Philosophy of sights

[breakingtime91]

I have really been thinking about the different approaches to sights recently. You have some like the HD that are designed to offer a big aiming reference and quick acquisitions for "realistic" pistol distances. Then you have sights like the defoors that are really thin with a wide notch in the rear sight. These two sights are almost opposite and am curious what people's takes are on this. Certain sights are better for certain things (hits on moving targets, small targets, and large targets). What's your take on it?

[okie john]

It's all individual preference.

I like three-dot night sights with a front that takes up 1/2 to 1/3 of the rear notch. Fast and accurate.


Okie John

[Odin Bravo One]

What types of gunfights would be considered "unrealistic"?

My take?

You need them on your gun. You need to use them.

Did that help?

[breakingtime91]

What types of gunfights would be considered "unrealistic"?

My take?

You need them on your gun. You need to use them.

Did that help?

Seeing as you have made public about using target focus before I assumed a big dot in the front like HD may be better or that is what you would advocate. I meant realistic in the fact that most pistol usuage is relatively close distance.

[Odin Bravo One]

Ah. Ok, that clarified it for me.

I have some of the HD's, and honestly, they are too big for me. I prefer sights much like Kyle. Could be the same experiences, background, etc. But I find the thin front sight opens up some longer distance shots. That can be useful when all you have is a pistol and a grenade in your pocket.

I like a wide Warren plain black rear, and a red fiber optic front. I can work with a tritium front, but prefer the F/O.

Better reply?

[breakingtime91]

Ah. Ok, that clarified it for me.

I have some of the HD's, and honestly, they are too big for me. I prefer sights much like Kyle. Could be the same experiences, background, etc. But I find the thin front sight opens up some longer distance shots. That can be useful when all you have is a pistol and a grenade in your pocket.

I like a wide Warren plain black rear, and a red fiber optic front. I can work with a tritium front, but prefer the F/O.

Better reply?

Yup, I find I side with you but am experimenting with HDs as a cake eating civilian. I feel like it used to be a 20 round mag in the back pocket and a gernade next to the IFAK for me though :cool: but 03s didn't get pistols as CPLs

[Mitch]

My problem with HDs is on a sunny day the front dot is over powering and I can't make out the top edge, so beyond 20 yards I struggle.

I like Defoor sights. I prefer a thin, serrated front sight and no serrations on the rear sight. I've been thinking about trying a fiber optic front but I'm afraid I'd have the same issues with one of those that I did with the HDs.

[GJM]

I am much more picky about the sights being regulated for my desired POI, than the particular attributes of the sights. I like pretty much everything except tight black on black sights, but even they can be fixed with an orange paint stick taken to the front sight.

[45dotACP]

First set of aftermarket sights I ever bought were Heine Straight 8s for a Glock 21. They worked well and I've stuck with a taller/narrower front sight like the Heine or the Warren Tactical or the Dawson...as opposed to the CAP or the HDs.

I do own a Beretta 92FS or two though...and those sights have worked well for me also. The only sights I will absolutely not use on a factory pistol are factory glock sights. Those are butt.

I guess I'm more interested to know what it is people like about the shorter height sights...like the CAP or the trijicon bright and tough glock sights...

[GRV]

I like a wide Warren plain black rear, and a red fiber optic front.

Wave profile rear or Sevigny profile rear?

::ducks::



I'm only being half facetious...

[Totem Polar]

I like a wide Warren plain black rear, and a red fiber optic front. I can work with a tritium front, but prefer the F/O.

Better reply?
Sonuvagun. I've seen FOs trashed on the internet more than once as being too fragile for serious use, so this response gives me warm fuzzies. Especially since that's my favorite combo as well, not that anyone should care what I think.

[M2CattleCo]

I think all the different sights are the way they are because of the age of the people who designed them.

Think about the difference between Defoors and Hackathorns. Everyone in between pretty much uses a black rear and a f.o. front.

And there's that one guy that likes Big Dots..

[Mitchell, Esq.]

I tried a Dawson tritium front sight with a Dawson rear sight under the theory up close I probably wouldn't be using my sites and at distance time I wanted a very precise sight picture. This was based off of my force on Force experience... Only problem was it didn't work at the range because I couldn't see the front sight except under optimal lighting conditions.

I went to HD sights and have been satisfied. I would like to try the HD thinner front if it is made for HK45C.

[BillSWPA]

It's all individual preference.

