Sight Pictures!

[BN]

(2) the concavity of the outline which lends itself towards shadowing,

This is the very most important thing for me. The white rings around Tritium sights that are recessed disappear for me unless the light is behind me. I always thought the XS big dot only with a flat top and using a regular rear sight would be a good thing. The .140" wide Warren front with a Warren Wave rear is almost ideal for my eyesight.

[BillSWPA]

The more I've looked at and discussed sights with other people the more I am convinced that sights are definitely a personal thing. For psychological as well as physiological reasons. Personally, I keep finding myself craving simpler sight pictures with only white (not any other color) on the front sight. I not only find these kinds of setups the least distracting, but I find that I have no accuracy difference between having a blacked out rear vs. a rear with stuff on them (provided I can simply focus on what I need to focus on and shoot). Conversely, something like the CAPs or TCAPs I find ultimately not useful because I find that the orange/red variant to go dark way too soon in certain lighting conditions and the yellow variant washes out in too many lighting and color conditions. I find that neither of them gives me enough black around them to properly contrast in the previously mentioned compromised conditions. This is why I've found the white dot and the white circled tritium dot to be the most visible for me and my eyes.

Having said that, I just moved in a few weeks ago with my future brother and sister in law for a short period before getting married. They happen to have two dogs that I end up letting out every morning for their constitutionals. One happens to be black and the other white. I find that, while my eyes are still adjusted to the light I can most definitely see their white dog in the reduced light while, if it wasn't for his LED lighted collar, wouldn't be able to see their black dog without the aid of my flashlight. During this early morning light, or lack thereof largely, I would be able to see the tritium about as well as a white dot front sight (a la standard Glock front). Would I be able to ID a threat in this same environment? That depends on a bunch of different factors, to which if there were enough of those factors that would make me question it, I'd still have to use a white light. Based on this thinking and experience and the fact that I still haven't had any low-light training (yeah, I know, I really need to get on that) I think I'm going to hold off on buying any more tritium sights until I'm able to verify that I do actually need them. I think I need to be able to test and verify for myself before I can truly justify the extra expense and application. I say this as simply something that I've discovered for myself and myself only. I think if you're a person who can justify actually needing tritium, rock on with your bad self. But this thread, as well as some others, have sort of opened my eyes and given me something to truly think about and examine instead of simply spending money on something that I might ultimately not need.

Totally digging this thread though. Interesting discussion.

I completely agree that, once you turn on a light, tritium is irrelevant, at least until you turn the light back off. I will add that I prefer that my light not be behind my sights, so that I can see my sights silhouetted against the light. Once the target has been identified, it may or may not be desirable to leave the light on to engage the target, or to turn the light off to avoid being engaged by other threats, depending on the situation.

I have spent a lot of time in urban and suburban areas wherein there was sufficient light to identify a threat, but insufficient light to see the sights without some sort of low light visibility aid. This is where tritium really shines, and is also where the difference between relatively new inserts will have a huge advantage over inserts that are multiple years old. I probably replace my tritium sights about every 6 years, making them worthwhile only for guns that I use for home defense or for carry.

[Mr_White]

I agree with dove on quite a few of the points that have been raised.

1. This is definitely all very subjective. There is a LOT of variation in how people see with their eyes and perceive with their minds.

2. The typical arrangement of black sights with light colored (usually white) markings is typical because it has a large chance of being at least nominally visible in a wide variety of conditions against a wide variety of targets and backgrounds. If the target is really dark, you can use the light colored markings. If the target is really light, you can use the dark sight posts. At least that's the theory.

3. I used to give #2 above more weight than I do now. Not because universal visibility isn't a desirable thing, but because for me 'universally visible' seems to often equate to, 'visible across a wide range of circumstances, but not all, and in a significant number of the conditions where it is visible, it is rather poorly visible.' Of the sights I already have - the ones I've been using for the pictures in this thread - the standard Ameriglo Operator is the most universally visible in theory. Black post, white ring on the front post, self-luminous. In practice, I've found plenty of lighting conditions where it really wasn't very visible - much less so than some of the non-night sights that have serrations. And a bunch of those lighting conditions are heavily represented in #4 below...

4. I don't go out much at night. I am really a day person with a very daytime-oriented life. I'm the opposite of a cop working swing and graveyard shifts. I think the stuff that makes sights better in daytime, like high-visibility elements (regardless of self-luminous capability), serrations that help ensure precision ability, and the subjectively advantageous dimensions of non-night sights, apply well to what I think are my likely needs.

5. In looking at front sights against a wider variety of backgrounds and in various lighting conditions, I don't really think any of them stand out as head-and-shoulders better than another. There are trade-offs with all of them.

6. High visibility sights (I define that as having light/bright colored markings or elements), particularly the front sight, have a few benefits. They can help you remember the sights exist, and also locate the sights with your eyes and mind. Importantly for many people, the high-visibility elements can remain visible and noticeable even when target-focused.

