new celebrity designed Glock sights

[HopetonBrown]

A friend showed a pic of these last week. He said the manufacturer used to be an OEM for Salient. Their basepads and mag well do look like the Salient ones, though I guess all the minimal magwells do.

Sights are designed by Mike Lamb (not to be confused with Kyle). Super wide .152 brass bead front with a .140 rear. Not my cup of tea but still interesting.

https://thegunco.com/product/the-gunco-glock-sights/

10269

10270

[Luke]

These are like the exact opposite of everything I like in a set of sights. I guess every other good idea was taken so these had to do.

[PNWTO]

These are like the exact opposite of everything I like in a set of sights. I guess every other good idea was taken so these had to do.

Yep. It's like if some who was zealous about the Trij HD decided to make a the 1960 version.

[pangloss]

I could see possibly trying that front site with my 0.156" 10-8 Performance rear sight but running it with a 0.140" rear notch seems like a less than good idea.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[HopetonBrown]

I could see possibly trying that front site with my 0.156" 10-8 Performance rear sight but running it with a 0.140" rear notch seems like a less than good idea.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
The factory sights are a 160 front with a 140 rear to give you an idea of sight picture.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[Sigfan26]

A friend showed a pic of these last week. He said the manufacturer used to be an OEM for Salient. Their basepads and mag well do look like the Salient ones, though I guess all the minimal magwells do.

Sights are designed by Mike Lamb (not to be confused with Kyle). Super wide .152 brass bead front with a .140 rear. Not my cup of tea but still interesting.

https://thegunco.com/product/the-gunco-glock-sights/

10269

10270

Your friend is incorrect. And it would be an Original Design Manufacturer (ODM).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sigfan26]

Planned Parenthood must fund the guys who did that. It's an abortion of epic levels.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CCT125US]

$103 for the set on sale, seems a bit steep. I am always curious how marketing departments up with the product description. I found my self asking "really, according to who, based on what, compared to what, when used by who, under what conditions" But I have grown quite cynical lately.

[Hot Sauce]

I like the fact that there is brass bead involved because I'm sentimental. That's about all I like.

[jetfire]

I like the fact that there is brass bead involved because I'm sentimental. That's about all I like.

If you want a brass bead front with sight dimensions that actually make sense on planet earth, 10-8 Performance offers that option. Sort of related, between Sevigny Performance and 10-8, I've not really found a compelling reason to buy any other brand of sights.

[Paul Sharp]

Does anyone know the the reasoning behind having a front sight that is wider than the rear sight notch?

[CCT125US]

Does anyone know the the reasoning behind having a front sight that is wider than the rear sight notch?

I think it would eliminate the light bars. If using a center hold it would cover the bottom half of the target, and yeah, cover the bottom half......

[Dagga Boy]

I ll call Mike next week and ask him. Mike is far from a buffoon and is one of the folks out there with a very solid real life background.

[Paul Sharp]

I think it would eliminate the light bars. If using a center hold it would cover the bottom half of the target, and yeah, cover the bottom half......

Cool. So next question; if it eliminates the light bars how do you call the shot if you can't see what the front sight is doing in relation to the rear sight i.e. light bars, when the shot breaks?

[orionz06]

I suspect you can still see light on each side as perspective and distance will allow it but the visible gap is awfully narrow. This would also allow the brass to be larger and catch more light. Being cut on an angle does the same.


Sent from my Nokia 3310 using an owl

[ReverendMeat]

I ll call Mike next week and ask him. Mike is far from a buffoon and is one of the folks out there with a very solid real life background.

Interested to hear what he has to say. I just don't understand having a front sight wider than the rear sight notch but I don't want to shit on things I don't understand as a default reaction.

[Wondering Beard]

I am far from an expert, but I do like big dots (as in TCaps or HDs) and beads (preferably gold because they reflect light better than brass and don't tarnish).

The Christiensen 1911 which I showed in another thread had a gold bead that is a little wider than the front sight blade; the rear sight is .130 wide and the front blade is about .115, but the bead is probably close to .130. What you get is a super easy front sight to pick up at speed when you "drive the dot", even at dusk when FO sights barely glow, and for longer distances the tip of the front sight is still plenty thin for that precision shot.

I don't know, aside from the photos by the OP, how that combo is supposed to look like as a sight picture when you bring your gun up, so I can't speak to those sights in particular, but if the intended effect is anything like what I asked Ned to do for the 1911, it should work quite well. Moreover, aren't the Proctor sights similar in that the rear sight opening is thinner than the front sight blade?

