What is the point of the M & P anyway?


PDA






SIGfiend
August 2, 2012, 05:29 PM
With the Glock and P99 being proven, reliable, accurate designs for much longer time and with arguably better build quality, what does the M & P really do any better or differently? Can S & W even build something to the reliability level of either of those guns, considering the dud they made with other polymers like the Sigma?

Update:

For the record, I hate Glocks. Used to own a G19 and sold it due to its poor ergonomics and uncomfortable serrated trigger. I do like the P99 much better though. The point of this thread is to ask is how the customer benefits from another polymer Glock clone. What better do we get? Anything?! Yes, I know it's a cash grab by S&W, but what do we get?

If you enjoyed reading about "What is the point of the M & P anyway?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Shuler13
August 2, 2012, 05:42 PM
I got my m&p 9 for less than a Glock 17/19 and the ergonomics are better (IMO).

o Unforgiven o
August 2, 2012, 05:42 PM
Despite what you may think, Glock is NOT perfection, and there are many other polymer guns that that are every bit as good and in some respects better.

SIGfiend
August 2, 2012, 05:50 PM
So trading away reliability is worth saving a few bucks, like what say a $100?

smalls
August 2, 2012, 05:51 PM
What?

Different guns fit different people. That's why there are thousands of models in all different calibers and sizes.

The Sigma was hardly a dud. They sold tons of them. Crappy trigger? Yep. Just as reliable as a Glock, or M&P? Yep.

o Unforgiven o
August 2, 2012, 05:55 PM
Please share with us why you feel that Glock is more reliable than an M&P, or any number of other high quality polymer handguns.

browningguy
August 2, 2012, 06:04 PM
M&P's don't seem to blow up as often as Glocks in .40, so the reliability of Glock is a real question mark to those with an open mind. To my eye the M&P is marginally more aesthetic although neither are really good looking, I like the grip of an M&P better than the Glock.

I don't own either by the way although I have shot them both. My primary carry pistols are Browning Hi Powers and Springfield XD's, for target shooting I use a EAA Witness Match.

2wheels
August 2, 2012, 06:05 PM
So trading away reliability is worth saving a few bucks, like what say a $100?
Who says the M&P is unreliable? Glock fanboys?

Aside from the cruddy trigger, the Sigma is actually known for being very reliable. It just didn't sell well. With the M&P, they had learned their lessons from the Sigma and came out with a handgun that could compete on the same level as the Glock, and even forced Glock to stand up and pay attention (would the gen4 have adjustable grips if there was no M&P?). I know lots of people who have dumped their Glocks for M&Ps or even XD/XDMs for that matter. Glocks aren't all that, no matter what their supporters like to think.

Having options is never bad, I'd take an M&P over a Block any day of the week.

BTW, the point of the M&P is to make S&W money. They're a business, and poly pistols are big business!

biokillr
August 2, 2012, 06:08 PM
The glock has been around longer so it has a track record. The m&p is "new" and yet to be proved in the eyes of some people.(understandable) I have been a huge glock fan for several years. I recently traded my glock 19 for an m&p 9. I have not regretted it. The m&p has survived through my torture tests which sadly I put almost all of my new guns through. It has performed better than I expected. I am a little more accurate with the m&p most likely due to the smaller grip.(small hands) but one thing I do prefer the glock for is the safe action trigger. It appears to be harder to snag and engage on clothing.

kcshooter
August 2, 2012, 06:08 PM
So trading away reliability is worth saving a few bucks, like what say a $100?
Did you just say that the M&P is unreliable?
Care to back that up?



If you don't like it, and you think Glocks are better, fine, but to call it unreliable just blows any credibility you may have had.

shootniron
August 2, 2012, 06:09 PM
I'll take the M&P over a Glock...or a SIG...have no use for either.

tarosean
August 2, 2012, 06:15 PM
There hasnt really been any real inventions in about 50 yrs... So what is the point of any firearms manufactured after that time?

9mmepiphany
August 2, 2012, 06:18 PM
So trading away reliability is worth saving a few bucks, like what say a $100?
The most obvious advantage that the M&P has over the small frame Glock line is that it was designed to function optimally with the .40...whereas the Glock was adapted from the 9mm.

The M&P introduced to the LE market the interchangeable backstraps to fit different hand sizes. This was sus a huge improvement that Glock needed to respond with their Gen4 models

Your title is about the M&P line, why do you keep bringing up the Sigma to find shortcomings?

highorder
August 2, 2012, 06:21 PM
With the Glock and P99 being proven, reliable, accurate designs for much longer time and with arguably better build quality

:scrutiny::scrutiny::scrutiny:

This thread is trollish.

Perhaps a better question can be asked?

Skribs
August 2, 2012, 06:22 PM
Can't tell if troll, or just fanboy...

There are several polymer-framed striker-fired pistols that are not on your list, including XD/XDm, Caracal, FNS, Ruger SR, Taurus 24/7, and maybe one or two that I forgot. Each one brings their own little flavor to the table, with different features and a different price range. Taurus might have a bad rep, but I'm sure the non-lemons are fine, and each of the others offers a quality product that many people like. I wouldn't say the M&P is any less of a quality pistol than Glock or Walther. In fact, Glock and Walther aren't even options I'm considering - I'm deciding between XDm, M&P, and FNS, for various reasons with each choice.

Also note that M&P is made by a different manufacturer than the other two, because S&W wants to make money. For the same reason you have TVs made by Sony, Panasonic, and Visio, even though they're all 60" HDMI 1080P LED 3D TVs.

Old Fuff
August 2, 2012, 06:23 PM
Gee... I always thought that the M&P was a .38 Special / 6-shot /double-action revolver that don't have a bit of plastic in it. :confused:

I suppose that this is what happens when you get old. :D

Skribs
August 2, 2012, 06:25 PM
Gee... I always thought that the M&P was a .38 Special / 6-shot /double-action revolver that don't have a bit of plastic in it.

I suppose that this is what happens when you get old.

What's the M&P going to be in 20 years that makes me say "I always that the M&P was a 9/40/45 autoloader..."?

Ash
August 2, 2012, 06:39 PM
And that, my friends, is why so many folks don't like Glock. It really isn't the pistols, its the obnoxious posts with absurd finality.

Glock, of course, copied SIG, FN, and Hk to create his pistols. His barrel is a blatant rip-off of SIG's design, and Hk came up with the DAO poly pistol years before.

That detracts in no way a Glock's reliability, but the fanboi does make it tough to discus things. For such a boi, Glock could bottle warm urine and he would declare it smoother than Budweiser with fewer calories.

Skribs
August 2, 2012, 06:42 PM
I don't like Glock because they don't have enough ambi support. I couldn't care less what the fanbois say, if I like the gun, I'll get it.

tarosean
August 2, 2012, 06:51 PM
The M&P line of pistols is just another attempt by Smith & Wesson to follow the leader which is Glock!


LOL I wonder just how S&W managed to produce weapons for 77 years prior to Mr. Gastons birth???

kcshooter
August 2, 2012, 06:55 PM
The M&P line of pistols is just another attempt by Smith & Wesson to follow the leader which is Glock!
Face.
Palm.

matrem
August 2, 2012, 06:58 PM
One real good point that comes to my mind:
Do you think Glocks would be the same price today if there were no M&Ps, XDs, or any other real competition?

Auto426
August 2, 2012, 07:02 PM
The point? Different strokes for different folks. Just because Glock's work more often than not doesn't make them the perfect pistol for everyone.

19-3Ben
August 2, 2012, 07:08 PM
Cmon guys. http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3060/2590282166_2ccf7360c4.jpg&sa=X&ei=C_oaUJfYIoPq0gGQ6oCYBA&ved=0CAsQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNE4lXznmSrPvzkO7H7LDZonjpJVOA

Seriously now. The OP is obviously either a) a troll, of b) so incredibly misinformed that it would pay better to educate rather than chastise him.

Esoxchaser
August 2, 2012, 07:12 PM
I may have owned one or two in my day, but in all honesty, plastic guns are ugly. There is no exception to that rule.

CPshooter
August 2, 2012, 07:22 PM
The point of the M&P being created was to cut into Glock's market share. Plain and simple. Do I like the M&P? No. Do I like the Glock? Only the 9mm models. Was this thread created for trolling purposes? I think so.

