Night Sights vs fiber optics (August 2013 edition)

[Mr_White]

Today it's fiber optic.
Tomorrow it will be a Ghost Holster.
Next week you'll shave your head to cut down on drag as you run to position.

Obviously meant in jest, dude. Whatever gets you to your goals faster. Good luck at the match!

Thanks Todd! Heh, I actually just cut my hair tonight. Just want to try the FO. It's funny that you just lo-viz'd your front sight at the same time I hi-viz'd mine. I have seriously considered (and I know you disagree) using the Defoors on my carry guns. If I completely love the FO, I could conceivably carry that and just summarily tear up my Timmy card. : ) I did compare the red FO in modest light side by side with Caboose's CAP front and the FO was hugely more visible. My Timmy principles revolt against the idea of a FO on a carry gun, but who knows. It is an experiment right now and that's all.


Maybe you'll have that "new gun" phenom and will be "out of body". Good luck.

I am always out of body dude. I live in the sights. I am never too good for my home.

[JHC]

Vogel used FO sights on his work gun too. Just sayin'.

[ToddG]

Vogel used FO sights on his work gun too. Just sayin'.

And a dedicated flashlight, too, as I recall.

[JHC]

And a dedicated flashlight, too, as I recall.

Oh yeah I'm sure. I just think the durability thing is way overblown.

[ToddG]

Oh yeah I'm sure. I just think the durability thing is way overblown.

Vogel mentioned in class that if the fiber falls out, he's still got a thin black front sight. I took that to mean he'd experienced "fiber fail" in the past but don't recall anyone asking specifically.

[AJZ]

Don't mean to hijack your journal bro, but just my 2 cents on the FO thing, having run them almost exclusively since 2009: The fiber optic "fallout" is generally a result of improper FO installation in the first place. At some point with night sights or FO, you will be unable to see the tritium or the FO (Why Night Sights? (http://pistol-training.com/archives/7668)). IME, this point comes about the same time or a bit earlier with a properly installed FO set-up. This point on a FO is also greatly dependent on the dot/rod size. Smaller dot/FO rod = loses brightness faster. At some point with ANY non-night vision capable sighting system, you will need a light. I found when using a light, handheld or weapon mounted, the sight picture is generally the same between tritium and FO sights. This stays true for most flashlight techniques until using the neck/FBI index, where I have found it to be advantageous to use FO. Some perks as I see them: bright daytime operation, thin front sight post ability (sub .125), easily replaceable optic rod, dot color variation (I have found green seems to work best for me), available in several variations dependent on how you want them set up (Patridge, ramped, multiple heights, etc). I'm not trying to bash on night sights, they are a very good and viable option, just giving my opinion based on my experience and that of some others. And for the "in the real world" guys, I happen to know for a FACT that several Tier One guys are currently using Dawson FO front sights on their work guns, along with Dawson adjustable rears (GASP!!!) and they are working just fine. But that's a topic for another day, lol.

[ToddG]

And for the "in the real world" guys, I happen to know for a FACT that several Tier One guys are currently using Dawson FO front sights on their work guns, along with Dawson adjustable rears (GASP!!!) and they are working just fine. But that's a topic for another day, lol.

You mean the guys who operate in teams with weapon mounted lights, IR illuminators, and NODs? Because I'm not sure that has a high degree of relevance to what I need as a lone "operator" dealing with a criminal ambush.

When I took Southnarc's AMIS one thing the students agreed on almost universally was that the lack of night sights on the Sim guns was a significant hindrance. There were plenty of times that I didn't want to project white light but could see well enough to locate the target. Without illuminated sights, though, it was just a black mass atop a black mass. It's a lot easier against static cardboard than a moving target.

[AJZ]

You mean the guys who operate in teams with weapon mounted lights, IR illuminators, and NODs? Because I'm not sure that has a high degree of relevance to what I need as a lone "operator" dealing with a criminal ambush.

That was kinda my point. But undoubtedly, someone will try and say "In the real world" or "Well CAG and SEALs and super ninja's" shennanigans, which I wanted to squash before anyone even mentioned it.


When I took Southnarc's AMIS one thing the students agreed on almost universally was that the lack of night sights on the Sim guns was a significant hindrance. There were plenty of times that I didn't want to project white light but could see well enough to locate the target. Without illuminated sights, though, it was just a black mass atop a black mass. It's a lot easier against static cardboard than a moving target.

I have no doubt that the lack of a non-blacked out sighting system would be helpful, and as I wasn't there I wasn't privy to the exact situation so I can't really talk about your experience, AAR, etc, just offer some counter-points: Did anyone there run FO sights as their primary sighting system on non-sim guns? Could anyone there speak for FO in similar situations? Could anyone there speak to experience of using FO in situations where there was enough light to properly ID a target but not differentiate the front sight from the rear on blacked out sights? I have used both in similar situations, and while at some points the night sights did have an advantage, there were other times when FO had the advantage. Again, not arguing that night sights are a bad, or even inferior sighting system. Just pointing out that it may not be as detrimental as most believe it to be. I will for sure ask CD if he'll let me throw a set of FOs on one of the sim guns for AMIS.

[JHC]

Vogel mentioned in class that if the fiber falls out, he's still got a thin black front sight. I took that to mean he'd experienced "fiber fail" in the past but don't recall anyone asking specifically.

Sure and that's part of my point of overblown worries about FO durability. If it breaks, you got a black sight that half of the competitors prefer anyway. I like Trijicon HDs myself for most purposes but one range/game gun has the .125 10-8 FO which I think is a better front FO sight than the Dawson or Warren/Sevigny I've used before.

[Mr_White]

There were plenty of times that I didn't want to project white light but could see well enough to locate the target.

Locate it or ID and assess it too? As in, make a properly-founded decision to use deadly force against it? Or had it been 'pre-emptively ID'd and assessed' somehow?

[Shawn.L]

You mean the guys who operate in teams with weapon mounted lights, IR illuminators, and NODs? Because I'm not sure that has a high degree of relevance to what I need as a lone "operator" dealing with a criminal ambush.

When I took Southnarc's AMIS one thing the students agreed on almost universally was that the lack of night sights on the Sim guns was a significant hindrance. There were plenty of times that I didn't want to project white light but could see well enough to locate the target. Without illuminated sights, though, it was just a black mass atop a black mass. It's a lot easier against static cardboard than a moving target.

In the 2 times Ive taken AMIS I have used my personal SIM guns in the dark and final evo's equipped with the GL-433 (Hack) Ameriglo sights same as my carry and training guns. Huge advantage. Having a strong index on the gun and having that dot of the tritium like a RDS to stick on target gave me not only huge confidence but made incredibly accurate and reliable hits at full bore speed on live resisting opponents actively working against me.
My personal suggestion to students taking that class is at the very least get a phosphorescent paint pen and hit the front sight on your airsoft with it and charge it up before going live in the dark.
During one evolution I had 2 actors try to ambush me, one in the hard corner, and one waiting "out of bounds" and coming in as I entered the room. Watching that dot jump from one target to the next as they stumbled over one another and wound up in a pile in the corner as I maneuvered was the sort of "yep, this works" confirmation of skill, technique, and gear choices coming together only live training can bring out.

On another note, I dont comment here much but I do read this journal often. Good work AK.

[Mr_White]

Don't mean to hijack your journal bro

Not at all dude, I like it when people talk about stuff in my journal! :D


If the dot is too bright and is a star burst

No issue with that so far. It was a sunny day at the match and the fiber was bright and round and I could still see the top edges and light bars just fine.


Just as Ahole with an opinion but it's not the FO - it's the thinness. Shoot groups side by side with .100 front and .125 front and see, or with the Defoors. Might explain the not shot calling. Cause with that large of light bars, you can't tell. My worst shooting has been with a .100 Dawson FO front I once had on a 17L. Longer barrel probably exacerbated the effect. Just sayin'.

I don't know what happened at the match. For now, I am going with it not being any more complicated than I just screwed up those four shots. Out of around two hundred and sixty.

I have tried the .105, the .115, and the .125 fronts on the range and don't notice any real difference in group size.


During one evolution I had 2 actors try to ambush me, one in the hard corner, and one waiting "out of bounds" and coming in as I entered the room. Watching that dot jump from one target to the next as they stumbled over one another and wound up in a pile in the corner as I maneuvered was the sort of "yep, this works" confirmation of skill, technique, and gear choices coming together only live training can bring out.

Can you describe the decisionmaking aspect of this evo, with regard to the decision to use (simulated) deadly force? What specifically did you see, hear, know, etc. that caused you to recognize these two guys as deadly threats? I appreciate your indulgence on this; I am very interested in the low light marksmanship-meets-low light decisionmaking aspect of AMIS.


On another note, I dont comment here much but I do read this journal often. Good work AK.

Shawn I appreciate hearing that you see fit to check out the journal. Thank you!

[ToddG]

Did anyone there run FO sights as their primary sighting system on non-sim guns?

One of the Airsoft guns I used for many of the low-light "low order evolutions" had FO sights on it and they were no better than completely black sights in even dim light.


Could anyone there speak for FO in similar situations? Could anyone there speak to experience of using FO in situations where there was enough light to properly ID a target but not differentiate the front sight from the rear on blacked out sights?

That's a common issue raised by folks who like FO sights but it's terribly misleading. It comes from range experiences where lighting conditions tend to be severe, don't change, and targets don't move.

First, it's very easy to find real world lighting conditions in which a threat can adequately be identified as such but where dark sights are inadequate for aiming. I posted this image on my website not too long ago:
http://pistol-training.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/neednightsights-600x450.jpg

Everything in the entertainment center area is clearly identifiable but you couldn't make out a sight picture if your life depended on it (literally).

It's also very easy to have a real situation in which someone moves from an area lit well enough to be identified to an area where he can still be seen but the lighting is no longer adequate to find a sight picture without illuminated sights. An example I've used in classes before is a target that is strongly backlit. Even if it's wearing fairly neutral colors, a person who is backlit becomes little more than a dark silhouette and having non-illuminated sights (or even an illuminated front sight only) means you're point shooting.


I have used both in similar situations, and while at some points the night sights did have an advantage, there were other times when FO had the advantage.

Sometimes night sights let you do things that FO won't, and sometimes FO let you do things that night sights won't. I wouldn't argue that point. But the things FO sights let you do aren't all-or-nothing, they just work a little better in terms of speed/accuracy. In those places where night sights beat the FO, the FO sights are literally useless for aiming. Put another way, while night sights might not be the best in every environment, they work in every environment because I can always see them and aim with them. That's not the case with FO sights.

[ToddG]

Locate it or ID and assess it too? As in, make a properly-founded decision to use deadly force against it?

Sometimes. See the "television versus black sights" photo in my previous post.


Or had it been 'pre-emptively ID'd and assessed' somehow?

Sometimes. Imagine someone is in your house with a gun. He steps into a dark corner. You can see his silhouette but not the details of his face. His arms raise up pointing at you (or one of your children) in what appears to you to be a shooting stance/position of some kind. Would you want to be able to fire aimed shots into that silhouette?

I completely understand the allure of FO sights. Many people find them a benefit in competition and at the range because they are easier to see and they provide a finer aiming point than a plain black front sight because, obviously, they're smaller. So they make things better in best-case scenarios. But they make things worse in worst-case scenarios, and my personal viewpoint is that it's a poor compromise given what we know about the lighting environment in many DGUs.

[Mr_White]

That's a common issue raised by folks who like FO sights but it's terribly misleading. It comes from range experiences where lighting conditions tend to be severe, don't change, and targets don't move.

Sample of one to be sure, but the the head of our LE FTU reports never having enough light to ID and assess a person and decide to point a gun at them, but not have enough light to aim (with black sights.) His experience definitely comes from a career in the field, not from training on the range.

Look, I hear your general description of hypothetical low light situations with enough light to ID and assess but not enough light to shoot accurately (whatever that is for the hypothetical problem at hand.) I tend to think that short shrifts the complexity and potential for error in assessing a person and deciding whether they need to get shot, and also the relative ease of making hits based on practiced index at what most people would consider to be likely pistol engagement distances.

Can you assign some specifics to your experiences in AMIS?


There were plenty of times that I didn't want to project white light but could see well enough to locate the target

Locate it or ID and assess it too? As in, make a properly-founded decision to use deadly force against it? Or had it been 'pre-emptively ID'd and assessed' somehow?

[ToddG]

Look, I hear your general description of hypothetical low light situations with enough light to ID and assess but not enough light to shoot accurately (whatever that is for the hypothetical problem at hand.)

I'm not sure what's "hypothetical" about the photo I posted. That's my living room almost every day. Some light comes in through the sliding glass door, providing varying degrees of light to different sections of the room. From where I'm sitting right now I can easily "identify" plenty of things around the room but when I point my gun at them, the sight picture is black on black on black. Heck even the grey part of one of my targets hanging on the wall -- which is VERY clearly identifiable -- is all but invisible against the black of my sights. The only reason I can aim at it is because of the faint but obvious green glow on the front sight and the even fainter but still visible yellow glows on the rear.


I tend to think that short shrifts the complexity and potential for error in assessing a person and deciding whether they need to get shot,


and also the relative ease of making hits based on practiced index at what most people would consider to be likely pistol engagement distances.

Once you start talking about unsighted fire the point becomes moot. If you're confident you can index on a realistic moving target under realistic conditions adequately enough to deliver the hits you want in the time you want, great. Then obviously you don't need sights that work well in the dark. Or that work well in the day. Or at all. :cool:


Can you assign some specifics to your experiences in AMIS?

