Sheepdogged
Member
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2015
- Messages
- 290
- Reaction score
- 300
I shot Glocks for a long time and ended up selling all six of them for other brands (more S&W M&P than anything else). As a former Glock fanboy, I was able to try out any sight design out there because when popular guns come with plastic sights, the aftermarket is going to take care of their customers better than if they offered iron sights in my opinion.
I remember Mrgunsngear doing an M&P review and stating "...the world is your oyster..." as far as aftermarket support is concerned. The truth is, however, that is not the case for M&P pistols (or any others).
I couldn't tell you how many sights I've had over the years, and even if I could, I wouldn't be dumb enough to put it down in pixels because, knowing my luck, my wife would be reading over my shoulder at some point as I interact on a forum.
That said, Glock certainly maintains an advantage here, and perhaps no better example exists than the Ameriglo Bold & Agent sights (the difference being a square notch for the former and a u-notch for the latter).
After owning these sights, in my mind they are superior to virtually anything out there, and there are some very specific reasons for this, but primarily one thing distinguishes from other sights from Ameriglo and others: the rear sight serrations.
Many people seem to misunderstand their purpose because I hear things like "they are designed to reduce glare but I've never had that problem," but that isn't the purpose of rear sight serrations per se. While technically glare is involved, it isn't about a blinding one. If non serrated rear sights created that issue, no one would buy them. What serrations do is better create contrast which is exactly why we all should want them on a set of iron sights. In addition to better contrasting with a front sight, black is not as common as grey in most lighting situations, so when you present your sight picture, the serrations give an appearance closer to black than grey which creates greater contrast (which is why Glock/Ameriglo call them "Bold Sights"). Ameriglo has plenty of sights with orange paint, but what really sets these Glock-exclussive sights apart is the contrast between the orange paint and the DEEP & THICK rear serrations as seen below:
These serrations are a vast improvement over some sights that have rear serrations that still leave a lot to be desired (like the ones that came on my Performance Center Shield). These Hiviz sights are one example of many where the serrations do not produce enough contrast in my opinion (at least compared to the Ameriglo Bold & Agent sights):
They look okay here in a professional photograph, but in reality the serrations appear washed out because they're not deep enough to cast meaningful shadows to enhance contrast.
These Ameriglo's might arguably be a little better, but they're certainly not as good as what we see on their Bold & Agent sights:
Trijicon HD or HD XR sights are about as close as you're going to find to the Ameriglo Bold and Agent sights (Truglo Tritium Pro sights also come close, but again, their serrations are inferior (TRUGLO(R) | TRITIUM Pro Night Sights (Orange). But in my opinion, as expensive as these Trijicons typically are, their serrations are not quite as good as the Ameriglo's reserved for Glock pistols (just as Ameriglo's other sight serrations are not as goood):
Here is a picture of the Ameriglo Bold sights for comparison:
I know it is impossible to please everyone, and no one's preferences are exactly the same, but something that is a little less subjective than other differences in design in my opinion is the concept of contrast. When you want something to be conspicuous in a survival situation, for example, contrast & movement are the key to getting spotted and rescued. Well, we don't want the latter in iron sights (obviously), but we do want contrast, and this is accomplished a number of ways: color selection (e.g. white vs. yellow/green vs. orange), the amount of color (e.g. size of the dot or square), light reflectivity (white dominates), novelty (blaze orange & neon yellow/green dominate because they do not occur often if ever in the natural environment), and last but not least, SERRATIONS (to provide additional contrast to make whatever paint you're using on the front sight pop out even more).
I imagine oftentimes manufacturers save money using shallower serrations (that's just a guess on my part). After owning Ameriglo Agent & Bold sights (among many others), as soon as I brought my PC Shield home I ordered better sights as I was greatly disappointed in the lack of contrast the factor (Hiviz) serrations provided. The Bold Sights are my favorites as I prefer the square notch over the u-notch found on the Agent sights, but obviously the FBI requested these sights for a reason and they are superior to anything I am aware of for the M&P line of pistols in my opinion.
So Ameriglo, if you're reading this, if you cannot make the Bold or Agent sights available for the M&P line, I am requesting something arguably even better.
The thinner CAP-like sight of the Beretta PX4 Storm Compact I love so much (which is similar to the old T-CAP design but still thinner than the CAP sight), is about as perfect as you can get for a front sight in my opinion (even with my aging eyes).
