Rear Sight Serrations Style Preference

[GRV]

Dawson's (current) black rear sights have serrations that leave a plain unserrated gap around the notch and leave a smaller gap around the side and top edges.

Call this "Dawson Style #1":

https://cdn6.bigcommerce.com/s-m49pmlf/products/277/images/676/Dawson-Glock-RS-2__13036.1433786623.370.370.jpg?c=2


Dawson's rear sights that include tritium or fiber dots still have the gap around the side and top edges, but the serrations run all the way to the notch with no gap.

Call this "Dawson Style #2" (ignore the tritium):

http://www.shootersconnectionstore.com/Assets/ProductImages/310-053.JPG


Finally, most(?) serrated plain black rear sights have serrations that run the full surface of the rear, all the way to all edges.

Call this "Fully Serrated":

https://www.defensivedepot.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/TTI-GLOCK-REAR-SIGHT.jpg



If you like serrated rear sights, which style serrations do you like and why? Feel free to comment on how fine/coarse you like them to be, but I'm mainly interested in the coverage issue.

[HopetonBrown]

I assume Dawson does that so you don't cut yourself on the serrations.

Chargers and TTI are two of my faves. I don't notice the rear sight serration difference when shooting.

[Luke]

I can't see the fully serated picture but I HATE the the Dawson plain (style 1) but that's the only plain rear in the size I needed for my 320. I've run a ton of them and it bothers me to no end that it's not serated all the way across. Doesn't effect me shooting but it's still annoying.

For $10 (more than price of sight) Dawson will custom make you a sight, I was going to get them to make me one. We talked on the phone and came up with a design but I could never settle in the height so never ordered. But style 1 is what I've bought most of. But I LOVE the STI style rear sight. Bought one to try and have milled on my 320 but there was no room.

[BillSWPA]

Serrations are not my primary consideration when buying a sight, but if one is going to have serrations, I would prefer that they extend to the top and sides of the U notch in the rear and the top and side edges of the front - the critical areas for good sight alignment.

[Trajan]

Fully serrated. Dawson adjustables are like that.

http://cdn3.volusion.com/yzqpn.kmlcf/v/vspfiles/photos/DAWSON-GLOCK-017-012-4.jpg?1446098861

I prefer fully serrated because it appears like a block of nothingness. Fiber front draws the eye, make sure your sights are a perfect block and press.

[taadski]

Conceptually I like full serrations the best. I have them on my dry fire (errr….practice :o) pistol (Heinie) and on an X5 that's primarily just a range gun. But practically, it makes no difference what so ever to me; I have #1s on my two match guns. And #2s (with tritium) on my carry/duty pistol. IMO, notch width/front post width relationship is much more of a big deal that the subtle serration differences.

My 2 cents anyway.



t

[orionz06]

I prefer fine, full serrations though the ones shown with partial above would likely be fine. I just want the sight to be black. Sloped rear sights without serrations have been distracting in the past, as have coarse serrations.


Sent from my Nokia 3310 using an owl

[BigT]

I too prefer full fine serrations on the sights.

I had a set of the Wilson Vickers sights which are similar to the Dawson #1 style. For me and my eyes it dragged my focus to the rear notch unnecessarily.

[GRV]

Personally, I've spent most of my time with unserrated rears, and I haven't yet run into the glare issue. Granted, most of my shooting is indoors.

I've shot #1 and Full indoors on separate occasions without noticing any difference, though I wasn't looking for one.

Given that a company like Dawson uses all three styles, and given that multiple companies leave the notch unserrated like #1, I'm trying to figure out if there's some reason I'm missing.

Stopping short of the top and side edges does make some sense for carry, good call. That doesn't really explain the notch to me though. Going into this I thought people were going to say that the unserrated notch is crisper or something, but it seems like most people really don't have a preference or prefer full serrations...makes me wonder why, for example, the Vickers was designed the way it was. Full serrations just seem simpler to make, so there must be some reason, valid or not.

[orionz06]

Serrations appear crisper to me in all lights as the sights are blacker. Non-serrated rears may or may not be as crisp depending on the location of the light. Sun from the rear makes Warren sights really rough to use sometimes which is why I switched. B


Sent from my Nokia 3310 using an owl

[GRV]

With sun from the rear and Style #1 sights, does it not make seeing the notch itself difficult? Seems to defeat the point of the serrations. It's the notch that needs to be seen, not the rest of the sight.

[Mr_White]

The Chargers I use have the first serration style pictured (Dawson #1.) I feel like I might like full serrations better, but I can't say I've noticed any issue with the slightly abbreviated serrations on the Chargers, and I have not used fully serrated sights. I wonder if even the abbreviated serrations give enough visible shape to the rear sight that the front sight is easily brought into the notch and then I don't notice any issue?

[jon volk]

I like the full serrations myself. I usually hit the edges with a file though. Some of my shirts look like Ive been MIG welding after a few months with tiny holes forming around the rear sight if I do not.

[Nephrology]

I've used several different styes of all black rear and I truly don't care. Never made a big difference to me as long as my front sight was high contrast.