M&P9 sight Q - warren tac or heine

[R.CoreyMorrow]

I arrived home and found that my FFL had dropped off the M&P9 I had been waiting to arrive. Impatiently I must add. :)

I want to replace the white day sights on this sidearm with a tritium front and plain rear. The question is which brand is a better quality and fit: Heine or Warren tactical?

Thanks in advance!

[Tungsten]

I run Warren Tactical dot-over-dot sights on all of my M&P handguns. I like them; a lot. I have had zero experience with the Heinie Ledge sights however I cannot honestly see how they would offer much more value for the additional $20-30 that they cost depending on who you source them from.

Aside from the fact that the Heinie sights have serrated rear faces, they appear to be functionally identical.

[RogerinTPA]

Heine Ledge for my M&P9c. Warrens for the full sized M&P9 and 40.

[Seraph]

I'm running the 10-8 sights, with a brass bead in a serrated ramp front, and a plain black serrated rear sight, with a nice U-notch. This setup is the cat's meow. Next one will get the same, but with a tritium vial in the front.

[Tungsten]

I'm running the 10-8 sights, with a brass bead in a serrated ramp front, and a plain black serrated rear sight, with a nice U-notch. This setup is the cat's meow. Next one will get the same, but with a tritium vial in the front.

I've run Hilton's sites before and actually have a few of them laying around in my parts bin. I just find myself missing the rear dot when I use them. I guess it's just what I'm used to.

[Seraph]

I've run Hilton's sites before and actually have a few of them laying around in my parts bin. I just find myself missing the rear dot when I use them. I guess it's just what I'm used to.

Well, then, just give me a holler, when you need to cast off some of those junk 10-8 sights. :sarcastic:

Seriously, all my carry pistols have a black rear sight, and a single dot upfront. A few of them have Heinie Slant Pro's (no ledge versions, though, among my collection, as they didn't exist at the time I had the work done). I'm not Captain Bullseye, by any means, but I do real well with just a front dot - better than I do with any other config.

I really don't think there'd be a functional difference between the Heinies, and the Warrens. Between the two, I admit I'd probably choose the Warrens, mostly because they look badass.

[John_Wayne777]

I would urge you to reconsider the use of tritium in the front sight only. I know some people have some success with it, but when I've tried that setup and when I've put it in the hands of others I've found it to be sub-optimal. I find a considerable degredation in accuracy with just a front dot in low light. I simply cannot intelligently direct bullets with that single aiming point. It is essentially point shooting.

I need some sort of sighting reference in the rear to give a clue about the orientation of the sights. Heinie uses the "straight-8" setup with a normal tritium element up front and a smaller dimmer element in the rear. It seems to work reasonably well and some folks swear by them. My gripe with the "straight-8" setup is that using the tritium sight picture requires accurately judging how much of a gap there should be between the two tritium dots. Too much, and you shoot high. Too little, and you shoot low. At close ranges on a human sized target it may nit be a big deal...but if you need to be more precise misjudging that gap can mean a total miss.

Warren makes a unique three dot sight system that uses two of the smaller, dimmer tritium elements in the rear sight to create a sight picture that allows the front tritium element to be bigger and brighter, naturally drawing the eye's focus. Even though the focus is on the front sight, the two rear dots are easily visible and allow for a very quick, very precise sighting reference. You get a very quick read on the elevation by looking for alignment of the dots, and by keeping the front dot equidistant from each of the two smaller rear dots you get a quick read on the windage.

In my opinion, the Warren three dot setup is the fastest and most precise low light iron sight sight setup on the market. My Glock and my M&P's all wear Warren three dot sights. If they were available for the P30 I'd have them on those as well.

[ranburr]

I find the tritium front plain black rear to be the fastest and most accurate setup for low light. I certainly wouldn't call it point shooting (not that there is anything wrong with properly used point shooting), since it forces you to focus on the front sight. I use Heinies due to the rear sight serrations and the fact that you you can get a .140 width.

[thorm001]

double

[thorm001]

Heinie
http://i339.photobucket.com/albums/n443/thorm001/Guns/IMG_0926.jpg

WTS
http://i339.photobucket.com/albums/n443/thorm001/Guns/IMG_0927.jpg

http://i339.photobucket.com/albums/n443/thorm001/Guns/IMG_0921.jpg

I prefer the WTS sights because of the plain rear.