6. Odd thing for me and I'm probably a tiny minority on this - after all the work I've done with sight-focused shooting, it is much more difficult to make myself target-focus than sight-focus. That probably increases the utility of low-visibility (black) sights for me and makes high-visibility sights (brightly colored) somewhat less important. I think that's especially the case for me where the high-visibility element of the front sight overpowers the black front post itself. For me, that is when the high visibility element is physically large and takes up a lot of the surface area of the front sight, and even more so when the face of the front sight is smooth and not serrated.

Many thanks to those who have contributed pictures and discussion to the thread!!!

[spinmove_]

I completely agree that, once you turn on a light, tritium is irrelevant, at least until you turn the light back off. I will add that I prefer that my light not be behind my sights, so that I can see my sights silhouetted against the light. Once the target has been identified, it may or may not be desirable to leave the light on to engage the target, or to turn the light off to avoid being engaged by other threats, depending on the situation.

I have spent a lot of time in urban and suburban areas wherein there was sufficient light to identify a threat, but insufficient light to see the sights without some sort of low light visibility aid. This is where tritium really shines, and is also where the difference between relatively new inserts will have a huge advantage over inserts that are multiple years old. I probably replace my tritium sights about every 6 years, making them worthwhile only for guns that I use for home defense or for carry.

And that is exactly why I need to take a low-light class. I need to get out and train for this sort of thing in the varying light conditions as the class progresses.

I also think that there are situations in the day time where a sighting system that would give me a great sight picture during that brief dusky window where I could ID a threat and not need a light could also be a hindrance in certain bright light situations. Situations that I could equally find myself in just as easily as the dusky situations. I think the common theme here is that there isn't any one sighting system that is perfect for everything. They're all trade offs for one another based on perceived needs. I work and am out and about the vast majority of my time in the daytime hours, much like Mr_White. Yet there are situations where tritium could be beneficial. There are people that work 3rd shift all the time, yet there are situations where FO or bright paint/insert would be beneficial.

I think, ultimately, the big take away here is find something that does trip your fancy and get to know very well what it can and cannot do for you, but you better damn well have a good and solid light on you too.

[GRV]

6. Odd thing for me and I'm probably a tiny minority on this - after all the work I've done with sight-focused shooting, it is much more difficult to make myself target-focus than sight-focus. That probably increases the utility of low-visibility (black) sights for me and makes high-visibility sights (brightly colored) somewhat less important. I think that's especially the case for me where the high-visibility element of the front sight overpowers the black front post itself. For me, that is when the high visibility element is physically large and takes up a lot of the surface area of the front sight, and even more so when the face of the front sight is smooth and not serrated.

I'd be very curious to see a target-focused sighted-fire DotW, with comparison against sight-focused sighted fire. Not to be confused with unsighted fire or "point shooting". I'm going to do some testing of this next week.

nyeti and others have repeatedly debunked the myth that you can't see or use your sights in a real gunfight. I believe most of us on PF understand that you absolutely can. However, we have not spent much time at all talking about how realistic it is to use your sights in a front-sight focused manner in a real gunfight, or more specifically, under what conditions you can or can't practically do so.

Here's what Sean had to say about this when I asked him:

................ can you discuss what is going on with your visual and mental focus throughout these encounters? For example, are you keeping a hard front sight focus visually throughout the entire threat presence, but mentally focusing on the peripheral vision, looking for positive indicators that the threat has ceased? Do you hard front sight focus at all in practice, if so when does do the focus shifts happen (e.g. pressout?)?

To be perfectly honest............I don't know.

I have never had video of my performance under those conditions, so I can't say for a fact what is actually happening. I also have very few handgun encounters, so my experience in the specifc realm of iron sighted pistol is quite limited.

That said, I don't have different actions or tactics when shooting rifle, shotgun, or pistol, so I can tell you what I believe (and hope) I am doing, even if I don't have hard evidence to back it up.

I rarely use a hard sight focus for actual fighting, and prefer to use a blurred sight picture. The exception to this is when presenting to the target, I do have a tendency to find and focus on the front sight (or RDS), even if only for a split second. I don't know if this is good, bad, or indifferent, nor do I have a method to measure or prove which, if any is the answer to the question.

I generally focus on the target, while my sights (or RDS) are blurred. This allows for immediate & continuous assessment of the threat, his/her actions and reactions, and status, without being distracted by switching back and forth bewteen the sights and the threat. My opinion is I can shoot "good enough" with blurred sights at most CQB/CQC ranges(distances), and the person who is the threat is the center of my visual attention, as well as my mental focus. I do not concern myself terribly with peripheral vision for the most part. Depending on pucker factor, there can be the tunnel vision issue, which can be trained and conditioned to minimal impact, however it sometimes happens anyway. The big reason I don't concern myself with the peripheral is that I am engaging a lethal threat right now, and that is more important than anything else at that moment. The rules of Close Quarters Combat say to take your threats as they come to you. If I allow myself to be distracted by something other than the immediate danger, I am less effective and less effecient in dealing with said danger. I will deal with the next threat when I am done with the first, and I don't need the extra headache of trying to OODA more than one problem at a time. Once I have an initial assessment that the hostilities between myself and the lethal threat I have been engaged with are over, I intentionally and methodically search for my next threat using my eyes to focus on potential threats with blurred sights, my firearm matching my eyes in where it is pointed. I then return to assess the initial threat, and one more search for next threat. Assuming there is none, I then close on the initial threat, and determine his/her actual status.

