Why handguns have 3 dot sights? Isn't it easier to line up one dot rear with front?

[Mystery]

Why handguns have 3 dot sights?
Isn't it easier to line up one dot rear with front?

Why do we have to calculate the gap in between, make sure they are equal every time?
That's too much math, specially who doesn't like math.

Anyone compared 3 dot sights with 2 dot sights?

[Darth_Uno]

I prefer the Heinie Straight 8 setup (dot over dot). Actually my #1 choice is a black rear and fo front. So that's one dot.

But what some call clutter, others call feedback. So YMMV and I wouldn't say any one is better than the other...if it were, the gun forums would surely have heard by now.

[Dave T]

My preference is the bar-dot offered by several sight makers. Other than that, a high visibility front with a plain rear works better than 3 dots for me.

Dave

[Tod-13]

YMMV.

I do best with three dots to line up.
My wife does best with dot front and plain rear.

And we both like narrow notches, so the front sight fills the notch.

:confused::p

[Olim9]

You have to understand firearms manufacturers and designers are not shooters.
•grooves on the front of the trigger guard, as opposed to underneath them
•slippery grip texture on certain pistols like the PX4, slimline Glocks
•painted three dot sights instead of a blacked out rear and painted orange which would cost just about the same

Gun manufacturers prioritize making guns that look nice, it’s up to you as an individual to optimize it for fighting whether it be adding metal sights, texturing and so on. And to answer your question; yes, you are better off with using a high contrast front sight and black rear rather than having three high vis dots. I don’t know every high level competition shooter’s iron sight choice but I can guarantee you almost all of them aren’t running this type of fiber optic setup. It’s simply way too busy.
46669

[Glenn E. Meyer]

When some human factor, perceptual experts actually run well done tests on sights, let me know. I haven't seen it. The closest is Karl Rehn on red dots. Unfortunately, the most journals and academic venues aren't friendly to firearms technical research. Knowing folks in the area, this is the case.

Perhaps, a military academy or a Federal agency could do this and publish it in a journal of repute. One company, who seems to have disappeared, consulted with a very well know cognitive psychologist on some triangular Glock sights. They were going to send a set and they disappeared.

There are very well known perceptual principles that could lay out configurations and they could be tested. I wonder if companies have such experts or actually hire them as consultants. It's kind of like human computer interaction, interfaces come out of programmers with their ideas of what users would like and use efficiently. Then the interface sucks. Used to teach a course on that.

[Alpha Sierra]

The best combination of irons that works for my eyes (significant myopia, presbyopia, and some astigmatism) is a black serrated rear, black serrated front with red (no go on green) fiber optic, with .010" to .012" gap between each side of the front sight and each side of the rear notch. And even with all that, precision is a struggle.

The best sight for my eyes is a RDS.

[M2CattleCo]

The two dot deal is a Von Stavenhagen arrangement that Sig picked up for some reason in 70s.

Some like it more than 3-dot.

I've never found it intuitive at all.

I like 3 dots better than two, one better than three, and none better than one.

A rearward angled smooth rear with a ramped serrated front is by far the best I've ever used but age doesn't allow anyone to use those forever.

[Sammy1]

I've used three dot NS for so long, other combinations are slower for me. It's just what I'm use to. I tried blacked out rear, I dot and different contrast front sight but they don't work as well for me as standard three dot.

[Robinson]

I can deal with 3-dot sights, but my preference is for a plain black rear (especially adjustable) and a painted front post sight. Plain black rear with either white dot front or fiber optic front is a close second, but I prefer to line up the top of the front post with the top of the rear sight. I don't get along well with "shoot the dot" sights (aka "combat sight picture") and tend to shoot them low.

[Texaspoff]

I have used three dot sights for as long as I can remember. When picked up my MR918, I had every intention of swapping the plain rear for a two dot tritium one. Spent a day at the range, and to my surprise, I was faster and just as accurate with a plain black rear and hi vis front.

