View Full Version : So For An RDS Handgun, Wouldn't You Actually Want It Forward Of The Ejection Port?
Thinking about what would be my first RDS handgun and realized on a carbine it sits between the irons, why shouldn't a handgun RDS so the same? Also seems like a great place to install a picatinny rail as some others have suggested as the better mounting solution.
Seems like it would also give the shooter faster acquisition in a more forward position vs. rear of the slide. The only thing it really complicates is holsters.
In one sense, I think the answer to your question is a qualified yes. However, there are other practical considerations that necessitate the current location of pistol RDS. Specifically the amount of available material on a slide, and height over bore for BUIS. As it is, placing the RDS behind the ejection port doesn't really have a deleterious effect on ejection in the vast majority of cases, so there is no practical reason to try and tackle the issues that would present themselves in trying to move the sight forward.
EDIT: Looks like I need to read more thoroughly before responding. As @Renegade04 responded below, yes the RDS does normally sit between the irons. For some reason, when I first read your post, I was thinking that you were suggesting mounting the RDS forward of the ejection port. Unless I read it as you were editing it, or something?
Renegade04
05-20-23, 06:56
Thinking about what would be my first RDS handgun and realized on a carbine it sits between the irons, why shouldn't a handgun RDS so the same? Also seems like a great place to install a picatinny rail as some others have suggested as the better mounting solution.
Seems like it would also give the shooter faster acquisition in a more forward position vs. rear of the slide. The only thing it really complicates is holsters.
On most handguns with a RDO, the optic does sit between the sights. There is a handful of people who have had their Glock slides milled to place the RDO at the ear and the rear sight in front of it. Personally, I am not a fan of that configuration. All of my RDO equipped pistols are set up in the traditional way. To me and many others, the rearward position in front of the rear sight is best. Here are a few examples.
https://i.imgur.com/qkWtFmg.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/7Qx6FEz.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/hnyqs1d.jpg
diving dave
05-20-23, 09:04
It really doesn't matter in use. 2 of my M&P's were milled with rear sight forward. I like it as I can rack the slide one handed using the rear sight, not the optic. It also allows for 100% of the window use in awkward shooting positions, although that doesn't happen often.
I think holstering would be the #1 issue.
I have an RDS on the front of a VZ-61. Which reminds me; I need to attach a lanyard / sling to that gun.
Inkslinger
05-20-23, 10:31
While a picatinny mounting solution would have some merits, I don’t think moving the sight 2 inches forward would provide any advantage. You’re already holding a handgun at arm’s length unlike a rifle that puts the sighting system closer to your eye.
I think holstering is the most obvious reason it’s not so common. I have one of these just for fun. You can mount an rds anywhere.
https://www.keltecweapons.com/firearm/pistols/cp33/
While a picatinny mounting solution would have some merits, I don’t think moving the sight 2 inches forward would provide any advantage. You’re already holding a handgun at arm’s length unlike a rifle that puts the sighting system closer to your eye.
This.
And optic in front of EP would make cleaning the INSIDE of “single pane”, non “enclosed Emitter” RDs next to impossible.
The propellant gasses/carbon fouling would be a nightmare to clean from the inside of an RMR/507cX2/etc.
Thinking about what would be my first RDS handgun and realized on a carbine it sits between the irons, why shouldn't a handgun RDS so the same? Also seems like a great place to install a picatinny rail as some others have suggested as the better mounting solution.
Seems like it would also give the shooter faster acquisition in a more forward position vs. rear of the slide. The only thing it really complicates is holsters.
They are already between the irons (except the wierd people who put the rear in front, but thats not standard).
Also, being further forward would make it more difficult to see the dot in theory - its such a small movement i dont think there would be a practical difference.
Defaultmp3
05-20-23, 12:41
Seems like it would also give the shooter faster acquisition in a more forward position vs. rear of the slide. The only thing it really complicates is holsters.Why would a more forward position give a shooter faster acquisition? The opposite is true for rifles; the closer the optic is to your eye, the bigger FOV you have through the optic, and so the sooner you will see the reticle.
