Sight Picture: A Discussion of the Pros and Cons of Various Holds

[Doc_Glock]

I did a search and had not seen a discussion of this per se.

I am aware of three different sight pictures or holds when shooting, especially distances of 15 yards or greater.

15755

1. Six O'clock hold, equal height, equal light, but holding a portion of the target above the front sight. In other words, tip of sight at the 6:00 position.
2. Equal height, equal light, bisect the target with the top of the front sight expecting bullet impact at the top center of front sight.
3. "Drive the Dot:" I assume this means equal height, equal light, but the Dot on the front sight is placed over the top of the desired impact point. I guess this could also be called a twelve O'Clock hold.

I don't know what I don't know about the relative advantages or disadvantages of the various sight pictures. I assume they each had/have a purpose. I have always used the #2 sight picture as it made the most sense to me. I assume the #1 picture would come into its own as distances really increase and one wants to increase holdover without obscuring the target with the front sight. I have no idea how far away that would have to be. I also expect the #3 would be best for up close, faster shooting.

I wondered if the more historically knowledgeable folks would care to weigh in on the pros and cons of each of the pictures. I would also like input on which the forum feels is best for defensive pistol use.

In searching for an image to accompany this post, I found the above image in this blog post by ToddG. I found the reading helpful.
http://pistol-training.com/archives/1361

[JohnO]

At distance say 25 yards you are not (or should not) be focused on the target. Your attention and vision needs to be concentrating on sight alignment because angular deviation will blow your shot at 25 yards. You can still see a bull at 25 behind your sights but it is not going to be in perfect focus if you are concentrating on your sights. My feeling is that Sight Image #1 is the ideal picture for pure bullseye work. I think it is easier to put the bull on the post rather than try to perfectly bisect the bull or center the dot on the bull center. In the later two cases you are covering up a fuzzy target and the placement is more subjective.

For defensive purposes I think the Sight Image #2 or #3 are more preferable and subject to personal likes and dislikes. A guy used to utilizing black on black sights is going to prefer tip of front sight. I fiber optic front sight guy may prefer Sight Image #3 but that guy may have a preference as to where in the notch he holds the dot. So in actuality it is very subjective.

I have found that pistols configured with Sight Image #3 are the most true to Point of Aim equaling Point of Impact across typical pistol ranges and therefore don't require holdover compensation as distance changes.

[blues]

I prefer 2 and 3 but I'm not a bullseye shooter. Strictly defensive / tactical fwiw.

[Le Français]

For #1, is there a rule about the size of the bullseye/circle? It seems to me that the efficacy of this sight picture entirely depends on the target, the distance, and the part of the target that is placed above the front sight. Any explanation would be appreciated.

[Lomshek]

I have found that pistols configured with Sight Image #3 are the most true to Point of Aim equaling Point of Impact across typical pistol ranges and therefore don't require holdover compensation as distance changes.
Isn't that just a matter of what distance it's zeroed at? Whether the sights are adjusted for a 15 yard (or any distance) zero with #2 or #3 your POI will be the same at various distances.

I like #2 because I like being able to see the target rather than covering it whether as far away as possible or as small a target as possible.

[Lomshek]

For #1, is there a rule about the size of the bullseye/circle? It seems to me that the efficacy of this sight picture entirely depends on the target, the distance, and the part of the target that is placed above the front sight. Any explanation would be appreciated.

#1 works when you know the size of the target and distance to the target like in Bullseye shooting. If I'm 25 yards away from the target and know the bullseye is 4" above the bottom of the black then I adjust my sights so that POI is 4" above POA at 25 yards then hold at the bottom of the black.

That only works on that size target at that distance. Change either one and the offset is different.

[Le Français]

#1 works when you know the size of the target and distance to the target like in Bullseye shooting. If I'm 25 yards away from the target and know the bullseye is 4" above the bottom of the black then I adjust my sights so that POI is 4" above POA at 25 yards then hold at the bottom of the black.

That only works on that size target at that distance. Change either one and the offset is different.
Thank you. This confirms my impression that this sight setup is suboptimal for practical purposes.

[dsb]

Thank you. This confirms my impression that this sight setup is suboptimal for practical purposes.

