I've really been enjoying Dawson FO sights for sometime now. I just picked up a P30 for carry and I'm looking at sights for it. The traditional carry sights for most people seem to have tritium. With a light, FO and HD fronts turn into a dark outline and in good lighting conditions I'm able to be more accurate with FO.
Am I losing anything by staying with FO on my new gun if it is going to have a dedicated WML?
I'm also curious to see other people's opinions on this. I keep a light mounted for HD and generally have an easier time picking up a red front sight than green for whatever reason. I've never tried the night sights were the front is outlined in orange, but I don't think they're available for either of my carry guns anyway.
There are lighting conditions where it's possible to see the target well enough to shoot it with tritium sights without using a white light. You have to decide if that benefit is outweighed by your ability to shoot the FO sights better in good light.
There may be times when you do not want to activate the weapon mounted light but you need to see the sights.
Any legal information I may post is general information, and is not legal advice. Such information may or may not apply to your specific situation. I am not your attorney unless an attorney-client relationship is separately and privately established.
If you are always going to be carrying it with a light, I don't see why not.
Otherwise, I think tritium is the way to go. I have FO sights on my game guns that serve as back up home defense pistols to my 2x G19s. My g19s wear Hackathorns. The FOs are far better for precise shots, no doubt.
Mike Pannone on fiber optics: http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=159742
And Frank Proctor: http://www.recoilweb.com/a-few-thoug...ght-59795.html
They're both making it seem as if there are no situations where you can identify a threat, but can't see black/FO sights. Like all categorical statements, this is wrong. :POriginally Posted by HopetonBrown
I'd be interested if they have any thoughts on using carbine optics without an illuminated reticle, as the illuminated reticle provides the same benefit as tritium. It provides a visual aiming reference where there is enough light to see and identify your target, but not see your reticle/sights.
I've personally debated this quite a bit. Essentially it boils down to what you can actually see and how your eyes work.
Personally, for me, if there are dusk environments or transitional lighting where I can positively ID a target/threat, but either can't see my sights or really have to struggle to see the silhouette, I can definitely see the tritium in my sights far faster. Being able to see my sights in ANY lighting condition trumps my ability to shoot better, real or perceived, with fiber optic sights in conditions where they shine. I can't pick when and where I have to use my pistol for defensive purposes, but I can pick the sights that I can see in any "when and where" scenario when I do have to use my pistol for defensive purposes.
That said, you still have to positively ID the threat before force can be used. How you do that depends on a ton of different variables.
I can't find it now, but Todd (God rest his soul) posted a photo looking from his couch towards a hallway where black on black sights disappear, but tritiums are clearly visible. This was, IIRC, with the house lights on.
FO might work in those conditions, might not, but a flashlight was definitely not necessary. On the other hand, I have Ameriglo CAP (Yellow) front sights on all my Glocks, and I can see those sights in any condition that doesn't require illumination to ID a target. Been shooting for the past three days on an indoor/outdoor range (outdoor range with solid overhead cover and solid walls to about 3' from the roof, with 3' of "light" coming into the space. Basically a well-lit cave. I have no problems seeing the CAP sights, but the couple of black on black sights I've shot (older 1911 and a S&W 59) were very hard to pick up.
Last edited by psalms144.1; 03-23-2016 at 06:23 PM.
There are so many things at play here: I guess I would start with this: I can make a semi-accurate shot (like a headshot) without sights at close distance (under 7 yards). Hackathorn does a very good job showing this in his classes when he tapes up your sights and has you shoot on a timer. So, my thinking is, that there really isn't an edge of one type vs another under 7 yards as long as you are well practiced with your setup in all sorts of lighting conditions.
But...I personally find that I am slower at distance with a fiber optic sight, just because I have spent so many years with night sights. The reverse would be true of someone with a different setup that they are well practiced on.
So, my advice would be to disregard an advantage of one or another within a small enclosed space, and instead see which has an edge for you at a long distance, like 50-100 yards at night.
Reply With Quote