When I got home, I took a sharpie and blacked out every other two dot tritium rear I had. Without question, even with my aging eye sight, a single hi vis front sight and black rear works better for me.





TXPO

[That Guy]

In good lighting conditions, a high visibility front and an all black rear is great.

However, once lighting levels are reduced enough, at least with my eyes plain black has the tendency to just disappear. It's not fun to be left with only the front sight as an aiming reference, with no clue where the rear sight is in relation to the front. In these conditions, three dot sights or any other sort of a higher visibility element in the rear sight starts to seem like a pretty nice compromise, at least to me and my eyes.

[M2CattleCo]

^ I agree. To me, if tritium is to be of any utility it has to be present in both the front and rear sights.

[medic15al]

The orange HD front and a rear U notch with white outline such as on the SA Hellcat is the fastest and most accurate sighting for me.

Will not use red dots due to astigmatism and the chance of "hunting" for the dot.

Green laser helps but not wild about them. Too many years of high intensity training behind me on irons than I have got left to relearn to same proficiency.

[HopetonBrown]

Hilton Yam used this photo on his Modern Service Weapons blog to illustrate an issue with 3 dot sights. 46677

[CCT125US]

46669

This picture illustrates perfectly one of my main issues with 3 dots, and how people interpret information. This sight picture is aligned several different ways, equal height along the top edge of the dots, equal light between the front and rear, and equal height along the top edge of the front and rear sights. At distance, the top edge dot alignment will impact differently than top edge of front and rear, as they sit at different elevations. This can certainly lead to confusion as to what is aligned. With my 3 dot sights, which are Trijicon Bright and Tough, I align the center of the dots. I am visually aware of the all the dots aligned, and use the crisp top edge. Using this method of aiming, with this displayed image, the front sight edge would drop in relation to the rear edge.

With suppressor use, I am placing the center dot over the intended target, as the top edges are obscured by the rear of the can. I may align the top edges of the Tritium for extended ranges, as it elevates the front.

[BillSWPA]

Three dots provide fast, accurate feedback for both windage and elevation. With two dots, elevation is a guess. With a blacked out rear, you may or may not have a reference for the front sight in low light.

Since the vast majority of the bad situations I have seen occurred in low light, I strongly prefer that those 3 dots be tritium.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mystery]

So are we supposed to align the dots or top of sights?
I try to align the top as that's what the "internet" said.

[blues]

So are we supposed to align the dots or top of sights?
I try to align the top as that's what the "internet" said.

Different schools of thought. I tend to push the dot.

[CCT125US]

So are we supposed to align the dots or top of sights?
I try to align the top as that's what the "internet" said.

Well, it depends. If you align the dots, where do you place them to impact correctly? My default is alignment of the front and rear top edge, cutting the desired point of impact. Different guns and different visual perceptions may necessitate a different alignment. The key is be consistent and go from there.

[Mystery]

Well, it depends. If you align the dots, where do you place them to impact correctly? My default is alignment of the front and rear top edge, cutting the desired point of impact. Different guns and different visual perceptions may necessitate a different alignment. The key is be consistent and go from there.

I can't confidently repeat the shots yet to figure out exact poa and poi.
I am happy if I hit 4 inch circle at 7 yards.

[CCT125US]

I can't confidently repeat the shots yet to figure out exact poa and poi.
I am happy if I hit 4 inch circle at 7 yards.

Perfect. The goal is to be consistent in what you see, and where the bulk of the rounds land because of that. Pick one method and work from there. There is no one correct way, people have different perceptions, and this leads to preferences. My default suggestion is to start with a top edge hold to establish repeatability. This is typically the easiest to illustrate in my opinion.

[HopetonBrown]

Three dots provide fast, accurate feedback for both windage and elevation.


If three dots are so fast and accurate, why do virtually no top level competitive shooters use them?



With two dots, elevation is a guess.

