I've tried several different brands, weights of ammo for my 4566TSW and it still shoots low(about three inches) and to the left(close to the same). I know the rear sight can be adjusted for windage but what are you going to do about elevation short of filing down the front sight? Don't really want to do that. Of course, front and rear are fixed.

S&W has a number of different height front sight posts (standard white dot) available for the 3rd gen .45 model. I've only ran across one older 4566 which required a different front sight post in order to make POI match POA. All of the new production 4566TSW's I've handled and used have exhibited matching POA/POI with an assortment of 230gr loads. (I can't give you an exact number, but I've handled and shot literally dozens of this new model.)

However, I've had a number of our people feel their 4566's were shooting low. (A well as with other caliber/model combinations.)

The guns have all shot fine when I've tried them, though, so I went on to check the shooters. I usually found that an unintentional downward deflection of the muzzle during the trigger stroke (anticipation of recoil) was occurring. I did this using either dummy rounds or introducing an empty chamber without the shooter's knowledge. It doesn't take much deflection to create the impression that a gun is 'shooting low'.

I seldom resort to 'benching' a gun for a shooter because most of our drills involve 1 & 2-handed unsupported shooting, and besides, many folks can still experience a degree of unwanted muzzle deflection even when shooting 'from a rest' (especially if they're unfamiliar with how to shoot from a rest position).

I still have a number of different height .45 front sight posts left over which I've not had to use since that one older 4566 belonging to someone was brought to me. I've always been lucky in being able to resolve a 'shoots low' issue with the issued 4566TSW's by making a change to the shooter instead of the gun.

I have had to adjust some sights for windage issues, but it's also not been uncommon to end up having to adjust them back again if the shooter has agreed to work with me (or another instructor) toward addressing potential trigger jerk/control issues and has refined their trigger press technique.

Just as most shooters are unaware they're depressing the muzzle during their trigger stroke in anticipation of the recoil, many are similarly unaware of their pressure against the trigger which pulls the muzzle slightly to the side (usually in the direction the trigger finger points) during the last stage of the trigger stroke just as the hammer is about to be released to fall. Clenching their hands, including their index/trigger finger, instead of pressing straight back against the trigger, can easily deflect the muzzle enough to create a problem.

Having someone mix in some dummy rounds with live rounds in a handful of magazines (so you don't know when to expect them) and then slowly shooting for accuracy can sometimes reveal an unexpected downward dip of the muzzle when the gun goes 'click' instead of 'bang'.

I've always felt that dry-fire practice wasn't as helpful to some folks because they know the gun isn't going to go off and so they don't subconsciously try to fight the recoil before it happens. It's not the same thing as expecting the gun to really fire and then having it not fire.

__________________
Ret LE Firearms inst & armorer

I recently went through the same issue with my 4566TSW. When I took mine out the first time I was experiencing about the same 3 inches below POA. My brother-in-law who shoots very frequently noticed only about 2 inches below POA. I changed grips and tried shooting a second outing, but experienced the same low POI. I ended up calling S&W, and they paid to ship it back, tested it, and replaced the front sight, and mailed it back to me. I just recently got to take it out to fire, and the POI is right on with the POA.

Fastbolt....how would you explain a shooter that is a "bullseye" shooter with a number of other guns of varying grips, size, caliber, etc. experiencing this same problem with a 4566?

I'm in the same position as the OP, I picked up a 4566 recently and am shooting 1-hole 10 shot groups at ~15 yards...but that 1 hole is ~3" below POA.

I'm no expert, but if it were a shooter issue, I would expect my 625, 1911, XD, M28, SP101, GP100, M17, M34, etc., etc. to exhibit similar evidence of "flinching."

Is there something inherent in the 4566 grip that could be causing this? If you search the forum, you'll see several threads on this topic in the last few months. What I suspect is that we have a large supply of Police Trade In now in the public's hands, and those Police Trade In's were somehow, who knows why, indexed to shoot ~3" below POA.

Just a thought....

Dunno. S&W obviously felt they had need of making some different height front posts for their 3rd gen .45's at one point.

As far as bullseye/target shooters of different models of revolvers and pistols? Well, lots of folks tend to acquire a liking for a particular shape, angle and dimension of grip, or a small selection of different ones ... especially in relation to when they like to have their trigger break and their grip be at a certain degree of firmness ... and may unconsciously shift their grip and trigger technique in some slight, subtle manner when first shooting a differently designed handgun, resulting in an unintended deflection of the muzzle at the wrong moment.

