Need help with Dawson Adjustable Sights [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Need help with Dawson Adjustable Sights


whatsupglock
08-26-2010, 08:57
Here's the deal...I'm shooting my Glock 34 with Sevigny sights. I shoot well, but I feel like my sight picture is all over the place. I can call my shots just fine, so that's not the problem. The problem is, my groups are larger than they should be. I have great trigger control. The rear sight notch is too big, at least I think. When I shoot my front sight floats in that huge notch. I feel if I had a smaller notch, such as on the Dawson Precision Adjustable that fiber rod would fit a little tighter and give me a more accurate shot placement.

Does anyone know the dimension of the rear sight notch for the DP? I emailed DP and haven't gotten an answer yet. I am planning on the 0.285 tall front blade which is 0.100 wide with a 0.040 rod.

Any opinions from the DP users?

whatsupglock
08-26-2010, 09:05
A good freind of mine has a CZ with a smaller rear notch. We shoot at the same level. That gun has laser accuracy. I can put five shots in the head at 25 hards with slow fire with my Glock, but I've really got to work on keeping that sight centered. It just takes too much time in competition. The easy answer is just buy the darn sight, but I'm too cheap. I really want to know what you people with the Dawson's think.

Clay1
08-26-2010, 09:14
Here's the deal...I'm shooting my Glock 34 with Sevigny sights. I shoot well, but I feel like my sight picture is all over the place. I can call my shots just fine, so that's not the problem. The problem is, my groups are larger than they should be. I have great trigger control. The rear sight notch is too big, at least I think. When I shoot my front sight floats in that huge notch. I feel if I had a smaller notch, such as on the Dawson Precision Adjustable that fiber rod would fit a little tighter and give me a more accurate shot placement.

Does anyone know the dimension of the rear sight notch for the DP? I emailed DP and haven't gotten an answer yet. I am planning on the 0.285 tall front blade which is 0.100 wide with a 0.040 rod.

Any opinions from the DP users?

I don't have a good way of measuring my rear sight and I love my Dawsons and would buy them again. Dave Sevigney does OK with those wide notched rear sights on target way way out there so I am inclined to think that it isn't the sights.

The wider rear is meant to give you a quicker aquisition time. Make sure that both sides have equal amounts of light and practice. I like to recomend a book that I have personally read at least 4 times, called "Beyond Fundamentals" by Brian Enos. In the book he speaks to different types of sight pictures for different types of shots. A 5 yard target doesn't need or deserve the same type of sight picture that a 50 yard shot does.

Your comments on, "I have great trigger control" I have to address. When I know a man that is a grand master in USPSA who isn't satisfied with his trigger control and works that particular issue and runs drills just to address that issue.

If you are not getting the results you want, it's probably not the equipment or your answer probably doesn't revolve around "buying another piece of hardware". I don't mean this to be harsh but if you are to move forward, internalize that the issue is with you and probably not with the equipment then do what it takes to get better. It is easy to spend another $150 on another set of sights but it is damn hard to go to the range and run drills and do your dry fire practice at home.

Steve Anderson has a wonderful training book (Refinement and Repetition)here: http://www.brianenos.com/store/books.html

Even though I have been blunt, I want to encourage you to think about the way that you train.

whatsupglock
08-26-2010, 09:23
I don't have a good way of measuring my rear sight and I love my Dawsons and would buy them again. Dave Sevigney does OK with those wide notched rear sights on target way way out there so I am inclined to think that it isn't the sights.

The wider rear is meant to give you a quicker aquisition time. Make sure that both sides have equal amounts of light and practice. I like to recomend a book that I have personally read at least 4 times, called "Beyond Fundamentals" by Brian Enos. In the book he speaks to different types of sight pictures for different types of shots. A 5 yard target doesn't need or deserve the same type of sight picture that a 50 yard shot does.

Your comments on, "I have great trigger control" I have to address. When I know a man that is a grand master in USPSA who isn't satisfied with his trigger control and works that particular issue and runs drills just to address that issue.

If you are not getting the results you want, it's probably not the equipment or your answer probably doesn't revolve around "buying another piece of hardware". I don't mean this to be harsh but if you are to move forward, internalize that the issue is with you and probably not with the equipment then do what it takes to get better. It is easy to spend another $150 on another set of sights but it is damn hard to go to the range and run drills and do your dry fire practice at home.

Steve Anderson has a wonderful training book (Refinement and Repetition)here: http://www.brianenos.com/store/books.html

Even though I have been blunt, I want to encourage you to think about the way that you train.

I'm not a GM but I'm not too shabby. I practice trigger control all the time. I made the comment I did, because I have a strong fundamental foundation. It's not a trigger issue. I have a hard time holding the gun very still. Dave and Bob Vogel both shoot the Sevignys very well. I have very good vision and the light bars on the sights I have now are just HUGE! I feal like it takes forever to balance the sight picture out for longer shots. I'm not looking for a crutch or excuses. I'm just wondering if a tighter sight picture would benefit me? I've always used combat type sights, and never a competition sight. I look at these sight pictures on STI's and wonder if maybe there's something to it. That's all.

Clay1
08-26-2010, 09:32
You mention the light bar again. One of my own experiences, and I am no GM myself by the way, is that I found with my front optic I kept wanting to place the fiber optic centered on where I wanted to hit. For me I needed to focus on the top of the front sight and the FO was lower in the front sight. My own application that helped me tighten up, was to take one of those marker pens that you can just wipe off a white board and make my FO go black.

