rear night sight question -- one versus two dots

[GJM]

For many years, I have run a tritium front with a Heinie or Warren one dot/bar tritium rear. Recently, I was handling one of my wife's Glock pistols with HD sights in the dark, and felt the two dot tritium rear sight was more usable. I now see that Warren offers a Glock rear sight with two tritium dots as opposed to just one.

What are your thoughts on one versus two tritium dots for use in dark conditions?

[JV_]

I can use either, but prefer sights with a rear that's more dim than the front.

[Dagga Boy]

I prefer none, and have worked extensively in low light with both one and two. If not two, then I would go with 1.

[GJM]

I prefer none, and have worked extensively in low light with both one and two. If not two, then I would go with 1.

Nyeti, not sure whether you like none, one or two? Is there a typo in there, or am I just not following.

To add some more info, I definitely don't like two bright rear sights that draw your eye to the rear sight rather than the front sight. However, when transitioning from light to dark, when my eyes have not adjusted, I am having trouble seeing the rear single dot on my Warren/Heinie well enough to quickly get any benefit from a rear sight.

[JV_]

I am having trouble seeing the rear single dot on my Warren/Heinie well enough to quickly get any benefit from a rear sight.

Is that a function of the dot color, quantity, or brightness?

[ToddG]

I've run zero, one, and two extensively.

Zero -- not for me. Too many variable lighting conditions where it won't let me get an actual usable sight picture even though I can/have identified the target.

One -- doable, and my choice for years. The single dot aligns only your horizontal so you can get a lot of vertical spread. Tim was one of the first people I know who really started talking about this (http://pistol-training.com/articles/handgun-low-light-essentials) years ago.

Two -- what I choose now if the option is available. The idea that the rear sight is "busy" may certainly be true and perhaps I'd be Galactic Champion of All if I used a plain black rear, but I don't notice the dots when shooting under half-decent lighting. When it gets dark enough that I actually need the glow to aim, getting visual verification of alignment along both the vertical and horizontal is a boon.

When possible, I prefer the rear dot(s) to be dimmer and a different color than the front.

[GJM]

Is that a function of the dot color, quantity, or brightness?

Perhaps all!

I just went into the closet with a G17 with Warren rear one dot and Heinie trit front, a 2000SK with Trijicon green front, dual yellow rear, and the Glock HD (all green). When my eyes are not adjusted, I have a difficult time seeing the Warren rear dot well enough to get any reference from it. The HD rear sights seem almost too bright, while the green front/yellow rear Trijicons look fine.

If the two dot Warren rear sights were dimmer than a tritium front, but offered more reference than the single dim rear, it would be ideal.

This is a different scenario than my eyes fully adjusted, where I can see the single rear.

Any of this making sense?

[ToddG]

If the two dot Warren rear sights were dimmer than a tritium front, but offered more reference than the single dim rear, it would be ideal.

The only 3-dot Warrens I've got were custom made for my 1911s but I believe that's how he does all of his rear sight lamps (smaller/dimmer and yellow instead of green).

[VolGrad]

Zero -- not for me. Too many variable lighting conditions where it won't let me get an actual usable sight picture even though I can/have identified the target.

One -- doable, and my choice for years. The single dot aligns only your horizontal so you can get a lot of vertical spread. Tim was one of the first people I know who really started talking about this (http://pistol-training.com/articles/handgun-low-light-essentials) years ago.

Two -- what I choose now if the option is available. The idea that the rear sight is "busy" may certainly be true and perhaps I'd be Galactic Champion of All if I used a plain black rear, but I don't notice the dots when shooting under half-decent lighting. When it gets dark enough that I actually need the glow to aim, getting visual verification of alignment along both the vertical and horizontal is a boon.

When possible, I prefer the rear dot(s) to be dimmer and a different color than the front.
I'll echo all of this.

I started with 3 dot. As I immersed myself into shooting sports and defensive training I dabbled with single dot rears and no dot rears. For a while I was a big proponent of all black rears. I still feel that way if I could definitively say I'd never need to get a sight picture in low/no light. Can't do that so I have gone back to 3 glowing dots.

When it's an option I prefer the rear ot be dimmer & have no outline and for the front dot to be a different color. Ideally, I'd go green tritium up front with yellow on the rear. I can live with all green if that's my only option.

I finally got Ameriglo night sights installed on my Shield. It's nice to have that little baby glowing in low/no light finally.

