Meprolight FT Bullseye for Shield

[Daagak]

Pardon my ignorance, i thought that this sight was only available for Glock and Springfield XD series, but browsing online i saw that there were up for some other guns, including the shield and m&p models, is this right?

If so, could anyone recommend me an online site to purchase them?

Thanks!

PD:
I saw them on this site, but have never heard of it before so im a bit doubtfull...
FTBullseye

 

[CB3]

I do not see how a rear sight alone could give consistent accuracy beyond point shooting ranges (0-5 yards). There is really no indication of where the gun is pointing. Without some kind of relative indexing between a target and the sights on the gun, including a front sight, I just don't see how one could achieve a consistent sight picture, sight alignment and Point of Impact relative to Point of Aim.

For instance, if your grip tips the front of the gun downward, just putting the rear sight dot on the target does not put the bullet where you want. If such inaccuracy at short ranges is acceptable, just using the back of your slide as a reference would work just about as well.

A red dot sight works as a single sighting reference, but it definitely will indicate when a pistol is out of alignment with the target.

 

[EdJG]

It does look interesting, but it's a bit expensive. I'll wait for the user reviews and price to come down

 

[zymurgeist]

It's works basically like looking through a soda straw. If you can see the light through it you're lined up if not you aren't.

 

[CB3]

That makes some sense.

However, what angle of error constitutes being able to see through the pipe?
And does that require focus on the rear sight?
And if you can't "find" the dot because your pistol is misaligned, what reference do you have to get to the correct sight picture?

And once you get used to this new system, how easy is it to transition back to traditional sights? Vastly different and unusual sighting systems do not make for good consistency (backwards compatible) sighting discipline.

For me with regular iron sights and red dot equipped pistols (with co-witnessed iron sights) I don't see this as a better system.

 

[JVSIII]

IIRC, there was something similar out a couple years ago, I don't remember what it was called. Seemed interesting, thought I'd wait and see what became of it. Never heard about it again. Seems like too much margin of error, I could be wrong though. I'm with CB3 cowittnesed red dot milled into the slide.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

[CB3]

I tried this alternative sighting system on an M&P 22 pistol.

ADVANTAGE TACTICAL PYRAMID SIGHT & DARK DIAMOND SIGHT

It is a triangular rear sight with a notch at the top and a corresponding front sight that fills the notch. I found it very slow to use. The different visual alignment absolutely screwed with my sighting brain.

I was slower and no more accurate.

After three range trips I removed them.

Gimmick.

 

[Steved13]

It looks pretty cool, but I second most of what CB3 said. My biggest problem is my aging eyes and from the video it looks like your focal distance will be rear sight and that means the target is a real blur. You can see exactly what I go through in the video when the camera focuses on the sight, the target blurs out. Only my eyes get even more blurry at anything over 5 yards

That is what I like so much about red dots, target and red dot are at the same focal distance.

To the OP, the link you posted is the distributor for that sight...not sure what you are doubtful of....unless you are doubtful of the whole sight.

 

[MarkS1]

FT Bullseye Answers

A disclaimer, I work for their Marketing/Ad Agency so I've spent some time using the FT Bullseye.

TAS came out a few years ago with the original version. Meprolight saw the potential and purchased the design from them. They added tritium, added a lens and enhanced the dot/circl reticle.Basically it is a mini-red dot. The tritium provides the illumination for low light conditions.

Your on target sight picture is the dot in the center of the circle, i.e. a bullseye. If your dot is off center, you correct. By focusing on the rear sight, it saves acquiring the front sight and aligning it with the rear. I've used it out to about 9 yards. Later this week, we will be releasing a video of the Master Chief banging head size steel targets at 75 ft. It is a defensive sight designed for combat. The low profile allows you to use your normal holster. Sights are now available for the M&P and M&P Shield. The link below to a video may answer some questions.

What You Need to Know About the Meprolight FT Bullseye - YouTube

I do not see how a rear sight alone could give consistent accuracy beyond point shooting ranges (0-5 yards). There is really no indication of where the gun is pointing. Without some kind of relative indexing between a target and the sights on the gun, including a front sight, I just don't see how one could achieve a consistent sight picture, sight alignment and Point of Impact relative to Point of Aim.

