Educate me on Handgun Sights

[Hootiewho]

I brought home my first M&P .45 yesterday, and it came with the standard non-tritium 3 dot sights. I am going to get some tritium sights for this pistol, but have been reading about how 3 dot sights are less prone to accuracy? Can someone give me the run down of what to look for as far as self-defensive hand gun sights go? Is it best to go with something like the 10-8 rear and a tritium front or what?

Any info is appreciated as I am not up to speed on this subject.

Thanks

[blake6551]

I like plain Warren Tactical rears and a tritium front. The 10-8 rear would also be excellent. I don't care for three dot sights as I find them to busy and not as easy to pick up quickly.

[tkoglman]

I've spent hundreds of dollars over the past two or three years searching for the "perfect" handgun sight set-up. My requirement was a set of sights that I could use both on-duty and in competition.

The end result - I run a plain "wide notch" Heinie rear and a .125" wide Ameriglo tritium front sight with the white "target" ring around the tritium vial. This lets me "ignore" the rear sight when shooting quickly and pick up the front sight easily in any light. It is also very precise as well.

Three dot sights are not really necessary and, in darkness, it can be confusing which dot is your front sight - even if you use the different colored ones.

Fiber optic sights are great in daylight but worthless in low light.

Front sight width is best between .100 - .125". Even .125" is a little wide but is about the thinnest tritium you can find.

Rear sight notch should be wide enough so that the front sight, visually, takes up about 50% of the rear notch when you are in your shooting stance.

Two unusual sights I tried were the XS Big Dot 24/7 and the Tru Glo TFO tritium/fiber optic. They are unique enough for special mention.

The big dot just didn't work for me. My accuracy really suffered. I used them for a 1500 round shooting course on a 1911 and just could not get used to them The tradition notch and post was a lot more precise. Even up close it was no faster for me than what I now run - tritium front w/ white outline and plain rear.

The TruGlo TFO is an interesting sight. They really work as advertised. You get a very bright sight under just about all lighting conditions. My big complaint, though, was that the front sight is just WAY too wide for me. The other thing I didnt like was that I couldn't buy just the front sight. I would like them better with a plain wide notch rear. I still run them on my back-up Glock 26. Some people have complained about durability, but my two sets had no problems and I've been carrying my G26 with them in an ankle holster every day at work and in an IWB every day off duty for over 18 months and have had no problems. Some people also complain about the loss in sight radius because the front sight is so long. I saw no reduction in accuracy with the G26 and have no problems with getting very good defensive accuracy with it out to 25 yards.

For you, I would recommend the Ameriglo tritium front sight .230" height .125" width ($45) and the Ameriglo serrated rear sight (plain) ($37)

[Bowie Tactical]

You might take a look at my designed sights for ameriglo. They are the Bowie Tactical series for the M&P. This sight was designed for the M&P with all the things needed to make a true fighting sight. A wide rear notch and a front profile that is not sharp but shaped to allow one hand operation if needed. It can be had in black serrated, Classic tritium with white outlines and operator style that has only the tritium vials as to allow your attention to be drawn to the front sight but give you tritium reat dots if and when needed. I have deen behind a gun for over 20 years and have used this time and experience in this sight design. I normally use a .140 front sight. Remember the more narrow you get the slower it is to see under stress and low light. My sights can be had with .125 if needed though.
This sight can be seen on my site www.bowietacticalconcepts.com.

CHECK 360
David Bowie

[NCPatrolAR]

The best sight for the M&P right now is a factory front with a Burwell rear (tritium in both obviously). Of course this is my mere opinion. :D

[John_Wayne777]

I brought home my first M&P .45 yesterday, and it came with the standard non-tritium 3 dot sights. I am going to get some tritium sights for this pistol, but have been reading about how 3 dot sights are less prone to accuracy? Can someone give me the run down of what to look for as far as self-defensive hand gun sights go? Is it best to go with something like the 10-8 rear and a tritium front or what?

Any info is appreciated as I am not up to speed on this subject.