The argument for rears in front of the RDS on handguns is that you get a slightly less clutter view through the optic, along with the irons possibly providing slight protection for the front lens. Some slide milling for certain slide/optic combos also dictates this arrangement, such as trying to direct mill an ACRO for a non-MOS Glock, due to the factory rear sight dovetail being too far forward to fit an ACRO between the dovetail and the ejection port.
In one sense, I think the answer to your question is a qualified yes. However, there are other practical considerations that necessitate the current location of pistol RDS. Specifically the amount of available material on a slide, and height over bore for BUIS. As it is, placing the RDS behind the ejection port doesn't really have a deleterious effect on ejection in the vast majority of cases, so there is no practical reason to try and tackle the issues that would present themselves in trying to move the sight forward.
EDIT: Looks like I need to read more thoroughly before responding. As @Renegade04 responded below, yes the RDS does normally sit between the irons. For some reason, when I first read your post, I was thinking that you were suggesting mounting the RDS forward of the ejection port. Unless I read it as you were editing it, or something?
You were actually correct, I was suggesting that forward of the ejection port would be a more ideal location.
ViniVidivici
05-20-23, 15:28
DefaultMP3 beat me to it.
Big NO-GO on that.
You were actually correct, I was suggesting that forward of the ejection port would be a more ideal location.
It would sit too high. You cant get it lower because of the barrel. If youre doing that, make it non-reciprocating like the uspsa open guns
I've been shooting pistol mounted RDS for a few years now on a few different guns. I can't imagine how moving the dot that far forward would be better in any way. In fact, I think it would make it worse, as the farther from your wrist, the more pronounced movements would be, possibly making it more difficult to pick up the dot.
Why would a more forward position give a shooter faster acquisition? The opposite is true for rifles; the closer the optic is to your eye, the bigger FOV you have through the optic, and so the sooner you will see the reticle.
The argument for rears in front of the RDS on handguns is that you get a slightly less clutter view through the optic, along with the irons possibly providing slight protection for the front lens. Some slide milling for certain slide/optic combos also dictates this arrangement, such as trying to direct mill an ACRO for a non-MOS Glock, due to the factory rear sight dovetail being too far forward to fit an ACRO between the dovetail and the ejection port.
It's not the same 1:1 comparison, but I noted on my TP9 that running a RDS a bit more center, in this case a open lens type C-More, worked better for me than all the way to the rear. Was wondering if the same wouldn't be true of something like a Glock.
I've been shooting pistol mounted RDS for a few years now on a few different guns. I can't imagine how moving the dot that far forward would be better in any way. In fact, I think it would make it worse, as the farther from your wrist, the more pronounced movements would be, possibly making it more difficult to pick up the dot.
So for years with 1911s we were taught to "front sight" everything. How would a center location RDS be any more difficult to pick up than a front blade sight?
Not arguing with anyone, just thinking out loud as a though experiment. Also full disclosure, I have only shot a handful of RDS sight handguns a few times. Obviously changes presentation a bit and it was slightly more problematic than I imagined it would be.
Defaultmp3
05-20-23, 17:44
It's not the same 1:1 comparison, but I noted on my TP9 that running a RDS a bit more center, in this case a open lens type C-More, worked better for me than all the way to the rear. Was wondering if the same wouldn't be true of something like a Glock.Worked better in what way? The sliding scale of how close/far the RDS is to your eye is a balancing act; the closer the optic is to your eye, the easier time you have to pick up the dot and maintain that sight picture, but the sight physically obscures the picture downrange.
So for years with 1911s we were taught to "front sight" everything. How would a center location RDS be any more difficult to pick up than a front blade sight?Because the front sight blade is visible the moment it physically enters your field of view. The dot is not visible for the majority of the time during the draw until you are able line up that very small FOV in which the dot is visible through the optic. The closer the optic is to your eye, the larger the FOV through the optic, the faster you can pick up on the dot and start aiming with it. On the flip side, there is no apparent advantage to moving the optic up front, given that the optics and handgun itself are small enough that the issues with peripheral vision isn't noticeable. Throw in the engineering challenges with dealing with the barrel up front, along with holster issues, and there's no reason to mount it up front with most modern handgun designs where you're having the optic sit on a reciprocating slide.
Worked better in what way?