Not necessarily... The 'black' on a TQ-7 (25 foot target) is about 1.5 inches, and the 'black' on a B-8 (25 yard target) is about 6.5 inches, and both provide the same sight picture. A 6 O'clock hold should have a POI just .75 inches above the POA at 25 feet, and 3.25 inches at 25 yards, I've not had any trouble with this shooting USPSA, and haven't really noticed any detriment compared to using a POA/POI setup.

[BJXDS]

Not necessarily... The 'black' on a TQ-7 (25 foot target) is about 1.5 inches, and the 'black' on a B-8 (25 yard target) is about 6.5 inches, and both provide the same sight picture. A 6 O'clock hold should have a POI just .75 inches above the POA at 25 feet, and 3.25 inches at 25 yards, I've not had any trouble with this shooting USPSA, and haven't really noticed any detriment compared to using a POA/POI setup.

I prefer #2 because that is what I have used the most, #3 would be my next choice at less than 25 yards. All sights will work, it just a matter of knowing POA/POI.

[Peally]

Pretty sure we're discussed this to death ;)

#1 is a bullseye method and is basically useless for much else (and as a result I wish it was removed from general sight picture discussions. Seriously, who the hell aims like that outside of super specific situations?)

#2 is what everyone uses

#3 is for HKs

[spinmove_]

Pretty sure we're discussed this to death ;)

#1 is a bullseye method and is basically useless for much else (and as a result I wish it was removed from general sight picture discussions. Seriously, who the hell aims like that outside of super specific situations?)

#2 is what everyone uses

#3 is for HKs

#3 is for SIGs as well as a handful of sight manufacturers as I've found in my experience. Obviously YMMV.


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

[Peally]

It's the hipster option

[blues]

I believe, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, that Trijicon promotes #3 with their HDs.

[Francis]

As I learn how my pistol shoots I'm finding that as distance increases from 3 to 25 yds my hold transitions from #3 to #2 to #1.

ETA G19 gen4 with Ameriglo Spartan

[Peally]

I believe, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, that Trijicon promotes #3 with their HDs.

Correct, at least for the ones I've used. My HK45 saw no aiming change when going from stock to HD sights.

[nwhpfan]

It is preference. Personally I like to think of my round hitting just above the top of my front sight...so I BUY SIGHTS that accomplish this. Which do you prefer? If you like to think of the round impacting below your sight, behind the front dot, or in line with the barrel, YOU prefer a cover up hold. If you like to think of the bullet impacting just abve the front sight, YOU prefer a 6 oclock hold, or whatever.

It's like folks that shoot a dot. Some perceive the dot ON the target. Some think of it as this floating tube you shoot through on the way to the target. People see and perceive things different and that's OK. Sounds like you have a preference so shoot at 15 yards and decide if you need a taller or shorter front sight to accomplish the hold YOU prefer.

[RJ]

I believe, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, that Trijicon promotes #3 with their HDs.

Could be. I dunno. Trijicon never did help me resolve the HD "shooting high" issue I had with my M&P. The HD rears were way high for sight picture 2, and did not line up shooting the lamps, either, iirc.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?13321-Do-Trijicon-HD-Night-Sights-shoot-a-bit-higher-than-stock-M-amp-P-Sights

[Doc_Glock]

Pretty sure we're discussed this to death ;)

#1 is a bullseye method and is basically useless for much else (and as a result I wish it was removed from general sight picture discussions. Seriously, who the hell aims like that outside of super specific situations?)

#2 is what everyone uses

#3 is for HKs

This is exactly what I was looking for in the discussion. Thanks.

[Peally]

For what it's worth, #2 and #3 are basically up to your personal preference.

[blues]

For what it's worth, #2 and #3 are basically up to your personal preference.

I think for exigent circumstance combat shooting it would be hard to do better than #3... pinning that front dot on the target. But that's just my take.

[Peally]

I think for a close ranged human sized target #3 works as far as acceptable sight picture for blazing, regardless of how the gun is actually sighted in.

[CCT125US]

For what it's worth, #2 and #3 are basically up to your personal preference.

And depending on the positioning of the front dot, could be interchangeable. The graphic is misleading in that it has the top edges of the front and rear sight aligned, while the 3 dots are nice and aligned as well. On multiple HKs of mine, if the top edges are aligned, the front dot on the front sight is elevated compared to the rear dots. I find that if I shift my head down slightly the dots are then in alignment,but the gun has not moved. May just be my sight choices, but that is how it works for me.