Thanks

The truth is that sighting options are intensely personal things. What works phenomenally for me might be a terrible option for you. Personally the three dot arrangement has never worked well for me. I've always found it far to busy and confusing, especially with night sights as my eyes are constantly drawn to the rear sights and not the front sight.

Right now on my M&P handguns I am running a plain black Warren tactical rear sight and one of Mr. Bowie's front sights with a tritium insert. This combo seems to work pretty well for me. Ken Hackathorn was running a similar setup at the November low light class.

As far as suggestions go, I'd say that the only requirement is to have a tritium insert in at least the front sight on a true fighting handgun, as it helps with low light shooting TREMENDOUSLY.

I'd suggest experimenting with SEVERAL sighting options, beginning with the fine offerings from Mr. Bowie and Warren Tactical. If you are serious about finding the right sight setup for you I'd also suggest getting one of the M&P sight tools G&R tactical is now selling as it makes swapping the sights (front AND rear) on the M&P a piece of cake.

Any more I've come to regard sights a lot like holsters....expect to try out several options before you find the ideal setup for you.

Good luck.

[Gutshot John]

WJWS it will be a personal choice.

The three-dot is biomechanically problematic because you have to line up three dots on two different focal planes, and estimate what's level, all the while maintaining target focus.

The actual brand you choose is secondary. IMO a much faster, and more accurate setup is the 'post - dot' sight you see typical on Sigs.

"Dot the 'I'", align the top of the blade and pull the trigger. Because you're aligning front to back, rather than side to side, it's much less subjective, and much quicker. There are however "post-dot" sights to avoid. The "XS" sight (Ashley) is next to worthless (that was a $100+ lesson).

Despite what others have said, IMO tritium night sights are WAY overrated. Yes you see the sight better, but it also washes out the target and constantly draws the eye to the sight to the exclusion the target. In my experience they are actually harder to use at night then a standard sight.

If you absolutely have to have one make sure it's only the front sight.

That being said if you have an appropriately marked front post, you shouldn't have trouble seeing the front blade unless it's absolute dark. In which case you're going to have trouble seeing the target also.

The best existing after-market sights widely available are probably from Warren Tactical. Though you never knew when a new sight line might be released by some firearms entrepreneurs. :D

[Alpha Sierra]

WJWS it will be a personal choice.


There are however "post-dot" sights to avoid. The "XS" sight (Ashley) is next to worthless (that was a $100+ lesson).
Your second statement is not true because your first one is.

I, for one, prefer the XS design above all others. I do not find any accuracy degradation compared to post/notch designs and find them much easier to acquire under stress.

[Gutshot John]

Your second statement is not true because your first one is.

I, for one, prefer the XS design above all others. I do not find any accuracy degradation compared to post/notch designs and find them much easier to acquire under stress.

You're right it is personal choice, but personal choice that was based on my experience. I thought the XS would be great, I bought it... and it sucked. I went back to my three-dot until. Moreover I've heard from several pro-shooters the same complaint "Ashley sights don't shoot." I chose not to listen to them and wish I had heeded their comments.

The problem with the Ashley is in the design. The top of the rear sight doesn't align with the top of the front blade. As such you end up shooting high under pressure. Close in this is less of a concern, at longer distances accuracy is worse, if no better than a three-dot.

[John_Wayne777]

You're right it is personal choice, but personal choice that was based on my experience. I thought the XS would be great, I bought it... and it sucked. I went back to my three-dot until. Moreover I've heard from several pro-shooters the same complaint "Ashley sights don't shoot." I chose not to listen to them and wish I had heeded their comments.

The problem with the Ashley is in the design. The top of the rear sight doesn't align with the top of the front blade. As such you end up shooting high under pressure. Close in this is less of a concern, at longer distances accuracy is worse, if no better than a three-dot.

That mirrors what I found to be true with them.

....however a big dot front sight might work better with something like a Warren Tactical rear....I'll have to give that one a shot sometime.

[Trim2L]

I've gone the NS route and I'm beginning to move away from them. NS only work in complete darkness and for me have several limitations for day use (width and visibility). NS are very popular so I'm sure most will disagree with me but my recommendation is to try several different kinds of sights if you can. Currently I'm using a Warren rear and a Hi-Viz front on my M&P's.

