I'm thinking of getting a M&P9 with standard sights. Can anyone tell me what the sight picture of your M&P9 with standard sights looks like? (I have the M&P9 VTAC model and I know it is different than with standard sites. It's actually difficult for me to hit the bullseye with the VTAC sights on the first shot, I ususally have to correct up).

 

Is it 1, 2, or 3 below?

 

Thanks

 

 

The VTAC sight picture is below:

 

#3

I have no say on this although I am getting an M&P soon.

 

I will say that I can understand your decision to get other sights. Those VTAC sights look terrible...way too many dots to allow for fast target picture. Holy moly!

Well, I'm no expert by any means. My M&P45 seems to be a sight image 3. My M&P9 shoots high with that sight picture so I aim it using a sight image between 1 and 2 and seem to to do a lot better that way.

Well, I'm no expert by any means. My M&P45 seems to be a sight image 3. My M&P9 shoots high with that sight picture so I aim it using a sight image between 1 and 2 and seem to to do a lot better that way.

 

This makes so much sense.

 

I was shooting two M&P's today and I was aiming like sight 3 and was shooting about 2-3inches high at 5-7yards for the first couple mags. If that was the issue, I am glad I figured it out!

I think you don't understand that the sight picture depends on what (range and load) the gun is zeroed for. #1 is how the sights look zeroed for a 6 o'clock hold for bullseye shooting. #2 is for a point of aim, point of impact usually used for a combat handgun. If you are using #3 (and your sights are properly regulated) you should be shooting high as most guns are zeroed for combat shooting. I can see no reason why anyone would use #3. If you're shooting high you need a higher front sight blade, if low a lower one. Your sight picture should not be changing gun to gun, only if the gun is adjusted for a 6 o'clock ot poa/poi.

 

Using #1 for bullseye shooting or #2 for combat shooting why would you think the sights should be anywhere else?

 

If someone feels #3 is a normal sight picture would you please explain why?

I think you don't understand that the sight picture depends on what (range and load) the gun is zeroed for. #1 is how the sights look zeroed for a 6 o'clock hold for bullseye shooting. #2 is for a point of aim, point of impact usually used for a combat handgun. If you are using #3 (and your sights are properly regulated) you should be shooting high as most guns are zeroed for combat shooting. I can see no reason why anyone would use #3. If you're shooting high you need a higher front sight blade, if low a lower one. Your sight picture should not be changing gun to gun, only if the gun is adjusted for a 6 o'clock ot poa/poi.

 

Using #1 for bullseye shooting or #2 for combat shooting why would you think the sights should be anywhere else?

 

If someone feels #3 is a normal sight picture would you please explain why?

 

I believe No 3 is the Combat Sight picture (not Number 2) and is common for Sigs, Walther PPQ, Ed Brown 1911 - at least it seems to be the case for each of my firearms.

 

Quote from Sig Sauer FAQ (http://www.sigsauer....ervice/Faq.aspx)

"All SigSauer production duty/combat pistols are set up to use a "combat" sight picture. This is where the front sight completely covers the bulls eye of the target. Using a six o'clock ("pumpkin on a post") or center mass ("half'n'half") sight picture will result in low impact. SigSauer, Inc sights in all non-sporting and non-target pistols for 2.5 inch groupings @ 15 yards. If you are still having trouble please contact Customer Service for further help and instruction. Please have your serial number ready. There are also very helpful free Internet sites that cover pistol group analysis."

 

 

i.e.

No 1 = Six o'clock / Pumpkin on a post

No 2 = Center Mass / half 'n half

No 3 = Combat

 

(I know the original poster was asking about M&P - I don't know which sight picture M&P uses)

 

hth

 

TheWombat

And hK

I think you don't understand that the sight picture depends on what (range and load) the gun is zeroed for. #1 is how the sights look zeroed for a 6 o'clock hold for bullseye shooting. #2 is for a point of aim, point of impact usually used for a combat handgun. If you are using #3 (and your sights are properly regulated) you should be shooting high as most guns are zeroed for combat shooting. I can see no reason why anyone would use #3. If you're shooting high you need a higher front sight blade, if low a lower one. Your sight picture should not be changing gun to gun, only if the gun is adjusted for a 6 o'clock ot poa/poi.

 

Using #1 for bullseye shooting or #2 for combat shooting why would you think the sights should be anywhere else?

 

If someone feels #3 is a normal sight picture would you please explain why?

