Tritium AR/AK front sight?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
2,075
Location
"The Gunshine State"
I like iron sights. However, I came to the realization that I can't see the beautiful coal black front sight post at night.

Does anyone have any insight into the tritium front sight posts? I worry that they may clutter the front sight during the day.

Thanks!
 
I have them on both AR's and AK's, and they work well. I believe they are all Meprolight's.

The only downside I see, is they tend to give less precision at longer ranges, as the front post is a bit wider to accommodate the vial.
 
I'm tempted to get one as well. A guy I met at the range one day had one and it was pretty nice. But it was daylight so I couldn't really do a night test.
 
I put "Whiteout" on the backside of my front sight and it makes the sight very easy to see. Of course it wont help at night but it great for daytime and shooting at my indoor range.
 
I have the XS 24/7 front sight.

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/161116/xs-24-7-front-sight-post-ar-15-steel-matte-tritium-bar

I like it. Easy to install, visible day or night (esp. night), precise enough for 100 meters (which is what my 16" carbine is designed for.)

It's only one of THREE upgrades I've made to my 1990's era Bushmaster A2 fixed sight Patrolman's carbine (they don't make it anymore): Rock River trigger, XO front sight, and a VLTOR BCM "Gunfighter" medium extended charging handle (not necessary, just works well with my mode of rifle carry.)
 
I have seen people use glow in the dark fishing lure paint on their 1911's front sights. Works pretty well. Never done it myself though
 
I have the same front sight as ACP - had a spare AR laying around and decided to turn it into a HD gun, so figured the tritium front sight blade would be nice - I do like it.

Don't even bother with rear tritium sights on an AR - I have a Troy Folding Battlesight with 2 tritium dots on either side of the peephole. When you shoulder the gun, those 2 rear dots being that close to your eyes end up giving me 3 (or more) blurry green blobs circled around the actual dot - darn things are distracting as heck.

I have no problem with a 3-dot tritium setup on a pistol, but those rear pistol sights are a lot farther from your eyes than the rear sight on an AR.
You also tend to bring sights on target a little better with a mounted rifle than you do with a pistol hanging out there at arm's length, so the rear dots on a rifle are not needed as much as they might be on a pistol.
 
This is just one opinion, but..

I have had a meprolight tritium post on an AR for several years. Up until recently the rear sight was a standard (non-illumiated) flip-up peep. Getting the sights aligned in low light was frankly a pain. I now have a Brownell's flip up tritium rear sight installed as well. It has two tiny tritium vials, one on each side of the peep. Having tritium front and rear works MUCH better for me.

ETA: I have used front-only tritium on other guns including an M1A and they were OK. Part of the problem is probably using the standard m4 style adjustable stock...but I think a tiny amount of tritium in the rear would make them all better.
 
Last edited:
I agree with basicblur about having the rear sight lit on the AR's, and even the AK's arent all that great.

Ive actually removed the lit rear sights on two of my AK's and replaced them with the factory rear sights.

The problem with the sights I have on my AK's is, the vials on the rear sights are the same size as the front, and they are pretty big/bright, and are a tad to close to my eye, and they tend to blur and overwhelm the front sight.

I have a shotgun that has a set as well, but the vials on are smaller, and dont suffer the problem. If the vials on the AK's rear were smaller/slightly dimmer, it would be better.

As far as alignment goes, if youre familiar with the rifle and how it shoulders, and get a consistent cheek weld each time you shoulder it, the sights pretty much align themselves as the gun is shouldered. I dont usually have any troubles quickly seeing the lit front with an unlit rear.
 
The Inverse Square law being what it is, if a front sight is 4" from your eyes and the rear is 20", the front sight needs to be 25 times as bright as the rear for them to look the same. That's assuming I'm not borking the math.

From the looks of it, a meprolight M4 front post is about 25 times as bright as the brownells flip-up rear I am using. It's a good combination, better than the unilluminated peep I started with.


As far as cheek weld, maybe it was a matter of the aperture size of my old peep but the M4-oid was definitely not an instant pick-up in the dark. The M1A (SOCOM 16) was better. Having tried various combinations, having a proper illuminated rear just makes a good thing better/faster. If I had a tritium rear sight that was too bright I would put a little nail polish or grease over the rear capsules to drop the brightness before I replaced the sight.
 
the front sight needs to be 25 times as bright as the rear for them to look the same.
Is that the math only, or does it take into account the way eyes really work?

If I hold a page of print in front of me at around the same distance as my rear tritium sights (on an AR), I can't focus on the print as it's too close to my eyes to get a focus - this is why I have those multiple balls floating around the rear tritium dots, none of which are in focus.

AFA "looking the same", I don't think it's ever going to happen.
You can't focus at multiple distances, so you're going to have to pick one - the target, the front sight, or the rear sight.

This gets even worse with a rifle, as the distances between the front / rear sight are greater, making an attempt at focusing on both even more problematic.
 
The rear is supposed to be out of focus. You aren't supposed to have everything (front and rear) in focus at the same time. Day or night, bright lighting or dim. Rifle or handgun. You should be focusing on the front sight. Everything else (target, rear sight, tip of your nose) should be blurry.

If the rear sight looks a lot brighter than the front (due to distance and the inverse square law) it will tend to draw the eye and you will find it harder to maintain the correct front sight focus. The eye is drawn to the brightest object so it should be the front sight.

If you are attempting to focus on both, that is user error.
 