As already said, it is personal preference but NS can be expensive and you may not like them so take a long look at your options before committing.

ETA: I used to struggle hitting long shots quickly with NS in practice and competition because I would loose the front site after the first shot. With FO front sights I don't have that problem. I was concerned about being able to see the sight in darkness but when using a light they are very bright. Durability is a concern but thus far the Hi-Viz have worked well for me in carry, practice, and matches.

[Alpha Sierra]

I submit there is nothing wrong with the design of XS Sights' big dot.

It is the same exact design that has been used successfully on dangerous game rifles for over a century now. The only difference is in the sight radius.

Stopping a charging buffalo qualifies as shooting under pressure. And missing the vital area to make the stop carries serious consequences.

I think the way you aim with express sights is different enough from post/notch sights that some people have a hard time transitioning. Particularly if they have years upon years of post/notch experience.

Nothing wrong with that. That's why there's so much to choose from.

[Gutshot John]

I submit there is nothing wrong with the design of XS Sights' big dot.

It is the same exact design that has been used successfully on dangerous game rifles for over a century now. The only difference is in the sight radius.

Stopping a charging buffalo qualifies as shooting under pressure. And missing the vital area to make the stop carries serious consequences.

I think the way you aim with express sights is different enough from post/notch sights that some people have a hard time transitioning. Particularly if they have years upon years of post/notch experience.

Nothing wrong with that. That's why there's so much to choose from.

I should not have said that Ashley's "suck" if used properly, and you take your time, they can indeed put rounds on target. They were marketed however to be faster than a three dot and that simply doesn't hold water.

First long sight radius IMO is an overrated concern. As long as two points are aligned, you have a straight line. It's easier to align with a longer sight radius, but it's not any more accurate. My point with the Ashley is that it's at least as hard to align as a three dot and so there is NO advantage.

That being said I'm not sure you can really make the comparison between shooting big game with a rifle and shooting tactically. I'd also say the vital area on a cape buffalo is a LOT bigger than a human being with a knife/gun. So I think it's an apples/oranges comparison, but if you insist, I could be wrong but I think you'll find that on most of those big guns, the top of the rear sight, aligns with the top of the front blade.

I'm not suggesting that you run out and change your XS...if you like it, no problems. If someone is going to plop down $100+ on them, I'd submit there are better ones out there, many for a lot less cash.

[Alpha Sierra]

They were marketed however to be faster than a three dot and that simply doesn't hold water.
They are faster for me. YMMV.

First long sight radius IMO is an overrated concern. As long as two points are aligned, you have a straight line. It's easier to align with a longer sight radius, but it's not any more accurate. My point with the Ashley is that it's at least as hard to align as a three dot and so there is NO advantage.
Sight radius is not overrated. Otherwise, why would iron sight rifle competitors try to gain as much of it as practical under their rules? I know I do. While it is true that perfect alignment results in a perfect shot (all else being equal) regardless of distance between sights, a longer sight radius allows you to discern smaller errors in sight alignment. That much is a geometrical fact that cannot be argued against. Therefore practical accuracy is better the longer the radius is.

That being said I'm not sure you can really make the comparison between shooting big game with a rifle and shooting tactically. I'd also say the vital area on a cape buffalo is a LOT bigger than a human being with a knife/gun.
I didn't compare big game hunting in general with tactical shooting. I made a reference to a very specific instance: stopping the charge of an animal bent on killing you. That particular situation has a lot to compare it with tactical shooting: you are shooting for your life at a moving target that is also alive. The vital area that you may be referring to is the one used in a broadside shot, but is not the one I was referring to. A charging buffalo is stopped with a head shot. Nothing else works. Hitting a buff in the head, when he is charging to kill you, is what express sights were designed for.

So I think it's an apples/oranges comparison, but if you insist, I think you'll find that on those big guns, the top of the rear sight, aligns with the top of the front blade.
Nope, the design is the same as the XS. The front sight blade has a white or gold dot on its back face and the bottom of the dot sits on the bottom of the rear sight's shallow V.

