I get asked about XS pistol sights all the time, and keep meaning to write something in-depth about them. But the issue came up at HKPRO again today and my quick response there seemed like a reasonable start:
I would not recommend the XS sights. Some people have a religious fervor about them which borders on the frightening, but in general here’s the thing to keep in mind:
- No top-ranked competitive shooter uses them.
- No military unit in the U.S. uses them.
- No major LE agency in the U.S. uses them.
- No major SWAT team in the U.S. uses them.
If they’re really so great and fast and “instinctive,” why are none of those groups using them?
In fairness, I’ll admit that I’ve had two students in classes this year who were pretty good with the XS sights on their gun (both managed to score an Advanced rating on the F.A.S.T.). But I’ve watched far more struggle with the XS system in the same time period…
The main issue is that the rear sight simply does not provide the kind of visual feedback necessary to get acceptable hits under the wide range of circumstances that matter in a practical setting. Their claim to fame is that they’re fast on wide open close targets… but even point shooting is fast on wide open close targets! Everything is. As soon as you start to require tougher shots, the XS sights slow you down more than traditional notch and post sights will.
Train hard & stay safe! ToddG
I’ve just started reading this blog and between this post, “Too Much Gun” (2091), and “Guns Kill” (2084), I’m sold.
Thanks for the great posts so far, I’m looking forward to reading it for a while.
I have to agree with your assessment of the XS sights. I tried them for a while as I got a free set for T&E purposes. I found that at close range they were quick, but no quicker than a post front and notch rear.
They were slower for me for precision shots 10 yards and out. I could still make accurate hits, but making sure that I had the dot centered in the shallow V was slower. And yes, I could hit a pepper popper at 100 yards with them just like the guy that preaches them, but it was noticeably slower then with traditional sights.
I believe that I gave the XS sights a fair shake, as I had them on the gun for a year and put a lot of rounds through the gun. But in the end my findings were slower at distance and for precision, and the same speed at closer distances as traditional post and notch sights.
How do you feel about ghost right sights on pistols? I can’t remember who makes them but they do make them for Glocks and the like.
Also I’m curious to know what you think about the stock trapezoid sights on the Steyr M series of pistols. I own one and it is the gun I am the most accurate with and I put some of that on the sights.
Jonathan — Sounds like you & I are in the same boat. I put a set of XS sights on a Beretta years ago (they were still called “Ashley sights” back then). Tested them, worked with them, even shot a major IDPA match with them. As you said, they did nothing for my speed close up and required more time & effort to get accurate hits at distance. They also don’t provide the visual feedback that lets you know you just anticipated or jerked the trigger a bit.
Jesse — To be honest, I don’t have any experience shooting ghost ring sights on a pistol. You’d lose visual contact with your front sight twice on every shot, though, which seems like a negative.
I’m not a fan of the Steyr sights. They provide too narrow a sight picture and essentially force the eye to align even more points of reference than traditional sights.
The best sights I’ve found so far, hands down, continue to be the Warren Tacticals.
Amen.
I tried them, hated them. You just don’t get enough proper visual feedback to use them correctly. You have to adjust your sight picture with them depending on how far your target is away from you, which further complicates using them.
I’ve got Dawson Precision sights now, and they’re great. They’re fast to pick up, you can get an accurate sight picture, shoot accurate groups or quickly close up… whatever.
To para-phrase Brian Enos, “See what you need to see to make the shot you need to make.”
If we put all “point vs sighted” debates aside, we can all say that you really don’t need the sights to make good, fast hits on close-range full-value targets.
Sights, by design, are for aligning the handgun more precisely than just pointing when it is required. When that more precise shot is required, why would you not want the most precise sights?
In other words, if we look at shooting as a spectrum from close range (no sights needed) to pushing the distance limits of the pistol (very precise alignment needed), then I think it is clear that XS and other specialty sights limit that spectrum.
I don’t deny that the XS sights work at close distance, but the reason that they do work is because they allow a coarse alignment to appear correct and the shooter will break the shot quicker because he believes he has verified sight alignment. However, if you understand the Enos quote above, then you can mentally accept coarse post-and-notch alignment at the ranges where it is acceptable and still reap the long range benefits of having a more precise sight picture.
First of all, I am Greek, so I don’t speak perfect English. Please excuse my mistakes.
I am so glad when I meet shooters who believe that in the stressful environment of a lethal conflict there is a need for the proper sight picture.
I guess we all agree that there is no perfect sight for every use. There are sights that perform well for precise shooting, other for IPSC shooting and other for…social work.