I thought 2 dots were purely night sights for coarse sighting in no-light environs.

If you've ever tried to shoot in the dark with 3 dot tritium sights, it can be confusing as to which dot is the front dot.



With a blacked out rear, you may or may not have a reference for the front sight in low light.

Since the vast majority of the bad situations I have seen occurred in low light, I strongly prefer that those 3 dots be tritium.


Tom Givens has written repeatedly about night sights and whether they're necessary. Feb 2017 of his newsletter goes into detail.

https://rangemaster.com/publications/rangemaster-newsletter/

Frank Proctor on fiber optic vs night sights.


https://www.recoilweb.com/a-few-thoughts-on-fiber-optic-sights-and-carrying-a-light-59795.html


Mike Pannone has a video on the subject.

https://youtu.be/av8Nfjn-230

[M2CattleCo]

I was under the impression that the three dots vs two dots discussed were tritium dots.

If so, they're for rough aiming in poor lighting conditions.

If you're trying to use them for precise shooting, there's no telling what you're going to get as far what the sight picture does in relation to where the bullet goes because there's so many different ways to interpret the sights and a whole lot more loads to go along with it.

I've always assumed that the sights should either be drive the front dot, poa/poi, or 6:00 with all top edges of the sights aligned and the dots would be, as much as possible, ignored. Which is difficult at best.

[HopetonBrown]

Different schools of thought. I tend to push the dot.You can push the dot all you want, but you're either aligning the tops of your sights or the dots.

[blues]

You can push the dot all you want, but you're either aligning the tops of your sights or the dots.

Agreed. I should have been clearer. I align the dots. Thanks for having me clarify.

[TiroFijo]

I like dot over bar much better than three, one better than two, and none better than one.

[Darth_Uno]

I thought 2 dots were purely night sights for coarse sighting in no-light environs.

If you've ever tried to shoot in the dark with 3 dot tritium sights, it can be confusing as to which dot is the front dot.



I used to maintain that a different colored front sight, in either a 2 or 3 dot setup, was the way to go. I've since abandoned that in favor of downrange illumination.

I believe we recently had a "do you need night sights" thread. Night sights are, as far as gun parts go, basically "free" compared to many other options. At this point I'm more concerned with my own preferences and experience vs whatever I read online. I was also an early adopter of appendix carry and red dot sights, which hardly qualifies me as "smart" but I just knew what worked for me before it was cool.

Which, HopetonBrown, I suspect largely puts me in agreement with you regarding sight configuration.

[BillSWPA]

If three dots are so fast and accurate, why do virtually no top level competitive shooters use them?




I thought 2 dots were purely night sights for coarse sighting in no-light environs.

If you've ever tried to shoot in the dark with 3 dot tritium sights, it can be confusing as to which dot is the front dot.



Tom Givens has written repeatedly about night sights and whether they're necessary. Feb 2017 of his newsletter goes into detail.

https://rangemaster.com/publications/rangemaster-newsletter/

Frank Proctor on fiber optic vs night sights.


https://www.recoilweb.com/a-few-thoughts-on-fiber-optic-sights-and-carrying-a-light-59795.html


Mike Pannone has a video on the subject.

https://youtu.be/av8Nfjn-230

Most competitive shooters are competing in good light.

Having actually tried 3 dot night sights during low light training, confusing the front and rear dots has never been an issue for me. Have you ever tried it?

I have not found fiber optic to be worth any more than plain black in low light. They seem to make more of a difference in bright sunlight.

I am aware of Tom Given’s statistics. Having spent a great deal of time in lighting conditions wherein I had sufficient light to identify threats but in which tritium would be quite helpful, I remain in favor of tritium.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[blues]

Most competitive shooters are competing in good light.

Having actually tried 3 dot night sights during low light training, confusing the front and rear dots has never been an issue for me. Have you ever tried it?

