I have significant time on the SAS sights and have students come through with them. They can work, but are harder work. Slide indexing up close is easy, but they obscure smaller low% shots up close and larger targets at distance. They aren't even as good as basic J frame grooves and ramps. Mostly a marketing gimmick, and smartly choosing a set of irons is a better course of action. They are not like PMOs, are not target-focus, but there is an indeed a learning curve to sight acquisition.
No shooter using the SAS in testing or training did as well with them as they did with conventional sights. Shooters moved from a 365 SAS to a conventionally sighted 365 consistently demonstrate immediate improvement.
I like this from Karl Rehn on the SAS sights, here: https://blog.krtraining.com/365-sas-sights/
Quote:
The SAS sights seem to appeal to people that aren’t skilled or knowledgeable about shooting or carrying. They think that regular sights, which are easier to see, will “print too much” or snag on clothing, or they plan on using the 365 as a pocket gun, with no expectation that they will ever need to hit a target at farther than 5 yards. It’s true that the majority of self defense incidents occur at close range, but even in those situations, the threat may be moving, obscured behind cover, or there may be a family member in between the shooter and the threat. So the ability to shoot with precision should be considered essential.