[45dotACP]

I think for a close ranged human sized target #3 works as far as acceptable sight picture for blazing, regardless of how the gun is actually sighted in.
#3 Works decent at 25 yards for me...When I'm blazing I set the tritium or fiber on the middle....If I need more betterer accuracy I'll be swapping to a hard front sight focus and take it in faith that the tritium/fiber will be in the area I want to hit.https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170419/60b60e63e77c755929b8afd2b140a2e4.jpg

[Robinson]

I've always used #2.

[Sig_Fiend]

3. Little high,
1. Little low,
2. Any way the wind blows doesn't really matter to me, to me

In all seriousness though, my personal preference is definitely #2 for the reasoning that, with either of the others, achieving a precise aiming point (for me at least) is a bit too vague for my tastes. Give me a flat edge, and I can put it right on the middle of something consistently. Hold under or over...I just don't want to involve yet another calculation or consideration. I liken #2 to being like a 50yd zero for an AR15, within 0-250yds. +2" to -2", generally-speaking, so just split the middle of the target and be done with it.

[MSparks909]

I like #3. 90% of my guns have blacked out rear and a red fiber front. I like to see the dot and know that's where my bullet is gonna go (holdovers and distance aside). To me, #3 is like running a red dot. See red, "boom." Not see red, find top edge, "boom."

At 25Y my fiber optics sit neatly inside the black of a B8. Same with the tritium fronts on my other guns.

[spinmove_]

I love the concept of #2, but I instinctively just aim with #3 and I don't see that changing anytime soon. Doesn't matter if I'm shooting all black Sights, fiber, tritium, painted dots, it's a #3 hold on the target.


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

[Malamute]

Before coming to this forum, Id never heard of drive the dot. It seems rather odd to me, but I think Ive only owned 2 pistols in the past 40 years that had dots on the sights. The dot on the front does work OK as a reference point for the rear sight hold on the 300 yard plate.

The 6 oclock hold with the point of impact hitting center of the formal bullseye works OK for that specific game I guess. I use that hold for group shooting and zeroing sights, but the point of impact is right at or slightly above the top of the front sight. Not concerned about the scoring rings, its just a good place to get a consistent aiming point on a big black blob target. A small 1 1/2" or so black circle is easier I think for 25 yard groups, holding right on the bottom of that.

[Matt O]

For all my pistols, I zero with a #2ish (https://pistol-forum.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=2ish) sight picture at 25 which usually makes for a #3 sight picture from 10-15 yards and in.

If you're using a thin fiber front, I can see how one can get away with a #3 sight picture at 25 yards, but a .125 width front sight (so basically most night sights) basically covers up the bull at that distance. With a #2 sight picture I can shoot for the upper A on a head box at 25 yards. With a #3 sight picture, I'd likely just be happy to hit the head.

[OnionsAndDragons]

For all my pistols, I zero with a #2ish (https://pistol-forum.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=2ish) sight picture at 25 which usually makes for a #3 sight picture from 10-15 yards and in.

If you're using a thin fiber front, I can see how one can get away with a #3 sight picture at 25 yards, but a .125 width front sight (so basically most night sights) basically covers up the bull at that distance. With a #2 sight picture I can shoot for the upper A on a head box at 25 yards. With a #3 sight picture, I'd likely just be happy to hit the head.

This is my general preference also. Though, as I experiment more with thinner sights it has become easier to just use a #3 all the time if the zero holds up out to 25 or so.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Kennydale]

My EDC is the G17 with XS Big Dot Sights. My point of aim is #2 up to 25 yards . After that it is #3 .

[Totem Polar]

Might sound odd, but: #2 for plain sights (e.g. any K-frame, various black on black post sights), #3 for anything with a big dot up front (e.g. my Glocks with various Ameriglo FO or orange over trit front with flat black rears).

In short, if there's a dot, drive it; otherwise #2.

#1 is for old people. :D

[Gio]

#1 really is a bullseye sight picture. It really sucks for defensive or action pistol use. You can compensate just fine if you're standing straight up, but as soon as you cant the gun to shoot around a barricade, your POI gets harder to predict. No one on this board seems to be a bullseye shooter, but if you want to maximize your bullseye scores, this is the sight picture to do it with. None of the other sight pictures give you the feedback on your sight alignment on the target that you need to maximize your score.

