Let’s talk about front posts & rear notches

[VolGrad]

I have a question for the hive.

What is your preferred width of front sight post and rear notch? I am specifically asking WRT to game guns, not carry guns.

I am not asking for brand recommendations or recommendations on color, style, or shape. I am strictly asking about widths as they relate to sight picture (i.e. obstruction of target, amount of “light bars” on each side of the post, etc.). I am still chasing that balance of speed and precision and hope to learn a bit from your experience before expending a ton or energy, time, and ammo on this one.

I am currently using a .140 front post and .180 rear notch on all my carry guns and my game guns. This setup has worked well enough, however, I feel I could gain a bit more precision on the longer IDPA & GSSF stages by making some adjustments.

I decided to try some different combos and literally have a handful of “options” en route to me. I ordered fronts posts in widths of.090, .115, and .125. I also ordered .150 and .164 rears. I figured I could mix and match them to see what gives the best sight picture, speed, and precision.

I am leaving my carry guns all “as is” for now with .140/.180. I just think I need to do something slightly different for the games.

[JHC]

I am really diggin' the match of the .140 Hack front from Ameriglo with a .150 Warren rear for speed and precision expounded on here: http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?346-pistol-training.com-2011-Endurance-Test-Gun/page30

Closer runner up for me is .125 front with .150 rear.

I very much prefer a tighter "window" on the rear notch vis a vis the front because I sense that with the right front (high contrast) the tighter rear really delivers the goods from 10--15 yards and then out to 25-50 even more so.

[Prdator]

For me its a .180 rear notch and a .125 front ( Ameriglo Operator pros, or standard IDots) I really like the sharp white dot on them.

I'd like to have a .120 ish front with the .180 notch and see how that works, but no one ( that Ive found) makes on with the white dot that I like.

I can have Full "miss alignment" on this sight set up and still make a "0" down hit at 7 ish yards, with good trigger control. On a 3x5 card at 7 yds as long as I have card on either side of the front sight, and aging having great trigger control make a good hit.

[MEH]

For precision at longer distances, I like thinner front sights so that the post takes up less of the target. Adjust the rear to your own preferences.

For a game gun I like 0.115"/0.150" combo, sometimes going to a 0.140" rear sight but never larger than 0.150".

[willowofwisp]

I tried the Ameriglo Hackathorns and really like them,the .180 rear works perfect for me (not sure on the front sight width), although now I am rocking this sight picture which works a little better for me.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5067/5617912596_728710a4b3_z.jpg

[VolGrad]

I tried the Ameriglo Hackathorns and really like them,the .180 rear works perfect for me (not sure on the front sight width), although now I am rocking this sight picture which works a little better for me.
The Ameriglo ProGlo (which is the Hack) is .140 wide. That is what I'm using now ... ProGlo orange/green front and all black rear with serrated face and .180 notch.

[willowofwisp]

The Ameriglo ProGlo (which is the Hack) is .140 wide. That is what I'm using now ... ProGlo orange/green front and all black rear with serrated face and .180 notch.

I thought it was .140 but wasn't totally sure, I did try the new trijicon HD sights and I really like the yellow(which is really green) front.

[TCinVA]

In general I prefer to have a lot of light around my front sight...I'm not really good with the exact dimensions of front vs. rear in terms of .0xx of an inch or anything, but I usually know it when I see it. I rather like the arrangement with the Warren sights and with the Heinie "Quick" sights on my P30.

The only downside to the sights is that you have to pay a little more attention to left/right orientation of the front sight, especially when shooting for precision. (either 2" or less targets at under 15 yards, or X ring size targets at 25 yards) If you aren't careful it's easy to get the front sight a little bit too far to the left or the right. It's a very minor issue that is overshadowe by the more sensible sight picture at speed though, IMO.

[ToddG]

The only downside to the sights is that you have to pay a little more attention to left/right orientation of the front sight, especially when shooting for precision.

This becomes less of an issue when you are using 2-dot tritium sights (if the dots are properly aligned by the manufacturer).

It becomes even more of an issue when you are using 2-dot tritium sights (if the dots are not properly aligned by the manufacturer).

[DonovanM]

Brian Enos recommended in his book to have 50% of the width of the front sight in empty space (light) on either side of it.

