PDA

View Full Version : Viking Tactical... worst sights ever?



JodyH
03-11-2011, 05:37 PM
What crack smoker came up with these sights?
http://www.vikingtactics.com/viking-sight.html
Seriously, could you make aiming a pistol more complicated?
:confused:

dirt_diver
03-11-2011, 06:13 PM
I don't have a dog in the hunt here, but the crack smoker that's endorsing them is from a pretty elite Army unit and puts his name on some decent gear.
I, for one, am going to reserve judgment til I can some rounds out the pipe with them.
Just sayin...

Jay Cunningham
03-11-2011, 06:17 PM
I believe Kyle Lamb, former SFOD-D spec'd out these sights. While they may look unconventional, I'm not going to dismiss why someone with K_L's credentials designed them - suffice to say he has a lot more experience using firearms in combat than most people, and he apparently felt a need for this sighting system. So I'd personally let them shake out a bit with some shooters and hear opinions before commenting on a picture without any first-hand experience.

JV_
03-11-2011, 06:30 PM
I prefer 2 dots over 3 dots ... I doubt I'll like 6 dots.

TCinVA
03-11-2011, 08:00 PM
I'm not terribly fond of the idea of more stuff on my sights either, but like Jay said...given who they are coming from there might be some merit.

JodyH
03-11-2011, 09:01 PM
They look like 100% marketing to me.
There is no way these sights will be faster to acquire or more precise than a set of straight eights or 3 dot.
There's just too many visual distractions to sort through at speed.

JodyH
03-11-2011, 09:05 PM
I believe Kyle Lamb, former SFOD-D spec'd out these sights. While they may look unconventional, I'm not going to dismiss why someone with K_L's credentials designed them - suffice to say he has a lot more experience using firearms in combat than most people, and he apparently felt a need for this sighting system.
And Paul Howe designed the CSAT notch over peep rear sight for AR's that doesn't work worth a crap.
Vetted credentials doesn't mean you can design a unicorn that craps Skittles.

YVK
03-11-2011, 09:17 PM
Jay, you're a better man than I am, there is a certain limit to which I am able to keep an open mind; these sights are way beyond that limit.

boyscoutg36
03-12-2011, 01:25 PM
I think they may be useful if they doubled as suppressor sights...

YVK
03-12-2011, 02:29 PM
Since no specs are listed, one can only speculate, but they don't look tall enough to clear a suppressor.

Frank B
03-12-2011, 02:46 PM
And Paul Howe designed the CSAT notch over peep rear sight for AR's that doesn't work worth a crap.
Vetted credentials doesn't mean you can design a unicorn that craps Skittles.

It seems, the rear sight works well for Paul and some others. I know some serious professionals, who use these sights on duty.
BTW, it´s maybe a personal choise. Same like XS Sights, there are guys who love them and others hates them.

Back to the topic, the pistol sights are looking distracting to me, but I don´t judge without trying a set by myself.

Kyle Reese
03-12-2011, 03:47 PM
I'm not remotely in a position to challenge Paul or Kyle's expertise, or their rationale behind their respective sights, but I think that we can discuss the merits or drawbacks of a piece of kit without resorting to name calling or other pejorative terms towards individuals that have served in CAG.

That said, I personally would not select these sights, as I'm a fan of the "Straight 8" configuration on a handgun.


And Paul Howe designed the CSAT notch over peep rear sight for AR's that doesn't work worth a crap.
Vetted credentials doesn't mean you can design a unicorn that craps Skittles.

DocGKR
03-13-2011, 11:45 PM
JodyH,

Although they may not work for every person's need, several very serious face shooters I know use the CSAT sights while safeguarding our Nation--since they definitely work for some professional end-users, it would not be fair to be dismissive of the design...

Likewise, unless a person has used the VTAC sights over several thousand training shots in a variety of environmental conditions and operational scenarios, I am not sure one can truly discuss the merits of the VTAC sights with any semblance of insight into the efficacy of the design. An acquaintance of mine who is a combat experienced veteran in the SOF community has publicly written the following about the VTAC pistol sights:


"Fiber optic atop, tritium below. If you have worked in places with stoopid bright glare & sunshine, ambient temps 100-130F, eyes squinting to razor slots.. the utility of fiber optics becomes readily apparent. Kyle and I both ran TFO's at one point, over there. Some have noted deficiencies in durability with the TFO sights, and the profile is less than ideal IMO. I expect his new offering to address these shortfalls."

NickDrak
03-14-2011, 01:25 AM
I personally like the CSAT rear apperature. I have one mounted in a LaRue BUIS on my work gun.

vmi-mo
03-14-2011, 02:04 PM
If they made them for glocks, I would be all over the front sight.

