I'd definitely opt for the .140" ...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I'd definitely opt for the .140" ...
For me the .140 10-8 is the best blend of speed and precision.
Only hits count......you can not miss fast enough to catch up
I've been searching/waiting for someone to come out with a fixed version replacement for a Kimber (Series 1) Adjustable Target (Bo-Mar) rear sight. All I see is Heinie Slant Pro or Straight Eights on the market to fill this need. Would love to have a u-notch option.
I was running the 10-8 NM rear on my Colt Officer's. It is excellent. Just recently I got a set of the Warren Tacs for my G26. I am really, really impressed. The sights are fast and really no detriment to accurate shooting.
If you aren't armed when you take a dump in your own home then your opinion on what is a practical daily carry weapon isn't interesting to me.
I think the standard 10-8 is too narrow and dont care for it too much. The only reason I havent switched it out yet is because I dont shoot the 1911 it sits on too often. I greatly prefer the Warren setup (even if it isnt a true U notch) over the narrow 10-8.
They're already out. I've got one of the rears on my TRP. Check with MLE shooting sports.
http://mle-shootingsports.com/Sights...duct_info.html
Last edited by MadcapMagician; 12-22-09 at 00:10.
"Fundamentals are a crutch for the talentless." -Kenny Powers
Project Manager - Nightforce Optics
Got a new Glock 17 that's going to be my primary focus for the coming year - forgot how much the stock sights suck.
Definitely going .140 10-8 rear, but can anyone weigh in on brass-bead vs. tritium front? It's a range and class gun, maybe IDPA/IPSC in the latter half of the year. Mostly just a personal preference thing or would you recommend one over the other?
I also like the Warren Tactical rears but haven't seen them in person - do you find that the lack of serration matters at all (compared to a 10-8)?
Last edited by milosz; 12-22-09 at 02:38.
Bookmarks