I followed his recommendation and got a .100 width front sight in a height to match my factory rear, which is .150" wide. I then filed down the bottom of my rear sight so I could see the entirety of the height of the front sight when looking through it. It's obviously not exactly 50% on both sides but close enough.

It's worked very well in competition for me so far. I've won a couple stages at local USPSA matches that had targets predominantly out to 35yds (shooting Production).

I think I could have hit them with anything thinner than my old .150 width front sight that came stock. That was awful for precision work, like doing surgery with a Bowie knife.

[Glock17]

Love the Hackathorn sights! Best sights I have ever used in 30 + years.

[orionz06]

I am really mixed on this, but I have been very pleased with 0.140/0.150 front/rear when I do everything right. It gets a little tougher for me when I have to really guesstimate the amount of light on each side of a wide gap. Kicking field goals through the rear sight notch is not a requirement for me.

[Pistol Fan]

This becomes less of an issue when you are using 2-dot tritium sights (if the dots are properly aligned by the manufacturer).

It becomes even more of an issue when you are using 2-dot tritium sights (if the dots are not properly aligned by the manufacturer).

That's an interesting take on the issue. Are you saying that you rely more on the alignment of the dots with Heinies than the centering of the post in the notch? I've never really done that, but it seems that it would work better at speed. Also another reason to favor the two dot system over the three dot.

[ToddG]

Not consciously, but when there are two very clear dots in your field of vision and you're trying to line everything up it's hard to ignore the dots.

[Pistol Fan]

Not consciously, but when there are two very clear dots in your field of vision and you're trying to line everything up it's hard to ignore the dots.

Thanks. I'm going to try to be more conscious of the dots instead of trying to ignore them in favor of the post/notch.

[CK1]

Having run a bunch of different set-ups over the last couple years maybe getting overly OCD about it, I'm pretty convinced the Sevigny/Defoor sets that feature a .115" wide front and a .150" rear notch width is just about the "magic" ratio as far as finding a balance between precision at distances out past 10 yards yet still being very fast, yields "lightbars" on either side of the front blade that are perceived to be just about equal to half the width of the front blade, which has been mentioned in the past by Brian Enos and others to be the winning recipe historically for fast and precise shooting (at least as far as competition shooting is concerned).
Personally, I think the ratio is the important thing more so than the actual widths of the front and rear sights as I've been running a pretty thin .090" wide front blade with a .125" wide rear notch for quite a while now coming from the .115/.150 Sevigny/Defoor set-ups and they feel the same since the ratio is the same even though the "window" is smaller... actually, in my case, the smaller "window" seems to help me at longer distances which used to be my Achilles heel but without costing me anything as far as speed is concerned over the .115/.150 set-ups I used to run.

Another thing that happened gradually is that I became a convert to running plain-jane all-black serrated sights over any ones with dots, FO, or other stuff... I think I've tried just about everything at one point or another in the past as far as trying to get a faster sight picture whether paint or luminova or any other gimmick out there, turns out having come around through trying all those things that IMO the "lightbars" are really what's important and all-black sights equal a crisper, less complicated puzzle for our eyes/brain to solve, if you don't believe me try some against a timer after getting used to a set for a week or so, I'd bet most will lose zero to almost nothing as far as speed is concerned and will become noticeably more accurate and consistent at longer distances.

FWIW, I was shooting the Hack sights for quite a while (even before they were called the Hack sights actually) and they were what led me to a less wide rear notch and then finally experimenting with all-black sight sets. IMHO anything over a .150" rear notch is too much of a compromise at longer distances and really unnecessary for speed, the .180" rear notch is just too much and is too coarse, but needed to accommodate the fat .140" front blade (which is wide enough to cover up a headshot or larger target completely at 25 yards), and then beyond that once your eyes/brain start to become programmed to look for the alignment and lightbars over any type of "dot" the gimmicks become unneeded... there comes a point where it just clicks where your eyes/brain stop looking for the front sight because they/you already know where they are (on the end of your gun like always) and is looking to process the alignment.

Just my $0.02.

[JHC]

We just put our first of the Warren Sevigny .130 REAR sights on my elder son's G4 G19 to work with. It looks good with the .125 Warren tritium front. Still plenty of light for his young eyes and my old ones don't have much problem with it.

[EVP]

I recently transitioned to a g19 from a Hk and put the Defoor sights on the gun. I am still learning the gun and sights but I really like this setup. The front/rear ratio seems ideal. They are .115/.150.