[JHC]

Of the Warren and XS two dot sets (XS is actually a dot and bar, but two reference points), the old style Trijicon 3 dot and new HD three dot, and front tritium only which I've had on guns, I find the HD sets the most desireable. The rears do not appear to me to compete with the front for prominence. And if they did they could be easily filtered with some ink.

The night shoot with Hackathorn, I used front tritium only and I did not enjoy it at the 7 and 10 yard line.

[GJM]

All, thanks for all the good info -- think I will be ordering some Warren two dot rear sights to try.

It seems there are different situations, generally within the category of dark, which are very different. Such as:

1) Shooting with a WML, as I did last night in pitch dark conditions, doing Dot Torture. While my front sight had tritium, using a Surefire X300 on a relatively close target, I don't recall seeing the tritium dot -- just a perfectly defined black front sight.

2) Going from bright to dark, where your eyes are not adjusted. This is where I have a particular problem with one dim rear dot, and prefer two dots.

3) Eyes completely adapted in pitch dark, where the single rear dot might be bright enough, but questions remain, raised by TLG, on the relative precision compared to two rear dots.

Probably a number of other situations I haven't contemplated.

[Up1911Fan]

Of the Warren and XS two dot sets (XS is actually a dot and bar, but two reference points), the old style Trijicon 3 dot and new HD three dot, and front tritium only which I've had on guns, I find the HD sets the most desireable. The rears do not appear to me to compete with the front for prominence. And if they did they could be easily filtered with some ink.

The night shoot with Hackathorn, I used front tritium only and I did not enjoy it at the 7 and 10 yard line.

Doesn't Hackathorn run a black rear/tritium front?

[MichaelD]

I have Warren two-dot rears on two of my M&P's and quite like them. They're green front, yellow rear and the rear dots are distinctly dimmer than the front.

[JHC]

Doesn't Hackathorn run a black rear/tritium front?

Yes IIRC that was his stated preference one year ago almost to the day.

[ToddG]

I've found the easiest way to get people to think about realistic sight choices is to perform a simple exercise:

Take the slide off your gun. Hold it in approximately the same position it would be in if you were shooting. Now walk around your whole house. Stand in every corner and point the gun at every corner. You'll find places where you don't need tritium at all. You'll find places where tritium alone doesn't allow you to make a clean hit on an identified target. You'll find places where simply having a trit front (or 2-dot system) will allow you to get a perfectly adequate sight picture. And you'll find places where having a 3-dot system gives you more confidence that the bullet is going where you want it.

If you get a chance, try this exercise in the morning, afternoon, evening, and at night. Don't purposely turn lights on or off, just walk around your house as is.

The experience, if you'll pardon a horrible pun, may be illuminating.

[TCinVA]

Ditto what Todd said above.

Personally, I've spent a considerable amount of time working on that problem and for me the two subdued dots in the tritium rear sight as Warren does it with a standard brightness front yields the most useful sight picture. Even with a threat-focused sighting approach, the sight picture is stupid easy to pick up. When I've done low light stuff I find that I'm actually faster and more accurate getting hits on a stationary target using the Warren 3 dot tritium sight setup than I am with irons in bright light.

It's the next best thing to a laser.

Will it be ideally useful under all possible lighting scenarios? No...but in those scenarios where tritium is helpful the Warren style 3 dot arrangement is the best option, IMO. His 3 dot sights all have subdued, smaller lamps in the rear to the best of my knowledge. At least that's the case on the sights for Glocks and M&P's.

[JHC]

I've found the easiest way to get people to think about realistic sight choices is to perform a simple exercise:

Take the slide off your gun. Hold it in approximately the same position it would be in if you were shooting. Now walk around your whole house. Stand in every corner and point the gun at every corner. You'll find places where you don't need tritium at all. You'll find places where tritium alone doesn't allow you to make a clean hit on an identified target. You'll find places where simply having a trit front (or 2-dot system) will allow you to get a perfectly adequate sight picture. And you'll find places where having a 3-dot system gives you more confidence that the bullet is going where you want it.

If you get a chance, try this exercise in the morning, afternoon, evening, and at night. Don't purposely turn lights on or off, just walk around your house as is.

The experience, if you'll pardon a horrible pun, may be illuminating.

I expect this exercise will also make the point that there is a big universe of places and lighting conditions beyond the cliche of "just at dawn and just at dusk" where one can ID a threat yet still struggle to use non tritium or other high-viz sights. And those places exist 24x7 in parking garages, indoors in all sorts of lighting.

