What's wrong with Glock sights?

[Baldanders]

Many Glock fans seem to react to the factory sights like they are an avocado bathroom:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWoWHzq21tA&t=5s

I have never had an issue with doing as well as I do with any other decent set of iron sights using the standard Glock set. Sure, I would prefer Ameriglos, but for daytime they are fine. And my eyes are crap.

Opinions?

[blues]

I got by with the plastic "place holders" as they are referred to around here from 1988 to 2017 and managed not to get kilt on da streetz.

(And I had plenty of opportunities.)

Now I have the unfashionable Trijicon HDs on my three Glocks after succumbing to peer pressure here a few years back. I don't regret getting them at all, but whether they are "required" is debatable, imho.

There are circumstances when they are very useful during my annual night quals...so they are a good investment in that regard, and I don't think I'd go without night sights going forward.

[STI]

I think at a bare minimum the fragility is an issue for hard use or duty guns. It’s incredibly easy to get the front sight blade removed/moved and the rear isn’t much harder. It wouldn’t be good if a dropped/banged around gun now had a different POI or no front sight blade.

[PNWTO]

I don’t think the concept is bad at all, my only issue is how easily I’ve seen them deformed and damaged.

[APS-PF]

Front sight is too wide for my preference but I can shoot them OK. Durability is more of a concern and for a carry gun I prefer tritium.

And That Mitchell and Webb Look was a flippin hilarious show. Love British humor and frequently watch the youtube episodes of Would I Lie to You.

[Totem Polar]

The reason folks treat them like a bad fart is because they’re cheap plastic and tend to wear off practicing lots of draws and break off if otherwise treated roughly.

I think they’re genius, myself. Since I’m going to install the sights I think best anyways, being able to just grab any old pliers and instantly yank off the front, then tap the rear out of the dovetail directly into the wastebasket is awesome.

I can also use the sight picture just fine for vetting mags/ammo while waiting for the new sight set to arrive in the mail.

So, I like ’em, for what they are.

[Mitch]

Depends what you expect to be able to do. I was in a class where we were doing a walk back drill and by the end I couldn’t see the target because of how fat the factory Glock sight was on my 21. And by the end of the class my ALS holster had chewed up the front sight.

Can I use them at 25 yards and get hits in a reasonable time? Sure. But they’re fat and fragile, and I can get a better option for not much money. Why put up with a known weakness?

[HopetonBrown]

I have never had an issue with doing as well as I do with any other decent set of iron sights using the standard Glock set.

How well is that?

[HopetonBrown]

I got by with the plastic "place holders" as they are referred to around here from 1988 to 2017 and managed not to get kilt on da streetz.

(And I had plenty of opportunities.)


I didn't wear a seat belt from 88 to 2017 and didn't die so seat belts must be dumb.

[Baldanders]

How well is that?

Not particularly well.

I was going to post an approximation, but hell, I can shoot in my backyard, give me a bit and I will post measurement of group and maybe even a time(but probably not).

I think I will borrow the wife's Cheetah for a sec. 😉

This came to ,mind for me recently shooting a G20. Which was a good experience, completely stock.

[blues]

I didn't wear a seat belt from 88 to 2017 and didn't die so seat belts must be dumb.

No, but your comment above is dumb.

I didn't say that aftermarket sights were dumb. I said they weren't absolutely necessary.

Now, I don't know what you did or didn't do for a living but I managed to not break the sights on SRT, rolling around during training, and on arrests / fights on the street. Nor did any of the folks I worked with ever mention to me that they had. My own agency, Miami P.D., Miami-Dade P.D. etc. Not saying it didn't happen.

But anyway, rather than mischaracterize what I said, why not just ignore my posts and spare me the effort of having to respond.

(ETA: I recently told TC215 during a telephone conversation of responding to a crash in Tennessee where the young woman's failure to wear a seatbelt was the only thing that saved her life when the driver side of her vehicle was crushed by an 18-wheeler. But I digress...)