David E
August 2, 2012, 07:31 PM
With the Glock and P99 being proven, reliable, accurate designs for much longer time and with arguably better build quality,

Nothing wrong with S&W quality or reliability.

what does the M & P really do any better or differently?

Ergonomics.

What does it do different than Glock? They don't ka-BOOM.

considering the dud they made with other polymers like the Sigma?

Dud? They've sold a boatload of those guns and its descendant. It's still a very strong seller.

Why did S&W come out with the M&P? To make money.

fastbolt
August 2, 2012, 08:19 PM
With the Glock and P99 being proven, reliable, accurate designs for much longer time and with arguably better build quality, what does the M & P really do any better or differently? Can S & W even build something to the reliability level of either of those guns, considering the dud they made with other polymers like the Sigma?
Really?

Why is there more than one brand of cars, trucks, motorcycles, scooters, boats, etc?

Why more than one type of cell phone, computer, tablet, etc?

Why more than one brand of shoes, bluejeans, t-shirts, etc?

FWIW, I'm an owner, user and armorer for Glock, P99 and the M&P pistols (among others).

There are features of all 3 which I find advantageous, and some not-so-advantageous. I'd only own ONE of them if I didn't think the others also offered features making them worth owning/using. I've had to repair examples of all 3 designs.

The M&P pistol series is a fine, reliable & serviceable product.

SIGfiend
August 2, 2012, 08:29 PM
The most obvious advantage that the M&P has over the small frame Glock line is that it was designed to function optimally with the .40...whereas the Glock was adapted from the 9mm.

The M&P introduced to the LE market the interchangeable backstraps to fit different hand sizes. This was sus a huge improvement that Glock needed to respond with their Gen4 models

Your title is about the M&P line, why do you keep bringing up the Sigma to find shortcomings?
I said Glock and P99.

The P99 is in .40 and had changeable backstraps before the S & W did.

The Sigma was brought up to show that they don't have a good record of making polymers. The Glock's been around and proved over decades. The P99 is nearly as old, maybe 10 yrs difference. It has many more features than the M & P.....

SIGfiend
August 2, 2012, 08:33 PM
For the people think I'm just saying <deleted> for fun and incite argument, go read the update I put at the end of post #1.

kcshooter
August 2, 2012, 08:42 PM
For the people think I'm just saying --deleted-- for fun and incite argumentWhat then, exactly, is your reason for posting --deleted--?

2wheels
August 2, 2012, 08:42 PM
To answer your edit (seems like you haven't read many of the responses), we get choices if we decide we want a poly striker fired handgun, that's what we get. S&W gets the chance to make money and recapture some of the market they lost to Glock, that's what they get.

Is there something so wrong with that? Even YOU admit that you hate Glocks, do you really object to someone offering some competition? There are a lot of people out there who will eagerly choose an M&P over a Glock, and that alone is reason for the M&P to exist.

Whatever you think about the Sigma has no bearing on the M&P, it has proven to be a solid performer that is arguably every bit the equal of the Glock.

TennJed
August 2, 2012, 08:43 PM
What advantages does a Glock have over the Ruger SR series? This may be the most absurd thread I have seen on here and that is saying a lot.

Hangingrock
August 2, 2012, 08:50 PM
I have both Glock (Gen-3) and S&W-MP. Itís fair to say that this is S&W 3rd design rendition of the Polymer framed striker fired pistol. (Renditions being the Sigma, 99 hybrid S&W/Walther series, and the current M&P) Mean while Glock is at Gen-4.

Iím not going to rid myself of the Glock pistols that I have. As for the S&W-MP I have less experience with that series pistol but my limited experience has been positive.

Glock or S&W-MP either one would be satisfactory dependent on your selection criteria.

justice06rr
August 2, 2012, 09:10 PM
So trading away reliability is worth saving a few bucks, like what say a $100?

WHAT RELIABILITY? Glocks? Pshhh.... don't even.

No firearm is perfect, although Glock may try to market themselves that way. I have handled Glocks that had issues, and i'm sure some of us have heard the Glock Kaboom. And the M&P pistols are actually the same price as Glocks, about $500.