Nobody ever claimed that xs sights are a good choice for IPSC shooting. In fact, it is not fair for these sights to be evaluated during IPSC shooting. Don’t forget that the light condition during an IPSC match is always pretty much the same. Bright light. At the same time, the shooter aims always a light colored target. Unfortunately this is not the case for law enforcement engagements. Xs sights are better than any other set of sights in every light condition. That is not because of the tritium inserts, but because of the shape of the sights. Try them through force on force training under low light conditions with a flash light in your hand and I bet you‘ll see what I’m talking about.
On the other hand, I know that an IPSC match can be stressful, but I believe you will agree with me, that you can not compare that with the stress during a chaotic lethal engagement. We can not compare the need for constant observation of this kind of environment and the feedback a man has from this environment, with the need for observation of the IPSC targets and the feedback a shooter has from them. So xs sights help the shooter to have a sight picture with the minimum effort while he struggles to have enough feedback from the stressful environment of a conflict.
Does a shooter need practice to get used to xs sights? YES of course. Lot’s of practice. But when you get used to them you appreciate them, a lot. These sights are made for battle. I am in law enforcement for 11 years. I use them for one year now and the more I use them, the more I appreciate them…for IPSC I would prefer something else…
Todd, I can’t believe you didn’t pounce upon this.
he’s got his “nice guy” hat on I think.
Ioannis — I just cannot agree. The whole “it may not work in IPSC but it works in a fight” argument is simply too convenient. I’ve shot plenty of low-light matches and done plenty of force on force. Having a big white ball on the top of my slide that I see peripherally is no better than having a bright orange post or using the slide itself as a visual index.
As I said above (and as Jonathan and Justin both pointed out in their comments), the XS sights do nothing better than traditional notch and post sights while they absolutely, demonstrably do some things worse.
The “IPSC isn’t combat” line is, in my opinion, XS’s way of dodging a simple reality. In games like IPSC and IDPA, equipment can be objectively evaluated head-to-head. Things that work well rise to the top and things that don’t make the cut just disappear. Within that objective crucible of testing, the XS sights have clearly failed to gain any kind of foothold. That’s a pretty big clue.
I bought a Dan Wesson Bobtail 10mm several years back, and it came with the XS sights. Can’t stand the things. Gotta get them off there, as I really like the gun.
Didn’t like the Chuck Daly Hi-Powers for the same reason.
Todd- I don’t want to be boring but I respect your opinion and if I’m wrong, I would like to know it, so I’ll try to make my point (it’s not that easy in English )…
The whole “it may not work in IPSC but it works in a fight” is NOT convenient. It is not hard to understand that, to become a good combat shooter, you have to be a good shooter. Practicing IPSC and IDPA is the best way to learn how to shoot well. I know that a lot of law enforcement guys avoid the competition because they are poor shooters and they use as an excuse that IPSC has nothing to do with combat shooting. I disagree with that mind set and I use competition to test my shooting skills and to become aware of my weaknesses. That’s why I use my service pistol with the xs sights during every IPSC match. So it is not convenient at all because it is harder to hit targets at longer distances with xs. I keep using them because I have seen their pros in extreme CQC.
There are great differences between IPSC match and an unexpected lethal conflict. One of them is that the conflict isn’t fair. If I wanted to kill you, I wouldn’t stand in front of you and say “ let’s see who is better man, better shooter…meet me in five minutes on the main road outside the saloon…”why would I risk it, I know you are better shooter than me. Instead of that I would try to be unexpected, to deceive and disorient you, in other words to cheat. If I manage to do that, it won’t matter any more if you are better shooter than me. So there are other factors than shooting ability that are crucial during a conflict. That’s why some of the priorities change. Awareness of the environment and feedback from it, is more important than awareness of the sight. But I still need and want sight awareness. So instead of less sight awareness I choose easier sight awareness. This is what xs sights provide me. I know that conventional sights can help me become a better shooter in the safe and fair environment of an IPSC match but that, alone, won’t save my day. Mastering hits in the A zone of an IPSC target at long distances is not my priority. Practicing and becoming as good as I can with my pistol, using the sights that are more appropriate in the stressful environment of a conflict, is my priority.
In other words, the difference between IPSC and combat is that, in combat anyone can kill you. Mr. average, a junkie, anyone who doesn’t need to be better shooter than you. in IPSC match if you are the best shooter, you are the winner…and you know that better than me. That makes a huge difference.
By the way…A big white ball IS better than a bright orange post when the light is not bright. Every time I shoot in the range in medium light ( late evening), tritium inserts are not bright enough yet to help me. Even fiber optics are not bright enough. At least they are not as bright as the big white ball of xs sights. Things are getting worst if I want to use flashlight to identify absolutely who is who and what is what. In low light or no light conditions every time I turn on the flashlight, especially indoors, the tritium inserts tend to turn down their brightness and you can see just the black outline of the sights. Same thing happens with xs sights, but it is easier to pick out their outline than any other sight. This is even more obvious in combination with the muzzle flash.