So I guess I have to figure that out and get back to you.
If someone figures out how to merge the rough layout of a Leupold Delta Point Micro and advancements(even amaller) on the Holosun SCS electronics and power then it should be doable without too freaky of a holster sight channel. I wouldn't be surprised if some pistol and dot manufacturers working together could pull it off now.
Defaultmp3
05-20-23, 20:54
If someone figures out how to merge the rough layout of a Leupold Delta Point Micro and advancements(even amaller) on the Holosun SCS electronics and power then it should be doable without too freaky of a holster sight channel. I wouldn't be surprised if some pistol and dot manufacturers working together could pull it off now.But then what would even be the point of it? The DPM's tiny window only made smaller by pushing it further forward, to... do what?
But then what would even be the point of it? The DPM's tiny window only made smaller by pushing it further forward, to... do what?
I think I found a disconnect. When I envision a RDS handgun, I'm thinking of something like a Glock with a C-More RDS size setup. I just looked at the Delta Point Micro and honestly that's more of a rear sight substitute than what I think of when it comes to RDS. I couldn't adjust to that DPM in years, but if we are talking about the DPM or similar, you are correct about optimum location.
The RDS handgun I want someday has something like a Eotech XPS2.
So for years with 1911s we were taught to "front sight" everything. How would a center location RDS be any more difficult to pick up than a front blade sight?
Not arguing with anyone, just thinking out loud as a though experiment. Also full disclosure, I have only shot a handful of RDS sight handguns a few times. Obviously changes presentation a bit and it was slightly more problematic than I imagined it would be.
Basically Defaultmp3 already laid it out, as I'm thinking anyway. The front sight is always visible, but the reticle/dot is only visible through the window of the optic, and only when it's properly aligned. Like you, I am also just thinking out loud, but this is my best educated guess as of right now. I think moving the dot that far forward would make it worse, not better.
ViniVidivici
05-21-23, 00:27
It would make it way worse.
It would make it way worse.
For something like a Delta Micro Point I agree. But what about something more like an Eotech?
With enough practice seeing the front sight won't be an issue.
Remember seeing your front sight post through your rifle red dot or scope?
It's like that. Distracting at first but you get used to it eventually. It's not really desirable though. Sure, you want your irons there as backup but don't really want to see them all the time.
ViniVidivici
05-21-23, 08:02
For something like a Delta Micro Point I agree. But what about something more like an Eotech?
Negative, read DefaultMP3's posts, saved me alot of typing. Just. No.
I think I found a disconnect. When I envision a RDS handgun, I'm thinking of something like a Glock with a C-More RDS size setup. I just looked at the Delta Point Micro and honestly that's more of a rear sight substitute than what I think of when it comes to RDS. I couldn't adjust to that DPM in years, but if we are talking about the DPM or similar, you are correct about optimum location.
The RDS handgun I want someday has something like a Eotech XPS2.
Youre talking about an open gun (see KC Eusabio's glock)
It would have to be an open holster, and the size and weight is blurring the lines between a pistol and pdw... and what does it get you?
The benefits between CO and open class are already small enough the juice aint worth the squeeze for carrying around. The 6second mount is about as bulky as is practical.
Yeah ^
Everything’s a trade off; “shootability/concealable/etc.”.
Get, and learn to use a conventional RD; RMR/SRO/507. Or not.
Really that simple.
Is the small window of the Leupold Deltapoint Micro that bad?
If one has a proper presentation, wouldn’t the dot just appear despite the small window?
But then what would even be the point of it? The DPM's tiny window only made smaller by pushing it further forward, to... do what?
It could depend. As is, it would be a no go out front. Change some dimensions(shorten the tube) and maybe.
Obviously sticking a typical dot out front would screw the ability to carry in a normal holster.
ViniVidivici
05-21-23, 11:50
Yeah ^
Everything’s a trade off; “shootability/concealable/etc.”.
Get, and learn to use a conventional RD; RMR/SRO/507. Or not.
Really that simple.
Or cajole a machine shop into milling in this configuration, try it out, and document the results. Would be entertaining!
Is the small window of the Leupold Deltapoint Micro that bad?
