That sounds even better. I would prefer a fixed sight over the adjustable version. I'll let some other folks be the guinea pigs though. Once a few people have tried it and reported good results then I'll give it a try.
That sounds even better. I would prefer a fixed sight over the adjustable version. I'll let some other folks be the guinea pigs though. Once a few people have tried it and reported good results then I'll give it a try.
Steve
Disclaimer: I am employed by Shadow Systems. My posts on this site are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer.
We just got some of these in stock!
http://www.gandrtactical.com/cgi-bin...tion&key=WP101
C4
Well hell.. its about damn time trijicon...
Dont sweat the small stuff.
If youre not taking fire, its all small stuff.
Yeah, I ordered a couple of sets, good Lord, I can't remember how long ago, and they showed up at my door Friday....got them installed today...have to go try them out....problem was it was so damn long ago I had forgotten about it and I get the "what is this $300+" charge on the credit card interrogatory from the wife....
Umm...remember...like...in December....when I told you I was going to buy some night sights....
Yeah...she didn't remember....
VA Arms Co alumnus
I got my Dawson Precision sights yesterday and installed them.
Beautiful set of sights, how ever I have a few complaints and would not buy these again or recommend them to any one else, heres why:
1) the rear, it does not fit, and was clearly for another gun and they decided they fit the PPQ as well, they don't really. The top of the slide has a raised flat with lines down it, this is to high. I had to seriously hammer these things on, I can see where forcing the two together caused material to be removed from either the slide or the sights, I can 't tell. I have installed many glock rears, I understand a tight fit, this was way past that. The set screw in the back is obviously not needed, and I assume would be useful on what ever gun the site was designed for.
2) Rear sight notch is narrower than stock, front is the same width. This makes for slower target acquisition for me, I prefer wider rear.
Wish I had held out for the Trijicons.
I'm sure I 'll be good with what I have, and since I doubt the rear is coming off with any real ease I am literally stuck with them.
I've been fairly happy with the Dawsons. The included instructions said they might need to be fitted, and that's definitely true--they would barely start in the dovetail without a little filing, and even following the instructions to file until they went in easily to the halfway point, I got a few slivers once I tapped them into place. I agree that the rear notch could be a little wider and the lamps being right up against the notch as opposed to being in the middle takes a little getting used to. I might give the regular Trijicons a try on my next PPQ (not a huge fan of the U-notch), or even the factory night sights since I like the width of the factory rear. I just wish Ameriglo would give us some Operators or Pro Operators...
All Dawson sights have to be filed to fit in my experience (Glock, M&P, etc). So you made an error by pounding them in.
The notch sizes are clearly written on their website. So if you have a rear notch of .125 and a front sight width of .125, they are going to be a tight sight picture (this is what I run BTW). If you did not want that, then you needed to choose a a larger rear notch (like .145) with the .125 front sights.2) Rear sight notch is narrower than stock, front is the same width. This makes for slower target acquisition for me, I prefer wider rear.
Wish I had held out for the Trijicons.
I'm sure I 'll be good with what I have, and since I doubt the rear is coming off with any real ease I am literally stuck with them.
This is the file needed to properly fit Dawson sights: http://www.brownells.com/gunsmith-to...s-prod698.aspx
C4
Last edited by C4IGrant; 04-23-14 at 10:47.
Bookmarks