View Full Version : U notch rear sight
Amp Mangum
12-21-09, 13:26
Anyone running a U notch rear sight? I'm using a 10-8 rear on my 1911 and I can see an increase in the speed in picking up my front sight.
Dos Cylindros
12-21-09, 13:36
I have my springfield custom shop gun back at the custom shop right now getting a 10-8 .140 U notch put on and it will be back next week (go the call today!). No experience yet with the U notch, but I like the idea, and I am glad to hear that you notice a speed increace. I will report back when the gun is in my hands.
SWATcop556
12-21-09, 14:45
I use the 10-8 on my Glocks, 1911's, and (recently) my M&P's. I love the sight picture. I may try the Warrens on my next gun.
I run the 10-8 on my Vickers Recon and Baer Thunder Ranch Commanche, and yes, I like them a lot.
JiMfraRED1911
12-21-09, 15:03
Got a 10-8 rear unit on my Quantico gun, love it. Couple of 2112s said that they were gonna try the 10-8 on their "free time builds".
I am another big fan of the 10-8 rear sight. I have it installed on my Glocks and the 10-8 rear with Trijicon front is my favorite sight set up.
I just picked up a 10-8 for my G17. I like it so far but I may pick up a Tritium or brass bead front for a little faster sight picture. I'm so use to my old Tru Dots.
Gringop
http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee238/gringop/CopyofIMGA0184a.jpg
http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee238/gringop/CopyofIMGA0179a.jpg
http://www.ameriglo.net/weapon_site/store_pages/glock_tritium_sights.html
The ameriglo u-rap sights are awesome. I got a pair for my glock 17 & 19. They are extremely fast. They are like a ghost ring with the top of the ring cut off. ( they also have the full ghost ring available). It is pretty close to an AR sight.
The best part is that they have Trijicon tritium lamps in them Front and rear and are half the price! Only $52 for front and rear with coupon code "GSSF". The rear dots don't have white rings and only come into play at night. The rears are half the size of the front dot.
The sight works great as you blur the rear and focus on the front. The lamps are crystal clear thanks to them being trijicon.
They also show up great at night with an illuminated target as you can clearly see the front sight through the rear U-rap notch since there is room on all sides ( think AR sight on illuminated target).
I am a cop and work at night, and these are awesome. I just cleared a building under construction last night and they worked great with the flashlight, and without.
A true u-notch is primarily beneficial for precision shooting. Most -- including the 10-8's that I've seen -- are too narrow for speed shooting.
While folks often refer to the Warren sights as a "u-notch" ... even the guy who designed the Warren Tactical website. :rolleyes: But they're actually not a true u-notch. They're much more like a traditional notch rear sight but with the sharp edges at the bottom of the notch rounded out. The idea is that the rear sight has only two sharp points: the points you use for aiming. There are no other edges to draw your visual attention.
Amp Mangum
12-21-09, 18:12
I wish Scott would get his Novak dovetail 1911 sights out.
I really like the 10-8 rear with the .125" notch and have been thinking about trying one with a .140" notch to pick up speed but I wonder if the .140" may be a little too wide.
I'd definitely opt for the .140" ...
RiflemanBobcat
12-21-09, 20:43
I'd definitely opt for the .140" ...
I did. My Springfield 1911's imitation-Novak rear sight was replaced with a 10-8 U-notch, .140" width of notch, back in April of this year.
Love it, especially with just a tritium-dot front sight. Much easier to make fast hits. (not that I'm all that fast to begin with;))
SWATcop556
12-21-09, 21:32
For me the .140 10-8 is the best blend of speed and precision.
I've been searching/waiting for someone to come out with a fixed version replacement for a Kimber (Series 1) Adjustable Target (Bo-Mar) rear sight. All I see is Heinie Slant Pro or Straight Eights on the market to fill this need. Would love to have a u-notch option.
The Dumb Gun Collector
12-21-09, 22:04
I was running the 10-8 NM rear on my Colt Officer's. It is excellent. Just recently I got a set of the Warren Tacs for my G26. I am really, really impressed. The sights are fast and really no detriment to accurate shooting.
NCPatrolAR
12-21-09, 22:10
I think the standard 10-8 is too narrow and dont care for it too much. The only reason I havent switched it out yet is because I dont shoot the 1911 it sits on too often. I greatly prefer the Warren setup (even if it isnt a true U notch) over the narrow 10-8.
MadcapMagician
12-21-09, 23:09
I wish Scott would get his Novak dovetail 1911 sights out.
I really like the 10-8 rear with the .125" notch and have been thinking about trying one with a .140" notch to pick up speed but I wonder if the .140" may be a little too wide.
They're already out. I've got one of the rears on my TRP. Check with MLE shooting sports.
http://mle-shootingsports.com/Sights-WTS-Sights/c7_28/p86/WTS-Rear-Sights/product_info.html
NCPatrolAR
12-21-09, 23:34
They're already out. I've got one of the rears on my TRP. Check with MLE shooting sports.
http://mle-shootingsports.com/Sights-WTS-Sights/c7_28/p86/WTS-Rear-Sights/product_info.html
I picked up a .140 from Dave Berryhill a few years ago when I was still trying to make Big Dot sights work for me. I dont know if he still has any.
Got a new Glock 17 that's going to be my primary focus for the coming year - forgot how much the stock sights suck.
Definitely going .140 10-8 rear, but can anyone weigh in on brass-bead vs. tritium front? It's a range and class gun, maybe IDPA/IPSC in the latter half of the year. Mostly just a personal preference thing or would you recommend one over the other?
I also like the Warren Tactical rears but haven't seen them in person - do you find that the lack of serration matters at all (compared to a 10-8)?
NCPatrolAR
12-22-09, 01:47
Got a new Glock 17 that's going to be my primary focus for the coming year - forgot how much the stock sights suck.
Definitely going .140 10-8 rear, but can anyone weigh in on brass-bead vs. tritium front? It's a range and class gun, maybe IDPA/IPSC in the latter half of the year. Mostly just a personal preference thing or would you recommend one over the other?
I also like the Warren Tactical rears but haven't seen them in person - do you find that the lack of serration matters at all (compared to a 10-8)?
I prefer the non-serrated rear
but can anyone weigh in on brass-bead vs. tritium front? It's a range and class gun, maybe IDPA/IPSC in the latter half of the year. Mostly just a personal preference thing or would you recommend one over the other?
As obvious as it sounds: If you ever think you may need to see the front sight in the dark, go with the tritium. The bead is fine for range/play.
I also like the Warren Tactical rears but haven't seen them in person - do you find that the lack of serration matters at all (compared to a 10-8)?
Serrated rear sights are supposed to reduce glare. The Warren sights are angled in a way that it's not necessary. In my experience, a serrated rear sight primarily excels at picking up lint and dings that are more distracting visually than a little glare. YMMV.
VooDoo6Actual
12-22-09, 07:45
Warren's over 10-8's any day and every day.
I can def attest to the quickness of the 10-8 and the warren rear, I have a full size m&p 9 , one with the 10-8 and one with the warren, for me they are both just as good.
AMP
It is time for you to step into the polymer world, and get a M&P 9 with with thumb safety that you, talked about.
steve
Hopefully santa will bring me another warren rear so they both can be alike.
Amp Mangum
12-22-09, 20:56
.
AMP
It is time for you to step into the polymer world, and get a M&P 9 with with thumb safety that you, talked about.
steve
Hopefully santa will bring me another warren rear so they both can be alike.
A M&P 45 for sure, maybe a M&P 9. What will folks think if I'm seen with something other than a 1911 especially something in a caliber other than .45acp?:eek:
What will folks think if I'm seen with something other than a 1911 especially something in a caliber other than .45acp?:eek:
That your I.Q. has three digits. :cool:
Amp Mangum
12-23-09, 07:39
But I'm a knuckle draggin 1911 guy.:D
What front sight are you running with your Warren rear?
A painted one that I looks just like my 45 that you shot at Drake
Whenever possible, I run Warrens front and back.
With my M&P endurance gun last year, the pistol shot very high and Smith had to custom fabricate a taller front sight for me.
Right now I'm running Heinies because there are no Warrens for the P30. That is going to change within the next month or two...
Todd,
Whats your take on the regular Sevigney sights Warren makes?
It's hard to argue with Dave Sevigny about what makes a good rear sight for fast, accurate target acquisition under stress. The Warren/Sevigny sight is a very traditional style sight with some tweaks that Dave made for better performance.
Personally, I prefer the standard Warrens. The shape of the rear sight clears up a surprising amount of line of sight downrange, and I really like the rounded "almost-but-not-really-U-notch" shape.
Warren:
http://www.cpwsa.com/images/Warren%20Tactical%20Night%20Set.gif
Sevigny:
http://www.cpwsa.com/images/Sevigny%20Carry%20Night%20Sight.gif
Amp Mangum
12-23-09, 09:41
Todd do you put orange tape on your front sight or do you run it stock?
I use orange paint, applied with a paint pen.
Todd: Do you know if there is an issue with the Warren front sights for the M&P or was your's a one-off kind of problem? I've been considering the Warren two dot sights for a full size 9mm, myself. Thanks.
Erik -- Mine was a one-off problem. The stock sights shot high, too.
How wide the rear notch is also depends on the relation to the width of the front sight it is paired with. It's all about how much day light is visible around the front sight. A notch that is .140 with a narrow, fiber optic front will seem wider than when paired with a wider tritium front sight. Tritium sights are generally a little wider than the FO sights I have found.
I use Warren Tactical - Sevigny Carry rear sights but the concept is similar (wider notch = more daylight). I shoot cowboy action with Ruger Vaqueros that have the rear notch milled to .170 and I would use that on my Glocks if available. It allows very fast acquisition and is accurate enough for my shooting.
Cruncher Block
12-23-09, 11:58
I'm curious about the practical difference between fiber optic and tritium sights.