[TCinVA]

I expect this exercise will also make the point that there is a big universe of places and lighting conditions beyond the cliche of "just at dawn and just at dusk" where one can ID a threat yet still struggle to use non tritium or other high-viz sights. And those places exist 24x7 in parking garages, indoors in all sorts of lighting.

Precisely. Lighting is not static. Anywhere. In daily life I can find places where I transition from pitch darkness to eye-watering brightness (night or day) just by moving just a foot or two...and every condition in between within a few feet.

Having options that let you aim a handgun regardless of what lighting you find yourself in is a pretty good idea.

[Rex G]

Some two-dot rear sights mess with the image I am seeing under some conditions; I will see five dots instead of the correct three. (I asked my eye doc if I had a touch of astigmatism, but he did not find it.) I generally avoided night sights until 2002, or used a tritium dot in the front sight only. I ran Heinie Straight-8 sights on my duty/carry Glocks from 2002-2004. I switched to SIGs in 2004, and settled on tritium only in the front sight, with the original SIG Von Stavenhagen rear sight. Recently, however, that is not working so well, anymore. I need to try wider rear notches, but I may also be switching pistol platforms, for orthopedic reasons, or perhaps just retiring and depending upon a cane. ;)

Interestingly, when I recently brought my Les Baer TRS out of a nearly-ten-year hibernation, I found its three-dot set-up working quite well, as if my vision, while getting worse, overall, may have changed to being more aggreeable with three dots. I will need a wider rear notch soon, however.

I don't claim to have the answers; just adding my $0.02. I do know that flashlights have become far more important lately!

[GJM]

Slight thread shift, but related -- when we have visible green lasers, that are reliable, in an ergonomic package like the M&P Crimson Trace product currently available in red, we will have a serious augment to our capability in mixed lighting conditions.

[JHC]

Slight thread shift, but related -- when we have visible green lasers, that are reliable, in an ergonomic package like the M&P Crimson Trace product currently available in red, we will have a serious augment to our capability in mixed lighting conditions.

Why isn't red good enough? (realizing green may be better but . . . )

[vcdgrips]

Late to the party. Strongly prefer 2 dot rear. I give them a quick swipe with a Sharpie and they do not overpower the front sight and still glow enough to give me the visual feedback I am looking for.

I ran a pre Hack set of sights for a while, Orange front with green trit dot mated with a very Glock OEM profiled all black rear. A few shanked shots at 15yrds+ during two or three consecutive night quals show me the error of my ways.

[GJM]

Why isn't red good enough? (realizing green may be better but . . . )

because green has more range in more light, and it looks like Crimson Trace now has the technology to do green in a form factor previously only available in red:

http://www.crimsontrace.com/products/manufacturer/glock-pistols/lg-617g

[YVK]

I've found the easiest way to get people to think about realistic sight choices is to perform a simple exercise:

Take the slide off your gun. Hold it in approximately the same position it would be in if you were shooting. Now walk around your whole house. Stand in every corner and point the gun at every corner. You'll find places where you don't need tritium at all. You'll find places where tritium alone doesn't allow you to make a clean hit on an identified target. You'll find places where simply having a trit front (or 2-dot system) will allow you to get a perfectly adequate sight picture. And you'll find places where having a 3-dot system gives you more confidence that the bullet is going where you want it.

If you get a chance, try this exercise in the morning, afternoon, evening, and at night. Don't purposely turn lights on or off, just walk around your house as is.

The experience, if you'll pardon a horrible pun, may be illuminating.

This is a very helpful exercise that I've done a few times. All of my sights are single rear dot, and I've found them adequate.
I personally prefer single dot. First, I do prefer less clutter, even if on theoretical considerations only. Second, I had a two dot sight take dirt into right lamp once. That completely screwed things up. With one dot design your rear lamp goes down - you end up with relatively usable setup.

[JMS]

because green has more range in more light, and it looks like Crimson Trace now has the technology to do green in a form factor previously only available in red:

More specifically, the human animal sees in roughly the 400nm-700nm light wavelengths. That's what defines what we consider the "visible" range; other species can see higher/lower wavelengths...

Poing being, the wavelength used in most green lay-zerz for this application is in the 532nm (+/- 20nm), which basically smack-dab in the middle of our visible light range. It's the wavelength the human eye is most transparent to, which is why it appears "brighter" than a red laser that's pushing the same amount of juice out the aperture (usually 5mW). They can read exactly the same intensity to instrumentation, but the Mk1 Mod0 eyeball will note the green as being the more intense of the two.