If one has a proper presentation, wouldn’t the dot just appear despite the small window?
I dont see anyone competing with them, the trend is as big as reasonable (sro or holosun 507 comp) I take thst as a clue, but havent tried obe yet
Defaultmp3
05-21-23, 14:25
Is the small window of the Leupold Deltapoint Micro that bad?
If one has a proper presentation, wouldn’t the dot just appear despite the small window?Yes. Window size doesn't matter much if you're just flat footed, unencumbered draw at a non-moving target, because you don't need much of a margin of error. What window size does is increase your margin for error while still being able to make a good shot. This presents itself in multiple ways, such as the bigger window meaning that you can have more leeway in your index, such as drawing/shooting on the move, or seeing your dot earlier during a target transition (remember the typical way to do transitions is eyes, then sights), SHO/WHO, etc. It also helps you with speed as you can pick up the dot faster in these dynamic situations and can pull the trigger earlier because you can see the dot earlier, even if the slide was oriented in such a way that you have poor iron sight alignment, such as if the dot was at the edge of the window, but the dot was still on target.
The DPM was described to me as being a halfway point between irons and an actual proper RDS. It allows for a target focus, but the tiny window defeats the ability to utilize the relatively parallax-free nature of RDSes for use when the slide is not perfectly aligned.
As noted, gamers are typically always pushing for the biggest possible window, for all the reasons I listed above. The larger the window, the faster you are. This applies much less to long guns due to the multiple points of contact, reference points, and relatively static relationship between the gun and the head, though you can see that come into play with long guns, too, such as in unorthodox shooting positions, e.g., urban prone.
Thank you Megademic and Defaultmp3.
I have been using red dots on rifles for a long time, but I’m still researching for my first handgun RDS.
I Just wish the Maxim 9 was more available to compare. Although I hear the trigger is awful, I would really like to add one to the collection. (pic shamelessly stolen from the internet).
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/DXYq8mGknGQ/maxresdefault.jpg
Defaultmp3
05-21-23, 15:57
I Just wish the Maxim 9 was more available to compare.That's not on the slide, though, and thus non-reciprocating, so not totally comparable.
Yes. Window size doesn't matter much if you're just flat footed, unencumbered draw at a non-moving target, because you don't need much of a margin of error. What window size does is increase your margin for error while still being able to make a good shot. This presents itself in multiple ways, such as the bigger window meaning that you can have more leeway in your index, such as drawing/shooting on the move, or seeing your dot earlier during a target transition (remember the typical way to do transitions is eyes, then sights), SHO/WHO, etc. It also helps you with speed as you can pick up the dot faster in these dynamic situations and can pull the trigger earlier because you can see the dot earlier, even if the slide was oriented in such a way that you have poor iron sight alignment, such as if the dot was at the edge of the window, but the dot was still on target.
The DPM was described to me as being a halfway point between irons and an actual proper RDS. It allows for a target focus, but the tiny window defeats the ability to utilize the relatively parallax-free nature of RDSes for use when the slide is not perfectly aligned.
As noted, gamers are typically always pushing for the biggest possible window, for all the reasons I listed above. The larger the window, the faster you are. This applies much less to long guns due to the multiple points of contact, reference points, and relatively static relationship between the gun and the head, though you can see that come into play with long guns, too, such as in unorthodox shooting positions, e.g., urban prone.
This is what I found with a DPM on an M&P 2.0.
The DPM would be excellent for reducing weight / bulk, and height over bore issues on a hunting handgun.
But a bigger window & circle-dot is better for SD IMO.
Is the small window of the Leupold Deltapoint Micro that bad?
If one has a proper presentation, wouldn’t the dot just appear despite the small window?
I am a huge fan of the Delta point micro. I have them on 3 pistols and they are all I carry any more.
I took my Cajun CZ P07 with RMR to the range and I had a hard time adjusting back to it.
Proper presentation with the Leupold and the dot is right in front of my eyes every time.
