out whether it's already something you can do, or is easy to learn because your eyes and brain happen to work the same way as mine. More below.


When I try to mimic the magic eye feeling, my vision very quickly goes double target.

Magic Eye 3D pictures are seen by manipulating convergence, not accommodation. Maybe not very relevant if you are saying 'magic eye feeling' casually. But if you really mean the same feeling as when seeing Magic Eye 3D pictures, that is about convergence.


I can get a tiny bit of accommodation shift before that happens, but it won't hold still, it oscillates.

That sentence reads to me like you have the normal strong linkage between convergence and accommodation. I don't know whether you are wasting your effort to try to learn to run your vision like mine.

---

Trying not to rehash the whole lengthy and confusing vision discussion, but at this point I think there are several ways to use vision in iron-sighted pistol shooting, and they can all be made to work very well and support a very high level of shooting if practiced a lot.

I think the ideal is to be able to converge on the target and accommodate to the front sight, with both eyes open. This allows the most detail to be seen in the sights and thus align them most precisely, and allows the greatest field of view while 'in the sights.' Some people have the issue of it costing extra time to get the front sight sharp and clear. If they can shoot that way, even if it takes extra time, those people seem like likely candidates to try the at-will focal shift exercises that I describe in my vision paper to eliminate or reduce the time cost. If that doesn't work for them, maybe some exploration of target-focused shooting would be productive.

When there are problems with doubled targets or inability to get the front sight sharp and clear, I think people are well-served by trying:

Learning to shoot with both eyes open (using the time honored process of occluding the nondominant eye, progressively less over time.) I wouldn't chase that for forever though. At some point, I personally think it's fine to abandon both eyes open and simply close or squint the nondominant eye. That doesn't have to take any extra time, just like my accommodation/focal shift doesn't have to take any extra time. It is going to narrow the field of view while actually in the act of aiming the gun. Sometimes that might matter, lots of times it won't.

Practicing target-focused shooting. This is probably going to be aided by high visibility sights, especially the front sight, to maximize mental awareness of the sights even though they may be blurry. Maybe there will be loss of precision due to lack of fine enough awareness of the sights to align them very precisely. Maybe that can be overcome with extensive practice and experience at target-focused shooting. Even though I basically never target focus myself, I kind of want to play around with this and see how accurately I can shoot while target-focused.

All this stuff is why 'see what you need to see' is both the fullest and emptiest answer. But it is about the only answer that is only one sentence long. :)

[Sasage]

Does anyone have a pic of the orange tcap? Bonus points if it has a defoor rear!

[ssb]

I'm interested in trying a fiber optic sight after seeing this thread. I *think* .165" is the front sight height I need for a Defoor rear, but Ameriglo's catalog doesn't specify. Can anybody confirm the height needed?

[littlejerry]

I'm interested in trying a fiber optic sight after seeing this thread. I *think* .165" is the front sight height I need for a Defoor rear, but Ameriglo's catalog doesn't specify. Can anybody confirm the height needed?

That's correct.

[spinmove_]

I finally had a chance to put a green FO rod in the Dawson FO front that I have on hand. Results were interesting. I found that what I generally saw in photos didn't necessarily translate to what I saw in the real world. Generally speaking, while the green FO rod did seem to catch more light in more situations than the red FO rod, I found that most of those situations gave me a rather "yellow" fiber than green. Not only did this turn out dull, but it didn't really catch my eye all that well. I was still able to find many darkened situations indoors where I could have positively ID'd a threat, but not see my sights (blacked out rear, black serrated front FO) unless the background I was targeting was of sufficient contrasting color. So a threat with darker clothes standing in front of a darker wood door would have provided a not very visible situation for me. Now, another thing I did find interesting was how I installed the FO rod this time around. I usually would install the rod with a larger bulb on the front, but this time I made the bulb as small as possible while still maintaining solid fiber lock up. This resulted in a very sharp and focused fiber dot. I'll have to test this out with a red FO rod again. I think that would ultimately be my preferred FO setup if I were to ever go FO.

Contrasting those sights with a set that has a blacked out rear and a front with no tritium but some white marking of some kind did indeed give me a good positive sight picture that was very usable. While I understand that, again, there are pros and cons to every sight setup that is situationally dependent, I think for me and my eyes, I'm best served to at least have some sort of white marking on my front sight. I think my next sights are going to be black on black with a custom white stripe on the front, most likely in the form of some Defoors (despite my better judgement with some of the recent dealings that I've had with AmeriGlo's products recently). I also find that a solid white dot is much more visible than a small white ring around a tritium lamp, even in more transitional lighting where tritium starts to help out, but not quite. Obviously more experimentation is needed. Results should prove interesting.

This thread definitely has been eye-opening for me personally. Totally diggin' in.