[ER_STL]

The fact that they're plastic is a primary concern, but I thought I read somewhere that you can buy steel versions of them. That aside, many people who actually shoot and not just parrot what they read on the Internet complain about the tight front/rear ratio and excessively large front sight as drawbacks to accuracy. That's a fair complaint and one that I can verify for me when shooting at distance. For "practical" defensive targets and distances I haven't had any issues hitting quickly and I've seen much more talented shooters do some pretty amazing things with entirely stock Glocks. For me the put-the-ball-in-the-box thinking process works well at speed when ascertaining whether or not I have an adequate enough of a picture to break the shot, and the overly visible Glock picture allows me to pick up that relationship quickly and often without having to shift my vision back to the sights. But that's just me.

That being said, I have Ameriglos with a smaller front sight (painted orange) on one of my G19s that I like and with which I can shoot pretty well.

[HopetonBrown]

Not particularly well..

If someone said "what's wrong with running in sandals? I run just as fast in sandals as I do in running shors", it would matter how fast their running was as to whether that statement meant anything.

6 minute mile, wow. 12 minute mile? Who cares.

[HopetonBrown]

No, but your comment above is dumb.

I didn't say that aftermarket sights were dumb. I said they weren't absolutely necessary.


How much would it have mattered if you would have had *no* sights on your gun?

[blues]

How much would it have mattered if you would have had *no* sights on your gun?

Ask someone else. We're done.

[HCM]

Many Glock fans seem to react to the factory sights like they are an avocado bathroom:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWoWHzq21tA&t=5s

I have never had an issue with doing as well as I do with any other decent set of iron sights using the standard Glock set. Sure, I would prefer Ameriglos, but for daytime they are fine. And my eyes are crap.

Opinions?

Durability issues with plastic sites, especially with the plastic Glock adjustable sight that originally came on all civilian Glocks. Glock makes a steel version of these sights that addresses this issue. In particular, when used with Julie holsters that feature tracks to protect the front sight, The top corners of the front sight will wear down leaving a front sight with rounded corners shaped kind of like R2-D2.

Second issue sight picture. There’s nothing wrong with the front dot/ U rear sight picture as a concept. However, until the release of the GEN 5 Glock‘s a proper sight picture using equal light equal height would always result in the bottom of the front dot being chopped off. Conversely prior to gen 5, If the front dot was centered in the white Y notch the tip of the front sight would be sticking up above the top edge of the rear blade perpetuating the myth that Glocks “shoot high. “

/thread.

[JonInWA]

I'm apparently one of the outliers who has successfully used Glock sights, with some caveats:

1. I immediately replace the polymer Glock sights with the steel Glock sights if I choose to remain with Glocks sights-currently, out of my 4 Glocks, my Gen4 G22 and Gen 3 G17 have Glock steels; (but be aware there are at least 4 "generations/options for Glock steels (or, probably more accurately, 4 generation of the Glock steel FRONT sight; I think that the steel Glock rears have remained unchanged throughout their production)-the first was a non-tritium made by Trijicon for Glock, and was dimensionally the same as the OEM polymer front sight, the second was the steel crimp-on front sight, the thirs was the screw-on front sight, and the forth apparently is the Gen5 proportionally adjusted steel sights (with a screw-on-front)) My preference is for a screw-on front, although the crimp-on set on my G22 has survived nicely with no issues in use for 4+ years.

2. I'm not iconoclastic about it; I like and am willing to experiment with other sights; my Gen 3 G21 has a set of Warren/Sevigney sights, and my Gen 3 G19 has Trijicons-I definitely like them both, needless to say.

The Glock sights are in my experience quite usable for short- to medium-distance targets; for longer distances, a thinner front sight blade is preferable.

The Glock sight picture is exceptionally fast to acquire-not necessarily for a "perfect" sight picture/alignment, but for a hasty encounter, they're in my opinion and experience, significantly underrated.

Best, Jon

[okie john]

I have never had an issue with doing as well as I do with any other decent set of iron sights using the standard Glock set. Sure, I would prefer Ameriglos, but for daytime they are fine. And my eyes are crap.

Opinions?

When I worked in gun shops, we used to install aftermarket night sights for customers. Most of the time you could push the plastic fixed factory sights off of a Glock without tools. The factory plastic adjustable sights were just as badly mounted and were fragile enough that you could rip them apart with your fingers. Factory steel fixed sights are actually not a bad design but the sight picture is too busy for my taste. Fortunately, they're inexpensive and if you reverse the rear sight so that the white part is to the front, then you get a low, strong, black steel rear sight, which makes the sight picture a lot more usable.

