"The PPQ requires the trigger to be pulled on a confirmed empty pistol for disassembly (ala Glock)." - Not exactly.
It is not stated in the manual, but I can decock my PPQ without dryfiring by pulling the trigger while getting the slide/barrel a fraction of an inch out of battery and then releasing both. After you've done it once, it is easy to do. I WOULD NOT try this on a loaded pistol, as I don't think this is an intentional feature on this pistol.
You're familiar with the instructions regarding field stripping on page 23 of the manual, right? The part that states:
Point the pistol in a safe direction. Squeeze the trigger fully to the rear.
Finding a way to do something in a manner other than that recommended and intended by the manufacturer is ... something other than that recommended and intended by the manufacturer. Deliberately circumventing the manufacturer's instructions to perform an operation sort of puts you out there on your own if or when something unfortunate happens.
FWIW, I've learned a way to have the striker released /decocked when doing a bench check for the disconnect function (manipulating the slide and trigger) in one of the plastic gun designs, but I don't use that as an "alternate" method to decock the striker for disassembly. Easier for me not to get creative, from an armorer's perspective. I can imagine some hypothetical circumstances where I'd really rather not try to explain in a court proceeding why I deviated from the manufacturer's instructions.
That's just me, though ...
having taken the 99 series armorers course(and probably the s&w m&p too) i wanted to get you opinion on something.
as you know,the p99,sw99,PPQ and the glocks all have the pressed in blocks while the m&p,fnp/fnx and others have metal blocks that are inserted and removed a bit differently.
my question is to the advantage or disadvantage that you see for these two different construction philosophies for the individual and not for the manufacturer and therefor an armorer working for the companies.
it seems to me that there is a clear advantage as far as weight. this is at least part of the reason why a p99/PPQ/glock g19 weighs less than a m&p/fnp/steyr/others. it would seem to me that the advantage of the m&p(and others) system,as far as this one difference,is for the manufacturer and slight ease of replacing,especially since the p99/glock construction philosophy,as far as this one difference,has proven to be very tough and reliable over many years. that is to say,you can take out the blocks on a glock/p99 with no problems but it requires at least a bit more finesse when compared to the m&p(and others),..and further,any problems in this area,at least for most people,would require you to send the pistol back for repairs anyway. was s&w(and others) trying to "idiot proof" their armorers with these parts and philosophy of construction? maybe production of these parts is easier for them too,as it might require less precision?
i can see the advantage in production if the purpose is to take out these assemblies and use the very same on a different size grip/frame,in fact,the p99 compact has a slightly different front block but in most cases i only see an advantage for the manufacturer and not the individual. your opinion? there's a few other issues/differences between these two design philosophies i'm not covering here too.
...and for most of you reading this,this is not about "deep cleaning". you can do that without removing the blocks.
Yes, among the armorer classes I've attended have been some for the Glock, SW99/P99 and the M&P.
Not exactly sure what you mean about the "pressed in blocks" in the Glocks & 99 series, but I'll respond how I think you mean.
In the Glock frame the locking block is pressed into position, but then the frame was revised early on to incorporate a steel locking block pin to help mitigate recoil forces acting on the frame. (I had a chance to handle the early G22 that experienced a frame crack when loaned to a CA LE agency way back when, and which I was told was responsible for the addition of a steel pin to help spread out the force in a different manner.) The steel pin slips easily through the LB with hand pressure.
The Glock trigger mechanism housing (instead of a sear housing) is plastic and is held in the frame with a plastic pin. No real forces requiring more than that, though.
In the 99 and the M&P series the locking blocks are pressed into the frames, and they're both held in place with a stout steel coil pin, although there is a subtle difference between them.
In the 99 series the pin is forcefully driven into and through the locking block (roll pin punch and ball peen hammer are used in the armorer classes), but the pin rests in the plastic frame. The locking blocks are pretty large and robust, and in the compact models the locking block also incorporates the front frame rails.
The sear housing blocks in the 99 are plastic and are held in the plastic frames with a steel coil pin.
In the M&P the steel coil pin passes through the plastic frame, but it's driven through a set of tight holes in the steel sub-chassis molded into the frame on each side (blackened stainless steel), which is what holds the block in place. Steel on steel. This is what helps absorb and distribute the recoil forces, since the steel sub-chassis (think straps) are molded into the length of the frame on each side. The M&P locking block also contains the front frame rails, but in all models, not just the compact (like the P99).
