View Full Version : Night Sights for SIG P250: Front Sight Only Sufficient?
My only options for night sights on my new SIG P250 are to have SIG send me the front sight or send the entire slide to SIG to install a full set at twice the cost.
In light of stress, proximity and ambient lighting that's low enough to make night sights usable, is there enough advantage to having a full set of night sights to justify twice the price? Thx!...
Tomac
If you really plan on doing accurate low-light shooting you are going to need a full set of night-sights. Send the slide off to SIG. You'll get back professionally installed sights that are properly aligned and of the correct matching height. In the long run you'll spend more trying to monkey-up a solution on the cheap.
If you really plan on doing accurate low-light shooting you are going to need a full set of night-sights. Send the slide off to SIG. You'll get back professionally installed sights that are properly aligned and of the correct matching height. In the long run you'll spend more trying to monkey-up a solution on the cheap.
Not trying to "monkey-up" a solution, trying to decide if there's any practical advantage to a full set over just a front sight in the low-light conditions where night sights are actually usable and fine motor control has gone out the window due to stress.
Tomac
I have Trijicon night sights on a Kahr. One of these days I will get a new rear sight. The rear sights are so bright it's hard to see the front sight. If I am shooting this gun in the dark I doubt it will be more than 5 yds. All I really need for that is the front sight.
Psalms144.1
07-06-13, 20:39
There's an old saying out there: plan your fight, and fight your plan. If your plan is, when you get to the two-way rifle-range, to lose all your fine motor abilities due to stress, then you're unlikely to be helped by a mini-gun on your back.
There are plenty of folks who have successfully defended themselves with handguns, and remember their sights clearly. When they line them up and press the trigger, they got the results they wanted.
Several years back (pre-9/11), my old team did a pretty extensive test with our P228s. We had several shooters (I think it was about 10) shoot pistols with three sight set-ups - no NS, front NS only, and full NS set. The shooters ranged from barely competent to VERY advanced shooters, and we shot targets that were front lit, back lit, and ambient light only. Not surprisingly, all shooters shot significantly slower and less accurately without NS. Front NS only was faster across the board, but measurably less accurate for all but the shooters with the most experience handling the P228 platform.
Unfortunately, I lost all the hard numbers from this test in a computer crash a couple years back, but the consistent results were that, if you could see the target, having rear NS significantly improved the ability to place shots where they counted. The fractions of seconds "lost" by aligning the sights were WELL made up by the increase in accuracy.
That's a LONG way to get around to saying, yes, I think rear NS are worth the extra money...
Regards,
Kevin
I stand corrected. Data wins.
I have no real experience with the pistol in question, but I run Ameriglo Hacks on several pistols. This setup has a night sight in front and a plain black serrated years. I prefer this to a standard 3-dot system.
Goingthrough what night sights to put on my Shield and Glock 17. I am thinking the Ameriglo (Trijicon ) proi dot orange green front with single green dot rear.
There's an old saying out there: plan your fight, and fight your plan. If your plan is, when you get to the two-way rifle-range, to lose all your fine motor abilities due to stress, then you're unlikely to be helped by a mini-gun on your back.
There are plenty of folks who have successfully defended themselves with handguns, and remember their sights clearly. When they line them up and press the trigger, they got the results they wanted.
Several years back (pre-9/11), my old team did a pretty extensive test with our P228s. We had several shooters (I think it was about 10) shoot pistols with three sight set-ups - no NS, front NS only, and full NS set. The shooters ranged from barely competent to VERY advanced shooters, and we shot targets that were front lit, back lit, and ambient light only. Not surprisingly, all shooters shot significantly slower and less accurately without NS. Front NS only was faster across the board, but measurably less accurate for all but the shooters with the most experience handling the P228 platform.
Unfortunately, I lost all the hard numbers from this test in a computer crash a couple years back, but the consistent results were that, if you could see the target, having rear NS significantly improved the ability to place shots where they counted. The fractions of seconds "lost" by aligning the sights were WELL made up by the increase in accuracy.
That's a LONG way to get around to saying, yes, I think rear NS are worth the extra money...
Regards,
Kevin
That's exactly the kind of hard data I was looking for. Thx!...
Tomac
The Dumb Gun Collector
07-07-13, 10:56
You will notice though that the data showed that people who were the most experienced with the platform did not show the measurable drop off in accuracy using the single dot. This has been borne out by my experience. No night sights is absolute crap. Don't do it. Three dots are ok, but introduce other problems, like alignment issues in low light and generally being a bit slower. The first problem can be addressed by using different colored rear sights (or a straight eight setup or similar)but the speed issue cannot.
Psalms144.1
07-07-13, 18:06
Greg - not to be contentious, but, in my admittedly NOT humble opinion, accuracy beats raw speed in any real-world setting (e.g. not competition and not on the square range). The speed loss we saw was in the tenths of seconds range for multiple shot drills; whereas the accuracy issues (especially vertical stringing of multiple shots) was significant - to the point where a lot of "paper" hits (e.g. cutting the line on the head of a TRANSTAR-II being counted as a "head hit") would, in the real world, have been ineffective hits, or outright misses.
Agreed that three green dot NS are an suboptimal, but I believe the "misalignment" issue with all green NS is generally nothing but hype. Take ANY pistol with ANY sights, unload it, check it, unload it and check it again, then point it at a discreet point on the wall in a safe direction. Twist the pistol so that the front sight is aligned equidistantly offset to the right or left of the rear sight, and you'll see how INCREDIBLY wrong that grip would have to be for someone to think they had a proper "sight picture." I won't say it's impossible to do (I've seen at least three shooters come to the line with bullets loaded backwards in their magazines), but you'd have to be messed up like Hogan's Goat to pull it off and not know it.
The bigger issue for me is that the rear green sights appear so much brighter and bigger than the front green sight that they do make keeping focus where it belongs harder. That's why I strongly prefer contrasting color rears - specifically green front/amber rear. Unfortunately, makers of this color combination tend, for whatever reason, to limit their production to the most popular pistols - like the Glock and M&P...
Regards,
Kevin
The Dumb Gun Collector
07-07-13, 18:59
Kevin,
"Agreed that three green dot NS are an suboptimal, but I believe the "misalignment" issue with all green NS is generally nothing but hype."
Not in my experience. Where I have seen the issue pop up is under pressure. I have a good number of hours of night classes and training under my belt at this point and I have seen the issue in every class I have been to. The worst I have seen it pop up is in team training at night.
Psalms144.1
07-07-13, 19:23
Greg - that is truly amazing. I've seen all kinds of jacked up gun handling over the last three decades, but never seen that, even doing CQB training under NVGs with Sims.
Just goes to show, I need to get out more! Thanks for your thoughts on this - I need NS for my HKs, maybe time to do some more experimenting...
Regards,
Kevin
Alaskapopo
07-07-13, 19:58
Greg - not to be contentious, but, in my admittedly NOT humble opinion, accuracy beats raw speed in any real-world setting (e.g. not competition and not on the square range). The speed loss we saw was in the tenths of seconds range for multiple shot drills; whereas the accuracy issues (especially vertical stringing of multiple shots) was significant - to the point where a lot of "paper" hits (e.g. cutting the line on the head of a TRANSTAR-II being counted as a "head hit") would, in the real world, have been ineffective hits, or outright misses.
Agreed that three green dot NS are an suboptimal, but I believe the "misalignment" issue with all green NS is generally nothing but hype. Take ANY pistol with ANY sights, unload it, check it, unload it and check it again, then point it at a discreet point on the wall in a safe direction. Twist the pistol so that the front sight is aligned equidistantly offset to the right or left of the rear sight, and you'll see how INCREDIBLY wrong that grip would have to be for someone to think they had a proper "sight picture." I won't say it's impossible to do (I've seen at least three shooters come to the line with bullets loaded backwards in their magazines), but you'd have to be messed up like Hogan's Goat to pull it off and not know it.
The bigger issue for me is that the rear green sights appear so much brighter and bigger than the front green sight that they do make keeping focus where it belongs harder. That's why I strongly prefer contrasting color rears - specifically green front/amber rear. Unfortunately, makers of this color combination tend, for whatever reason, to limit their production to the most popular pistols - like the Glock and M&P...
Regards,
Kevin
Raw speed and accuracy are equals in a real fight. If you get hit a 1/10th of a second before you can hit the threat your likely to lose. You can't say accuracy is more important than speed or that speed is more important than accuracy you need both.
Pat
Psalms144.1
07-07-13, 20:18
Pat - I'm NOT saying that speed doesn't matter, I'm saying that speed that adversely affects the ability to place a round WHERE IT COUNTS is "wasted energy." In this context, with all but the most dedicated couple of shooters, the speed gain using front NS only equated to accuracy losses that, in MY OPINION, were unacceptable.
Don't get me wrong, I love to stand and rip out .15-17 second splits when I'm showing off with my G19; I'm just reverting to the old "gun fighting rule" that says: "Only hits count."
Of course, the next line is: "The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss..."
Regards,
Kevin
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.