[Gutshot John]

They are faster for me. YMMV.
Fair enough, but that doesn't negate my experience.


Sight radius is not overrated. Otherwise, why would iron sight rifle competitors try to gain as much of it as practical under their rules? I know I do. While it is true that perfect alignment results in a perfect shot (all else being equal) regardless of distance between sights, a longer sight radius allows you to discern smaller errors in sight alignment. That much is a geometrical fact that cannot be argued against. Therefore practical accuracy is better the longer the radius is.

So if you draw a line between two points you don't have a straight line?

My point was that if you properly align the sights it doesn't matter what the radius, further I said the only advantage of long sight radius was exactly what you described above. It's not any more accurate, it's just faster/easier. I said it was overrated, not irrelevant.


I didn't compare big game hunting in general with tactical shooting. I made a reference to a very specific instance: stopping the charge of an animal bent on killing you. That particular situation has a lot to compare it with tactical shooting: you are shooting for your life at a moving target that is also alive. The vital area that you may be referring to is the one used in a broadside shot, but is not the one I was referring to. A charging buffalo is stopped with a head shot. Nothing else works. Hitting a buff in the head, when he is charging to kill you, is what express sights were designed for.

I've never hunted cape buffalo? Have you? I do hunt, and have done so with large dangerous game (moose and I don't mean Bullwinkle) around. I've also been charged by them though I never had a need to have to kill one. The chances of me using a sight, if charged by a moose are pretty slim your chances of making a head shot as opposed to a chest shot are even less. I'm sure buffalo are dangerous but if they are that close you're probably not going to have time to use the sights. If they are not that close and are charging than the point becomes moot and any sight will do, and preferably the more accurate the better. Moreover I also said that the Express is less of a problem close in, but at distance it is less accurate.


Nope, the design is the same as the XS. The front sight blade has a white or gold dot on its back face and the bottom of the dot sits on the bottom of the rear sight's shallow V.

All that being said, the design remains flawed especially for the price. But assuming you are correct, what works on a rifle, does not work on a pistol especially given what you said about sight radius...any deviation is magnified. The Ashely pistol sight is more prone to deviation than a three-dot and this problem is magnified the longer the distance you intend to shoot.

[Charles]

J. Badertscher, your expierence is your expierence, however some of what you have posted is just simply untrue. I have shot the BigDot's.... A lot. I used them for a little over a year. In that time I shot "Master" twice, and won quite a few competitions. They work. The problem people generally have with them, is they are still stuck on how you aim with notch/posts sights. BigDots are different, and there is a learning curve, however they can be shot accurately, and I have found that most people generally shoot them faster with the same generall accuracy standard.

I'm shooting Warren Tacticals now, but the BD's do work.

[SuicideHz]

You might take a look at my designed sights for ameriglo. They are the Bowie Tactical series for the M&P. This sight was designed for the M&P with all the things needed to make a true fighting sight. A wide rear notch and a front profile that is not sharp but shaped to allow one hand operation if needed. It can be had in black serrated, Classic tritium with white outlines and operator style that has only the tritium vials as to allow your attention to be drawn to the front sight but give you tritium reat dots if and when needed. I have deen behind a gun for over 20 years and have used this time and experience in this sight design. I normally use a .140 front sight. Remember the more narrow you get the slower it is to see under stress and low light. My sights can be had with .125 if needed though.
This sight can be seen on my site www.bowietacticalconcepts.com.

CHECK 360
David Bowie

Wow. Very nice looking rear. If I didn't have standard factory M&P night sights, I'd buy yours. I HATE the rears and how shiny the vials are indoors at the range. Maybe I will buy yours anyway just to get rid of that glare. Are yours recessed at all?

They appear to be blended into the slide nicely!

http://www.bowietacticalconcepts.com/sitebuilder/images/btc_mp_rear1_postcard4-964x645.png

[Gutshot John]

J. Badertscher, your expierence is your expierence, however some of what you have posted is just simply untrue. I have shot the BigDot's.... A lot. I used them for a little over a year. In that time I shot "Master" twice, and won quite a few competitions. They work. T

I think if you check out what I said...