#2 is ideal for any kind of action pistol or defensive pistol shooting. The very top edge of your front sight is the most precise aiming point you have on a pistol, so if you want to be able to shoot fast using the sight and not worry about compensating for any kind of vertical offset while at the same time being able to hit precise shots like a head box at 15-25 yds, this is the only sight picture that will allow you to do that.

#3 is really only ideal for targets 10 yds and in. The problem with that is I can do everything I need to at 10 yds and in with either of the other sight pictures as well. This sight picture really suffers at 25+ yds bc the dots on sights are just too big and hide too much of the target to get any kind of shot placement consistency down range. Canting the gun around a barrier is equally frustrating to sight picture #1 and causes you to have to do some funky mental Kentucky windage if you are trying to make a precise shot.

[Rex G]

"Sight Image 2" is how I used to do it. I wish I could still do so. (My eyes will no longer let me focus on the front sight, when it is within the rear notch. My corrective lenses are a partial, but incomplete solution.) This is why I strongly prefer weapons that "point naturally" in my hands, and have a bit of heft at the muzzle end, so I can "feel" it.

[CCT125US]

#3 is really only ideal for targets 10 yds and in. The problem with that is I can do everything I need to at 10 yds and in with either of the other sight pictures as well. This sight picture really suffers at 25+ yds bc the dots on sights are just too big and hide too much of the target to get any kind of shot placement consistency down range.

My goal is not to argue, but simply share another perspective. The shots below were taken with a USP9c using Trijicon 3 dots and sight picture #3, with my handloads. Now my right dominant eye is corrected to the depth of my FS, and I am using the occluded eye method. In a sense using my FS as a dot (granted rather large dot). I center my target in the dot. This was shot cold and were the only shots fired in order to verify alignment. This is also how my suppressed shooting is done, as I need to "see" through the can.

15940
15941

[rodralig]

Hhhmmm... Just came back from the range, and am glad that I found this thread...


As I learn how my pistol shoots I'm finding that as distance increases from 3 to 25 yds my hold transitions from #3 to #2 to #1.

Same here!

At 3-yards, I go for #3. Works fine!
At both 7- and 10-yards, #2 works fine!

Unfortunately, if I try a #2 at 15-yards (using NRA B8), POI usually ends up in the 8-ring. Once I adjust to a #1 - blade of front sight is at the end of the black area (5.5-inches diameter), I find I'm just off by 1-inch from the "X."

That being said - does a HOLD really become significant from 15-yards on? Or is this more _ME_...?

I have a Glock 19 Gen 3 (*thanks* California) with Trijicon HD sights.

Thoughts anyone?

Thanks in advanced!!!

_
16582

[spinmove_]

Hhhmmm... Just came back from the range, and am glad that I found this thread...



Same here!

At 3-yards, I go for #3. Works fine!
At both 7- and 10-yards, #2 works fine!

Unfortunately, if I try a #2 at 15-yards (using NRA B8), POI usually ends up in the 8-ring. Once I adjust to a #1 - blade of front sight is at the end of the black area (5.5-inches diameter), I find I'm just off by 1-inch from the "X."

That being said - does a HOLD really become significant from 15-yards on? Or is this more _ME_...?

I have a Glock 19 Gen 3 (*thanks* California) with Trijicon HD sights.

Thoughts anyone?

Thanks in advanced!!!

_
16582

I like my sights hitting the #2 sight picture. If it were me, those HDs would be hitting WAY too high for me.


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

[rodralig]

I like my sights hitting the #2 sight picture. If it were me, those HDs would be hitting WAY too high for me.


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

I definitely would want to hit using #2, whenever possible! It is way simplier - straightforward!

However, the Trijicon HDs came with the Glock 19 Gen 3 when I purchased it via GSSF Blue Label. Should I get new sights? I believe there is no way to adjust these sights, correct?

Thanks,


PS: Even my SA 1911 MCO, which has Trijicon HDs stock "requires" a #1 hold at 15-yards! And it drives me NUTS!!!


_

[HopetonBrown]

You say your Glock 19 and MCO came with Trijicon HDs. They don't, you might be confusing terminology.

[rodralig]

You say your Glock 19 and MCO came with Trijicon HDs. They don't, you might be confusing terminology.