This is NOT something I recommend and I would NOT do this in a self-defense/home defense situation. In a SD/HD situation it does nothing for you but place you in danger after you have gained the tactical advantage, and it is completely unnecessary. Continue to hold on the threat, wait for the police to arrive, and follow their instructions to the letter.

The process to shift visual focus from the initial threat to clearing the area, back to the initial threat, and again visually looking for the next threat takes only a split second to complete, but it does take a lot of training and a lot of practice to develop proficiency, effeciency, and ensure you are effectively seeing everything you need to see, and positively identifying/assessing threats. The good news is that this is something easily practiced, even without a gun, and just about anywhere you go.

Interestingly enough, when shooting plate racks, or other falling steel/reactive targets, where assessing the effectiveness of each round is required, I tend to hard focus on the front sight. Why? I'm not entirely sure. I hypothesize it is because subconsciouly I know I am playing a game with a plethors of targets that should fall with one hit versus very few targets, each of which are actually dangerous, and will generally require multiple rounds to remove them from the equation.

Did that make any sense? Hopefully it did, and was helpful to someone.

This sounds very much like what Spaulding is saying in the article that I linked to earlier (http://www.handgunsmag.com/tactics-t...ivep_061207/):

A precise sight picture, in which the front sight is sharp with the rear sight fuzzy and the target fuzzy, will not happen. This sight picture is great on a stationary range where the target is not moving and no one is shooting back at you, but when the shooter is trying to find a moving target, move from target to target or track a threat that is trying to shoot him (with Airsoft, of course), the best that can be achieved is the insertion of a contrasting image into the eye target line.

I'd like to hear more experts chime in.

Now, even if the above is the most accurate characterization of optimal sight usage in real situations, it does not mean that's the way one should practice on the range. Perhaps one should always practice sight-focused, or perhaps the target-focused sighted approach is something best saved until after sufficient time has been spent practicing sight-focused sighted shooting. Going back to Dave Spaulding's comment about the front sight as the best training aide ever, I would believe that front-sight focused fire is perhaps the best way at improving other elements of shooting, such as grip and trigger control, and is thus perhaps the best pedagogical tool for the job.

However, if the target-focused sighted fire approach turns out to be universally supported for real scenarios, it may be worth influencing sight selection. You'd want something extremely visible, unfocused, in the relevant lighting conditions. You'd quite likely want a front/rear visible setup, like 3 dot. Moreover, if you go try this yourself at home, you'll notice that the front sight doesn't obscure as much of the target when you are target-focused, so thick front sights are no longer as much of a detriment to precision marksmanship.

Many thanks to those who have contributed pictures and discussion to the thread!!!

Agreed. This is an excellent thread.

[Mr_White]

More sight pictures.

Outdoors, grass, water, pilings, Columbia River, boats, etc.

[img]20160416_132605 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160416_132611 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160416_132612 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160416_132641 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160416_132643 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160416_132658 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160416_132700 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160416_132715 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160416_132842 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160416_132844 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160416_132859 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160416_132915 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160416_141246 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160416_141250 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160416_141256 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160416_141259 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160416_141321 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160416_141339 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160416_142229 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160416_142232 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160416_142239 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]

[breakingtime91]

man I am surprised by how much green and white stick out!

[taadski]

Do they make plain vanilla white dot Glock sights for Sigs?

[breakingtime91]

Do they make plain vanilla white dot Glock sights for Sigs?

nah, gotta go with the sweet white from the factory

[Mr_White]

More dim/dark/low light/indoors/outdoors/street lights/interior lights/mixed lights/light to dark/dark to light/etc.

[img]20160417_045043 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_045049 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_045053 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_045059 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_045103 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_045116 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_045119 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_045129 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_045131 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_045135 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_045137 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_045141 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_045144 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_045147 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_045150 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_045155 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_045158 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_045201 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_045202 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_045428 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_045430 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_045433 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_045434 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_045441 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_045445 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_045450 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_045452 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_045455 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_045458 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_045501 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_045658 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_045701 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_045709 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_045711 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_045715 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_045728 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_050011 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_050015 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_050017 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_050041 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_050047 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_050050 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_050053 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_050056 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_050101 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_052655 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_052703 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_052718 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_052720 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_052740 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_052748 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_052800 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]
[img]20160417_052825 by OrigamiAK, on Flickr[/img]