For instance, if your grip tips the front of the gun downward, just putting the rear sight dot on the target does not put the bullet where you want. If such inaccuracy at short ranges is acceptable, just using the back of your slide as a reference would work just about as well.

A red dot sight works as a single sighting reference, but it definitely will indicate when a pistol is out of alignment with the target.

 

[Rastoff]

I do not see how a rear sight alone could give consistent accuracy beyond point shooting ranges (0-5 yards).

This is not just a rear sight. It does the same thing as aligning the two sights.

I have serious concerns about the durability of this sight though. I've offered to test it, but they didn't respond to my offer.

 

[JVSIII]

Mark, I wish you guys all the best. I hope it works great. Great to see innovation.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

[V0OBWxZS16]

Can these be zeroed for windage and elevation?
Why not narrow it down to the width of a front sight and replace the front sight instead? That should reduce training/transition problems from those used to notch and post sights, move the focal distance farther towards the target, and removing the rear sight entirely should block less of the shooter's view.

 

[loonybin]

It's really not much different than the Retina Lock Alignment Technology on the IQ Bowsight for compound bows.

 

[Steved13]

Basically it is a mini-red dot.

Your on target sight picture is the dot in the center of the circle, i.e. a bullseye. If your dot is off center, you correct. By focusing on the rear sight, it saves acquiring the front sight and aligning it with the rear. I've used it out to about 9 yards. Later this week, we will be releasing a video of the Master Chief banging head size steel targets at 75 ft. It is a defensive sight designed for combat. The low profile allows you to use your normal holster. Sights are now available for the M&P and M&P Shield. The link below to a video may answer some questions.

What You Need to Know About the Meprolight FT Bullseye - YouTube

Thanks for stopping by, always nice to see, vendors active in the end user community.

With a red dot, you look at the target, and your eyes are focused on that distance, and the "red dot" is also superimposed on the target. 1 focal length, and I can see everything clearly with my glasses on.

From the video, this looks like you need to focus on the sight, and the arms length, and on the target at a further distance both. Since a red dot is a "sight window" all is at the same distance. There is no sight window on the Meprosight, for this to take place. Am I correct or missing something.

Please don't misunderstand, it seems like a good sight idea, but with old eyes, I'm wondering if it is a good sight idea for someone like me. The red dot I use now IMHO is a god send for eyes like mine, and a smaller, easier install would be better still, but I don't think the meprolight solves the "old eyes" problem, like a red dot sight does?

 

[CB3]

The differences between the Mako sight and a projected red dot sight (RDS) are significant. They are alike only in that both have a dot, but they do not have the other characteristics in common and they are not used in the same way. IMO, the RDS still has many advantages over the Mako.

As Steved13 pointed out, a red dot sight allows you to focus 100% on the target, as you naturally want to and likely will do in a shooting. More of the target can be visible in the red dot window. The window frames the target rather than obscuring it. This is faster than your eye needing to acquire two or three different sighting planes.

Personally, I object to the concept of a sight that limits a gun's usefulness to a certain range. An RDS does not. In order to hit a longer range target with the Mako, one would need to keep the dot centered and raise the whole pistol, with the sight covering more and more of the target as distance increases. A red dot allows you to still see the target at increasing distances. Traditional front and rear sights allow you to elevate the front sight in the notch. I do not believe you can do this with the Mako without losing dot alignment.

The Mako appears to require precise focus at a close distance and a rapid shift of focus to the target. This may be faster than lining up three focal planes (rear, front, target) but I doubt it is faster than lining up one focal plane like the red dot--the target.

With any sighting system, consistent presentation of the firearm with sights already in alignment is critical for fast shooting. The Mako system benefits from that--IOW, the dot should be centered and aligned almost every time you present your pistol if you do it right. If that alignment is naturally correct, you can focus on the target quickly. The same is true for other systems, however. The Mako system, I am sure intentionally, looks very similar when aligned to a rear/front sight combo.