I just wouldn't dismiss that set up out of hand before getting some experience with it.

[CCT125US]

Cool. So next question; if it eliminates the light bars how do you call the shot if you can't see what the front sight is doing in relation to the rear sight i.e. light bars, when the shot breaks?

Another great question. And one I am curious about as well. I have gone back to 3 dot simply because I need the feedback. Lately relying on the top edge left me sliding back and forth on that edge and getting horizontal stringing. Truly wondering what this sets out to solve.

[JohnO]

Does anyone know the the reasoning behind having a front sight that is wider than the rear sight notch?

My preferred setup is a .125 front sight and a .156 rear. I like having the ability to really center the front sight in the notch. I prefer a decent amount of light around my front sight.

Last year I attended Frank Proctor's pistol class. Frank actually advocated for a front sight wider than the rear sight notch. Frank's primary rational for this setup as he explained it was accuracy based on less margin of error. Frank's rational: shot dispersion from FS in left side of notch to FS in right side of notch is reduced by filling the notch with a wider Front Sight. Visual processing factored into the discussion. What you see and process as a perfect or Good Enough sight alignment at speed can be improved by reducing the margin of error. Frank also added that although a front sight wider than the rear sight notch sounds counter intuitive the geometry works and it visually fits from the shooters perspective.

I didn't go out and change all my guns. I like what I have.

[Paul Sharp]

My preferred setup is a .125 front sight and a .156 rear. I like having the ability to really center the front sight in the notch. I prefer a decent amount of light around my front sight.

Last year I attended Frank Proctor's pistol class. Frank actually advocated for a front sight wider than the rear sight notch. Frank's primary rational for this setup as he explained it was accuracy based on less margin of error. Frank's rational: shot dispersion from FS in left side of notch to FS in right side of notch is reduced by filling the notch with a wider Front Sight. Visual processing factored into the discussion. What you see and process as a perfect or Good Enough sight alignment at speed can be improved by reducing the margin of error. Frank also added that although a front sight wider than the rear sight notch sounds counter intuitive the geometry works and it visually fits from the shooters perspective.

I didn't go out and change all my guns. I like what I have.

Cool! Thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dagga Boy]

Just talked to Mike.
The sights are identical to factory Glock in width in front and the notch. Mike has messed around with various beads and while they looked good in the low ready, on target he found them particularly hard to see. He also shoots a lot in "suck lighting" indoor ranges that have the same crappy lighting as cops will find inside buildings. The brass is now set up to give maximum feedback (he says the bead is amazingly brightwhen you are actually looking through them). You can see light bars when looking through them and he will have the company doing them post pictures of what they look like looking through them. What Mike emphasized is practical for what he likes and how he carries. Mike is a actually carries all the time guy, and it's usually front appendix with a full size gun. He got tired of getting tore up on skin and clothing, so the sights are contoured to not shred skin and clothing, but also angled to allow him to press check or rack the gun easily with them. They are Nitrided to 70 RC and super hard so they can get dropped and hit and not be easily damaged. Mike is very hard on his gear. His stuff is always jacked up looking, so I understand why this was important. He says he can hit easily to a hundred yards with them, but the key for him is working indoor problems at speed. Mike is sending me a set. I will check to see if I still have any Glock sides in my parts box. What I may do is set up a slide and send it to folks here to try. Or......maybe break down and get a newer gun to try them on.

[Paul Sharp]

Just talked to Mike.
The sights are identical to factory Glock in width in front and the notch. Mike has messed around with various beads and while they looked good in the low ready, on target he found them particularly hard to see. He also shoots a lot in "suck lighting" indoor ranges that have the same crappy lighting as cops will find inside buildings. The brass is now set up to give maximum feedback (he says the bead is amazingly brightwhen you are actually looking through them). You can see light bars when looking through them and he will have the company doing them post pictures of what they look like looking through them. What Mike emphasized is practical for what he likes and how he carries. Mike is a actually carries all the time guy, and it's usually front appendix with a full size gun. He got tired of getting tore up on skin and clothing, so the sights are contoured to not shred skin and clothing, but also angled to allow him to press check or rack the gun easily with them. They are Nitrided to 70 RC and super hard so they can get dropped and hit and not be easily damaged. Mike is very hard on his gear. His stuff is always jacked up looking, so I understand why this was important. He says he can hit easily to a hundred yards with them, but the key for him is working indoor problems at speed. Mike is sending me a set. I will check to see if I still have any Glock sides in my parts box. What I may do is set up a slide and send it to folks here to try. Or......maybe break down and get a newer gun to try them on.

