Hackathorn Sights vs Warren Sights for Glock 19

[rogers0317]

Hey guys,

I apologize as I know there are probably a ton of questions concerning Glock sights, but I could not find any that addressed my specific question.

I have a Glock 19 that I carry concealed, and I also plan on beginning to shoot IDPA and USPA matches. I do not plan on doing much of anything to this gun, other than some new sights.

Based on my own research, I am pretty sure I would like to either go with the Warren Carry Sights with Tritium front sight post (and all black rear) or the Hackathorn sights.

Has anyone on here had the opportunity to play with both sets of sights? Can you provide a recommendation? I understand that everyone has their own opinion on what sights work best for them, but I am wondering if anyone has had experience with these sights and had the chance to compare them side by side. Thanks!

[ralph]

Hey guys,

I apologize as I know there are probably a ton of questions concerning Glock sights, but I could not find any that addressed my specific question.

I have a Glock 19 that I carry concealed, and I also plan on beginning to shoot IDPA and USPA matches. I do not plan on doing much of anything to this gun, other than some new sights.

Based on my own research, I am pretty sure I would like to either go with the Warren Carry Sights with Tritium front sight post (and all black rear) or the Hackathorn sights.

Has anyone on here had the opportunity to play with both sets of sights? Can you provide a recommendation? I understand that everyone has their own opinion on what sights work best for them, but I am wondering if anyone has had experience with these sights and had the chance to compare them side by side. Thanks!

I've got a set of Hacks on my G19..(Orange/trijicon front, plain rear)They're great for shorter ranges (15yds or less) But, for me anyway, I can't do too well with them at 25yds. The Hacks are designed to aquire the sight picture quickly,(opening at the rear sight is .180, front sight is .140 wide) and they do that rather well. What little I've used Warrens,(a few shots with someone else's pistol) leads me to believe they would work as well. I guess it would depend on what you want to do with the pistol, Shorter ranges (0-15yds or so,on a CCW, the Hacks will do nicely) Figure on shooting farther? (possible match/CCW use?) maybe look at the Warrens.. If I had to make a choice between the two, I'd probably go with the Warrens

[SeriousStudent]

How old are you? What shape are your eyes in? And I own Glock 19's with both sets of the sights you mention.

I'm farsighted and wear bifocals. I do like the speed of the Hacks. That big fat orange dot is pretty quick.

Honestly, if you are looking for a bit more precision at distance, I like the Ameriglo Defoor set I have on another Glock.

And the narrow front blade and U-shaped rear notch of the Warrens honestly make the precision work slower for me at distance.

I think the Warrens are better for me in low light. The Defoors seem to be a bit more precise, and are the least expensive to boot. The Hacks are quicker, with the split times to prove it.

Honestly, I think you will just have to borrow someone's pistol and try it.

[Steven T]

I ran both on M&P's so for what it's worth. I ran Warren's on my M&P 40 for a couple years they worked great until I hit 40. I now run the Ameriglo Hack's on my M&P 45's, they work better for me now. I still can use the Warrens with out any problems, if I wear my prescription glasses. My choice of sights has changed over the last few years due to age. Serious Student is right it's going to depend on your eyes. See if you can find someone with both sets and take a look.

[rogers0317]

I am currently 27 and see 20/20. My primary use will be CCW, but I would also like to shoot competitions as well.

I really would like to use something with a front sight that is very easy to acquire. That is what initially drew me to the Hackathorns. The rear sight does seem too large though.

Has anyone used the Redback One Sights in comparison to the 2 I mentioned?

Also, would there be anything wrong with using a Warren Rear Sight with a Hackathorn front?

[QuickStrike]

I like the Warren tactical sights more for my glock 19. Just as fast and easier to shoot groups vs. the ameri-glo with the orange fsp. Did not like the wider rear notch that much.

I also have astigmatism in my aimin' eye.

[ralph]

I am currently 27 and see 20/20. My primary use will be CCW, but I would also like to shoot competitions as well.

I really would like to use something with a front sight that is very easy to acquire. That is what initially drew me to the Hackathorns. The rear sight does seem too large though.

Has anyone used the Redback One Sights in comparison to the 2 I mentioned?

Also, would there be anything wrong with using a Warren Rear Sight with a Hackathorn front?

I'm not sure how that would work out..The Hack front is .140 wide. I think(I'm not entirely sure) the Warren rears are .150 wide, and I don't know what the height is on either..I'm guessing that even if height between the two dosen't pose a issue, you'd still have a width problem... .010 on each side is'nt much,and would be difficult to line up..As everyone else has said, you'll probably just have to try out them yourself, Myself, I'm 58, wear nearsighted, wear bifocals I've been wearing glasses since I was 8.. The hacks work for me, but as I said they don't work well at longer ranges..

[Business_Casual]

I switched to Hacks from Warrens and I shoot the Hacks at 25 yards all the time, they are accurate enough, more accurate than the nut pressing the trigger. They are fast up close, easy to acquire. They are dead on at 25 yards as well - POA = POI.

My Warrens were shooting way high at 25 yards, which is why I dumped them. On one G19 I had to hold on the bottom of the repair center paper to hit the bullseye. They are regulated, one suspects, for the 40 S&W (or as pointed out later, a six o'clock hold at 15 yards).

The DeFoors are excellent and very affordable and POA = POI at 25 yards and are precise enough at distance but fast up close as well - but they aren't illuminated and are (for me) useless in low light. Arguments pro and con aside, most people prefer having a lamp in at least the front sight.

I would buy the Hacks and not worry about it. I think they are less expensive than Warrens as well. Ken probably knows a thing or two...

BC

[C45P312]

Out of those two, I like the Hacks. Rear serrations, front sight tritium, and the bright orange outline is very quick to acquire.

[Rosco Benson]

I have both. The Hacks work fine. I do think that .140 front/.180 rear relationship is about as "open" a sight picture as I can effectively use. I've tried the Novak ghost ring sights (not really a ring, just a BIG "u") and I found that the upper sides of the rear sight were so far from the front post that I had to slow down to get/verify a good alignment for elevation.

The Warren Tactical sights work well too. I have a white-rimmed tritium front and it feels like it is harder to pick up than the Hack's orange circle, but the timer and results on target show it to be essential equivalent. I do like how the rear sight's "shoulders" are cut down to provide more visibility of stuff downrange. I'm ambivalent about the rounded corners of the bottom of the notch. Scott Warren thinks it makes a difference. I can't see it. That's not the part of the sights I'm looking at. I do like the fact that the rear is not serrated. Per Warren, this is to better allow the rear sight to "ghost out" somewhat as one looks through it and focuses on the front sight. I concur.

This doesn't really address the OP's question as to which is better. All I can say is that I have and use both and like both.

Rosco