If I might be confusing terminology, am I missing something here (see below)...? :confused:

But then, regardless, I'm still confused if they really need a 6 o'clock hold at 15-yards (and on)... :confused:

SA 1911 Marine Corps Operator
16598

Glock 19 Gen 3
16599

Regards,


_

[HopetonBrown]

Those are sights with Trijicon lamps. Don't know who made them. These are Trijicon HDs.
16600

[rodralig]

Those are sights with Trijicon lamps. Don't know who made them. These are Trijicon HDs.


Oh.... :eek:

I guess I got confused because they marketed these pistols as having Trijicon Night Sights.


_

[HopetonBrown]

Oh.... :eek:

I guess I got confused because they marketed these pistols as having Trijicon Night Sights.


_

They could be made by Trijicon, I don't know. The lamps are Trijicon.

Order a set of Dawson Chargers with the fiber front and the plain black rear. Zero the gun at 20 or 25 yards. If you don't like where your group is hitting, contact Dawson and they will give a free replacement front.

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

https://dawsonprecision.com/sight-calculator/

[spinmove_]

They could be made by Trijicon, I don't know. The lamps are Trijicon.

Order a set of Dawson Chargers with the fiber front and the plain black rear. Zero the gun at 20 or 25 yards. If you don't like where your group is hitting, contact Dawson and they will give a free replacement front.

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

https://dawsonprecision.com/sight-calculator/

What he said.

Trijicon supplies tritium vials to a lot of other OEMs because they deal with the radioactive material enough to be economically viable for them. Just because it says Trijicon on the sights doesn't necessarily mean the sights were made by Trijicon, just that the tritium vials came from and were installed by them.

We'd have to see the rest of the sight set that is on your pistol to be able to tell you if they actually made them or not. If that is your actual rear sight in that picture you posted a few posts back, then it's too short to be an HD rear.


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

[Gray222]

I have defaulted to a preference of Sight Image 2 and while I have tried others, this is the one I keep going back to.

Whenever I get a set of sights to zero them, I shoot a 100 drill at an NRA B8 at 25y (usually just a replacement center I printed off). I usually know when the sights are zero'd for that particular barrel and ammo when I am able to do 2 out of 3 sets of 10 round groups for 95+.

[rodralig]

They could be made by Trijicon, I don't know. The lamps are Trijicon.

Order a set of Dawson Chargers with the fiber front and the plain black rear. Zero the gun at 20 or 25 yards. If you don't like where your group is hitting, contact Dawson and they will give a free replacement front.

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

https://dawsonprecision.com/sight-calculator/

About a year back you've recommended the Taran Tactical competition sights for my G22. It was amazing, and simply, I got spoiled by it...

Unfortunately however, when I attended a tactical class, I was seriously disadvantaged during the low light stages, ie., unless I had a flashlight, I could barely make out my sights.

Now, the problem with night sights is that they have LARGE BIG DOTS that are, personally for me, not as precise (sorry, got spoiled by my competition sights).

So, I reached out to Dawson Precision, and they recommended the Precision Fixed Carry. This would have Tritium sights:


Front: .205” tall / .125” wide
Rear: .225” tall / .125” wide

Any thoughts on how this will work with the G34s?

The ones on my G22 were:


Front (Fibre Optic): .235” tall / .115” wide
Rear (All Black): .245” tall / .125” wide



Thanks in advanced!

[HopetonBrown]

How about this. Get a set of fiber optic sights for your G34, which will probably aid you in the 99.99% of shooting you'll do. If you want to be prepared for low light gun fights, take advantage of the universal rail and put on an X300U.

[Francis]

At the range for fun time today, no drills just hanging with friends and new shooters. Decided to do an experiment. Here are 3 strings of 5 rounds @ 25 yds offhand with G19 Gen4, Ameriglo Spartan, Rem 115 gr FMJ. Orange circle was the POA for each sight picture.

I'm tempted to say for this ammo the pistol is zeroed for #3. My actual #3 casts some doubt though.

As an aside, #2 and #3 are some of the best groups I've ever shot at 25 yds. I gotta think the lack of pressure of a drill and not worried about the perfect shot was a factor.

16737

[Jim Watson]

A little arithmetic.
If you sight your gun like the diagram in the little leaflet that used to come with American handguns, a 6 o'clock hold with center hits on a bullseye at 25 yards...

The NRA 25 yard slowfire target has a 5.32" black, so you are 2.66" "high" over the top of your Patridge sight.
Taking .45 hardball and a sight height over bore line of .66" as an example, you will strike about an inch "high" at 10 yards, peak out 3" "high" at 42 yards, and be spot on at 72 yards.