Personally i never liked dots on my rear sight.

I have seen these sights on a few pistols that kill people. They do what they are built to do for a crowd that needs them.


PJ

Badfish25
03-14-2011, 08:02 PM
The whole point of sights are to give you feed back of where your pistol is aimed, so if they work then roll with it. I am always willing to try out a new set of sights, although I doubt I would spend 240.00 on them.

ToddG
03-15-2011, 07:26 AM
Caveat: Like most of the folks discussing these sights, I've yet to shoot a gun wearing them.

I think the front sight is an outstanding idea. It's an outstanding idea that Ernest Langdon had about a decade ago, and he even built a couple prototypes. Given that Ernest and Lamb worked together on a number of projects while Ernest was still at S&W, it would not surprise me if that was the genesis of Lamb's sight.

The rear sight, at first glance, is so dramatically busy that I'm extremely skeptical that it would be as functional as many of the other commonly chosen options on the market.

If the comments made above about their particular suitability to ultra-bright desert environments is correct, then it just goes to demonstrate that not every piece of gear designed for super-high-speed face-shooters-in-a-warzone is necessarily the best piece of gear -- or even a good choice -- for average blokes carrying a CCW. Mission drives the gear train, anyone?

fuse
03-15-2011, 07:35 AM
I prefer 2 dots over 3 dots ... I doubt I'll like 6 dots.

More dots equals more better duh

JV_
03-15-2011, 07:37 AM
More dots equals more better duhI'll learn it the hard way, and years after everyone else. I'm always late to the party.

Jay Cunningham
03-15-2011, 08:08 AM
Mission drives the gear train, anyone?

Hey - I like that!

MEH
03-15-2011, 10:32 AM
In bright light, you'll only use the top fiber sights, not even noticing the tritium's. In the dark, you won't see the fiber, only the tritium's. Really only 3 dots to contend with.

Now why didn't they just use fiber with tritium powering one end so that you have less clutter? TruGlo's patent.

ToddG
03-15-2011, 10:37 AM
I like the Viking Tactical front (in theory... again, I haven't shot a gun with it) much more than the TruGlo. But just like with the TruGlo, I cannot see using the rear sight.

jar
03-15-2011, 04:37 PM
I like the Viking Tactical front (in theory... again, I haven't shot a gun with it) much more than the TruGlo. But just like with the TruGlo, I cannot see using the rear sight.

Why? I just picked up a truglo front to try on my M&P 9c. I've gotten used to fiber fronts on my competition guns, so thought I might like it. I'm curious what you don't like about them.

JV_
03-15-2011, 04:45 PM
Regarding TFO:

They have a spotty record on durability
The front sight is too wide
You're not supposed to take out the FO tube (think replacement...).
-If it gets banged up, you have to replace the whole sight.

DocGKR
03-15-2011, 05:22 PM
JV hit the nail on the head. A whole bunch of folks here jumped on the TFO's around 2007-2008, I think most of them had broken and were off pistols by the start of 2010--most tellingly, TFO was NOT very helpful about the problems...

Slavex
03-27-2011, 10:09 AM
just think how cool it would be to add another 3 dots that you could make illuminate by holding a flashlight on them for 10 seconds.

JodyH
03-27-2011, 04:20 PM
just think how cool it would be to add another 3 dots that you could make illuminate by holding a flashlight on them for 10 seconds.
:cool:

SLG
03-27-2011, 04:59 PM
9 dots? That would be good luck in Japan.

JV_
03-27-2011, 05:06 PM
9 dots? That would be good luck in Japan.Unfortunately, they could probably use some good luck about now.

Odin Bravo One
04-17-2011, 08:52 PM
I finally saw Kyle's sights on something other than the internet while out of town on business.

I am sold enough to get a set sent out. The design idea made sense to me from the start, but I was not sure I would like the practical reality. Often times, especially in something new we end up with the wrong execution of the right idea. This does not appear to be the case.

Certainly they will not be for everyone. But for an offensive pistol, it solves many shortfalls of the current sights available.

JodyH
04-17-2011, 09:16 PM
it solves many shortfalls of the current sights available.
Exactly what shortfall of current sights does it solve?
What does it do better than say a Hackathorn front with a 2-dot or 1-dot Tritium rear sight?

Odin Bravo One
04-17-2011, 10:19 PM
I'll start with the disclaimer that I am not, by nature, a geardo. So I don't know what the various latest and greatest versions of what is available or what each device or gadget or gizmo is called. I also don't know what works best or the current sight shortfalls for some people, especially those I don't know, or don't shoot with on a regular basis.