S&W has a decent, but not great, balance of ergonomics and dimensions in their 3rd gen series guns. Sometimes making a subtle shift in a grip can help a shooter better accommodate themselves to a particular platform when it's new to them. I tend to like the flat backstrap on the 59XX series, for example (such as that which comes standard on the 4006), instead of the arched one. I can shoot well with either, but I can do so a bit easier when using the flat one, and that slight increase in ease seems to help out when I'm involved in drills involving movement, multiple targets and fast-paced shot strings ... but not so much when just standing still and looking to punch the 10X. Shades of a difference which matter to me, under some circumstances. I don't especially care for the factory plastic or the Hogue rubber when it comes to the full-size 4566, although the rubber works better for me in the 4513. Go figure.

Watching the shooter and first eliminating any potential (and obviously unintentional) for shooter involvement in the way of trigger jerk and/or flinching is one way I approach this sort of complaint, in addition to trying the gun myself, and sometimes asking another instructor to come over and try the gun 'cold'. If the gun shoots accurately for everyone but the shooter, then the problem may need to be addressed at the shooter-level, at the least. Finding an acceptable grip stock alternative may be helpful, but it may not be the perfect or complete answer if the shooter issue remains unaddressed.

If I can shoot a wooden clothespin set vertically against a target backboard and hit it at 7-10 yards, the rear sight may not require much adjustment. (Checking for windage, presuming my grip is steady)

If I can shoot another clothespin set horizontally against the target backboard and hit it, the front sight would seem to be adequate. (The horizontal set pin makes for a narrow horizontal target exposure which would show potential elevation issues ... or a bit of anticipation. )

It's not that any given frame/slide & barrel combination might not result in a gun which is better served by a different height front sight post than the one commonly found to provide reasonable 'service accuracy' across the range of normal production.

Then again, sometimes someone comes along who may exhibit a grip/trigger press/sighting issue which is better served by a different front sight. The fellow who owns that 4566 I mentioned is such a person. He just seems to align himself to any number of handguns differently than other folks, but he can turn in some amazingly fast and accurate results once he adjusts the gun to suit his style and technique. It was his 4566 (not an issued weapon), so I wasn't inclined to argue with him and kept replacing the front sight until he found one that allowed him to consistently achieve the results he desired. It didn't have to suit me because I wasn't going to be shooting the gun.

Something else I often do is have someone experiencing a 'shoots low' issue shoot one of my guns, or one from someone else, but I make sure the guns involved have already demonstrated themselves as inherently accurate. Sometimes it's been easier to get someone to consider that it might be them, and not the gun, when they've experienced the same thing with other guns.

A little bit of muzzle depression just as the trigger breaks can go a long way to making for a frustrating situation.

S&W 3rd gen .45's are amazingly reliable, durable and rugged .45's. They're also capable of decent service-grade accuracy with decent ammunition. Their grip angle isn't my personal favorite (being a long time 1911 shooter), but the angle of the grip and the orientation of the magazine & barrel's feed ramp obviously contribute to the feeding reliability exhibited in the guns. The trigger often develops an annoying 'click' in the single action reset as the trigger's forward ears sometimes slip just up and above the drawbar's head at the top of the V-notch (this can occur in any of the 3rd gen guns, but has been described as being more common in the .45/10mm models by folks with whom I've discussed it at the factory over the years).

It wouldn't surprise me if someone who is a revolver shooter and/or a 1911 shooter might have to adjust themselves to the 3rd gen .45 a bit in order to resolve some slight trigger stroke/balance/anticipation issues.

It also wouldn't surprise me to find a particular .45 which might benefit from a shorter front sight post, too.

BTW, it wasn't uncommon for S&W to offer to make slight changes to production runs for LE orders. Things like different extractor springs if a certain ammunition was specified, for example, so I could see them installing a certain front/rear sight combination if asked once upon a time. (Maybe because of a specific favored ammunition selection during some agency's T&E?) I know that one time when I was talking to someone about some new .45's my former agency had ordered, the gentleman at the company made a point to mention that if we had any questions about expected functioning with certain ammunition (if we were set using on some +P load, for example), to be sure and ask. He said that while they used a selection of different commercial ammunition in their normal testing, if we wanted to know about some specific ammunition to call and they would forward the question to their engineering staff, to see if it had been tested, and/or whether it might change their recommendations regarding periodic maintenance. It wouldn't surprise me if some batch of well-used LE .45's might not have received some different front sights by either customer/factory design, or simply agency modification at some point. Who knows?

Night sights have changed over the years, too.

__________________
Ret LE Firearms inst & armorer

fb-there is always a distinct possibility you could be right about the downward movement as soon as the trigger falls anticipating recoil but, I've also, as reiterated, not had that experience with my Glock G23 or G19-just the 4566TSW. I can't recall the exact ammo that I was using, perhaps all of them, as I was shooting WWB 230 gr ball, 200 gr CorBon, Gold Dots and some Ranger T ammo. I feel it was pretty much the same with all of them, however plus or minus an inch.

I'll take it out again soon with some just recently purchased ranger 230 gr standard and +p and see what happens-being more alert as to the last couple of times at the range. Maybe I need to take the 4506 with me as well since it's been a long time since I've shot it and see if it does likewise. I don't recall having that problems with it but I don't trust myself to memory much lately especially since it's been awhile since I've fired the 4506.

BTW-I've tried the straight grip and the curved one and that doesn't seem to matter.

Many folks seem to describe the 'feel' of the hinged Glock trigger (with its forward kick-out at the foot) and the hinged S&W TDA trigger as being different. The S&W 3rd gen trigger seems to often be accepted by folks who have some revolver background, while the Glock trigger ... combined with its different grip angle ... make for a different sort of experience.

Transitioning a long time DA revolver shooter over to a S&W 3rd gen pistol, and then also to a Glock, can be an experience in refining patience.

If you have some dummy rounds you might try mixing some in the mags and then trying to avoid knowing when they come up (mix a round or two into a couple of your mags and shuffle the mags, or have someone else load them for you, etc).

Breaking out the 4506 might help, too, or at least make for an enjoyable time reacquainting yourself with it.

You might call the company and ask for the next couple of shortest front sights, explaining your experience, and see whether they'd be willing to send you new sights. (A sight pusher can help prevent a snapped off front sight, versus the ball peen hammer and brass punch method.)

While I've never liked the 3rd gen .45's as much as the 9's, or as much as my 1911's (or now my M&P 45), I've always found them capable of some pretty decent accuracy. On a good day I could easily rival the typical accuracy of a P220 when using a 4566TSW, although the fatter feel of the P220 and the long reach of the standard trigger seems to offer an advantage to most folks trying both (and my CS45 shoots far more accurately than a .45 of its size seems as though it ought to be able).

__________________
Ret LE Firearms inst & armorer

I'm not much of a revolver shooter and haven't owned one since the acquisition of the 4506 in 1990. The last revolver was a 25-6.

I noticed last weekend there was a vast difference for me in transitioning from shooting the Glock G19 and then going to the 4566. If that had been my first outing with these two, I probably would have contributed the difference in POA to that transition but, the Glock shot POA and the Smith was low and left as mentioned.

I won't say it's not me until I try again and see what happens. This time with just the 4506 and the 4566TSW accompanying me.

I took my newly acquired 4566 to the range today, along with afew other guns including a Ruger Redhawk in .44 Magnum. At 7 yards I almost removed the X-Ring, with about 24 shots from the .44. Yes, I pulled a couple, but they stayed in the black. Then I shot my 4566 and had similar nice tight grouping, but just below the bull in the 8 and 9 ring. I then pulled out a Norinco .45 ACP and started hitting the X-Ring again.
Yes, people flinch, but gun manufacturers also can install sights that are not "spot on". In my case, I will be looking for a slightly shorter front sight.

Back in the day, many .45's were sighted so that they would print about 3 inches high with standard 230 gr. ball ammo. This was so you could aim at the 6 o'clock position and put the rounds in the X.

I have found this to be true with my 1990-91 smith 45xx pistols.

Shooting at closer ranges will often print lower, because of the "pumpkin" trajectory of the 230 gr loads. Defensive ammo, because of its higher velocity, will also print low.

I just picked up a couple of 4566TSW LE trade-ins and they both shot consistently low by several inches at 50 feet even from a rest. I replaced the factory .245 front sight on one (mfg. 2005) with a .228 from a 4006 and it still shot below POA. Today I put a .204 from a 4013TSW on another one (mfg. 2001) and bingo, it shot dead on POA at 50 feet.
Go figure. By the way, that 1990 4006 was also brought to POA with a .204 front sight replacement.