Two of your comments jump out at me.
“I’ve watched far more struggle with the XS system”
and
“rear sight simply does not provide the kind of visual feedback necessary”.
Those two comments show me that you failed as an instructor due to your ignorance of the Big Dot sight system.
This is not a slam at you personally.
Trying to apply notch and post sight alignment teaching methods to XS shooters shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how Big Dots work.
If you yourself haven’t learned how to properly utilize them (which is extremely difficult for shooters with years of notch/post shooting) I would not expect you to know how to instruct others on their use. It took me several months to “retrain my brain” so to speak.
Think of it this way.
Would you teach a shooter with an Aimpoint red dot sight on their AR to shoot the exact same way as you would a A2 peep sighted shooter?
Of course not.
One requires peep/post alignment, the other requires you to put the dot where you want the bullets to go.
Drawing the XS shooters attention to the rear sight and trying to “align” it, is the wrong way to instruct with these sights.
These are “100% hard front sight focus” sights.
Even at long ranges there shouldn’t be a conscious rear sight focus (I can easily make 75 yard shots on a half-scale poppers and 20 yard IDPA head shots with no deliberate rear sight focus).
Blaming your failure as an instructor on the student or their equipment is wrong and you know it.
There are no bad students, just bad instructors.
As to this:
* No top-ranked competitive shooter
* No military unit in the U.S.
* No major LE agency in the U.S.
* No major SWAT team in the U.S.
You know as well as I do that mil and LE are slow moving behemoth bureaucracies and are loathe to try ANYTHING outside of their comfort zone.
Heck, many LE agencies don’t even allow red dot optics on patrol rifles (if they even allow patrol rifles).
As to “competition shooters”.
Shooting against paper is a simulation of combat, not combat.
Adrenaline dump, tunnel vision, life/death threat focus, low light and un-choreographed movement, lend themselves to XS sights.
If you could find a competition that included all those elements… you’d find shooters using XS sights.
IMO, the worst thing about XS Sights is the cult-like following they seem to produce…
Not to be too much of a slavering fanboy, but early in my shooting career, I tried XS sights on a handgun. They were less accurate, and actually slower than properly designed notch-and-post sights. I went back to Heinie, then Warren Tactical sights and never looked back.
-C
Jody H — Well, pretty bold comments. Not only am I a bad instructor because I don’t agree with your opinion, but the people in units like Delta, DEVGRU, HRT, LAPD SWAT, NYPD ESU, etc. are all “slow moving behemoths” who don’t know as much about combat shooting as you. Very bold.
One thing that is clear is a misunderstanding of how visual reference works in shooting under stress. There is a spectrum of proper visual reference depending on target, environment, and circumstance. The XS sights cover a much narrower band of that spectrum. Your comment about a “100% hard front sight focus” is a stumbling point for many intermediate shooters. Understanding that you do not need a hard front sight focus in many cases — the very cases where less skilled shooters feel that the XS sights work best — is what opens up the next level of performance.
“Units are behind the times,” competition isn’t realistic,” etc., are all great marketing lines but they fail to address the simple fact that XS sights do nothing better and do many things worse.
Either your reading comprehension is poor, or you are deliberately distorting what I said.
I also Note that you assigned quotes to me that I did not write.
“Units are behind the times,”
Does not exist anywhere in my post.
It appears you are unable to debate this topic without deliberate misquotes and distortions.
Stay safe, I’m out of this “discussion”.
Hmmm. It seems that much of what is said against the XS sight system I have heard before in reference to laser sights, night sights, 3-dot sights, etc. until they became more mainstream. I may be the exception here in that I actually got to spend quite a bit of time with Ashley Emerson when he was refining the system, and I still proudly own the Beretta 1201 he used as a proof of concept gun at the SoF conference back in 1996. The concept is to allow the shooter to achieve nearly the same speed as point shooting with close to precision post and notch accuracy. It is a compromise. And it is a compromise that does seem to work for those who take the time to learn to use the system correctly. Yes, the system does cover a narrower band, as Todd put it, but the narrow band it covers just happens to be the band that encompasses most of the DGU environment.
For my $.02, BTW, the system really comes into its own for those with poorer vision. As I’ve gotten older I find that I simply cannot focus on post/notch sights without my glasses but the XS system can be used. So for me the choice is slowly but surely becoming “point shoot without any sights” or “XS sights”.
David — But you’ve proved my point entirely.
