I've used the 1911 and Glock versions. The theory behind the Vickers sight was explained to me like this:
The whole sight is tapered as it goes up (trapezoid shaped) do draw your eye to the center. As does the non-serrated portion contrasts the front sight.
The U-notch bottom allows the eye to more easily recognize if the front sight is off center in the rear notch. With a square notch, your eye does not notice as quickly minor deviations left or right by comparison. The straight walls/sides of the "U" also help with this like with traditional sights (some company's u-notch rear to not have this and are more of a "V" shape).
Mind you it's a "combat" style pistol sight, but it allows for a good deal of precision...not as much as say a thin fiber optic, but I would consider it an upgrade to the gun.
One thing I will also note is that if you're someone who likes to skip the tritium at the rear and run only a front sight with tritium on a defensive gun, I feel this style is more forgiving in allowing for that type of setup (but that may just be my perception).
The whole sight is tapered as it goes up (trapezoid shaped) do draw your eye to the center. As does the non-serrated portion contrasts the front sight.
The U-notch bottom allows the eye to more easily recognize if the front sight is off center in the rear notch. With a square notch, your eye does not notice as quickly minor deviations left or right by comparison. The straight walls/sides of the "U" also help with this like with traditional sights (some company's u-notch rear to not have this and are more of a "V" shape).
Mind you it's a "combat" style pistol sight, but it allows for a good deal of precision...not as much as say a thin fiber optic, but I would consider it an upgrade to the gun.
One thing I will also note is that if you're someone who likes to skip the tritium at the rear and run only a front sight with tritium on a defensive gun, I feel this style is more forgiving in allowing for that type of setup (but that may just be my perception).
