Haley Strategic Partners TH1RTE3N Glock Handgun Sights

Haley Strategic 13 Glock Sights

Haley Strategic Partners has come out with a new spin on Glock handgun sights. They are taking a different approach to the idea, promoting the thought that the widths of the front sight and rear notch are irrelevant.

The HSP TH1RTE3N Glock Handgun sights were designed based around the science of how the human eye acquires sight alignment and sight picture under precision or stress sight picture situations. Handgun sights are installed on a handgun to add more precision; this is what the HSP 13 were designed around. Under “critical stress” shooting, we know that the Body Alarm Response (BAR) instantly takes control and increases the blood flow to the center field of vision. This in return increases your visual efficiency on the threat. During this immediate process, it is very difficult to focus on anything other than the threat. Your eyes observe, your brain orients, and you then decide on an action to take. During this immediate BAR response process, you will look through your sights with your focal plane fixed on the target due to it being a positive and natural human defense mechanism. With this theory in mind, the widths of the front sight or rear sight notch are irrelevant. The idea that your front sight and or rear notch need to be large for faster target acquisition is misguided, according to current research by visual experts. However, precision sight picture does matter when the information continues to the higher cognitive portion of the brain during situations where a decision has consciously been made to use a higher level of precision for hostage taker or long-range shots for example. In this case, the HSP 13 sights are designed with a .125 front width sight and a .125 rear sight notch. This will refine the sight picture during the trigger press, decreasing human error and increasing hit probability on a precision target.

HSP 13 Sights Specifications

  • Sights are precision CNC machined from heat treated 416 stainless and finished in Black Oxide.
  • Front sight diameters are .215 height by .125 wide and come with a .070 tritium front sight insert.
  • Rear sight diameters are .215 height with .125 bottom tapered notch, optional in black out or dual .070 Tritium inserts.

The black rear, tritium front have an MSRP of $99 while the sights that have tritium on both front and rear have an MSRP of $139.

They are 100% made and manufactured in the USA and you can find out more information at: http://www.haleystrategic.com/weapon-accessories/handgun-accessories



Tom is a former Navy Corpsman that spent some time bumbling around the deserts of Iraq with a Marine Recon unit, kicking in tent flaps and harassing sheep. Prior to that he was a paramedic somewhere in DFW, also doing some Executive Protection work between shifts. Now that those exciting days are behind him, he has embraced his inner “Warrior Hippie” and assaults 14er in his sandals and beard, or engages in rucking adventure challenges while consuming craft beer. To fund these adventures, he writes medical software and builds websites and mobile apps. His latest venture is as one of the founders of IronSights.com; a search engine for all things gun related. He hopes that his posts will help you find solid gear that will survive whatever you can throw at it–he is known (in certain circles) for his curse…ahem, ability…to find the breaking point of anything.


Advertisement

  • From what I read, it seems that the idea is that most people won’t be able to use any sort of sights at all during the fight or flight response, so the 13’s are designed more for precision marksmanship at longer/ less stressful distances.

    • Harrison Jones

      From what I’ve read from people doing is simunitions is that after the first shot individuals with training pick up the from sight for followup shots if there is sufficient ambient light and they always have soft focus on the sights.

      • That’s interesting, but does not track with my own personal experience with Force on Force. I exclusively defaulted to point shooting from shoulder to eye level, except in cases where I was a) firing from behind cover, b) greater than 7 yards away or c) firing from a position of ambush.

  • BattleshipGrey

    One dose of USA made science, that’ll be $139 please.

    • USMC03Vet

      The science is settled. Either $140 or losing every fictional gun fight in your head.

  • Dracon1201

    Appearantly contrast or being able to see your sights in most conditions doesn’t matter either to these designers…

  • The 80’s style Target Sights, now in Non-Adjustable.

    LOLOLOLOL….
    Ah…
    No. I’ll pass on this.

  • Harrison Jones

    I’d like to take identically setup Glock 19s, maybe with identical trigger work to compensate for factory variations in pull weight and set with up with these sights, Trijicon HDs, Proctor Y sights, 10-8s, Warren Tactical, Vickers, Defoor etc… and use the same shooter and see which has better times/accuracy in daytime, low/ambient lights and white light needed. Also use a high level shooter

    Maybe it’s just me but the science on all of them seems to make since to me.

    I have very fast sight picture with .125 front and rear on my PPQ. Similar to the Trijicon HDs on my glock 19 but the .125 front on the PPQ is fiber optic and the PPQs trigger allows for much better accuracy for myself so I can’t commit on that although I’ve heard people say accuracy sucks on stock glock sights(does for me anyway) due to the lack air in the sight picture.

