Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DaveTN

White Outline Sights for M&P Handguns

Recommended Posts

We were discussing this on another site and I wanted to bring it up here (again) so maybe…LPA or one of our American manufacturers gets the idea.

I want these sights. But they don’t make them for the M&P’s….yet. They are made by LPA, an Italian Company, and sold by various companies here. Maybe one of our American companies will step up.

I don’t know why anyone that is target shooting with open sights would want dots over these. But so be it… I just want a choice, everyone doesn’t need to use the same thing.

I didn’t have to put a new trigger on the latest M&P carry gun I bought, so I can spend some money putting a good set of sights on it, for when I want to use it for target shooting.

I understand why you may want dots on a carry gun (maybe, kinda, okay not at all, but that’s neither here nor there); but we aren’t talking carry guns....necessarily.

White outlined sights with a red ramp that S&W used for decades would be great. We were told dots are better than these. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

https://www.lpasights.com/en/

https://www.fusionfirearms.com/colt-series-80-1241

p7i9Hk1.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

Those look fiddly and obnoxious. I’ll stick to my front dot with a blacked out rear. 

:screwy: Kids. 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DaveTN said:

White outlined sights with a red ramp that S&W used for decades would be great. We were told dots are better than these. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

 

What was their (The They that said "Go to dots!") rationale? What's the argument for going back to not dots?

I don't know much about the various schools of thought backing the different systems. Thought this was a good opportunity to ask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, TomInMN said:

What was their (The They that said "Go to dots!") rationale? What's the argument for going back to not dots?

I don't know much about the various schools of thought backing the different systems. Thought this was a good opportunity to ask.

They are cheap to produce, (same reason you have Glock's and M&P’s instead of steel guns) beyond that the article I linked below explains a lot.

My desires are different than many others. I do not need sights of any kind on a self defense handgun. I train with point instinct for defensive shooting. I use sights for target shooting. I don’t think there are many people that could with a straight face claim dot sights are more accurate than a white outlined slot with a post. But they also need to be adjustable; and that adds cost.

I also am not asking for anyone to have to pick one over the other. Adjustable sights cost more. That’s why you only see them on higher end guns. M&P’s, Glocks, and other Tupperware guns are as low as you can go on the quality chain and still have something you can trust. They are below $500. Cost is critical.

I’m willing to pay $100 for a set of sights like shown in the pic above. I could be the only one and that may be why we don’t have them. But I’m willing to bet someone offers them and they are a hot item. I believe that because I have used them.

https://www.studentofthegun.com/articles/flash-report/3-dot-sights-suck-everyone-wants/

[Flash Report] 3 Dot Sights Suck, and Everyone Wants Them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TomInMN said:

What was their (The They that said "Go to dots!") rationale? What's the argument for going back to not dots?

I don't know much about the various schools of thought backing the different systems. Thought this was a good opportunity to ask.

Supposedly, it's quicker for the eye to line up three dots in a row than to center a post in a notch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, E4 No More said:

I bet he wears his ball cap backwards too. :doh:

No. Just no.

I know we’ve argued a few times here, but that’s a low blow, man. 😆

Edited by Chucktshoes
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By SonnyCrockett
      https://www.wtvy.com/content/news/Taurus-gun-facility-will-bring-300-jobs-to-Bainbridge-564358211.html
       
