sight help

[Moonshot]

I am seeking some advise on how to pick a new sight for my carry G26. First, a little background...

I have a set of Trijicon 3-dot sights on my training Glock. The gun was purchased used several years ago, and I do not know what the sight dimensions are. I wear bifocals, but the correction factor is not that great. However, without my glasses the front sight is not as clear as I would like. As I can envision (no pun intended) a time when I might need my Glock out and my glasses are not on (ie they've been knocked off), I wanted a set of sights for my carry gun that I could clearly see with, or without my glasses. I selected the XS Big Dot, and it does work. I can see that big dot with or without my glasses on. Unfortuantely, in my hands, they are not as accurate as my Trijicons.

I went to the range the other day and shot both Glocks side-by-side, with a mixture of 115gr WWB and 124gr HST. Range was around 15'. I was wearing my glasses. My G26 with Trijicons had nice tight groups and hit to POA. My G26 with the Big Dots had equally tight groups, but shot about 4" low. Windage was fine, the hits were just low.

This is not the first time I have noticed a drop in accuracy with my Big Dot equipped G26 vs my Trijicon equipped G26, with the Trijicon's always giving better accuracy. I am not surprised by this, but I want a sight system that will let me realize my best potential regardless of wearing my glasses or not. Therefore, I am looking at different sights for my carry gun - sights that will improve my accuracy while still being somewhat clear and distinct even if I lose my glasses.

I am looking at Trijicon HDs, Trijicon HD XRs, Ameriglo UCs, and Ameriglo CAPs. The front sight post width and rear notch width are as follows...

.122 / .169 Trijicon HD XR
.144 / .169 Trijicon HD
.140 / .165 Ameriglo UC
.140 / .155 or .120 / .155 Ameriglo CAP

The Trijicons are 3 dot sights, the CAP is dot over bar (similar to my XS dot over post), and the UC has a plain rear.

I know Warrens and Heinies get great reviews, but I have held guns with these sights (not Glocks, and I haven't shot them - just held them), but I wasn't terribly impressed.

Does anyone have an opinion on the sights mentioned above? With less than 20/20 vision should I be looking at the thinnest front sight, the widest rear, or am I going about this all wrong? Would fiber optics be a better choice?

[blues]

Disclaimer: There are many folks here with much more knowledge than I have on the various sights available.

I have a bit of astigmatism and no longer have the 20/15 vision I once had. That said, I don't wear glasses except when reading indoors or using the laptop or tablets...and then I use 1.25x readers.

I recently switched from the OEM Glock sights to the Trijicon HDs on my three Glocks...26, 19 and 17. I find the orange front sight to be a nice aid in quick acquisition of the target and since I am primarily interested in combat / home defense shooting, I am not overly concerned with ranges beyond 25 yards.

The orange front sight of the HDs is not as sharp or pinpoint as the Dawson fiber optic sight I have on my revolver but for the purposes of having sights that are as useful during the day as they are at night, I feel that the HDs are a better overall option (and more durable) for concealed carry.

Finally, I have a thinner .110 front sight on the Dawson which gives a bit more light on either side compared to what I get with the HDs. That said, I am perfectly okay with either. If I were choosing today and the price was equivalent, I might opt for the HD XR as I like that little bit of extra light.

[peterb]

Age 54, eyes not what they were. I haven't tried a lot of different sights, but a CAP orange front with a plain black rear seems to be working for me. That big block of orange grabs my eye even if it's not in sharp focus.

You might want to use a set or two of Glock plastic sights to experiment -- colors, notch widths, etc. They're easy to modify and cost next to nothing.

I found that any white or colored marking on the rear sight was distracting. Vials would probably be ok if they didn't have white rings.

[octagon]

This is fitting as I too am on a sight quest. I have used Trijicon 3 dot tritium night sights for the last 25 years or so on mostly Glocks. I recently switched my usual 23 over from Trijicon 3 dots to their HD sights with yellow front. I like it quite a bit better with good light around the front sight when in the rear sight notch which is a U and I like that as well. I haven't had any accuracy differences between the 2 types when I shoot slow fire groups for accuracy and in faster shooting the HDs seem easier to shoot at the same pace. I am in my late 40s and recently had to start using 1.25 RX reading glasses for detail work and reading only. On a laptop or common stuff I don't need them but like you I need them to bring the front sight into clear focus whether using the HDs or regular sights.

I just ordered a set of similar set of Spaulding sights from Ameriglow to try. They have a plain black rear sight and hi vis yellow(or orange) square front sight with similar dimensions to regular HD sights. I will compare the 3 different sight set ups (All on Glocks) and give feedback once I have time behind all of them. Right now I really like the HDs over 3 dots with and without RX reading glasses.