I should not have said that Ashley's "suck" if used properly, and you take your time, they can indeed put rounds on target. They were marketed however to be faster than a three dot and that simply doesn't hold water.

I know people that have shot IDPA "Master" with 3 dot, what exactly does that prove?

So what exactly was "untrue"?

If you like the XS, then there is no reason to listen to me. They are however problematic and someone should be informed about those problems before plopping down good money.

As for the "big" dot, that I think is another flaw of the design. It's simply too big for anything at distance.

Again all my criticism has said that close in, this is less of a problem. At distance, they are no faster, no more accurate and therefore no better than a three-dot.

The post-dot is the best mix of accuracy and speed possible, but the XS is at best a flawed execution of that concept.

[Bowie Tactical]

SuicideHZ, the vials are not recessed. The rear sight is at a slight undercut angle to deal better with glare. Plus it allows for one hand operation in an emergancy. What I do is dot the vials with a black marker. Then they do not draw any undue attention but allow alignment should it ever become needed. I think the trend to no rear tritium is a mistake. I know very good and well that most shootings are close but what if you need a low light shot at distance. Why not have that extra capability of better alignment faster wit the dots. I have been in this game for alot of years and i know very few situations require full tritium but again be prepared. We do make a plain serrated rear but I like the operator style tritium. Where I am a deputy at, is rural and gets real dark. Our last shooting was over 100 feet. I like the extra insurance of front and rear reference. The rear sight notch on mine are .010 wider than factory and .014 deeper. This allows the use of a wide front to see faster but plenty of light on each side for speed and accuracy.
I failed to mention the rear is factory height so you only need to order a rear if you already have a tritium front.

CHECK 360 David Bowie

[John_Wayne777]

FWIW I am going to be ordering one of Mr. Bowie's rear sights soon to give it a shot. His fronts are working well for me so far. The white outline seems to be thicker than on the Trijicon sights I had before, which helps draw your eye to the sight.

[Charles]

It's simply too big for anything at distance.



At distance you don't aim with the whole dot, but instead the tip.


Shot back to back.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v609/CharlesArbuckle/ghj.jpg




The advantage of BD's is while they can be shot accurately, they are very easy for the mass majority to make goods hit under stress at "normal" ranges in low light, even if they don't focus on the front sight.

[Gutshot John]

How is that any better than a three dot?

[ToddG]

My thoughts fwiw:


3-dot sights -- popular because they work so well. People tend to poo-poo anything that is common and popular. For the vast majority of people, a basic 3-dot night sight setup is going to work just fine. I do recommend you black out the rear dots if yours have white outlines.
XS Sights -- good if you have poor vision and nothing else will work. Otherwise, they're not your best option. For beginners, the argument that they'll see the big dot better ignores the fact that they probably won't look at their sight to begin with. For more skilled shooters, the speed benefit drops off quickly but the accuracy issue lasts forever. It's not that you can't shoot accurately with the XS sights; but, it takes more time and effort and there is greater margin of error.
10-8 and other u-notch designs -- Fine for target shooting, they are universally rejected for any kind of serious tactical/action work. The u-notch became popular again with the widespread acceptance of the Warren sights, which people think (mistakenly) have a u-notch rear.
Warren -- my personal favorite, especially in the 2-dot (figure-8) design. The only sights on the market of their kind, with a patented rear sight notch. Scott Warren, who is both a many-time national IDPA champion and the principle firearms instructor for a national asset CT team, spent literally years tweaking the design of these sights before they hit the market. The rear notch is not a u, it is more like a box with rounded corners. The difference is extremely important. Also, the shoulders of the sight have a radius to allow better view of the downrange area for faster target acquisitions and improved situational awareness.

Does personal preference matter? Sure. Someone who has decided he wants to love XS sights, for example, can put forth the effort to do well with them. The thing that sets the Warren sights apart -- as proven but the majority of current IDPA and USPSA iron sight champions -- is that they work better than traditional sights without any new training or thought.