(1) Yes, there were criticisms of lasers and night sights… but both have now become widely adopted both in the private and government sectors. Why? Because those systems add demonstrable benefits that you cannot readily achieve with regular (non-tritium) notch & post sights. You’re not giving up any capability by choosing to put a laser on your pistol.
(2) The Express sight for a shotgun is far different than putting one on a short pistol. After all, many shotguns come with only a front bead to begin with. Why? Because you can use the very long barrel as the visual reference to properly align the bead. On a handgun, shooting with only a front sight is certainly possible but just as with the XS sights, you’re drastically narrowing the gun’s capabilities.
(3) If a physical limitation forces someone to choose between XS sights or no sights, I agree that XS sights are a better option. Quite a few very respected instructors and experts in the industry, upon reaching a certain age and a certain point in their visual acuity, switch to what are respectfully called Old Man Sights. This is an XS Standard Dot (if possible) or Big Dot (if necessary) combined with a standard notch rear sight that’s been widened by a gunsmith to be compatible with the wider front sight.
At the beginning they didn’t do much for me, nor were they that bad not to give them a fair chance. I switched to allen dots (1.5-3″ stick on dots), and I picked up Shooting Missology. Between the two and spending some time on the line “dotting the I” because more second nature. I think part of the problem is that they are not “standard” and perhaps your eye is still trying to place it in between two other dots that don’t exist.
I let my father try them out. He was all over the place. On the next mag I told him that all he has to do is dot the I, he went from a couple of holes in the center to all in the center, within a 4-5″ group.
Maybe I’m just a idiot but if two normal SOB’s can figure out how to properly use XS sights, I’d assume a instructor would be able to do the same… at least give them a fair chance (and some training) before their capability is slandered.
Todd,
I’m not too sure I follow your review of the XS sights. Throughout your post you slander XS, but go on to say:
“In fairness, I’ll admit that I’ve had two students in classes this year who were pretty good with the XS sights on their gun (both managed to score an Advanced rating on the F.A.S.T.). But I’ve watched far more struggle with the XS system in the same time period…”
So, in all “fairness”, wouldn’t you assume it all boils down to training, or lack of?
Roger — You said, “at least give them a fair chance (and some training) before their capability is slandered. I’m curious, how do you know how much time I have or haven’t spent using these sights?
“But you’ve proved my point entirely.”
Heaven forbid my little maunderings should be considered proof of anything! And if your point is that the XS system is not a good system for defensive gun use, I would disagree with the point. I agree that you narrow the guns capabilities, but that narrowing can also be seen as enhancing the focus in a narrow segment (defensive gun use) which is a good thing. If the sights give one almost the speed of pure point shooting with improved accuracy, I would suggest that is a good idea. Sure, you give up some of that precision shooting capability, but IMO precise shooting and small groups don’t win that many actual gunfights. As I’ve mentioned before, my focus these days is more toward the typical gunowner and CCW carrier and less toward the regular competitor and/or dedicated shooter. I don’t see one giving up any realistic DGU capabilities by putting the XS sights on a handgun.
“Yes, there were criticisms of lasers and night sights… but both have now become widely adopted both in the private and government sectors. Why?”
Because after decades of people saying they didn’t work, they weren’t as good as the old way, etc. many have finally figured out that the old way wasn’t the only way to do things and that when utilized within their proper niche the alternatives would do a good job. I will point out that there is still a significant part of the shooting fraternity that considers lasers and night sights and 3-dot sights just gimmicks that slow you down and create problems.
IME the XS works, and it works quite well within the parameters for which it was designed. That was the point of getting to spend time with Ashley, understanding the parameters and how to use the sight within those parameters. I’ve found it fast and easy to learn once one gets out of the traditional notch and post mindset. As Roger said, “dotting the I” takes some getting used to if you are already used to traditional sights, but once one learns it the accuracy is fairly good.
David — I don’t disagree that the XS sights work within those limited parameters. However, within those same parameters, almost any sighting method (point shooting, index shooting, XS, notch and post) will work.
The only people I’ve seen do passably well with XS sights have been folks who’ve put some significant effort into them. You said it and so have some of the other “pro-XS” folks in this discussion: it takes time to learn to use them well. In my experience, people who’ve put the same effort into learning the proper way to use n&p sights at speed shoot just as well on high-probability targets, and better on low-probability targets.
I’ve simply spoken to too many people about instances in which a low-probability shot was needed to end the fight. It may not fall within the realm of the “average” gunfight but if I was simply making decisions based on playing the odds, I wouldn’t bother with a gun in the first place. 8)
“The only people I’ve seen do passably well with XS sights have been folks who’ve put some significant effort into them.”