Yes. Window size doesn't matter much if you're just flat footed, unencumbered draw at a non-moving target, because you don't need much of a margin of error. What window size does is increase your margin for error while still being able to make a good shot. This presents itself in multiple ways, such as the bigger window meaning that you can have more leeway in your index, such as drawing/shooting on the move, or seeing your dot earlier during a target transition (remember the typical way to do transitions is eyes, then sights), SHO/WHO, etc. It also helps you with speed as you can pick up the dot faster in these dynamic situations and can pull the trigger earlier because you can see the dot earlier, even if the slide was oriented in such a way that you have poor iron sight alignment, such as if the dot was at the edge of the window, but the dot was still on target.
The DPM was described to me as being a halfway point between irons and an actual proper RDS. It allows for a target focus, but the tiny window defeats the ability to utilize the relatively parallax-free nature of RDSes for use when the slide is not perfectly aligned.
As noted, gamers are typically always pushing for the biggest possible window, for all the reasons I listed above. The larger the window, the faster you are. This applies much less to long guns due to the multiple points of contact, reference points, and relatively static relationship between the gun and the head, though you can see that come into play with long guns, too, such as in unorthodox shooting positions, e.g., urban prone.
You touched on a lot of things I was thinking about. Thanks.
That's not on the slide, though, and thus non-reciprocating, so not totally comparable.
That might be the reason we don't see it. I wonder if a holographic RD could even survive on a reciprocating slide.
P2Vaircrewman
05-23-23, 10:29
I think I found a disconnect. When I envision a RDS handgun, I'm thinking of something like a Glock with a C-More RDS size setup. I just looked at the Delta Point Micro and honestly that's more of a rear sight substitute than what I think of when it comes to RDS. I couldn't adjust to that DPM in years, but if we are talking about the DPM or similar, you are correct about optimum location.
The RDS handgun I want someday has something like a Eotech XPS2.
I put a DPM on my Glock 19 6 months ago, I found it very easy to adapt to and it increased my speed and accuracy. Many who have never tried the DPM blow it off. Find someone running it and give it a try.
P2Vaircrewman
05-23-23, 10:31
Is the small window of the Leupold Deltapoint Micro that bad?
If one has a proper presentation, wouldn’t the dot just appear despite the small window?
It does. I have no problem picking up the dot.
Interesting idea. I'd agree that the holster situation would be an ass ache. I'd love to try the setup, but on good grip angled pistols with good sights, picking up the dot isn't too bad.
Renegade04
05-23-23, 13:56
Last night, I installed a new VORTEX RAZOR 3MOA on my Glock 34 Gen 5 MOS. Even with the 3MOA dot, I have found it really easy and quick to pick up. It is almost immediate. I have found that the way to get good at using a RDS on a pistol and get a quick acquisition is to practice good technique. There are some good videos that are available that address reticle acquisition on pistols with a RDS.
I have found that the way to get good at using a RDS on a pistol and get a quick acquisition is to practice good technique.
Hundreds of presentations, at least. To the point where it happens without thinking about it. Geez, I don't even practice my iron sight pistol. So an RDS equipped pistol would be a real challenge.
" my first rds pistol " this technology has been around for 15+ yrs and many are just adopting it now ? How come you didn't take advantage of it years ago?
I am a huge fan of the Delta point micro. I have them on 3 pistols and they are all I carry any more.
I took my Cajun CZ P07 with RMR to the range and I had a hard time adjusting back to it.
Proper presentation with the Leupold and the dot is right in front of my eyes every time.
Thanks.
It does. I have no problem picking up the dot.
Thanks.
" my first rds pistol " this technology has been around for 15+ yrs and many are just adopting it now ? How come you didn't take advantage of it years ago?
Same reason I didn't put projected laser dots on everything in the 80s.
Regarding the Leupold Delta Micro, I did force on force training about a month ago with this sight.
Clearing rooms, and getting on target was super fast. The dot was always there.
About the small window, I think it is the greatest once you work with it enough when you present the pistol at speed, it kind of disappears. Meaning I focus on the dot and see what is down range and it becomes like the dot is just there and I really can't tell any more if I am looking through the glass or past the glass and only really see the dot.
It is hard to explain, but I predict that in time we will see more companies bring out smaller red dots.
I am getting the urge to get a Stealth Arms 2011, that uses Glock mags. What is holding me from dropping the hammer is having to go back to a big window red dot.