If memory serves me correctly, my calipers measure the front sight width of the stock M&P sights and the Ameriglo sights made for Ernest Langdon's PX4 Compact both at about .130" (in lieu of the traditional .140"). Having square paint, however, this thinner .130" sight pops out as well or better than my .140" orange Ameriglo sights on my Shield because the corners are filled in (providing more surface area for the paint which would normally be black on a dot sight). When I look at the sight picture of my Beretta, I just wish the rear sight was serrated and contained at least a single tritium dot (and it would be worth making the sights slightly higher to accommodate a tritium vial). In fact, I also really love the reduced profile of this rear sight which allows me to see more of my target: Ameriglo Sight Set - PX4 Compact - Langdon Tactical. Putting rear tritium and serrations would make these Beretta sights the best on the market IMO.
In other words, no one on the market has what I would consider the best sight option for an M&P pistol (or any pistol for that matter). People can debate whether they want orange or yellow/green depending on the mix of cones in their eye. They can also debate which basic sighting system is superior (three-dot vs. two-dot vs. one-dot or something else), but a thinner front sight is going to be more accurate no matter who you are as long as you're not giving up the ability to pick it up (which the square solution remedies as you are aware). Years ago I had a yellow T-CAP that I didn't like much, but more than the color was the yellow rear bar that was too distracting (and looked different on a G17 vs. a G26, for example, because of the sight radius). The Beretta PX4 Storm Compact Ameriglo sights, however, completely reversed my opinion.
Moreover, Glock & the FBI don't have this front sight (if there is some sort of conflict). But just as thinner is universally more accurate, and just as contrast created by paint is also easier to pick up, deeper rear slide serrations are necessary to maximize the technology of iron sights in the modern world by providing additional contrast that is lacking otherwise, and with the growing popularity of red dot sighting systems, I think it's time to crank it up a notch by offering something for the M&P line of pistols and others on par with the Ameriglo offerings for Glocks. As of this moment, the state of the art in iron night sights is enjoyed by only one company, but that could easily be remedied by something even better. A marriage between what Ameriglo offers for Beretta & Glock for the M&P line. I also believe a square notch is superior because, contrary to claims made by Trijicon and others, the eye verifies parallel lines more quickly & easily than what is found aligning a square front post to a u-notch in my opinion (especially when using square paint).
I remember Mrgunsngear doing an M&P review and stating "...the world is your oyster..." as far as aftermarket support is concerned. The truth is, however, that is not the case for M&P pistols (or any others).
I couldn't tell you how many sights I've had over the years, and even if I could, I wouldn't be dumb enough to put it down in pixels because, knowing my luck, my wife would be reading over my shoulder at some point as I interact on a forum.
That said, Glock certainly maintains an advantage here, and perhaps no better example exists than the Ameriglo Bold & Agent sights (the difference being a square notch for the former and a u-notch for the latter). After owning these sights, in my mind they are superior to virtually anything out there, and there are some very specific reasons for this, but primarily one thing distinguishes from other sights from Ameriglo and others: the rear sight serrations.
Many people seem to misunderstand their purpose because I hear things like "they are designed to reduce glare but I've never had that problem," but that isn't the purpose of rear sight serrations per se. While technically glare is involved, it isn't about a blinding one. If non serrated rear sights created that issue, no one would buy them. What serrations do is better create contrast which is exactly why we all should want them on a set of iron sights. In addition to better contrasting with a front sight, black is not as common as grey in most lighting situations, so when you present your sight picture, the serrations give an appearance closer to black than grey which creates greater contrast (which is why Glock/Ameriglo call them "Bold Sights"). Ameriglo has plenty of sights with orange paint, but what really sets these Glock-exclussive sights apart is the contrast between the orange paint and the DEEP & THICK rear serrations as seen below:
These serrations are a vast improvement over some sights that have rear serrations that still leave a lot to be desired (like the ones that came on my Performance Center Shield). These Hiviz sights are one example of many where the serrations do not produce enough contrast in my opinion (at least compared to the Ameriglo Bold & Agent sights):
They look okay here in a professional photograph, but in reality the serrations appear washed out because they're not deep enough to cast meaningful shadows to enhance contrast.
