Smith & Wesson M&P no longer in US Army pistol trials

Interesting article.

Can you imagine the turmoil if the Army goes with a .40 S&W chambered weapon after bunches of LE departments and agencies have dropped it?? LOL, the horror...................




.

...and the Five-Seven is still in...???

Back in May a few military-oriented news sites like Jane's Defense reported that the DoD was going to "downselect" to three finalists by the end of August. So I suspect that the three finalists have already been chosen. We only learned about the M&P being rejected because S&W is a publicly traded corporation so they are required to release any material information that could affect their share price.
http://www.janes.com/article/60814/us-army-moves-ahead-with-handgun-replacement-programme

They weren't going to come close to the accuracy requirement without a serious redesign.

The story always goes that they designed the trials to favor a specific gun. What pistol can meet that accuracy requirement but still fit the other criteria??? Hmmmmm

The M9 met a stricter requirement of 3" at 50 yards. I believe it is from a machine rest, but it isn't an impossible requirement. Many SIGs will hover in the 4" range.

I'm glad the government is demanding better than just whatever. Handgun quality of the top brands is not as high as it was in the '80s.

3 guns still in the running from what I've heard is the Glock 17, the Sig 320, and the Beretta APX.

Guys that have read the official request say it's basically written specifically for the Sig 320. However the FBI had a very similar request that the 320 fit to the T and Glock still beat them.

Imo, the trial pistols should be less focused on accuracy. Accuracy seems to be inversely related to reliability with pistols (from my experience anyway). Tighter tolerances = higher accuracy = less room for sand, grit and nasty stuff to move without impeding cycling.

I am guessing that the articulate trigger was the problem. If that tiny pin or the plastic holding it gives out, the trigger falls off. I had on where a crack formed so I sent it back to Smith. I do not like that trigger and if I were judging a pistol for ruggedness, that pistol would not pass by me. Of course, I am in no position to make such a judgment except at my LGS...where I buy Glock, Ruger, Walther, etc. Revolvers? All S&W!!!

Plainshunter1 said:

Imo, the trial pistols should be less focused on accuracy. Accuracy seems to be inversely related to reliability with pistols (from my experience anyway). Tighter tolerances = higher accuracy = less room for sand, grit and nasty stuff to move without impeding cycling.

Click to expand...

The top two in the XM9 trials were both very accurate and reliable. It doesn't have to work like what you're saying.

Military pistol users definitely have a reason to want a longer range weapon.

I did "break" the trigger on my M&P at ~16,800 rounds, but all that happened was that whatever spring in there tensions the bottom half of the trigger quit working, so the bottom half of the trigger was not pushed forward by spring tension, and the trigger safety therefore became non-functional. No other functionality was affected however... the gun still fired/cycled/reset fine.

The new Glock in 9mm will be the next military sidearm. Glock will sell the thing dirt cheap to the military and get the contract. The P320 was supposed to be the next FBI sidearm until the bean counters looked at the Glock numbers.

4" at 50 yards was the old Jeff Cooper "minimum acceptable" standard for a combat pistol when fired from the rollover prone position.

The SIG 320 would easily shoot much smaller groups than that with good ammo, so it shouldn't be too hard with "ball" ammo

Click to expand...

Les Baer pistols have a base standard of 3" at 50 yards. Anyone who has had a good amount of time behind one of these pistols will attest to their accuracy, and they will also understand why and how they are capable of shooting as well as they do.

I have a real hard time believing that a SIG 320 is going to exhibit Les Baer accuracy by simply feeding it some top shelf fodder. They are production pistols built with interchangeable parts and what are, for the most part, drop in barrels.

You'd have a lot more selling to do on that one, because I ain't buying it

I don't think current glocks are capable of that accuracy either simply due to the inconsistency of their locking blocks the last few years.

Having said that.....4" at 50 yards seems almost unreasonable for a service pistol. Isn't acceptable military accuracy for a battle rifle about 6moa?

I've owned several pistols capable of better than 4" at 50 yards, and none of them were hand fitted.

The Beretta 92 will do it.


The current minimum acceptance for the M16 is 4MOA, but most will do 2MOA. They are asking for 8 MOA from the pistol, from a rest.

On a good day at the range I shoot 4" at 15 yards, and it's better than 90% of the others I see.

Is there a standardized conversion chart I'm supposed to use when online, or is it customary to just pick an alleged accuracy number from thin air?

Not to be insulting, but 3" at 50 yards isn't anything I'd brag about as a manufacturer...now, their 1.5" guaranty is another matter.

Click to expand...

If you say so, but in the real world, it is an accuracy benchmark that most others in this particular bracket have not and can not reach. It remains noteworthy precisely because of this.

With a good barrel, even a 9mm SIG 226 will beat a Baer. This is a Garyguns SIG 226 X-5, fitted with a Bar-Sto barrel, that put 5 shots into 1.1" at 50 yards

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but now you are being misleading, whether purposefully or not. The X-5 isn't a service pistol like the regular P226. It was developed and driven by the competition circuit and it is carefully built and fitted by master gunsmiths to achieve those very specific results.

At this point you're saying a Camaro is the same as a Z06 'Vette.

Still not buying it, and speaking of competition guns, neither is the Military.

Pistols in the military are largely badges of authority. Those units with a higher priority for accuracy using them as a primary weapon get to buy whatever they like.

Therefore the standards mentioned for the tests are much more stringent than really needed and being used to eliminate the competition from a selection process that was already decided. It's also much the same as the cancelled M4 trials - Army is making it look as if they are responding to Congress while burning money and spinning their wheels. Arms in the hands of the soldier don't dramatically change from one decade to another and we rarely get great leaps forward - even tho the express intent is to discover them.

We can probably count on one hand what firearms in the last century were a big step up. As far as I count in American service, it was the 1911, the M2 .50 Cal, and the M16. Nukes aren't hand held weapons.

Any service pistol we adopt will likely be another incremental step, not a game changer. What the internet does is obsess over them because "hand gun." We like our hand guns.

I wouldn't be one bit surprised to see this trial cancelled as part of a downsizing effort. We have before, in fact, there were trials going on in 1954. A new 9mm SA was specified. Once cancelled, the guns that resulted either made it into civilian production or died. One that eventually made it? The Model 39 Smith and Wesson, which grew into such proportions that it was THE standard auto pistol in LEO use at one time. And the police are still trading them in even today, as not all departments have jumped on the polymer bandwagon or gone Glock.

As for a pistols worth in combat, the smart soldier grabs a rifle first. Pistols are for MP's and Commanders surrounded by hundreds of other armed soldiers. Again - status symbols for the Army, and rarely a primary weapon in combat. Very rarely.

Which Glock is in the competition? Is it a new model that the public has not seen yet?