Glock Talk banner

New Glock FT Bullseye Self illuminating night Sight, no front sight needed

7K views 34 replies 22 participants last post by  MAGICMANIA 
#1 ·
#2 ·
Dunno if the underlying company is the same, I've owned some mako stuff before (rail mounts etc), I think they are into multiple things. But I recalled seeing one of these before. Had to search for it, but it was Sootch00 on youtube that reviewed the same or similar device a few years ago. Definitely cool.

EDIT: The one you posted does look to be much more shallow. The one on Sootch00's gun looks longer on the slide. FWIW.

 
#4 ·
I want to see a real review. To me a real review is where someone who can hit things at 25 yards with a handgun shows groups with traditional sights vs. the FT Bullseye. Until then any review I see I call BS on. Give me free stuff and I'll say anything is great and that is how I take any review without a real comparison.
 
#6 ·
I assume the point is that the dot is only bright when your eye is lined up directly behind it?
 
#7 ·
So it's basically another gimmick for the guys who blame their sights for their lack of proper grip and trigger control. Looking at it, it is pretty clear that it doesn't eliminate the front sight, if just moves the front sight much closer to the rear and puts them in one package, so you have a 2 inch sight radius.

I don't see anything good about that.
 
#8 ·
I wonder how many dollars have been spent trying to replace iron sights with something else.
 
#9 ·
Interesting although if I wanted only one sight the front seems the better choice just off the top of my head.
 
#13 ·
The FT Bullseye the thread is about is supposed to be self illuminating. In other words it benefits from fiber optics but also has a tritium source so it will be "useable" in low/no light. I'm not defending it just stating that.

The whole thing about Israeli this and that just amuses me. We could say anything made in the USA is all spec op/tac beard/tactical by that same line of reasoning and cite the fact that the US is the home of SEALS, Rangers, Delta Force, ect. A company based in the US can make junk just the same as a company based in Israel can make junk. Not saying the FT Bullseye is junk. Just saying I find it almost damning that no real comparison test at distance has been done by any so called "reviewer" still.
 
#17 ·
I just watched a bunch of videos on that site of that. I'm seeing either...
People are reviewing the sight that can't shoot their gun worth a damn.
or
The sight is terribly inaccurate.

Especially the Glock 34 with the sight mounted. Why can't anyone show a before and after? Forget how quick it is to acquire. I want to know how it compares to traditional when it comes to accuracy. At this point I'm convinced it doesn't honestly based on everything reviewers are NOT showing.
 
#16 ·
Daz nutz! Over the top and ugly as hell. Priced way over the top. Drop it just in the right place and bam two C notes are gone.
 
#18 ·
Just looking at it, the radius is too short to be affective and too time consuming to acquire the needed sight picture. Very short radiuses may look like you're going to hit something, yet will still prove inaccurate 'cause they just don't show how much the muzzle of the pistol is actually moving around like a traditional sight will. Not for me.
 
#20 · (Edited)
Center the dot in the circle? That does not sound fast to me but maybe it could be. And it seems like very tiny errors in sight alignment would result in large target errors. I'd also worry about how well it works with less than good eyesight, especially astigmatism. The sight also covers too much of the target area IMO. And the price is ridiculous.



I'll stick with my Big Dots for defense.
 
#21 ·
From my perspective, it appears that the TAS sight lamp is recessed so anything less than perfect alignment would result in an off center shot. The FT sight appears to be on the same plane as the surface of the back of the sight. I would be inclined to buy the TAS sight, despite the lack of tritium.

Also, if the sight is the FO tube, what do you need the outer wings? Just to simulate a front and rear?
 
#24 ·
I have tried them at several iterations. For rough sights up close, they are okay. For precision, they are not acceptable. 25 yard groups were close to twice the size of decent sights and about equal to my groups with no sights at all. In fact the 10" steel at 50 yards, I hit more times with no sights than these.
 
#25 ·
This is what I've been wondering. Thanks.

Funny how the video reviews on the originals website claiming that sight is so great was only accompanied by examples of very poor shooting.
 
#27 ·
marks1, I tried the TAS and I have tried a red and green Meprolight. I tried another of the same type in there at some point, but I do not know what it was branded at the time.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top