The most obvious I can remember is seeing two silhouettes in a doorway at the other end of an otherwise pitch black room. They were engaged in a gun battle. I knew one was my friend (TCinVA, as a matter of fact) but there was absolutely no way I could get a sight picture on his opponent. When I brought the gun up all I had was a big black mass hanging in the air in front of me (hands, gun, sights) blocking out an almost-as-black world in front of me. That was with Sims.

There were other instances -- even during the non-lowlight portions of the class -- where opponents would squirrel themselves into dimly lit corners and shoot when I appeared. If I was also in a poorly lit space, I knew where they were and could see them well enough to locate them, knew they were an imminent threat (that whole "shooting at me" thing), but without illuminated sights I couldn't adequately differentiate my sights -- including the FO front & rear on one airsoft gun -- from their body.

Specifically, one of our "training areas" was a giant cluttered warehouse. Line of sight to the threat was often muddled by intervening objects and a very visually chaotic background. The sight picture was never clean. There were always multiple visual distractions along the entire 3D line of sight. When there was enough light on the gun to see the sights' outline clearly it was workable. When there was enough light on the BG to see the sights' silhouette it was workable. When the lighting conditions didn't allow for either of those things, it was still very easy to locate & identify him as a threat without being able to fire aimed shots at him. Given that he was often a partial target using the environment as cover, it made for some challenging work even when aiming was possible. When I'd bring my gun up and see nothing but various shades of dark it made effective fire impossible.


Locate it or ID and assess it too? As in, make a properly-founded decision to use deadly force against it? Or had it been 'pre-emptively ID'd and assessed' somehow?

I believe I answered this exact question previously.

[Chuck Whitlock]

Question....
Is there any situation where night sight DON'T work, but something else does?

[AJZ]

Question....
Is there any situation where night sight DON'T work, but something else does?

I would venture to say that picture is a prime example, and a RDS may be helpful there, but I have very little experience with a pistol RDS. Maybe someone who runs one full time can chime in?

[ToddG]

Night sights worked fine in that picture's environment.

[41magfan]

Sample of one to be sure, but the the head of our LE FTU reports never having enough light to ID and assess a person and decide to point a gun at them, but not have enough light to aim (with black sights.) His experience definitely comes from a career in the field, not from training on the range.



That’s pretty much been my experience, as well. Having carried a gun for a while before the advent of luminous sights, I don’t see them as a panacea or even as an essential option. However, I will say without hesitation they sure made qualification scores go up.

[AJZ]

Night sights worked fine in that picture's environment.


Everything in the entertainment center area is clearly identifiable but you couldn't make out a sight picture if your life depended on it (literally).

I guess I'm not seeing what your getting at here then. In the picture, I definitely can not see your night sights. But it is a picture, not the real thing. So are you saying you can see your sights in that environment or you can not? Not trying to be a dick, just confused.

[BN]

Night sights for carry guns and fiber optic for competition guns. :cool:

[ToddG]

Sample of one to be sure, but the the head of our LE FTU reports never having enough light to ID and assess a person and decide to point a gun at them, but not have enough light to aim (with black sights.)

Following up since 41magfan mentioned it specifically.

My point is really driven home by the quote above. There may have been times when there wasn't enough light to ID, but you don't have to "maintain positive detailed visual ID" throughout every moment of an exchange. Like I said above, it's as easy as someone walking from a lighted part of a room to a shadowed part of a room. You can still see that it's him and still tell whether he's got the same weapon in his hand even if you can't read the serial number anymore...


I guess I'm not seeing what your getting at here then. In the picture, I definitely can not see your night sights. But it is a picture, not the real thing. So are you saying you can see your sights in that environment or you can not? Not trying to be a dick, just confused.

The camera is focused on the background so the foreground is blurry enough that the tritium dots didn't come into focus. Also, because of the way cameras see/meter light -- which is much different than the way our eyes & brain manage the same task -- the glow from the tritium got lost. That's exactly why the picture worked so well, in fact. Even though they were really night sights, in the photo they were essentially all-black sights. As I was taking the picture I thought I was going to get a photo of how the night sights were the only thing I could see, proving night sights were useful. :cool: Same conclusion, different approach.

[AJZ]

The camera is focused on the background so the foreground is blurry enough that the tritium dots didn't come into focus. Also, because of the way cameras see/meter light -- which is much different than the way our eyes & brain manage the same task -- the glow from the tritium got lost. That's exactly why the picture worked so well, in fact. Even though they were really night sights, in the photo they were essentially all-black sights. As I was taking the picture I thought I was going to get a photo of how the night sights were the only thing I could see, proving night sights were useful. :cool: Same conclusion, different approach.

Ok, got it. Thanks for the clarification! :D

[ToddG]

Getting enough DOF to capture rear & front sights and a target, even a close one, is tricky. Doing it in light dim enough for the night sight glow to be visible is beyond my capabilities entirely (short of photoshopping, which sort of defeats the purpose of showing "evidence" of how things look).

[TCinVA]

I think individual eyesight also needs to be a part of the conversation. Leaving aside all the other points made previously, the bottom line here is that everybody sees the world uniquely through the limitations of their own anatomy. A dude in a PD hasn't encountered a situation in which there was enough light to identify a threat but not enough to see the sights...great.

I have.

I've done a fair bit of low light training and a fair bit of sims/airsoft training (including going into a building about to be torn down for a few hours working on paper targets and people with airsoft guns) trying to figure out what I need to make hits.

Bottom line: I need night sights. To have absolute certainty that I can place shots accurately in any lighting condition, I need night sights. Placing shots accurately seems to matter more when I'm faced with a living, breathing opponent who can move and shoot back as they tend to not present wide-open shots.

During AMIS I met a guy who was able to use the standard sims Glocks in pitch black darkness with unbelievable accuracy. With only a portion of my head peeking up over cover, he placed three shots in my face when I tried to kill him. I don't know how the hell he did that, and at the time I can only assume he was here from the future and mistook me for John Conner. He seemed to do OK with blacked out sights...but I don't have his superhuman powers. (Seriously...if you could be in that situation and see what it was like you'd ass how in blue hell he managed to hit me and strongly suspect he's got at least a chip installed in his head)

I, on the other hand, barely managed to graze him with my shots, and I was laying in wait for him. I knew where he would be coming and I fired first...but because I couldn't see my damn sights I had no way of actually intelligently placing rounds on the guy.

I need night sights.

The first time I saw the VTAC sights with fiber and tritium I thought they were stupid. When I actually started thinking about it, I came to the conclusion that maybe a sight that incorporates tritium and FO is the best idea anyone has ever had in handgun sights.

[Tamara]

This weekend's CTC Midnight 3 Gun match will be interesting. Stage lighting runs from darker than... something something well-digger something midnight... to "dim".

I'll be using the same pistol as last year, my CCW M&P 9 with Lasergrips and Lightguard, but I'll also have the Ameriglo I-Dot Pros on it this time. I plan on taking notes.

[TCinVA]

I'll also throw time in as a consideration. What's the threat I'm responding to? If it's a suspicious person I might well have plenty of time to get my flashlight out and get it aimed in on the suspicious person I'm interacting with and so my night sights may be moot.

...but what if it's not a suspicious person. What if the first clue I have to the presence of a threat is incoming gunfire?


http://youtu.be/itr5YrIVIq8

Cliff's notes: Patrol car rolls into an ambush and gets lit up by the bad guy. The officer not driving bails from the moving vehicle and engages the bad guy from his back. He doesn't have time to grab a flashlight when there are already bullets incoming and his partner has already been injured.

And, hey...look at the muzzle flash from that officer's weapon. Even with much milder muzzle flash than that I've had my night-adjusted vision zapped enough to make it hard to find my sights after the first shot. I found it much easier to find them for a followup shot if they glow. I think that's kind of important when one is in a hurry...like one might be if there's someone trying to kill you.

If I can get in a perfect stance and adopt my usual index and I've got a big enough target, sure...I can point shoot and maybe make a solid hit. From my back against a bad guy leaning around a corner? I'm going to need some sort of visible sighting cue.

[Tamara]

And, hey...look at the muzzle flash from that officer's weapon. Even with much milder muzzle flash than that I've had my night-adjusted vision zapped enough to make it hard to find my sights after the first shot.

That's also a very specific-to-the-individual kind of thing. I have a story that goes with this, but it'll have to wait 'til it's not 0100. :o

[Chuck Haggard]

One issue I see is who is using the sights?

If you look at CCW type defensive shootings those almost always happen in some sort of decent light. It's hard to rob a person you can't see because you are both locked in the ninja closet. Tom Givens data, which I think it pretty representative of what a person who CCWs will face outside of the home, shows a person needs their gun in a situation where there is enough light for people to see each other.

Coppers on the other hand often have to go looking for bad guys after they have scattered into dark holes. Completely different dynamic.

Working nights, and I have done so for about 23 of my almost 27 years on the street, I have found a number of situation where I can se and PID a bad guy but my sights were not visible.

Even if you use a light then what we teach at Strategos, light-move-shoot-move, is a really good idea IMHO, so you may have IDd your bad guy with the lights on and then have to shoot them in the dark. Or the bad guy may be partially lit up by another officer but my angle leaves my sights blacked out on the suspect if I don't have night sights.

I have not yet seen a downside to tritium sights except for cost compared to any other sighting system.


Ref special guys doing special work; they may face a threat that also has night vision capability, and some of them plan for that, hence no glowy sights on their blasters.

[Sparks2112]

Question....
Is there any situation where night sight DON'T work, but something else does?

Not that I've found...

[Mr_White]

The most obvious I can remember is seeing two silhouettes in a doorway at the other end of an otherwise pitch black room. They were engaged in a gun battle. I knew one was my friend (TCinVA, as a matter of fact) but there was absolutely no way I could get a sight picture on his opponent. When I brought the gun up all I had was a big black mass hanging in the air in front of me (hands, gun, sights) blocking out an almost-as-black world in front of me. That was with Sims.

What do you think the distance was in your AMIS evo involving TC and the other guy?


First, it's very easy to find real world lighting conditions in which a threat can adequately be identified as such but where dark sights are inadequate for aiming. I posted this image on my website not too long ago:
http://pistol-training.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/neednightsights-600x450.jpg

Everything in the entertainment center area is clearly identifiable but you couldn't make out a sight picture if your life depended on it (literally).

I couldn't see that picture at work. Now that I was able to see it at home, I think you and I can both hit a 'low % target' in that environment based on what is shown. Can you not see and feel the gun's alignment at that distance? What distance is that? It looks like 5 yards max, maybe more like 2 or 3 yards.


It's also very easy to have a real situation in which someone moves from an area lit well enough to be identified to an area where he can still be seen but the lighting is no longer adequate to find a sight picture without illuminated sights. An example I've used in classes before is a target that is strongly backlit. Even if it's wearing fairly neutral colors, a person who is backlit becomes little more than a dark silhouette and having non-illuminated sights (or even an illuminated front sight only) means you're point shooting.

I don't agree that that is point shooting - I would call it coarsely sighted fire. In no way does your picture show non-visually referenced shooting. Visual reference is there. It is just not the visual reference you seem to consider acceptable, which is kind of surprising given the short distance (unless my read of the distance is way off.)


Question....
Is there any situation where night sight DON'T work, but something else does?

Yes. Even on the calm and sterile indoor range where I shoot, there are a lot of places (with the lights on) where my night sights only allow me to see the white ring on the front sight, not the face of the sight itself – and not a precise front-rear relationship, and consequently, not enough precision for difficult shots.

One takeaway of mine from my time using night sights and black sights is that no matter what the sights look like, there are lighting conditions and target color/background combinations that will completely screw you over.


There may have been times when there wasn't enough light to ID, but you don't have to "maintain positive detailed visual ID" throughout every moment of an exchange.

That's a really fine line. I agree with what you wrote, but I do think it's important to continue assessing a threat as much and as continuously as is practical under the circumstances. Not saying you said otherwise.


The camera is focused on the background so the foreground is blurry enough that the tritium dots didn't come into focus. Also, because of the way cameras see/meter light -- which is much different than the way our eyes & brain manage the same task -- the glow from the tritium got lost. That's exactly why the picture worked so well, in fact. Even though they were really night sights, in the photo they were essentially all-black sights. As I was taking the picture I thought I was going to get a photo of how the night sights were the only thing I could see, proving night sights were useful. :cool: Same conclusion, different approach.

I think the focus in the picture is actually illustrative of what I think can be an important point with low light shooting. As targets become particularly difficult to locate/see/track because of distance, color, or lighting conditions, the more it becomes necessary to actually focus on them in order to maintain visual fixation on them and track them. I've noticed in exercises on the range before, and I notice in your picture, that the dots on the night sights may not even be visible, or may be a nonspecific cluster of blurs while focusing at (threat) distance. In that case we are back to index and coarse visual alignment.


During AMIS I met a guy who was able to use the standard sims Glocks in pitch black darkness with unbelievable accuracy. With only a portion of my head peeking up over cover, he placed three shots in my face when I tried to kill him. I don't know how the hell he did that, and at the time I can only assume he was here from the future and mistook me for John Conner. He seemed to do OK with blacked out sights...but I don't have his superhuman powers. (Seriously...if you could be in that situation and see what it was like you'd ass how in blue hell he managed to hit me and strongly suspect he's got at least a chip installed in his head)

Those are all fun guesses, but they dodge looking for the real explanation. I posit practice and confidence in index and/or coarsely sighted fire, which is often a byproduct of extensive practice with sighted fire.


I, on the other hand, barely managed to graze him with my shots, and I was laying in wait for him. I knew where he would be coming and I fired first...but because I couldn't see my damn sights I had no way of actually intelligently placing rounds on the guy.

What do you estimate the distance was?


And, hey...look at the muzzle flash from that officer's weapon. Even with much milder muzzle flash than that I've had my night-adjusted vision zapped enough to make it hard to find my sights after the first shot. I found it much easier to find them for a followup shot if they glow. I think that's kind of important when one is in a hurry...like one might be if there's someone trying to kill you.

There is a time honored method of low light shooting with non-luminous sights where the muzzle flash is used to see and align the sights for the subsequent shot (at speed.)

-----

I would like to say that I am not arguing that night sights are bad. Rather, I am trying to spark discussion regarding the fine edges of where low light marksmanship meets low light threat ID and assessment. My views on night sights have softened somewhat over time, and I now think they are less necessary (but not pointless) than I used to think, that they aren't absolutely functional for everything, and I now give even more respect to the problem of threat ID and assessment than I used to. I like index and I like sights.

Maybe it is time to switch things up and try HDs or Hacks.


you are both locked in the ninja closet.

LOL. I think it's time to lock me in the ninja closet.

[Cecil Burch]

My experience in AMIS was different that Todd's or TCinVa's.

I had two airsoft guns, one with tritium, and one without. The facility we used was awesome in its complexity. A huge warehouse with small rooms in the back, and a suite of cubicles and offices in front. There was about as much variation in lighting as you will find, from so dark you couldn't see your hand in front of your face to fairly bright with ambient light coming through the windows in the front offices.

For me, I found no situation where the tritium sights gave me an advantage. If I had the ability to ID the target, I could see sights, and if I couldn't see the sights, I pretty much could not ID a target. I switched back and forth with the two airsoft's (I was sharing them with a buddy) and used both interchangeably and never had a moment where I thought "damn, I wish I hadn't given Rich the night sight gun".

I also have done my ninja fantasy stuff and done AMIS practice work in my house at different times of the year and in different lighting conditions, and I have not had an instance that conflicted with my AMIS coursework experience. Maybe I am relying too much on the idea that if I have a gun, I will have a light with me, either handheld or WML. My Quark is always with me, certainly more so than my pistol even.

I have picked the brain of a lot of good shooters, most of whom have gone through AMIS, or have done similar things, and the split in their recommendation for night sights vs. not is about 60/40.

I am not saying that those instances don't exist for some people. Not at all. I have no doubt that all the experiences on this thread are valid. Knowing Shawn L. as I do, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that what he says is fact. I also believe in what Todd and TC are saying. I am saying that for myself, I have not found it be true, FOR ME, in the situations I have found myself in.

As TCinVa has mentioned, it could very well be a difference in individual eyesight. Mine is poor, and getting worse. Perhaps if mine were better I would be able to have that moment where I could see and ID a threat without being able to see the sights and I would get something positive and useful out of tritiums. Regrettably , that does not seem to be the case.

I will be hosting Craig for AMIS in November at the same facility. Perhaps my second time through will cause me to change my perception. I am certainly open to having my eyes opened (so to speak).

[Mr_White]

My experience in AMIS was different that Todd's or TCinVa's.

I had two airsoft guns, one with tritium, and one without. The facility we used was awesome in its complexity. A huge warehouse with small rooms in the back, and a suite of cubicles and offices in front. There was about as much variation in lighting as you will find, from so dark you couldn't see your hand in front of your face to fairly bright with ambient light coming through the windows in the front offices.

For me, I found no situation where the tritium sights gave me an advantage. If I had the ability to ID the target, I could see sights, and if I couldn't see the sights, I pretty much could not ID a target. I switched back and forth with the two airsoft's (I was sharing them with a buddy) and used both interchangeably and never had a moment where I thought "damn, I wish I hadn't given Rich the night sight gun".

I also have done my ninja fantasy stuff and done AMIS practice work in my house at different times of the year and in different lighting conditions, and I have not had an instance that conflicted with my AMIS coursework experience. Maybe I am relying too much on the idea that if I have a gun, I will have a light with me, either handheld or WML. My Quark is always with me, certainly more so than my pistol even.

I have picked the brain of a lot of good shooters, most of whom have gone through AMIS, or have done similar things, and the split in their recommendation for night sights vs. not is about 60/40.

I am not saying that those instances don't exist for some people. Not at all. I have no doubt that all the experiences on this thread are valid. Knowing Shawn L. as I do, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that what he says is fact. I also believe in what Todd and TC are saying. I am saying that for myself, I have not found it be true, FOR ME, in the situations I have found myself in.

As TCinVa has mentioned, it could very well be a difference in individual eyesight. Mine is poor, and getting worse. Perhaps if mine were better I would be able to have that moment where I could see and ID a threat without being able to see the sights and I would get something positive and useful out of tritiums. Regrettably , that does not seem to be the case.

I will be hosting Craig for AMIS in November at the same facility. Perhaps my second time through will cause me to change my perception. I am certainly open to having my eyes opened (so to speak).

Very interesting alternative perspective from another AMIS grad.

I really need to take AMIS. I have done traditional low light live fire training as well as low light FOF, but I doubt it was as intense as AMIS.

Ok, so here's a thought, just to speculate completely without basis in an attempt to further the discussion. ;)

Does anyone know of any case where a person using night sights conned themselves on threat ID and assessment and made a bad use of force decision because they could aim the gun without a flashlight, so they didn't bother using the flashlight when they should have?

[Cecil Burch]

I really need to take AMIS. I have done traditional low light live fire training as well as low light FOF, but I doubt it was as intense as AMIS.



Come down to Phoenix in early November!

[Kevin B.]

There is definitely a set of circumstances where target ID is possible and alignment of the sights is necessary but there is insufficient light to properly align the sights. I have had this happen a handful of times but it firmly established my strong preference for having night sights and/or a WML on my pistols.

Recently, I have had been shooting pistols equipped with nights sights, iron sights, MRDS and FO sights side-by-side on a number of drills, though in some cases, they were on different platforms. While I liked FO sights before, I have come away with a much greater appreciation for the FO sights.

That said, I personally would not consider running FO sights on a handgun for real-world use without a WML.

[ToddG]

What do you think the distance was in your AMIS evo involving TC and the other guy?

Probably 7-10yd.


I couldn't see that picture at work. Now that I was able to see it at home, I think you and I can both hit a 'low % target' in that environment based on what is shown. Can you not see and feel the gun's alignment at that distance? What distance is that? It looks like 5 yards max, maybe more like 2 or 3 yards.

It's probably 4-5yd.

On Monday, I missed the 3x5 on one of my targets by about 18 inches while index shooting. From 1.5yd away. I was going as fast as I could under a little bit of stress and made a bad timing call because there was no visual reference to dictate my speed. Actually, I did it twice out of three targets in one iteration of one drill. I was very consciously indexing rather than sighting because of the speed and distance. Both misses occurred while swinging from target to target.


I don't agree that that is point shooting - I would call it coarsely sighted fire. In no way does your picture show non-visually referenced shooting. Visual reference is there. It is just not the visual reference you seem to consider acceptable, which is kind of surprising given the short distance (unless my read of the distance is way off.)

Again, I think you're reading too much into the picture. The whole point was that you could have lighting situations in which (a) you couldn't get good visual alignment of your front sight but (b) could easily see & identify the target. I understand where you're coming from but you're looking for more in the example than I tried to demonstrate. It's like someone saying "the cable box doesn't have a gun, why are you shooting at it?"


Yes. Even on the calm and sterile indoor range where I shoot, there are a lot of places (with the lights on) where my night sights only allow me to see the white ring on the front sight, not the face of the sight itself – and not a precise front-rear relationship, and consequently, not enough precision for difficult shots.

Are those instances where a FO or plain black sight work better, though? I doubt it. At least you have the white ring -- which is why I'm a fan of white rings on my front dots. :cool:


One takeaway of mine from my time using night sights and black sights is that no matter what the sights look like, there are lighting conditions and target color/background combinations that will completely screw you over.

Agreed absolutely. I think the challenge is to figure out which set of sights will let you do what you need to do when you need to do it. That's sort of my pet peeve with FO sights: they make you shoot a little better when everything is ideal (good lighting, etc.) and that's when most of us practice so we see that little bump in accuracy or 0.01 faster splits and get excited. But they work worse when everything is already at the worse end of the spectrum, when the "seeing" part of shooting is already going to be the hardest and when the environment and situation are farthest from my normal calm range practice.


That's a really fine line. I agree with what you wrote, but I do think it's important to continue assessing a threat as much and as continuously as is practical under the circumstances. Not saying you said otherwise.

We're way past the days of telling people to pause, assess, and re-acquire a threat after shooting it once or twice. Basically, for the length of time I'm technically supposed to be on my front sight (between when I get the green light to shoot and when the threat is no longer on the other side of my sights) I'm ok with a clear aiming point and fuzzy target. I can walk into just about any police department in the country and demonstrate that their basic marksmanship training teaches that exact thing.


I've noticed in exercises on the range before, and I notice in your picture, that the dots on the night sights may not even be visible, or may be a nonspecific cluster of blurs while focusing at (threat) distance. In that case we are back to index and coarse visual alignment.

Again, this is emphasizing how a camera lens works as opposed to how the human eye & brain work. When I draw my gun right now in that same spot with nearly identical lighting conditions I can very clearly see the tritium dots and I can see the rough outline of the cable box. Before the sights came into my eye-target line I was seeing the cable box in sharp focus. I knew whether it had a gun or not. :cool: When I switch to a soft focus on the front sight (or hard focus if the situation/shot dictated it) to break a shot I don't need to be simultaneously assessing the target as long as I can keep my gun aligned on it properly.


There is a time honored method of low light shooting with non-luminous sights where the muzzle flash is used to see and align the sights for the subsequent shot (at speed.)

I've never been able to do that nor do I even understand how it's supposed to work. The flash is gone before the muzzle comes down from recoil. It works neat on a range with static targets when you're shooting fast enough to flashbulb the sights but most folks can't get solid repeatable accurate hits with it, especially on a moving target. I think it's far more likely, actually, that people who try to do this are simply getting a good repeatable index and shooting from that.

The other time I've seen this "successful" has been on a firing line with lots of students, where multiple muzzle flashes around you provide ambient light.


Maybe it is time to switch things up and try HDs or Hacks.

I'd at least play with the FO sights you just got until you were really confident you had assessed them fairly.


For me, I found no situation where the tritium sights gave me an advantage. If I had the ability to ID the target, I could see sights, and if I couldn't see the sights, I pretty much could not ID a target.

Did no one ever move? I'm not trying to be argumentative but that assessment is baffling to me.

Another specific from the AMIS class I took: you started outside in bright sunlight and immediately went through a doorway into a dark anteroom. You had absolutely zero dark adaptation in your vision. Beyond that was a huge cluttered area that was one half warehouse and one half refuse pile. The giant room had lots of industrial-style windows about two stories off the ground that provided weird, inconsistent lighting throughout much of the room. From the anteroom it was easy to find yourself in a situation where you could clearly make out the guy shooting at you but your sights were very hard to see.

Were there also times when you couldn't see the BG? Sure. But to me that's a non-issue in terms of sights. If I cannot locate or identify the threat then my sights don't matter squat.


Maybe I am relying too much on the idea that if I have a gun, I will have a light with me, either handheld or WML. My Quark is always with me, certainly more so than my pistol even.

Weren't there times during the low-light AMIS drills & evos that you wanted to shoot someone without lighting him up and giving away your position?


I have picked the brain of a lot of good shooters, most of whom have gone through AMIS, or have done similar things, and the split in their recommendation for night sights vs. not is about 60/40.

I don't want to get into a debate about who is good or how to define good. We don't have a true objective measure of speed, accuracy, etc during an AMIS evolution anyway. My experience, with guys I know of known proficiency, was that we all unanimously found instances in which the lack of night sights prevented us from being able to aim our guns in a way we felt we could make hits. None of us cried that we were completely incapable of shooting during the low-light evos. I made plenty of hits on plenty of guys (and got hit by plenty of guys). And there were times/circumstances where night sights wouldn't have helped. But there were times when they would have helped, and I can't think of a time when they would have hindered.

I've found this same thing to be true running low-light classes. There are plenty of times when you don't need night sights. There are plenty of times when night sights don't solve the problem for you. But there are also plenty of situations -- rarely simulated on a range but common in everyday life -- where they spell the difference between being able to aim as well as you want to or not.

I think it's telling that the two forum SMEs who are certified Strategos instructors and have done beaucoup low-light FOF work (as well as real world low-light work) both put tritium sights on their carry guns.


Does anyone know of any case where a person using night sights conned themselves on threat ID and assessment and made a bad use of force decision because they could aim the gun without a flashlight, so they didn't bother using the flashlight when they should have?

I don't think you could find definitive data on that. People make bad use of force decisions in bright daylight. If someone shoots at something they haven't positively ID'd then the sights on their gun aren't what made them do it.

[Mr_White]

Working nights, and I have done so for about 23 of my almost 27 years on the street, I have found a number of situation where I can se and PID a bad guy but my sights were not visible.


There is definitely a set of circumstances where target ID is possible and alignment of the sights is necessary but there is insufficient light to properly align the sights. I have had this happen a handful of times but it firmly established my strong preference for having night sights and/or a WML on my pistols.

In your experience, what kind of distances were involved in the 'PID possible but not aiming using the sights' situations you have run into?

[Kevin B.]

In your experience, what kind of distances were involved in the 'PID possible but not aiming using the sights' situations you have run into?

The longest one that immediately comes to mind was 12-15 yards.

[Chuck Haggard]

In your experience, what kind of distances were involved in the 'PID possible but not aiming using the sights' situations you have run into?

Depends on the lighting and what they were wearing.

A lot of prowlers wear black or other dark colors at night. Catch them under a porch light when I am in the dark then I can see them clearly, but no light on my sights against black clothing and I can't get a sight picture.

[TCinVA]

Those are all fun guesses, but they dodge looking for the real explanation. I posit practice and confidence in index and/or coarsely sighted fire, which is often a byproduct of extensive practice with sighted fire.


The real explanation was, according to him, he could see it. There was some technique involved, but he had superior vision.

There aren't many guys winning IPSC championships with bad eyesight...and night vision abilities vary considerably from individual to individual depending on a whole range of factors. So the whole FO vs. tritium debate based on what, say Bob Vogel does strikes me as irrelevant. Bob's eyeballs aren't my eyeballs. I've done enough of my own work in low light to know that I need the tritiums...and that's the basis everybody should be working on. Actually trying it out and finding out what they need in varying light. In real life there's no such thing as static lighting and trying to work out this low light thing for myself I've come to the conclusion that I need the tritium to be able to deliver reasonable accuracy in any circumstance. I can identify circumstances where I could get by without it, and it's possible that the circumstances where I absolutely need it aren't as likely to happen to me. But if I can easily have tritium sights and be prepared for those circumstances vice not having the tritium and having doubt about my ability to deliver should circumstances reach that level, why not have the tritium?

I don't think there's a single answer to this question.



What do you estimate the distance was?


Less than 7 yards...but it was pitch black, he was moving, and I was on the floor leaned around some "cover" (from sims, anyway) trying to ambush him. I fired, missed. He fired and missed. Then I changed position and peeked up over the cover to shoot from a different location and based on my muzzle flash he put three rounds into my face. I was presenting a very small target and according to his testimony (because I rather incredulously held up my mask and said "Dude...WTF???) he could see enough of his sights to make the shot.



There is a time honored method of low light shooting with non-luminous sights where the muzzle flash is used to see and align the sights for the subsequent shot (at speed.)


Sure...under the right circumstances that works assuming you've fired a shot already...and that's really just telling you where the sights were when the muzzle flash hit. You're shooting based on a historical artifact, hoping it hasn't changed much. Assuming a good grip and stance, that works to some extent. I've done it...but I've also experienced circumstances where the muzzle flash overwhelmed my night vision and literally left me momentarily blind to the point where that historical artifact was probably nowhere near accurate anymore. Night vision capability varies from person to person, but once you bleach out your supply of rhodopsin you're bat-blind until your regular vision kicks in or your rhodopsin recharges. (Also going to vary from individual to individual) The muzzle-flash sighting method was invented out of necessity...but it's far from ideal. Again, based on my own experience behind a gun in the dark, I've found that if I get a bad zap from muzzle flash then I'll be able to pick up glowing sights and get a useful sighting reference sooner than without them.

Am I likely to need that capability? Maybe not. Does it really cost me anything to have it onboard? Nope. So why not have it?

I view the threat ID and assessment bit of the equation as entirely different than the sight bit of the equation. My formulation on low light shooting is very mechanical: If I need to shoot, do I have what is necessary to take the shot I want to take? If I find myself required to put a bullet inside somebody's eyesocket in the dark, can I do it with this equipment? This is one reason why I prefer a 3 dot night sight arrangement to a 2 dot vertical arrangement, as I find I get a bit of vertical stringing from trying to judge the distance between the dots.

Am I realistically going to be required to make that sort of shot? Probably not...but does having an all-light sighting capability that is capable of it cost me anything? Nope. So why not have it? Once I've identified that this dude over here needs a bullet, I want to be able to deliver that bullet regardless of the circumstances. I want the aiming bit to be as automatic and reliable as humanly possible so I can focus my attention on the decision making bit. This is particularly true when I have a target focus. With tritium I can remain focused on the target and look through my sights and still get a very precise read on my sights. I've had the chance to run some drills under class conditions in both normal light and extremely low light, and with the right night sights (Warren 3 dots) I actually performed better with the night sights than with irons.

The important thing here, in my opinion, is to be guided by your situation. If you do the work and come to the conclusion that you don't need night sights, rock on.

...but in this area I don't think someone else's homework (Like Kyle Defoor or Bob Vogel) is good enough to substitute for doing it for one's self. Their opinion is absolutely worth listening to and would prove useful in the process of determining what an individual needs, but ultimately they have to actually go through the process to come to the best result for them. The simplest default answer is to encourage the use of night sights.



For me, I found no situation where the tritium sights gave me an advantage. If I had the ability to ID the target, I could see sights, and if I couldn't see the sights, I pretty much could not ID a target. I switched back and forth with the two airsoft's (I was sharing them with a buddy) and used both interchangeably and never had a moment where I thought "damn, I wish I hadn't given Rich the night sight gun".


Whereas Byron had a night-sight equipped airsoft Glock at our AMIS and I gave half-hearted consideration to bashing him over the head with something heavy and stealing his airsoft Glock.



Does anyone know of any case where a person using night sights conned themselves on threat ID and assessment and made a bad use of force decision because they could aim the gun without a flashlight, so they didn't bother using the flashlight when they should have?

Speaking just of my experience, no. Aiming the gun and identifying the threat are separate processes for me. When my brain decides it's time to shoot, that's when the mechanics of shooting come into play. I'm looking for "good enough" on the sights to make the shot dictated by the circumstances and I'm working the trigger. Prior to that I'm focused on determining whether or not this dude is going to kill me. I'm probably doing this with a light, although not always depending on the lighting. Once I've decided that he needs a bullet I may well be attempting to shoot without the aid of a light being on.


Depends on the lighting and what they were wearing.

A lot of prowlers wear black or other dark colors at night. Catch them under a porch light when I am in the dark then I can see them clearly, but no light on my sights against black clothing and I can't get a sight picture.

Same here, only with a big black dog rather than a person. Prior to that I had done all the shoothouse stuff and thought that if I had enough light to identify the threat, I'd have enough light to aim. That began a process of rethinking that further low light training solidified.

[Cecil Burch]

Did no one ever move? I'm not trying to be argumentative but that assessment is baffling to me.




Sure, people moved. Again, if I had decent enough light to see that they were bad guys, I could see my sights. If I could not see my sights, I couldn't see them well enough to ID them AS BGs. There were scenarios in the AMIS I went through where it was questionable if they were BGs. I couldn't just assume anyone that moved was an attacker. Craig was clear in a number of teaching moments about that very thing. I am baffled why it is baffling. I am telling you what I found in my experience. Not being in your AMIS, I can't really comment too heavily on the specifics of the lighting situation you had. Why do you assume you have a clear handle on what I had to deal with?



Another specific from the AMIS class I took: you started outside in bright sunlight and immediately went through a doorway into a dark anteroom. You had absolutely zero dark adaptation in your vision. Beyond that was a huge cluttered area that was one half warehouse and one half refuse pile. The giant room had lots of industrial-style windows about two stories off the ground that provided weird, inconsistent lighting throughout much of the room. From the anteroom it was easy to find yourself in a situation where you could clearly make out the guy shooting at you but your sights were very hard to see.

Were there also times when you couldn't see the BG? Sure. But to me that's a non-issue in terms of sights. If I cannot locate or identify the threat then my sights don't matter squat.


Cool. I didn't have the situation ever. As I was clear in mentioning. There was no moment where I could ID a threat but could not clearly see sights. That is not to dismiss your experience, but rather to show the chaotic and varied nature of this type of thing. One of the reasons I chimed in was because there seemed to be an implicit argument that one particular experience (A single person's AMIS) was universal. It's not. Nor do I think that my own experience somehow trumps everybody else's.


Weren't there times during the low-light AMIS drills & evos that you wanted to shoot someone without lighting him up and giving away your position?


No. I found that using Craig's tactics and methods of using the light allowed me to be able to use the light, especially in strobe mode, well enough to ID the target and use my sights without worrying about giving away the position. I found that actually shooting did more to give away my position than the light ever did.


I don't want to get into a debate about who is good or how to define good. We don't have a true objective measure of speed, accuracy, etc during an AMIS evolution anyway.

I think that is somewhat of a cop out or an attempt to dismiss my input. My definition of good is guys who are quantified as good to terrific shooters, all of whom have not only been through low light FoF, but also most likely to have used it in actual situations. People I have personally talked to about this specific matter consisted of: Craig (obviously), Claude Werner, Kyle Lamb, Larry Lindenman (25 year LEO with SWAT, undercover, and instruction duties), Paul Sharp (similar bio to Larry), Kyle Lamb ( I spent a weekend with him a few months ago during the 5.11 catalog shoot and we discussed low light stuff), Chris Fry, Chris Lapre (SWAT with one of the most active units in the southwest), Rich Daniel (one of the forerunners of FoF), Kelly McNeal ( great 3 gunner), Pat MacNamara, Yancey Harrington (very experienced instructor, AMIS attendee and .mil dude), and a ton of local LEO in various SWAT and gang detail units. It is a pretty broad group, all of whom have tons of experience, and had their own ideas. As I said, they were generally split 60/40 in favor of night sights. I think that is a decent sampling that has as much merit as two forum SMEs (who absolutely should be listened to).

Reading all the input on this thread definitely gives me plenty of food for thought. There are a ton of ideas that haev not happened to me that I need to consider. OTOH, my experiences still matter, and have import certainly to me. I am not someone sitting on his ass and making decisions based on what I think, but rather I am out there training/learning. Again, I am giving you my personal experiences, as honestly as I can. Trying to dismiss them in this manner seems a little high-handed. It might be that my own vision issues is making my own input less universal, but that does not negate that they were actual experiences.

[TCinVA]

Craig's light techniques were utterly foreign to me in AMIS. At some point I'm going to have to spend some quality time with him figuring those out.

[Mr_White]

On Monday, I missed the 3x5 on one of my targets by about 18 inches while index shooting. From 1.5yd away. I was going as fast as I could under a little bit of stress and made a bad timing call because there was no visual reference to dictate my speed. Actually, I did it twice out of three targets in one iteration of one drill. I was very consciously indexing rather than sighting because of the speed and distance. Both misses occurred while swinging from target to target.

I would think you would still have the coarse visual information available of the back/top of the gun. The severity of those misses sounds like errors from transition speed – firing after leaving one target or before stopped on the next one – rather than aiming errors.


It's like someone saying "the cable box doesn't have a gun, why are you shooting at it?"

But the cable box transmits lots of images of deadly threats. Seems like a legit use of force decision to me. : )


Are those instances where a FO or plain black sight work better, though? I doubt it. At least you have the white ring -- which is why I'm a fan of white rings on my front dots. :cool:

Actually yes, black sights (and guardedly, the FO too) do work better in those instances. The white ring on the Operator front just overpowers the front blade, the front blade is flat and not serrated, and it blends into a dark target against the dark bullet trap. Think of a hanging, black duct-taped tennis ball at 15 to 25 yards. The white ring is quite visible but not the front blade and it is quite insufficient to hit the target. This sometimes happens with paper and cardboard targets too. The serrated Defoor front or serrated Dawson FO front (with a tiny dot, much smaller than the white ring and doesn't overpower the front blade) are visible and able to be aligned with the rear and the target much more precisely. It takes more visual 'work' to see the Defoor front but when you do that work the sight delivers.


That's sort of my pet peeve with FO sights: they make you shoot a little better when everything is ideal (good lighting, etc.) and that's when most of us practice so we see that little bump in accuracy or 0.01 faster splits and get excited. But they work worse when everything is already at the worse end of the spectrum, when the "seeing" part of shooting is already going to be the hardest and when the environment and situation are farthest from my normal calm range practice.

That's a fair point and I feel you there. To take your point even further, I think night sights with a white front tritium outline illustrate what you say, but to a greater degree - the white outline makes the front visible longer in descending lighting conditions than any of the Hacks, HDs, orange-painted fronts, etc., which is why I've always preferred a white outline on the front if I am going to use tritium sights. Or maybe that's just the way my eyes see it.


We're way past the days of telling people to pause, assess, and re-acquire a threat after shooting it once or twice. Basically, for the length of time I'm technically supposed to be on my front sight (between when I get the green light to shoot and when the threat is no longer on the other side of my sights) I'm ok with a clear aiming point and fuzzy target. I can walk into just about any police department in the country and demonstrate that their basic marksmanship training teaches that exact thing.

That's not what I mean. Again, fine line. A made up example: It's dark, you are outside your home, and you ID and assess dude on porch under porch light like tpd223 said. He has a dark gun in hand. You start to draw your gun and he bolts off the porch and goes behind a parked car. You can see part of his head sticking out from the side of the car. It's only been two or three seconds since you decided he met the standard to use deadly force against him. Shoot the exposed head?


I'd at least play with the FO sights you just got until you were really confident you had assessed them fairly.