[NickA]

I'm using Hacks (.140/.180) on a G17 and the Defoor rear with a .125 tritium on a 19. Ratios are close and I like both sets, need to do more longer distance shooting to see if the wider front on the Hacks is going to be a problem. I do like the bright orange Hack dot though, wish it was available on a narrower sight.

[VolGrad]

I'm using Hacks (.140/.180) on a G17 and the Defoor rear with a .125 tritium on a 19. Ratios are close and I like both sets, need to do more longer distance shooting to see if the wider front on the Hacks is going to be a problem. I do like the bright orange Hack dot though, wish it was available on a narrower sight.

This is kind of where I am. I really like the wide .180 rear but wish the .140 front was a .125 with the orange. I asked Ameriglo about this once ... if a .125 would ever be able with orange. The response something to the effect of "not likely" as it was difficult to get the paint on a sight that thin. That is a rough paraphrase but you get the point. I have painted a couple of front sights orange myself (around a trit tube) but it wasn't pretty. I'd rather not do that again. I don't have the steady hand for such tedious work.

[ToddG]

I would never use all-black sights on a gun for carry or home defense. As we saw at Southnarc's AMIS class (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?1088-AAR-Armed-Movement-In-Structures-(AMIS)-June-4-5-2011-Culpeper-VA), running around the dark without an aiming reference isn't cool.

That has been my experience when taking and teaching low-light shooting, as well. Blacked out sights are fine when you control the lighting... whether it's pitch black and you're using a flashlight or light enough to see. But the reality is that lighting is incredibly varied. Just look around the room you're in. There are areas of shadow, probably places where the light is harsh. You could be standing in one place and your target in another. Unlike most low-light training where the entire room/structure is equal lighting, you could move from bright to dim to dark and back many times.

The easiest example is a backlit threat. If you're in a position of darkness and the threat is heavily backlit (a strong light behind him), all you'll see is a silhouette. Try aiming at a giant black silhouette with black-on-black sights. Here's a perfect example of an identified threat that you can shoot without turning on your light, but you've got no aiming reference. Even students running only a front tritium dot with black rear sights have a lot of trouble with that shooting problem.

I was playing around with my new sights -- the first 3-dot night sights I've used in years -- just walking around my house "engaging" various objects. There were plenty of times where I found myself in a dark enough position that my tritium sights were visible while engaging a dark-colored object that would have been very hard to aim at without those glowing dots.

The recent trend in some circles towards plain black sights originated with military folks who are used to operating in a team environment where everyone has lights on their weapons 24/7. A team kicking down a door or blowing a hole in a wall to enter a room isn't as concerned about giving away its position once the action starts as Harry Homeowner might be.

There's absolutely no question that tritium sights help people shoot better in reduced lighting. LE agencies have proven that beyond a doubt for decades now. We also know that the typical civilian or law enforcement violent encounter in the U.S. has a strong possibility of occurring under conditions of reduced lighting. It's not hard to draw a conclusion from that...

[NickA]

Yep..I tried the JohnO DIY with reflective tape on the Defoors, then undid it and colored the white ring with an orange sharpie, but it's not nearly as bright as the hack. I think I just like the dot better than coloring the whole sight, but definitely need to give them both more time. Might try some nail polish or paint next, but there's just no real estate to work with.

[DonovanM]

I recently transitioned to a g19 from a Hk and put the Defoor sights on the gun. I am still learning the gun and sights but I really like this setup. The front/rear ratio seems ideal. They are .115/.150.

Nice, I think that would be the perfect ratio for me for competition and carry. I never thought there was a chance in hell Ameriglo made these for SIGs, but apparently they do, and they're only $30! WIN!

[vcdgrips]

I have evolved from a pre "Hack" set using their .140 orange painted square (with the trit. dot) with an all black .180 rear to the .125 front (green trit)/
.180 rear (yellow) Pro Operators. I paint the front sight with some orange colored finger nail polish from Wal Mart ( color "mango", price 1.38)and make a quick Sharpie swipe on the rears. This yields a highly visable front sight for me and still lets me line up three dots in low light.

I first degrease the front sight with a bit of acetone, the use the nail polich brush and a toothpick. 2 coats will last 3 months easy.