These Ameriglo's might arguably be a little better, but they're certainly not as good as what we see on their Bold & Agent sights:
Trijicon HD or HD XR sights are about as close as you're going to find to the Ameriglo Bold and Agent sights (Truglo Tritium Pro sights also come close, but again, their serrations are inferior (TRUGLO(R) | TRITIUM Pro Night Sights (Orange). But in my opinion, as expensive as these Trijicons typically are, their serrations are not quite as good as the Ameriglo's reserved for Glock pistols (just as Ameriglo's other sight serrations are not as goood):
Here is a picture of the Ameriglo Bold sights for comparison:
I know it is impossible to please everyone, and no one's preferences are exactly the same, but something that is a little less subjective than other differences in design in my opinion is the concept of contrast. When you want something to be conspicuous in a survival situation, for example, contrast & movement are the key to getting spotted and rescued. Well, we don't want the latter in iron sights (obviously), but we do want contrast, and this is accomplished a number of ways: color selection (e.g. white vs. yellow/green vs. orange), the amount of color (e.g. size of the dot or square), light reflectivity (white dominates), novelty (blaze orange & neon yellow/green dominate because they do not occur often if ever in the natural environment), and last but not least, SERRATIONS (to provide additional contrast to make whatever paint you're using on the front sight pop out even more).
I imagine oftentimes manufacturers save money using shallower serrations (that's just a guess on my part). After owning Ameriglo Agent & Bold sights (among many others), as soon as I brought my PC Shield home I ordered better sights as I was greatly disappointed in the lack of contrast the factor (Hiviz) serrations provided. The Bold Sights are my favorites as I prefer the square notch over the u-notch found on the Agent sights, but obviously the FBI requested these sights for a reason and they are superior to anything I am aware of for the M&P line of pistols in my opinion.
So Ameriglo, if you're reading this, if you cannot make the Bold or Agent sights available for the M&P line, I am requesting something arguably even better.
The thinner CAP-like sight of the Beretta PX4 Storm Compact I love so much (which is similar to the old T-CAP design but still thinner than the CAP sight), is about as perfect as you can get for a front sight in my opinion (even with my aging eyes).
If memory serves me correctly, my calipers measure the front sight width of the stock M&P sights and the Ameriglo sights made for Ernest Langdon's PX4 Compact both at about .130" (in lieu of the traditional .140"). Having square paint, however, this thinner .130" sight pops out as well or better than my .140" orange Ameriglo sights on my Shield because the corners are filled in (providing more surface area for the paint which would normally be black on a dot sight). When I look at the sight picture of my Beretta, I just wish the rear sight was serrated and contained at least a single tritium dot (and it would be worth making the sights slightly higher to accommodate a tritium vial). In fact, I also really love the reduced profile of this rear sight which allows me to see more of my target: Ameriglo Sight Set - PX4 Compact - Langdon Tactical. Putting rear tritium and serrations would make these Beretta sights the best on the market IMO.
In other words, no one on the market has what I would consider the best sight option for an M&P pistol (or any pistol for that matter). People can debate whether they want orange or yellow/green depending on the mix of cones in their eye. They can also debate which basic sighting system is superior (three-dot vs. two-dot vs. one-dot or something else), but a thinner front sight is going to be more accurate no matter who you are as long as you're not giving up the ability to pick it up (which the square solution remedies as you are aware). Years ago I had a yellow T-CAP that I didn't like much, but more than the color was the yellow rear bar that was too distracting (and looked different on a G17 vs. a G26, for example, because of the sight radius). The Beretta PX4 Storm Compact Ameriglo sights, however, completely reversed my opinion.
Moreover, Glock & the FBI don't have this front sight (if there is some sort of conflict). But just as thinner is universally more accurate, and just as contrast created by paint is also easier to pick up, deeper rear slide serrations are necessary to maximize the technology of iron sights in the modern world by providing additional contrast that is lacking otherwise, and with the growing popularity of red dot sighting systems, I think it's time to crank it up a notch by offering something for the M&P line of pistols and others on par with the Ameriglo offerings for Glocks. As of this moment, the state of the art in iron night sights is enjoyed by only one company, but that could easily be remedied by something even better. A marriage between what Ameriglo offers for Beretta & Glock for the M&P line. I also believe a square notch is superior because, contrary to claims made by Trijicon and others, the eye verifies parallel lines more quickly & easily than what is found aligning a square front post to a u-notch in my opinion (especially when using square paint).
Attachments
Last edited:
