Front sight blade - 0.125 or 0.115?

[Boxy]

I am revisiting my sights - yet again. Reinstalled Glock OEM and find that I am having to force my wrist down to get the dot in the goal post. Went back to dot of front due to aging eyes but seem to run my 1911 with plain black .125 notch and blade Novaks.

The question is regarding front sight blade width. What do you find as a practical difference with the two blades assuming a 0.150 rear notch. Considering Ameriglo Defoors or staying with Warren Sevigny sights with .125 front and .150 rear.


Best,

Satch

[fuse]

I strongly suggest you try the Defoors.

The ratio of front sight width to rear notch width is very middle of the road, jack of all trades. The front sight is plenty wide enough and serrated to be able to pick up at speed, but is also thin enough for a reasonable amount of precision. It's definitely not rocket science, just a great balance.

Also, they're cheap. Use coupon code GSSF for a small discount to make it even cheaper.

No reason for you to not try them.

[secondstoryguy]

+1 on the Defoors. I've been running them for a while. They are great KISS sights, work great and area easy on the wallet.

[Matt O]

Personally I think .125 is a nice happy medium between speed and the ability to be precise at longer range. If night sights are a priority for you, your Warrens (or another brand sight with .125 width front) will be the best option as I believe .125 is generally the narrowest front sight width that can accommodate tritium inserts.

Overall, however, the efficacy of sight set-ups seems to vary quite a bit from person to person. Ultimately it will be a question of which sight set-up integrates best with your eyes, meets your personal requirements for carry/range use and enables you produce the best results possible.

[JHC]

Personally I think .125 is a nice happy medium between speed and the ability to be precise at longer range. If night sights are a priority for you, your Warrens (or another brand sight with .125 width front) will be the best option as I believe .125 is generally the narrowest front sight width that can accommodate tritium inserts.

Overall, however, the efficacy of sight set-ups seems to vary quite a bit from person to person. Ultimately it will be a question of which sight set-up integrates best with your eyes, meets your personal requirements for carry/range use and enables you produce the best results possible.

With 54 year old eyes I have been experimenting extensively with sight variations for about 5 years and I've come to the same conclusion that the .125 width is about ideal for a balance of speed and precision. I have more Warren sets than anything else but I don't find a big difference with the Defoor set up I have nor with the Trijicon HD set I also have where the front is a little thicker.

I tried the .110 and .115 fronts and the precision at distance suffered significantly. I'd have needed much tighter rear notches to make those work. I have not found it to be true that the narrow fronts with the relative greater light on the sides of the narrow front added anything useful to speed of sight acquistion.

IMO using the "dot" as your front sight index in daylight shooting is not a great plan for precision shooting at low probability targets, especially past 10 yds but is ok for fast hits on high probability targets at shorter ranges.

I agree with the extensive opinion here that a high visibility aid on the front sight as found on Ameriglo Hackathorn front sights, Trijicon HD sights, and the new Ameriglo Spaulding sights (which I have not personally tried but can confidently include here) are a boon to hitting high probability targets quickly. However their square post outline is what you want to use when the range stretches out - vs using the dot on a Glock OEM front sight.

All that sight stuff said - snatching the trigger will screw up hits FAR worse than one's choice of sights. Most of the best offhand 25 yard Glock shooting I've seen was done with a Gen 4 G17 out of the box with the stock OEM sights (and 23 year old eyes). The shooter's trigger press was dialed in and he was ignoring the white dot for shooting those groups of course.

[Magsz]

I didnt see this information in your original post so if i skipped over it, i apologize.

If you're going to run a tritium front sight you're relegated strictly to .125 thick widths.

Otherwise, if you're looking to run a plain black or perhaps a fiber optic, then the .115 is going to be a VERY nice option for you provided your eyes will work well with that particular thickness at whatever your focal distance is.

I dont think anyone can tell you what will work best for you as sights are largely subjective.

What we can tell you is that the .150 rear with a .115 front offers a VERY nice blend of potential precision at distance, up close AND speed where it counts. The light bar ratio is fantastic for A LOT of different applications.

[orionz06]

The Warren FO's with 0.115 and their 0.150 notch were fantastic the last time I shot them. Not something I would consider for a carry gun but I agree with Magsz.

[NickA]

The Warren FO's with 0.115 and their 0.150 notch were fantastic the last time I shot them. Not something I would consider for a carry gun but I agree with Magsz.
You wouldn't carry them because of the FO or the sight width? Just curious.
I run the Defoor rear with a. 125 tritium front on a G19 and Hacks on a G17, still trying to figure out which I like best. This thread has got me wondering about finding a rear with something like a. 160 notch, or opening up the rear on the Defoor.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[orionz06]

Fiber optic sights are great when the fiber is there. They break too often for me to want to carry a gun with them.

[Magsz]

Fiber optic sights are great when the fiber is there. They break too often for me to want to carry a gun with them.

I will politely disagree.

I have broken one fiber rod that I installed, probably improperly before i knew how to do it. Having said that, NOT all fiber optic sights are designed properly or created equally. The Warrens and Dawsons are as they feature recesses in which the fiber optic becomes countersunk after installation.

Between several different guns and platforms, i have about 170k rounds through fiber optic equipped guns with only one breakage at which point i simply used the iron sight as a standard post.

[orionz06]

It is possible that I screwed it up but I was ejecting too many rods.

[jthhapkido]

I will politely disagree.

I have broken one fiber rod that I installed, probably improperly before i knew how to do it. Having said that, NOT all fiber optic sights are designed properly or created equally. The Warrens and Dawsons are as they feature recesses in which the fiber optic becomes countersunk after installation.

Between several different guns and platforms, i have about 170k rounds through fiber optic equipped guns with only one breakage at which point i simply used the iron sight as a standard post.

I use a FO front (Warren Tactical, .115 post) on my carry gun---because before I decided on it, I practiced a lot with a similar gun with the FO sight without the fiber in it. (Different gun because I knew I was going to go with FO sights on that one, but wanted to see what it was like if they broke. Competition gun.) The Warren sights (to me at least) give a perfectly acceptable sight picture as a regular iron post without the fiber in it.

I haven't actually broken a fiber yet, and I use one on my carry gun, and my competition gun. (Slightly over 18,000 rounds out of the competition gun last year, plus whatever else in the carry gun. Nothing like some of you guys, but a decent amount for a FO breakage decision, in my opinion.) Never had one broken or come off. Doesn't mean it can't happen, of course---but if it does, the Warrens still work perfectly well for a black iron post.

I really like the narrow front sight post. Accuracy at distance increased measurably after I put it on the gun, without losing any speed at closer distances. Later I changed the narrow post out for a FO narrow post, and I like it even better. (Though weirdly enough, I didn't actually run any time trials on that change. Hm.)

I keep needing to trade out my carry sights for a good set of night sights (which will get rid of that narrow front sight I like), and I do like the Warren 2-dot types. Just haven't gotten around to it yet. (The three dot ones, just don't work for me in low light---I've tried them, and every time either I'm lots slower, or much less accurate. Even with different colored front/back dots. Then again, I don't like the 3-white-dots idea of regular sights, either.)

[mnealtx]

To make the same ratio as a .115"/.150" sight set, a .125" front would require a .166" rear notch. Does anyone make a rear sight that wide, or would a .150" have to be opened up?

[Mr_White]

To make the same ratio as a .115"/.150" sight set, a .125" front would require a .166" rear notch. Does anyone make a rear sight that wide, or would a .150" have to be opened up?

Not sure about .166", but Ameriglo makes a .180" wide rear notched sight. Look at the Pro Operator series; it's the rear sight included in that set, and I'm sure you can buy it separately. Not sure about height issues. FWIW, a number of members here love the Pro Operators.

[mnealtx]

Not sure about .166", but Ameriglo makes a .180" wide rear notched sight. Look at the Pro Operator series; it's the rear sight included in that set, and I'm sure you can buy it separately. Not sure about height issues. FWIW, a number of members here love the Pro Operators.

I'm not a Glock-o-phile...but thank you for the information anyhow!