- Joined
- Mar 25, 2009
- Messages
- 330
- Likes
- 16
These are the sights I just ordered for my new Glock. I can't wait to get them. I agree the sight picture on them is great. I am getting the FO front with mine though.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
What do you use for sights?
- Thread starter Lord0fWar
- Start date
- Status
These are the sights I just ordered for my new Glock. I can't wait to get them. I agree the sight picture on them is great. I am getting the FO front with mine though.
The point of the article was to debunk the myth/misconception that night sights allow us to shoot at night.
I believe everyone will agree that statement is false.
My suggestion was if looking for something other than night sights, by sticking with the notch and blade concept and not trying to alter that by adding some crazy shaped sights, we can drastically improve our pistol's effectiveness.
The FO was my choice because I've seen it work through rigorous testing. It may not be your choice, that's the beauty of this industry, tactics and weapons are constantly evolving and allow for us to have differing opinions
I believe everyone will agree that statement is false.
My suggestion was if looking for something other than night sights, by sticking with the notch and blade concept and not trying to alter that by adding some crazy shaped sights, we can drastically improve our pistol's effectiveness.
The FO was my choice because I've seen it work through rigorous testing. It may not be your choice, that's the beauty of this industry, tactics and weapons are constantly evolving and allow for us to have differing opinions
Dirtypacman
NES Door Greeter
The FO was my choice because I've seen it work through rigorous testing. It may not be your choice, that's the beauty of this industry, tactics and weapons are constantly evolving and allow for us to have differing opinions
This is a kind of stupid question/statement but I will throw it out there anyhow because it did cross my mind while reading the article.
Do you think having a glowing sight would ever be a bad thing (a stretch but here it goes), lets say you get in a night gun fight and you both have firearms. The perp can now see everytime you go to sight them in (turn your gun on them) because of the F.O. glow off the front sight.
True/False/Stupid/Funny
Thoughts?
Last edited:
Dirtypacman
NES Door Greeter
Right on the line between stupid and funny, maybe sad.
Dam I knew sad should have been on the options.
That's what happens when you let your brain better suited for "whats for lunch" try and decide what effects sights systems may have in a gun fight. I'll stick to letting glock make that decision for me and they said Trijicon so that's what I ordered from them lol
Dirtypacman
NES Door Greeter
And if he's looking straight into your front sight, you're about to win.![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
That was what I thought I would get back as answer #1 but of course Supermoto takes every chance to have a chuckle as do I.
Thanks for the feedback.
I think the subsequent flash/bang would give your position away better than a front sight glow.
J
Jose
I totally agree. I'm sick and tired of of the internet commandos that think anyone without night sights is an idiot.
Dirtypacman
NES Door Greeter
I'll have to read the article, but what are you basing this on? My impression is that trainers that do a lot of light/no light shooting, especially those that have done light/no light force on force, tend to think night sights are a big advantage in these situations, second only to weapon-mounted lights and lasers. Reading AARs of SouthNarc's AMIS (which I'm planning to take this year), for example, it's somewhat hilarious how much of an advantage lasers are perceived to be in low-light force-on-force and how silly people without any night-sighting system feel. EDIT: I see you've taken some of SouthNarc's classes; have you tried AMIS? Did you not find night-sighting to be helpful?
I know, personally, my low-light shooting has not improved since I switched to black-on-black (while my regular light shooting has improved quite a bit), and that serious shooters like Sevigney switch to night-sights when they're shooting low-light matches like at S&W.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the argument; it's not like night-sights enable the user to positively identify targets or illuminate their surroundings. But they sure as heck indicate sight alignment in low light, which is desirable if you need sight-alignment in low light.... like if you're shooting, for example.
EDIT: I read the article. You're right here:
But many trainers advocate illuminating the target to identify it, and then turning off your light. Night sights are a very big deal in these situations, where you've already determined you must shoot (by identifying your target) but no longer desire to mark yourself by holding a light. The light conditions where you can see your target, but not see your black-on-black sights are numerous. Put another way, just because you can see your target, doesn't mean you can see your sights, or see your sights well. Night sights (or lasers) fill this gap, and it is a reasonably sized gap. This is basically what you say in your second paragraph... I think I'd endorse that part!
Last edited:
J
Jose
They are idiots, pure and simple.
If I light someone up and ID him as a threat, my next muscle reaction will be to pull the trigger until the threat is down.
F the light.
You gotta filter the bullshit through the common sense screen.
The trainers I'm talking about are Hackathorn and Vickers in this case. I don't think they're advocating pausing to adjust the light, they're advocating not using a light longer than you need to. With a night-sighting system, you don't need the light as long. That's an advantage.
J
Jose
I don't care who they are.