I like three-dot night sights with a front that takes up 1/2 to 1/3 of the rear notch. Fast and accurate.


Okie John

My preference as well, but I lean towards the 1/2 end of the dimensional range you named. I find that being careful to get a good grip early will put the front sight right where it needs to be even with a narrower rear sight. I also like the sights to be as vertical, dark, black, and nonreflective as I can get them around the insert, although I can appreciate a good sized white circle around the front tritium insert.

Another forum member was kind enough to let me try out some of his presently unused sights. Among those he sent has three white diamond shaped "dots" which permit the middle corners to be lined up, and with tops that come to a point rather than a flat surface. While I have not tried shooting with them, I would guess that they allow for very precise alignment and shot placement under a wide variety of light conditions, but are so far different from everything else we are used to that I think it could negatively impact speed.

I have not yet tried Dawsons on a gun but the same forum member included some of these, and I am impressed.

I also agree with the comments about good sight regulation being at least as important as other characteristics. It is frustrating to do everything right and watch your shots hit where they don't belong.

[Sam]

I tried a Dawson tritium front sight with a Dawson rear sight under the theory up close I probably wouldn't be using my sites and at distance time I wanted a very precise sight picture. This was based off of my force on Force experience... Only problem was it didn't work at the range because I couldn't see the front sight except under optimal lighting conditions.

I went to HD sights and have been satisfied. I would like to try the HD thinner front if it is made for HK45C.

Thin front HD sight? Did I miss a product announcement somewhere?

[SpyderMan2k4]

It just depends on people's individual preference, eyes, ability, etc.

I really like the speed and accuracy I get from my production pistol (.100 green FO front, adjustable serrated rear with about a .150 notch). That's what I enjoy shooting when outdoors during daylight, but there are much greater factors for a defensive pistol.

For me, tritium is a must, and the thinnest front I can get is .125. I like high visibility, and I pick up greens and yellows better than oranges and reds, so the TCAP is my preference for a front. For alignment purposes, I personally prefer square over round. For me personally, it's me perfect defensive front sight.

Nobody makes my ideal rear sight, so I have to settle for good enough (yellow tritium, no rings, .150 notch).

I've read some people like sights that sit higher on the slide or lower on the slide. I haven't really noticed a difference or developed a preference.

[GJM]

Thin front HD sight? Did I miss a product announcement somewhere?

Don't think so.

[PNWTO]

I used all-black Heinies for a long time, but recently have been super impressed by the Proctor sights w/ a green rod. My only issue with Proctor set is that POI seems about two inches low inside of 15 yards. Probably just my dumb ass but I'm getting POA=POA at 25.

[GJM]

I used all-black Heinies for a long time, but recently have been super impressed by the Proctor sights w/ a green rod. My only issue with Proctor set is that POI seems about two inches low inside of 15 yards. Probably just my dumb ass but I'm getting POA=POA at 25.

They printed low for me, too, and I had to get the shorter height, large frame Glock front sight.

[GJM]

Sight threads are like pizza threads, where everyone has an opinion and special combination they like. We have more sights out there than you can even keep track of.

You really can't be a tier one instructor without having your own sight set for the Glock. The interesting thing is how different the "ideal sight set," is in design. Black, fiber optic, tritium, gold bead, thick, thin, tall, short, sharp, smooth.

The funny thing, is once we have an Aimpoint pistol optic and some other good choices, the only sights most people are going to care about are back-up suppressor sights. Sort of like iron sights on an AR.

[spinmove_]

Sight threads are like pizza threads, where everyone has an opinion and special combination they like. We have more sights out there than you can even keep track of.

You really can't be a tier one instructor without having your own sight set for the Glock. The interesting thing is how different the "ideal sight set," is in design. Black, fiber optic, tritium, gold bead, thick, thin, tall, short, sharp, smooth.

The funny thing, is once we have an Aimpoint pistol optic and some other good choices, the only sights most people are going to care about are back-up suppressor sights. Sort of like iron sights on an AR.

That's sort of what I've come to the conclusion to as well. I've been down the road of "finding the perfect pistol sights" several times already. Then I thought "well wait a minute, what are people putting on their rifles for BUIS, surely there's some super awesome iron sight sets that I've never heard of before". Come to find out, yeah, there's some special snowflake BUIS for carbines out there, but by and large, the vast majority of people just rock the standard ghost ring/black front post (AR) or black on black notch and post (AK). I've also found that tritium on rifle irons are generally not recommended by most people. Which got me thinking "if people are ok with running black on black irons on their rifle if the red dot goes down or until they put a red dot/LPV on it, then why would I really be doing anything different on a pistol?"

