Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns u notch versus square notch rear sights?

I am thinking about getting Ameriglo sights for a Glock 47. Does the shape of the rear notch on iron sights make much difference?

To me, no. Im focusing on the top of the front being level with the top of the rear. The bottom of the notch is the least likely place for me to look. I also don’t care for bead or round top front sights. YMMV

Personally, I think there is more precision to be had with square cut notches and square front sights.

However, for speedy work up close, like a pistol is supposedly meant to be FOR, there is some merit in the bead front sight, the rear notch doesn't matter much at all, it doesn't care if the rear notch is square or U-shaped. I simply can't shoot them nearly as precisely as I can the square cut sights.

Your eyesight might allow you to have different results than I get, but that's my take on it. I won't fuss if you can get better results with a bead front.

U notch rear for a front bead, square notch for a square front sight. Two dot on rear an one dot on front, just line them up evenly

'
No, it's personal preference.
I have both, but I like square if I was going to pick one.

Compare Ameriglo Agent to Ameriglo Bold for a good comparison.

This is the way I was looking at it. I don't think it would make a difference to the way I shoot iron sights, but I am also willing to learn if there is a better way.

Thanks for the ideas folks.

'
Everything is based on the tops being level, no matter which sight picture you prefer.

'

what happens if you don't have dots, or the front dot is at top of the front site.

I was taught at Gunsight that a combat was center of hold on the target not the site, everything else is bullseye shooting

'
That's where you're going wrong.
You're "dot centric" and that's fine for close in combat shooting.
I have a friend that way. He can't shoot a 6:00 gun to save his life.
The dots just lead you to the sights.
For outdoor shooting, I don't like any dots really, except maybe a fiber optic front sight.

Your Gunsight instructor was prejudiced towards his way of shooting.

maybe not the original question exactly but the u-shape like on Springfield hellcats and other guns they produce. compared to a square notch. I know there's no real reason for it but I just cannot shoot them as good as I can square sites example glock type.
I've often wanted to try and have never done it one of the true Glow I think is maker has kind of a a gentle v in the back and a really big dot in the front. I think they call them the Big Dot one of them I think might be good for non-precision such as combat type

Everyone is teaching combat hold now and most sight companies are setting their sights up for this.

Big bold dots in U shaped rear sights, put the dot over the target and press the trigger.

What I have noticed about many U notch rear sights, is that they're a bit more generous in the amount of light they let in. That's something I very much appreciate since every handgun I have owned over the past 40 years gets a file taken to the rear sight to let just a touch more light in.

Depends...............

For pure target shooting, & actually for SD as well, I like a 6 o'clock hold, so I prefer a square top front sight with a square top rear sight as well.

But most of the U-notch rear sight seem to have some kind of radius on the top as well.

The actual bottom shape of the notch is more or less moot as long as the top is square.

Too ingrained to want to change now.

MM

Haaaaaa. Pretty sure at the time I took the courses the instuctor could shoot bullseye a lot better than you could shoot action shooting.

Welp, you paid your money.
If you're happy, then good.

I have the u shaped on a G19, my opinion is that I would not ever put them on a .22 that I was trying to hit a rat with, OTOH on the G19 for its intended use they are fine.

Be sure of your target and beyond. Oh, except when using the combat hold and it covers up the target. IMO It's a made up sight picture as a result of sight makers trying to market their sights in the 80s/90s when they added dots, lines, triangles, to the sights to make the "easier" to use. Non shooters thought to line up the dots. I personally do not know a bullseye or ranked match shooter that uses the combat hold. You have to see what you are shooting at to be accurate.

As for the OP's question, square is more accurate. As it's much easier for your eye to line up three horizontal lines, vs. trying to line up the top of a rounded rear sight with the top of a rounded front sight. Does that accuracy difference matter? That's up to you.

A guy I know has had those BIG DOT sights put on his SA TRP, and he insists I try it every time I run into him. I can't shoot it worth a damn. It's FAST, and if you're close, it works okay, but try to shoot well past 10 yards and you're outa luck. I can't imagine having those sights on my own pistols. They sure jump out at you, but for a precise hit, they're all but useless. Like you, gimme square-topped sights I can see, they work better for me.

'
So here's how I understood Post #1
"U" Notch rear sight vs. Square Notch rear sight
Good examples to compare are Ameriglo Agent (round) and Ameriglo Bold (square)

Ameriglo Agent


Ameriglo Bold


Ignore the dots and look at the basic shapes of the sights.
This is strictly a personal preference thing. One is not better than the other.
I have both, but I like the square bottom rear sight.

For fun, we like to break clay birds set out on a sandy bank about 50 yards away.
For that, I like a Dawson Competition rear sight (serrated, no dots) and a .040 red fiber optic front sight (narrow sight with a clean steel top)
We have one combat shooter in the group and he laughed when he was first told of the clay birds.
When the birds started breaking, he quit.
It's really not hard to do. On this sandy bank, you can walk your shots in.