Why on frgging earth would I give up the dual advantages of seeing my opponent and blinding him while I fill him up with lead?
Larry Vickers also proclaims that hammer forged barrels are the end all be all of accuracy. Last I checked, he's neither a a metallurgist nor an engineer. But he sure as hell is a paid spokesman for several companies that tout, wait for it, hammer forged barrels.
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
I don't care who they are.
Why on frgging earth would I give up the dual advantages of seeing my opponent and blinding him while I fill him up with lead?
Larry Vickers also proclaims that hammer forged barrels are the end all be all of accuracy. Last I checked, he's neither a a metallurgist nor an engineer. But he sure as hell is a paid spokesman for several companies that tout, wait for it, hammer forged barrels.
I'm sure you know pistol shooting better than Ken Hackathorn.
Appeals to authority aside, I'd prefer not to have a bright light mark my position continuously, when a momentary use gives me location, identification, ruins my opponent's night vision just as much, doesn't give their eyes time to adapt, and doesn't mark my position for my opponent to shoot at blind. I don't need to continuously be able to see an opponent's facial expression in order to hit them.
Have you tried this, force-on-force? I have not, but my understanding is that many people have, and the "just leave your light on" technique is not generally taught.
Last edited:
I prefer factory glock sights. I do not like night sights. If there is enough light to identify a threat, there is enough light to sight your gun. I plan on training and practicing with a small flashlight for low light shooting. I believe a weapon mounted light makes you an easier target. A hand held light can be held away from the body and forward but you must be careful not to silhouette yourself. This light can also be dropped or left in an area to attract attention while you move to possible cover if the opportunity is there. Wasn't it an old police tactic to roll your flashlight out from behind cover or a corner so as to illuminate possible threats from a safe vantage point?
This is what i will do unless training like this proves it to be a poor choice in tactics.
and... if you are in a situation where there is no light, shouldn't you use the cover of darkness to vacate the area post haste if possible?![[grin]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/041.gif "Grin [grin]")
This is what i will do unless training like this proves it to be a poor choice in tactics.
and... if you are in a situation where there is no light, shouldn't you use the cover of darkness to vacate the area post haste if possible?
Last edited:
Consider also the speed of the pupullary light reflex. When you have excess light shine in your eyes, you're temporarily blinded and disoriented (if the excess is very large), but the constrictor muscles in your eye clamp down on your iris pretty quickly. "Tactical" lights are really bright, but in a second or two, you can see the source of the light, at least.
However, it takes three times as long for the iris to dilate once the light is removed. So, if your illumination can blind someone for time T, it ruins their night vision for close to 3T, plus the time they're disoriented from initial flash. If your goal is maximum visual disruption, either because you don't want incoming rounds, or your gun is still holstered, you're doing it wrong by simply shining your light continuously. This physical effect is why higher-end "tactical" lights are starting to have one-button or programmable strobe features.
This isn't intuitive, but if you're not photosensitive epileptic, you can easily try this on yourself in the mirror and compare the effect both techniques have on your vision. Not that I have, of course.
Anyways, that's just my opinion. I don't think seeing my target clearly is more important than avoiding presenting an aiming point, and I like this effect to maximize results from very bright lights.
Because of this, the cost of night-sights or a laser are well worth it, for me. For others, I suspect the value equation comes out differently. Your mileage may vary.
EDIT: The phrase "night vision" is turning into an advertisement link for me. Anyone else seeing that? WTF is that?
EDIT2:
This is precisely what I disagree with. In the lighting conditions I encounter in my daily routine, I have no problem finding light where I could identify an aggressor (either with a handheld light, or by ambient light sources) but lack the contrast to easily acquire my favored black-on-black sights.
Last edited:
J
Jose
Consider also the speed of the pupullary light reflex. When you have excess light shine in your eyes, you're temporarily blinded and disoriented (if the excess is very large), but the constrictor muscles in your eye clamp down on your iris pretty quickly. "Tactical" lights are really bright, but in a second or two, you can see the source of the light, at least.
However, it takes three times as long for the iris to dilate once the light is removed. So, if your illumination can blind someone for time T, it ruins their night vision for close to 3T, plus the time they're disoriented from initial flash. If your goal is maximum visual disruption, either because you don't want incoming rounds, or your gun is still holstered, you're doing it wrong by simply shining your light continuously. This physical effect is why higher-end "tactical" lights are starting to have one-button or programmable strobe features.
This isn't intuitive, but if you're not photosensitive epileptic, you can easily try this on yourself in the mirror and compare the effect both techniques have on your vision. Not that I have, of course.
Anyways, that's just my opinion. I don't think seeing my target clearly is more important than avoiding presenting an aiming point, and I like this effect to maximize results from very bright lights.
