Do you consider night sights essential on a carry gun?

[Doc Safari]

I have a Surefire 300X on my house gun, a Glock 17. When the flashlight is lit in the darkened house, I can't see the Tritium in the night sights anyway, so I'm back to just using the silhouette of the sights as I line them up.

YMMV, but that's my experience. I don't know how many carry a gun with a flashlight on the rail, but I imagine they would have a similar experience.

If I'm in a situation where I'm not using the tactical light, then I do consider night sights essential.

[MountainRaven]

No, I do not.

With increasing age comes an increasing reluctance to use a weapon light in many situations - the proverbial bullet magnet effect. Night sights on all my weapons. YMMV

john

I don't imagine if I ever have to draw my pistol in the dark I'll have time to first draw my handheld light that I may see.

[RWK]

There are plenty of lighting conditions under which it's quite possible to identify threats, but dark enough that sights can/will blend into clothing (early morning/evening, dimly lit interior spaces, heavily shadowed areas, etc., etc.). "Night sights" aren't intended for use in pitch black conditions. They're useful during those situational or transitional lighting conditions between being able to clearly see the sights unaided on the target and needing artificial illumination (e.g., flashlights, NOD's, etc.).

[Alaskapopo]

You should carry a light however there are plenty of times to where night sights are essential where it would be absolutely stupid to use your weapon light and give away your location.

No they’re not a necessity, because you should be carrying a handheld light, which will either illuminate or backlight your sight picture and target.



What is more important is a set of sights that zero properly on your gun with your chosen carry / duty ammo, and that they work for your eyes and level of acceptable accuracy / purpose.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Doc Safari]

Isn't part of the theory behind the light is that it is intense enough to blind the attacker and give you the tactical advantage? I think most perps would be taken aback by a sudden face full of 500 lumens. They might just break and run not knowing if the next thing they will experience is the shot.

[Ned Christiansen]

Over the years I've had a lot of guys ask for tritium in the front only. I ask why. They say the rear dot distracts them. I then say we should absolutely take the rear sight completely off because if a little glowing dot in reduced light is a distraction, it must be bloody awful in the daylight when you can see the whole rear sight.

I say it in jest-- pretty much-- because, well, they get to have it their way. And some are way more the real deal than I ever will be. I still don't see how it can be better but.... I try to make the case for having a rear sight as well as a front and if they still don't go for it, I figure they have their preferences and I drop it.

[yoni]

I say 100% not needed in the USA.

Now to clarify, in the USA post shooting you are going to be looked at by the authorities. You will have to answer how you were able to identify your target, this to me says we must use a light to identify a target at night.

Regular sights at night, when used in conjunction with a light are super easy to see, so why do we need night sights.

[wtm75]

I say 100% not needed in the USA.

Now to clarify, in the USA post shooting you are going to be looked at by the authorities. You will have to answer how you were able to identify your target, this to me says we must use a light to identify a target at night.

Regular sights at night, when used in conjunction with a light are super easy to see, so why do we need night sights.

Boy these internet myths are something else. The courts don't work that way. The shooting is either justified or it's not. That's it. Night sights have nothing to do with that. Neither does the ammo you use which is another myth.

Name one court case where the defendant was found guilty for using night sights.

[Adrenaline_6]

Boy these internet myths are something else. The courts don't work that way. The shooting is either justified or it's not. That's it. Night sights have nothing to do with that. Neither does the ammo you use which is another myth.

Name one court case where the defendant was found guilty for using night sights.

I don't think Yoni meant that night sights would be questioned in court, I read it as him meaning you should id your target and might be questioned about it, so if you are using a light to positive id anyway, night sights aren't necessarily required.

[Ron3]

No. I used to, and I've had some classes that involved shooting in dark. But they aren't a necessity for me.

If it's dark but I can see the threat, I can see my front sight that is brightly colored. If it's too dark to see/identify the threat, I can't see my sights, either. If I'm already being attacked at contact distance in the dark, I don't need to see their face or my sights. When illuminated by a flash light, I can see the threat and I can see my sights in silhouette. Problems solved.

I like a front site about .125-.115 wide and bright. White, but brass/gold can work, so can bright green, yellow-green, or something fiber-optic.

Tritium sights seem to lose by day (they don't "pop" in sunlight), and no/little gain by night, for me.

Police Officers absolutely need a light mounted on their pistols. And another on their belt/pocket.

If I know I'm going to be out in a city after dark (festival or whatever) I'll be sure to bring a bright light. If I end up in a dark area I carry the light in my support hand. If I go condition Orange I can grip my pocket gun and still look very casual. (And have a bigger gun on my belt)