I used their factory night sights in IDPA and gun games for quite some time. If I stumbled into a Glock that had factory night sights that were still bright and POI was usable, then I wouldn't hurry to swap them out.


Okie John

[Wondering Beard]

Durability issues with plastic sites, especially with the plastic Glock adjustable sight that originally came on all civilian Glocks. Glock makes a steel version of these sights that addresses this issue. In particular, when used with Julie holsters that feature tracks to protect the front sight, The top corners of the front sight will wear down leaving a front sight with rounded corners shaped kind of like R2-D2.

Second issue sight picture. There’s nothing wrong with the front dot/ U rear sight picture as a concept. However, until the release of the GEN 5 Glock‘s a proper sight picture using equal light equal height would always result in the bottom of the front dot being chopped off. Conversely prior to gen 5, If the front dot was centered in the white Y notch the tip of the front sight would be sticking up above the top edge of the rear blade perpetuating the myth that Glocks “shoot high. “

/thread.

The above are exactly my problem with the stock plastic sights. However, inside ten yards (that was when I was beginning to learn to shoot and my first gun was a gen 2 G19) and not trying for a "brain box" shot, they'll do just fine. Since those days, I've always replaced them and now I may going with FO sights on all.

[Mark D]

I'm not a fan of the plastic ones, but I like the Glock steel sights. My preferred set up is a Glock steel rear and an Ameriglo front.

[El Cid]

Durability as others have stated. Try racking the slide during injured shooter drills off something like a table, vehicle, heel, etc. Dint be surprised if the rear sight is missing afterward. Stock sights are placeholders IMO and nothing more.

[rayrevolver]

On a carry G26 I replaced them to see if I was missing something. Durability was not a major concern at the time, I had yet to take a class where you did any strong hand only manipulation. I was using a leather Kramer IWB and didn't notice them getting chewed up.

"Human Factors"
I was reading somewhere that your eyes tend to focus on the square, sharp points, vice curved rounded shapes when it comes to pistol sights. I am sure it was by someone trying to sell me something. It made sense to only have 1 place to look in the sight picture.

I ended up trying Warren Tacticals. I was relatively new to serious shooting but felt like the sight picture came quicker. And I faster. And better looking.

These days I continue to buy U-notch rears (Ameriglo Agents/Trij HDs/Warrens Tacticals/10-8) but when I shoot a square rear notch I don't notice any real difference.

[BillSWPA]

I had absolutely no problem using Glock's sights, and only replaced them because I wanted tritium on any gun I carry. I found that placing the top of the dot even with the top of the white U provided good accuracy out to 25 yards and beyond.

Years ago, Gabe White posted a thread showing photos of various sights under various light conditions against various backgrounds. Dawson tritium sights were among the best performers in his photos, which is why my Glocks currently have Dawson tritium carry sights. However, the Glock factory sights did quite well, beating most other options for visibility under a variety of conditions. I would not hesitate to use the metal versions if I needed something inexpensive and workable.

[peterb]

The plastic sights are great for experimenting -- paint, reshape, resize, whatever -- with minimal cost or difficulty.

[Baldanders]

If someone said "what's wrong with running in sandals? I run just as fast in sandals as I do in running shors", it would matter how fast their running was as to whether that statement meant anything.

6 minute mile, wow. 12 minute mile? Who cares.

52527

All shots 7 yards, slow fire, DA only for both targets, five shot groups

Target above was shot with full size px4 on top two targets and the center target, CW45 on bottom two.
I would be psyched about the center target, if not for the flyer way out to the lower left.

52528

All shots with a 625-5 5"

Upper left and right shot before repainting the front sight. I put up another red square near the upper left bullseye and shot at that after repainting, same for center and lower left and right bullseyes. I swear that is four hits on the center target, flyer to lower right.

As you can see the "12 minute mile" is an apt metaphor. (I don't shoot open sights beyond 7 yards much because due to vision issues, tbat is the maximum distance I can see a 1 inch target at all)

Erratic as shit. One reason I started this thread was to see if tactical operators were limited by the factory sights in a way this half-blind fudd is not.