The green used in tritium vials is close to this wavelength, though of course dimmer because of differences in the way that light is produced, which is why using those on the front sight (one's focus of effort, to badly pun what's going on...) make a great deal of sense, particularly in combo with smaller vials of a different wavelength (color) in the rears. This is particularly helpful on the 3-dot setups, where three green vials could end up with the front sight vial being OUTSIDE the rear sight vials, in instances where a shot is taken in near-complete darkness, if there's nothing specifically done to allow the shooter to discern which is which. Certainly not an absolute...

I went to a lo-light class this past Saturday, with Chris Clifton of Defense Concepts North Carolina; all handheld light work, WML was spoken to but not used. I'd done some reshaping on Thing1 (M&P9fs), so I went with that to see if I'd accomplished what I'd wanted to do with it. That gun is set up with Waren sights; green trit front, blank rear. At one point, we shot a string using nothing but available light, because the question came up... Clear sky, no moon, VTAC silhouettes (white) that showed reasonably well, and were to try for 4 rounds in the solid-lined box that represents...what, half of an IPSC A-zone...? From about 8m.

I got 3 of 4 in the box, with the one out being .5" away from the left border. Primary notes were that I was somewhat dazzled between shots due to the lack of flash suppressants in the powder of the practice ammo I as using (Aguila 124gr ball), but all that did was slow me down a touch so I could re-acquire as usable a sight picture as possible. Realisitcaly, the only real reason I was able to shoot that tight was because I've somehow managed to get my presentation to the point that it's relatively consistent from the holster. I had little reference other than the vial, which could have been outside the notch to either side, for all I knew. Too much left to chance, in my mind. It did, however, work, and of course worked fine with the addition of artificial light, even when that was produced from every 3rd shooter, instead of each shooter.

Thing2 has Ameriglo SW-201 on it, a two-dot setup. Thing1 will be getting those, too, or some other two-dot setup as soon as I can source a set. Only way to decide which set of complications one is willing to put up with is to expose yourself to complications.

[FotoTomas]

I have a different take on this situation. I am issued a SIG 229 with Sig Night sights. Green front and two green rear. They appear to me to be the same intensity. When I was issued a Beretta 92D Centurion the factory night sights were the same design. My policy prohibits any modification to the weapon. As such all of my official training is with the issued weapon and my off duty training is with personal guns set up the same way. Pretty much stock from the factory. Since I feel it is my best interest to excell with the duty gun I tend to keep the personal guns set up the same way. In fact I had purchased a duplicate of the duty gun to carry off duty to insure carryover of the official training. In case you might wonder...policy prohibits me from carrying the issued weapon off duty.

Being a gunaholic in my past, I have seen a lot of shooting irons go through my hands. Being a big Glock fan I prefer them for most purposes. Even my now limited Glock collection has factory night sights of the standard three dot setup and all of my personal weapons are DAO like the issue pistol.

I no longer try to make a pistol fit me better. I instead fit myself to a stock pistol since my employer limits me to factory issue.

Bottom line...I "Prefer" (by edict) factory three dot night sights. :)

[ToddG]

Foto -- A swipe with a black Sharpie across the rear lamps will leave them visible but dimmed, be almost undetectable by anyone else, and are very easily removed back to factory configuration with three seconds of effort.

[FotoTomas]

Foto -- A swipe with a black Sharpie across the rear lamps will leave them visible but dimmed, be almost undetectable by anyone else, and are very easily removed back to factory configuration with three seconds of effort.

Thanks for the heads up. I will try that technique out. Easy to do on all the personal pistols as well as the G-gun. Want to keep it simple and similar. :)

[Byron]

I've found the easiest way to get people to think about realistic sight choices is to perform a simple exercise:

Take the slide off your gun. Hold it in approximately the same position it would be in if you were shooting. Now walk around your whole house. Stand in every corner and point the gun at every corner. You'll find places where you don't need tritium at all. You'll find places where tritium alone doesn't allow you to make a clean hit on an identified target. You'll find places where simply having a trit front (or 2-dot system) will allow you to get a perfectly adequate sight picture. And you'll find places where having a 3-dot system gives you more confidence that the bullet is going where you want it.

If you get a chance, try this exercise in the morning, afternoon, evening, and at night. Don't purposely turn lights on or off, just walk around your house as is.

The experience, if you'll pardon a horrible pun, may be illuminating.
It completely baffles me why more people don't try this, if only for curiosity's sake.