 

 

 

To hit the bullseye...

 

I find that My Glock 19 with Heine 8's and my Kimber as well as all my other 1911's require a sight picture as in #1 (where I can see my target) however, my HK USP 40 requires a sight picture as in #3 (thus covering the target, making it even harder to hit the bullseye the farhter out it is).

 

At distances up to 50 yards I find the sight picture required to hit the bullseye does not change, if anything I tend to shoot low and left the farther out I go but that is me. If I take my time and press correctly the bullet goes exactly where it is supped to ie. all of my handguns shoot better than I do but the sight picture does change depending upon which weapon I'm handling.

 

The way I think about my shooting at a target is...it's either a bigger target (close) or a small target (farther away). I really don't think about distance and don't account for bullet drop. At those distances the bullet drop seems negligible. Only in very, very close shooting do I adjust the sight picture for sight over bore offset.

Holy busy sight picture. Why on earth would people want something so complicated. What's wrong with 3 dots or even 2. K.I.S.S. !!!

I believe No 3 is the Combat Sight picture (not Number 2) and is common for Sigs, Walther PPQ, Ed Brown 1911 - at least it seems to be the case for each of my firearms.

 

Quote from Sig Sauer FAQ (http://www.sigsauer....ervice/Faq.aspx)

"All SigSauer production duty/combat pistols are set up to use a "combat" sight picture. This is where the front sight completely covers the bulls eye of the target. Using a six o'clock ("pumpkin on a post") or center mass ("half'n'half") sight picture will result in low impact. SigSauer, Inc sights in all non-sporting and non-target pistols for 2.5 inch groupings @ 15 yards. If you are still having trouble please contact Customer Service for further help and instruction. Please have your serial number ready. There are also very helpful free Internet sites that cover pistol group analysis."

 

 

i.e.

No 1 = Six o'clock / Pumpkin on a post

No 2 = Center Mass / half 'n half

No 3 = Combat

 

(I know the original poster was asking about M&P - I don't know which sight picture M&P uses)

 

hth

 

TheWombat

plain black sights

 

Thank you for this information. The SIGs, Wathers, and H&Ks I have or have had are all older and seem to shoot well with using #2. It would be easier for most people to align dots instead of plain black sights. It would seem that #3 would be an impediment to precision shooting as it obscures your target and wouldn't seem to work well if your target is irregularly shaped. It seems you would also be screwed if your white dots were obscured or fell out. You also have to give it thought as to what gun you're shooting as others have mentioned. I can see how aligning dots would be faster and easier on IPSC type targets.

 

I just prefer a #2 on a combat gun as it seems to have worked for me for some time.

plain black sights

 

Thank you for this information. The SIGs, Wathers, and H&Ks I have or have had are all older and seem to shoot well with using #2. It would be easier for most people to align dots instead of plain black sights. It would seem that #3 would be an impediment to precision shooting as it obscures your target and wouldn't seem to work well if your target is irregularly shaped. It seems you would also be screwed if your white dots were obscured or fell out. You also have to give it thought as to what gun you're shooting as others have mentioned. I can see how aligning dots would be faster and easier on IPSC type targets.

 

I just prefer a #2 on a combat gun as it seems to have worked for me for some time.

 

I agree with you Griz, I like to see my target rather than covering it up also.

The white dots and posts started to be used widely in the 1980s as a sighting aid. It seems they have become the sighting system for some people and the sights are there only as a handy place to put the dots.

On my Px4 with the factory sights, I was shooting style #3. Since I switched to the night sights, its switched to about #1.

I often find the dots distracting since the guns I have owned with them have used sight picture 2. I just bought Dawson serrated black rear and black front sights for my M&P9L.

Know your zero with you ammo. I can tell you that with my sight setup, and my ammo, for my USPSA M&P, with after market sights, the correct sight pictures is #3 close up and #1 when I get to to about 20-25 yards, because it turns out my bullets are still rising. This is something I actually like because at close range I can put the center post over what I want to hit but if I need to hit a 6-8" plate at 25 yards, I hold just under it so I can actually see it while I aim.

 

Also, rear sight dots are evil.

I vote #1, then adjust your sights and pick your ammo to meet the center.

I vote #1, then adjust your sights and pick your ammo to meet the center.

I agree.

#1 is fine if you shoot bullseye or any kind of slow fire accuracy shooting. #2 or #3 are much better if you try to have any degree of speed or you don't shoot at fixed known distances.