I have not found fiber optic to be worth any more than plain black in low light. They seem to make more of a difference in bright sunlight.

I am aware of Tom Given’s statistics. Having spent a great deal of time in lighting conditions wherein I had sufficient light to identify threats but in which tritium would be quite helpful, I remain in favor of tritium.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agree, Bill. The nice thing is we all get to choose. I choose to keep mine. (And I've never had the issue with aligning the dots either.)

[Spartan1980]

I use a FO front and plain black rear on my game guns and range toys.

Carry guns are a different animal. Tritium front always.

Plain black rear or two tritium vials with a very strong preference for no outline because they are much easier to ignore. Clutter is no bueno, but in very low light it's not that cluttered since you can't really see the light bars or the top of your sights and the rear dots are quite helpful.

[TCinVA]

Why handguns have 3 dot sights?
Isn't it easier to line up one dot rear with front?


No.



Anyone compared 3 dot sights with 2 dot sights?

Yes, in fact.

Having two dots requires accurately judging the gap between those two dots at speed...which I found resulted in a lot of vertical stringing. Especially in low light using night sights with the 2 dot arrangement.

Three dots isn't perfect either...but it's easier to put the front dot centered between the two rears than to judge the gap between two dots or with the "dot the i" arrangement of Sig sights.

When I can see the sights clearly I'm not looking at the dots, I'm looking at the top edge of the front sight. The dots are somewhat useful when you can't see the sights clearly.

For irons, the best low light setup you can get is a bright tritium front dot and smaller, dimmer vials for the rear:

46688

That's a really easy sight picture to use in low light.

[HopetonBrown]

Having actually tried 3 dot night sights during low light training, confusing the front and rear dots has never been an issue for me. Have you ever tried it?



Yes, that's why I brought it up, and presumably why sight makers offer different tritium colors for front and rear dots.


(And I've never had the issue with aligning the dots either.)

Trying your quickest draw in near dark with 3 green dots, it takes a fraction of a second for me to figure out which green dot is the center dot.

[blues]

Trying your quickest draw in near dark with 3 green dots, it takes a fraction of a second for me to figure out which green dot is the center dot.

Haven't had that issue. These days my only live low light training at speed is with the sheriff's office with two of my Glocks wearing HDs. Dark enough that I can't see my sights without tritium but can barely make out the target. So far, so good.

That said, I'm sure it takes everyone a microsecond to process the visual input.

[M2CattleCo]

To me three green dots always ended up looking like two bright ones on the rear sight and a fuzzy dim one on the front. My muzzle is always high when I start the press-out and it's easy to drop the front dot between the two rears.

I carried a Gen2 23 that had Meprolights with green front/blue rears. That was high speed back in the day.

Ameriglo yellow Operator rears after that.

I've tried tritium front only several times and didn't find it useful for anything.

[El Cid]

To me three green dots always ended up looking like two bright ones on the rear sight and a fuzzy dim one on the front. My muzzle is always high when I start the press-out and it's easy to drop the front dot between the two rears.

I carried a Gen2 23 that had Meprolights with green front/blue rears. That was high speed back in the day.

Ameriglo yellow Operator rears after that.

I've tried tritium front only several times and didn't find it useful for anything.

When using a pistol that has tritium rears I usually make them dull with a black marker so the front stands out more. If the reads have white rings they get blacked out too. Especially helpful on agency weapons where I can’t change the sights.

ETA- and yes back in the 90’s I used the PT night sights from IWI (Innovative Weaponry Inc) that had orange tears and green fronts. Or was it the other way around? Lol! I no longer believe mixing up the green dogs is a problem for any shooter who has spent time shooting their gun. I’d have to be pointed off to one side significantly to misalign them.

[BillSWPA]

Yes, that's why I brought it up, and presumably why sight makers offer different tritium colors for front and rear dots.



Trying your quickest draw in near dark with 3 green dots, it takes a fraction of a second for me to figure out which green dot is the center dot.

