Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 57

Thread: Dawson Precision Rear Sights

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Luke View Post
    I had them talked into a taller rear sight, deeper notch, and 100% serrations. I hate the way they do serrations.
    My actual wish list is:

    - Glock
    - .090" front .115" rear, or .100" front .125" rear. Fall back to .105" front .125" rear if necessary.
    - Charger rear, but rear face angled back and sharper edges like Competiton rear. Keep corners from Charger rear or slightly sharper (slight radius, but no chamfer).
    - Uninterrupted serrations on rear.
    - Deeper serrations on front.

    Any idea how much of that is negotiable?

    ETA: I'd also be interested in trying a Patridge or flat front profile, but it seems they only do ramped for Glock.
    Last edited by GRV; 04-11-2017 at 04:03 PM.

  2. #22
    Member Luke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Alabama
    That's basically the same thing I spec'd out minus the charger. I wanted the face straight up and down too.


    I started by calling them and telling them how much I loved their sights, had them on everything, greatest in the whole world.. then told them what's really really wanted, then told them nothing exists like that. THEN tell them you'll pay ANUTHING lol.
    i used to wannabe

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Luke View Post
    That's basically the same thing I spec'd out minus the charger. I wanted the face straight up and down too.


    I started by calling them and telling them how much I loved their sights, had them on everything, greatest in the whole world.. then told them what's really really wanted, then told them nothing exists like that. THEN tell them you'll pay ANUTHING lol.
    I need to get on the phone with them. I've only emailed them so far.

    When did you place your order, and do you have pictures of the finished product?

    Also, is this for a Glock?

  4. #24
    Site Supporter taadski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by dove View Post
    Are you running a Glock?

    Dude. Why such hostility?

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by taadski View Post
    Dude. Why such hostility?
    lol sorry, I just went back and rewatched your slow-mo recoil video and saw the Sig

    (I'm assuming you're joking; if not, I'm legitimately sorry. I was sincerely asking because I'm interested in trying those dimensions on a Glock 17.)

  6. #26
    Site Supporter taadski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Colorado
    Yes. Joking.

    FWIW, the difference between the .090 and the .100 is pretty minor. I'd save your pennies. I go back and forth (different guns) and find them both very usable.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by taadski View Post
    Yes. Joking.

    FWIW, the difference between the .090 and the .100 is pretty minor. I'd save your pennies. I go back and forth (different guns) and find them both very usable.
    Indeed, but I'm dealing with the massive .105!

    Yea, I was content to leave it alone after Dawson's spiel, but if it's actually available..... Really it's just an aesthetic thing I'm interested in. Occasionally I'll see photos of sight pictures online that have a certain intangible satisfying appearance that I think comes from both the front and rear being smaller, but my sights in real life don't quite evoke the same feeling. I'd be interested in seeing the same light bar ratio but just the whole notch and post smaller, still sitting within the same overall sized rear.

    Separately, I'd like just a tiny bit more light bar ratio than the .105/.125, without going to a bigger rear notch, and I did some math which confirmed my general feelings that a 0.090/.115 or 0.100/0.125 would probably be what I'm looking for. There are a couple of interesting metrics that those fit into that the .105/.125 just misses for my arms holding a G17. I think I'd probably be happy with the .105/.125 ratio on a G34.


    I know I'm splitting hairs......but you just had to get me started

  8. #28
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Rochester Hills, MI
    I've always wondered why Dawson doesn't just "finish" the serrations on their rear sights. That doesn't make a ton of sense to me.


    Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by spinmove_ View Post
    I've always wondered why Dawson doesn't just "finish" the serrations on their rear sights. That doesn't make a ton of sense to me.


    Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy
    Ditto... There have been other details I've taken their side on after learning the reason. Dawson's guys are really wise when it comes to sights....

  10. #30
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Rochester Hills, MI
    Quote Originally Posted by dove View Post
    Ditto... There have been other details I've taken their side on after learning the reason. Dawson's guys are really wise when it comes to sights....
    Ok....so do you care to share the reasoning behind that move? I'm genuinely curious as I've never seen anyone do that before.


    Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •