It seems, the rear sight works well for Paul and some others. I know some serious professionals, who use these sights on duty.Originally Posted by JodyH
BTW, it´s maybe a personal choise. Same like XS Sights, there are guys who love them and others hates them.
Back to the topic, the pistol sights are looking distracting to me, but I don´t judge without trying a set by myself.
Last edited by Frank B; 03-12-2011 at 03:56 PM. Reason: spelling
Frank B
*************
"You are not paid for what you do, you are paid for what you may have to do, and when that time comes, you will be highly underpaid."
I'm not remotely in a position to challenge Paul or Kyle's expertise, or their rationale behind their respective sights, but I think that we can discuss the merits or drawbacks of a piece of kit without resorting to name calling or other pejorative terms towards individuals that have served in CAG.
That said, I personally would not select these sights, as I'm a fan of the "Straight 8" configuration on a handgun.
JodyH,
Although they may not work for every person's need, several very serious face shooters I know use the CSAT sights while safeguarding our Nation--since they definitely work for some professional end-users, it would not be fair to be dismissive of the design...
Likewise, unless a person has used the VTAC sights over several thousand training shots in a variety of environmental conditions and operational scenarios, I am not sure one can truly discuss the merits of the VTAC sights with any semblance of insight into the efficacy of the design. An acquaintance of mine who is a combat experienced veteran in the SOF community has publicly written the following about the VTAC pistol sights:
"Fiber optic atop, tritium below. If you have worked in places with stoopid bright glare & sunshine, ambient temps 100-130F, eyes squinting to razor slots.. the utility of fiber optics becomes readily apparent. Kyle and I both ran TFO's at one point, over there. Some have noted deficiencies in durability with the TFO sights, and the profile is less than ideal IMO. I expect his new offering to address these shortfalls."
I personally like the CSAT rear apperature. I have one mounted in a LaRue BUIS on my work gun.
If they made them for glocks, I would be all over the front sight.
Personally i never liked dots on my rear sight.
I have seen these sights on a few pistols that kill people. They do what they are built to do for a crowd that needs them.
PJ
The whole point of sights are to give you feed back of where your pistol is aimed, so if they work then roll with it. I am always willing to try out a new set of sights, although I doubt I would spend 240.00 on them.
Caveat: Like most of the folks discussing these sights, I've yet to shoot a gun wearing them.
I think the front sight is an outstanding idea. It's an outstanding idea that Ernest Langdon had about a decade ago, and he even built a couple prototypes. Given that Ernest and Lamb worked together on a number of projects while Ernest was still at S&W, it would not surprise me if that was the genesis of Lamb's sight.
The rear sight, at first glance, is so dramatically busy that I'm extremely skeptical that it would be as functional as many of the other commonly chosen options on the market.
If the comments made above about their particular suitability to ultra-bright desert environments is correct, then it just goes to demonstrate that not every piece of gear designed for super-high-speed face-shooters-in-a-warzone is necessarily the best piece of gear -- or even a good choice -- for average blokes carrying a CCW. Mission drives the gear train, anyone?
More dots equals more better duh
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever. -George Orwell
I'll learn it the hard way, and years after everyone else. I'm always late to the party.
Hey - I like that!
Reply With Quote