I shoot mostly using top focal SSP shooting glasses with 1.25 RX in dominant eye(left) lense only. When I shoot steel I have tried with no RX reading glasses just safety glasses and also like the HDs.

[pastaslinger]

The Ameriglo operators look pretty ideal to me for 3 dot night sights. If you really like the traditional 3 dot arrangement of 3 identical dots there are tons of options.

For single dot, the Ameriglo Hackathorn's or a custom combo such as from Dawson would be my choice.

I am guessing you have ruled out fiber optics so I will not talk much about them.

[M2CattleCo]

For bad eyes, I think an AmeriGlo Proglo front, .140" wide, with a .165" or .180" notch rear, with or without tritium would be a good place to start.

I have the UCs on a pair of 43s and they're overkill for me, but my eyes are still decent.

[Francis]

Timing is funny sometimes. Just yesterday I experimented with a 3x5 drill at 3, 5, 7 and 10 yds with my everyday progressive lenses and my bifocals for computer work & reading. With my progressives the only way to get a clear sight pic is to tilt my head waaay back. Just not practical, so with progressives front and rear are a blur. I thought the bifocals would help me shoot better. What I found though was that even though the sights were crystal clear the 3x5 became so blurry with distance that aiming was much more difficult than with the progressives. I knew that training with bifocals wasn't practical since they can't be worn all the time. Now though, I have proof that they're not workable.

All that to say this, I use the Ameriglo Spartan with orange/green tritium front and yellow tritium in rear. One of my guns has the square front the other the round. So far they have worked well. I really like the way the orange stands out, much more so that white IMO. I also prefer the round to square. My G19 is a Talo edition that had the Ameriglo UC. I replaced the rear with the Ameriglo yellow pro operator. I find the square notch much easier to align than the U notch. The widths are 140/180 so a little bit more light than the ones mentioned in your post (except the Trijicon HD XR).

Hope this helps. A lot of trial and error for sure.

[octagon]

Timing is funny sometimes. Just yesterday I experimented with a 3x5 drill at 3, 5, 7 and 10 yds with my everyday progressive lenses and my bifocals for computer work & reading. With my progressives the only way to get a clear sight pic is to tilt my head waaay back. Just not practical, so with progressives front and rear are a blur. I thought the bifocals would help me shoot better. What I found though was that even though the sights were crystal clear the 3x5 became so blurry with distance that aiming was much more difficult than with the progressives. I knew that training with bifocals wasn't practical since they can't be worn all the time. Now though, I have proof that they're not workable.

All that to say this, I use the Ameriglo Spartan with orange/green tritium front and yellow tritium in rear. One of my guns has the square front the other the round. So far they have worked well. I really like the way the orange stands out, much more so that white IMO. I also prefer the round to square. My G19 is a Talo edition that had the Ameriglo UC. I replaced the rear with the Ameriglo yellow pro operator. I find the square notch much easier to align than the U notch. The widths are 140/180 so a little bit more light than the ones mentioned in your post (except the Trijicon HD XR).

Hope this helps. A lot of trial and error for sure.

Francis, Have you considered trying SSP or similar shooting glasses that place a bi focal in the upper portion of the shooting glasses. I recently got a pair and it has helped my accuracy. I only need glasses for reading and use a 1.25 RX. I am left eye dominant so I use the left lens with 1.25 RX in the upper portion and the right lens just a normal safety lens. This gives more natural vision for me when I shoot with both eyes open. I still have some learning curve using them but for slower stuff they work great.

[Moonshot]

Thanks for all the advise. To address a few points...

I have not ruled out fiber optics, I just don't know much about them - how they hold up, how useful they are in low light, or with a flashlight.

It's interesting that at least one of you prefers a square notch rear with a round front. I would have thought a "U" would be better with a round front, while a square rear would be the better match with a square front.

On another note, is the first number I was reporting for the front sight the sight width (as I thought), or the sight height? As I look at the data more cloesely, I am begining to think I was incorrect and the number refers to sight height.

If height, how do you all select the correct height? How do you know before buying which front sight height will match with your rear sight (especially if you are mixing and matching front and rear)?

[SoCalDep]

I have several different sights on various guns to include fiber optic, tritium, all black, etc.

G19 with Ameriglo Defoor (all black - square) sights
G34 with red fiber optic front and black square rear
G26 with Ameriglo thin yellow CAP front and all black square rear
G43 with Spaulding (thin yellow CAP front and serrated black square rear) set
HK USP9C with Trijicon HD (orange).

I have a bunch of other guns with various configurations, but these are the most relevant to the discussion thus far.