OK, crank down the sight for a center hold, aka "no 2", aka "Marine sight picture" at 25 yards.
You aim center, hit center at 25 yards and are never "high." At all other ranges your point of impact is below the point of aim. It takes til 36 yards for the point of impact to be as far below the point of aim as the bore line is below the sight, but drops off to 2.6" "low" by 50 yards.

The no 3 "drive the dot" sight picture is similar but more so. All your shots land under the sights.

Me?
I like for my slow fire group to form right on top of the front sight. If I am shooting a 3" group, then I want to be 1.5" "high." Holding 6 0'clock on a bullseye, I normally hit in the bottom half of the black.
I will pull more shots low than high when shooting fast, so I expect better hits that way.
But I think I am the worst shot on the Internet, so don't count on me.

[JustOneGun]

For me, shooting in a civilian self defense context, the only real advantage to caring one way or the other is that my training and carry guns shoot the same way. If you might need to shoot from 50+ yards, sights that start as #1 at 7 yards have a strange sight picture at 50+. Other than that I think of it like shooting AR sights, calibrate the hold over for precision and just forget about it.

[rodralig]

How about this. Get a set of fiber optic sights for your G34, which will probably aid you in the 99.99% of shooting you'll do. If you want to be prepared for low light gun fights, take advantage of the universal rail and put on an X300U.

*nod*

I actually just got a Streamlight TLR-1 HL which I planned on putting on my 1911. Let me try it with the Taran sights with low-light drills in the backyard. If it works fine, I'll fire up the G34 with competition sights.

Thanks!



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[HopetonBrown]

If it works fine, I'll fire up the G34 with competition sights.


Bob Vogel (SWAT, GM), Frank Proctor (Army SF, GM) and Mike Pannone (Delta, M) used fiber optic sights on their duty guns.

[spinmove_]

Bob Vogel (SWAT, GM), Frank Proctor (Army SF, GM) and Mike Pannone (Delta, M) used fiber optic sights on their duty guns.

Among others. Roland Deschain aka Chuck, Bill Blowers, DocGKR would all be using fiber if they weren't rocking red dots. Tim Lau and Hilton Yam also are huge fans of fiber.


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

[Surf]

Most manufacturers of modern combat pistols opt for sights that give you #3. I used to use #2 with adjustable sights and noted that for many many years I was ever so slightly low at 3-5 yards on fixed sights on modern pistols. The Sig Sauer "float the dot, shoot the shot" thing first struck me and Sig Sauer, especially when you go through their armorer course will tell you that is the Sight Picture they look to achieve. Glock "Tritium" Sights are the same. Of course you can mix and match sight heights to adjust here, but factory manufacturers tend to go with #3 currently. The "drive the dot" is generally focused around 15 yard zero's.

On a Sig Sauer, Glock or HK as examples, if I use a #2 hold I am about 3/8" low at 3 yards. If I center the dot, I am dead on. I also don't pull left or low and left.

I prefer a fiber for all uses and have been doing it for at least a decade. Probably before many guys when they were active in the military or LE circles even knew what fibers were. There are many threads here and elsewhere and I have taken a rash of heat over it in typical LE / defensive discussions so I tend to avoid the topic in general. But then again I always was a closet gamer fanboi who was pushing the limits of getting kilt in da streetz. ;)

[Gio]

I probably identify pretty well as a closet gamer myself (maybe not so in the closet?), but I have to disagree about the fiber sights on a service pistol. I've been in too many situations where I have had my pistol drawn in low light with plenty of light to see a subject but not enough to see the sights without the glow. Relying on a weaponlight to silhouette your sights is also a mistake in my opinion. I've trained with enough teams in low light, no light, and under NVG's to see lights fail to turn on, fail under recoil, and shooters fail to activate them under stress. Beyond that, I've also been in several situations where white light was not preferred/recommended to be used. The newest generation of HD type sights allows me to use a target focused sight picture when appropriate, similar to the benefit of a fiber optic. The trade off of not having the tritium isn't worth it to me. Testing on transition drills like el pres and blake drills from 10-25 yds in recent months has lead me to the conclusion that I don't lose any speed or drop any additional points with the fatter orange dot on an HD sight than I do with a fiber

[Surf]

That's great Gio, what works for you is OK. I really don't have the energy to drift on this thread and there is no lack of discussion on this topic anyway.