YMMV
David
www.vcdgrips.com

[CK1]

I would never use all-black sights on a gun for carry or home defense. As we saw at Southnarc's AMIS class (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?1088-AAR-Armed-Movement-In-Structures-(AMIS)-June-4-5-2011-Culpeper-VA), running around the dark without an aiming reference isn't cool.

That has been my experience when taking and teaching low-light shooting, as well. Blacked out sights are fine when you control the lighting... whether it's pitch black and you're using a flashlight or light enough to see. But the reality is that lighting is incredibly varied. Just look around the room you're in. There are areas of shadow, probably places where the light is harsh. You could be standing in one place and your target in another. Unlike most low-light training where the entire room/structure is equal lighting, you could move from bright to dim to dark and back many times.

The easiest example is a backlit threat. If you're in a position of darkness and the threat is heavily backlit (a strong light behind him), all you'll see is a silhouette. Try aiming at a giant black silhouette with black-on-black sights. Here's a perfect example of an identified threat that you can shoot without turning on your light, but you've got no aiming reference. Even students running only a front tritium dot with black rear sights have a lot of trouble with that shooting problem.

I was playing around with my new sights -- the first 3-dot night sights I've used in years -- just walking around my house "engaging" various objects. There were plenty of times where I found myself in a dark enough position that my tritium sights were visible while engaging a dark-colored object that would have been very hard to aim at without those glowing dots.

The recent trend in some circles towards plain black sights originated with military folks who are used to operating in a team environment where everyone has lights on their weapons 24/7. A team kicking down a door or blowing a hole in a wall to enter a room isn't as concerned about giving away its position once the action starts as Harry Homeowner might be.

There's absolutely no question that tritium sights help people shoot better in reduced lighting. LE agencies have proven that beyond a doubt for decades now. We also know that the typical civilian or law enforcement violent encounter in the U.S. has a strong possibility of occurring under conditions of reduced lighting. It's not hard to draw a conclusion from that...

That's a fair opinion, but not the only one. Not to argue, but there are different takes on the subject out there, and they're not limited exclusively to entry teams and such, and not viable to proletarian SD/HD scenarios...

"I like black sights better...more accurate, simple picture, Trits only help at dusk and dawn....you've still got to be able to ID the target first, so I always have a light on me anyway."
May 10, 2011 6:22 PM - Kyle Defoor from: http://www.kyledefoor.com/2011/05/defoor-proformance-pistol-test-2.html?m=1

- I always have a light on me too and guess I see it things the same way. In a close-quarters, say >30ft and closing defensive situation (like being rushed), it's muscle-memory and hard-wired good index acheived through practice over any sights, under stress of iminent danger instinct makes humans focus and track the target and sight alingment virtually go out the window, that too had been studied extensively.

I practice with my light in low-light/no-light fairly regularly so I don't feel like all-black sights are a hindrance.

To each his own I suppose, tactics that work are tactics that work... just a different opinion.

[CK1]

Yeah, you can lose your light, or it may not work, or you may get injured and be down to SHO/WHO, etc., that said, you could have a malf, or trip over your feet too... It certainly can be argued that tritium may be a better choice given that s**t happens, but I personally don't think night sights are the necessity they're made out to be.

This is drifting towards tactics though and getting away from talking sight widths...

[ToddG]

I just don't see the all-black sights turning in the advantages some believe. On the other hand, there is absolutely no disputing that they make aiming in low light situations much harder (or impossible). "I'll always have a light on me" isn't the same as having it in your hand and projecting photons the instant you need it. And I absolutely guarantee that whatever advantage someone thinks he gets from all-black sights is more than canceled by being forced to shoot one-handed or use some compromise flashlight/gun combo grip.

If someone finds tritium dots distracting or confusing -- especially on better sights where the rear dots are subdued -- then what is going to happen when someone is shooting at you? I find that distracting.

Choosing sights that give you the best performance on a bright square range instead of sights that will work under worst-case conditions seems like poor mindset to me. But as you said, to each his own.

[Sasage]

Apologies for bumping an old thread but has anyone swapped the .180 rear on the hacks to a .164? Would that translate to more accuracy? Would the .150 rear be too narrow? Thanks.

[CK1]

Apologies for bumping an old thread but has anyone swapped the .180 rear on the hacks to a .164? Would that translate to more accuracy? Would the .150 rear be too narrow? Thanks.

Think the best answer might be: "try it..?"