Regardless of low light or good light, I have found that taking an extra 0.1 second to make sure I have a proper grip on the gun at the beginning pays off in overall faster times and better accuracy. I try to grab the gun so that the central axis of the barrel is lined up with the central axis of my forearm when viewed from the top. With this grip, I am reasonably assured that when the gun comes into my line of sight, the front sight will already be in the rear notch. Correct (or not) spacing of the sights also verifies that the front is the one in the middle.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SAWBONES]

Perceptions about handgun sights obviously differ considerably among shooters.

I've always felt that "three horizontal dot" sights were easier to align quickly and automatically for both windage and elevation than the von Stavenhagen (Sig-Sauer pattern) dot and bar sights or the Heinie "straight eight" or vertical double-dot type.

I've never had trouble distinguishing the rear dots from the front dots, or their spacing, with the three dot types either.

Others' perceptions differ.

I'm actually one of those rare people who likes the stock Glock "ball in the box" sights better than many other options for gross sighting, otherwise just preferring to align the tops of all sights, with POA being center of front sight top aligned on target.

I long ago gave up on tritium pistol sights of any variety.

After using tritium dot sights for some 20 years on multiple different guns, I got tired of having to replace them when they wore out (became too dim) after 2-10 years, and began to just practice dry firing with plain black sights or Glock pattern sights in reduced illumination.

I'm not saying that tritium sights can't be helpful; obviously they can, but the range of diminished lighting in which they are truly necessary or represent a real a boon is small enough to make the expense and trouble of their replacement just not worth it, at least for me.

[Ed L]

Three dots provide fast, accurate feedback for both windage and elevation. With two dots, elevation is a guess. With a blacked out rear, you may or may not have a reference for the front sight in low light.

Since the vast majority of the bad situations I have seen occurred in low light, I strongly prefer that those 3 dots be tritium.

I agree with this. I prefer three tritium sights with a strong white outline. My main issue with my eyesight is trouble picking up black on black sights in many lighting conditions, including many indoor situations. So the 3 dot with a colored outline is very important to me for most shooting conditions. I typically go with trijicon tritium dots with white outlines, or with some guns Meprolight. For whatever reason I seem to prefer the Meprolights on H&Ks.

[Jeff S.]

I don’t really like dots. With plain black sights, I easily pick up the silhouette of the sights, and I can easily focus on the front sight while placing the silhouette of the sights on target. I’ve also noticed with plain black sights I can go back-and-forth between sight focus or focusing on the target without confusing my eyes.

If I have to have dots and/or night sights, I like the style that features a brighter front sight with blacked out rears, like on my P365XL. At night, the front is a bit brighter; during the day the front really pops and the rear is dark. I like it, but find myself using it almost like a red dot sight. It’s very fast, especially up close (just put the dot on target), but not quite as accurate (especially at distance, and if I want to align the actually sights at distance, the dot is too much eye candy).

[Borderland]

Never was a fan of 3 dot sights. I'm not sure why mfg's insist on those. I prefer one dot (FS) or bar and dot.

[APS-PF]

If all you ever shoot at is light colored targets in daylight, of course a plain black rear is perfect...no distractions and pops against the light target. Why are the majority of action sports targets light colored? What would happen if USPSA, IDPA, tactical training etc went to all black targets? Would a PX4CC have a plain black rear then?
On a carry gun I do want subdued markings on the rear sight and something bright on the front. Ameriglo operators, Trijicon HDs, etc.

[noguns]

Options are always good.

If I know there is little to no possibility of needing night sights I'll carry a pistol with fiber front and black serrated rear. I shoot this setup best.
If I know I'll go out in the evening, I carry a pistol with a trijicon hd xr front and tooltech rear with blacked out rear vials-which are yellow. In darkness the front is much brighter than the rears.
In either case I have a light on me.
I figured I have all bases covered with this pair until I jump down the red dot rabbit hole which seems to be the inevitable trend on this forum.