Background: I see near pretty well and everything far is somewhat blurry... not walk into walls blurry but can't read license plates while driving and targets are definitely blurry... Front sight is clear and while I wear glasses most of the time I don't while shooting.

I found that while the Defoor sights work great for accuracy they do cause significant delay in obtaining sights in low light - delay that isn't there with other sights.

Fiber optics are great. I've got a few thousand rounds through a couple guns with fiber optic fronts with no breakage or issue and have them on several other guns with a bit lower round counts with no issues. The fiber obviously isn't "bright" at night, but even in fairly low light I can still make out the red "dot" and it makes the sights much faster to align compared to the Defoor sights. I've tried green and strongly prefer the red fiber optic rods.

The Trijicon HDs are actually really great sights. I was concerned about accuracy with such a large width (front post and rear notch) but they shoot really well. I wish they made them with an all-black rear (no tritium) and I'd be very happy. As it was I took a black sharpie and drew over the rear lamps. You can still see the glow if you look hard but the front jumps out more. The orange front is where it's at!

The square front (CAP/Spaulding) works really well and I like them, but if I had to do it over I'd go with the orange. I thought the luminescent yellow would provide more contrast but I find it blends more into backgrounds than the orange and in certain lighting conditions and backgrounds it takes longer to obtain a good sight picture. I still really like them and at this point I think it's my favorite for combat but I'll eventually replace the yellow with orange.

So... To break it down (for me) for carry:

#1 Choice: Square orange front with tritium insert and square all-black rear. I like a .120 front (thinnest possible with tritium) and ~.155 rear... That's what is on my G26.
#2 Choice: Red Fiber Optic Front (I like a .115 - about ideal for me) with an all-black .155 rear (give or take based on sight radius) - The rear can be square or U-notch, but I think the U-notch is a hair faster to align for those shots that require accuracy fast.
#3 Choice: White dot (or green or orange or tritium) with all black rear - again, with slight preference given to the U-notch. This is where my "black rear/orange front Trijicon HDs" falls.

To hit some of your questions:

"I have not ruled out fiber optics, I just don't know much about them - how they hold up, how useful they are in low light, or with a flashlight."

In my experience, if installed correctly, the fiber optic fronts hold up just fine. They aren't as strong as other sights, but I've blown three front tritium vials and I've yet to break a fiber optic rod. I have friends that have broken both so YMMV. If a fiber optic rod breaks, you still have the metal outline which is one reason I like an all black rear. In low light the front sight is more visible than black, slightly less visible than a white dot, and obviously less visible than tritium. A weapon or hand-held light mitigates any disadvantage. I do a lot of shooting in low light and in my experience the light is more important than the type of sight.

"It's interesting that at least one of you prefers a square notch rear with a round front. I would have thought a "U" would be better with a round front, while a square rear would be the better match with a square front."

To me, the rear doesn't matter so much because you're trying to line up the top of the sights. From what I've found a U-notch can speed up alignment "maybe" a bit since it seems to force your eye toward the top of the sight but it might be me giving in to the trendiness of it. I could go either way (That's what she said - what I get for watching "The Office" series for the third time).

"On another note, is the first number I was reporting for the front sight the sight width (as I thought), or the sight height? As I look at the data more cloesely, I am begining to think I was incorrect and the number refers to sight height."

If you're talking about post #1, I think you have widths. I have front sights ranging from .090 to whatever a standard Trijicon XD is, and I think .115 is ideal and I try to stick as close as possible to that. Rear is .155ish. I have that combo (Defoor sights) on my G19 and like it... I was concerned that the increased sight radius on the G34 might make the .155 too wide but I like that too. I have a .120-.122 and .155 rear on my G26 and I like the G19/G34 better but it's the best I could do to get tritium. - Hell, I may just go with a fiber optic on the G26 like my G34. The wide Trijicon HDs work well and hit well but I don't feel as confident with them as I do with the thinner fronts.

"If height, how do you all select the correct height? How do you know before buying which front sight height will match with your rear sight (especially if you are mixing and matching front and rear)?"

I checked with Ameriglo when I ordered the sights for my G43 and G26 to make sure my front and rear heights were good for consistency with factory sight POA/POI. The sight listed them and I had it figured out (I thought) but they confirmed it for me. I've had a few pistols where I had to do some math and order separate or custom height front sights. Some web pages like Dawson Precision have pretty good sight-height calculators. Since POA/POI can vary a bit you may have a bit of trial and error. With some sights you might just have to take what you get, but with others, such as fiber optic fronts, it's easy to order a new front sight to dial in.

Hope this rambling helps a bit...