I think we can say that for post and notch also. And again, we may get into a discussion of what constitutes “passably well.” As I have said, my focus these days is not that small percentage of shooters who will put some significant effort into the process, but more toward the common owner/user who might practice once or twice a year, if that much. “Put the lollipop on the target” seems much simpler and more foolproof than “line up the top of the post with the top of each side of the rear sight while getting an equal amount of light visible on each side of the post as you put the front sight on the target.”
“I’ve simply spoken to too many people about instances in which a low-probability shot was needed to end the fight.”
Assuming you have CCW as opposed to LE/military examples, I’d appreciate it if you could put together some examples of this and shoot them off to me in an e-mail when you get the chance, as my research has shown just the opposite, virtually no instances of that occurring. Thanks.
All these personal anecdotes of some people getting on well with XS sights and some people not, remarks on how much training they need, early attitudes to red dot sights and lasers, the speed at which governmental agencies move, talk of the “concept” of these sights, and the “simplicity” of them compared to N&P sights, it’s all a smokescreen, and does nothing to address the issue at hand, which is do these sights actually perform better within the “limited parameters” for which they are designed, or do they not?
No amount of anecdote and personal opinion is going to settle an issue like this. The only thing that will is real data from the real world. Todd’s main points seem to be:
“within those same parameters, almost any sighting method (point shooting, index shooting, XS, notch and post) will work”
that:
“the XS sights do nothing better than traditional notch and post sights while they absolutely, demonstrably do some things worse.”
and that:
“In my experience, people who’ve put the same effort into learning the proper way to use n&p sights at speed shoot just as well on high-probability targets, and better on low-probability targets….In games like IPSC and IDPA, equipment can be objectively evaluated head-to-head. Things that work well rise to the top and things that don’t make the cut just disappear. Within that objective crucible of testing, the XS sights have clearly failed to gain any kind of foothold.”
Granted, Todd’s “experience” and the “objective evaluation” from competition may not much resemble a controlled study, the sample may not be representative, the training approach may be questioned, and a lot of other factors may be brought under the microscope, but nevertheless it is real data. The only way to sensibly refute Todd’s point is to present real data from the real world that shows something different. Argument about how the concept of these sights “should” make them work better under those limited parameters does nothing to get us closer to finding out whether or not they actually do, which is the only relevant question, here. It seems to me that anyone wanting to make the positive claim that XS sights do a better job within the limited parameters being discussed needs to present some hard data that they actually do, otherwise such a claim is nothing better than an unfounded guess. All Todd seems to be saying is that it has yet to be demonstrated that XS sights do a better job within those parameters than other sighting methods do, which should rightly be the default position until someone convincingly establishes otherwise.
I shoot IDPA SSP w/ XS Big Dots on my G27. (Obviously NOT trying to win the game!!!) I personally find these sights help me get on target much quicker than my old 3 dots. They are not as accurate as some of my others at long range, but for my daily concealed piece I find them perfect. The difference between the paper and the perp is often underestimated. This certainly seems to be the case in this discussion!
Todd, I’m assuming you didn’t put much time and effort in trying out XS because you never really stated anything, or made it sound, like any of your comments came from first hand knowledge. You go onto talking about your students using them, some managing advanced shooting ability. Then you go onto their lack of visual feedback. How did you create your thesis? How did you come to your conclusion? How many rounds did you shoot using XS sights? Any valid research to back up your conclusion, other than what seems to be a biased opinion?
Like I mentioned the quick improvements I saw with my dad shooting with the XS sights on the second magazine. Thats not really a significant amount of time to learn how to use the sights. Are they as fast on paper as the traditional 3 dots on a IDPA fantasy range? Maybe, maybe not… I don’t really care, they are faster for me to put the lead where they belong in a defensive situation, where little x’s and numbers don’t really matter much.
Roger, Todd stated the following in the fourth comment on this post:
“I put a set of XS sights on a Beretta years ago (they were still called ‘Ashley sights’ back then). Tested them, worked with them, even shot a major IDPA match with them.”
I do not know for how many rounds or for how long, but he has firsthand experience with them.
General Comment: I’m not going to allow this discussion — or anything else at this site –to turn into a “school vs. school” rivalry. There is too much silly immaturity between instructors in this industry to begin with, and I’m not getting dragged into it just because someone disagrees with my opinion on something. Further “my king fu school is better than yours” comments will be deleted.
Roger — Your assumption is incorrect, and that’s sort of my point. The religious fervor with which some people advocate XS sights leads folks to believe that anyone who doesn’t like them is somehow uneducated or incapable. I’ve spent more hours using XS sights on the range, and put more rounds downrange, than most people shoot in a year. I followed the directions, read what the advocates said online, even spoke to someone from Ashley Express about the sights to be sure I was using them “correctly.” I shot them in practice, at a major match, and even in some limited FOF.