Why no set screw? I won't run a rear sight I can't bolt down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dagga Boy]

I don't know, but if the rear sights are cut to solid tolerances I have not found it to be much of an issue either way. The only time I have ever found that it was really needed was on sights improperly cut, or damaged or out of spec dovetails.

[Paul Sharp]

Cool. I've knocked a few sights over during some training iterations. After that I started using only sights with set screws.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Willard]

I guess I'm not with the in crowd, but I just ordered a set. Not sold on lack of set screw, but after Nyeti's clarification on size of front sight versus rear, felt more comfortable otherwise. Like the visibility idea and fact there is no tritium to wear out over time. But then, I once fell for a set of XS Big Dots and hated them for accuracy at distance, so we'll see.

[Paul Sharp]

I'm interested in hearing what you and Nyeti think of these sights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dagga Boy]

I'm interested in hearing what you and Nyeti think of these sights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Knowing Mike pretty well, I am confident they will be good. Sights tend to be very personal to eyes. Mike said he is getting older like many of us and is needing a sight he can see in crappy indoor lighting, and these work.

[GJM]

Cool. I've knocked a few sights over during some training iterations. After that I started using only sights with set screws.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As a general rule, I want a rear sight that fits securely without a set screw, but in addition has a beefy set screw that I can Loctite as a belt and suspenders solution. I don't want to use a rear sight that relies on a set screw in lieu of a tight fit.

[JAD]

From experience mostly on a smaller scale a set screw doesn't add a ton of fix if it's not: going into a detent, going in to something soft, or torquey enough to drive the threaded thing up into a lock with the top surface.

If I was using a set screw on serious gun sights I would put a detent in the slide.

[CCT125US]

If I was using a set screw on serious gun sights I would put a detent in the slide.

Potential issue I see with a detent is that it removes the drift adjustability. At least with the set screw you aren't limited.

[JAD]

Potential issue I see with a detent is that it removes the drift adjustability. At least with the set screw you aren't limited.
Under what scenario would you drift a properly sighted defensive pistol?

[CCT125US]

Never. The detent would have to be in the correct spot. And this assumes the sight is properly zeroed based off being centered in the dovetail. As discussed previously on the forum, certain guns may require a slight offset in the notch and therefore would not benefit from an existing detent. Now if you are talking about drilling a detent yourself, that is a fine idea once the gun is zeroed. Heck, I have seen off center set screws on sights as well.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Paul Sharp]

As a general rule, I want a rear sight that fits securely without a set screw, but in addition has a beefy set screw that I can Loctite as a belt and suspenders solution. I don't want to use a rear sight that relies on a set screw in lieu of a tight fit.

Exactly. A few years ago I posted pics on social media of 3 different pistols with rear sights that drifted during training sessions. Even after I knock a dude sideways with my slide, his buddies still might need attention, (that requires the sights).

Tight fit + set screws = me happy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dagga Boy]

If someone is that concerned, have a good smith drill a hole through the rear sight into the the slide a small amount and loctite a screw in. If the gun is zero' for you, and you are training that hard, screw it...literally, and do it right. Another option is to cover the dovetail in loctite when you press the sight in. Lots of options. What I don't like about some set screw set ups is that as you are bearing down on that set screw that is not in a detent is putting upward pressure into the weak part of the dovetail cuts. This is not where I want pressure being applied as you are now opening up that dovetail. Different strokes I guess. I have a 1911 that is an example of done right. It has a set screw in the rear sight, which you can take out and I still cannot get that sight to budge with a hammer and a punch hit as hard as I am willing to ever hit it.

[SpyderMan2k4]

Under what scenario would you drift a properly sighted defensive pistol?
Changing ammo with a different POI

[Dagga Boy]

Changing ammo with a different POI

Haven't seen many that are going to a different point on windage, but YMMV.

[Dagga Boy]

Mike just sent me this. Looks pretty good to me.

[HCM]

Haven't seen many that are going to a different point on windage, but YMMV.

I've seen this with Winchester Ranger 147 - hits slightly left with everything I've tried it in, Glock, Beretta, 1911.

[Sigfan26]

Mike just sent me this. Looks pretty good to me.