Because of this, the cost of night-sights or a laser are well worth it, for me. For others, I suspect the value equation comes out differently. Your mileage may vary.
EDIT: The phrase "night vision" is turning into an advertisement link for me. Anyone else seeing that? WTF is that?
EDIT2:
This is precisely what I disagree with. In the lighting conditions I encounter in my daily routine, I have no problem finding light where I could identify an aggressor (either with a handheld light, or by ambient light sources) but lack the contrast to easily acquire my favored black-on-black sights.
You can go all Doogie Howser on this shit or you can KISS by gunning down the intruder in your house ASAP before any of the medical shit becomes important.
I've always thought the best use of night sights was as an aid to find your pistol in the dark... beyond that... meh. If you can see the target, there is enough light to put bullets on the target.
Back when I had sigs I had several of them with "siglites" on them. But it wasn't the night sights that were important to me, it was the fact that with those sights on the guns, I could shoot them a lot better than I could with the shitty bar-dot setup that they came with from the factory, even in broad daylight. Maybe it was mostly pyschological, but I always shot far worse with those guns with the bar-dot setup.
-Mike
Back when I had sigs I had several of them with "siglites" on them. But it wasn't the night sights that were important to me, it was the fact that with those sights on the guns, I could shoot them a lot better than I could with the shitty bar-dot setup that they came with from the factory, even in broad daylight. Maybe it was mostly pyschological, but I always shot far worse with those guns with the bar-dot setup.
-Mike
Ok, what particularly do you object to? I think I was pretty explicit what was from my own expirence and what was not...
I've actually run night sights vs. black-on-black vs. laser on a timer, in the dark, and chosen my sights accordingly. Have you?
Last edited:
The only night fighting I've gotten to do involved PVS-14's and PEQ-15's, so this thread is EXTREAMLY interesting to me. Maybe someday I'll have the money to go to a course, or find groups who practice for situations like this. Either way, thank you guys for some interesting reading.
Beware the substitution of complexity for competency. The world of firearms training rivals just about any other when it comes to gasbags and fools posing as experts. The reason for this is that there is no feedback in the system. Students take classes, instructors make up all sorts of technical nonsense and pointless drills, and, of course, actual application of these skills virtually never happens. So, the measure of an instructor is something other than the objective ability to teach people how to win a gun fight. Simple comes across as naive, so complexity creeps into the process. Complexity has the added benefit of selling more classes. This is all why I've begun to appreciate the successful gamers more and more. Say what you want about the arbitrary rules. The ability to perform is measured objectively, and the games and competitions, apart from war, are about the only place where this is true.
As for this low/no light stuff, the class I took at Sig taught me one thing and that is to focus on hits and worry less about the damned light. How's that for a surprise? Hits count. Shine at the floor, the ceiling, whatever. See a target, hit it. If you can do that with your gun, then your sights are fine.
As for this low/no light stuff, the class I took at Sig taught me one thing and that is to focus on hits and worry less about the damned light. How's that for a surprise? Hits count. Shine at the floor, the ceiling, whatever. See a target, hit it. If you can do that with your gun, then your sights are fine.
Agree. The timer is God. Frankly, it's my expiriments with the timer that prompted me to argue about the value of night sighting. Night sights and lasers are just faster in the dark, for me, and for many others.
Although, I leave my light on most of the time when there's a timer, except when reloading. Soooo.....
Hilariously, this same argument has broken out at Pistol-forum.com, which is one of the better boards out there. Very similar drama begins at the bottom of page 1.
Last edited:
Full disclosure: I've shot only somewhere around 500rds in low light/no light.
I've run pistols w/ without night sights, and in both configurations with and without a weapon lights mounted. I found that personally, I was far more successful engaging targets with night sights, not just in the dark, but in low light as well.
The night sights did not magically allow me to see my target, but when I could make out the outline of the target in the dark the night sights allowed me to reference sight alignment much more accurately.
It should be noted though that all this shooting was done well outside "social" distances, as I was only testing my ability to be accurate at distances where the sights were more critical. I figure inside your typical HD ranges illuminate and fire till they hit the floor will work regardless of whether or not your sights will make a geiger counter freak out.
I've run pistols w/ without night sights, and in both configurations with and without a weapon lights mounted. I found that personally, I was far more successful engaging targets with night sights, not just in the dark, but in low light as well.
The night sights did not magically allow me to see my target, but when I could make out the outline of the target in the dark the night sights allowed me to reference sight alignment much more accurately.
It should be noted though that all this shooting was done well outside "social" distances, as I was only testing my ability to be accurate at distances where the sights were more critical. I figure inside your typical HD ranges illuminate and fire till they hit the floor will work regardless of whether or not your sights will make a geiger counter freak out.
- Status