Obviously I'm still exploring my options and looking at different solutions personally, but I think I'm going to look at possibly running black on black sights with my next sight purchase. And I won't be going with any more tritium options until I get a low-light class under my belt.

[GRV]

Sight threads are like pizza threads, where everyone has an opinion and special combination they like.

Exactly. Everyone has an opinion, but at the end of the day, if it isn't east coast pizza, they're wrong. :cool:

[Gray222]

Without talking about pizza preference...

I prefer the sights which allow me the greatest accuracy and accountability for my shots.

[GJM]

Without talking about pizza preference...

I prefer the sights which allow me the greatest accuracy and accountability for my shots.

As opposed to the sights that offer piss poor accuracy and no accountability for shots?

[Erik]

As opposed to the sights that offer piss poor accuracy and no accountability for shots?

Mmmm. That no accountability thing tho!

[Gray222]

As opposed to the sights that offer piss poor accuracy and no accountability for shots?

I really like trijicon HD sights. They aren't accurate enough for me, too thick.

Accountability stems from knowing the general area, depending on distance of target, where the shots will land. HDs up close? All day. At around 30 yards, no way.

[GJM]

I really like trijicon HD sights. They aren't accurate enough for me, too thick.

Accountability stems from knowing the general area, depending on distance of target, where the shots will land. HDs up close? All day. At around 30 yards, no way.

My wife shoots excellent groups at 50 yards with her G26 and HD sights. When I was having fits with multiple M&P FS 9 problems being inaccurate, I used a G4 26 and HD sights as a control gun, to make sure it wasn't me pulling the trigger, and routinely shot 2.5-3.5 inch, five shots group on a 3x5 at 25 yards. Use the center of the top edge of the front sight.

[GJM]

Good info here:


https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?13358-Group-shooting-25-50-75-and-100-yards&highlight=100+yard


Sent from my iPhone

[BillSWPA]

Exactly. Everyone has an opinion, but at the end of the day, if it isn't east coast pizza, they're wrong. :cool:

The only thing I miss about NJ is NY style pizza.

[BillSWPA]

Which got me thinking "if people are ok with running black on black irons on their rifle if the red dot goes down or until they put a red dot/LPV on it, then why would I really be doing anything different on a pistol?"

I find the differences between pistol sights and rifle sights to be huge.

On a pistol, the front post is about the same width whether it has tritium or not. With a properly designed set of sights, I give up absolutely nothing in terms of visibility or accuracy in good light in order to have tritium for low light. Almost 100% of the bad situations I have seen have been in low light. So, I want tritium on my pistol.

Putting tritium on a rifle requires significantly widening the front sight, making precise shot placement more difficult even when the front sight is equally visible. If the front sight is at all reflective, then it will be far less visible in certain good light conditions. I have had serious difficulty shooting with a tritium rifle sight under what most would consider ideal lighting conditions (mid-day on a bright sunny day), and had an easy time shooting with a standard post under what most would consider the worst non-low-light lighting conditions possible (shooting directly into the sun).

On an AR, a standard post adjusts 1/2 minute of angle for every quarter turn, but a tritium post must be rotated a full turn for each adjustment, making your minimum adjustment increment 2 minutes of angle.

Also consider that most of us consider weapon mounted lights on a handgun to be a luxury. I am not alone in considering a weapon mounted light on a long gun to be a necessity. Activating the light will make plain black sights easy to see.

[orionz06]

I'd classify sights in a few ways... Competition, traditional, traditional defense, and competition defense.

Traditional: Black on black, serrated or not, U-notch or not.
Traditional defense: Add tritium with or without the white rings to traditional sights.
Competition: High visibility fiber optic fronts with a rear that optimizes front sight view (fine serrations).
Competition defense: Swap the front from FO to a high viz tritium sight.


Competition defense, as classified above, is newish. Wasn't until recent that good options were around and now that they've been around and proven they're pretty much a default for many, as are FO's for guys gaming. HD's and the like have outlasted many other fads and trends since the intro and other brands continue to add more variations.

[Gray222]

My wife shoots excellent groups at 50 yards with her G26 and HD sights. When I was having fits with multiple M&P FS 9 problems being inaccurate, I used a G4 26 and HD sights as a control gun, to make sure it wasn't me pulling the trigger, and routinely shot 2.5-3.5 inch, five shots group on a 3x5 at 25 yards. Use the center of the top edge of the front sight.

