I am in agreement with much of your post based upon experience with my own guns as well as those of my neighbors, including local deputies.Originally Posted by SoCalDep
I am in agreement with much of your post based upon experience with my own guns as well as those of my neighbors, including local deputies.
There's nothing civil about this war.
The XD's (in yellow) work very well for me as do the XS Big Dots (which you already have). I use the XD's on my Walthers and Glock 42, and the Big Dots on my other Glocks. I can't see fronts sights clearly at all anymore - glasses or not (progressive lenses) unless I tilt my head back in a very uncomfortable angle (though there perhaps could be the benefit of shocking a would be attacker into a fit of hilarity at the ridiculousness). I had to retrain myself to stop attempting to 'clear' focus on the front sight and use them more like a red dot - clear focus on target and pick up the sight in the field of view. Funny thing is, after this retraining, I'm just as accurate as before needing glasses, even at distance with target sights, with a side benefit of being a little faster in speed drills. That could be the result of renewed intense training rather than the change of focus, but I don't know for sure. Either way, when anything in your body changes, e.g., injury that has lingering effects, eyesight, whatever you may have to train past it.
After a brief sting with some Ameriglos (can't recall the model at the moment) I found I don't care much for fiber optic sights.
My thoughts, and worth precisely what you're paying for them:
1. HDs on GLOCKs are OK - the rear razors, I mean sights, don't extend past the slide and slice the shit out of you. On other platforms, not so much. Overall, I prefer the Ameriglos because they accomplish the same effect while not being sharp enough to rip up your clothing, and being equivalent to stock sight height (I really don't like extra tall sights).
2. On front sight color - I've grown to prefer the yellow. I used to be convinced the yellow was bad as it "blended" into a lot of greenish (outdoor) backgrounds. What I found over several years of shooting green and orange sighted pistols side-by-side is that the orange loses it's "pop" much faster as lighting conditions get dimmer. This came home clearly on a week-long course on an indoor/outdoor range (outdoor with overhead cover and side walls. When it was sunny outside, there was enough ambient light to see the orange ring or box. When it was overcast, the orange front quickly became a plain black front, while the yellow continued to provide a lot of contrast despite lower light.
3. The above transfers nicely to FO fronts - ambient lighting in critical in their visibility. I know they're cool, but I just don't see that they have any real world advantages over a high-visibility tritium front on a defensive pistol.
Critter did you mean HDs and typed XD or are XD different sights?
Why yes, yes I did mean HD's. Been looking at Springfield XD pistols this morning. Guess it's stuck on the brain. Thanks for the heads up. Also "sting" should be "stint" -- perhaps it's time for some new glasses.Looks like the time limit for editing that post has expired
Last edited by critter; 04-04-2017 at 11:17 AM.
Thanks for the suggestion Octagon. I went to the website on your suggestion. They look intriguing but I think I learned from my experiment that I'm better off with the blurry sights. When I used my bifocals the front sight was crystal clear but the target became more and more distorted with distance. Since I have a 'lazy' eye I'm limited to using just one eye to focus so not able to try the option of two different prescription lenses either.
Thanks again for the idea.
I an supposed to try a G17 with Ameriglo UCs this week, shooting it with and without my glasses. I'll do the same with my Trijicon and Big Dot equipped G26s. I'm not sure if anyone will be interested, but I'll post the results.
To all who have responded with advise and/or personal observations - thank you. I helps a great deal.
OK, here are the results of my recent sight experiment...
I went to a local indoor range and used their short range. Targets were at 5 or 6 yards. Pace of fire was neither slow nor fast, I fired a round when I had a sight picture. Went through a little over 100 rounds of WWB 115gr FMJ, using my carry gen 3 G26 with XS Big Dots (big white front sight, white vertical bar on rear "V" sight), my training gen 3 G26 with Trijicon 3-dot (white front and square rear), and a friends no grip panel gen 4 G19 with Ameriglo UC (round orange front sight, rear black "U" notch).
My initial string of fire consisted of 5 rounds through each gun with my prescription glasses on followed by 5 rounds through each gun with no corrected glasses (shooting glasses only). My POA was the X on the chest and the head. The chest X was within a red oval (1" x 2") and the head X was within a 1" round red circle. One target for each gun - center X with glasses on and head X with no glasses.