There are so many topics/theories in the firearm world that get parroted as "so-and-so says," often without further critical thought.
I can understand why this happens with some topics. For example, if someone wants to argue about environmental conditions in Afghanistan and how they affect weapons, that's not something that we can all test at home. If someone wants to argue about barrier penetration, no one will advise them to just start cranking rounds through their own house. In the second case, even though you could test it on your own, setting up a testing environment for material penetration becomes a time-intense process.

But I have seen people write, "Well so-and-so says that X lighting condition only happens OCONUS." That is a paraphrase, but very close to a literal quote.
WHY? Why would that be a subject that needs an appeal to authority?

Not only do I find this troubling purely for the sake of the scientific method, but I find it troubling because it suggests one of two things to me:
1. The person has never actually bothered to do dry runs in their own home with their own weapon. The follow-up question being, "If you haven't even bothered to walk through your own house with an eye towards these matters, why are you wading into written theories?"
2. The person has done dry runs, but wasn't able to find a single bit of variable lighting. The follow-up question being, "What planet do you live on? Or do you just live in the frozen food aisle of the supermarket?"

(To be clear, I am not criticizing people who have never tried this at home. I am, however, criticizing people who have never tried this at home, yet still parrot second-hand information as if it is gospel.)

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to go yell at some clouds.

[Chuck Haggard]

Foto -- A swipe with a black Sharpie across the rear lamps will leave them visible but dimmed, be almost undetectable by anyone else, and are very easily removed back to factory configuration with three seconds of effort.

I find red Sharpie works more gooder for me, dims the green tritium to a useful level and gives a different color to the rear dots even in the dark.


After a great deal of experimentation, including no tritium on the rear, single dot, XS sights, I ended up with Ameriglo sights with the green trit/ornage paint front and "Pro operator" rear with no paint and yellow tritium. Best of everything for me. Faster and more accurate both in daylight and in the dark.

[Up1911Fan]

I find red Sharpie works more gooder for me, dims the green tritium to a useful level and gives a different color to the rear dots even in the dark.


After a great deal of experimentation, including no tritium on the rear, single dot, XS sights, I ended up with Ameriglo sights with the green trit/ornage paint front and "Pro operator" rear with no paint and yellow tritium. Best of everything for me. Faster and more accurate both in daylight and in the dark.

I like the ProGlo front site as well, just have the width of it.

[ToddG]

I find red Sharpie works more gooder for me, dims the green tritium to a useful level and gives a different color to the rear dots even in the dark.

That's brilliant! I'm stealing that one...

[David Armstrong]

I've used them all and my preference is a horizontal bar rear with a frong-sight dot combo followed by 3-Dot. In fact, if anyone knows someplace that can replace the horizontal bar on my Novak rear sight (they apparently no longer offer them) I'd appreciate the information.

[ToddG]

I've used them all and my preference is a horizontal bar rear with a frong-sight dot combo followed by 3-Dot. In fact, if anyone knows someplace that can replace the horizontal bar on my Novak rear sight (they apparently no longer offer them) I'd appreciate the information.

Does Tooltech (Trijicon) not do it?

[vcdgrips]

TPD,

I have traveled the nearly the same sight road as you to the same destination. I, too am steeling the non black sharpie swipe for the backs.

david barnes

[Chuck Haggard]

Every once in awhile I have an original thought. Hope it works for ya'll. Nice thing is, if you don't like it you can reverse the custom rear night sight color with a Q-tip and Gunscrubber.

[lightning fast]

Every once in awhile I have an original thought. Hope it works for ya'll. Nice thing is, if you don't like it you can reverse the custom rear night sight color with a Q-tip and Gunscrubber.

That was seriously one of the best ideas I've encountered in a long time. I had grown frustrated with most sight configurations, including black sharpied rears... ending up with the Ameriglo Pro front and plain black rear. But, this may inspire me to try out some Trijicon HDs + red sharpie.

[Chuck Haggard]

They even make Sharpies in other colors. Just sayin ;)

[Maple Syrup Actual]

Red definitely works the best of any of the colours I've tried. Tones down the lamps and changes the colour nicely. Any time I end up with all-green lamps, that's what I do.

Although purple might be good, never tried purple.

[GJM]

Last night, YVK compared the single dot on a Warren rear to a Heinie, and found the Heinie much brighter, which may explain my issue with the single Warren rear. My two dot Warren rear sights should arrive soon, and I look forward to trying them.

Also will be looking for a red Sharpie today for "improving" the HD rear sights on a few pistols.