I agree with you on what you should be focusing on, but with night sights, you need some clarity in what it is your looking at. In that case, its not so much that your focusing on one or the other, as much as it is that your getting a "sight picture" that your placing on your target.

When the rear sight is to bright, drawing your attention to it specifically, and/or is fuzzing out, and unclear, you dont get that clear "sight picture" and your brain gets to worrying on something it shouldnt be.
 
...but with night sights, you need some clarity in what it is your looking at.
Exactly - and I can't get that with those darn rear tritium dots (on an AR) appearing as multiple dots around a dot (all out of focus), which are darn distracting. It's almost as if someone is shining a small flashlight in my eyes.

Not that I'd want to, but I don't think I could focus on the rear dots if I tried, and if I did manage to do so, headaches would probably follow.

And I tend to go against "conventional wisdom" (although I'm seeing a few folks starting to teach this) and focus on the target / threat instead of the front sight.
 
I think both of you are talking about the pitfalls of rear sights that are too bright. I agree. Too-bright rear sights are a problem. I take it a step further and say that the brightness ratio should be about 25:1 (where the front sight is 25 times brighter than the rear). A proper rear sight tritium is visiable in the dark but it is NOTHING like "a small flashlight".

25:1 is what physics dictates for a 4" eye to peep, and 20" eye to front sight, distance. The actual ratio will vary depending on the measurements of your gun.

If your rear tritium is too bright, you should fix that, which means doing something to reduce the apparent brightness until it is about 1/25th the brightness of the front. Grease, loctite, etc should do the trick. Or replace the rear sight with a tritium sight that has correctly sized vials. There is no sense in throwing out the baby with the bath water though...tritium rear sights are great on rifles if they are tuned properly.
 
How does a lighted front sight help identify the target at night? Either by red flood light, or night vision amplification, the target needs to be identified. Most of those will put enough light on the target to get the front sight on it, or have a built in sight themselves.

On a handgun they might help, it's a close range weapon. Many of those owners state the real benefit is they can see where the gun is located to grasp it. Once in the hand, some method is necessary to identify the target to even know if it's a threat.

With a rifle, the target is likely much further away, it's not nearly as much a definitive threat, and identification even more necessary. If it's hunting, are you targeting a sounder of pigs, or an out of season herd of does and fawns? Or, feeder calves?

You need to illuminate your target to identify it in the dark, and that usually settles the issue of what sighting method you use.

With military weapons, the red dot is used, and the specification states it can't be emitted forward to detect it. Goes to the tritium sight, in tactical use it could give away where you are as you pass hidden intruders.

Gets complicated at night, which is why the Armed Forces trains in it so much to get things ironed out before going into combat. There's a lot to it.
 
A proper rear sight tritium is visiable in the dark but it is NOTHING like "a small flashlight".
It is when the rear sight is parked about 2 inches or so from your eyes.

'Course, you'll just say that's not a "proper" size rear tritium sight.

I have neither the time, money, or inclination to experiment in order to find the "proper" size rear sight since when I mount my AR, the sights are pretty much on target.

AFA my Troy Battlesight, I've fixed the problem - I just put a small piece of black tape over both dots.
 
How does a lighted front sight help identify the target at night?
It doesn't - my HD AR also has a light, but it's rare that there's not enough ambient light in my house to not identify the target.
The tritium front sight is just another tool in the box - it helps me get on target without drawing attention to myself - if there's not enough light to use the tritium sight only...well, that's what the white light is for.
 
'Course, you'll just say that's not a "proper" size rear tritium sight.

Well, brightness is more important than size. I'm not going to repeat the whole The Inverse Square Law of Light thing but it is very clear about how bright objects must be at different distances to look equally bright.

To me it's just basic set-up, like sighting in a rifle. You wouldn't take a rifle out of the box, fire it a few times, and complain that it wasn't even hitting the paper.

I have neither the time, money, or inclination to experiment in order to find the "proper" size rear sight since when I mount my AR, the sights are pretty much on target.

I doubt it would cost more than a penny to fix. I am getting that you have "no inclination".

AFA my Troy Battlesight, I've fixed the problem - I just put a small piece of black tape over both dots.

That's a suboptimal solution. Try pricking your tape with a pin (one hole over each vial) to let a small amount of light through, you will get better results.
 
That's a suboptimal solution
One could also say if you don't know how / haven't practiced shouldering your rifle "correctly"...well, that's also a "suboptimal solution".

But that would be snarky, and we won't go there...

Try pricking your tape with a pin (one hole over each vial) to let a small amount of light through, you will get better results.
Currently my results are fine with the rear tritium covered.
Problem solved - just wish I hadn't spent the extra money.

I probably would not have paid extra for the Troy rear with the tritium inserts, but the vendor had them for just a few dollars more than the plain sights.

I think I now know why...
 
One could also say if you don't know how / haven't practiced shouldering your rifle "correctly"...well, that's also a "suboptimal solution".

But that would be snarky, and we won't go there...

Why not? I agree, if it is a lack of knowledge or practice. Which it is not. If you cannot see the rear sight, you cannot reliably say whether you are looking through or around the peep. If you cannot say that, you cannot say you are aiming.

BTW: I didn't spend the money for a long time. I used a non-tritium rear sight with a tritium front. It "worked" and I was "happy". Then I tried a proper (dim) tritium rear sight. A proper tritium rear sight works better than a non-illuminated rear. Lesson learned. I wouldn't be posting if I hadn't made the same mistake myself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top