I have a shield 1.0, want to grab a 2.0 9mm with performance center. Looks like only two flavors and both have upgraded sights. Any advice whether I should get the gun with OEM Hi Viz (sku # 11867) or OEM Tritium (sku # 11869)? Or get something after market? It will be paired with a TLR-6. Thanks!
-
Forum Update: We've upgraded the software to improve security, performance, and the overall experience.
👉 Read why we made the change | Support the Forum
Shield 2.0: OEM Hi Viz, Tritium, or aftermarket sights?
- Thread starter mysteryy
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Use what you have now as a standard and picking what work best for you is totaally your choice , not ours .
I an old guy that preferred a skinner front sight and a gold bead on it is a favorite but green fiber front seems to work ok and a but I like ether a very basic black rear sight or tritium incert only like sig does not on there p365xl . Nothing distracting to draw you eye to on a defensive handgun for me yet BIG DOT sight sell very well along with other large color rings on from sights !!
Seems like if some one builds it and hypes it well people will buy it and love it . Get my point . I still have my old colt huntsman I learned to shoot with back in '61 and it has basic black sight and I can still stand at 25 yards from 12ga hull setting on sticks in the groups and plink away at them hitting 8 of 10 average . Not bad for wearing trifocals for some years now but my defensive shooting style goes back to the late '70's and uses a different kind of sighting shooting style . Flash Sight Picture Shooting - Might read up on it and see where it came from a try it .
I an old guy that preferred a skinner front sight and a gold bead on it is a favorite but green fiber front seems to work ok and a but I like ether a very basic black rear sight or tritium incert only like sig does not on there p365xl . Nothing distracting to draw you eye to on a defensive handgun for me yet BIG DOT sight sell very well along with other large color rings on from sights !!
Seems like if some one builds it and hypes it well people will buy it and love it . Get my point . I still have my old colt huntsman I learned to shoot with back in '61 and it has basic black sight and I can still stand at 25 yards from 12ga hull setting on sticks in the groups and plink away at them hitting 8 of 10 average . Not bad for wearing trifocals for some years now but my defensive shooting style goes back to the late '70's and uses a different kind of sighting shooting style . Flash Sight Picture Shooting - Might read up on it and see where it came from a try it .
I have a PC Shield, and when paired with the TLR-6, the Hi-Viz FO sights were fine.
I eventually upgraded to Tru-Glo sights that are both Tritium and fiber optic. I wanted the sighs to be the same on all 3 of my M&Ps, and the Tru-Glo's can be had for $76 shipped on Amazon.
It is not easy to get the old sights off though, they are really in there tight !
Here the .45 Shield in the middle has the old red F/O sight off of my PC .40 at bottom.
But it has since got TFO's and FDE Cerakote like the other two.
I eventually upgraded to Tru-Glo sights that are both Tritium and fiber optic. I wanted the sighs to be the same on all 3 of my M&Ps, and the Tru-Glo's can be had for $76 shipped on Amazon.
It is not easy to get the old sights off though, they are really in there tight !
Here the .45 Shield in the middle has the old red F/O sight off of my PC .40 at bottom.
But it has since got TFO's and FDE Cerakote like the other two.
Fiber optic is good for daytime carry and range use. Tritium works for carry, day or night. Just my opinion.
I REALLY wish someone(MMC?) would offer an adjustable rear sight......All I need on the front is a post.
I saw some recommending the Truglo TFX Pro but were saying its an issue in lowlight/dim settings? And a white outline circle around the rear sights would have solved that issue?
RDS
I’m going to go out on a limb here.
The human eye does not naturally line up handgun iron sights with a target. It is an unnatural effort. All the varieties of shapes, sizes and colors are meant to simplify this unnatural sight alignment. Inherently, they don’t, because the same problem exists of the human eye being unable to focus on three different planes quickly and accurately. In some cases these enhancements actually confuse the eyes/brain and make focus and training harder.
This system of sighting is based on limited anatomical knowledge of 150 years ago. Some sights are better than no sights when precision is needed. That the basic principles of sighting a handgun have not progressed in concept for over a hundred years is surprising. All variations of open notch/post handgun sights are compromises.
If you want to stick with tradition, I suggest the simplest, fastest, least obnoxious sight set up that works for you. It should not be fragile, huge, complicated, or overly colorful.
Except, the red dot sight (RDS) on a handgun is actually the new, modern alternative that really works. One plane of focus: the target, more accurately in self-preservation shooting called the threat.
It is undeniable that your eyes and brain will focus on the threat trying to kill you. Artificially trying to force your eyes/brain to “focus on the front sight (and the rear and the target) is a waste of training time and effort. Enhancing iron sights does little to overcome this systemic weakness. People will say it has worked well for years so it must be good, but compared to what? Black and white 24” TV’s were all the rage in 1956. And today?
So, enhance an historic sighting system with whatever additional compromise you believe improves your shooting. If this is a life/death issue you are setting up, maybe consider a totally different approach: RDS.
I’m going to go out on a limb here.
The human eye does not naturally line up handgun iron sights with a target. It is an unnatural effort. All the varieties of shapes, sizes and colors are meant to simplify this unnatural sight alignment. Inherently, they don’t, because the same problem exists of the human eye being unable to focus on three different planes quickly and accurately. In some cases these enhancements actually confuse the eyes/brain and make focus and training harder.
This system of sighting is based on limited anatomical knowledge of 150 years ago. Some sights are better than no sights when precision is needed. That the basic principles of sighting a handgun have not progressed in concept for over a hundred years is surprising. All variations of open notch/post handgun sights are compromises.
If you want to stick with tradition, I suggest the simplest, fastest, least obnoxious sight set up that works for you. It should not be fragile, huge, complicated, or overly colorful.
Except, the red dot sight (RDS) on a handgun is actually the new, modern alternative that really works. One plane of focus: the target, more accurately in self-preservation shooting called the threat.
It is undeniable that your eyes and brain will focus on the threat trying to kill you. Artificially trying to force your eyes/brain to “focus on the front sight (and the rear and the target) is a waste of training time and effort. Enhancing iron sights does little to overcome this systemic weakness. People will say it has worked well for years so it must be good, but compared to what? Black and white 24” TV’s were all the rage in 1956. And today?
So, enhance an historic sighting system with whatever additional compromise you believe improves your shooting. If this is a life/death issue you are setting up, maybe consider a totally different approach: RDS.