This looks a lot better than the pics of the sights alone. Still not my thing, but a little less "planned parenthood "


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dagga Boy]

I've seen this with Winchester Ranger 147 - hits slightly left with everything I've tried it in, Glock, Beretta, 1911.

My point was sort of that you zero your duty/carry load and lock that. I could not seeing banging sights around when I go out with different loads. If you are working to that level of carrying a punch vise and hammer to the range, adjustable sights are the answer.

I think we are really diving into the minutia on these sights. Don't like them.....don't buy them. Tons of options out there. Have problems of sights sliding in their dovetails, I would contend you have other issues, but if that means you want a set screw...then do it right and have that set screw go into a detent.

[HCM]

My point was sort of that you zero your duty/carry load and lock that. I could not seeing banging sights around when I go out with different loads. If you are working to that level of carrying a punch vise and hammer to the range, adjustable sights are the answer.

I think we are really diving into the minutia on these sights. Don't like them.....don't buy them. Tons of options out there. Have problems of sights sliding in their dovetails, I would contend you have other issues, but if that means you want a set screw...then do it right and have that set screw go into a detent.

I would be interested in the Lamb sights if the front bead was gold rather than brass. Having used both gold and brass there is a significant difference in visibility, particularly after the brass gets dull.

[45dotACP]

Interesting...

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[CCT125US]

That looks oddly familiar to the nyeti combo I ran for many years. 10-8 RS and Dawson Precision Tritium.

[BillSWPA]

Mike just sent me this. Looks pretty good to me.

That picture shows a lot of potential for good precision work with those sights. My only concern is that trying to go fast could cause one to fail to realize hat he tiny light space on either side of the front sight was missing on one side or the other. With some white indicate added to the rear, I think speed potential would also be improved.

I install my own sights. Set screw or not, most sights I have seen require some effort with a sight pusher in order to move. A well designed sight is softer steel than the slide, and is sized for an interference fit wherein the dovetail on the sight must be slightly compressed as the sight is installed. The one exception was the IWI vertically adjustable tritium sights I used before they went out of business. Those sights required a pusher to install, but once installed could be slid with my fingers once the set screws were loosened.

That said, I have interacted with Paul Sharp online for a long time, and if he has had issues I don't question it. I would be curious to know which sights and what happened.

[Paul Sharp]

...That said, I have interacted with Paul Sharp online for a long time, and if he has had issues I don't question it. I would be curious to know which sights and what happened.

I do several drills in my personal training and in some classes that involve a 30 second burst of strikes on a heavy bag using my left fist and the empty pistol in my right hand. At the buzzer I step off or away from the bag, load a mag and chamber a round then fire a round on business card size target at ranges varying from 5-10 yards. This sequence is repeated for a magazine. So if I'm shooting a 1911, I'll do 10 reps, if I'm shooting a G17 I'll do 17 reps. It's a good warmup for the rest of my personal training session. On three occasions during this drill I had significantly different POA/POI. Enough so that I took another shot or two, then did what I always do when I'm having a bad day... Blamed the gun. Except in this case it was the gun. The sights had drifted during the striking section of the drill. The sights were; Glock factory night sights on a G21, Ameriglo operator pro's on a G17, and Ameriglo Greek Lightening on a G19.

This was three different guns over the course of several years of running this drill. For example the G21 drifted while running this drill at DR Middlebrooks range with Daniel Horner in 2001. The G19 was last year running the drill with a private training client on a range in Illinois.

I posted pics on social media of the sights in their drifted state prior to replacing them with Warren's or Dawson's. I realize it's a sample of 3; however, it's a simple fix so I choose to use a set screw.

Here's the G19's drifted sight.

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160905/a3f271e3c971f066b2ccaf736e3ef7d8.jpg

Edited to add pic.

[BillSWPA]

Thanks for the reply, Paul. That sight is noticably off center.

Trijicon Bright and Tough do not use a set screw, but seem to hold tightly. I recently put Dawsons on my Glocks, and they seem to be a tight fit as well. Novak also seems to hold tightly.

[orionz06]

FWIW Paul is the only one I know of to ever break a soft loop on a holster due to impact.

[Paul Sharp]

FWIW Paul is the only one I know of to ever break a soft loop on a holster due to impact.

I was so close to landing that throw, then the bastard reversed me.

You're welcome Bill. I'm not crapping on this dudes sights. Folks need to use the sights that their eyes see best at speed. I asked about the set screw because that's a simple addition that provides another layer I've found beneficial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GJM]

Based on your description of how the rear sights drifted, you might consider small paint witness marks on rear sight and slide, allowing you to quickly confirm proper alignment.