I have a pretty deep-seated preference for night sights on carry guns, but I like exploring different sights and how they work with shooting, shooting in different lighting conditions, how those different lighting conditions relate to decisionmaking, and giving some attention to unexamined beliefs that I have had for a long time (like the preference for night sights.) I doubt that I will use FOs on carry guns, but given further practice with them, who knows.


I think it's telling that the two forum SMEs who are certified Strategos instructors and have done beaucoup low-light FOF work (as well as real world low-light work) both put tritium sights on their carry guns.

I'd certainly agree with you there.


I don't think you could find definitive data on that. People make bad use of force decisions in bright daylight. If someone shoots at something they haven't positively ID'd then the sights on their gun aren't what made them do it.

Though I have no numbers to back it up, I think a lot more bad use of force decisions are made in transitional lighting, and there might be less of those if people would get the flashlight out more. Maybe sometimes when they think they don't need it.


Working nights, and I have done so for about 23 of my almost 27 years on the street, I have found a number of situation where I can se and PID a bad guy but my sights were not visible.

Can you estimate the distances in those situations?


But if I can easily have tritium sights and be prepared for those circumstances vice not having the tritium and having doubt about my ability to deliver should circumstances reach that level, why not have the tritium?

Just be glad you aren't in Europe with those sights that have to be charged up like a fishing lure!


Less than 7 yards...but it was pitch black, he was moving, and I was on the floor leaned around some "cover" (from sims, anyway) trying to ambush him. I fired, missed. He fired and missed. Then I changed position and peeked up over the cover to shoot from a different location and based on my muzzle flash he put three rounds into my face. I was presenting a very small target and according to his testimony (because I rather incredulously held up my mask and said "Dude...WTF???) he could see enough of his sights to make the shot.

Thank you for expanding on the AMIS experience.


I've had the chance to run some drills under class conditions in both normal light and extremely low light, and with the right night sights (Warren 3 dots) I actually performed better with the night sights than with irons.

How so? More accurately? Faster? What about the low light version of the drill do you think made you do better? Were the tritium dots easier to see than the sight blades? Or was it something else?


...but in this area I don't think someone else's homework (Like Kyle Defoor or Bob Vogel) is good enough to substitute for doing it for one's self. Their opinion is absolutely worth listening to and would prove useful in the process of determining what an individual needs, but ultimately they have to actually go through the process to come to the best result for them. The simplest default answer is to encourage the use of night sights.

Agreed.

[ToddG]

Sure, people moved. Again, if I had decent enough light to see that they were bad guys, I could see my sights. If I could not see my sights, I couldn't see them well enough to ID them AS BGs.

I've posited this hypothetical before and will repeat it here: if you saw someone holding a gun to your daughter's head and then he stepped into shadow where you could still clearly see his outline but not see him well enough to "ID him as a BG" if you were starting from scratch, wouldn't you still want to be able to aim at him and shoot him?


Why do you assume you have a clear handle on what I had to deal with?

I don't, which is why I asked.


Cool. I didn't have the situation ever. As I was clear in mentioning. There was no moment where I could ID a threat but could not clearly see sights.

As Tim has pointed out explicitly (and I tried to but apparently failed), PID and shooting are two different things. One follows the other. Lighting conditions change. If no one in any of your scenarios ever moved in such a way that the lighting conditions on him changed, fair enough. But I think in fairness, rather than assume that means it won't ever happen (or be a problem) you might want to consider what folks who did deal with that circumstance -- or people who've chimed in about real life similar examples -- say about having night sights.

Put another way, there's a difference between "I didn't need night sights in AMIS" and "there are no circumstances in which night sights are beneficial." I've never needed a seatbelt... doesn't mean I never will. Rather than rely solely on my own circumstances I get the benefit of other people's experience and misfortune to see that there are times a situation may arise where I need gear I've never needed before.

You didn't need night sights in AMIS. Other people were in situations where they did, situations you yourself admit you didn't experience. Either you:

* think you'd still not need them in those same situations,
* think you'll never have to face those situations, or
* need to assess the experience of others when they say in those situations, night sights make a difference.


No. I found that using Craig's tactics and methods of using the light allowed me to be able to use the light, especially in strobe mode, well enough to ID the target and use my sights without worrying about giving away the position.

In what lighting conditions. That works in pitch black but in dimmer light where you see a silhouette but need light to ID it, when your light goes out and you see his silhouette there's a decent change he still sees yours, too. If nothing else, the light alerts him to your presence.

There were a number of times during the low-light portion of AMIS where I shot at people without ever turning my light on (both as the aggressor and as the defender/searcher). Quite a few times I caught people completely unaware that I was even in the same room.

In contrast, getting back to the night-vision equipped cyborg in our class, I flashed my light for a fraction of a second and bang took a shot right to the light. It still has sim paint on it. He could see, hear, smell, or psychically sense me well enough to get a general idea of where I was and all it took was the moment of exposure to zero in and fire.


It is a pretty broad group, all of whom have tons of experience, and had their own ideas. As I said, they were generally split 60/40 in favor of night sights. I think that is a decent sampling that has as much merit as two forum SMEs (who absolutely should be listened to).

OK, your "sample" is a lot more meaningful when it's identified by name instead of just "good shooters." I'd be very interested in the breakdown of who from amongst that group favors night sights and who doesn't, and of those who don't, do they advocate WMLs as part of their reasoning for not having night sights?


Trying to dismiss them in this manner seems a little high-handed.

No one is dismissing your experience, dude. Don't make the discussion personal. Again, no one is saying what you experienced happened any way other than what you said happened. The point is that other people have experienced "worse" case scenarios and reported that night sights were necessary. Weigh that against the essentially non-existant downside of night sights and you get what?


I would think you would still have the coarse visual information available of the back/top of the gun. The severity of those misses sounds like errors from transition speed – firing after leaving one target or before stopped on the next one – rather than aiming errors.

That's a distinction without meaning in this circumstance, though. If I'd been seeing my sights I would have known my gun wasn't where I wanted it when I pressed the trigger. Or rather, I wouldn't have pressed the trigger because my sights weren't where I wanted them.

Furthermore, you're drawing too many side conclusions from one photo intended to show one thing. Change the size/shape/distance and the problem remains -- can't see sights, can ID threat -- but maybe a gun silhouette isn't available anymore, etc. Or forget my photo altogether and listen to the real world examples that Chuck, Kevin, and Tim have offered. As I said above, all the "I didn't need it" examples in the world are pretty meaningless in the face of examples where it was needed. I could give you more than 15,000 days worth of examples of never needing a seatbelt from my own life.


But the cable box transmits lots of images of deadly threats.

I like how you think.


Actually yes, black sights (and guardedly, the FO too) do work better in those instances. The white ring on the Operator front just overpowers the front blade, the front blade is flat and not serrated, and it blends into a dark target against the dark bullet trap. Think of a hanging, black duct-taped tennis ball at 15 to 25 yards. The white ring is quite visible but not the front blade and it is quite insufficient to hit the target. This sometimes happens with paper and cardboard targets too. The serrated Defoor front or serrated Dawson FO front (with a tiny dot, much smaller than the white ring and doesn't overpower the front blade) are visible and able to be aligned with the rear and the target much more precisely. It takes more visual 'work' to see the Defoor front but when you do that work the sight delivers.

I actually use the tritium dot (or white ring) as my POA. So it's a function of putting that where I want the bullet to go, not any other part of the front sight. Admittedly on very small targets without an external reference (like a tennis ball floating in midair) you can reach a point where you are guessing about whether that dot is covering the target properly.

Not to sound snarky, but I think the odds of needing to put my sights on the chest of someone in very dark clothing in a dark environment at 5-25yd is significantly higher than needing to hit a first-sized target floating in space at 15-25 yard in the same environment. I'm absolutely not suggesting it's a bad drill or without benefit in improving your shooting but in terms of a measure of what I might need to be able to do, I don't think the tradeoff is worth it. And as you know, I'm pretty serious about hitting low% targets at speed.


That's a fair point and I feel you there. To take your point even further, I think night sights with a white front tritium outline illustrate what you say, but to a greater degree - the white outline makes the front visible longer in descending lighting conditions than any of the Hacks, HDs, orange-painted fronts, etc., which is why I've always preferred a white outline on the front if I am going to use tritium sights. Or maybe that's just the way my eyes see it.

Not to speak for him, but joshs was telling me essentially the same thing the other day. The gun I've got now has no white ring and it's annoyed me from the get go. The sights were custom made for me but they forgot the white outline. I think it's one reason why I kept trying different variations of the high-viz orange paint thing.


That's not what I mean. Again, fine line. A made up example: It's dark, you are outside your home, and you ID and assess dude on porch under porch light like tpd223 said. He has a dark gun in hand. You start to draw your gun and he bolts off the porch and goes behind a parked car. You can see part of his head sticking out from the side of the car. It's only been two or three seconds since you decided he met the standard to use deadly force against him. Shoot the exposed head?

Absent any specific information that tells me he's dropped his gun? Yes. The law doesn't require me to risk my life by reassessing him every fraction of a second.

Counter-example: Guy is shooting at your family and chases them around a corner. You bolt after him. All you see is his back and your family still fleeing in terror. Can you shoot him?


I doubt that I will use FOs on carry guns, but given further practice with them, who knows.

Enough guys seem to like them that I'm genuinely interested in what you learn.


Though I have no numbers to back it up, I think a lot more bad use of force decisions are made in transitional lighting, and there might be less of those if people would get the flashlight out more. Maybe sometimes when they think they don't need it.

I wouldn't disagree with any of that. My only point is that it's a decision-making problem, not a sight selection problem. Sort of a "guns don't kill people, people kill people" thing.

I'm headed to the well lit NRA Range to practice all night and hopefully get my outlineless night sight equipped test gun up to 49,999 rounds. If you guys figure all this out conclusively someone send me a text message. :cool:

[TCinVA]

Just be glad you aren't in Europe with those sights that have to be charged up like a fishing lure!


I actually have those on my backup P30. I really need to fix that. It's interesting you mention that, as I had the chance to train with a Lt. in the German police, a guy in charge of one of what we would refer to as their SWAT teams. Things we take for granted like having tritium sights or lasers mounted to our firearms are heavily restricted over there, even for law enforcement. He showed up in the states for a class and somewhat shocked by the concept of an open enrollment class where LE, military, and ordinary joes were on the line side by side using the same equipment.



How so? More accurately? Faster?


According to the timer and the NRA bullseye, both. Slightly faster, slightly more accurate. Plus it "felt" much easier easier. With the Warrens on the pistol I was using I was watching the bouncing front sight and it felt a lot like using a laser sight. "DotontargetBOOMDotontargetBOOM..." In the daylight the target was cast in shadow and my black sights against the black bullseye was making it hard to judge my sights with precision. I could keep shots in the black pretty easily, but not inside the 10 ring.



What about the low light version of the drill do you think made you do better?


If I had to identify a primary factor, it was that I picked up a quicker reference on the orientation of the sights. In a hurry I tend to slightly misalign notch-in-post sights pushing shots off...doesn't matter much on an IDPA target at 7 yards, but shooting at the X ring on a NRA bullseye at 10 on a scored drill it matters. Would that make a difference in a gunfight? Probably not a significant one...but it's still nice to have on your side if you can get it.



Were the tritium dots easier to see than the sight blades?


That would be my best explanation. The attention-grabbing nature of the night sights when used on a dark range where the target itself was a faintly visible black blob made getting the picture I needed to see easier. The FO's potential for doing exactly that in better lighting conditions is something I'd love to appropriate, too...IF I could get it without losing tritium function. Hence my reconsideration of Kyle Lamb's sights. He didn't invent the concept but I think his are the only sights currently on the market that have both a tritium vial and a relatively durable FO setup.



In contrast, getting back to the night-vision equipped cyborg in our class, I flashed my light for a fraction of a second and bang took a shot right to the light. It still has sim paint on it. He could see, hear, smell, or psychically sense me well enough to get a general idea of where I was and all it took was the moment of exposure to zero in and fire.


As a further testament to this individuals spooky abilities, in the AMIS facility we used (There was an old Nina Hartley beta-max tape on the floor, along with some sort of animal dung, broken bottles, and lots of boards with nails sticking out of them if it gives you some idea of the nature of this place) during one of the "hunting" exercises, there was the tiniest crack in some boards that let in the faintest sliver of streetlight. When I was the guy doing the clear, as soon as I broke that line I took three shots to the aorta from him....and I was moving.

I didn't get too many details, but I got the impression that killing bad guys was priority 1 or 2 for his job description and that soothed the bruises to my ego just a bit. I felt like Batman getting his back broken by Bane...


http://youtu.be/nibz4kslew8

[Mr_White]

Cool, that all makes sense. Thank you TC.

[TCinVA]

Cool, that all makes sense. Thank you TC.

Good discussion.

[Serpico1985]

Anyone considered the truglo TFO? It's fiber optic and tritium.

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1343358


ETA: never mind, seem to have a low opinion of them.

[GJM]

If you had to choose between tritium sights or a well integrated laser, which would you prefer for low light use as envisioned in this thread?

Middle of last night, our dog wanted to go out of the cabin we were staying in, in the mountains in brown bear country. She then caught the whiff of something, started barking, and ran off after it. I went out with my tritium front and rear sighted G22 (yes, appendix is comfortable to sleep with in bear country), took two steps, said screw it and grabbed my 870 with the SF. I just lit the SF light up until I got her back in. My only wish is I had 500 lumens instead of what I had.

One of the best features of front and rear tritium sights is that it makes it easier to find your pistol in the dark.