The M&P line offers so much more than Glocks (I don't know about P99's as I've never owned or fired one).

Btw the Sigma isn't a dud. The only downside to that pistol is the heavy trigger.

highorder
August 2, 2012, 09:29 PM
The Sigma was brought up to show that they don't have a good record of making polymers

That is simply absurd.

The Sigma is an excellent low cost option. The trigger is heavy.

SIGfiend
August 2, 2012, 09:44 PM
To answer your edit (seems like you haven't read many of the responses), we get choices if we decide we want a poly striker fired handgun, that's what we get. S&W gets the chance to make money and recapture some of the market they lost to Glock, that's what they get.

Is there something so wrong with that? Even YOU admit that you hate Glocks, do you really object to someone offering some competition? There are a lot of people out there who will eagerly choose an M&P over a Glock, and that alone is reason for the M&P to exist.

Whatever you think about the Sigma has no bearing on the M&P, it has proven to be a solid performer that is arguably every bit the equal of the Glock.
Of course I know it's a cash grab by S&W. My objection was what benefit does introducing such a product offer to buyers? I'm hoping to find an answer here how it does anything different or better than already well-established polymers.

FireInCairo
August 2, 2012, 09:46 PM
No doubt. I just made a thread (I didn't know this one was here) about how the S&W M&P took the blocky Glock design and made it better ergonomically.

FireInCairo
August 2, 2012, 09:47 PM
It appears the M&P's can be had cheaper than your average Glock, too. So there's a second point of improvement.

StrikeFire83
August 2, 2012, 09:50 PM
I love Glocks, check my signature. That said, this thread is insufferably stupid.

shootniron
August 2, 2012, 09:55 PM
I'm hoping to find an answer here how it does anything different or better than already well-established polymers.


It fits my hand much different, therefore I shoot it more accurately.

SIGfiend
August 2, 2012, 09:57 PM
No doubt. I just made a thread (I didn't know this one was here) about how the S&W M&P took the blocky Glock design and made it better ergonomically.
Thanks for bein a supporter. I am as lost as you. And as a heads up, the P-99 improved the ergonomics of the Glock about 12 years before the M & P came out so I still don't see what the M & P did different.

SIGfiend
August 2, 2012, 09:58 PM
It fits my hand much different, therefore I shoot it more accurately.
Ok so you are taking the ergonomics angle, but I mentioned the P99 in the first post and that gun made the improvement you speak of long before the M & P came out

FMF Doc
August 2, 2012, 10:06 PM
With the Glock and P99 being proven, reliable, accurate designs for much longer time and with arguably better build quality, what does the M & P really do any better or differently? Can S & W even build something to the reliability level of either of those guns, considering the dud they made with other polymers like the Sigma?

Update:

For the record, I hate Glocks. Used to own a G19 and sold it due to its poor ergonomics and uncomfortable serrated trigger. I do like the P99 much better though. The point of this thread is to ask is how the customer benefits from another polymer Glock clone. What better do we get? Anything?! Yes, I know it's a cash grab by S&W, but what do we get?

Because I hate the P99, with its stupid triggerguard-mag release, and the M&P has better ergos (for some) than glocks.

Skribs
August 2, 2012, 10:08 PM
The P99 does not have the same ergonomics as the M&P. The P99 has more ambi controls, but I will not consider it because I don't like the placement of those controls. I much prefer the style on the M&P.

If you question is "what is different about it?" it has already been answered. Each company puts their own flavor on the gun. The controls are slightly different and the grip is a bit different, some have more or less ammunition than the "standard" amount for that size gun.

However, in the grand scheme of things, no, the M&P is not very much different from all of the others. It still is a polymer-framed striker-fired pistol with a trigger safety. I would not agree with you on your theories about their other guns being a dud, or about this being less reliable than a Glock. But it's not a "better" gun than the others, just like the others aren't a "better" gun than the M&P.

Byrd666
August 2, 2012, 10:10 PM
Without trying to be rude or pour more gas on Any fire, there's always a better mouse trap being built by someone, somewhere. Not saying any one is better than the other, or worse than the other. Just saying that for this application, this mousetrap might be better overall.

Frank Ettin
August 2, 2012, 10:15 PM
...My objection was what benefit does introducing such a product offer to buyers? I'm hoping to find an answer here how it does anything different or better than already well-established polymers....Your question is pointless. It's a matter of "free market" and "competition." Whether or not there's a benefit to buyers will be decided in the market place by buyers who choose to buy or not buy the pistol. Whether or not there's a benefit for Smith & Wesson will also be decided by the market place.

If you don't see any utility in the M&P, don't buy one. But Smith & Wesson is free to enter the market with the pistol, if it thinks people will buy it; and Smith & Wesson doesn't have to justify its business decision to you (or anyone else, except perhaps its shareholders).

Of course I know it's a cash grab by S&W...Now that's just a silly statement. Smith & Wesson is a business, and its purpose is to make money. It makes money by manufacturing things and selling them. It's perfectly proper and appropriate for Smith & Wesson to manufacture something and put it into the stream of commerce for people to buy.

People who like the gun and consider it to be useful and worth having, will buy it. People who don't won't. Neither have to justify their respective decisions. If enough people like it and buy, Smith & Wesson will make money and be able to pay its employees for their labor; and its employees will be able to pay their bills.

If enough people don't buy the gun, Smith & Wesson will lose money on it. And if Smith & Wesson makes too many bad business decision like that, it will go out of business, and its employees will lose their jobs and incomes.

It's all economics 101. How can it possibly be called a "cash grab."

TennJed
August 2, 2012, 10:17 PM
Of course I know it's a cash grab by S&W. My objection was what benefit does introducing such a product offer to buyers? I'm hoping to find an answer here how it does anything different or better than already well-established polymers.

You do understand that m&ps can usually be found cheaper and many find the ergos are better. That is to obvious things offered to buyers. They are just as reliable. To many a cheaper better product is something "offered"

Care to address that point.

Oh yeah they look better to boot

SIGfiend
August 2, 2012, 10:17 PM
The P99 does not have the same ergonomics as the M&P. The P99 has more ambi controls, but I will not consider it because I don't like the placement of those controls. I much prefer the style on the M&P.

If you question is "what is different about it?" it has already been answered. Each company puts their own flavor on the gun. The controls are slightly different and the grip is a bit different, some have more or less ammunition than the "standard" amount for that size gun.

However, in the grand scheme of things, no, the M&P is not very much different from all of the others. It still is a polymer-framed striker-fired pistol with a trigger safety. I would not agree with you on your theories about their other guns being a dud, or about this being less reliable than a Glock. But it's not a "better" gun than the others, just like the others aren't a "better" gun than the M&P.
Sounds like a lousy deal. The P99 did a lot, it got to the ergonomics point first, then it added a cocked indicator, ambi mag release.

I was hoping to uncover some sort of major changes like that, but I guess there are really none then?

EddieNFL
August 2, 2012, 10:19 PM
Did you just say that the M&P is unreliable?
Care to back that up?

It's on the internet so it must be true.

FireInCairo
August 2, 2012, 10:19 PM
It appears the M&P's can be had cheaper than your average Glock, too. So there's a second point of improvement.

Ike Arumba
August 2, 2012, 10:20 PM
The point of this thread is to ask is how the customer benefits from another polymer Glock clone. What better do we get? Anything?!
Well, OK, I'll tell you why I chose an M&P over a Glock.

It feels better, and is better balanced in my hand.
I auditioned a G17 by shooting 70 rounds downrange, and my trigger finger was sore by 50.
The Glock is prone to bite my hand with the slide upon firing.
The M&P points more naturally.
If I hold a Glock the way that is recommended these days, my support hand's wrist is flexed hard against its stop.
I saw accounts of the G22's frame warping so as to misfire when a light was hung on the rail.
The M&P tames recoil better.

There, does that satisfy you? As for the P99, it doesn't fit my hand as well, and there were no examples to rent at the local ranges. BTW, I liked the Px4 better than the Glock.

Note: I tried G17, G19, G21, G22, G34, and G35.

Ash
August 2, 2012, 10:22 PM
The Glock is so last century.