I’m not sure why my opinion is considered “biased” … except that I dislike them and again, that puts me at odds with the XS Jihad. I tried the XS sights because I hoped they’d be better. They weren’t.
How did I come to the conclusion that they provide less visual feedback? I’m not even sure how that is debatable. The sight alignment is, by definition, far more coarse than using n&p sights. When you’re using n&p sights correctly you’re getting feedback with every sight picture.
I’m glad you and your father are happy with the XS sights. If they work for you, great. I’m not calling for the death & dismemberment of XS sight users. 8)
Wow, the fervor behind the XS sights is hard to fathom. I find it interesting how people will defend something so vehemently on grounds that they have no first-hand knowledge of, i.e. “gunfighting.” The sole argument for XS sights tends to be along the lines of “they are better for gunfighting, not games.” As Todd has already said, that sounds catchy, but the fact is that those ‘games’ are based upon getting accurate hits at speed on multiple size targets at varying distances–which of those qualities are not realistic? While people can disagree with rules and certain practices of that model, it still provides a proving ground for equipment evaluation.
On the other hand, if you say something is only beneficial under the stress that occurs during a gunfight, then how do you judge the truth of that claim? Until that point occurs, how are your claims any more realistic than those gathered from the environment of competitive sports? At least claims from that arena are attached to some sort of measurable standard. It seems to me that lots of XS proponents are defending the merits of a sight system for a situation which they have no first-hand experience of.
Furthermore, when it comes to “learning” the XS sight system and whether one has actually used it enough to reap the benefits, I know that I converted to the XS exclusively for almost a year. I qualified expert with them on my duty gun (G22), shot them in local IDPA matches (G17), in multiple training classes and force on force environments. I’ve put that big dot on people in stressful situations, including one where I was taking slack out of the trigger and was lucky enough not to have to shoot the guy. All that said, I went back to post & notch sights because I felt the XS sights were too limiting and they handicapped my shooting. That was a personal decision and you are welcome to make your own as well, just be careful not to make that decision based off a claim that you can’t verify and that can’t be tested.
I had them on my Kahr PM9 for a while. They were terrible. They were fast. But heck, no sights at all are really, really fast.
Todd, thank you for clarifying.
I agree, use what works best for you. But at the same time allow others to decide for themselves as well. Far too often people take words from those they idolize as gospel and don’t experience things for themselves. And if people sway from the “norm” they are criticized.
“Wow, the fervor behind the XS sights is hard to fathom.”
The fervor against them is equally hard to fathom. Post and notch sights have been recognized as one of the weak points of the fighting pistol by many people for many years, as evidenced by the number of attempts to improve them. IMO, the main reason the P&N system hangs on is that it works well when used in the target shooting environment, which is what it was designed for.
“While people can disagree with rules and certain practices of that model, it still provides a proving ground for equipment evaluation.”
Using that reasoning, it has been shown that the ultimate gun to carry for personal defense use is a high-capacity full-size firarm with an electronic sight and a modified trigger shooting ammunition that just barely makes the power factor.
“It seems to me that lots of XS proponents are defending the merits of a sight system for a situation which they have no first-hand experience of.”
And many of them are defending it from a position of knowledge. Sorry, but the “No XS Sights” crowd is not the only one that has “experience” behind it and “objective evaluation.”
Hell yeah, micro Aimpoint, 38super with 124gr gold dots doing 1650fps, would make an excellent carry gun.
David-
I don’t have any fervor against them, I just believe they are an inferior solution because their primary selling point is something most will never be able to verify. If the sight is only verifiable as being better in combat and someone is carrying that sight without having ever tested it in that environment, then they are carrying it based off the faith that it will hopefully be better when that day comes. What is that faith based on? Empirical data or marketing?
Personally, I prefer something I can quantify and have confidence in. I know that the P&N sights shoot better for me and I really don’t care what you carry because you’re the only one that may live or die by that decision.
All things considered, it doesn’t make sense to me why people would carry something into a fight that falls short on the square range in the hopes that it might somehow work better in a fight. I appreciate your input, but I have given the XS sights more than enough of a trial and found them wanting. I am glad they work so well for you, but I don’t think either of us is going to convince the other at this point.
Rob-
Funny you mention Aimpoints, because I bet Aimpoints have already helped plug more badguys overseas than you can imagine.
“I don’t have any fervor against them, I just believe they are an inferior solution because their primary selling point is something most will never be able to verify. If the sight is only verifiable as being better in combat and someone is carrying that sight without having ever tested it in that environment, then they are carrying it based off the faith that it will hopefully be better when that day comes. What is that faith based on? Empirical data or marketing?”