Finally, using sights within close range defense situations is unnecessary. You can be just as fast and accurate with no sights at all on the gun inside of 7-8', where people claim most self defense shootings occur. This is point shooting. You do not need to waste time focusing anywhere else but on the target and speed because your presentation accuracy will be sufficient, if you have had at least some training.

However, practicing to be accurate with good pistol shooting discipline at longer ranges makes you a better shot at short ranges also. Thus, sights do matter, because you cannot predict what your engagement distance will be. If you know you are going to shoot at less than the range Mako says the sight is good for, maybe inside 25 yards, you should be good to go. I don't see the advantage of limiting your options and your practice, especially at ~$200 for the single sight.

As well, compared to traditional sights with tritium front and rear which allow for sight alignment in very dark conditions, the Mako tritium circle in only the rear sight, with no corresponding FO dot visible, does not aid dark shooting, except once again at very close ranges. The red dot does not share that characteristic.

I would appreciate an explanation of the design of the sight, i.e., why does it need three FO light bars to display a small dot in the middle? Why does it need to be so wide? I am sure there is a reason, but it does seem to make the sight obtrusive, but perhaps no more so than traditional sights. A narrower sight would seem to make more sense to me, even if it didn't look like a traditional sight picture.

 

[Rastoff]

Personally, I object to the concept of a sight that limits a gun's usefulness to a certain range.

Interesting turn of phrase here. Are you telling us that you object to open sights as well? The FT Bullseye is used exactly the same as regular sights. The comparison to a red dot is misplaced. They aren't trying to market this as a smaller red dot, but rather a different type of open sight.

 

[CB3]

The FT Bullseye is used exactly the same as regular sights.

I agree when it is properly aligned, with the FO dot in the tritium circle, you will be pointing the gun similarly to using regular sights, but the focal planes are different and the sight presentation to the shooter's eye(s) being circles rather than squares (perhaps with dots) is definitely different.

With a "regular" front and rear sight, one can raise the front sight above the rear notch for longer distance shooting to compensate for bullet drop. The FT cannot do this.

The FT cannot be used like front and rear tritium night sights, because there are not two reference points for aiming when the FO portion of the sight is not working.

As well, the FT has no capability for elevation adjustment, which can be done with traditional sights by changing the height of either the front or rear sight.

The video on the company website explains how the FT is not like using regular sights.

One video reviewer remarked that after shooting a number of rounds with his FT, when he transitioned to another pistol with a regular front and rear sight, he had to work hard to acquire his front sight. That testimony alone makes me uncomfortable. If the new sight needs to be put on all my handguns for consistency, I don't think it's supposed advantages are worth it.

The FT most assuredly is not used exactly the same as regular sights.

The comparison to a red dot is misplaced. They aren't trying to market this as a smaller red dot, but rather a different type of open sight.

MarkS1 in his first and only post in this thread admitted he works for Mako marketing and has used the sight. He is the one who said, "Basically it is a mini-red dot." I responded to that statement with contrasting arguments, but such a statement also supports the statement that it is not used like regular sights.

On the company website, lower right hand area, a user testifies that this is "an ultra-bright mini red dot". This statement is apparently approved by the company for marketing purposes.

Mark says he has used it to about 9 yards and that it is a "defensive" sight, apparently meaning it is for close range work. A video is coming showing a former Seal hitting an unknown size target at 75 feet, or 25 yards. If the Point of Impact is just above the sight rather than at the sight's "bullseye" view--essentially a six o'clock hold--this might work. But if the "bullseye" of the sight needs to be held dead center on the desired Point of Impact, as the video on the company website infers, accuracy at 25 yards and beyond would be difficult because of obscuring the target. Precise sight alignment using the rear sight focal plane and the target focal plane, with the target hidden by the sight, gives this sighting system less utility than regular sights, or a RDS, IMO.

I don't mind being corrected when I'm wrong, which I was with some of my assumptions and statements in my first post before Mark posted and some others have pointed out certain features. However, I believe that my post to which you have referred is accurate in light of what Mark from Mako marketing and the company website have said.