[JohnO]

Trijicon Bright and Tough do not use a set screw, but seem to hold tightly. I recently put Dawsons on my Glocks, and they seem to be a tight fit as well. Novak also seems to hold tightly.

The Warren Tactical Sevigny Carry rear sights I put on two Glocks were extremely tight going in. I probably should have removed some material from the base of the sight when I saw how tight it was. The set screw on those two sights is window dressing.

[Wondering Beard]

Mike just sent me this. Looks pretty good to me.

This looks exactly like what I thought/hoped it would be


I would be interested in the Lamb sights if the front bead was gold rather than brass. Having used both gold and brass there is a significant difference in visibility, particularly after the brass gets dull.

Agreed.

[Dagga Boy]

I was so close to landing that throw, then the bastard reversed me.

You're welcome Bill. I'm not crapping on this dudes sights. Folks need to use the sights that their eyes see best at speed. I asked about the set screw because that's a simple addition that provides another layer I've found beneficial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You do know that using you pistol as a hammer as part of regular training isn't exactly "normal"....just wanted to throw that out there...;)

Also, totally get Gold versus brass. With that said, I think it is likely a lot easier and cheaper to use brass, and...according to Mike, the way they have angled this sight and how it is shaped it is super bright. I have a feeling I am going to like it based on the photo of the sight picture.

[GJM]

You do know that using you pistol as a hammer as part of regular training isn't exactly "normal"....just wanted to throw that out there...;) .

When I read how he dislodged his rear sight, I was thinking he was more a third gen Smith than a polymer guy. As in a S&W 1066 or equivalent.

[Dagga Boy]

When I read how he dislodged his rear sight, I was thinking he was more a third gen Smith than a polymer guy. As in a S&W 1066 or equivalent.

What is funny, is I have a long distinguished history of hitting idiots with guns. Just don't do it on purpose in training repetitively. The guy running around SoCal with the front of a Glock 17 perfectly scared into his temple is mine. That was also the day I realized that N frame Smiths were far better for "changing the actions of those unable to follow directions".

[Wondering Beard]

Also, totally get Gold versus brass. With that said, I think it is likely a lot easier and cheaper to use brass, and...according to Mike, the way they have angled this sight and how it is shaped it is super bright. I have a feeling I am going to like it based on the photo of the sight picture.

I have no doubt that it is cheaper, maybe a special run with gold could be made once in a while?

What about tarnish? A pistol left in the holster for a long time (practice being done with another equivalent gun), could tarnish that front sight. Has Mike experienced any of that over long term testing and/or does he have a cleaning schedule for that front sight.

[Paul Sharp]

When I read how he dislodged his rear sight, I was thinking he was more a third gen Smith than a polymer guy. As in a S&W 1066 or equivalent.

The first guy I had the opportunity to smack with a pistol was clocked with a 4586. It's definitely an adjuster...

See, that's the thing nyeti, none of us here are normal. :cool:

[HopetonBrown]

If you want a brass bead front with sight dimensions that actually make sense on planet earth, 10-8 Performance offers that option.

10-8 says they're no longer making brass bead sights.

[Willard]

I have no doubt that it is cheaper, maybe a special run with gold could be made once in a while?

What about tarnish? A pistol left in the holster for a long time (practice being done with another equivalent gun), could tarnish that front sight. Has Mike experienced any of that over long term testing and/or does he have a cleaning schedule for that front sight.

A little simichrome, or brasso, or similar product should handily solve any problem with tarnish. How hard could it be to shine up a brass bead sight when needed? 5 min or so tops I'd think. I am not pretending to be a gear designer by any stretch, but brass vs gold makes a lot of sense to me. Gold at a very expensive premium to a similar product that supposedly is still very shiny due to the angle of the cut. If it gets dull, I'll polish it, just don't wreck my wallet. Rant over. Looking forward to getting these and seeing what they are all about.

[JAD]

Meh on the premium. $300 lot charge for 1.3 over 3 lo phos. Kind of a drag if they get scratched on install I guess. For my money I'd rather have brass I can polish than gold that will stay dicked up once it gets dicked up.

[Dagga Boy]

Meh on the premium. $300 lot charge for 1.3 over 3 lo phos. Kind of a drag if they get scratched on install I guess. For my money I'd rather have brass I can polish than gold that will stay dicked up once it gets dicked up.