[G34Shooter]

I really like my Heinie. Ledge sights with front tritium only but I just ordered the Pro Glo sights from Grant to try out on my compact this time.

[John_Wayne777]

I find the tritium front plain black rear to be the fastest and most accurate setup for low light. I certainly wouldn't call it point shooting (not that there is anything wrong with properly used point shooting), since it forces you to focus on the front sight. I use Heinies due to the rear sight serrations and the fact that you you can get a .140 width.

What a tritium front sight only doesn't provide is any indication of where the front sight is in relation to the rear sight. I can present on a target and place my front dot more or less on the center of the target...but it's possible for the front sight to be higher than the rear notch, or lower than the rear notch, or to the left or the right. In other words, the front dot by itself doesn't tell you how the weapon is oriented in relation to the target.

If you're static in a good shooting stance positioned relatively close to a stationary target with a big A zone, you can get by with it. When all of that changes and now you're trying to make a precise shot while moving on a moving target in conditions of low light (which is, I would argue, more reflective of the conditions you'll find during the real thing) or if you're trying to take even a reasonably accurate shot at longer ranges, then it becomes really difficult to make the shot with just a functional front dot.

The use of tritium only in the front sight was often a response to the old standard 3 dot night sight setup that used identical tritium elements in the front and rear sights. This resulted in the rear sight dots being significantly bigger and brighter in your sight picture than the front sight, which is bass-ackwards when it comes to intelligently directing bullets. I've never liked the standard 3 dot night sight arrangement myself and that was the impetus behind giving the front dot only a try. It was indeed faster for me than the standard 3 dot arrangement because it was much less cluttered and confusing...but it was also imprecise and had a limit of about 10 yards in my experimentation with it. Beyond that even in a good static shooting stance I couldn't get acceptable accuracy out of it. I could get very good accuracy out of traditional 3 dot sights, but it was slow, as even finding the front sight was sometimes difficult.

The Warren 3 dot arrangement turns all of that on its head and gives a very quick, very precise sight picture. When shooting in low light with the Warren 3 dots I often found that I was shooting better than in bright light because the glowing dots were easier for me to manage visually than the iron sight picture.

[beastfrog]

In the photos posted above it must be pointed out that the Warrens are Sevigney's not what most folks think of as Tactical (http://www.warrentactical.com/webpages/wts_5906_rear.htm)'s. Still good sights.

[Semizal0311]

Would it be possible for anyone to post pics of the warren 3-dot vs 2-dot. I am currently in debate between the two for my G19.
Thanks guys.

[SteveL]

Would it be possible for anyone to post pics of the warren 3-dot vs 2-dot. I am currently in debate between the two for my G19.
Thanks guys.

I would like to see some as well. I had decided to go with the dot over dot style until John Wayne777 brought up his point above. Now I'm curious to see a direct comparison of the two different styles. Thorm001 has posted some very good pics of the straight 8 style sights above. Thank you for that.

John Wayne777 you specifically state that your pistols wear the Warren 3 dot sights. Would you be kind enough to post up some pics please?

[John_Wayne777]

I am without question the world's worst photographer, but I'll give it a shot.

[SteveL]

I am without question the world's worst photographer, but I'll give it a shot.

I'm no pro myself, but we would very much appreciate your efforts.

[R.CoreyMorrow]

To everyone who has commented, thanks! Some really interesting thoughts here. I appreciate all of the OPINIONS.

[Entropy]

I need some sort of sighting reference in the rear to give a clue about the orientation of the sights. Heinie uses the "straight-8" setup with a normal tritium element up front and a smaller dimmer element in the rear. It seems to work reasonably well and some folks swear by them. My gripe with the "straight-8" setup is that using the tritium sight picture requires accurately judging how much of a gap there should be between the two tritium dots. Too much, and you shoot high. Too little, and you shoot low. At close ranges on a human sized target it may nit be a big deal...but if you need to be more precise misjudging that gap can mean a total miss.