I do not see good value in the FT sight for me, and I think regular sights are fine. I like the RDS concept the best, and it works with properly cowitnessed irons rather than against them.

 

[jim46ok]

A disclaimer, I work for their Marketing/Ad Agency so I've spent some time using the FT Bullseye.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rastoff View Post
"The FT Bullseye is used exactly the same as regular sights."

Naaa...........world of difference.

I called MAKO Group on Monday. Left message for "Robert" to call, as I had questions. As of today, no callback. Part of good marketing is "Marketing follow-thru." I'm not a Marketing Genius, but I am a Customer Genius, as we all are.

Hard to be optimistic about the Customer Service at this point. Hopefully he will call in the next couple days.......

 

[Rastoff]

With a "regular" front and rear sight, one can raise the front sight above the rear notch for longer distance shooting to compensate for bullet drop. The FT cannot do this.

OK, I'll concede this point, but only to a point. The FT can indeed be misaligned as you say for distance, but not much. So, it is limited if attempting to use it in that way. However, I completely disagree about your assumption that it can't be used for distance shooting. Please allow me to explain...

This is proper sight alignment for center hold:

I believe the center hold is proper for defensive shooting. We can discuss why in a different thread. The properly aligned FT will still have the top of the site in the center of the target. The biggest difference is that now the rear is in focus instead of the front which doesn't exist on the FT. To shoot to 75', just raise the top from the center of the target to higher on the target.

Would I use this for bullseye competition? No, it's not designed for that. Can I make a shot that will land in the thoracic cavity of a bad guy at 25 yards with this site? Absolutely and it's just as easy as my other sights. At least it seems so. Is it as good as a red dot? Not at all. But again, consumer comments aside, it's not really a red dot replacement; it's competition is iron sights. At least that's what they say.

I will add that I've not used this sight. I have no practical experience so, all this is just anecdotal based on what I've seen on their website. As I stated earlier, my biggest concern is durability. I would love to do some testing with this site. I've contacted Meprolight about this concern. They told me they have NOT fully tested it for durability. When I offered to help with that, I got no response. I can't afford to pay $200 for a sight that might be OK. What I would be willing to do is buy the sight with a guarantee from Meprolight that they will refund if it fails in a reasonable test.

 

[F16Grinch]

First post and it is non technical but I wanted others to have the benefit of hearing from someone who has this sight and has used it.

I had it installed on my 9MM Shield. Seemed like a great idea and thought it would facilitate training myself for learning to shoot better with both eyes open without installing a red dot sight...imo ugly and screws up all my holster options.

I have had this thing to the range three times. It's driving my nuts. I am not an expert but I am a decent shot and can hold my own. I was all OVER the target with this thing. Have done some cave man adjustments to it while on the range and it's improved some. Basically it was shooting about 2-4 inches left at 10 yards. This is far from my normal shooting accuracy. I have lessened that distance but still have a very difficult time with a consistent grouping through a whole eight round mag. I agree with some other folks who have posted the opinion that this is a different presentation and focus when bringing the weapon to bear on a target. It takes a lot more practice to get proficient with this then it ever did with my standard/stock sights that came on the gun. Disappointing to say the least. Having shelled over the $200 I am tempted to put the practice in but my further concern is this isn't the only gun I carry and when I switch to a different carry option, I am confident i will have adjustment issues I wouldn't have if I didn't have this sight on my Shield. IF I installed it on all my guns, might be a different story but there is NO chance of that happening as there are just too many issues with this product.

Admittedly, it could be me and my inability to adjust. I'm a normal guy who take a course or two a year in pistol shooting, goes to the range about once a week and carry where ever I go. I want to be confident that should the need arise to use deadly force, the bullets are going to go where I want them to. I have less confidence that is the case with this sight then with my stock sights. I dont have time to train to proficiency on a one of a kind sight on one of my guns.

For these reasons I would highly discourage others from purchasing this item unless your circumstance are highly different than mine.