I will note for those not aware....likely the one guy on the forum who is an SME on this kind of stuff.

[Hizzie]

Mike just sent me this. Looks pretty good to me.

That sight picture looks amazing. I love brass/gold bead front sights. Looks just like the Wiley Clapp GP100/SP101 sight picture.

[OnionsAndDragons]

I like the look of these, too.

Just need to have them made for proper Teutonic pistols. :P

[Wondering Beard]

Meh on the premium. $300 lot charge for 1.3 over 3 lo phos.

I do not understand what that sentence means. Not being snarky, just genuine confusion.


For my money I'd rather have brass I can polish than gold that will stay dicked up once it gets dicked up.

Could you expand on that? how would a gold bead be dicked up? would that happen more easily with gold than brass?
just trying to learn :-)

[JAD]

I do not understand what that sentence means. Not being snarky, just genuine confusion.



Could you expand on that? how would a gold bead be dicked up? would that happen more easily with gold than brass?
just trying to learn :-)

Sorry, that was very poorly done on my part. I wrote it in shorthand and meant to fix it before sending.

1.3 microns of cobalt hardened gold over 2-3 microns of low phosphorus electroless nickel is a super common gold plating spec, typically for things that need to be conductive. Material cost is in the low pennies on a part this size, it's all lot charges until you get to the tens of thousands.

At that thickness the gold is porous but the nickel is a good barrier layer. Greater thicknesses of gold will cost more and not do much, and be a weird plating with lower bath availability.

Low phos nickel would be preferred even though it won't give as much brightness; it's more ductile and will survive the press-in better.

Gold shows scratches, and scratches will make the sight bloom and look fuzzy. Gold will get scratched in pretty normal handling. If you polish it you will have a nickel sight, which would probably be fine.

[Sal Picante]

Just wait until some "celebrity" makes a sight for a Beretta... WTF!?

[Sal Picante]

This has been stated a few times in the thread, but this post off Enos forum, by Brian Enos, no less, was interesting. The reference to Yur'yev is pretty deep stuff.

http://forums.brianenos.com/index.php?/topic/118-vision-sight-blade-width/


...To nutshell it, you'd like to see, at minimum, a "perceived" (not measured) one-half of the front site's width on each side of the blade. (For my arm's length, my current .115 front and .135 rear is real close.) And, the maximum is considered to be a full front site's width on each side of the blade. Now, these studies relate to International Rapid Fire, where the entire sight picture fits on a huge black target, so it may not correspond to exactly what we do. I've found, however, that it seems to be right on for me. It doesn't really matter how "big" the sites are, your body will naturally attempt to align them a the exact spot you intend. I've found, after MANY experimental sessions, that I CONFIRM perfect alignment much, much quicker with a big, bold, sight picture. With small light bars, the body-mind just spends too much time trying to get them aligned "just right." It's one more of those concepts that goes against our natural instincts.

Personally, I think the eye can align "squares" pretty quickly (the "light bars") and bigger "squares" seem easier to align...

[Paul Sharp]

Just wait until some "celebrity" makes a sight for a Beretta... WTF!?

Riggs designed a Beretta sight?!?! ;)

In Rattenkrieg there is a similar discussion regarding the width of front sights and close quarter shooting engagements. It's interesting to see similar findings in very different environments. The thread that ties them together is a need for high performance shooting skill.

[spinmove_]

Just talked to Mike.
The sights are identical to factory Glock in width in front and the notch. Mike has messed around with various beads and while they looked good in the low ready, on target he found them particularly hard to see. He also shoots a lot in "suck lighting" indoor ranges that have the same crappy lighting as cops will find inside buildings. The brass is now set up to give maximum feedback (he says the bead is amazingly brightwhen you are actually looking through them). You can see light bars when looking through them and he will have the company doing them post pictures of what they look like looking through them. What Mike emphasized is practical for what he likes and how he carries. Mike is a actually carries all the time guy, and it's usually front appendix with a full size gun. He got tired of getting tore up on skin and clothing, so the sights are contoured to not shred skin and clothing, but also angled to allow him to press check or rack the gun easily with them. They are Nitrided to 70 RC and super hard so they can get dropped and hit and not be easily damaged. Mike is very hard on his gear. His stuff is always jacked up looking, so I understand why this was important. He says he can hit easily to a hundred yards with them, but the key for him is working indoor problems at speed. Mike is sending me a set. I will check to see if I still have any Glock sides in my parts box. What I may do is set up a slide and send it to folks here to try. Or......maybe break down and get a newer gun to try them on.

