Why isn't red good enough? (realizing green may be better but . . . )Originally Posted by GJM
Why isn't red good enough? (realizing green may be better but . . . )
“Remember, being healthy is basically just dying as slowly as possible,” Ricky Gervais
Late to the party. Strongly prefer 2 dot rear. I give them a quick swipe with a Sharpie and they do not overpower the front sight and still glow enough to give me the visual feedback I am looking for.
I ran a pre Hack set of sights for a while, Orange front with green trit dot mated with a very Glock OEM profiled all black rear. A few shanked shots at 15yrds+ during two or three consecutive night quals show me the error of my ways.
because green has more range in more light, and it looks like Crimson Trace now has the technology to do green in a form factor previously only available in red:
http://www.crimsontrace.com/products...istols/lg-617g
This is a very helpful exercise that I've done a few times. All of my sights are single rear dot, and I've found them adequate.
I personally prefer single dot. First, I do prefer less clutter, even if on theoretical considerations only. Second, I had a two dot sight take dirt into right lamp once. That completely screwed things up. With one dot design your rear lamp goes down - you end up with relatively usable setup.
More specifically, the human animal sees in roughly the 400nm-700nm light wavelengths. That's what defines what we consider the "visible" range; other species can see higher/lower wavelengths...
Poing being, the wavelength used in most green lay-zerz for this application is in the 532nm (+/- 20nm), which basically smack-dab in the middle of our visible light range. It's the wavelength the human eye is most transparent to, which is why it appears "brighter" than a red laser that's pushing the same amount of juice out the aperture (usually 5mW). They can read exactly the same intensity to instrumentation, but the Mk1 Mod0 eyeball will note the green as being the more intense of the two.
The green used in tritium vials is close to this wavelength, though of course dimmer because of differences in the way that light is produced, which is why using those on the front sight (one's focus of effort, to badly pun what's going on...) make a great deal of sense, particularly in combo with smaller vials of a different wavelength (color) in the rears. This is particularly helpful on the 3-dot setups, where three green vials could end up with the front sight vial being OUTSIDE the rear sight vials, in instances where a shot is taken in near-complete darkness, if there's nothing specifically done to allow the shooter to discern which is which. Certainly not an absolute...
I went to a lo-light class this past Saturday, with Chris Clifton of Defense Concepts North Carolina; all handheld light work, WML was spoken to but not used. I'd done some reshaping on Thing1 (M&P9fs), so I went with that to see if I'd accomplished what I'd wanted to do with it. That gun is set up with Waren sights; green trit front, blank rear. At one point, we shot a string using nothing but available light, because the question came up... Clear sky, no moon, VTAC silhouettes (white) that showed reasonably well, and were to try for 4 rounds in the solid-lined box that represents...what, half of an IPSC A-zone...? From about 8m.
I got 3 of 4 in the box, with the one out being .5" away from the left border. Primary notes were that I was somewhat dazzled between shots due to the lack of flash suppressants in the powder of the practice ammo I as using (Aguila 124gr ball), but all that did was slow me down a touch so I could re-acquire as usable a sight picture as possible. Realisitcaly, the only real reason I was able to shoot that tight was because I've somehow managed to get my presentation to the point that it's relatively consistent from the holster. I had little reference other than the vial, which could have been outside the notch to either side, for all I knew. Too much left to chance, in my mind. It did, however, work, and of course worked fine with the addition of artificial light, even when that was produced from every 3rd shooter, instead of each shooter.
Thing2 has Ameriglo SW-201 on it, a two-dot setup. Thing1 will be getting those, too, or some other two-dot setup as soon as I can source a set. Only way to decide which set of complications one is willing to put up with is to expose yourself to complications.
Last edited by JMS; 12-12-2012 at 03:14 PM.
I have a different take on this situation. I am issued a SIG 229 with Sig Night sights. Green front and two green rear. They appear to me to be the same intensity. When I was issued a Beretta 92D Centurion the factory night sights were the same design. My policy prohibits any modification to the weapon. As such all of my official training is with the issued weapon and my off duty training is with personal guns set up the same way. Pretty much stock from the factory. Since I feel it is my best interest to excell with the duty gun I tend to keep the personal guns set up the same way. In fact I had purchased a duplicate of the duty gun to carry off duty to insure carryover of the official training. In case you might wonder...policy prohibits me from carrying the issued weapon off duty.
Being a gunaholic in my past, I have seen a lot of shooting irons go through my hands. Being a big Glock fan I prefer them for most purposes. Even my now limited Glock collection has factory night sights of the standard three dot setup and all of my personal weapons are DAO like the issue pistol.
I no longer try to make a pistol fit me better. I instead fit myself to a stock pistol since my employer limits me to factory issue.
Bottom line...I "Prefer" (by edict) factory three dot night sights.
Foto -- A swipe with a black Sharpie across the rear lamps will leave them visible but dimmed, be almost undetectable by anyone else, and are very easily removed back to factory configuration with three seconds of effort.
Thanks for the heads up. I will try that technique out. Easy to do on all the personal pistols as well as the G-gun. Want to keep it simple and similar.
It completely baffles me why more people don't try this, if only for curiosity's sake.
There are so many topics/theories in the firearm world that get parroted as "so-and-so says," often without further critical thought.
I can understand why this happens with some topics. For example, if someone wants to argue about environmental conditions in Afghanistan and how they affect weapons, that's not something that we can all test at home. If someone wants to argue about barrier penetration, no one will advise them to just start cranking rounds through their own house. In the second case, even though you could test it on your own, setting up a testing environment for material penetration becomes a time-intense process.
But I have seen people write, "Well so-and-so says that X lighting condition only happens OCONUS." That is a paraphrase, but very close to a literal quote.
WHY? Why would that be a subject that needs an appeal to authority?
Not only do I find this troubling purely for the sake of the scientific method, but I find it troubling because it suggests one of two things to me:
1. The person has never actually bothered to do dry runs in their own home with their own weapon. The follow-up question being, "If you haven't even bothered to walk through your own house with an eye towards these matters, why are you wading into written theories?"
2. The person has done dry runs, but wasn't able to find a single bit of variable lighting. The follow-up question being, "What planet do you live on? Or do you just live in the frozen food aisle of the supermarket?"
(To be clear, I am not criticizing people who have never tried this at home. I am, however, criticizing people who have never tried this at home, yet still parrot second-hand information as if it is gospel.)
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to go yell at some clouds.
I find red Sharpie works more gooder for me, dims the green tritium to a useful level and gives a different color to the rear dots even in the dark.
After a great deal of experimentation, including no tritium on the rear, single dot, XS sights, I ended up with Ameriglo sights with the green trit/ornage paint front and "Pro operator" rear with no paint and yellow tritium. Best of everything for me. Faster and more accurate both in daylight and in the dark.
Reply With Quote