[Holmes375]

A similar experience for me. I've been playing around with FOs, red and green, and a white ring tritium under subdued lighting. The FOs didn't do as well for me in reality as they do for a camera lens. I also found the contrast of a black rear and white front gave me the best results under more varied conditions. The Shield I was working with is now wearing a factory front white dot combined with a 10-8 U-notch serrated black rear. I'm really liking this combo.

81378138813981408141

[BillSWPA]

Just put Dawson tritium carry sights on my Glocks. I chose them based on the photos in this thread. I like the sight picture. I have not tried them yet, but they seem like they would be both fast and accurate. I was reminded of how big a difference fresh tritium makes - they are much brighter than the roughly 6 year old sights previously on these guns. I also prefer the vertical sides rather than the angled sides on the previous Trijicon Bright & Tough sights. The vertical sides make installation much easier.

[ER_STL]

Resurrecting a fantastic thread as I'm shopping for sights as well.

dove - you had posted some great content and it sounded like you were considering giving the Dawson Chargers a try as well as the plain white-dot front sight. Curious....what have been your experiences since?

[GRV]

Resurrecting a fantastic thread as I'm shopping for sights as well.

dove - you had posted some great content and it sounded like you were considering giving the Dawson Chargers a try as well as the plain white-dot front sight. Curious....what have been your experiences since?

Some more detailed impressions may be floating around various threads and my journal.

I switched to chargers a while back and have been using them very happily ever since. I use the red fiber and my intention has been to try the green one just for kicks if the red ever breaks; so far it hasn't. I've gotten over the sights hysteria, but idk if that's a statement about me or the chargers. I admit I've allowed the low-light issue to lapse from my concern.

I'd still be interested in trying a white dot too if I had some reason to. Overall, I've come to feel that my preference is for very standard target shooting specs: thin front, wide rear with a flat top and a square notch that allows for about half a front sight's worth of light on either side. As black as possible, serrations debatable, and some sort of contrasting element in the front.

[spinmove_]

Some more detailed impressions may be floating around various threads and my journal.

I switched to chargers a while back and have been using them very happily ever since. I use the red fiber and my intention has been to try the green one just for kicks if the red ever breaks; so far it hasn't. I've gotten over the sights hysteria, but idk if that's a statement about me or the chargers. I admit I've allowed the low-light issue to lapse from my concern.

I'd still be interested in trying a white dot too if I had some reason to. Overall, I've come to feel that my preference is for very standard target shooting specs: thin front, wide rear with a flat top and a square notch that allows for about half a front sight's worth of light on either side. As black as possible, serrations debatable, and some sort of contrasting element in the front.

I generally agree with your overall assessment. Personally I’ve gone back to Defoor sights on my carry and practice guns as they give me a slightly coarser sight picture to work with, more light around the front sight, a very consistent sight picture regardless of light and they’re just plain simple. If there’s not enough light to see the sights, supply your own. There’s a good chance you’ll need to supply your own anyway to PID a target.


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

[GRV]

I generally agree with your overall assessment. Personally I’ve gone back to Defoor sights on my carry and practice guns as they give me a slightly coarser sight picture to work with, more light around the front sight, a very consistent sight picture regardless of light and they’re just plain simple. If there’s not enough light to see the sights, supply your own. There’s a good chance you’ll need to supply your own anyway to PID a target.


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

I carry the chargers. I do not carry a WML. I do carry a good flashlight. I have practiced low light draw/step SHO+flashlight drills but not as much as I should and I'm not especially fast nor accurate this way. In the safe, my G17 runs with an x300. I've tested it, but not as much as I should.

I do almost all of my shooting indoors with an illuminated target, and most of the rest of it happens outdoors well lit. I am fortunate that I haven't had to rely on tritium. I have done some low light sight experiments in the past. I don't think chargers are "killed in the streets" bad for my circumstances, but I feel my lack of tritium is definitely a notable disadvantage. I do not have the experience to truly understand first hand just how much of a disadvantage.

I take the opinions of Gio and SLG very seriously, and I think it's a serious clue that they both advocate for tritium on their work guns. A number of experienced others, e.g. Chuck and Darryl, have said very similar things. There is also some great testimony from low light simunitions from Todd or TC or someone from way back. The experienced folks who tend to be in the no-tritium camp are almost universally SOF. There's a whole lot that makes their situation different from mine, and I tend to find the LEO experience more relevant to my concerns. A notable exception here is Tom Givens's testimony, and my understanding is that his is more of a "don't spend the money" argument than a blanket "no tritium" one but someone can correct me if I'm wrong. My reasoning for not loosing sleep with chargers in my holster is similar to his, and Gabe's, and definitely is helped by their testimony, but I'm under no delusion that this issue is irrelevant to me or that I've prioritized correctly.