[MGW]

I really like the standard post and dot sights on Sig pistols. I think Sig calls them contrast. I seem to be in the minority in my fondness of them over three dot sights. Before I knew any better I put of XS big dots on a G30 in an attempt to get the same sight picture with tritium for low light situations. That didn't work out so well.

Can someone point me in the direction of a tritium version of the standard Sig sights? Something suitable for CC?

[JBP55]

That was seriously one of the best ideas I've encountered in a long time. I had grown frustrated with most sight configurations, including black sharpied rears... ending up with the Ameriglo Pro front and plain black rear. But, this may inspire me to try out some Trijicon HDs + red sharpie.


You may want to try the Ameriglo Pro Glo front with the Pro Operator rear.

[lightning fast]

You may want to try the Ameriglo Pro Glo front with the Pro Operator rear.

Thanks, I'll check them out. It seems much harder to find Ameriglo sights I desire for the M&P, but I'll see what I can dig up.

[David Armstrong]

Does Tooltech (Trijicon) not do it?
I called them about a year ago and they said since it was a Novak sight, not one of theirs, they wouldn't. Guess it wouldn't hurt to try them again, though.

[FotoTomas]

I find red Sharpie works more gooder for me, dims the green tritium to a useful level and gives a different color to the rear dots even in the dark. ...snip...

I too am stealing this bit of genius to call my own! :)

[Ed L]

I've used them all and my preference is a horizontal bar rear with a frong-sight dot combo followed by 3-Dot. In fact, if anyone knows someplace that can replace the horizontal bar on my Novak rear sight (they apparently no longer offer them) I'd appreciate the information.


You might try http://www.amerigunusa.com. If they don't offer it they can do all type of custom sightwork with tritium. I've had them do a project for me and were happy with their work and working with them.

[David Armstrong]

Thanks, I'll check them out.

[Cool Breeze]

I find red Sharpie works more gooder for me, dims the green tritium to a useful level and gives a different color to the rear dots even in the dark.


After a great deal of experimentation, including no tritium on the rear, single dot, XS sights, I ended up with Ameriglo sights with the green trit/ornage paint front and "Pro operator" rear with no paint and yellow tritium. Best of everything for me. Faster and more accurate both in daylight and in the dark.

tpd223 do you do the red sharpie trick to the yellow tritium ameriglo rears even thought they are already a different color. The sights you have are the exact setup I want and very curious.

[ST911]

I like two dots on the rear, but probably only for the familiarity of them. I've played with single dots setups but not done a lot of deliberate work.

I'd like to see a set of Trijicon HDs with a luminescent white outline rear ala Glock OEM polymer. Make it dimmer, else it compete with the front sight, but I think that would work well.

[Maple Syrup Actual]

tpd223 do you do the red sharpie trick to the yellow tritium ameriglo rears even thought they are already a different color. The sights you have are the exact setup I want and very curious.

Obviously I'm not TPD but I do. It just darkens them enough to draw my eye to the front sight a little better.

[dnittler]

I hate to admit it, but I've been trying to run all black sights here latey, because that's what the "cool kids" are doing these days. It just doesn't work for me after trying the around-the-house test, so I'm going back to tritium. It mights just be that it's what I'm used to, but a three-dot sights picture works very well for me; a two-tone three-dot sight works great for me. While keeping target focus in my house, I can quickly get an adequate sight picture.

The best single-color three-dot sights I've ever used were factory Sig night sights on a P220 that I bought new in 2007. They were bright green tritium with painted white circle around the vials. Much larger and brighter than the circa 2002 Trijicons I had installed on a Glock.

Does anyone know who manufactured these sights, or where I could find something similar?

[Comedian]

I prefer 3 dot. Ive got Ameriglo with a green front and yellow rear on my M&P9 FS.

[Haraise]

I hate to admit it, but I've been trying to run all black sights here latey, because that's what the "cool kids" are doing these days. It just doesn't work for me after trying the around-the-house test, so I'm going back to tritium. It mights just be that it's what I'm used to, but a three-dot sights picture works very well for me; a two-tone three-dot sight works great for me. While keeping target focus in my house, I can quickly get an adequate sight picture.

The best single-color three-dot sights I've ever used were factory Sig night sights on a P220 that I bought new in 2007. They were bright green tritium with painted white circle around the vials. Much larger and brighter than the circa 2002 Trijicons I had installed on a Glock.

Does anyone know who manufactured these sights, or where I could find something similar?

I believe that would be Meprolights, if they're like my Sig (as you seem to be describing).