M&Ppro Sight Suggestions

[Fishin6061]

I want to put aftermarket front and rear sights on my 9mm pro. I know that I like the Dawson .100 FO front as I run this on my 1911. My question is mainly the rear and which front sight height to combine with it. I have considered the Dawson adjustable rear, but this calls for a .305 high front. This seems way too high. I measured my stock front at .185 from top of slide to top of the front blade. What rear sights and front sight heights would you guys suggest? The gun is used for USPSA and Man on Man Steel. Thanks.

[Quack]

i like 10-8 rear sights, though i don't have one on my Pro.

the Burwell is another option.

Edited May 23, 2010 by Quack

[waktasz]

Subscribed.

I actually like the stock sights, but would like an adjustable rear. Are there any choices out there?

[kend]

Subscribed.

I actually like the stock sights, but would like an adjustable rear. Are there any choices out there?

Yes, Dawson makes an adjustable rear that works well but you will need a taller front sight to go with it, we have them in stock.

[kend]

I want to put aftermarket front and rear sights on my 9mm pro. I know that I like the Dawson .100 FO front as I run this on my 1911. My question is mainly the rear and which front sight height to combine with it. I have considered the Dawson adjustable rear, but this calls for a .305 high front. This seems way too high. I measured my stock front at .185 from top of slide to top of the front blade. What rear sights and front sight heights would you guys suggest? The gun is used for USPSA and Man on Man Steel. Thanks.

It depends on which M&P you have as to which height front you'll need, the sight radius will change the poi enough that the sight height is different. As far as the .305 being too tall, the difference in the .185 and the .305 is .120 which is roughly the difference in height between the stock rear and the Dawson adjustable. The .305 is the height Dawson recommends, something shorter MAY work with your particular gun/ammo/shooting style but their testing proves that height works with most combinations and that is what I'm currently using on my personal M&P.

[waktasz]

I actually like the front sight that comes stock. The Dawson post is noticeably thinner at .100....and they are giant and stick up off the slide too high IMO.

[A62335]

If someone were to run a 10-8 rear on a M&P Pro, what front sight height would you recommend Ken? The 10-8 is designed to work with the .160 stock front sight on the 4" guns, would the POI change significantly if you put a shorter rear (i.e. 10-8) on a Pro and coupled it with a shorter front sight?

Edited May 25, 2010 by A62335

[beastfrog]

If someone were to run a 10-8 rear on a M&P Pro, what front sight height would you recommend Ken? The 10-8 is designed to work with the .160 stock front sight on the 4" guns, would the POI change significantly if you put a shorter rear (i.e. 10-8) on a Pro and coupled it with a shorter front sight?

The rear on the FS and Pro are the same dimensions. So the 10-8 would not change POI significantly. Only the front sight is different between the FS and Pro.

[bunsen27]

Some days the SEARCH function actually works.

Like the original poster I would like to add an adjustable rear sight to my M&P9L. The only one I have found so far is the Dawson adjustable rear requiring the .305 front sight. Is there anything else on the market yet that doesn't stick so high up off the slide?

[DocMedic]

This is just speculation, but you could use a Bomar adjustable combat rear sight if you know a gunsmith that can mill the slide to fit it.

Edited July 20, 2010 by DocMedic

[rperry]

Have you looked into warren tactical sights? I have the sevigny/ warren sights which is a black rear and f/o front. more eye relief for me. i havent put on the just warren sights which i have been told to work very well. if you buy the rear sight you might as well buy the the front as a set. The original front sight is too high for the rear. I have a m&p pro with the sevigny/ warren sights and a pro with the stock sights and you can definatelly tell the difference.

[Fishin6061]

I really like that idea DocMedic. Has anyone done this or seen a milled m&p slide with a bomar rear?

[DocMedic]

I really like that idea DocMedic. Has anyone done this or seen a milled m&p slide with a bomar rear?

I've been wanting to do it for a while, but whats that saying "I'd be damn if i'm first to find out it doesn't work."

[Jay870]

I can't speak to the specifics of where exactly the problem lies, but my general understanding of why we haven't seen a "buried" style rear sight for M&P's is because of the striker block plunger/spring/cover plate being located under and retained by the rear sight.

[kaiserb]

I have a set of Warren sights on my M&P pro and I really like them. Unfortunately they are not adjustable, but they are right on for POA/POI.

[DocMedic]

I can't speak to the specifics of where exactly the problem lies, but my general understanding of why we haven't seen a "buried" style rear sight for M&P's is because of the striker block plunger/spring/cover plate being located under and retained by the rear sight.

You know, your right! I was looking over my M&P last night thinking it should be possiable, but then I rememebered that I had a USB installed, and what it took to get the thing in lol.

[fiddler]

I'm running the Dawson adjustable rear with the .305 front sight on my 9mm Pro. I've found I don't have enough travel in the rear sight to get 115 or even 125gr bullets to hit point of aim. 147s shoot just fine though so that's what I'm using.

I like the thinner Dawson front post. I feel I am more accurate with it.

[waktasz]

That's the same problem I have with the stock sights. The bullet hits behind the fiber, not at the top of the post. I have a set of Dawson adjustables that I haven't put on yet and now I'm worried.

[bunsen27]

I'm running the Dawson adjustable rear with the .305 front sight on my 9mm Pro. I've found I don't have enough travel in the rear sight to get 115 or even 125gr bullets to hit point of aim. 147s shoot just fine though so that's what I'm using.

I like the thinner Dawson front post. I feel I am more accurate with it.

Yep, this is my main concern and reason for wanting an adjustable rear site. I run factory ammo and prefer to use 147gr, but found a good deal on 125gr so I'm sitting on 4k of them. I started shooting with a used SIG P226 that had the POI ~2in above POA so I'm used to that. With my M&P the POI is ~POA or slightly lower (typically my fault). My brain is not adjusting well to the "covered" type of sight picture after using a 6` o`clock hold for so many rounds. I REALLY hate the "covered" sight picture for pepper poppers and plate racks.

It doesn't sound like there is a good option for an adjustable sight set up on an M&P L/Pro. I was looking at Novak's Extreme Duty, but feel they may fall prey to the same issues as the Dawson's.

Thanks for all the info and feedback. I may just replace the front site with an all black post and file it down to get the POA/POI I want.

[470nitro]

I'm running the Dawson adjustable rear with the .305 front sight on my 9mm Pro. I've found I don't have enough travel in the rear sight to get 115 or even 125gr bullets to hit point of aim. 147s shoot just fine though so that's what I'm using.

I like the thinner Dawson front post. I feel I am more accurate with it.

My setup is the same. With 124gr I'm still a couple inches high at 25yds. If Dawson made a 0.350, I might have some room for adjustment but that thing is up there like the tailfin of a 747 already. Going into a low port, I find myself consciously going lower than I do with my STI as I'm paranoid I'll hit it on the way in or out.