Frankly, the question should be "Why not?" Glock pistols don't fit me at all, which is why I use what I use. But others like them and they fit. I have known true Glock-o-philes who went with the M&P and never looked back. Ditto for the XD. Yet, Glock retains followers. It really is a happy land, and I can like Swiss, Italian, and Czech CZ's to boot.

TennJed
August 2, 2012, 10:22 PM
Sounds like a lousy deal. The P99 did a lot, it got to the ergonomics point first, then it added a cocked indicator, ambi mag release.

I was hoping to uncover some sort of major changes like that, but I guess there are really none then?

If this is a serious post and you were after "some major changes" then you honestly do not know much about firearms. They are rarely major changes made over a short period of time. Glock offered no major changes after HK. Designs build off of each other.

By your theory Glock and the P99 had no reason being built either

Please educate yourself.

tarosean
August 2, 2012, 10:24 PM
that gun made the improvement you speak of long before the M & P came out

In your opinion....


You do realize that S&W also produced a SW99 based off the P99??? Couldnt you say the M&P is the next step in improvements to a dated weapon? After all that hump in the trigger guard and rounded backstrap were certainly not ergonomically "better" to many shooters.. (yes I know they revised in subsequent gens)

Glock has sat on their laurels too long allowing everyone to catch or surpass them at their own game. Now they are trying to play catchup with backstraps, etc. Next gens will probably have a "tactical" model with forward serrations.

SIGfiend
August 2, 2012, 10:25 PM
If this is a serious post and you were after "some major changes" then you honestly do not know much about firearms. They are rarely major changes made over a short period of time. Glock offered no major changes after HK. Designs build off of each other.

By your theory Glock and the P99 had no reason being built either

Please educate yourself.

The double/single action trigger was one of the things I forgot. That is definitely a major change. How many striker polymers do that? Now you can get back to the topic of explaining what the S & W does better, if anything.

JohnBT
August 2, 2012, 10:32 PM
This thread is more fun than Olympic badminton.

19-3Ben
August 2, 2012, 10:35 PM
The P99 did a lot, it got to the ergonomics point first, then it added a cocked indicator, ambi mag release.

But everyone's hand is different. Simply saying that the P99 "got to the ergonomics point first." is an inane statement to say the least. Just because the P99 fits YOUR hand well, doesn't mean it fits EVERYONE'S hand well.
Me? I detest and loath the P99. The feel of it is "off" for me, and shooting a p99 in 9mm, it had more subjective recoil to me than an M&P40. I find the M&Ps to be very light shooting.

As for what they do differently than a Glock? Not a lot of anything major, but it's all the little stuff they do that really makes a difference and has made the gun such a home run.

Skribs
August 2, 2012, 10:35 PM
The double/single action trigger was one of the things I forgot. That is definitely a major change. How many striker polymers do that? Now you can shut up and get back to the topic of explaining what the S & W does better, if anything.

I'm a little confused about what you're talking about here. Are you talking about the half-tensioned striker? In that case, different PFSF pistols have different tension levels. XDm is 100% cocked, M&P is 98% cocked, Glock is about half cocked, not sure on the others. If you're talking about something like a DA/SA pistol, the only PFSF pistol that actually offers different trigger pulls is the Taurus, with its double strike (and that only happens on a misfire).

Now you can get back to the topic of explaining what the S & W does better, if anything.

Sounds like you're not trolling for the sake of it, but because you posted the thread and wanted everyone to agree with you that the M&P is unnecessary because you don't like it. He was pointing out that M&P vs. Glock isn't too much different than Glock vs. HK or Hi Power vs. 1911. Things build on each other over time.

verdun59
August 2, 2012, 10:37 PM
Wow, i just stepped out for some more popcorn, keep it going guys. By the way when you settle this , how about a rousing debate on 9mm vs .45acp.

Inebriated
August 2, 2012, 10:41 PM
Wow, i just stepped out for some more popcorn, keep it going guys. By the way when you settle this , how about a rousing debate on 9mm vs .45acp.

I'd rather talk about AK vs. AR!

Frank Ettin
August 2, 2012, 10:45 PM
More than enough bickering and bad manners.

If you enjoyed reading about "What is the point of the M & P anyway?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!