Honestly, I prefer the Glock factory set up to the sights on any of my three pistols above, although the Kahr sight is pretty good. I need to paint the back sight on the px4(Beretta target sights).

[Baldanders]

So looks like

1) They are fragile

2) They aren't optimal for fine target work

3) Night sights are a good thing

I would probably get Ameriglos on a carry/bedside gun, but for a pure range gun, I think I'd keep em factory original. Maybe metal if the LNGS hasd a pair in stock.

[Quantrill]

Count me in the “my plastic Glock front sight fell off” group.

[WobblyPossum]

I don’t mind the metal OEM sights but will not use the plastic ones if I have literally any other option. My first agency issued Glocks with the plastic sights. I quickly wore two front sights down to nubs just dry firing a few minutes a day from my Safariland duty gear. After the second set, the department agreed to reimburse me for a set of metal sights. I explained to the patrol commander that the plastic sights only left us with three options: 1. Stop dry practice and let my skills degrade, making me a liability in a shooting; 2. Keep dry practicing with a front sight the got progressively shorter so I could never be sure where my rounds would impact, making me a liability in a shooting; or 3. The department could replace my plastic sights every month or so for however long I was there, costing the department money and time. He agreed with me.

[Edster]

I'm not a fan of the plastic ones, but I like the Glock steel sights. My preferred set up is a Glock steel rear and an Ameriglo front.

Man, I came this >< close to doing exactly that. I like that ball-in-bucket sight picture. One of the things I love about Ameriglo is their front and right heights match stock Glock so you can mix-and-match.

[Mark D]

I use the "square" Ameriglo Pro-Glo front, and combined with a Glock steel rear, I get a "box in a bucket" sight picture. It's pretty sweet, at least for me.

I get a good, high visibility sight picture without Rx lenses. And although the sight picture is not super refined, I can shoot 90's at 25yrd B-8's when I wear my prescription lenses.

Bonus, the different heights available for Glock rear sights makes it easy to dial in POA/POI for your selected loads.

[medic15al]

Man, I came this >< close to doing exactly that. I like that ball-in-bucket sight picture. One of the things I love about Ameriglo is their front and right heights match stock Glock so you can mix-and-match.

This is my preference. An Orange CAP NS front and steel Glock "U" rear. The front sights just seems to want to naturally fall right back into the rear.

[JonInWA]

This is my preference. An Orange CAP NS front and steel Glock "U" rear. The front sights just seems to want to naturally fall right back into the rear.

Hmmm. Getting a .165 thin steel serrated front, and painting it flourescent orange is a temptation....

For science, of course. Probably for the Gen4 G22, and keep the Glock steel front on the Gen 3 G17 for comparison.

Best, Jon

[SAWBONES]

I'm an older eccentric who actually prefers the Glock "ball in the box" sight picture, and who has had nine out of eleven Glocks owned to date with OEM Glock steel sights, all having the same "ball in the box" configuration, though I have always had my neighbor Steve Morrison machine the rear sight notch out to the very edges of the plastic insert, in order to make the rear notch as wide as possible.

[medic15al]

I'm an older eccentric who actually prefers the Glock "ball in the box" sight picture, and who has had nine out of eleven Glocks owned to date with OEM Glock steel sights, all having the same "ball in the box" configuration, though I have always had my neighbor Steve Morrison machine the rear sight notch out to the very edges of the plastic insert, in order to make the rear notch as wide as possible.

That's an excellent mod on those rears!

I would like to see in person the Glock steel Luminescent Sights in the same ball in a box configuration they are showing on their website.

[ReverendMeat]

I'm used to mediocre stock sights and other sights give me more trouble than factory Glock ones do for other reasons. I shoot by lining up the tops of the front and rear sights and centering the front by having equal amount of light on both sides of the front, which I assume is pretty standard practice. The front sights I've found are often slightly uneven across the top making the former more difficult, and too wide making the latter more difficult. I've never had them fall off or break nor seen it happen, that I can recall.