[Dropkick]

I was at the same AMIS class as ToddG, TCinVA, and ByronG back in June 2011. I didn't work with any of their groups, but my experiences from the class were very similar to theirs'. One of the rooms we blacked out for an EVO was so dark I couldn't see my hand in front of my face (and each time I used my flashlight I zapped any chance of my eyes adjusting.) I would have really liked night sights in order to determine if I was aiming at Dark Blob A or Dark Blob B, because of how often I was extending and retracting my pistol (one handed) while trying to navigate through the "rape dungeon" in the dark. I don't think fiber optic sights would have been much better in that case than the stock glock ones I used.

The rest of the time when it wasn't completely blacked out, I don't remember any times where I felt I really needed night sights.

With that being said, after AMIS I did go out and buy night sights and a better pocket flashlight. The experience gave me some context about what things could be like, and I wanted to give myself the "hardware" advantages I could.

[SouthNarc]

If you had to choose between tritium sights or a well integrated laser, which would you prefer for low light use as envisioned in this thread?


Not choosing one or the other but Claude audited AMIS for peer review and he thought that a laser allowed a marginal shooter to make shots that a really good shooter would have a hard time with.

I think they provide an edge.

[TR675]

At the lowlight 2012 Rangemaster Polite Society match I had Trijicon HD night sights and a laser. The night sights were just about useless for me. The laser was awesome. I did very well in the match, and the laser was a big reason why.

[TCinVA]

Not choosing one or the other but Claude audited AMIS for peer review and he thought that a laser allowed a marginal shooter to make shots that a really good shooter would have a hard time with.

I think they provide an edge.

I second that. I have yet to find a better low-light sighting option than a visible laser. It's as fast and accurate as it gets. The only downside is reliability. They are finicky beasts prone to run out of battery power or just stop working inexplicably, especially on a heavily used pistol.

In terms of hitting stuff on demand, though, lasers beat the pants off of tritium.

[Chuck Haggard]

We can't run lasers on our duty pistols, however I have CT grips on all of my snubs.

I'll note that Jim Cirillo was a big fan of using lasers. I'll also note that when you are running NODs and have a gun with an IR laser that going up against people without night vision is almost murder.

[Kevin B.]

I'll also note that when you are running NODs and have a gun with an IR laser that going up against people without night vision is almost murder.

QFT

[Chuck Whitlock]

Great discussion.


Question....
Is there any situation where night sight DON'T work, but something else does?

Follow-up question.....
it's been touched on, but is anyone aware of a situation where night sights were a detriment?

[Mr_White]

For me, just the situations I described on the indoor range where the lighting conditions didn't let me see the front blade so I had a hard time making shots that took a precise degree of sight alignment.

[GJM]

I chuckle when anyone thinks they have the "one" answer for a sighting system. If I could illustrate, I would do a cartoon with a series of guys, with the following bubbles, describing what they were each thinking:

Guy 1, I got these great fixed sights on my Smith model 36, that allow me to hit what I aim at.

Guy 2, I got this Glock with these factory sights, much better than the Smith.

Guy 3, I got Defoor black sights, the stock Glock sights suck.

Guy 4, I got FO sights, way better than the Defoor sights.

Guy 5, I got me Trijicon HD's -- mo better for use in AMIS. Should be illegal to run FO's on a tactical gun.

Guy 6, I got me a visible laser mounted to the rail on my Glock. Claude says a laser kicks butt in low light.

Guy, 7, I got me a grip mounted CT laser, so my laser and bore axis are closer.

Guy 8, I got an IR laser and NVG's -- that is practically cheating.

Guy 9, I got me an 870 with buck shot and a bead sight -- anyone want to fight?

[Byron]

I chuckle when anyone thinks they have the "one" answer for a sighting system...
I am failing to see the value of your post... Unless it was just to raise yourself up by looking down on everyone else and laughing. Maybe I would feel differently had your comic idea actually been amusing, but I was waiting for the funny punchline and it never came. Instead you just made a boring oversimplification of people's positions.

To the topic at hand, I personally find a visible laser easier to use in lowlight than any type of irons. I'm not saying it's the "one" answer... But neither did most of the others quoted.


Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4

[GJM]

I am failing to see the value of your post... Unless it was just to raise yourself up by looking down on everyone else and laughing.

To answer your question, I certainly wasn't laughing at anyone else that posted in this thread, other than myself. I don't believe I know you or have read anything you had to say on this topic.

There is a lot of good info in this thread. I raised the question about the visible laser a page ago, because my experience is they work in low light. We tend to get pretty worked up on PF, discussing the minutia of what most folks would consider inconsequential increments, and it makes for interesting discussion.

However, for over 200 years, folks have been killing people in the dark without the benefit of tritium sights, IR or visible lasers. I would place a big bet, that it is mindset, skill at arms and the availability of a suitable firearm, and not any specific sighting system that most often determines the outcome of a lethal encounter in low light. And, if I am defending myself in the dark with any handgun, regardless of sighting system, I have been extremely unlucky or made a series of mistakes. That is why they make long guns and weapon mounted lights, as I was just reminded two nights ago in remote Alaska when I stepped outside a cabin in brown bear country with a tritium sighted handgun to get my dog, quickly realized my mistake, and went back in and grabbed a shotgun full of Brenneke slugs with a mounted light.

[ToddG]

lasers: lasers allow you to do things you can't do without lasers. There's no getting around it. I've personally witnessed many "big names" in the training industry go from haters to adopters to advocates with just a little experience and coaching. If I had to choose between night sights or a laser that worked as seamlessly as typical night sights, the laser would win every time. There are one or two things I can think of that you'd rather do with irons than the laser, but for most people under realistic circumstances they're pretty unlikely. Nonetheless, unless I absolutely had to choose between them, I'd take both.

night sights v. white light: there's a growing trend toward the "I've got white light so I don't need night sights" school of thought. This has primarily come over from military personnel and misses a few important facts in the translation. First and most important, those guys generally operate in teams (often large teams) and thus get the benefit of not only their own lights but teammates' spill light, as well. Second, again based on the team environment, they aren't usually dealing with the same drawbacks from giving away their position. Third, most of their training and experience comes from offensively taking a room (as a team) which means each man has far less of the world to worry about than a lone defender. Fourth, the guys at the higher end of the food chain tend to work more with NODs and IR than white light specifically because it's better not to project white light if you can achieve the same effect without it. Finally, their normal operating parameters don't include the same limitations that a CCWer faces in terms of size, bulk, weight, etc. being added to a handgun by a white light.

[JHC]

I second that. I have yet to find a better low-light sighting option than a visible laser. It's as fast and accurate as it gets. The only downside is reliability. They are finicky beasts prone to run out of battery power or just stop working inexplicably, especially on a heavily used pistol.

In terms of hitting stuff on demand, though, lasers beat the pants off of tritium.

I was a hater until I shot with a fellow who, bless his heart, was a shooting dork. He showed up at the range with an empty gun case and had to return home to get his laser equipped S&W Model 10 4". His only HD weapon. He didn't know a damn thing about shooting, guns etc. He bought what a gun store guy told him would be the best HD setup. I wasn't expecting much. Then I saw him rolling double action with the wheelgun at a shoulder point position and putting all of his shots into about a 4" group at 7 yards. Then I tried it out. It was sick. I understood how the Samurai felt about the arrival of firearms.

That was years ago and I still don't own one. I like what I do and I don't like more complexity in a system than I need. But I'll break down eventually.

[GJM]

On their web site, Crimson Trace suggests they have a soon to be released visible green laser for the Gen 3 Glock that looks interesting:

http://www.crimsontrace.com/products/type/green-lasers/lg-617g

It seems like the trick is getting a laser that has the laser reasonably close to the bore line, is reliable, and doesn't turn the pistol into a brick. Other than a J frame, the single best application I have used is the CT on a Sig 239. Interestingly, as much as I like the CT on a J frame, I tried their product on my Scandium 329 .44 -- fortunately I tested in with .44 special first, as the pain was so intense, even with special, that it would be a close call whether I would rather be mauled by a grizzly or shoot the CT grips with .44 magnum loads.

[Kevin B.]

night sights v. white light: there's a growing trend toward the "I've got white light so I don't need night sights" school of thought. This has primarily come over from military personnel and misses a few important facts in the translation. First and most important, those guys generally operate in teams (often large teams) and thus get the benefit of not only their own lights but teammates' spill light, as well. Second, again based on the team environment, they aren't usually dealing with the same drawbacks from giving away their position. Third, most of their training and experience comes from offensively taking a room (as a team) which means each man has far less of the world to worry about than a lone defender. Fourth, the guys at the higher end of the food chain tend to work more with NODs and IR than white light specifically because it's better not to project white light if you can achieve the same effect without it.

A couple of points to add. Most military personnel are not armed with handguns nor do most have the option of adding night sights if they are. Military handgun training being what it is, I am not sure anything the military is doing outside of certain SOF units is relevant.

As noted, NODs and an IR laser afford many of the same capabilities with less risk than using white light. Many units, even those that have NODS and IR lasers, lack the proficieny to employ them properly and using white light becomes the default method of PID-ing targets in low light because that is what is available and they have the most experience with. The logic then becomes less "I've got white light so I don't need night sights," and more like "my only experience is using white light and it worked fine, therefore that is the way to go." (I have a theory that similar logic is how the tactical reload made its way into defensive pistolcraft, but that is another dicussion.)

I think it is worth pointing out, that most units are running some type of optic. They afford the user a means to aim in low light that is really more akin to night sights than iron sights.


Finally, their normal operating parameters don't include the same limitations that a CCWer faces in terms of size, bulk, weight, etc. being added to a handgun by a white light.

I would agree the limitations may not be the same, but size, bulk, weight, etc. are limiting factors. It boils down to whether the user believes the capability afforded by the equipment is worth the size, bulk, weight, etc. I may be a minority, but I frequently carry with a WML. I personally find neither the size, bulk, weight, etc to be a significant issue. Of course my guns also have night sights.

[Chuck Whitlock]

I'm now considering the efficacy of an M&P with night sights, CT Lasergrip, and WML....

[TCinVA]

I'm now considering the efficacy of an M&P with night sights, CT Lasergrip, and WML....

Sounds like a good home defense setup to me.

[1slow]

YMMV
I have shot at night and in dim light a good bit but am no expert.
M&P has the most seamless CT laser grip I have seen. I had several they worked well.
I stayed with my Glocks and CT beavertail for other reasons but the S&W M&P was more seamless.
Laser and Surefire X300/DG switch is like cheating whatever it is on. I also use Tritium sights, mainly 3 dot Warren Tactical. I shot GL17 with this setup at Rogers on the night shoot, like cheating.

I am considering going HK P30/ HK45. The only way I can think to get this laser light combo would be X400. Bulk is an issue for AIWB. X400 can be turned full off to eliminate light NDs.
Any thoughts on HKP30/HK45 with X400.

It would be neat to try NODs and infra red laser/light. My understanding is tritium is a problem with NODs but that is totally outside of my lane!

[Caboose]

Is there anyone reading that has experience with both Defoors (or other all black sights) and something like Heinies, which are all black, but have tritium vials? I've long wondered if a set of Heinies would be the bridge that fills the gap between those with a desire for a clean, precise sight picture without loud colors to distract the eye and those who want to see their sights in the dark without the aid of white lights etc.

My specific question is if the presence of the tritium vial on the front sight of the Heinies, sans any paint, is still enough to cause distortion or distraction from the sharp edges of the sight. Perhaps by way of the tritium vial catching light and appearing glossy? I have my suspicions about the answer, based off limited experience shooting a gun whose fiber optic front sight has fallen out, and how maddening it was trying focus with a hole in the sight; but I'd much appreciate some personal experience, however anecdotal, to keep my rampant speculation company.

[Kevin B.]

Heinie Ledge sights are my preferred night sights.

[JodyH]

After running multiple night matches for our shooting club, I can say a WML/laser combination dominates the top of the scoresheets.
In the last night match my wife used her PPQ with a Viridian C5L and she scored well ahead of guys that usually outshoot her during the day.
The difference? The majority of them were shooting with either black sights or FO sights and handheld lights and she had NS and a WML/laser.
While RO'ing I noticed a huge difference between the CT red laser and the Viridian green, the green is considerably brighter and easier to track under all lighting conditions.

[Default.mp3]

I am considering going HK P30/ HK45. The only way I can think to get this laser light combo would be X400. Bulk is an issue for AIWB. X400 can be turned full off to eliminate light NDs.
Any thoughts on HKP30/HK45 with X400.

I run a P30LS with an X400 with a DG-11 while AIWB using a RCS Phantom with no noticeable concealment issues thus far. I am 5'8", ~135 lbs, 30" waist, typically wear this get-up with jeans and untucked t-shirts, sized small. AIWB is pretty forgiving in terms of what you can get away with, IME, although I honestly haven't tried any dedicated AIWB holsters. I haven't been live firing much lately (been meaning to re-zero the laser for something like 25 yards rather than the 7 it currently is, so that the offset isn't so drastic across the ranges), but last year when I took a low light course, I found that the laser with a DG switch was a huge boon when SOTM, especially when using only one hand (generally because my handheld was in the other).

You do have the option of getting one of the LaserMax rail lasers, where the bottom of the laser body is another Picatinny rail, so you can mount a WML; Helluva lot less offset than the X400 in such a setup. The downside to that setup is that you'd have to use a LaserMax.

