Dawson vs. Warren Tactical sight sets

[el pres]

As the title states, what are the pros and cons of using one over the

other for USPSA Production division. I like huge rear notches like the Warren, I cut

all of my sights to .145 rear and .100-.105 fronts on my 2011s. I also like rear

adjust ability and the taller sights, but let's hear from some that have experience

with both ??

Edited April 11, 2010 by P.Pres

[el pres]

So no opinions on this ?? So is there an advantage or disadvantage either way or do we

just follow the latest tactical status quo ?? I promise, I've done a search ...

[Nik Habicht]

I'm a big fan of the Warrens -- largely because theyt offered the sight picture of the custom front sight Bo-Mars I ran previously, without the overhang, the adjustability, the potential fragility, and with the ability to run slight variations on identical sights on game and competition guns.....

I've never adjusted sights in a match. Have you?

I don't monkey around with different loads -- I pretty much figure out something that works for me and then shoot it forever.....

Installing sights requires a range trip to verify that the rear is properly placed for windage.....

I see no advantage to adjustables anymore, nor do I see an advantage to bigger/taller sights....

YMMV....

[gunnerBU]

I've never used an adjustable rear, but I've used both Warrens and Dawsons.

When I was shooting Limited with a G35, I used the Warren/Sevigny set up with FO front. I liked the sights, but the front sight was a little taller than what I am using now. I wanted to try out an all black front, so I switched to a Dawson front and rear. My rear sight has a .115 notch (the more narrow of the 2 Dawsons). I absolutely love these sights and can't see myself changing the set up anytime soon. The Warren rear had a wider notch, but I personally like the Dawsons better.

FWIW, Dawson also makes a .125 notch rear.

ETA: I shoot only Production now.

Edited April 14, 2010 by gunnerBU

[el pres]

I'm a big fan of the Warrens -- largely because theyt offered the sight picture of the custom front sight Bo-Mars I ran previously, without the overhang, the adjustability, the potential fragility, and with the ability to run slight variations on identical sights on game and competition guns.....

I've never adjusted sights in a match. Have you?

I don't monkey around with different loads -- I pretty much figure out something that works for me and then shoot it forever.....

Installing sights requires a range trip to verify that the rear is properly placed for windage.....

I see no advantage to adjustables anymore, nor do I see an advantage to bigger/taller sights....

YMMV....

I have never adjusted sights at a match ... no !! I dont change loads either, I stick with what works. However I do like the fact that the intial set up with adjustables does not include a hammer or a mill.

My concern was if there is a disadvantage with the smaller ,Warren, rear blade at full speed ?

[smokshwn]

Are you talking about the rabbit eared Warren rear of the Warren Sevigny rear?

I like the rounded corners of the Warren/Sevigny rear over the square edges of the Dawson. I also didn't find adjustability necessary. Installed them at home and they shot directly to a six o'clock hold at fifteen yards first trip to the range.

[el pres]

Are you talking about the rabbit eared Warren rear of the Warren Sevigny rear?

I like the rounded corners of the Warren/Sevigny rear over the square edges of the Dawson. I also didn't find adjustability necessary. Installed them at home and they shot directly to a six o'clock hold at fifteen yards first trip to the range.

Both, they now have a Dawson I saw on the website that had the corners filed down which is how I cut down my sights anyway. What I am refering to is the overall height of the rear blades on the Warrens. Is there an advantage with picking up the larger Dawson blades at speed, thats all ..

[Nik Habicht]

However I do like the fact that the intial set up with adjustables does not include a hammer or a mill.

My concern was if there is a disadvantage with the smaller ,Warren, rear blade at full speed ?

It's a tradeoff -- adjustable may be easier to set, but also have moving parts that may break in the middle of a match. Fixed rears, not so much. Of course you could still lose a front sight -- that's happened to me.....

IIRC, the Bo-Mar rear blade was a little larger than the Sevigny -- but it had a shallower and tighter notch, hence the custom front sights. (Top half thinned to .090, if I could see the step, I knew the front was pointing high.) I like the deeper, wider rear of the Sevigny sights combined with the slightly fatter front (fatter compared to the .090 I used to run), but then I'm past 40 now. I don't need glasses yet, but I'm noticing minute vision changes -- which the eye doctor suggested I only picked up on because of the photography and shooting background....

[smokshwn]

Are you talking about the rabbit eared Warren rear of the Warren Sevigny rear?

I like the rounded corners of the Warren/Sevigny rear over the square edges of the Dawson. I also didn't find adjustability necessary. Installed them at home and they shot directly to a six o'clock hold at fifteen yards first trip to the range.

Both, they now have a Dawson I saw on the website that had the corners filed down which is how I cut down my sights anyway. What I am refering to is the overall height of the rear blades on the Warrens. Is there an advantage with picking up the larger Dawson blades at speed, thats all ..

To be honest I have never given much thought to picking up the rear blades. I am usually trying to pick up the front sight and then "drop it in the cup" so to speak. I usually set up my rear notches in the .140 range as well for just that reason. It seams to give me a good reference for the front sight to bounce around in.

[ck1]

I've shot both and personally I don't know how anyone could go to the narrower rear .115 - .130 notch's after looking at a set of Warren's with their rear notch's at .150 as well as being cut deeper...

I shoot IDPA mostly so out to 30 yards is about as far out as I go usually, unless there are lots od shots at distances out past that I'd choose the wider notch hands down.

[el pres]

No, no, forget about the notches. Notches can be made into any size you want. I cut all of my Bomar notches to .145 and then I cut the corners off. They all came with a .115-.125 notch. I am only refering to the overall size of the warren blade being a disadvantage when

compared to a more "bomar" like Dawson rear blade, is it ?