    • Rick5555

      I’ve found that a shooter with solid and good marksmanship fundamentals. That the shooter should be able to pick up any firearm (pistol or rifle). And shoot the firearm fairly well. Anything else, is just an excuse.

      • Harrison Jones

        Still trying to decipher the direction of your comment.

        A good shooter should have repeatable performance, but gear does make a difference once you’ve reached a certain level. We are talking fractions of a second and an inch or two at distance, but the gear does make a difference. This is especially true when trying to achieve speed and accuracy. If you don’t have the fundamentals down then gear is completely irrelevant. Once you have them down the details start to matter.

  • INFI

    What do these remind me of for some reason???

  • nadnerbus

    Does anyone make a glock sight that doesn’t have the standard trapezoid shape for the rear sight? I hate that geometry for some reason i can’t quite articulate. When I bring my friend’s sig P229 up to my eye, the tall, rounded off square posts are just easier to quickly line up for me. My G19 not so much.

    • The10-8 Glock rear might be up your alley. Looks squared off in the google images that I found, and they are quite popular.

  • Ben

    At least they’ve dropped that ridiculous “Murdered out” description for the blacked out rear.

  • Bill

    Whenever people say something has been scientifically studied, and then fail to actually cite who, what and when, I’m out. I realize that most people aren’t going to do their own literature review, but some of us do this science stuff for a living.

    • Rick5555

      Bill….well said. I’m a science guy too, as well as its my profession ( gastro-intestinal surgeon, aka: colon-rectal). However, I hate using that word colon rectal…the odd comments I get from people. Has become quite annoying. I read an article from The New England Journal of Medicine. A study done by Dr. Edward Hansen, from Cambridge University, England (for people who didn’t know the location). His study was based on people who are left handed, left eye dominate, who would subsequently focusing on small targets at close range or focusing at long distance (with magnification). Have a strong propensity to close the non-dominate eye. While using an optic which enables a person to use both eyes open. The lefty participants/subjects, still closed their non-dominate eye. Though it wasn’t necessary The study is still being conducted. But the results were interesting. Considering people who are righties in the same conditions, in the aforementioned, were doing the opposite affect. The manner I wrote this, sounds boring. But in further detail, it was most interesting.
      What type of science/discipline do you practice? Provided that’s not too personal to ask. Or you don’t want to mention your field in this forum. I would understand if you were apprehensive in answering. A hobby of mine is researching metals and fluid dynamics. Again, those fields are just hobbies for me. Couple these hobbies with my passion of shooting and gun collecting. I truly enjoy learning about metals and the different process of how metal is shaped and/or how the strength of metals are formed…per tensile measure, yield, etc.

      • Bill

        I’m a crossbreed cop and academic, so I’m a social scientist, not a real scientist 😉 My degree’s in forensic psych and I went heavily into stats and research methodology, hence my umbrage at junk science. My first interest was in the role of linguistics and rhetoric in interrogation and deception, then when I went into training I got more involved in human factors, performance & motivation and the neurology of decision making and performance enhancement. I started into it with firearms training, the emergency vehicle operations training, as far more cops die in car crashes than gunfights.

        Right now I’m playing around with the speed in which we perceive visual stimuli as it compares to video capture rates: typical video cameras record 28 images a second, and I’m theorizing that that doesn’t match how quickly humans process imagery, so a video of an incident may, or may not, accurately reflect what the people there “saw.” From a strictly social perspective, I’m curious as to how people perceive videos that aren’t stopped, started and repeated versus those that can be, and whether or how viewing stills from videos effects their perception of events. In LE we are rushing towards, and being pushed to body worn cameras, and there’s a huge amount of video of us taken anyway, and I think that there are complications that we haven’t looked at. This came to me as a hardcore amateur photographer and videographer, knowing that pictures lie all the time.

        The vision study is indeed interesting. I went through LASIX, the effects weakened and I became cross-dominant within the last couple years. It has effected my shooting far more than I would have thought.

        Thanks for reminding me – i’m overdue for a colonoscopy.

        • robert w

          Well, computer gamers have figured this one out already. Motion seems fluid enough at 24 frames per second, but gamers see hand eye co-ordination improvements above and beyond 60 fps. Top end gaming monitors are capable of 120 hz and above refresh rates, and top gamers see an improvement from it.

          So, seemingly fluid 24 fps is likely not close to the bandwidth that our eyes and brains can operate at.

  • AD

    Talk about science… call their product “TH1RTE3N”… for some reason I’m getting mixed messages here.