The straight-8 config gives you a vertical dot alignment which is in my opinion is superior to the typical 3-dot which aligns on the horizontal plane(y-axis). The most common threat we will ever encounter will likely be an upright individual, presenting the the optimal shooting corridor from sternum to eyes with about 5" in width. So, it is more important to be more accurate with your left/right(x-axis) shooting than your up/down(y-axis) shooting. Straight-8 aligns the x-axis more precisely keeping you closer into that 5" corridor. Yes, it is harder to evenly space the two dots for up/down shooting, but that shooting corridor is about 3x the size of the left/right corridor and not as important. I've been convincing officers in my agency to start using Heinies on their Sigs and I've seen a big improvement in their x-axis shooting with good y-axis too. It is much easier to throw shots left/right with 3-dots as it is harder to visually even the spacing between those three dots.

[BWT]

What a tritium front sight only doesn't provide is any indication of where the front sight is in relation to the rear sight. I can present on a target and place my front dot more or less on the center of the target...but it's possible for the front sight to be higher than the rear notch, or lower than the rear notch, or to the left or the right. In other words, the front dot by itself doesn't tell you how the weapon is oriented in relation to the target.

If you're static in a good shooting stance positioned relatively close to a stationary target with a big A zone, you can get by with it. When all of that changes and now you're trying to make a precise shot while moving on a moving target in conditions of low light (which is, I would argue, more reflective of the conditions you'll find during the real thing) or if you're trying to take even a reasonably accurate shot at longer ranges, then it becomes really difficult to make the shot with just a functional front dot.

The use of tritium only in the front sight was often a response to the old standard 3 dot night sight setup that used identical tritium elements in the front and rear sights. This resulted in the rear sight dots being significantly bigger and brighter in your sight picture than the front sight, which is bass-ackwards when it comes to intelligently directing bullets. I've never liked the standard 3 dot night sight arrangement myself and that was the impetus behind giving the front dot only a try. It was indeed faster for me than the standard 3 dot arrangement because it was much less cluttered and confusing...but it was also imprecise and had a limit of about 10 yards in my experimentation with it. Beyond that even in a good static shooting stance I couldn't get acceptable accuracy out of it. I could get very good accuracy out of traditional 3 dot sights, but it was slow, as even finding the front sight was sometimes difficult.

The Warren 3 dot arrangement turns all of that on its head and gives a very quick, very precise sight picture. When shooting in low light with the Warren 3 dots I often found that I was shooting better than in bright light because the glowing dots were easier for me to manage visually than the iron sight picture.

I can't contribute much to this thread, I subscribed, but I had a question.

I'm switching to a Two-Dot system ASAP after using 3-Dots on my 1911 (Trijicon green front sight blade/yellow two dot rear), I just find I can't *see* the sights fast enough, and that it takes time to realize what I'm actually seeing.

I've found from just practicing with the gun, presenting it with them aligned isn't an issue honestly 90 plus percent of the time, but I struggle with that.

Did you have that problem as well and that's why you went to two dot?

Thanks for the feedback.

[littlejerry]

I don't have the warren 3 dots but here is a pic I took after installing the 2-dot on a Glock 19. I also have a comparison pic with the Glock factory night sights. I measured the distance from my eye to the sights and took the picture from there to give an accurate representation of the size of the front relative to the rear(and also the light "bars").

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f91/gth801e/Wep/GNSWTSComparison.jpg

ETA- for anyone who wants to take decent pictures of sights:
Position the camera at the CORRECT DISTANCE from the back of the slide(break out the tape measure if needed). If you are using a point-and-shoot camera with autofocus you can simply look OVER the rear sight and auto focus on the front(i.e. the half press of the button) and maintain the focus(don't release from the half press) then bring your camera down and line up the sights. You will maintain focus on the front sight and create the proper perspective. Using the zoom function doesn't appear to mess up the perspective.

Don't worry about not filling your viewfinder- just take a high res picture and then crop it on the computer.

[SteveL]

Thanks for the pics.

[SWATcop556]

I was all over the place with sight preferences when I first started shooting seriously and in the beginnings of my LE career. The past few years I've been running the Warren sights on my M&Ps and Glocks. I like the 10-8 sights as well but I prefer them on my 1911's, but not my tactical tupperware.

I use the plain rear with the tritium front. What works for me may not work for others. I've been training with the two dot Warrens here lately, especially in low and no light shooting, and I'm seeing their merits when shooting from less than conventional shooting stances or under barricades.