I don't know what Ken's sights look like, or how they perform under various conditions, or what problems they were designed to solve.

However, standard tritium sights do nothing to aid in bright light sight acquistion, especially when the target is wearing light colored clothing, against a bright background, and the bluing of the sights is worn down to bare metal.

Fiber optic sights jump right out at you in bright lights, but don't give you much help in pitch dark rooms without any sort of ambient light.

Tritium fiber optic sights (TruGlo) attempt to solve the problem by doing both, but do not last through heavy volume shooting, or as the external fiber optic scratches and/or becomes dirty.

Having sights that you can see under a wide variety of extreme conditions, on hard use guns may be of value to some who find the above shortcomings on their current sights. I would say that the majority of the shooting world may not have a need for such sights. Also note that the statement quoted is but a partial quote of the original statement, leaving out a small, but important aspect of that statement. But having seen them on something other than a picture, I can see where it provides a better solution to the above listed problems than any of the sights I currently have.

Of course, that is a preliminary assessment, and would need to be field tested to validate the concept and prove the theory.

DocGKR
04-18-2011, 02:04 AM
JodyH, please note that Sean's comments above offer you the exact same information as discussed in post #13 in this thread.

You started this discussion by writing:


"What crack smoker came up with these sights? Seriously, could you make aiming a pistol more complicated?"

Now you know that the "crack smoker" who came up with the VTAC pistol sight is among the most combat experienced shooters in our Nation. In addition, other highly capable combat veterans find that the VTAC pistol sights work very well for their needs--rather than making aiming a pistol more complicated as you suggest, the VTAC sights actually make it EASIER to use a pistol effectively in central asian combat conditions. While these sights may not make sense to you based on your limited experience level, they certainly seem to be an effective tool for our Nation's most highly trained warriors.

JodyH
04-18-2011, 08:18 AM
-edit-
Done with this.

double-Tapatalk

Jay Cunningham
04-18-2011, 08:57 AM
Jody, consider this your official warning to throttle it back and conduct yourself professionally - especially with our Subject Matter Experts.

YVK
04-18-2011, 09:15 AM
Jody, I think Sean and Doc gave fairly reasonable answers, nothing arfcom here.

The problem that I see here is in validation of theoretical merits. I am sure we all have our own examples, professionally or otherwise, where all the best theoretical intentions fell apart during practical application due to excessive complexity etc.

SteveK
04-18-2011, 09:23 AM
While all the dots appear to be a bit busy, I definitely like the idea of the tapered front post for a more precise reference. It's an idea I would definitely like to test-drive.

irishshooter
04-18-2011, 09:31 AM
Kyles new book sheds a lot of light on his decision to make/use these sights. He also clearly indicates that sights are a personal preference. he designed these sights for himself based on his experience and needs and is offering them to anyone else who follows the same thought process. great book by the way.

YVK
04-18-2011, 11:39 AM
Perhaps this (i) is an ignorant question and (ii) should go in another thread, but how is a tapered front sight more precise?

Tip of the sight covers less of a target, allowing for more refined sight picture; same way as thinner front sights generally allow for better accuracy than thicker ones.

DannyZRC
05-17-2011, 10:39 PM
thought I'd give this thread a kick, see if anyone has played with these more yet?

Sean, have you fiddled with that set you said you ordered?

your geardo public awaits ;p

orionz06
05-17-2011, 10:52 PM
I had a chance to hold a gun with them on it and the idea makes more sense once you hold them, but I could not see them in bright sunlight. The FO tubes do light up well and I suspect that in low light the tritium would take over, but for the random overcast days in PA I think there will be 6 dots.

I did really like the idea of the tapered front sight, but shooting and fondling could yield drastically different results. As someone who thought Kyle Lamb was full of it at first, I will have to rely on his expertise and assume these fill a need for someone with a mission that differs greatly from mine. I can only hope to see them on the range some time and actually shoot the gun.

GearScout
05-17-2011, 11:42 PM
FWIW- I talked to Jerry Miculek at NRAAM about the sights. He told me they were a damn good idea and he wished he'd though of it.

KevH
05-18-2011, 11:42 AM
Sights are an extreme personal preference item which is one of the reasons there are eleventy-billion different sight options out there and a new sight option seems to pop up every other day.

Yes, Kyle's sight looks pretty busy, but if it works well for him and some other people that is enough to make it a viable option to have out there.

NGCSUGrad09
05-18-2011, 01:33 PM
Dave Harrington had a similar front sight concept a few years back as well. His front sight looked like a snowman though.. with a night sight on the bottom and a smaller fiber optic on top. For a rear sight is was a ghost ring with a piece cut out of the top, kinda looked like a claw. The concept was the tritium would be centered in the rear sight "ring" area for using the night sight and really fast shooting, with the fiber optic being centered in the "claw" piece for more precision. I believe the name was Advanced Speed Sight or something.

Of course with it being designed by The Predator it was very different, but an interesting concept nonetheless. It seems Kyle Lamb is coming from a similar approach and made a working design.

SLG
04-16-2015, 08:52 PM
Resurrection!

Shot a VTAC M&P today with these sights. Late to the party, I know. They worked just fine for me, though my time with them was limited, as was the environment. As I've previously mentioned, I am fairly insensitive to most variations in sights, so take that into account. I liked the thin top of the front sight, but wasn't crazy about the taper. I know why it does taper, but I do prefer a consistent, narrow width front sight. The rear sight didn't distract me at all, and in the light I was shooting in, I could see all six dots. My speed and accuracy were exactly the same as with my normal sights, so at least for me, I don't think the extra dots are a problem. I'm not going to put them on any of my guns at this time, but they did tempt me to go get a VTAC M&P.

Hizzie
04-17-2015, 03:14 PM
Just fingered a gun with them today. With the FO and tritium they are awful and waaaay too busy. Plain black I might like.

DocGKR
04-17-2015, 04:42 PM
I like the VTAC sights--they work as advertised.

Gio
04-18-2015, 07:41 AM
I think these would be ideal if they removed the fiber from the rear sight, and put very low profile trijicon inserts in both the front and rear sight that would only stand out in low light.

BaiHu
04-18-2015, 07:54 AM
How does the accuracy change, if at all, when you switch to night sights?

CCT125US
04-18-2015, 01:02 PM
How does the accuracy change, if at all, when you switch to night sights?

Different hold points. Think of the variation between drive the dot, combat hold, and six o'clock. It "can" change the relationship between POA / POI.

BaiHu
04-18-2015, 01:35 PM
Different hold points. Think of the variation between drive the dot, combat hold, and six o'clock. It "can" change the relationship between POA / POI.
That was my guess, but is that really preferable?

orionz06
04-18-2015, 01:47 PM
If the elevation between the FO and tritium doesn't change from front sight to rear sight wouldn't it be the same....?

BaiHu
04-18-2015, 01:48 PM
If the elevation between the FO and tritium doesn't change from front sight to rear sight wouldn't it be the same....?
Things I don't know and am curious about.

SLG
04-18-2015, 03:12 PM
I didn't shoot it at night, but it did look like there was a slight difference between the FO and the tritium. Might be me, since I didn't actually get to test it.

EM_
04-24-2016, 11:27 AM
I'm resurrecting this thread rather than start a new one. At first glance I found the VTAC's far too 'busy' for my eyes and dismissed them as not being useful for me. I noticed when checking out their site looking for a new sling they now offer the VTAC front with a black rear. This could make these interesting to me again.

Curious if anyone else has given them a fair shake, or seen the black rear/VTAC front in the wild?

7465

orionz06
04-24-2016, 11:40 AM
That looks very intriguing. I could deal with those, especially with the well protected FO.

EM_
04-24-2016, 12:14 PM
That looks very intriguing. I could deal with those, especially with the well protected FO.

That's what I thought. It made me wonder how these would perform in Mr. White's thread where he took pics in all the different lighting conditions.

iWander
04-30-2016, 09:57 PM
JodyH,

Although they may not work for every person's need, several very serious face shooters I know use the CSAT sights while safeguarding our Nation--since they definitely work for some professional end-users, it would not be fair to be dismissive of the design...

Likewise, unless a person has used the VTAC sights over several thousand training shots in a variety of environmental conditions and operational scenarios, I am not sure one can truly discuss the merits of the VTAC sights with any semblance of insight into the efficacy of the design. An acquaintance of mine who is a combat experienced veteran in the SOF community has publicly written the following about the VTAC pistol sights:
Durability wasn't the issue for me. They were just distracting. I had an M&P VTAC and hated it... The sights, finish, trigger, ergonomics, everything. I had to make a choice between the two sets of sights every time.

I'm all for durable fiber optic sights combined with tritium like what's on the Sig TacOps or TruGlo. Bright in any light and high quality. I've had them on Glocks and my aging eyes love em.http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160501/5084e162f2c3d806b24a83730438d5ee.jpg

Jay Cunningham
04-30-2016, 10:23 PM
I love the idea of the TruGlo style front sight (with the white ring) coupled with a muted tritium rear.

DocGKR
04-30-2016, 11:54 PM
Re. TruGlo--see posts #24 & #25 in this thread....