That is fine and is your experience. In my statement I used the word "me" and given my experience they are not accurate enough.

[spinmove_]

I find the differences between pistol sights and rifle sights to be huge.

On a pistol, the front post is about the same width whether it has tritium or not. With a properly designed set of sights, I give up absolutely nothing in terms of visibility or accuracy in good light in order to have tritium for low light. Almost 100% of the bad situations I have seen have been in low light. So, I want tritium on my pistol.

Putting tritium on a rifle requires significantly widening the front sight, making precise shot placement more difficult even when the front sight is equally visible. If the front sight is at all reflective, then it will be far less visible in certain good light conditions. I have had serious difficulty shooting with a tritium rifle sight under what most would consider ideal lighting conditions (mid-day on a bright sunny day), and had an easy time shooting with a standard post under what most would consider the worst non-low-light lighting conditions possible (shooting directly into the sun).

On an AR, a standard post adjusts 1/2 minute of angle for every quarter turn, but a tritium post must be rotated a full turn for each adjustment, making your minimum adjustment increment 2 minutes of angle.

Also consider that most of us consider weapon mounted lights on a handgun to be a luxury. I am not alone in considering a weapon mounted light on a long gun to be a necessity. Activating the light will make plain black sights easy to see.

That makes sense for the most part. I guess my point was, from a pure aiming standpoint, I don't think black on black for a pistol is nearly as big a hindrance as a lot of people make it out to be.

As far as tritium, I'll reserve my personal judgement on buying another set of tritium sights until after I've had some low light training and decide for myself. If it works for you, awesome. And I totally get why some people would want it on a pistol. Carrying a light on a carry gun isn't always an option. Some people just work better with coarser sight pictures and tritium sights are typically coarser.

I guess my point is that, personally, for me, myself, and my eyes/vision, I find simpler sight pictures work better overall. Black on black is about as simple as you can get and I think I might ultimately learn something from using something like that. I may learn that it really works for me or I might learn that something else entirely works for me. Right now the simplest sight picture I have on any of my pistols is the Ameriglo Operators on a G19. When it's light enough to not see the rear tritium vials is when I do my best pistol shooting.

[spinmove_]

That is fine and is your experience. In my statement I used the word "me" and given my experience they are not accurate enough.

I think the operative word here really is "me". Sights are merely a reference point on a firearm that give the shooter a reference point with which to deliver a shot on target. One set of sights isn't necessarily inherently more "accurate" than another. It's the shooter's ability to interface with those sights to deliver the shot accurately or inaccurately. I think some sight pictures are naturally better suited for various different types of shooters based on their individual vision and experiences. Could VDM become more accurate/precise at 30yds with the HDs? In time perhaps. But why spend the time doing that when he's most likely found another solution that allows him to do what he needs to do with less time invested reaching that level of proficiency?

[Gray222]

I think the operative word here really is "me". Sights are merely a reference point on a firearm that give the shooter a reference point with which to deliver a shot on target. One set of sights isn't necessarily inherently more "accurate" than another. It's the shooter's ability to interface with those sights to deliver the shot accurately or inaccurately. I think some sight pictures are naturally better suited for various different types of shooters based on their individual vision and experiences. Could VDM become more accurate/precise at 30yds with the HDs? In time perhaps. But why spend the time doing that when he's most likely found another solution that allows him to do what he needs to do with less time invested reaching that level of proficiency?

I have about 30k rounds through my gen4 g19 with HDs installed. I am vastly more accurate with defoor sights. I can't see how it's a proficieny issue.

[breakingtime91]

I have about 30k rounds through my gen4 g19 with HDs installed. I am vastly more accurate with defoor sights. I can't see how it's a proficieny issue.

in what drills? just curious.

[Gray222]

in what drills? just curious.

Specifically anything to do with accuracy standards. I've shot my personal best with defoors in the standard 200 drill (189) and 200 in 60 (178). I am just more accurate with them by design.

[breakingtime91]

Specifically anything to do with accuracy standards. I've shot my personal best with defoors in the standard 200 drill (189) and 200 in 60 (178). I am just more accurate with them by design.

oh I like them also, ran than on my 19. Just not available for my p2000, such is life.