I believe that is exactly the same lack of verification that most folks will have when it comes to P&N sights. They have never tested them in combat. They are taking it, on faith, that this is the best setup for them during times of high stress, because somebody else has said so. I don’t see how that is any different than the argument regarding XS sights.
“All things considered, it doesn’t make sense to me why people would carry something into a fight that falls short on the square range in the hopes that it might somehow work better in a fight.”
Perhaps because they haven’t seen it fall short on the square range and/or they don’t feel that much of the square range justifications transfer over into actual combat. Perhaps they look at a different model, like Ashley did when he developed the sights in the first place. There is a reason that some pretty hide-bound major agaencies authorize the XS sights as options on their officers guns.
Again, so much of what I see in these discussions are the same arguments that I have seen before relating to things like point shooting, laser sights, night sights, 3-dot sights, and so on. P&N works, not doubt about it. But they don’t work that well, or we wouldn’t have this steady progression of alternatives. But XS also works, just like lasers work, point shooting works, night sights work, and so on. I don’t think it is so much an issue of convincing someone that something is good, at least from my position. My point is simply that we should encourage people to try a wide variety of alternatives so they can find the one that works best for them in their situation. I’ve seen too many people having trouble with P&N sights who were able to use the XS sights without trouble to argue against them.
“I’m not a fan of the Steyr sights. They provide too narrow a sight picture and essentially force the eye to align even more points of reference than traditional sights.” – ToddG
Gotta disagree here, the downside to the Steyr trapazoidal sights is that they take some time to get used to, I’d say at least in the neighborhood of 1000rds or so until they’re starting to get even close to second nature anyways. After some muscle memory develops I feel they become a really fine design as the big front triangle is super fast to pick up, yet at the same time the tip of the triangle doesn’t obscure your targets keeping them precise at distance. In proper use you shouldn’t be “aligning even more points of reference than traditional sights”, you should be looking through the rear “window” of the rear sight aligning the top just as with traditional sights, and the triangle shape in the rear cut-out tends to some how do some of this for you. I mention this as I’ve found these sights faster yet just as accurate as anything else I’ve ever shot (including Warren’s) and am surprised there hasn’t been more exploration down their path…
Well, that, and I hate them even being mentioned alongside the Big Dot sights as those sights aren’t even in the same league as far as precision and use-ability is concerned as the Steyrs’ design. If you were to take off the Steyr’s rear sight and throw it away, than smash the tip off the front triangle than maybe…
– C
While I think at this point, as with many such discussions, it’s clear that some people will never change their mind either way–and, I’m not trying to turn anyone either way, btw, only providing information that was left out of the original posting and somehow missed totally by all posters–I thought I’d correct something that seems a base point of argument against the XS sights. That being that no larger police or “big deal” type military unit uses the XS sights. As can be seen on the XS sights webpage testimonials page:
“These are just some of the agencies currently using XS Sights:
Dallas Police Dept.
DEA
Los Angeles County Sheriffs Dept.
NASA – Kennedy Space Center
New Mexico Motor Transportation (Highway Patrol)
New Zealand National Police
US Navy SEALs
I should think all can agree the above certainly qualify as large enough police agencies and at least one major military unit.
In the end, some people will love them/shoot well with them and some people will hate them/not shoot well with them. I don’t know why it seems so often that discussions about sights (and, really, different pistol designs, etc.) and whatnot turn into exceedingly poorly researched arguments, but perhaps it’s just people defending some product they like or the opposite. In any case, if these sights work well for you, great. If these sights do not work well for you, that’s great, too. Find what works for you, and train like the dickens with it, so you get even better with it.
GeoffW — “I should think all can agree the above certainly qualify as large enough police agencies and at least one major military unit.”
Just because XS lists an agency on its site doesn’t mean that agency is issuing or even authorizing its sights. Maybe it’s an individual from that agency that bought a set, maybe the agency has requested some for T&E. It’s like me saying I train the FBI because I’ve had some FBI agents in my classes.
Dallas Police Dept — Does not issue pistols with XS sights.
DEA — Definitely does not issue pistols with XS sights.
LASD — Didn’t issue pistols with XS sights as of last year; if this has changed I’d love to see it.
New Mexico Highway Patrol — Just bought new S&W M&P357 pistols … not with XS sights.
Navy SEALs — Not a chance.
By the way, does the XS website distinguish between customers using XS pistol sights and other XS products?
Their website does not distinguish between customers using rifle versus pistol sights, nor does it distinguish between entire department and single officer…Just as your blanket mention of it above did not distinguish in that regard. My aim (no pun intended, really…lol) was to correct what reads as a flatly blanket statement that “no” large police agencies/military use these sights. I feel that your wording of that sort of suggestion is one of an absolute where none might exist factually.