[KevinB]

I took a low light class with Ken Hackathorn in 2007 and noticed his M&P having CT grips -- it was not till seeing him shoot at night that I truly appreciate the advantages. I've run IR CT grips with NODS as well as normal red laser CT grips on a number of guns to the point that until recently I had all my handguns with CT lasers.
The only gun I don't have them on is my M&P CORE - as its has a red-dot (DeltaPoint) on it, so it's really not needed.

I HATE all black sights - I'm equally not a big fan of Fiber Optic sights, why? Well the unfortunate truth of life is that most bad things happen at night. I transitioned two pistols and my wife's Glock19 to the Hack AmeriGlo sights -- (I think Ken should pay me for advertising). But the main reason was the BRIGHT ORANGE ring around the front tritium vial -- during the day a blind man cannot miss it even moving (and when people shoot at me I try to move), and in low light the tritium pops out to make the sight visible.

The fact remains regardless of who wants to believe it, and Todd captured it in a photo posted a few pages ago that a lot of places can have enough light illuminating the target to make PiD on it to discriminate if it is a threat or not. Me as much as I like to use light, I prefer not to use light if I do not have too. Lights attract gun fire, so why needlessly expose oneself if not needed?
Most HR units be it Mil or LE run white light when things go loud -- you can see a ton more with white light than even the best NODS, and if your in a team that has a time sensitive mission, you need to get there fast and deal with the issues. Sure you run NODS for silent sneaky shit - or when time is not of the essence and user safety would be comprised by going white light.

But (and this is one thing that took me a long time to figure out) you as an individual don't have a team, and your mission requirements are much different in an armed civilian situation than that of a Military or LE unit.



I foresee more and more guns getting slide mounted Mini RDS on them in the short term.

[GJM]

I took a low light class with Ken Hackathorn in 2007 and noticed his M&P having CT grips -- it was not till seeing him shoot at night that I truly appreciate the advantages. I've run IR CT grips with NODS as well as normal red laser CT grips on a number of guns to the point that until recently I had all my handguns with CT lasers.
The only gun I don't have them on is my M&P CORE - as its has a red-dot (DeltaPoint) on it, so it's really not needed.

Through my RDS experience, I have come to believe that a visible green laser is an ideal back-up sighting system for a pistol equipped with an RDS and BUIS. Once, I fell in the snow, and had moisture get on the emitter diode (think that is what it is called) on my RMR, and that effectively made both the RMR and BUIS unusable through the lens of the RMR. Additionally, if shooting from an awkward position, and especially in low light, the laser could help where you have trouble getting the dot on the RDS. A green laser would eliminate any confusion between which dot is what.

[KevinB]

Through my RDS experience, I have come to believe that a visible green laser is an ideal back-up sighting system for a pistol equipped with an RDS and BUIS. Once, I fell in the snow, and had moisture get on the emitter diode (think that is what it is called) on my RMR, and that effectively made both the RMR and BUIS unusable through the lens of the RMR. Additionally, if shooting from an awkward position, and especially in low light, the laser could help where you have trouble getting the dot on the RDS. A green laser would eliminate any confusion between which dot is what.

I am hoping that a smaller RDS without an exposed emitter will be around soon...

Agreed on the application for the Green Vis Laser still -- I am partial to it for times like a LE shield man as well.

[JHC]

A true holographic sight projecting the reticle into the air above the slide . . . I'd like to try that.

[Sparks2112]

A true holographic sight projecting the reticle into the air above the slide . . . I'd like to try that.

I'll bet money. 5 years.

[1slow]

Default.mp3, thanks for the input on HK P30 +X400.
KevinB good insight on Military team situation vs lone CCW.
JodyH is Viridian up to X400 quality ? Do you run any of this on your P30, any thoughts ?

[Shawn.L]

In the 2 times Ive taken AMIS I have used my personal SIM guns in the dark and final evo's equipped with the GL-433 (Hack) Ameriglo sights same as my carry and training guns. Huge advantage. Having a strong index on the gun and having that dot of the tritium like a RDS to stick on target gave me not only huge confidence but made incredibly accurate and reliable hits at full bore speed on live resisting opponents actively working against me.
My personal suggestion to students taking that class is at the very least get a phosphorescent paint pen and hit the front sight on your airsoft with it and charge it up before going live in the dark.
During one evolution I had 2 actors try to ambush me, one in the hard corner, and one waiting "out of bounds" and coming in as I entered the room. Watching that dot jump from one target to the next as they stumbled over one another and wound up in a pile in the corner as I maneuvered was the sort of "yep, this works" confirmation of skill, technique, and gear choices coming together only live training can bring out.

On another note, I dont comment here much but I do read this journal often. Good work AK.

I just got back from a nice beach trip and enjoyed reading some of the posts in this thread while I was there, but obviously replying wasnt top of my to do list this week.

Many points I agree with personally have been laid out in great detail. Id just like to expand some on my personal experience and thoughts.

During my first AMIS Craig tossed a X400 with DG on one of my Sim guns for me to try. The consensus was I was going to LOVE it. I didnt. My first go around with it I recall IDing a threat from outside a dim room with a strobe of light, then entering in darkness I brought the gun up and it was disconcerting to me to see the red splash of the laser and my vision come off my night sights. I tried it a few times but it just seemed like too much was going on. It wasnt "comfortable" for me. When I saw my sights where they where supposed to be I could act with confidence. With this laser I just had way too much going on visually that I wasnt used to.

I gave Craig back the unit and went back in. I didnt like it. Wasnt for me. Ect.

I'll add that after that first AMIS our local training group did many many rentals of the facility I hosted it at, and logged a great number of hours working on parts of that class. We drilled everything from slow methodical clears, movement, multiples, low light, to full on low light with multiples role play evos with feedback from Craig along the way.

To speak to one situation in particular (from the best of my memory) we where working low light role play. The evo brief was that I had come home and a storm had hit, the neighborhood was dark and my front door was kicked in. Using the shadows I was in corner outside a threshold where you could not see me from inside a dimly lit room where a man inside was with a flashlight looking around. I had heard my wife screaming, he was trashing through my stuff. I could ID him from his own reflected light inside that room, but he could not see me outside that room tucked in a shadow. I could make that accurate shot at longer than room range because I could see the glow of my night sight. I had no reference visually to the rear sight but I dont bother even thinking of that anyway, I know my front notch is in there and just use the dot to shoot.

Further I need to explain (like TC lays out) that while I could never have seen black sights or FO in that context I cant see black sights in broad daylight! Im damn near blind! I had a set of Defoors I won from Kyle taking top shooter at his Advanced Handgun at the USTC on the cold skills assessment on TD1. Anyone who has trained with Kyle can imagine that it was shot at 25 yards on a B8 bull under a time constraint. I do just fine with the Hack sights shooting in the 620's on the 700 normally with awful eyesight. I'll never see the mythical "crystal clear front sight" , and can seldom make out my top edge. Its a fact I had to feel that my seeing the sights lined up is only confirmation visually that they are lined up, and that lined up blurs are actually lined up. But the front on the Defoors is too small for me to really see much at all and I no longer use them. I need, for my vision issues, a larger front and a high viz color to truly be able to shoot much at all as range increases and target size reduces.

Someone with much better vision than I may be able to make out black on black sights in the shadows. Never going to happen for me.

As to the laser, I picked up a used J frame that had one on it and decided to play with it. Then I took a survey and having an NRA cert paid off and CT sent me another. So now I have one on my 442 and one on my .22 snubby. The more I play with them the more I can appreciate why I had such trouble with it before. Simply a lack of familiarity I think. The more I shoot it the more I like it, esp on the J frame with what amounts to no sights at all for me.

A long time shooting buddy of mine (and an amazing M class shooter) had counseled me years ago to come back and try things from time to time that hadnt worked for me before. He said that as I grow I may be able to take advantage of things that once I couldnt, and that part of developing was staying open minded and experimental. I didnt get the chance to run a laser in the last AMIS I hosted but I think Id like to try one out now that I have some flight time on it and see.

[JodyH]

JodyH is Viridian up to X400 quality ? Do you run any of this on your P30, any thoughts ?
There's not much that matches Surefire quality... or price.
I have 2 Viridian C5L's and both have been solid under extensive use, the only thing to look out for is they eat batteries and it would be easy to crossthread the battery cap if you're not careful.
I heard Viridian has made some improvements to the battery life since I bought mine.

[GJM]

I run a P30LS with an X400 with a DG-11 while AIWB using a RCS Phantom with no noticeable concealment issues thus far. I am 5'8", ~135 lbs, 30" waist, typically wear this get-up with jeans and untucked t-shirts, sized small. AIWB is pretty forgiving in terms of what you can get away with, IME, although I honestly haven't tried any dedicated AIWB holsters. I haven't been live firing much lately (been meaning to re-zero the laser for something like 25 yards rather than the 7 it currently is, so that the offset isn't so drastic across the ranges), but last year when I took a low light course, I found that the laser with a DG switch was a huge boon when SOTM, especially when using only one hand (generally because my handheld was in the other).

You do have the option of getting one of the LaserMax rail lasers, where the bottom of the laser body is another Picatinny rail, so you can mount a WML; Helluva lot less offset than the X400 in such a setup. The downside to that setup is that you'd have to use a LaserMax.

I think SF screwed up with the design of the X400 -- they should have located the laser above the light, to minimize the barrel to laser offset. I have an X400 and find it almost unusable unless you run a parallel zero -- placing the POI about 3 inches high of the laser from muzzle to far out (opposite direction of the offset with an optic on an AR). During my frustrated stage, I put together this chart showing the shift in POI if you use an intersecting zero:

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg251/GJMandes/7yardzero.jpg (http://s250.photobucket.com/user/GJMandes/media/7yardzero.jpg.html)

As you can see, with a 7 yard zero, the POI is 3 inches high at the muzzle going to 8 inches low at just 24 yards. The second example, shows the difference between a parallel and intersecting zero:

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg251/GJMandes/laser.jpg (http://s250.photobucket.com/user/GJMandes/media/laser.jpg.html)

[JodyH]

I like a 15 yard zero on my lasers.
Inside 15 it's close enough.
Out to 20 it's close enough.
Beyond 20 you can't see the dot very well anyway (under real world shooting conditions).

[1slow]

I run 50' zeros on CT laser grips.

[GJM]

I run 50' zeros on CT laser grips.

When the laser is as close to the bore line as it is with the CT grip product, choosing between a parallel or specific intersection zero is almost irrelevant, unlike a product with the large offset of the X400.

[Nephrology]

I run a P30LS with an X400 with a DG-11 while AIWB using a RCS Phantom with no noticeable concealment issues thus far. I am 5'8", ~135 lbs, 30" waist, typically wear this get-up with jeans and untucked t-shirts, sized small.

Okay. I need to see photos of that. I am 5'10 and ~165 and I can barely get a Glock 26 to hide under a medium t-shirt AIWB.

[Default.mp3]

Default.mp3, thanks for the input on HK P30 +X400.
KevinB good insight on Military team situation vs lone CCW.
JodyH is Viridian up to X400 quality ? Do you run any of this on your P30, any thoughts ?
No problem. If you're interest in Viridian stems from the green laser rather than the red, keep in mind that the X400-GN Ultra is (in theory) suppose to be coming out soon; I was assured at the NRA show this year that it was definitely coming out by the end of the year... but Surefire being Surefire, I wouldn't be too sure even then.


I like a 15 yard zero on my lasers.
Inside 15 it's close enough.
Out to 20 it's close enough.
Beyond 20 you can't see the dot very well anyway (under real world shooting conditions).
That is my thinking as well; using the laser over 25 yards seems a little far. For me, the laser is just a close range tool for use under 25 yards; anything beyond that, I can probably switch to iron sights with little penalty.


Okay. I need to see photos of that. I am 5'10 and ~165 and I can barely get a Glock 26 to hide under a medium t-shirt AIWB.
Since that has nothing to do with sighting systems, I'll post the photos up in the appendix carry thread; I've since modified my RCS from the pictures I used in my AFHF AAR, and it conceals quite a bit better, IMO.

[GJM]

That is my thinking as well; using the laser over 25 yards seems a little far. For me, the laser is just a close range tool for use under 25 yards; anything beyond that, I can probably switch to iron sights with little penalty.

I have gone out in twilight conditions, with both a RMR equipped pistol and another with a visible laser and another pistol with tritium sights, and been able to hit a 8 inch steel at will at 50 yards with both RMR and laser, that I could hardly make out with my eyes, no less hit with tritium iron sights. I think you may be selling the utility of the laser short at further distances in low light conditions.

[ToddG]

Agree with GJM. Zeroed for it, a laser is useful at significantly greater distances than iron sights in various conditions.

A 124gr +p round will drop about an inch at 50yd. A set of Lasergrips zeroed at 25yd, then, will place the round approximately two inches low and one inch to the right of the spot at 50yd... which is probably well within just about anyone's wobble zone.

[Nephrology]

Since that has nothing to do with sighting systems, I'll post the photos up in the appendix carry thread; I've since modified my RCS from the pictures I used in my AFHF AAR, and it conceals quite a bit better, IMO.

Sounds good - I'll take a look. Thanks!

[Chuck Haggard]

Agree with GJM. Zeroed for it, a laser is useful at significantly greater distances than iron sights in various conditions.

A 124gr +p round will drop about an inch at 50yd. A set of Lasergrips zeroed at 25yd, then, will place the round approximately two inches low and one inch to the right of the spot at 50yd... which is probably well within just about anyone's wobble zone.