After studying these three targets, I determined my shooting with corrected glasses was pretty much spot on. Accuracy, grouping, and POI was quite good. The short range certainly helped. I would upload photos of my targets to this post, but I do not know how.
The G19/Ameriglo and the G26/Trijicon had the best grouping and accuracy, and were about even. Considering I have many rounds through my G26 and none through a gen 4 G19 (and very few from any G19 for that matter) and it spoke very well of either the platform or the sights or both. The G26/Big Dot was the worst of the three with 1 round within the X, 3 rounds a little low and the 5th about 3" low.
My shooting without corrected glasss had similar results, but spread out a bit. The best grouping was my G26/Trijicon, essentially one big ripped hole perhaps 2" off the X (at the 11 o'clock position). The G19/Ameriglo was a close second, with 4 distinct bullet holes vertically about 2" from the X and 1 round hitting vertically about 2" north of that. The G26/Big Dot was significantly worse, with a 4" spread vertically and laterally, about 3" below and to the left the X.
With my corrected glasses off, and with my POA being within a red circle, I did occasionally lose the orange Ameriglo front sight against this backdrop, but I could generally see an outline of the front sight within the rear "U". The Big Dot was a big white circle, and while I could always see the ghost of a circle, I had difficulty placing this circle properly over the rear post. I could see the fuzzy outline of the front sight, but I could never see the rear. The Trijicons were all white, and small. I never had a clear sight picture, but again I could place the front post within the rear notch.
Following this exercise, I used additional targets for extended testing, shooting 2 sets of 10 round strings from each gun at different points on the targets, moving from one gun/sight combo to another, and all without my corrected glassses on.
The best grouping was the G26/Trijicon. One set of 10 rounds was pretty much spot on, with 1 round maybe 1" away from the other 9, while the 2nd string of 10 created one long rip, vertically about 4" long but perfectly centered.
The 2nd best groups were with the G19/Ameriglo. One set of 10 was as centered and tight as was the best from the G26/Trijicon, but the 2nd set of 10 was strung about as big as the G26/Trijicon, but laterally, and if I am going to miss my POA a little, I would rather miss vertically than laterally.
The G26/Big Dot was actually not terrible, but it was a distant 3rd. Both sets of 10 rounds were vertically strung about 6" to 7", but were centered laterally arounbd the POA. In order to hit with the Big Dots, I had to really slow down and place the sight. I know Big Dots are consider well suited to a rapid "combat" sight picture, but this was not the case for me on this day.
At the close ranges I was using, all three guns and sights were "accurate enough", but I can do better, and I need to figure out what will give me, on my G26s, my best accuracy with and without my glasses. I did notice that no front sight "popped out" for me, even with glasses on. I wish I could have tried a red fiber optic sight.
As it stands now, I am leaning towards the Ameriglo UC (or some similar version) as they are about half the price of Trijicons. I may try a fiber optic, as the only way I will ever know how they perform for me is to buy some and try them.
Any opinions?
Moonshot, It seems like you and I in in similar situations. I recently put Trijicon HDs on my Glock 23, Ameriglow Spauldings on my new Gen 4 19 and a red dot on my Glock 22. I had been using Trijicon 3 dot tritiums for 20 years prior. My eyes are getting to where I have had to use 1.25 reading glasses for the last few years but nothing for normal functions. The Spauldings and HDs I have are yellow instead of orange. I too found better groups with reading glasses use and have a pair of SSP upper bi focal lens in my dominant eye side. I am fairly happy with the HDs and Spauldings( I had to use an old trijicon 3 dot rear sight to correct high groups) but still look for what may work better for use with no glasses. I kind of think it will end up being a red dot as eyes continue to deteriorate with time and it helps with longer range stuff nicely. I'll share any steps that help me and I look forward to your further experiments and testing.
Just ordered a set of Ameriglo Hackathorn sights for my G26. Went with these over the UCs due to the rear notch being a little wider than on the UCs and the Hack's seem better suited to one-handed operation, should I need to rack the slide on a table top or my belt.
Should have them by the end of the week. Hopefully I won't have much trouble removing the Big Dots (I used a lot of the red locktight that came with the Big Dots).
I'll plan on posting an update on how they perform in my hands.
Last edited by Moonshot; 04-17-2017 at 12:00 PM. Reason: correct spelling error
Reply With Quote