[45Gunner]

I feel like there's so much out there, sight wise, I haven't had a chance to get my hands on and try out, and mostly because it's so darned expensive if it turns out I don't care for it.

I am definitely a creature of habit, and that extends, of course, like most of us, to my shooting gear. I do 3-white-dot and standard night sights usually. However, I'm reading reviews and watching videos, and some of these sights have yet to have a disparaging word said against them. The HDs in particular.

Since the current Trijicons on my USP are dead and need replacing, now would be the time for me to decide to try something new. My M&P also needs different sights, but I was somewhat contemplating going to black-on-black for him, but the straight-8s also caught my eye, since they're black-on-black, and have the vertical tritium vials. The M&P is more of a range toy; the USP I was considering putting HDs on since it is the carry rotation.

But here's my question; is having 3, 4, however many different sights, going to mess me up when going from gun to gun? Should I pick one and go with it? The HDs and the Heinies are roughly the same price, so uniforming the collection wouldn't be more expensive with one direction over the other. If I went with the Hienie's, I guess I'm going to end with some odd men out, so to speak, because they don't make them for my Beretta. Nor for the potential CZ or P2000 I'm picking up once I make up my mind.

Anyway, looking for opinions on either of the sights, and if I should have a uniform selection, or at least as few variances as possible.

 

[HK Shooter]

Sights are total preference. One person may think they're great, and another may not like them at all. The above listed options are all of good quality, but that doesn't mean you'll enjoy them. With that said, when it comes to a carry gun, I practice using total sight picture.. Having red sights, tritium, dots, or U's don't really matter for me. Going for sheer accuracy on a range would be a different story.

Personally I don't have an issue going from three dot, to two dot, to the Glock's U and dot. But this is coming from someone who can drive a manual transmission one day, to driving two-footed with an auto without issue..

 

[eagleridge357]

Have to admit I have not done much research into sights, but have learned that there are those shooters who instinctively focus on their target when shooting, and those who instinctively focus on the sights....I am of the former group; focusing always on the target. Well, my eyesight is not perfect, and I never wear my reading glasses when shooting, just the goggles. I have noticed that when focusing on target, the sights which give me fastest and clearest acquisition of sight picture is the white front dot with white rear rectangular "U", as on my Glock 19 factory setup. I had a SA that had a 3 dot setup, which was good, but I seem to get the feel of the sight picture faster and clearer with the Glock set-up. Iron sights which offer no contrast do not do it for me at all, such as my S&W older model L frame. I have been lately choosing my carry guns according to the sights offered, which is a primary concern for me. Tells you what it's like to get older and more blurry-eyed. Not fun. Personally I feel that if you cannot acquire a comfortable sight picture extremely quickly, then your sights need to be changed (at least, for a self-defense handgun) Always, IMHO..

 

[Cardinalny]

You should take a look at TRUGLO TFO sights which offers tritium and fiber optic capabilities. On my Ruger SR40c, I just have the front sight in TFO and it's very easy to see in daylight and at night. For other brands of pistols, they offer both front and rear sights.