No money spent but you might like that as well if the FO is pulling so much of your focus that you are down on the FO and not at the top center of the front sight in your focus.

If you don't like it, you can wipe it off and be back where you use to be.

Good luck.

whatsupglock
08-26-2010, 12:19
You mention the light bar again. One of my own experiences, and I am no GM myself by the way, is that I found with my front optic I kept wanting to place the fiber optic centered on where I wanted to hit. For me I needed to focus on the top of the front sight and the FO was lower in the front sight. My own application that helped me tighten up, was to take one of those marker pens that you can just wipe off a white board and make my FO go black.

No money spent but you might like that as well if the FO is pulling so much of your focus that you are down on the FO and not at the top center of the front sight in your focus.

If you don't like it, you can wipe it off and be back where you use to be.

Good luck.

When I say "light bars" I'm not talking about the fiber optic...I'm talking about the bands of light on the left and right side of the sight post. My problem is not sight alignment. My problem, or maybe it isn't one, is that the sight is swimming in a ginormous pile of open space on each side and because of that, when I shoot at mach 2 it's hard to balance or center the site in that huge ocean of space. In looking at pictures the DP site's notch looks much smaller and the post they recommend is a little narrower as well. Just seems like it would be a little more accurate. My accuracy is OK. I have shot entire matches with 2 points down as the overall match winner. I'm shooting ok, so no offense, I don't want a lesson on trigger management, book recomendations or blacking out a fiber optic. I'm looking to knock tenths of seconds off of overall scores while shooting as precise as I can.

So if you have a DP sight and you've maybe switched from a different kind of sight I'd love to hear the feedback.

HAMMERHEAD
08-26-2010, 15:08
My Dawson adjustable FO rear has a .115" wide notch. My FO front is .125" on a G-20 and that's plenty tight. A .100" wide front on a G-34 might appear to be very narrow in the .115" rear with the 34's longer sight radius.

whatsupglock
08-26-2010, 18:12
My Dawson adjustable FO rear has a .115" wide notch. My FO front is .125" on a G-20 and that's plenty tight. A .100" wide front on a G-34 might appear to be very narrow in the .115" rear with the 34's longer sight radius.

Good info, thanks! The longer sight radius is exactly what I think the issue is. On a 17 I think it would probably be great.

BamaTrooper
08-26-2010, 19:48
Could you use a wider front sight? That might accomplish the same thing as switching rears and it might be cheaper for the part and the ammo required to dial it in as well.

mikey357
08-26-2010, 23:51
Could you use a wider front sight? That might accomplish the same thing as switching rears and it might be cheaper for the part and the ammo required to dial it in as well.

+1...IIRC, the Rear Notch on the Sevigny sight is .150 in. wide, and the Front sight is .115 in. wide...I prefer a .125 in. wide Front sight w/the Sevigny Comp Rear Sight...check w/Ameriglo and Dawson, I believe both may carry the WIDER Front Sight...HTH....mikey357

whatsupglock
08-27-2010, 06:58
+1...IIRC, the Rear Notch on the Sevigny sight is .150 in. wide, and the Front sight is .115 in. wide...I prefer a .125 in. wide Front sight w/the Sevigny Comp Rear Sight...check w/Ameriglo and Dawson, I believe both may carry the WIDER Front Sight...HTH....mikey357

Didn't really think about it. Great idea! I don't like wide front posts for longer shots, but if there is a FO in the center, it might just do the trick. Now see...that's a constructive post! Thanks to both of you!

RayB
08-27-2010, 13:40
By playing with it a bit, I was able to (see attached) "spin" a fatter dot.

A careful turning of the FO rod while applying heat, did it.

It's a cheap trick, and possibly worth a try.

--Ray

BamaTrooper
08-27-2010, 14:14
Didn't really think about it. Great idea! I don't like wide front posts for longer shots, but if there is a FO in the center, it might just do the trick. Now see...that's a constructive post! Thanks to both of you!

Whether you go narrower notch or wider post, you will be getting the smaller "light bars" you mentioned.

Thin or thick, as long as the post is centered, you should be good to go.:cool:

mikey357
08-27-2010, 14:36
As Bama said, either a "Tighter" Rear Sight Notch OR a Wider Front Sight will accomplish the same thing--narrower "Light Bars" on either side of the Front Sight when it's "Centered Up" in the Rear Notch...

BTW, the .125 in. wide Front is narrow enough for ME on a G-34...YMMV, of course...HTH....mikey357

BamaTrooper
08-27-2010, 14:51
As Bama said, either a "Tighter" Rear Sight Notch OR a Wider Front Sight will accomplish the same thing--narrower "Light Bars" on either side of the Front Sight when it's "Centered Up" in the Rear Notch...

BTW, the .125 in. wide Front is narrow enough for ME on a G-34...YMMV, of course...HTH....mikey357

In spirit of disclosure, I use Sevigny Comp rears and the thinnest F/O front they have. Not sure on the width, but I have them on my 17, 26 and soon my AA kit. I have Sevigny comps with standard thin front sights on my 2 1st gen 17s and the thin fronts on a 34 and 17L.

I use a Sevigny NS front and a carry rear on my G27.