What do you look for in sites?

[bushwacked]

I am in the market to replace my standard glock sites. I have a glock 17 and dont mind the look of the sites, but the quality is not standing up over time.

I like the idea of a solid black rear site with a bright Tritium front sight. However, I have never seen this in person. I do not have any good stores to go take a look and finding good pictures online is a whole nother nightmare. Is there an advantage to having front and back sites the same, like tritium night sites on both or is it just more of an aesthetic thing to what the shooter likes? The only thing I could think of is it could make it easier to get aligned with 3 dots or whatever the site has, but does it make that much of a difference?

[ST911]

I am in the market to replace my standard glock sites. I have a glock 17 and dont mind the look of the sites, but the quality is not standing up over time.

I like the idea of a solid black rear site with a bright Tritium front sight. However, I have never seen this in person. I do not have any good stores to go take a look and finding good pictures online is a whole nother nightmare. Is there an advantage to having front and back sites the same, like tritium night sites on both or is it just more of an aesthetic thing to what the shooter likes? The only thing I could think of is it could make it easier to get aligned with 3 dots or whatever the site has, but does it make that much of a difference?

For a plain black rear and high visibility front, the Ameriglo Hackathorn is excellent: http://ameriglo.com/collections/glock/products/glock-hackathorn-sets

If you look around, there have been a number of multi-page threads on member sight preferences which include photos and comparisons.

[bushwacked]

Yep the Ameriglo ones you linked are exactly what I was looking to get ... if there is a not a huge give and take on accuracy or skill need to line up the shot

[gaijin]

Sight choice is dependent on intended use (of firearm) and personal preference.
An individuals visual acuity plays a role as well.

For a "range/game gun" I prefer FO (Fiber Optic) front sight and black, adjustable rear. I also prefer this in my hunting revolvers.
For a carry gun, my preference is Tritium FS with (plain) black rear- most are fixed, although some have adjustable (rear) sights.
I do have "carry guns" with plain black, Patridge FS's as well, however it's near impossible to find the FS in low light, even with years of "muscle memory" of presentations from leather.

[bushwacked]

Ok, thanks for the input ... This gun would be the "range/game gun" setup. It would never be the EDC. It may end up on a camping trip or 2, but that is not a huge issue for me.


Curious why you say FO for range ... what are your thoughts on why you do this and is it the pretty common choice for the range?

[gaijin]

I shoot a fairly thin, FO (.090" wide/thick) with a green FO rod.
With a Bomar (or clone) rear sight there is an enormous amount of "daylight" between the front and rear sight (notch).
This allows for a very quick "flash sight picture" and first shot.
The trade off is in giving up a bit of accuracy with the relatively "coarse" sight picture.
A thicker front blade would allow me greater absolute precision, but that is not required for my range time and the "games" I shoot.
If I were a "Bullseye" shooter, I would NOT use the sights I currently use.

[bushwacked]

Yep, that was one reason I was considering the Ameriglo Hackathorn, for a little more precision. I guess I would need to see both options -- the black rear and tritium front or tritium/FO rear and front sites.

I just am not sure if the rear and front would be too busy for me if I had 3 colors to look at instead of 1 ...

[gaijin]

Dawson Precision offers FO front sights in different widths; from .090" to 1.25".
A .110" is a good compromise for both speed and precision from my experience.

Colored or white inserts in a rear sight is a bad idea IMO; a "cluttered" sight picture is not conducive to either speed, or precision.

[GUNSLINGER733]

Serrated rear and fiber optic front
http://i1125.photobucket.com/albums/l591/grappler4x4/Firearms/2CBCD177-2F26-4C7E-A7B6-FC73BA507E4E_zpswu12ygio.jpg (http://s1125.photobucket.com/user/grappler4x4/media/Firearms/2CBCD177-2F26-4C7E-A7B6-FC73BA507E4E_zpswu12ygio.jpg.html)

[bushwacked]

I am really liking the the Dawson line of sites as well ..

Man between Dawson, Ameriglo and warren this may be a tough decision ...

[samuse]

I like a plain black rear and a fiber optic front these days. I used to like plain black, but the bright front is easier for me now.

I do most of my shooting at night and I really don't see tritium as an advantage in anything but street light type lighting.

I use a .125" wide front with a .140"-.156" rear notch depending on sight radius. I don't do well with real sloppy sight pictures and I have found that a thinner front sight doesn't help me much so I stick with the beefier .125". I have used a .140" wide front with a .180" rear notch (same as the Hackathorns) and they were not easily used for precise shots and they definitely weren't faster for me, but my eyes were in their 20's when I used those.

A thing to consider when buying sights that are spec'd by, and named for their respective trainer, is the age of the trainer. The difference between Defoors and Hackathorns shows their age difference. All the guys in between pretty much use a variation on the Warren theme of a plain black .150" notch rear and a fiber optic front.

[MegademiC]

A lot is preference.

I prefer th ameriglo idots operator pros. Wide u notch, I dot setup, eye-catching front sight.

Very fast. At 25yds, it takes a little more effort to be accurate (heads hot or better) with them, but the benefits at 15yd and in is well worth the tradeoff imo.

[bushwacked]

I really like the black rear site ... my big thing is will I like the "skinny" or "fat" front site. Like Dawson vs Ameriglo type look. For a range gun where speed doesnt really matter to me but accuracy is always nice, I would lean toward the thicker ameriglo, but either would most likely get the job done I would think.

[GUNSLINGER733]

Personally 10-8 sights with a .140 or .156 u notch and a .115 wide f/o front is hard to speed fast and eyes are immediately drawn to front sight. Same goes with my vickers sight. I also used Dawson and some Trijicons. It really comes down to personal preference.

[samuse]

I really like the black rear site ... my big thing is will I like the "skinny" or "fat" front site. Like Dawson vs Ameriglo type look. For a range gun where speed doesnt really matter to me but accuracy is always nice, I would lean toward the thicker ameriglo, but either would most likely get the job done I would think.

.140" is pretty fat. I found that the .140" front did best with a .164" notch rear. The .180", even with the wide front was just super sloppy.

.115" and .125" fronts with a .150" notch is pretty standard across many disciplines and age groups.

[Uprange41]

I really like the black rear site ... my big thing is will I like the "skinny" or "fat" front site. Like Dawson vs Ameriglo type look. For a range gun where speed doesnt really matter to me but accuracy is always nice, I would lean toward the thicker ameriglo, but either would most likely get the job done I would think.

I use 10-8's as well, .156" rear and .100" front fiber optic.

I really like a fine front sight. It helps at-speed, and it helps when I've only got the silhouette while working with a light. I know I can be more accurate with a wider front, but in any practical shooting, I'm not. I can qualify just the same no matter what sights I've got, it's really the ability to use the sights at speed that makes the difference for me.

[steve m]

I have played around with lots of sights for my glocks ( Heinies, Warren Tacticals, 10-8, Novak, Meprolight, Ameriglo) For me what it came down to was could I see it and was I going to put the practice time in with the sight sets. That being said I have settled on Ameriglo T-cap sights for my carry guns (G-19) and Warren/Sevigney carry set ( FO front, plain black rear). For right now this works for me, I am thinking of trying the MRDS also.

[bushwacked]

.140" is pretty fat. I found that the .140" front did best with a .164" notch rear. The .180", even with the wide front was just super sloppy.

.115" and .125" fronts with a .150" notch is pretty standard across many disciplines and age groups.

Ok, I will take a look into the .140 with a .164 rear and see what that can do.


I use 10-8's as well, .156" rear and .100" front fiber optic.

I really like a fine front sight. It helps at-speed, and it helps when I've only got the silhouette while working with a light. I know I can be more accurate with a wider front, but in any practical shooting, I'm not. I can qualify just the same no matter what sights I've got, it's really the ability to use the sights at speed that makes the difference for me.

Man this is starting to sound like I may have to get multiple sites and should a couple 100 rounds with each until I find something that works. This could get kinda expensive until I find one haha

[GUNSLINGER733]

I can guarantee if you get 10-8s with there serrated rear in a .140 U Notch and a .115" front fiber optic sight(good balance for speed and accuracy) you will not be dissapointed

[bushwacked]

I can guarantee if you get 10-8s with there serrated rear in a .140 U Notch and a .115" front fiber optic sight(good balance for speed and accuracy) you will not be dissapointed

What height should I start with? I see that:


The .235" front lowers impact approximately 2-3" at 25 yards relative to the .215" front.
The .250" front lowers impact approximately 3-5" at 25 yards relative to the .215" front.

Is this data pulled from my current stock sights on what happens or how would I find out which one would best fit me?

[samuse]

The .140/.115 10-8 set is a very safe bet.

On a 17, I'd go with the .235" tall front. .215" always shoots high for me. I shoot all 124 and 147 grain ammo.

[okie john]

Man this is starting to sound like I may have to get multiple sites and should a couple 100 rounds with each until I find something that works. This could get kinda expensive until I find one haha

That's what most of us do.

Ameriglo is your friend. They sell lots of variations of heights and widths for not much money.

You could get a plain black rear and experiment from there.


Okie John

[teutonicpolymer]

A set I have considered buying numerous times are the ameriglo hackathorns

Sights I have actually used and like are:
For a budget: defoor sights with a painted front sight
For a slightly bigger budget: Dawson precision fiber optic sights (fiber front, serrated black rear)

[SeriousStudent]

A set I have considered buying numerous times are the ameriglo hackathorns

Sights I have actually used and like are:
For a budget: defoor sights with a painted front sight
For a slightly bigger budget: Dawson precision fiber optic sights (fiber front, serrated black rear)

I have about eight sets of the Ameriglo Hackathorns. A nice serrated plain rear sight, and a big honking orange tritium dot up front. If you are an old fossil with bifocals like me, they are very useful.

[Frailer]

Another "mature" bifocal wearer here.

I have the Hackathorns on my carry Glock 26 and 19, as well as the 17 I shoot in matches. I really like them.

My backup Glock 17 has the Ameriglo "special combination sight set" with plain black rear and fiber front, and my Glock 21 has a similar setup from Dawson.

All excellent choices for those of us whose eyes don't focus quite like they used to.

[teutonicpolymer]

I have about eight sets of the Ameriglo Hackathorns. A nice serrated plain rear sight, and a big honking orange tritium dot up front. If you are an old fossil with bifocals like me, they are very useful.

I have thought about them but my conclusion has ended up being that in low light where the glow of the front sight would help, I would have trouble making a sight picture with the rear sight anyways so I ended up just sticking with fiber sights

The trijicon HD's would be the logical solution but are expensive

The tall dawson fiber front with tall serrated all black rear is probably my favorite sight combo thus far, I strongly prefer them to "classic" 3 dot night sights

[Tzook]

I'm very fond of Larry Vicker's sights from Wilson.

[Wake27]

I'm very fond of Larry Vicker's sights from Wilson.

As am I. Mine are new, but I think I like them the best out of the few others I've tried so far.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SpyderMan2k4]

My current preference is Ameriglo T-CAP front, with the pro operator rear (for defensive guns).

Front is .125 with green tritium and a bright square (I prefer it to bright circles that most other sights use). The rear is .150 black with yellow tritium, no white rings it anything. I do wish they made the rear with orange tritium for a little more contrast.

For competition I really like a .100 green fiber optic front with .150 serrated adjustable rear.

[GUNSLINGER733]

What height should I start with? I see that:



Is this data pulled from my current stock sights on what happens or how would I find out which one would best fit me?

I always have to get a .235" height. All my glocks shoot high. You need to get a paper target and shoot however you can get steady and see where it prints before you order. Some shoot poa/poi.