I'm personally finding that if I'm shooting at darker targets (black) further away (more than 30ft.) it becomes more difficult to be precise without any visual reference on the rear sight in relation to the front sight. I'm currently experimenting with this concept, but so far it (having something on the rear sight) seems to be working better for me personally. I also find that the tighter light bars are actually quicker for me to align confidently than sights with bigger light bars. With a squared out bottom and larger light bars, I find myself slowing down and trying to make it perfect. If I have larger light bars with a u-notch, I seem to do fine. I guess that's just the way my brain likes to see things.



This has been stated a few times in the thread, but this post off Enos forum, by Brian Enos, no less, was interesting. The reference to Yur'yev is pretty deep stuff.

http://forums.brianenos.com/index.php?/topic/118-vision-sight-blade-width/



Personally, I think the eye can align "squares" pretty quickly (the "light bars") and bigger "squares" seem easier to align...

I seem to be the opposite. Different strokes for different folks I suppose. If it's a square notch, it's gotta have tight light bars. If the light bars are going to be bigger, I need a u-notch. I think the only sights that I've shot that had both a tighter light bars and a u-notch were Trijicon HDs. I seemed to shoot pretty well with those too.

[Wondering Beard]

Sorry, that was very poorly done on my part. I wrote it in shorthand and meant to fix it before sending.

1.3 microns of cobalt hardened gold over 2-3 microns of low phosphorus electroless nickel is a super common gold plating spec, typically for things that need to be conductive. Material cost is in the low pennies on a part this size, it's all lot charges until you get to the tens of thousands.

At that thickness the gold is porous but the nickel is a good barrier layer. Greater thicknesses of gold will cost more and not do much, and be a weird plating with lower bath availability.

Low phos nickel would be preferred even though it won't give as much brightness; it's more ductile and will survive the press-in better.

Gold shows scratches, and scratches will make the sight bloom and look fuzzy. Gold will get scratched in pretty normal handling. If you polish it you will have a nickel sight, which would probably be fine.

Just to be sure I understand.

Most (or all?) gold beads on sights, are actually cobalt hardened gold (a gold alloy?) plating over an electroless nickel bead?

The above mentioned set up (gold plated bead) should be inexpensive and thus $300 lot charge is more expensive than it ought to be? also, where does that $300 number come from (not challenging you, just asking since I don't remember that number showing up in this thread).

Extra thickness of gold doesn't do anything for the brightness of sights, it just gets more expensive.

Low phosphorous nickel is preferred as the base metal because it's easier to install without messing up.

Gold scratches (easily or not?) but polishing it can eliminate it getting to the underlying metal but brass can easily be polished without such problems.

In effect, an actual gold bead, while shining better, is no that much of an advantage over brass, so long as the brass is taken care of with some regularity (what would the interval be?)

What did I get wrong :-)

[Sal Picante]

Most (or all?) gold beads on sights, are actually cobalt hardened gold (a gold alloy?) plating over an electroless nickel bead?


Why not just TiN (Titanium Nitride) a steel screw then screw it in there? Offer different dot widths? Use a set screw from the top of the blade to keep it in place?

[M2CattleCo]

I used to like a tight sight picture like that when I was in my 20s. Now that I'm closer to 40, the .115/.150-.156" sights do a lot better for me.

I played with gold and brass beads some back then and never liked them for anything. They don't glow in the dark, they wash out on cardboard targets, they flash during recoil and generally disappear for me.

I did most of my low/no light training with a set of Amerglo DeFoors and an X300, and came to the conclusion that nothing beats 3 dot night sights for shooting without a light in sucky lighting, and if you have a Surefire, whatever sights are there are fine.

Never though I'd see aftermarket sights that replicated the stock Glock sight picture. :confused:

[JAD]

Just to be sure I understand.

Most (or all?) gold beads on sights, are actually cobalt hardened gold (a gold alloy?) plating over an electroless nickel bead?

The above mentioned set up (gold plated bead) should be inexpensive and thus $300 lot charge is more expensive than it ought to be? also, where does that $300 number come from (not challenging you, just asking since I don't remember that number showing up in this thread).

Extra thickness of gold doesn't do anything for the brightness of sights, it just gets more expensive.

Low phosphorous nickel is preferred as the base metal because it's easier to install without messing up.