[WDR]

I find stock Glock sights usable, from a shooting standpoint. The "ball and bucket" sight picture isn't to bad to pick up at speed. The plastic versions are not very durable if you are hard on your guns. I much prefer steel sights. And I really prefer night sights. My new front serration model Glock 19 Gen5 came with a 6.1mm rear sight, and seems to shoot my carry load (RA9T) to approximately the top of the front sight at 25 yards. I'm poking around to see what I can find for a thinner front sight (.125" or less), while retaining tritium, while also finding a square notch rear sight that will be a little more AIWB friendly than the Trijicon HD's I've used in the past.

15 rounds RA9T at 25 yards, top of front sight splitting the four boxes horizontally using the plastic OEM placeholders:

https://i.imgur.com/i67puDbl.jpg

[msstate56]

As has been mentioned- they are just fragile. I would never want anyone to carry a duty gun with them. I’ve seen too many front and rears broken off on SIM Glocks in training to every want them in “real life.” I honestly don’t mind the sight picture, but I do prefer better sights. If they can with the steel Glock sights, I think most people could run them forever. But since almost everyone wants to install their preferred sights- I’m glad they don’t add to the price by putting more expensive sights on there.

[HCM]

So looks like

1) They are fragile

2) They aren't optimal for fine target work

3) Night sights are a good thing

I would probably get Ameriglos on a carry/bedside gun, but for a pure range gun, I think I'd keep em factory original. Maybe metal if the LNGS hasd a pair in stock.

On the gen 5s that's the list.

On the gen 1-4 fixed plastic sights, the ball and bucket sight picture doesn't match the actual post and notch sight picture. Unlike the gen 5s, a proper post and notch sight picture with these will chop off the bottom of the ball. I'd be curious to know if the ame is true of the Gen 1-4 steel sights.

[mrozowjj]

Plastic aside I find the ball in the cup thing very counter-intuitive. My brain wants to see the whole front dot but if I line the sights up properly the bottom half of the dot isn't visible and this eats away at my brain while I'm trying to shoot them. I can then well enough but it takes more brain power to do at because of this. They do the job while I wait for something better to come in the mail.

So no I guess they aren't strictly necessary but if there were no after market options I hate them enough I would probably never buy a Glock again.

[Flashman]

The Gen 5 sights are an improvement.

[JAH 3rd]

I have a Glock 21 gen 3 which came with the standard plastic sights. For me, age and eyes are the variables that determine if sights work or not. So, on my Glock 21 I decided to go with the Ameriglo Hackathorn sights GL-434. The reasons are the front sight has an orange doughnut surrounding the tritium insert. The rear sight is black with horizontal serrations. The orange front sight allows easy pick-up. The rear sight notch is a bit wider which helps me acquire sight alignment. These are NOT target sights. But they work for me in putting the rounds on the paper at the point of aim.

I just recently purchased a Glock 17 gen 5 with Glock night sights. I decided if I was gonna change out the plastic sights anyway, I would give the Glock night sight a try. The only change I would make is purely personal preference. I would like either a thinner front sight or a wider rear notch. Once again this is due to age and eyes.

With so many sight options out there, a sight combo tailored to your liking is doable. It may take a hit and miss with POA/POI, but once dialed in, the shooter will be rewarded with consistent on target hits.

[Clobbersaurus]

I made Master in IPSC using a bone stock G17 Gen 5. The stock sights work fine for short term use.

That being said, once my Dawson Chargers came in, I replaced the stock sights so fast it would make your head spin. :cool:

[deputyG23]

I got by with the plastic "place holders" as they are referred to around here from 1988 to 2017 and managed not to get kilt on da streetz.

(And I had plenty of opportunities.)

Now I have the unfashionable Trijicon HDs on my three Glocks after succumbing to peer pressure here a few years back. I don't regret getting them at all, but whether they are "required" is debatable, imho.

There are circumstances when they are very useful during my annual night quals...so they are a good investment in that regard, and I don't think I'd go without night sights going forward.

The original polymer front sights were pinned on and a duty holster we "briefly" issued had the propensity to rip the front sight off on the draw. We changed holsters and started installing Trijicon night sights soon thereafter. My old G17 had a green front dot and yellow rear dots. We were actually given a choice of what color dots we wanted. We traded those in to Glock for the new Gen 3 22s gun for gun, mag for mag with no $$ changing hands. They wanted the preban 17 mags for resale at crazy prices. Needless to say, no provisions were made for us to buy our old duty guns.