If you are using one of the below the barrel lasers such as the X400 noted above, then at some point your round will be dead on to the laser due to bullet drop if sighted in parallel to the bore, then of course just below past that point.

I quit worrying about the offset and just get the thing to as parallel as possible, as distance increases my wobble factor also makes things worse so it's a wash IMHO, and I am already used to dealing with offset on my carbines at close range so it isn't a big mental jump to the lasers.

[JodyH]

Reflective steel or flat cardboard under low light at 50 yards is one thing.
Clothing that's layered or wrinkled on a even slightly moving target at 50, that little red dot is tough to pick out. Add some yellow streetlight to the mix and it's not going to happen.
That's why I specified "real world shooting conditions".
I've seen shooters play "hunt the dot" at our matches when there's a sodium streetlight illuminating the target at 25-30 yards much less 50.

[Default.mp3]

I have gone out in twilight conditions, with both a RMR equipped pistol and another with a visible laser and another pistol with tritium sights, and been able to hit a 8 inch steel at will at 50 yards with both RMR and laser, that I could hardly make out with my eyes, no less hit with tritium iron sights. I think you may be selling the utility of the laser short at further distances in low light conditions.


Agree with GJM. Zeroed for it, a laser is useful at significantly greater distances than iron sights in various conditions.

A 124gr +p round will drop about an inch at 50yd. A set of Lasergrips zeroed at 25yd, then, will place the round approximately two inches low and one inch to the right of the spot at 50yd... which is probably well within just about anyone's wobble zone.
Unlike JodyH, I have had minimal usage of the laser in realworld-type scenarios, and have only used it in low light either indoors against paper targets or else against steel outside, so I can't attest to just how easy it is to pick out a laser dot at such ranges, regardless of color. I'm quite sure that with proper knowledge of the offset of a laser, you could easily make long distance shots that you couldn't with tritium alone. However, since I'm running the X400 with the default setting of the light coming on with the laser, the tritium wouldn't play a huge role in my aiming, probably, since the light would most likely give my irons a good contrast. I just personally don't see a huge amount of utility in being able to make a long distance laser-only shot as a CCWer, as I find it unlikely that I will be able to PID something at 50 yards and at the same time not be able to risk a white light against said, but be okay with a laser; thus, while the large offset of the X400 is a distinct flaw, I don't see it as a fatal one, since the offset at closer ranges is manageable, while the laser will not see all that much use a longer ranges. Besides, with the P30 platform, I don't really have much other choice if I wanted a laser and a light; my reasoning is not "lasers are only good for short range", it's "the X400 provides a distinct enough at short ranges to offset its cost, even if I can't use it very well at long ranges".

If my reasoning if flawed, please tell me, 'cause I honestly have minimal low-light realworld exposure, and I don't know of any venues around me that would let me practice it regularly, which is why I'm looking at a 15-25 yard type zero rather than a straight parallel offset, since the latter seems to be easier to use with minimal live fire practice while still having a reasonable amount of offset to account for at the closer ranges.

[jetfire]

I just got done shooting the Crimson Trace Midnight 3-Gun match. I am a dedicated fiber optic shooter for my gamer guns.

After this match and my experience here, I am putting proper, illuminated night sights on all my carry guns now.

[Sparks2112]

I just got done shooting the Crimson Trace Midnight 3-Gun match. I am a dedicated fiber optic shooter for my gamer guns.

After this match and my experience here, I am putting proper, illuminated night sights on all my carry guns now.

Nice.

[ToddG]

After this match and my experience here, I am putting proper, illuminated night sights on all my carry guns now.

Can you give some examples of shooting conditions where the FO sights weren't enough?

[VolGrad]

Can you give some examples of shooting conditions where the FO sights weren't enough?

You didn't ask me but I'll give a really simple one.

I recently traded into a Gen4 G19 and the previous owner had installed the red/green TruGlo Bright Sights. These are not the ones with the tritium, just the FO tubes. I hadn't pulled them off to swap out yet so I was playing with them a little this weekend in my garage just to see how/when I could see what I could see.

residential garage with open roll-up door, mid-afternoon on an overcast day
- with my back to the outside (sunlight behind me), sight picture on inside white garage wall the red/green dots were VERY bright and easy to pick up
- with my back to the inside garage wall, sight picture outside the garage on various objects of varying color and in varying amounts of light/shadow ... no dots, I could basically only see the black of the post and rear sight housing

That's a pretty simple real, world example of a time when even in good, normal light conditions the dots appear/disappear freely. All I had to do was take a pivot step from having the sun to my back to facing into the sun and the dots disappeared.

[ToddG]

Vol -- thanks for the example. However, I think a lot of folks, especially those who prefer plain black sights to begin with, would consider that an acceptable result.

I'm curious what specific lighting conditions Caleb saw in the match that made night sights so suddenly smart for him. I had a similar relampago moment at the S&W Nationals one year and it made me dump front post only night sights in favor of front & rear.

[jetfire]

Can you give some examples of shooting conditions where the FO sights weren't enough?

My pistol, a P229/M11 did have night sights on it. My rifle also had an illuminated sight on it. My shotgun has a fiber optic front sight on it. On the last night of shooting, the ambient light was bright enough from the moon that I could aim the pistol at targets without having to project a giant beam of white light which would inevitably end up just illuminating the barrel smoke or the dust from the first shot. The shotgun with the FO was worthless without the light on, even though I could still make out the targets okay.

[Chuck Whitlock]

I had a similar relampago moment at the S&W Nationals one year and it made me dump front post only night sights in favor of front & rear.

Could you elaborate on this, Todd? I'd be very interested to hear what made you change your mind.

[ToddG]

Could you elaborate on this, Todd? I'd be very interested to hear what made you change your mind.

There's a bay at Smith that people call the ice box. You're essentially shooting through small ports that are very much like the door of a small refrigerator. The room you are standing in is pitch black, but the room on the other side of the ice box doors can have all sorts of weird lighting conditions.

Two years in a row, they put a light in one port that lit up the front sight but not the rear. There was enough light spill downrange to see, identify, and engage the targets and the front sight was easily seen... but the rear sight was in darkness. Because of the weird position I had to take using cover and holding the port door open with one hand, my index was imperfect so shooting with just a front dot led to points dropped.

The light would have worked fine if you crowded cover and pushed everything through the port (which I think is what they wanted for safety reasons, as the portal frames were metal). It wasn't intended to be the problem I had. But nonetheless it was a clear demonstration that lighting conditions exist where a front-only trit dot is inadequate.

The easiest way to create a problem for the 1-dot crowd, though, is to provide a strongly backlit target with the shooter in darkness. A deeply silhouetted target gives you no contrast again black steel sights.

[Chuck Whitlock]

Thanks for the reply. I've used XS BDs for a while (the set on my carry gun are stamped "AO" instead of "XS") and had just about convinced myself that the rear trit was unnecessary, but have been wondering if the Trijicon HDs might not be 'more of a good thing'. My duty gun has Glock factory NS which I use a black Sharpie on the rear lamps-they still glow faintly in the dark, but they don't overpower the front in any conditions. Unfortunately, the finish on both front and rear succumb to holster wear pretty rapidly.

[Chuck Haggard]

I forgot to mention earlier, and my ADD just kicked in again, so I'll note that someone mentioned the old "flash-fire" technique where you use the muzzle flash to confirm your sight alignment and adjust from there.

Outside of a military battlefield this is; Stupid. As. Hell.

You want to explain in court how you had to fire off a round in order to see your sights so you could try and fire an accurate shot? Seriously?

Aaaaaaand,

This only works if the target doesn't move. The second they move you lose the sight "picture" your were trying to get from that technique.

In a gunfight everyone is moving.


I'll also note that we were taught this back when I went through the academy, and were run through doing so in a couple of drills during our low-light "training". Easy to see the sights from the flash of a full house 125gr .357mag, not so much when using something like a 147gr 9mm.

[Chuck Haggard]

And on a more entertaining note;

A friend has a place out in the boonies, and his wife has horses. Possums like horse feed, but their poop will poison a horse for some reason. So, the rule at many places out in the boonies around here is to shoot possums on sight.

Friend of mine came home the other night and found a possum fleeing from the backyard towards the tree line behind the horse barn.

I am told when all you have on you is a 642, with the only improvement being orange paint on the front sight, that a good handheld light and neck index will allow you to see the sights AND the possum while running across a back yard in the dark.

Hornady Critical Defense works on possums.

End of report.

[GJM]

And on a more entertaining note;

A friend has a place out in the boonies, and his wife has horses. Possums like horse feed, but their poop will poison a horse for some reason. So, the rule at many places out in the boonies around here is to shoot possums on sight.

Friend of mine came home the other night and found a possum fleeing from the backyard towards the tree line behind the horse barn.

I am told when all you have on you is a 642, with the only improvement being orange paint on the front sight, that a good handheld light and neck index will allow you to see the sights AND the possum while running across a back yard in the dark.

Hornady Critical Defense works on possums.

End of report.

Tell your "friend" that CT laser grips make a much better "shoot a possum in the dark" on the run set-up.


I just got done shooting the Crimson Trace Midnight 3-Gun match. I am a dedicated fiber optic shooter for my gamer guns.


Any word from CT when their visible green laser grip product for the Gen 3 Glock will ship -- their web site makes it sound imminent?

[justintime]

And on a more entertaining note;

A friend has a place out in the boonies, and his wife has horses. Possums like horse feed, but their poop will poison a horse for some reason. So, the rule at many places out in the boonies around here is to shoot possums on sight.

Friend of mine came home the other night and found a possum fleeing from the backyard towards the tree line behind the horse barn.

I am told when all you have on you is a 642, with the only improvement being orange paint on the front sight, that a good handheld light and neck index will allow you to see the sights AND the possum while running across a back yard in the dark.

Hornady Critical Defense works on possums.

End of report.

this seems to mirror most of my low light experience. I shot a raccoon once at night that was into some feed, as soon as I did another one popped up and snarled at me, it was apparent that my flashlight had given my position away to the next enemy ;) I've done a lot of night varmint hunting and the only thing I've taken from that is 1. flashlights rule, unless they are behind you. 2. red dots rule, unless they are too bright when lighting conditions drastically change on short notice...
3. giving away your position against varmints is not a concern and thus flashlights are powerful tools.. yet when other people use flashlights for around you it tends to always mess up the sight picture making longer distances pretty hard. I've never been able to utilize night sights in the boonies because I'm never sure enough what I'm shooting at out there unless it is lit up. I've shot rattle snakes at close distances in low light with, and without light and with and without night sights and frankly at those surprise distances I basically just remember looking at the snake as opposed to picking up the front sight so I can't say either was worse or better but a dead snake to me is a dead snake.

if you are by yourself in a position against unknown enemy where using white light even momentarily = you being dead, wouldn't that mean evading would be the better option at that point as that is assuming they cannot see you without the white light so essentially you have a distinct advantage not to initiate contact. Likewise setting yourself up for success in other areas seem like a bigger concern, like getting to a position that makes a backlit chokepoint exc, and if you find yourself in the opposite position, well a white light obviously weighs in as less of a disadvantage since your already backlit to a dark enemy. For instance in the home having halls lit up and rooms darkened exc. Again, I am just bouncing ideas off the experts as I am not :p

Has using an rds on a pistol been discussed in here? seems like that would be the best solution, although I have not used one on a pistol and I'm curious how easily they adjust to new and abrupt lighting situations.

edit to add: also forgot to mention that I have personally found that wider rear notches help drastically in low light without tritium.

[Chuck Haggard]

Tell your "friend" that CT laser grips make a much better "shoot a possum in the dark" on the run set-up.


He is well aware, sticks with boot grips for his pocket gun because of the handling and draw characteristics.

[Shawn.L]

These might be worth the $12 to toss on an airsoft to try out night sights for AMIS or like class

http://www.nitesiters.com/Nitesiters_Handgun_Night_Sights.html

[AJZ]

So, after running AMIS this past weekend in OK, here were my findings. At no point did I NEED night sights. Again, I said NEED, but I will say that there was more than one time in the course where a good set of night sights would have indeed been a great help. The most noticeable was when I was playing the OPFOR waiting in a dark corner for someone, but in general, I don't do that, so not really sure that would be a valid point for night sights. Those were mainly the times when I was in darkness and the "threat" was illuminated, which Todd has referred to, though as I stated before he has made valid points about threat illumination v. sight illumination. The big area I saw where they would have made their money, as predicted, was during the night evolution utilizing Craig's lighting techniques. For that style, which I believe to be superior to the other techniques out there, I will wholeheartedly admit a good set of night sights would have done nothing but help me. That all being said, for me, night sights will indeed be installed on my current FO guns as well as a good laser system if they'll work on my gun.

[KevinB]

I'm still struggling to find someone who makes a .320 Front Tritium sight for a M&P CORE. AmeriGlo my go to folks don't :(

[ToddG]

Get a .320 sight and send it off for a capsule.

[Cecil Burch]

These might be worth the $12 to toss on an airsoft to try out night sights for AMIS or like class

http://www.nitesiters.com/Nitesiters_Handgun_Night_Sights.html


I got a set of these. I am putting them on one of my KWA airsofts and I will leave the other one with the regular sights. Next month I am hosting Craig for AMIS and I will run both pistols and see if there is any noticeable advantage to one or the other.

[KevinB]

Get a .320 sight and send it off for a capsule.

Oh I guess I could do that... :o