At the time that I switched to chargers, I was still in a phase where I felt an urge to explore the options more and I also desperately needed to spend less time thinking about sights and more time thinking about shooting. The chargers let me do that. There was a very noticeably "natural" or "disappearing", maybe "effortless" quality to them, and I haven't felt a need to switch. I expect that my current preference in tritium sights would be whatever gets me closest to those target sight traits I mentioned in my last post: something like charger tritium sights, or Heinies, or Warren Sevigny. When I eventually get a Gen 5, my intention is to get it with the Ameriglo factory option and try to just roll with that. I like to think that I'm now at the point where the details of the sights don't really matter much to me, but I don't know, I really haven't tested that claim. I've written elsewhere about something I call "sight preference hysteresis" which I still think is somewhat relevant.

I emphatically do NOT want to spark a tritium, no tritium, fiber, flashlight, WML (, laser! :eek::D) debate here. We've had it over and over again and I doubt there's much new to learn from it, but I don't want to give the wrong impression about my feelings.

[spinmove_]

I carry the chargers. I do not carry a WML. I do carry a good flashlight. I have practiced low light draw/step SHO+flashlight drills but not as much as I should and I'm not especially fast nor accurate this way. In the safe, my G17 runs with an x300. I've tested it, but not as much as I should.

I do almost all of my shooting indoors with an illuminated target, and most of the rest of it happens outdoors well lit. I am fortunate that I haven't had to rely on tritium. I have done some low light sight experiments in the past. I don't think chargers are "killed in the streets" bad for my circumstances, but I feel my lack of tritium is definitely a notable disadvantage. I do not have the experience to truly understand first hand just how much of a disadvantage.

I take the opinions of Gio and SLG very seriously, and I think it's a serious clue that they both advocate for tritium on their work guns. A number of experienced others, e.g. Chuck and Darryl, have said very similar things. There is also some great testimony from low light simunitions from Todd or TC or someone from way back. The experienced folks who tend to be in the no-tritium camp are almost universally SOF. There's a whole lot that makes their situation different from mine, and I tend to find the LEO experience more relevant to my concerns. A notable exception here is Tom Givens's testimony, and my understanding is that his is more of a "don't spend the money" argument than a blanket "no tritium" one but someone can correct me if I'm wrong. My reasoning for not loosing sleep with chargers in my holster is similar to his, and Gabe's, and definitely is helped by their testimony, but I'm under no delusion that this issue is irrelevant to me or that I've prioritized correctly.

At the time that I switched to chargers, I was still in a phase where I felt an urge to explore the options more and I also desperately needed to spend less time thinking about sights and more time thinking about shooting. The chargers let me do that. There was a very noticeably "natural" or "disappearing", maybe "effortless" quality to them, and I haven't felt a need to switch. I expect that my current preference in tritium sights would be whatever gets me closest to those target sight traits I mentioned in my last post: something like charger tritium sights, or Heinies, or Warren Sevigny. When I eventually get a Gen 5, my intention is to get it with the Ameriglo factory option and try to just roll with that. I like to think that I'm now at the point where the details of the sights don't really matter much to me, but I don't know, I really haven't tested that claim. I've written elsewhere about something I call "sight preference hysteresis" which I still think is somewhat relevant.

I emphatically do NOT want to spark a tritium, no tritium, fiber, flashlight, WML (, laser! :eek::D) debate here. We've had it over and over again and I doubt there's much new to learn from it, but I don't want to give the wrong impression about my feelings.

Duly noted and my intention is not to spark a debate either. Those notable people have chosen their preferred sights because it is what works best for them based on their experiences.

Based on MY experiences, I think my preferred setup works well for ME. I’m in no way stating that anyone else is wrong for any given choice they’ve made.

Having said that, I will be attending MDFI’s Low Light class in August. So I guess we’ll see what does and does not work for me then.

Always learning.


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

[CCT125US]

This is worthy of a bump.

[Blades]

Bumping this again because I had no idea it was here.

[Blades]

Anybody tried these Night Fision Costa Ludus sights? I'm wondering if the white dot with tritium in it would be useful over a wider spectrum than just a stock Glock white dot, or tritium. I'm basing my theory on the pictures Mr_White posted.
57180



Or does anyone have an opinion on the Strike Industries Modular Blade Sights?
57181

[mastiffkb]

Bump

[BillSWPA]

This thread really needs to be a sticky.

Lately I really find the Night Fision sights with an orange front ring and black rear rings to be a very useful combination. The rear notch is a bit narrow, but surprisingly good for providing just enough white space on either side of the front for a good sight picture. My sights are less than a couple of years old (or newer) but so far the tritium is holding up well. If the tritium proves to be at least as long lasting as my Trijicons, this could become my go-to sight.

[breakingtime91]

This thread really needs to be a sticky.

Lately I really find the Night Fision sights with an orange front ring and black rear rings to be a very useful combination. The rear notch is a bit narrow, but surprisingly good for providing just enough white space on either side of the front for a good sight picture. My sights are less than a couple of years old (or newer) but so far the tritium is holding up well. If the tritium proves to be at least as long lasting as my Trijicons, this could become my go-to sight.

I have been eyeing those for my glock 19 and p30 I have coming to me soon