I have a feeling that as funds allow I will be switching over to the two dot sights. While on the square range shooting from a standing position, even in low to no light, the plain rear and tritium front will work. The rear tritium really aids in sight alignment when other factors start to influence a less than ideal shooting platform.

[BWT]

I was all over the place with sight preferences when I first started shooting seriously and in the beginnings of my LE career. The past few years I've been running the Warren sights on my M&Ps and Glocks. I like the 10-8 sights as well but I prefer them on my 1911's, but not my tactical tupperware.

I use the plain rear with the tritium front. What works for me may not work for others. I've been training with the two dot Warrens here lately, especially in low and no light shooting, and I'm seeing their merits when shooting from less than conventional shooting stances or under barricades.

I have a feeling that as funds allow I will be switching over to the two dot sights. While on the square range shooting from a standing position, even in low to no light, the plain rear and tritium front will work. The rear tritium really aids in sight alignment when other factors start to influence a less than ideal shooting platform.

Thanks, I'll give the Two Dot's a shot when I get around to getting the M&P.

ETA: I'm also fascinated by the Warren sights shape, etc, I've got a family member with an M&P with an APEX DCAEK and Warren Sights, so I'm going to jump on that when I visit them. Kind of nice, I can try something out before buying, which is pretty rare these days it seems.

[Tungsten]

Thanks, I'll give the Two Dot's a shot when I get around to getting the M&P.

ETA: I'm also fascinated by the Warren sights shape, etc, I've got a family member with an M&P with an APEX DCAEK and Warren Sights, so I'm going to jump on that when I visit them. Kind of nice, I can try something out before buying, which is pretty rare these days it seems.

The shape of the Warren Tactical rear sight draws the eye to it really, really fast in my experience. Like I said, I run them on all of my M&P's and am a huge fan of them.

[Seraph]

I'm interested in the Warren rear sight shape as well, particularly the generously wide rounded notch.

[littlejerry]

The shape of the Warren Tactical rear sight draws the eye to it really, really fast in my experience. Like I said, I run them on all of my M&P's and am a huge fan of them.

Thats the theory- sharp corners make good focal points(our eyes are naturally drawn to them). The rear sight is full of curves and very few corners(except for the top, inside corners).

It does seem to work well. Although realistically, as with 99% of gadgets, range time and rounds through the gun make more of a difference than the sights. Its easy to have a preference though.

[BWT]

The shape of the Warren Tactical rear sight draws the eye to it really, really fast in my experience. Like I said, I run them on all of my M&P's and am a huge fan of them.

Thanks, I look forward to getting out and shooting the crap out of that M&P when I get the opportunity... Only thing I'd change is I'd like a thumb safety, and frankly if I change my mind later, you can swap out the thumb safety and put $6 worth of inserts in the gun to fill the gaps.


Thats the theory- sharp corners make good focal points(our eyes are naturally drawn to them). The rear sight is full of curves and very few corners(except for the top, inside corners).

It does seem to work well. Although realistically, as with 99% of gadgets, range time and rounds through the gun make more of a difference than the sights. Its easy to have a preference though.

Honestly, if it gives a legitimate edge, no matter how minute, I'll take it. I've carried typical 3-dot sights for a year, and I find even after I painted the front sight blade orange to try to make it pop out at me (around the Green dot of course), I still struggle to see the sights during the day, anyway, I'll quit hijacking this thread. I mean it gets to the point you know how when you present the weapon you're supposed to find the front sight base and align the sights, and track the front sight as you fire to control it? For double/triple taps or just really firing the gun at all.

I struggle with that in implementation. So I'll try a different setup.

Same situation at night, the sights just seem complex enough that it takes time (and I'm talking fractions of a second, but still) to realize what I'm seeing, even though again, often times, more often then not, they're lined up from the get go.

I'd like to see JohnWayne's reply (he'll get to it probably), the same sight geometry (for day time) and the subdued rear/ bright front 3-dot might be something to look at too.

We'll see. I think this is one of those things you've got to get out, use different sights and find out what works for you. I'll see if Warrens are the cure-all for me.

ETA: Thanks for the replies by the way, I appreciate the input.