I think I'm just going to buy one and decide for myself ?

Edited April 15, 2010 by P.Pres

[Bill Nesbitt]

P.Pres, I really like the rabbit eared Warren rear sights. I have a set on my match Glock 17 and I pick up the sights really fast. I have taken files to several of my other rear sights after shooting the Warrens.

[gunnerBU]

I've shot both and personally I don't know how anyone could go to the narrower rear .115 - .130 notch's after looking at a set of Warren's with their rear notch's at .150 as well as being cut deeper...

I personally shoot very accurate with the narrow rear notch (from the lower tolerance in "error" with front sight movement). A lot more accurate than I did with the Sevigny rear. I't doesn't slow me down at all because when I index on target, my front sight is ALWAYS partially in the notch (muscle memory).

The best thing to do is try the sights out and see if they WORK FOR YOU. That is the main thing, you can't base what will work for you off of another person's opinion.

[AustinMike]

The exaggerated size of Warren rear blade and notch makes them fast, but less precise. They are great for "fast" stages IMO. I found that the sight picture was too loose for me when it came to far plates and poppers. I couldn't force myself to slow down enough. I'm running Dawson fixed now.

[sfpmb]

I have both.

I run Dawson's on a 34 and the Warren/sevigny's on a 17. I have shot both in uspsa competition. I shoot mainly the 34 and I am just partial to its sight picture because I feel it is easier to set up (for me) on the longer shots. Now the 17 is fun on closer courses because I can get a little looser while still seeing the whole front post.

I know neither is bad but I won't swap my dawsons on the 34 since they work just fine for me. I think I could get used to the Warrens quickly though.

Oh yeah, the dawwsons are poa/poi, I found the warrens shot high, like a 6 hold on a 25 yard bullseye. I prefer poa/poi.

[el pres]

I have both.

I run Dawson's on a 34 and the Warren/sevigny's on a 17. I have shot both in uspsa competition. I shoot mainly the 34 and I am just partial to its sight picture because I feel it is easier to set up (for me) on the longer shots. Now the 17 is fun on closer courses because I can get a little looser while still seeing the whole front post.

I know neither is bad but I won't swap my dawsons on the 34 since they work just fine for me. I think I could get used to the Warrens quickly though.

Oh yeah, the dawwsons are poa/poi, I found the warrens shot high, like a 6 hold on a 25 yard bullseye. I prefer poa/poi.

Thank you for your answer, that is what I was looking for.

I keep hearing the same thing from everyone about the 6 o'clock hold ??

I shot some Dawsons last night on my buddy's XD and "really" liked the sight picture. I would cut the corners off and open up the notch a little bit but otherwise I liked the picture ..

Edited April 23, 2010 by P.Pres

[Pro2AInPA]

I'm hooked on Dawson sights.

Adjustable serrated black rear, .100" wide fiber optic front with the green insert. Best sight picture I've ever shot.

[Sgt Smith]

I run a set of Warren/Sevigny .125 fronts with a .150 rear on a G35 for competition and the same setup on a duty g22 for work. Great for fast work and still easily capable of 2-3 inches at 25 yards. Sights haven't moved even after taking some significant hits from time to time on the G22.

[eric nielsen]

The Dawsons will let you call any shot as long as you practice that shot. Sunday we had an 8" plate and US popper [2 steel each] at 35, 28, 21, and 14 yards which I hit 1-for-1. Also had a 35-yard paper shot with alignment that I called "good enough" but I can only practice out to 25 yards. Oops.

I don't own Warren Tactical sights but from what I've held in my hands, I don't think I'd have the same success on the above tough shots. I have a Dawson red FO front and plain adjustable rear. Stage 5:

http://tbspc.org/RESULTS2010/match0502.html

[Pro2AInPA]

The Dawsons will let you call any shot as long as you practice that shot. Sunday we had an 8" plate and US popper [2 steel each] at 35, 28, 21, and 14 yards which I hit 1-for-1. Also had a 35-yard paper shot with alignment that I called "good enough" but I can only practice out to 25 yards. Oops.

I don't own Warren Tactical sights but from what I've held in my hands, I don't think I'd have the same success on the above tough shots. I have a Dawson red FO front and plain adjustable rear. Stage 5:

http://tbspc.org/RESULTS2010/match0502.html

Have you tried the green insert? For me it pops way better than the red. But, everyone has different eyes.

[eric nielsen]

I have the green fibers but I haven't tried them in the gun. My vision is still 20/15 and can read newsprint as close as 6 or 8".

So far no problem with red, eyes seem to know the difference between Open and Limited - probably because I go back and forth in dry-fire so much. They sit on two shelves of the same book case.

Open gun has paper around the front of the lens to force target focus. Just try to snap that gun and my eyes as fast as possible.

Ltd gun I never pick up without the safety glasses that i've fogged out the left eye - like using a small square of Scotch tape but scratched onto the lens with 400 emory cloth. With irons I try to snap to the next aiming point [minimum time] and back on the front site [maximum time] for every drill.

[anilson]

I have run 10 differnt setups in the last two years the fixed warren with F/O front has been the best. Lots of space and clean look at front sight

[rack&roll]

I'm hooked on Dawson sights.

Adjustable serrated black rear, .100" wide fiber optic front with the green insert. Best sight picture I've ever shot.

+1 !!! I went back to the same set on my 34. Love it. The Dawson set replaced the Warren Tactical/Sevigny set. I just wasn't hitting the longer shots with the Warren's.

[stickboy44]

Dawson all the way ..I have tried a few different sights and I would always buy Dawson

[stickboy44]

Dawson all the way ..I have tried a few different sights and I would always buy Dawson