[M2CattleCo]

If all you ever shoot at is light colored targets in daylight, of course a plain black rear is perfect...no distractions and pops against the light target. Why are the majority of action sports targets light colored? What would happen if USPSA, IDPA, tactical training etc went to all black targets? Would a PX4CC have a plain black rear then?
On a carry gun I do want subdued markings on the rear sight and something bright on the front. Ameriglo operators, Trijicon HDs, etc.


I've shot at bunch of targets dressed in different colored, even camouflage clothing. I was using black front and rears day and night with an X300 back then. No problems.

These targets were at a few trainings, and we had an outlaw match club that always did a stage or two of targets with shirts to keep things interesting.

[BillSWPA]

Perceptions about handgun sights obviously differ considerably among shooters.

I've always felt that "three horizontal dot" sights were easier to align quickly and automatically for both windage and elevation than the von Stavenhagen (Sig-Sauer pattern) dot and bar sights or the Heinie "straight eight" or vertical double-dot type.

I've never had trouble distinguishing the rear dots from the front dots, or their spacing, with the three dot types either.

Others' perceptions differ.

I'm actually one of those rare people who likes the stock Glock "ball in the box" sights better than many other options for gross sighting, otherwise just preferring to align the tops of all sights, with POA being center of front sight top aligned on target.

I long ago gave up on tritium pistol sights of any variety.

After using tritium dot sights for some 20 years on multiple different guns, I got tired of having to replace them when they wore out (became too dim) after 2-10 years, and began to just practice dry firing with plain black sights or Glock pattern sights in reduced illumination.

I'm not saying that tritium sights can't be helpful; obviously they can, but the range of diminished lighting in which they are truly necessary or represent a real a boon is small enough to make the expense and trouble of their replacement just not worth it, at least for me.

I also like the standard Glock ball in a box. They are surprisingly visible in a wide variety of conditions, and I find that I can align them quickly and accurately. If tritium were not an option, this would be my second choice.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Wondering Beard]

I try to analyze needs from the basics, as best as I understand them.

The primary and most important part of iron sights is the front sight. That’s the one that tells you that you are, at least, somewhere good on the target. The front sight is the one you have to see the best, no matter the lighting conditions. It can be plain black, it can be purple with polka dots, it doesn’t matter, so long as you can see it best and get it fast on target.

For best aiming, that highly visible front sight needs to be framed in something so that you can be sure that the front sight is really aimed where it needs to be. However, here is the important thing: the rear sight must not be more visible to your eyes than the front sight, in all lighting conditions, for your use of them. For some people, usually young ones, dots of the same size as the front ones (with or without tritium) work great, and they do frame the front dot exceedingly well. For a lot of people, they kinda overwhelm their capability to focus rapidly on the front sight, sometimes to the degree that any two dots on the rear is just too much, and maybe a single dot or bar, or nothing at all is best. My eyes not being young anymore tend to fall in that latter category. I can do the subdued rear two tritium dots that come with Trijicon HDs ok but it’s not my favorite.

So once we have those basics down, it’s easy to say that three dots enable excellent framing of the front sight, just not for everybody’s eyes. The typical three dots used to be just fine for me, they aren’t anymore, but that’s just me. What is for best for anyone will always require individual experimentation.

[revchuck38]

When I started with PX4s and their three-dot sights, I found I was hitting low. I started shooting before three-dot sights were a thing; I learned to align the tops of the front and rear sights. I contacted LTT to see if they had sights of different heights and Ernest replied that the factory sights are designed to be shot with the dots aligned, and that aligning the tops results in hitting below POA. I ended up with three PX4s and the LTT Ameriglo sights - plain black rear, huge square orange/red dot on the front with a tritium insert in the middle of it. They work well for me.

