Big, bright, just have a pistol to match - TruGlo Brite-Site TFX Sights For Glock 17/17L/19/22/23/24/26/27/33/34/35/38/39

Up front, while I put this on a Glock 26, it really shouldn't be. As a subcompact, having tall sights meant for something with a suppressor, these are way too tall for something that's typically reserved for concealed carry. I mean if you have a 26 and put a suppressor on it, more power to you.
Now the reason why I put these on a 26, well we have to go back several months. Some years ago, I bought an Trijicon RMR, and that went for years without being put on something because mounting it to an ACOG was a little cumbersome and just outside the region of trainability, at least for me. I'm a little guy and it put it just outside the reach of moving my neck without straining. As a result, it waited in a box until I got a Glock 17 MOS to mount it onto. But, being cautious, I wanted to mount backup sights to it. Now the standard Glock irons are too short for an RMR, so I opted for suppressor sights, and I looked for these on the recommendation of a friend. I'll be honest, they looked good on the 17, and the little white circle on the front sight post made it easier to acquire. But when the plate and screws to mount the RMR came in, I found the rear sights jutted out a little too far forward, and as I wasn't confident (or in possession) of a dremel to take just enough, as the little capsule of tritium was right around that area, I ended up ordering Trijicon suppressor sights. And these TruGlo sights sat in a little Pelican case for months.
Now at no fault of TruGlo, having these on a Glock 26 is problematic for a couple reasons. For one, it's a bit pointless to have it on something meant for concealed carry because the point of such high sights is to pair it with a suppressor. And as much of a confidence booster it could be, when would I ever have a suppressor on a concealed carry? They aren't exactly low-profile on their own either. What do I mean by "low-profile" for gigantic sights? Well, while Trijicon's suppressor sights are tall, they are also relatively thinner and the rear sights don't go too far beyond the slot they mount in, which is why they're a little more popular for use alongside RMRs. Even the models that do go beyond the footprint, they go backwards away from it toward the backplate. The other problem I have is that the front sight post is ever-so-slightly too tall. Yeah, weird right? Tall sights that are too tall. But what I mean is, I bought a Pegasus concealed holster for the 26, and I had to grind a little material away, so it would fit and I wouldn't have to go through a cycle of selling and buying a different set of sights or a holster.

Now that I got the negative-nancy stuff out of the way, let's talk good stuff. Because of the combination of fiber-optics and tritium, these are very bright. Like, noticeably brighter, and higher, than Trijicon's night sights and suppressor sights. If I had to venture a guess, the amount of exposure the fiber optics get and what appears to be a longer/bigger chamber for the tritium allowing for more. They're very sturdy and solidly built. And, personal musings, I feel the longer tubes running along the axis of the tiny slide allow for a slightly more accurate sight picture and making sure the front sight is on straight; the way the sights are constructed, you're not supposed to be able to mount a sight crooked, but I did notice the Trijicon's had to be finagled a little bit to straighten out, or maybe I just got a defective one, whatever. It's like aiming down a knife rather than a sight post, you can tell if you're canted even a little. Of course I'm not looking to ping targets too far out anyway, but the option's there and for such a short axis, I'll take what I can. Bright dots, a white circle and a deceptively long axis, this makes for a very easy sight picture to pick up. In terms of function, they do exactly what TruGlo intends them to: give you a good sight picture, higher, brighter, easier to line up.

If I had to buy them again, I'm honestly not sure I would. I certainly wouldn't put them on a subcompact and would instead opt for something with a smaller footprint, mostly so I wouldn't have to look for another holster or modify the one I got. But that's my fault, and for my wallet's sake, I really don't mind that I had them anyway. Just about anything is better than the stock sights on Glocks and honestly, these are pretty good.