Another Glock sight question

[bluedog]

My G-17 gets released in six days, and it will need some night sights. Right now I am considering the Ameriglo Pro Series Operator because it comes with a .140 front (.180 rear).



My reservation is that they are low profile sights, with a front sight height of .165, whereas most popular aftermarket sights are considerably taller. Would it be safe to say that taller sights allow faster sight acquisition?

[John_Wayne777]

Sights are such an intensely personal thing that it's hard for me to tell you that they do or don't, because to your eyes things might be drastically different than mine.

Speaking personally, I've always found the "high profile" sights for the Glock to be better than stock Glock sights...but that's not really saying much since stock Glock sights suck. I find that the width of the rear notch in contrast to the width of the front blade is more important to my evaluation of sights than their overall height.

As a result, I run Warren Tactical sights on my Glocks. I've been very happy with the Warrens on my M&P pistols so I changed all my Glocks to Warrens too.

[Gutshot John]

Not in my experience others may differ.

[ToddG]

While JW777's comment is a very good starting point, I'd also offer that while many people believe different sights work better for them, those differences tend to become fewer as skill level rises. There are a lot of people who believe their grip, their stance, their trigger control technique, etc. "works" and for them it does at their skill level. But some techniques (and gear) are more conducive to rapid skill advancement, and some are less.

All else being equal, most people tend to find taller sights easier to shoot than shorter sights. On the other hand, taller sights create greater sight/bore offset which means trajectory becomes a more complicated issue. Usually not a big deal for handguns but it's there.