About the small window, I think it is the greatest once you work with it enough when you present the pistol at speed, it kind of disappears. Meaning I focus on the dot and see what is down range and it becomes like the dot is just there and I really can't tell any more if I am looking through the glass or past the glass and only really see the dot.
So you would have experience in this area with both. When we are talking about a RDS this small, how different is it from 3 dot tritium setups? Seems like it would be just shades of difference.
Sidneyious
05-24-23, 16:48
So you would have experience in this area with both. When we are talking about a RDS this small, how different is it from 3 dot tritium setups? Seems like it would be just shades of difference.Tapatalk big gay.
Look at the number of buis on rifles with illumination and ask yourself why you want that on a pistol with illuminated irons.
Glow sights help you find your gun in the dark and ruin your presentation.
I've never used glow irons, handgun or rifles.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230524/b7aae8add974e803e9762d5bdc8042f1.jpg
Same reason I didn't put projected laser dots on everything in the 80s.
Same here. It took over a decade for retards to stop over-gassing AR barrels. Plus it's still not "Aimpoint RDS on a Carbine" reliable yet. Ironing out unacceptable quirks in gun stuff is as slow as a post office employee coming off of break.
So you would have experience in this area with both. When we are talking about a RDS this small, how different is it from 3 dot tritium setups? Seems like it would be just shades of difference.
It is totally different, and vastly superior for me.
Iron sights we know are front site focus.
Red dots are target focused and impose the dot on the target.
When you get to needing reading glasses, at least for me iron sites took the fun out of shooting.
For self defense in the USA, can I hit with irons to solve 99% of the scenarios, I would say yes. I am pretty sure 99% or close to it of self defense shootings are less than 15 yards.
It is totally different, and vastly superior for me.
Iron sights we know are front site focus.
Red dots are target focused and impose the dot on the target.
When you get to needing reading glasses, at least for me iron sites took the fun out of shooting.
For self defense in the USA, can I hit with irons to solve 99% of the scenarios, I would say yes. I am pretty sure 99% or close to it of self defense shootings are less than 15 yards.
And with that I found my disconnect, thank you.
Again, I have been doing red dots on pistols forever, per receipt I got my first RDS a Dr. Optic in early spring 2001. Which really puts me at the front of the pack if not the first.
I mounted it on my Glock 34 with a dove tail mount which meant no back up sights. Some where around that same time a retired Marine officer started doing the same thing with a Glock 19. We both independent of input from each other learned to run these pistols, and we both saw them as a game changer. I will note my eyes were still good at this point in time.
Later I went with RMR and back up irons. I then did my next evolution in my use of red dots, I did away with the rear sight. Using the front sight and the window of the RMR as a big ghost ring.
Then Leupold came out with the Delta Micro and at first I thought it was a HUGE mistake. But working with it, I soon became convinced that it was brilliant.
I am wanting to buy a Stealth Arms 2011 that takes Glock mags. But being hammer fired it can't use the Delta micro and that is holding me back from dropping the hammer. Also they say they are coming out with a 357 sig pistol, so I am a real reason to wait.
And with that I found my disconnect, thank you.
With my goofy eyes... I needed a red dot or a red front fiber optician blacked out rear..I know they are not the same but it helps my eyes focus....
With my goofy eyes... I needed a red dot or a red front fiber optician blacked out rear..I know they are not the same but it helps my eyes focus....
Same here. The front fibers are so fragile, but they work good. Oddly enough, with aging eyes, the smaller front sights (thinner) work better. My son's X5 Legion has a narrow fiber front sight, and It was pleasing to shoot.
militarymoron
05-25-23, 20:20
Well, my eyesight has never been good (I wear glasses) and now it's getting worse and I probably need progressives/bifocals. I wear different glasses for regular use and for reading. The other week I was shooting my XM177 clone with it's irons, and I couldn't focus on the front sight (it's a thin, NM front sight) which slowed me down during some drills. For slow fire I can deal with it but for quick drills, it's slowing me down a lot. I just ordered a hi vis fiber optic front sight for my XM177, and hope that it'll help. I think everyone else was using red dots or LPVOs but I decided I wanted to go 'old school' and I was rockin' my 20-rounders. Slower but still lots of fun.
With a handgun, I do much better now with a fiber optic or high visibility dot than with a black front sight. I just cannot get a sharp enough image to center the front with the rear as quickly as I did when I was younger. I do have an RMR on my G17 and find myself shooting that more and more often now as I can focus on the target and superimpose the dot without my eyes having to adjust to different distances.
As for mounting a red dot further forward on a handgun slide, I think that someone else pointed out that the muzzle is liable to move more vertically during recoil than if the RDS is mounted closer to the pivot point and that might make it slower to reacquire.
ViniVidivici
05-25-23, 20:52
Yeah I hate all-black sights on a pistol.
Preferred arrangement on irons-only is, Ameriglo Bold orange square w/ tritium, and OEM Glock steel rear. Done ALOT of night shooting that way, very effective. Promotes front sight focus.
On an optic equipped pistol, I initially went with black irons, but they're just not good enough when doing "dot down" drills, i.e. practicing shooting when for whatever reason the dot might not be there (dead battery, etc.)
And I did find some difficulty shooting at night during 0% illum, having no visual referrence for the pistol did make it strange...
So my preferred setup for MRDS gun is an Amerigli Bold yellow dot w/ tritium, black rear, set up with a very low 1/4 fish cowitness.
Very effective, for me, no hindrance at all when using the dot. Love this setup.
ETA: forgot to add, this sight setup also works great when shooting from awkward or unusual positions, one of the few times I'm okay with using the front sight to "guide" me to the dot.
Same here. The front fibers are so fragile, but they work good. Oddly enough, with aging eyes, the smaller front sights (thinner) work better. My son's X5 Legion has a narrow fiber front sight, and It was pleasing to shoot.
I put Warren Tacticals on a 1911 I had...red front fiber optic and blacked out serrated rear.....I shot a lot better with it than the 3 dot sights it came with...
The front fibers are so fragile, but they work good.
I avoided earlier fiber optic fronts due to durability concerns, but at least some of them were set up to protect the rod better than newer sights that have the rod just hanging out in space between the front and rear mount points.
It seems like whatever loss of brightness from having the rod fully contacting the base at 6 o'clock or supported and protected in the middle would be a very good trade off and could even be mitigated by lengthening the sight somewhat.
Sidneyious
05-27-23, 01:27
The other week I was shooting my XM177 clone with it's irons, and I couldn't focus on the front sight (it's a thin, NM front sight) which slowed me down during some drills.
Yeah I hate all-black sights on a pistol.
Try using a white paint marker.
I prefer my rear sight to be in front of the mrds but with my g19.5mos I aint going to spend the money to have it sent to AA to get their setup. the juice isnt worth the squeeze.
ViniVidivici
05-27-23, 10:45
A white paint marker would make no sense, the Ameriglos I use are excellent.
White would also make little sense on a rifle front sight post.
A white paint marker would make no sense, the Ameriglos I use are excellent.
White would also make little sense on a rifle front sight post.
I use white pretty often, better than nothing.
But I've been meaning to use white as a base & paint over that with something that pops more like an intense orange.
But I haven't found just the right color / product yet.
Any ideas?
ViniVidivici
05-27-23, 11:19
For pistol? See my post about the Ameriglos, a few back.
Or I guess orange or yellow nail polish over white, if you're doing the paint thing.
militarymoron
05-27-23, 17:53
Try using a white paint marker.
I actually did have a small dot of white paint just below the tip of the FSP. Doesn't work for me anymore. I need high-contrast red or green (it's in the mail).
I use white pretty often, better than nothing.
But I've been meaning to use white as a base & paint over that with something that pops more like an intense orange.
But I haven't found just the right color / product yet.
Any ideas?
I use the Birchwood Casey pens...a few layers of white than one to 2 layers of the orange, then a quick coat of clear gloss... Works for me to brighten up the FSB.. I tried the green and they don't work as well for me.
I use the Birchwood Casey pens...a few layers of white than one to 2 layers of the orange, then a quick coat of clear gloss... Works for me to brighten up the FSB.. I tried the green and they don't work as well for me.
Thanks, I'll try that!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.