View Full Version : M&P 9 Pro..One year later and still lost
I have had my M&P Pro 9mm for over a year now and I have a butt load invested in this gun and I still can't get it right. I have the Apex DCAEK and RAM so the trigger is acceptable now but I'm on my 3rd set of sights and I still can't shoot this gun near as good as my Sigs with Meprolights.
I 1st replaced the stock sights with Warren Tactical 3 dot nights sights thinking that I would try to stay as close to the Sigs as possible with a 3 Dot night sight set up. That didn't go well and the gun shot 3 " low and the vials for the night sights were way tiny. I just replaced them with Ameriglo all black sights. I spoke to Ameriglo and they recommended the .250" tall front sight but after shooting this set up and finding out it shoots about 4" low I'm pretty pissed. I just checked the spec's on the factory sights and the Tru Glow that came with the gun is listed as .160". I guess that explains why my gun shoots Low.... I think.
Anyway does anyone have advice without calling me a dumbass?
Why don't you just stick with your SIGs, dumbass? :D
Thanks....that made me spit beer through my nose.
I am actually curious too. I have the .40, SAME thing, it shoots low.
Are you guys using 6 o'clock or POA hold?
Are you guys using 6 o'clock or POA hold?
I have the Novak that came with it. I use POA. Its still low when I practice up to 10 yards. 25 I hit pretty good though
Are you guys using 6 o'clock or POA hold?
No.... POA at 7 Yards and the gun shoots 4" low , maybe I need a lower front sight?
(Being serious now)
Why don't you stick with your SIGs if you shoot them well?
Good question...
My logic was that I would try a plastic striker gun and use it at carbine classes. I chose the M&P after reading the great reviews in this Forum and Glocks just never felt right in my hand. I have over a thousand bucks invested in my M&P and I'm trying not to give up on it. I take responsibility for the issues I'm having so I'm not blaming S&W.
Maybe I will have to go back to what I know..... P226 West German or maybe my P226ST.
If it isn't broke, don't fix it.
I've never been able to shoot the M&P as well as I can shoot a Sig. My theory is, if you can't do well with a pistol right out of the box.....move on.
Hi,
If you have a plain black front sight, I would recommend having the front sight milled to a shorter height. I did this on my 9L slide which was hitting low at 7 yards. At 25 yds. it was shooting about 4" low. By milling the front sight down .010" the point of impact is where it needs to be.
-Randy
No.... POA at 7 Yards and the gun shoots 4" low , maybe I need a lower front sight?
I have been having the same problem with my M&P 9 no matter what i do i seem to shoot low. I have had other people shoot it and they seem low as well.
Good question...
My logic was that I would try a plastic striker gun and use it at carbine classes. I chose the M&P after reading the great reviews in this Forum and Glocks just never felt right in my hand. I have over a thousand bucks invested in my M&P and I'm trying not to give up on it. I take responsibility for the issues I'm having so I'm not blaming S&W.
Maybe I will have to go back to what I know..... P226 West German or maybe my P226ST.
I tried that too. I spent my own cash and ammo trying to warm up to Glocks, twice. I was somewhat buying into "low bore-axis, striker fired/consistent trigger, uber reliable etc" hype. Another plus was that I could get one issued and they are lighter than my SIGs.
After dedicating over a solid year of shooting Glocks (G19,G26), and only shooting my P226R when I had to qualify, I deicided that they weren't for me. I noticed a few things during this time. I wasn't as accurate with the Glocks, the G19 wasn't as reliable as my SIGs, I never got used to the grip angle, I would bleed every time I would shoot them, the triggers suck and I wasn't as fast with them. Honestly, it felt like I was going from a Cadillac (SIG) to a Geo Metro.
So I ditched the Glocks and dedicated my time to the SIGs again. I instantly felt better. More importantly, my confidence went back up because I shoot them so much better. Now I wish I would have dedicated that time, $$ and ammo for more training instead of dicking around with the Glocks.
As Khan said... If it isn't broke, don't fix it.
I have been happy with Dawson Precision. I have a 9L that shot low, talked with them measured the sight, let them do the math. I am happy now with a warren rear and a DP fiber optic front sight.
I had a 1911 that I wanted a fiber optic front sight for but the website did not offer the height I needed. Called them up and talked to them for a bit. I decided to send them my slide with a 20 yd bench rest target. They made the correct sight I needed, installed it and sent it back. They are VERY good.
Robb Jensen
05-31-11, 03:51
A stock standard 4" 9/40 M&P uses a. 160" tall front Tzoid. On my 5" M&P Pro 9 I use a Warren rear (plain black) and a Warren .190" tall by .115" serrated black front sight.
Ameriglo measures from the bottom of the dovetail. A .250" Ameriglo sight equals a .180" anyone else sight. This is the standard sight on the 5" M&P's
File the current sight or try the .230 Ameriglo (which equals the .160" of everyone else).
If you have our .250" in shooting low then call me and I'll swap it for a .210" (as an earlier post stated, our measurement is overall height of the sight). Item SW-810-210
Rick
After years of effort and thousands of rounds I have come to the conclusion that I don't shoot poly framed, striker fired pistols well enough for me. I am content with my DA/SA HK P-30 and Beretta M9.
This kinda surprises me. I have the 9 Pro and always shot lights out. I changed nothing, love the trigger and the sights.
I just bought the 40 version last week celebrating my freedom (thanks to those that made that happen). I only shot it on steel so did not notice POI low or not. It did have one mag that nose dived rounds and had trouble feeding the first , that's going back.
I am really happy with my Pro's. Sucks for those that don't, every gun has it's own attitude. Buying a quality Pro increases the chance you get a great one, but not always. Good luck making it perfect.