      300+ jobs too.  I cant wait to own one that says MADE IN THE USA on it
    • By ken_mays
      I visited the range and put about 250 rounds through the 92X Performance.
      The trigger measures about 6.5# in DA and 3.3 # in SA.   Weight of the gun without a magazine is 2 lbs, 13 oz.
      The reliability was perfect with both included magazines.   I was shooting reloads, 115gr Brazos coated LRN atop 4.6gr Titegroup.   Accuracy of this load in this gun was mediocre, about 2" at 15 yards.   I didn't have any other ammo with me to test with.  I don't know if they had any special accuracy requirements for this gun; I did detect slight movement of the muzzle when the barrel is in battery, so that's not great.
      Shooting impressions:  Sights provided a good picture.  I'm going to nitpick the front fiber sight a bit and say that the fiber was placed higher than I like.  I'm used to Dawsons, which are easier to align vertically.  I found myself looking for the top of the black front sight to get alignment for precise shots, only to find glowing dot there.  So I'll probably replace that.   The rear sight was easy to adjust, I had to dial it a few clicks up and over to get my hits where I wanted.
      I disliked the "gas pedal" style takedown lever.   It's only large enough to get maybe half the tip of my thumb onto it, and the edges and corner are far too sharp for comfort.  I'm going to look into swapping it out for a standard 92 part.  I shot most of the time with my thumb underneath it.
      I also wasn't fond of the slide stop's angled tab.  Its proximity to the safety lever and its downward rake of the tab meant it was more difficult to find and hit than it should have been.  I'm not really sure why they didn't use a standard 92 part; maybe they were worried that people who ride the safety would accidentally hold it down with the tip of their thumb.
      The thumb safety was OK: it had a good tension on and off, and the extended "shelf" was easily reached by the thumb, although I would have preferred it to extend further back.  Beretta says they will offer 3 different sizes of safety lever, but I haven't been able to find out what they look like yet.
      The safety did make slide manipulation a bit more of a challenge than I'm used to on 92s.  Between the location of the serrations (low on the slide) and the prominent safety levers, it makes grabbing the "sweet spot" more of a challenge -- if you grab too low, your fingers will be blocked by the safety.   I'm glad they included forward serrations, they're probably going to see a lot of use on this gun.
      The frame serrations were a bit of a help, but not what I'd call sharp enough to be really useful, and the slick nickel/tin finish wasn't helpful here.  I would skateboard tape over the frontstrap if I were going to do much competing with it... not that such a heavy gun is all that hard to hang onto in 9mm, but I like my grip to be locked in.
      The built-in mag funnel was well done.  No lanyard loop, and it looks like you can get to the mainspring housing pin without taking the grips off. I thought the beavertail might prove to be a problem due to its sharp corners, but that was pretty much a non-issue.


    • By Grayfox54
      With Glock's  announcement of their new .22, it got me to thinking about understudy guns. Basically, that would be guns that look and feel like full size centerfire defensive guns, but in the much cheaper and easier to shoot .22 caliber. It simply makes for more trigger time with a gun that feels like what you carry. I'm a long time fan of this concept. 
      I've said many times that my S&W Model 18 is the gun that taught me to properly shoot a DA revolver. Its my favorite revolver and goes to the range more than any other gun I own. My favorite carry revolvers are also S&W K-frames. 
      Some years ago I picked up a Ciener Platinum Cup .22 conversion unit for the 1911 at a great price. I became so fond of it that I built up a bare frame to mount it on permanently. 
      A year or so ago I bought a Walther PPK/S .22 and enjoy shooting it. 
      Not too long ago I picked up a LNIB .22 conversion for my Sig P226. Honestly, I've gotten so that I shoot the .22 more than the 9mm. 
      Anybody else have an understudy gun? How do you feel about the idea? 

The Fine Print

Tennessee Gun Owners (TNGunOwners.com) is the premier Community and Discussion Forum for gun owners, firearm enthusiasts, sportsmen and Second Amendment proponents in the state of Tennessee and surrounding region.

TNGunOwners.com (TGO) is a presentation of Enthusiast Productions. The TGO state flag logo and the TGO tri-hole "icon" logo are trademarks of Tennessee Gun Owners. The TGO logos and all content presented on this site may not be reproduced in any form without express written permission. The opinions expressed on TGO are those of their authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the site's owners or staff.

Before engaging in any transaction of goods or services on TGO, all parties involved must know and follow the local, state and Federal laws regarding those transactions. TGO makes no claims, guarantees or assurances regarding any such transactions.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to the following.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines