Durability as others have stated. Try racking the slide during injured shooter drills off something like a table, vehicle, heel, etc. Dint be surprised if the rear sight is missing afterward. Stock sights are placeholders IMO and nothing more.
Durability as others have stated. Try racking the slide during injured shooter drills off something like a table, vehicle, heel, etc. Dint be surprised if the rear sight is missing afterward. Stock sights are placeholders IMO and nothing more.
On a carry G26 I replaced them to see if I was missing something. Durability was not a major concern at the time, I had yet to take a class where you did any strong hand only manipulation. I was using a leather Kramer IWB and didn't notice them getting chewed up.
"Human Factors"
I was reading somewhere that your eyes tend to focus on the square, sharp points, vice curved rounded shapes when it comes to pistol sights. I am sure it was by someone trying to sell me something. It made sense to only have 1 place to look in the sight picture.
I ended up trying Warren Tacticals. I was relatively new to serious shooting but felt like the sight picture came quicker. And I faster. And better looking.
These days I continue to buy U-notch rears (Ameriglo Agents/Trij HDs/Warrens Tacticals/10-8) but when I shoot a square rear notch I don't notice any real difference.
I had absolutely no problem using Glock's sights, and only replaced them because I wanted tritium on any gun I carry. I found that placing the top of the dot even with the top of the white U provided good accuracy out to 25 yards and beyond.
Years ago, Gabe White posted a thread showing photos of various sights under various light conditions against various backgrounds. Dawson tritium sights were among the best performers in his photos, which is why my Glocks currently have Dawson tritium carry sights. However, the Glock factory sights did quite well, beating most other options for visibility under a variety of conditions. I would not hesitate to use the metal versions if I needed something inexpensive and workable.
The plastic sights are great for experimenting -- paint, reshape, resize, whatever -- with minimal cost or difficulty.
Originally Posted by HopetonBrown
All shots 7 yards, slow fire, DA only for both targets, five shot groups
Target above was shot with full size px4 on top two targets and the center target, CW45 on bottom two.
I would be psyched about the center target, if not for the flyer way out to the lower left.
All shots with a 625-5 5"
Upper left and right shot before repainting the front sight. I put up another red square near the upper left bullseye and shot at that after repainting, same for center and lower left and right bullseyes. I swear that is four hits on the center target, flyer to lower right.
As you can see the "12 minute mile" is an apt metaphor. (I don't shoot open sights beyond 7 yards much because due to vision issues, tbat is the maximum distance I can see a 1 inch target at all)
Erratic as shit. One reason I started this thread was to see if tactical operators were limited by the factory sights in a way this half-blind fudd is not.
Honestly, I prefer the Glock factory set up to the sights on any of my three pistols above, although the Kahr sight is pretty good. I need to paint the back sight on the px4(Beretta target sights).
REPETITION CREATES BELIEF
REPETITION BUILDS THE SEPARATE WORLDS WE LIVE AND DIE IN
NO EXCEPTIONS
So looks like
1) They are fragile
2) They aren't optimal for fine target work
3) Night sights are a good thing
I would probably get Ameriglos on a carry/bedside gun, but for a pure range gun, I think I'd keep em factory original. Maybe metal if the LNGS hasd a pair in stock.
REPETITION CREATES BELIEF
REPETITION BUILDS THE SEPARATE WORLDS WE LIVE AND DIE IN
NO EXCEPTIONS
Count me in the “my plastic Glock front sight fell off” group.
I don’t mind the metal OEM sights but will not use the plastic ones if I have literally any other option. My first agency issued Glocks with the plastic sights. I quickly wore two front sights down to nubs just dry firing a few minutes a day from my Safariland duty gear. After the second set, the department agreed to reimburse me for a set of metal sights. I explained to the patrol commander that the plastic sights only left us with three options: 1. Stop dry practice and let my skills degrade, making me a liability in a shooting; 2. Keep dry practicing with a front sight the got progressively shorter so I could never be sure where my rounds would impact, making me a liability in a shooting; or 3. The department could replace my plastic sights every month or so for however long I was there, costing the department money and time. He agreed with me.
Man, I came this >< close to doing exactly that. I like that ball-in-bucket sight picture. One of the things I love about Ameriglo is their front and right heights match stock Glock so you can mix-and-match.
I use the "square" Ameriglo Pro-Glo front, and combined with a Glock steel rear, I get a "box in a bucket" sight picture. It's pretty sweet, at least for me.
I get a good, high visibility sight picture without Rx lenses. And although the sight picture is not super refined, I can shoot 90's at 25yrd B-8's when I wear my prescription lenses.
Bonus, the different heights available for Glock rear sights makes it easy to dial in POA/POI for your selected loads.
Reply With Quote