Unobtanium
05-01-2016, 05:58 AM
I really really like trijicon hd sights. I personally feel that the vtac sight this thread is about was "made to sell". Huge fan of kyle lamb and have trained with him multiple times, and not trying to make a dig at all. It's just my opinion, for what you paid me for it.

*I can engage targets from 1 to 100 yards with my trijicons. I honest don't feel that I am likely to make hits beyond that, or even at 100, responsibly. Maybe in a warzone, yes. However, I am a civilian. The legal application is not 100 yards for a handgun. Not only that, but I am accountable for every bullet I launch. I do not honestly feel competent to launch bullets past 50 yards without missing, even under ideal square range situations. I feel these sights would offer the premise of a capability that I have no business pretending to have. Ymmv, and I am sure it does. This is just my take.

Jay Cunningham
05-01-2016, 06:27 PM
Re. TruGlo--see posts #24 & #25 in this thread....

I went back and looked at that.

Is everything the same as five years ago when those posts were made? Have the TruGlo sights come along at all? Has their customer service come along at all?

Five years is a long time in this industry. Anyway, like I wrote, I love the idea of their front sight without FO dots on the rear. I'm going to try this combo (using an AmeriGlo yellow tritium-only two dot rear) and see if it works.

GRV
05-01-2016, 08:52 PM
Based on the manufacturer's literature, and posts here on PF, it sounds like the new TFX are really a different boat from the old TruGlo TFOs that had problems, and were specifically designed to address the often cited issues. That's not a ringing endorsement of them, but it's a reason to give these new sights a clean-slate judgement.

DocGKR
05-01-2016, 10:25 PM
Unfortunately I don't have sufficient long term experience with a large enough sample size of TFX sights to comment on them as yet, but will attempt to collect that data.

vcdgrips
05-02-2016, 10:36 AM
Thank you in advance Doc. I confess I am intrigued by Tru-Glos latest offerings but your insights ( and those of others) have kept me from pulling the trigger on a set.

SemperFi0317
04-20-2018, 07:30 PM
Wow. Lotta dirt thrown at these sights. WhoÂ’s actually used them? Then whose used them for what theyÂ’re designed for?
They’re designed for desert warfare. Areas so bright you’d never notice the nightsights because the damn fiber optics glow like they’re battery powered. Def no confusion as to what’s lining up where. Soon as that light is gone you only see the tritium and if set up correctly they are deadly accurate. No six dot confusion. No money scam. Truly serious sights for the circumstance. I might not like them in Seattle but they definitely do the job they were designed for. I back em 100% and I’m not getting them free. Nothing compares to the accuracy they give. Again given they are set up correctly. If you’re having issues with low or high shots. Turn the darn gun upside down and measure you have the same distance from the front sight to your table as you do at the rear. If not you have one sight that’s not the right size. All my handguns are tested this way on installation before I take one shot. N all my handguns test just fine upside down. Kyles an easy going guy but I hope the guy calling him a “crack smoker”never has those sights lined up on him by the designer.
Lights out for sure. N yes IÂ’ve tried every other version of the fiber tritium combo. None with the accuracy obtained here. Waiting for somebody to make a nice battle sight combo for an AR platform using some of this tech. ThatÂ’s be worth the price you pay for backup sights.

Casual Friday
04-28-2018, 09:57 PM
Wow. Lotta dirt thrown at these sights. WhoÂ’s actually used them? Then whose used them for what theyÂ’re designed for?
They’re designed for desert warfare. Areas so bright you’d never notice the nightsights because the damn fiber optics glow like they’re battery powered. Def no confusion as to what’s lining up where. Soon as that light is gone you only see the tritium and if set up correctly they are deadly accurate. No six dot confusion. No money scam. Truly serious sights for the circumstance. I might not like them in Seattle but they definitely do the job they were designed for. I back em 100% and I’m not getting them free. Nothing compares to the accuracy they give. Again given they are set up correctly. If you’re having issues with low or high shots. Turn the darn gun upside down and measure you have the same distance from the front sight to your table as you do at the rear. If not you have one sight that’s not the right size. All my handguns are tested this way on installation before I take one shot. N all my handguns test just fine upside down. Kyles an easy going guy but I hope the guy calling him a “crack smoker”never has those sights lined up on him by the designer.
Lights out for sure. N yes IÂ’ve tried every other version of the fiber tritium combo. None with the accuracy obtained here. Waiting for somebody to make a nice battle sight combo for an AR platform using some of this tech. ThatÂ’s be worth the price you pay for backup sights.

Nothing like bumping a 2011 thread that has been dead since 2016 just to voice your angst.

And WTF is up with the hieroglyphics?