PB
Littlelebowski
05-31-11, 09:40
If you have our .250" in shooting low then call me and I'll swap it for a .210" (as an earlier post stated, our measurement is overall height of the sight). Item SW-810-210
Rick
Admirable. I hope the OP jumps on this.
Thanks for all the suggestions...
I'm slammed at work so I'll figure something out soon.
My theory is, if you can't do well with a pistol right out of the box.....move on.
This is excellent advice. With no offense meant to the OP, I've often wondered why people buy a new platform and immediately start tweaking on it.
VirginiaTactical
06-01-11, 13:36
A stock standard 4" 9/40 M&P uses a. 160" tall front Tzoid. On my 5" M&P Pro 9 I use a Warren rear (plain black) and a Warren .190" tall by .115" serrated black front sight.
+1 I have the exact same set up I use .190 tall fronts. I also shoot 124 gr CMJs flying at 1050 fps. My 9L is balls on.
This is excellent advice. With no offense meant to the OP, I've often wondered why people buy a new platform and immediately start tweaking on it.
Maybe, because there isn't a gun out there, that fit's the individuals needs and wants, right out of the box.
Contrary to the above advice, I look at any gun as a starting point. Think about what you need and want in the gun. Then find whats out there that comes close or is easily adaptable to that. Where does it fall short and why, and how can you fix it.
I shot 1911's for years, and Glocks at work for a quite a few years. I now have been givin the M&P some love.
It's easier to get an M&P to fit me, then a Glock
It's easier to get an M&P 40 to work with a light
Both can have the trigger enhanced, w/ drop in parts
Its harder to make a 1911 into a 15 shot .40 pistol
I would encourage shooters to look for a good starting point to get them where they wanna be, and to not throw out a particular gun based on easily rectified shortcomings, or, an example of one gun.
Bob
I know the M&P is a good gun and if it doesn't work out I'll chalk it up as an experience and move on.
I'm not too proud to admit my eyes are getting old and my pistol shooting is on the decline so unless I work it out I'll live with what I got. There is a reason why a pistol is a secondary weapon. I'll keep training with my carbine and see if my pistol skills improve.
cochraneap
06-02-11, 10:42
the only way to improve an M&P9 Pro is to dump it and get an HK P30L.
Try a different barrel like a Barsto or Stormlake barrel
Probably a moot point or dumb question but have you let someone else shoot the gun to see if the results are repeatable? The simple fact that you can repeat it over and over again probably answers my question, but I'm just asking.
Maybe, because there isn't a gun out there, that fit's the individuals needs and wants, right out of the box.
Contrary to the above advice, I look at any gun as a starting point. Think about what you need and want in the gun. Then find whats out there that comes close or is easily adaptable to that. Where does it fall short and why, and how can you fix it.
I shot 1911's for years, and Glocks at work for a quite a few years. I now have been givin the M&P some love.
It's easier to get an M&P to fit me, then a Glock
It's easier to get an M&P 40 to work with a light
Both can have the trigger enhanced, w/ drop in parts
Its harder to make a 1911 into a 15 shot .40 pistol
I would encourage shooters to look for a good starting point to get them where they wanna be, and to not throw out a particular gun based on easily rectified shortcomings, or, an example of one gun.
Bob
I suppose some shooters have the liberty to fully customize a platform to fit their needs. In my experience, customization has been a two edge sword. On the one hand, you can improve various aspects of the pistol to fit your shooting needs, on the other hand you can introduce a whole host of other problems into the mix. Customization often reduces reliability and durability which is often a factory warranty breaker regardless of who performs the work. Standardization between your commrads/co-workers is also a factor that comes into play in deadly force encounters. I work for the DOI, and about a year ago we had a shooting where one officer was forced to grab another officer's pistol and return fire. The officer in question was used to the SRT trigger system on his duty pistol, and the pistol that he grabbed was a standard trigger. Due to training muscle memory, he short stroked the trigger twice. Fortunately, two other officers ended the threat that almost ended him. When you customize equipment and train extensively on it, you can negatively effect your ability to fight "outside the box". I suppose if I was a competition shooter, then I'd get into customization. However, in my line work it is more tactically sound to training on a standardized platform.
I suppose some shooters have the liberty to fully customize a platform to fit their needs. In my experience, customization has been a two edge sword. On the one hand, you can improve various aspects of the pistol to fit your shooting needs, on the other hand you can introduce a whole host of other problems into the mix. Customization often reduces reliability and durability which is often a factory warranty breaker regardless of who performs the work. Standardization between your commrads/co-workers is also a factor that comes into play in deadly force encounters. I work for the DOI, and about a year ago we had a shooting where one officer was forced to grab another officer's pistol and return fire. The officer in question was used to the SRT trigger system on his duty pistol, and the pistol that he grabbed was a standard trigger. Due to training muscle memory, he short stroked the trigger twice. Fortunately, two other officers ended the threat that almost ended him. When you customize equipment and train extensively on it, you can negatively effect your ability to fight "outside the box". I suppose if I was a competition shooter, then I'd get into customization. However, in my line work it is more tactically sound to training on a standardized platform.
If customization has effected your reliability and durability, you need a new gunsmith.
I don't shoot competition. I work on a Govt, Special Response Team. I guess, I'd rather make myself better for the 99.9% of what I'll have to do, then shortchange myself, because there is a .1% chance I'll have to do something else.
For years, I shot nothing but personal, custom 1911's on my own time. It never presented an issue when I had to qual with a standard Glock, same now, with my slightly tuned Glocks and M&P's.
But, even if we kept the basic operating system intact, like the god awful 8+ pound trigger, tuning the gun to fit my hand is not gonna hurt anything.
Bob
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.