If I misunderstood your statements on that front, and what you really meant was something more like “no large police agencies or military units issue the XS sights as common issue to every single member without fail”, then perhaps you might have said such a thing rather than what reads to me as a suggestion that “no member at all of any major police agency nor in the military uses these sights”. I tried to read back over it to be sure I wasn’t just nitpicking, and I still very easily get the blanket statement type take on it.
Btw, on what do you base your intended to read as total/blanket and fact-based comment that in regard to Navy SEALs using these sights there’s “not a chance”? Much as I’m sure that reads like I’m calling you out on it, I’m really more suggesting that this might be another example where blanket statements read more like “no SEAL uses these” rather than “the Navy does not issue them to all SEALs”. If you say you’ve asked enough currently serving SEALs about their pistol sights to get a good idea on this front, I’ll readily accept it. I’m not seeking to call you a liar in any way. Just trying to have facts presented as such and opinion presented as what that is. Besides, if the idea is that the sights aren’t very good because no big agency issues them (whether due to budget, choice, etc.), I personally think it does take away from that argument if enough individual members of such agencies chose to use the sights.
Hope that helps clarify my intention rather than make it seem even more like I’m just trolling or the like. 🙂
GeoffW — No worries, I didn’t take any of it as “calling me out.”
I’ve never said that I there are no LE or .mil people on the planet who personally prefer XS sights. I’m sure there are some. Ask enough people from enough agencies and you’ll find someone, somewhere, who wants just about anything. One of our local Dept of Corrections guys recently told me he wishes his department would switch over to the Desert Eagle .50… seriously.
As for the SEALs, I’ve been dealing with them on a professional level — specifically with regards to their pistols — for about seven years. In all that time, they’ve never ordered a SIG P226 with XS sights nor have I ever seen or heard of any active duty SEAL putting XS sights on a weapon.
I’ve just seen too many companies that make claims like “used by the Navy SEALs” when they know it’s deceptive.
Here is a video of a G20 w/ XS Big Dots shooting @ 352 yards!!!!!!! I think this should settle the “distance” issue. LOL
P.S. My previous post is NOT my endorsement of this video!!! I just find it extremely entertaining; in sort of a “King Of The Hill” sense 🙂
Train Hard (but probably not @ 352 yards)
In a nutshell, XS sights pretty much suck. In addition to NOT being “faster at combact distances”, the quaility control over at XS is sad. They also appear to have turned over the final machining of the sights to a band of middle school kids for their shop class project – look at 90% of them closley (jagged lines, unven cutting and grinding).
They say “precision machined” on the package but I could do a better job with a dremel while drunk.
JoeC – All my sets are great, both in construction and function. They must be in the 10% of those that don’t “suck”. Exactly how were you able to get a close look at 90% of all the XS sights? I could spout better meaningless statistics using a calculator while drunk! 🙂
Meh, a friend of mine, with 3 of us as witnessess (two local LEO included), off hand with his G21 with the horrible factory sights, called and hit a 4×6 inch aluminum plate (first shot) at 300m. Half inch plate had a nice deep dent in it too.
Col Jeff Cooper talks about sights on the well known video of him teaching at Gunsite in his later years. He discusses the change in the sights on the 1911 away from JM Brownings pick and how important that was in the rise of the 1911 towards its ultimate accomplishments. Generally, he suggests that a basic notch and post does everthing it needs to do.
People like getting excited about a special interest. Common sense brings us back to sober facts of function. Let’s move on from the XS sights. Like many innovations, they do great things for some people. The fellow with diminishing vision is being well served.
Here is a next topic humbly presented if readers are interested:
American Rifleman’s Feb issue has just arrived and has two more articles (reader editorials) about the 92FS M9 being discluded from the AR Top Ten list. Last month’s issue featured a good article by Mas Ayoob expounding upon the importance of this gun.
There are several points of debates about the M9’s deserving honor generally and specifically that it should outway other pistols that were included to include; innovation, historical use impact, design intruige, and of course functional dependability, etc.
Mas Ayoob says contrary to the opinion of many, most notably Jeff Cooper, that the Baretta 92FS is very shootable. He also says that all three of his were smithed-over by top end gunsmiths.
How shootable is the M9 and should we consider out-of-the-box, military issue or souped-up?
I just put a set of XS big dot sights on my SR9c and I really like them a lot. Maybe it’s because I’m 65 years old and don’t see the regular 3 dot sights so good anymore. It took a little getting used to, but I like them!
Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics…even if you win, your still retarded! If you like the sights, use them. If you don’t like em, don’t use em. Whatever you decide, quit bitching and acting like a kid that wants their way! Good grief!