Gold scratches (easily or not?) but polishing it can eliminate it getting to the underlying metal but brass can easily be polished without such problems.

In effect, an actual gold bead, while shining better, is no that much of an advantage over brass, so long as the brass is taken care of with some regularity (what would the interval be?)

What did I get wrong :-)

I'm on a phone so forgive me for not doing a good formatting job.

I don't know how sight makers make sights. Could be solid gold. That would be wack.

$300 lot charge gets you 1-thousands of small parts at most hungry American shops. Per-piece when you get above that is $0.05 or so.

Not base metal, barrier layer.

Yup on everything else.

[Wondering Beard]

Thanks, that helped.

[Sal Picante]

I do several drills in my personal training and in some classes that involve a 30 second burst of strikes on a heavy bag using my left fist and the empty pistol in my right hand.

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160905/a3f271e3c971f066b2ccaf736e3ef7d8.jpg



That's not how you're supposed to use sight, Paul!

[Paul Sharp]

That's not how you're supposed to use sight, Paul!

Now you tell me?!

[EVP]

Of course sights are a subjective and personal preference thing, but with that being said I don't really like how tight these sights seem to be.

Someone mentioned they are close to the same specs as factory Glock sights. Besides being plastic and having those crappy dot/squared markings, I think the biggest detriment is the dimensions of the stock sights. This is not exclusive to glock. Many other manufactures have sights that have very narrow and small light bars.

I also agree with Paul on set screws. It's not required for me since I am not that hard on my pistol sights but it does offer peace of mind and seems like a easy addition to have on sights. I like how 10-8 sights have a good solid fit plus the addition of a set screw.

[OnionsAndDragons]

I'm curious to see how well the front sight plays with some of the popular or preferred rears.

I really like that big brassy up front, but have similar preferences to many here on more light in general.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mr. Goodtimes]

These look like the complete opposite of what I like in a sight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Trajan]

I used to like a tight sight picture like that when I was in my 20s.

So when I get older, what will happen with my beloved .125/.125 combo?

[orionz06]

So when I get older, what will happen with my beloved .125/.125 combo?

You shoot Welfare Open.


Sent from my Nokia 3310 using an owl

[spinmove_]

So when I get older, what will happen with my beloved .125/.125 combo?

One of three things will happen. You'll either:

A.) Stick with the combo and make excuses for your ability to shoot

B.) Change to a different front sight/rear notch ratio and make excuses for your ability to shoot.

or

C.) Switch to XS Big Dots because that's all you can see and make excuses for your ability to shoot.

[JonInWA]

Mike just sent me this. Looks pretty good to me.

That certainly looks lke a decent setup, but quite frankly doesn't seem a lot different from a stock Glock steel sight with the rear sight's white outline blacked out.

And while I don't contest the superiority of the brass bead versus the Glock white dot, I've found the OEM white dot to do a credible job in most situations.

A set of Glock steels costs $20 the last time I checked...

Alternatively, I've been very pleased with Warren Tactical and Warren/Sevigny Carry sights, which in their black-on-black configuration go for about $55.

I understand the philosophy, set-up and qualities of the new sights, but am unsure if their overall value/performance potential matches their initial cost.

Best, Jon

[Willard]

Have not installed the sights yet, so can't speak to that, but wanted to share my experience with the gun co, which I never shopped with before. Front sights do not come with a screw. I emailed them and politely asked if this was an oversight, as I'd never purchased replacement sights with no screw for front sight. This was Sat night, as I didn't get the package until I got home late. Within minutes, Kevin Mar had contacted me and said while this was normal, as front sight screw is reused (unless you have an earlier Glock with stake on factories--Gen 1 or 2), he was sending me one first thing Monday with no questions asked and even asked if I had the appropriate front sight tool (which I did). I don't know if they planned to send a tool or what, but this was impressive. First thing Monday, I get notified the screw is on the way. Now this could have been a case of "we don't send a screw, buy one." But their customer service was above and beyond. I was merely asking a question. I'd have been fine with a "we don't do that," but they went ahead and jumped on it super quick and made me a believer in their company. I believe this is how you gain loyal customers and I'll be purchasing from them again. Impressive to me, even though it was a small thing. Like to share the good instead of just the bad.

[DeftSpecter]

I ll call Mike next week and ask him. Mike is far from a buffoon and is one of the folks out there with a very solid real life background.
:eek:

[bravo7]

"......solid real life background." WTF Funny.....is this a different Mike Lamb or one that lied about his background for several years??