I did a low-light class a couple of months ago and found that, in light where I was barely able to discern the target, I had no problem keeping my shots in the -0 of an IDPA target at five yards on index alone, with verification from the tritium dot. Of course, that was on a square range where I pretty much knew where the target was. Anything darker or farther required a flashlight. My Microstream worked fine for that.

[Mystery]

Last night I went to the range and tried the Shield with sights in level on top.
It's so hard to get the top align perfectly.
First it's blurry as I'm focusing on the front.
Second, the black top edge is not very distinct to know if they are aligned or not against the not so bright range. Paint the top of sights white?

At 5 yards, it's not too bad even though most of my shots are few inches left and low.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49328347156_3aa970ce25_b.jpg

At 7 yards, it's much worse. It's hard to keep the target and sights in focus.
The first pic shows results of two targets. One on the middle and another on top, the small target I'm shooting and it landed few inches to the left. Arrows for reference.
I can see quite a few shots landed on the lower left quadrant to make big hole in both targets.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49328565952_5c22dceba8_b.jpg

Also, I think my grip needs change.
It's very hard to put the web of my hand directly behind the shield as it's much thinner.
I can hold the compact with web directly behind but my last knuckle comes behind the shield. Is that an issue?

[Caballoflaco]

Mystery

When shooting with irons for precision everything should be blurry except the front sight. Kept a hard sharp focus on the top edge of the front sight and don’t worry about anything else.

Also, painting a white line on the top of the front sight is a bad idea, in any kind of bright light it’s likely to wash out causing you to hit too high. There is a reason old target shooters blackened their sights with non reflective carbon from candles or lamps before shooting.

[JTMcC]

Sights are like grips, what's best for me may not be best for my Wife/Chic or anybody else.
My eyes like 3 dots a LOT, they used to like standard all black patridge sights best.
Whatever lets YOU make solid hits is always the correct answer imo.
It's nice that we have so many options to try.

[That Guy]

I did a low-light class a couple of months ago and found that, in light where I was barely able to discern the target, I had no problem keeping my shots in the -0 of an IDPA target at five yards on index alone, with verification from the tritium dot. Of course, that was on a square range where I pretty much knew where the target was.

And of course, shooting a full size target with large scoring zones at such a short range, there isn't a need to do all that much aiming in the first place. Try headshots at 10 yards and see if you still feel the plain black rear works for you? :)

[revchuck38]

And of course, shooting a full size target with large scoring zones at such a short range, there isn't a need to do all that much aiming in the first place. Try headshots at 10 yards and see if you still feel the plain black rear works for you? :)

I'd be using a flashlight at that distance so I'd be shooting one-handed. That'd be a challenging shot in daylight!

[Maple Syrup Actual]

I spent a lot of the last three or four years getting handed all kinds of different random pistols to shoot and evaluate and they all came with different random sights so I feel like I've got five hundred rounds on every sight combination known to man.

I have been using sharpie'd rear three dots on most of my personal guns for as long as I can remember. Maybe fifteen years? So part of my bias towards that arrangement is just familiarity. But I think traditional 3-dots with dimmed rears are awesome. I do also like some of the bar-dot sights and other oddball combos but for me the 3-dots work really well.

I have never once been confused about which was the front. That's down to body index. I have done plenty of low-light stuff, including a LL module with Ken Hackathorn and several low-light specific, multi-day classes. I know other people have done more, I'm not trying to make a claim that I'm a particular expert in the area, I'm just saying that I think if there was a situation where my gear would surprise me, I'd have stumbled across it by now. 3 dots work well for me.

[camsdaddy]

When I started with PX4s and their three-dot sights, I found I was hitting low. I started shooting before three-dot sights were a thing; I learned to align the tops of the front and rear sights.
I had the same problem when I purchased my 3913 TSW. I was shooting low. I called Smith and the rep sent me another Novak sight. When I called them back the lady I spoke with immediately asked about my sight picture. Between flinch and sight picture over the years I've been able to correct the issue.