Posted: 7/16/2001 11:11:12 PM EDT
| I'm planning to purchase a Glock 17 soon, and was wondering what everyones preference was in terms of sights. Stock, or the tritium sights? The newer Glocks I see have white dot fronts, with the white line on the rear, which I presume would be visible in low enough light as to see your target at night. Or are they? Just curious which would be the wiser choice. Thanks. |
|
If there's a chance you'll carry the pistol or use it as a personal defense weapon then definitely get the Trijicons. If however, you only intend to use it as a range gun then why spend the extra money, the standard sights will do fine. I have a few Glocks, two that I carry and they both have night sights. I have two other ones that I use strictly a range guns and they are fitted with standard sights. |
|
Heine 'Straight 8' are quick night sights but the std. Glock sights or Ashley Exp. sights are great in the daytime. Getting back to your actual question. I'd go ahead and choose the Glock equipped w/ the night sights. This gives you a much better setup at night and yet you still have [u]good[/u] daytime sights. Making the change later on would mean having to learn a new setup. |
|
Sights on a pistol are pretty much like tits on a bull, useless, just point and shoot. When the question is [b]"Are guys with 9mm Glocks better equipped than guys with .45 1911 with 7 or 8rds mags”[/b] 80% of you say that the .45 will do it. [b]But aiming is pretty much useless, hä?[/b] Your mag will be empty in 3-4sec. and you have hit nothing w/o aiming. Not even at 15m! BTW Don’t want to flame you Confederate. It’s just someting I’ve seen often. I prefer a high-cap 9mm over a .45 anytime. But I’m from Europe where the 9mm is “the way to go”. Maybe I see things from a different point of view.. |
| I stayed with the stock white sights only because of the range I would actually use my Glock26 at, if ever, in a DEFENSIVE situation...very very close to almost point blank range (think inside subway cars or hallways). Nightsights are useless to me at that point....that's why I practice,practice,practice. It works for this NYC cop. |
|
Originally Posted By ultima ratio: Sights on a pistol are pretty much like tits on a bull, useless, just point and shoot. When the question is [b]"Are guys with 9mm Glocks better equipped than guys with .45 1911 with 7 or 8rds mags”[/b] 80% of you say that the .45 will do it. [b]But aiming is pretty much useless, hä?[/b] Your mag will be empty in 3-4sec. and you have hit nothing w/o aiming. Not even at 15m! BTW Don’t want to flame you Confederate. It’s just someting I’ve seen often. I prefer a high-cap 9mm over a .45 anytime. But I’m from Europe where the 9mm is “the way to go”. Maybe I see things from a different point of view.. Ohhhh....so many topics to address... 1) Screw the damn Glock. If you can only have 10, get the HS2000. Better gun at 1/2 the price. 2)ultima ratio- W_R_O_N_G! Dude, Euro's have ALWAYS subscribed to the volume fire notion, thus y'all like a whole lotta wee little weenie rounds like the 9MM. Does the 1911 empty faster?Yup. But if you can hit what you are shooting at, there will be no need for any "follow up" shots once you plant that big-ass .455 Diamater slug in your adversary. And if you can't hit what you are shooting at, you will be no better off with a 9MM anyway. So why pick the weaker of the rounds? Fuck it. I shoot a Glock 20, and it kicks the crap out of any handgun you can throw at it.15 Rounds of 10MM. Can anyone beat that? Hello? Hello? No? Have a nice day. |