I like that fiber optic front sights can be made thinner than tritium. However, fiber optic obviously requires some amount of light to work. This seems like it would give the edge to tritium.
Is it necessary to be able to see the sight in total darkness? If there isn't enough light to "activate" the fiber optic, is there enough light to positively identify the target?
I don't have any meaningful experience with good fiber optic sights so I don't know how sensitive they are to low ambient light. Is typical urban nighttime lighting (streetlights, etc.) enough to make one glow?
I could also understand a point that one would want to see the sights in total darkness for visual reference before illuminating the target with a handheld or weapon-mounted light. Is this a valid point?
Erik -- Mine was a one-off problem. The stock sights shot high, too.
Good to know. Thanks.
I'm curious about the practical difference between fiber optic and tritium sights.
CB, as I stated, I don't want to digress on the value of night sights because that will get opinionated very quickly. FO sights are very visible when there is enough light to see them. In total darkness, you can't see the FO. If the FO tube fell out I would still have a steel sight that works fine.
That is why I use a light, to see both the sights and the target. I only brought up FO in this discussion because they are narrower (ever so slightly), which helps emphasize the "wide rear notch-U notch" question that was the original topic. I use the Dawson Precision FO front that is .105 wide. The Warren tritium is .125. When using the FO with a .140 rear the notch will appear like .160 relative to using the wider tritium front. If a narrower tritium front was available I would look at it, but I haven't found one.
These are certainly small differences but the extra light around the front helps me.
ETA: I just looked and my Warren rear sight is .120. I am now interested in a .140 10-8 rear sight.
Is it necessary to be able to see the sight in total darkness? If there isn't enough light to "activate" the fiber optic, is there enough light to positively identify the target?
If you intend to keep a reasonably powerful light on from the moment you identify the threat until the threat is immobilized and bleeding out on the ground, the FO is fine. But in the many, many other circumstances and environments in which you might legitimately be able to identify and track a threat without keeping a flashlight on, the FO sight fails.
Pardon the pun, but most people think of low-light shooting in a black & white way... they're either thinking bright sunlight or total darkness. But there are plenty of lighting conditions under which you can positively identify a target without being able to get a decent visual reference on your sights. That's why the use of night sights has become so widespread.
Cruncher Block
12-23-09, 14:37
That makes sense. Thanks for the always-valuable insight.
I have a set of 10-8 .140 rear, tritium front, on ordor from Larue Tactical.
Im hoping to get my smith to install them as soon as i get them. :D
Oh yea, they are for a G19.
If you intend to keep a reasonably powerful light on from the moment you identify the threat until the threat is immobilized and bleeding out on the ground, the FO is fine. But in the many, many other circumstances and environments in which you might legitimately be able to identify and track a threat without keeping a flashlight on, the FO sight fails.
Pardon the pun, but most people think of low-light shooting in a black & white way... they're either thinking bright sunlight or total darkness. But there are plenty of lighting conditions under which you can positively identify a target without being able to get a decent visual reference on your sights. That's why the use of night sights has become so widespread.
I don't disagee at all. I have learned the value of a narrow front sight and I hope the tritium sight makers will put out a .105 front sight.
Right now I'm running Heinies because there are no Warrens for the P30. That is going to change within the next month or two...
Warren sights for the new HK's would be great!
If you intend to keep a reasonably powerful light on from the moment you identify the threat until the threat is immobilized and bleeding out on the ground, the FO is fine. But in the many, many other circumstances and environments in which you might legitimately be able to identify and track a threat without keeping a flashlight on, the FO sight fails.
Pardon the pun, but most people think of low-light shooting in a black & white way... they're either thinking bright sunlight or total darkness. But there are plenty of lighting conditions under which you can positively identify a target without being able to get a decent visual reference on your sights. That's why the use of night sights has become so widespread.
I have many hand guns that have neither a FO sight or tritium night sight. Let's not pretend that they are useless.
Do you know if the HK Warren Tactical sights are limited to the P30/HK45 family or will there be ones for the USP series?
Right now, the only thing on the drawing board are a couple P30 prototypes. Warren Tactical is a business. If there's enough demand for HK sights, they'll make HK sights.
I have many hand guns that have neither a FO sight or tritium night sight. Let's not pretend that they are useless.
Huh?
I was running Hienie straight 8s on my glocks before I swithced to the M&P, now after shooting the 10-8 and the Warren tactical rear, I definatly prefer the U-notch rear to a standard rear. I paint my front sights, first with a coat of appliance touch up paint, then bright orange fingernail polish, for me this gives a durable and lasting contrasting front sight that has stood up to daily carry and range use.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all
Steve
varoadking
12-24-09, 20:46
Huh?
LOL...agreed...
I found this video that may be helpful.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=892JV6Iz2fg
msr -- I am a big believer in having tritium both front and rear. While I appreciate that it may detract from the pure shooting capability of the gun compared to all-black sights, I've just seen too many instances in practice, competition, and force-on-force where lack of tritium means poor hits or a significant delay in getting shots off.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.