[Greg]

I used to prefer all black sights, Heinie sights being my favorite. I turned 50 not that long ago and I find I now need a front sight that grabs my attention. The front sight is more elusive than I remember even 5 years ago.

A Fiber Optic front might be the best setup for me. I'm playing with a 10-8 fiber front sight, .115 width with A Warren rear and I really do like this combo. Fast to acquire yet the thin front aids my accuracy.

[spinmove_]

I have about 30k rounds through my gen4 g19 with HDs installed. I am vastly more accurate with defoor sights. I can't see how it's a proficieny issue.

That's interesting. Thanks for the data point. I'm not sure if I've ever gotten a chance to play with a front sight as slim (.115) as the Defoors. Makes me want to try them all the more now.

[psalms144.1]

I've done the "best sight" thing almost as often as I've done the "best pistol" routine. What I've found works best FOR ME is a high visibility front sight paired with "subdued" rear dots. Currently I'm running the Ameriglo Yellow CAP front mated to their standard "Operator" rears with yellow rear lamps. In daylight, the CAP is very easy to pick up in all lighting conditions, and the "dots" on the Operators are non-existent. The sight picture is refined enough that I have no trouble seeing and engaging discrete targets out to 25 yards.

I've tried the HDs, but found that the front is too big for my taste, and the rears are too sharp. I've tried the TCAPs, and while they are more "precise" I found the "extra light" around them to be distracting at longer ranges. I've tried plain black rear sights, but find them to be difficult to work in dim light. Plain black sights work great on an outdoor range against a static target, but I can't align them worth a damn on any dark target even with minimal reduction in light.

Of course, all of that information is applicable to exactly ONE person - me. Your mileage can, and almost certainly will, vary. And, looking at Mr. White's thread on sight pictures has me thinking hard about a green FO front. And, of course, the super cool kids are using Dawson FOs and adjustable rears, so maybe I need some of those...

[Mr_White]

I used to be very stuck on 'universal' sights that I thought I would be able to see in the widest variety of conditions.

Later, I came to feel like 'universal' sights were only universal on paper, and still had issues in some lighting conditions where I thought they would/should work better.

At this point, I like slim dimensions and serrations, and I currently use Dawson Chargers.

I expect to change my mind again.

[SpyderMan2k4]

An interesting thing to keep in mind in regards to high viz on pistols vs black on rifles is the fact that there's typically more muzzle rise as well as slide reciprocation. Basically, the sight is moving way more on a pistol and is probably simply more difficult to track at speed than a rifle sight, thus being high viz is more necessary.

[Trajan]

Dawson FOs and adjustable rears
Yep.

I use a red FO (in relation to the fiber color thread), however I discovered that I have Deuteranopia, which is apparently a reduced sensitivity to green. Green still appears brighter, but not bolder.

I also use a .125/.125 combo. Played around a little bit with a .100/.125 combo, and I didn't find any increase in speed, with a slight reduction in accuracy. I plan on playing with it more, but my two theories are more light means more imperfections, and same size fiber in a thinner front means less front sight to look at.

[spinmove_]

I used to be very stuck on 'universal' sights that I thought I would be able to see in the widest variety of conditions.

Later, I came to feel like 'universal' sights were only universal on paper, and still had issues in some lighting conditions where I thought they would/should work better.

At this point, I like slim dimensions and serrations, and I currently use Dawson Chargers.

I expect to change my mind again.

Yeah, I've essentially come to a similar conclusion. It doesn't matter what sight you choose, there's going to be a situation and/or lighting condition in which it isn't going to be as optimal as something else. It also seems like the more you try to find something that works in more conditions, the more "meh" that sight picture becomes in the wider variety of situations that you attempt to account for.

Are the DP Chargers that you're using now fiber, tritium, or BoB? Default dimensions or custom?

[GJM]

https://dawsonprecision.com/dawson-precision-glock-fixed-charger-sight-set-black-rear-fiber-optic-front/


Sent from my iPad

[Sasage]

https://dawsonprecision.com/dawson-precision-glock-fixed-charger-sight-set-black-rear-fiber-optic-front/


Sent from my iPad
I do like the look of those, currently running a .115 fo front and .150 rear. May try to find a narrower blacked out rear.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

[BillSWPA]

https://dawsonprecision.com/dawson-precision-glock-fixed-charger-sight-set-black-rear-fiber-optic-front/


Sent from my iPad

Those sights are what I would likely choose for a gun that was primarily intended for competition.