Trijicon he vs I dot pro

[Jason M]

VM, I've had that exact thought. That likely will be my longer term solution for the 26 but not quite yet. My current edc is my g19 w/rmr and that has made a pretty big difference. That said, I still can function pretty well without an optic so the times where I carry the 26 at this point not sure I need to invest in the rmr. It's not that I can't really see the front site, just picking up quickly is just easier plus.

Do you find the thinner front site gives you more accuaracy? I had also looked at the hd xr sights but read in a few review the the poa/poi was off quite a bit because the front post was so much higher than the rear site and didn't really line up properly. I shoot a the new cz p10 and one of the things I did like was the smaller front site. not sure what the size were on those but they seemed thinner than my .140 ameriglo.

The thinner sights are FAR more accurate for me. I just sidelined a pistol with Trij HD XR (.122 front width) for inability to shoot a B-8 well at 25 yds. The plain Defoor sights are much better (for me) than the HD. The all black Heinie sight is a close second to the Defoor. Additionally, as others have said, the corners of the HD are really hard on clothing and skin. As you mentioned, sights are a subjective matter and what may work for me may not for others.

[psalms144.1]

For me, thinner sights work exceedingly well over thicker sights for accuracy at distance. I've done the training and followed my numbers on various drills, and it's pretty obvious for me at least.

How thick of a front sight is a very personal thing, in my experience. I've tried thinner tritium fronts (TCAPs, etc) and found that, for my over-50 eyes, they get hard to see. Likewise, when paired with standard width rears, there gets to be so much "light" around them that I find them actually to be harder to align for best accuracy. For ME, the standard Ameriglo "pro glo" style fronts give the best combination of practical accuracy and shooting speed.

Now, a skinny front with a fiber optic in the right lighting is even better (when paired with a standard rear sight), but, I just don't trust that I'll have the "right lighting" when my gunfight arrives...

[ST911]

I have a gen4 G26 with I-Dot Pros, and have tried HDs on the subcompacts. The I-Dots are quick and precise. The HDs are quick, but less inherently precise for design and exacerbated by the short sight radius. The smallest G I like the HDs on is the G19. I have Hackathorns on my G43, which seem tailor made for that gun. I will put those on any new G26/G43.

[LOKNLOD]

I have a gen4 G26 with I-Dot Pros, and have tried HDs on the subcompacts. The I-Dots are quick and precise. The HDs are quick, but less inherently precise for design and exacerbated by the short sight radius. The smallest G I like the HDs on is the G19. I have Hackathorns on my G43, which seem tailor made for that gun. I will put those on any new G26/G43.

Hacks are where it's at, especially on shorter guns. Spartans are close if you've got to have the rear tritium.

The rear is a little wide for long sight radius gun at distance, but it works. I'm going to try a front with a little tighter rear and see how that works for me.

[voodoo_man]

How thick of a front sight is a very personal thing, in my experience. I've tried thinner tritium fronts (TCAPs, etc) and found that, for my over-50 eyes, they get hard to see. Likewise, when paired with standard width rears, there gets to be so much "light" around them that I find them actually to be harder to align for best accuracy. For ME, the standard Ameriglo "pro glo" style fronts give the best combination of practical accuracy and shooting speed.

Now, a skinny front with a fiber optic in the right lighting is even better (when paired with a standard rear sight), but, I just don't trust that I'll have the "right lighting" when my gunfight arrives...

I'd wager that given a random sample of people on this forum shooting glocks, if we put out several sights with various dimensions they would end up shooting more accurately, more consistently, with thinner front sights.

[Dismas316]

Thanks for all the suggestions. I went ahead and ordered the ameriglo orange front site that's .120 width to replace the .140 that's on my I dot pro and will see how that will work out. Of course after I ordered for optics planet, it said would ship in 14 days but did get a good deal on them for $49 w/ free shipping.

[psalms144.1]

I'd wager that given a random sample of people on this forum shooting glocks, if we put out several sights with various dimensions they would end up shooting more accurately, more consistently, with thinner front sights.

And I can guarantee - no wagering required, that if I were one of them, my performance would be worse. I know, because I've tried. I try to keep up with all the cool guy new gear, some of it works FOR ME, some of it doesn't. Doesn't mean my choice is wrong, just different.

And I know from various off-board conversations with plenty of other shooters whose eyesight isn't what it used to be that I'm not the only one who feels the same.

But, just like all the other gear-related questions here, use what works for you, and let the rest of us keep on keeping on with what works for us. This isn't a competition to get everyone using the same gear all the time...

[voodoo_man]

And I can guarantee - no wagering required, that if I were one of them, my performance would be worse. I know, because I've tried. I try to keep up with all the cool guy new gear, some of it works FOR ME, some of it doesn't. Doesn't mean my choice is wrong, just different.

And I know from various off-board conversations with plenty of other shooters whose eyesight isn't what it used to be that I'm not the only one who feels the same.

But, just like all the other gear-related questions here, use what works for you, and let the rest of us keep on keeping on with what works for us. This isn't a competition to get everyone using the same gear all the time...

PM sent

[Gio]

And I can guarantee - no wagering required, that if I were one of them, my performance would be worse. I know, because I've tried. I try to keep up with all the cool guy new gear, some of it works FOR ME, some of it doesn't. Doesn't mean my choice is wrong, just different.

And I know from various off-board conversations with plenty of other shooters whose eyesight isn't what it used to be that I'm not the only one who feels the same.

But, just like all the other gear-related questions here, use what works for you, and let the rest of us keep on keeping on with what works for us. This isn't a competition to get everyone using the same gear all the time...

I tend to agree with @psalms144.1 on this.

It's personal preference. I've trained enough different shooters to know that not everyone's eyes can pick up the thinner front sights well AND most shooters don't have the visual discipline to shoot a high vis front sight at speed at any significant distance.

I like a thinner front sight too, but if you go thinner on the front sight without also narrowing the rear notch (like the trijicon HD XR's), you may find that you have a more difficult time shooting accurately at distance because the amount of light on either side of the front sight makes it harder to find the exact center of the notch. A great drill for evaluating differences in sight width/rear notch width is shooting a 25yd plate rack for time. Your front sight could be .100" or less, but if you don't also pair it with a narrow rear notch you are going to be throwing rounds all over the place on a drill like this.

[LSP552]

And I can guarantee - no wagering required, that if I were one of them, my performance would be worse. I know, because I've tried. I try to keep up with all the cool guy new gear, some of it works FOR ME, some of it doesn't. Doesn't mean my choice is wrong, just different.

And I know from various off-board conversations with plenty of other shooters whose eyesight isn't what it used to be that I'm not the only one who feels the same.

But, just like all the other gear-related questions here, use what works for you, and let the rest of us keep on keeping on with what works for us. This isn't a competition to get everyone using the same gear all the time...

At 61, this is where my eyes are at. There was a time when I had perfect vision and preferred and shot best with a thin front sight. A Heinie Slant Pro front (.125) night sight was the best performing FOR ME. Until age changes that. For me now, the Ameriglo .140 ProGlow combined with their Pro Operator (.180) work better than any other combo. The lower square notch reduces the vertical error I see with Trij HDs because.....eyes.

Everyone is different, and what works best today likely won't be the same 10 years from now.