Seems to me that one's choice in sights is very personalized; different peeps, different eyes... I'm not sure if there are any real truisms in this subject as the "traditional" adage has always been that more light around the front sight is faster, but less accurate then a tighter notch-to-blade ratio, yet for ME, it's almost the opposite; with the right amount of light around the front blade my eyes are "more comfortable", and I shoot more accurately than I can with the tighter set-ups.... So YMMV..?

- As an aside, haven't seen what I said about night sights from a while back in the posts above, and since (and after a lot of shooting with guys in different agencies that are not interested in getting into anything as deep as this), I'd have to say that Todd was right (or at least more right maybe) as in low-light training the NS have shown me their value when a weapon-light or laser isn't on the menu).
That said, noticed this week Ameriglo is offering a thinner front-blade w/ tritium than the status-quo .125 we're all used to... Hope that trend continues IMHO...

[justintime]

I really really like 125 front 150 rear. I personally have a hard time with rears bigger than that as I feel like my eyes can't capture the whole picture as easily.

[Sasage]

I just looked ans the HDs are .144 with a .169 so the size proportions would be similar if I ran the .140 front and the .164 rear. May give it a go and report back.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

[Rich]

I love the sights on my Sig P229 . A simple rear blade #8 with a white bar and a #8 FS with white dot.

Don't know the size of notch or width of FS

Now I like the FS on my P30S . But I hate the rear ramp like sight or Novak. I would take a P2000 rear sight any day.

[Rich]

Yeah, you can lose your light, or it may not work, or you may get injured and be down to SHO/WHO, etc., that said, you could have a malf, or trip over your feet too... It certainly can be argued that tritium may be a better choice given that s**t happens, but I personally don't think night sights are the necessity they're made out to be.

This is drifting towards tactics though and getting away from talking sight widths...

I tend to agree about the NS. I don't have NS on my carbine or my M642 or P229. P30s has paint that glows bright enough to be of good use. To bad tritium isn't that bright.
I like the Sig bar dot sights or all black sights. hate ramp or Novak type sights.

Although now they make all black sights with tritium inserts but without the color outline. If they are last longer than my NS on 1995 6906 (1year them became dim) I might look into them.

[okie john]

What is your preferred width of front sight post and rear notch? I am specifically asking WRT to game guns, not carry guns.

IF I were to build a game gun, it would have plain black Sevignys (0.150” rear notch and 0.115” post). But I shoot what I carry, so that's a 0.125" Ameriglo tritium post and a Meprolight adjustable rear with a gap that's 0.156" or thereabouts.


Okie John

[Jared]

Just set up my game gun with a .090 FO front, standard factory Beretta rear (I think it is .125" on a 92A1). So far, I really, really dig it.

[Edwin]

This thread is reminding me that I need to figure out what to do with the sights on my Hi Power. They are pretty old and terrible.

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-yQSi8XW_vSE/UxvGsceV4DI/AAAAAAAAfUE/w1y6M0qvFKw/w712-h440-no/SL735225.JPG

[Dave Berryhill]

Having been in several shootings, (all at night) I wouldn't have a self defense pistol without night sights. One of my shootings was under streetlights. I had no problem identifying the suspect and the pistol in his hand because of the light from the streetlights. It's strange what goes through your head but I remember thinking, "Wow, those sights are really bright" because I could see them so well.

For a target pistol, black sights are great.

[CK1]

Although now they make all black sights with tritium inserts but without the color outline. If they are last longer than my NS on 1995 6906 (1year them became dim) I might look into them.


Having been in several shootings, (all at night) I wouldn't have a self defense pistol without night sights. One of my shootings was under streetlights. I had no problem identifying the suspect and the pistol in his hand because of the light from the streetlights. It's strange what goes through your head but I remember thinking, "Wow, those sights are really bright" because I could see them so well.

For a target pistol, black sights are great.

Thinking all-black sights, serrated front, non-serrated rear, that also had tritium in them without the annoying/distracting outline around the inserts would be great... Now I just have to find some..?

A set of Warren Sevigny Competition Sights (.115w front, .150w rear notch) that had tritium would be ideal for me.

[Urban_Redneck]

Q for those that run the rounded notch rear sights: Is your sight picture the dot, F.O., or bead, nestled into the notch? If nestled into the notch, are the tops of the front and rear sight even at that alignment as well? If so what combo are you running?

Thanks