The sear housing in the M&P is another robust steel part, and it's held in the frame with the same type of steel coil pin used at the front of the frame for the locking block. The steel pin is driven into the rear end of the frame's steel sub-chassis, so now there's essentially a steel "box" formed by the 2 steel sub-chassis inserts molded into the frames, connected with steel coil pins located at the front and the back. (In the thumb safety models the thumb safety assembly is outside the sear housing block, pinned within the frame by the rear coil pin, around which it rotates.)
The sear housing block also incorporates the rear frame rails. So, that means that both the front and rear frame rails are simple modular replacement repairs at the repair technician & armorer level. No frame replacement required as with the Glock, or with the P99 if it's a rear frame rail fixture that fails in any of the models (or front in the standard size model).
The Glock ejector is simple to replace, especially since it's usually simplest to just replace the trigger mechanism housing in which it's pressed. It's a pretty inexpensive part.
The 99 ejector is molded into the sear housing. This means that if an ejector breaks the whole housing has to be replaced, and it's nowhere nearly as inexpensive as the Glock housing. The retail cost is about $100 for the Walther part, making replacement after the 1-year warranty expired a bit costly ... which never made sense to me since S&W warrantied the same Walther housing block under their limited lifetime warranty for their SW99/990L customers. Go figure.
The M&P ejector is easily removed from the outside of the sear housing block. It sits against the outside of the block in most models, snugged in the block and unable to go anywhere once the block is snugged into the frame ... except for the .45, in which it actually slips rearward into the outside of the block within some lips in the block.
When it comes to ease of detailed disassembly and reassembly, as well as replacing parts, I'd put the Glock first (which is a mixed blessing of sorts), followed by the 99 series and then the M&P. I haven't attended the XD or FNP armorer classes, so I can't comment on them from any actual experience or having listened to a factory instructor explain design and maintenance.
The Glock doesn't require more than a proper sized push pin punch and hand pressure to disassemble/reassemble it.
The 99 requires a couple or so pin punches (including a roll pin punch, and maybe a roll pin starter punch for some folks), and hand pressure will not suffice for the removal of the 2 coil pins, especially the locking block pin. I've met an occasional armorer who felt it was preferable to return the pistol to the factory if the locking block had to be removed, rather than take a hammer and roll pin punch to the LB pin. (Granted, care must be taken in removing and installing that steel pin, because if you roll over the edge at one end and drive it into the frame, you can damage the frame hole.)
BTW, in the 99 series replacement of the slide stop lever spring involves removal of the locking block, so don't damage or bend one unless you have the training & experience (and willingness) to remove the locking block. Factory tech or armorer replacement.
Also, the barrel lock in the 99 is a steel plunger that fits within a "stepped" hole in the plastic frame. The barrel lock spring fits within the smallest/deepest hole inside the barrel lock plunger hole. Care must be taken when installing the lock plunger to avoid having the spring slip up out of its small hole, or become bent sideways under the plunger at either end. Frame damage could result, and/or improper tension on the barrel lock.
The M&P requires a few punches (if you plan on removing the extractor pin it takes a starter punch and a regular cup end pin punch, except for the .45 because of its roll pin). It will require a ball peen hammer. It will also work best to use the factory provided assembly/drift pin to install the headed trigger pin (the old Sigma bullet-shaped assembly pin, which has become standard in the factory plastic pistol repair kit).
Replacing the trigger bar and slide stop assembly and the headed trigger pin is a bit annoying the first few times it's done, but there's a couple of little tricks that eventually make it pretty simple. (Not as simple as the trigger pin in the Glock or 99, though.)
The M&P slide has some added material which we were told was intended to make it stronger and less susceptible to damage in some conditions (especially with the thicker dust cover, spring box or guide ring ... whatever you want to call it
). You have to stand around a cleaning station and see an occasional slide slip and fall onto a hard concrete surface to really appreciate it, I suppose. Then, there's the steel sear housing block and the steel sub-chassis molded into the frame which will add some small amount of weight. I think the extra weight is worth the added robustness and potential increased durability, though, but that's just a personal opinion.
Okay, all of the rambling aside, I think the design, manufacturing and production methods used by the various manufacturers are all going to make for good quality firearms and be reasonably fine for any private person/owner's needs. Really.
I may have some personal preferences when it comes to things I think are advantages/disadvantages, but for the most part I've come to look at things from more of an armorer's perspective than anything else.
If I weren't an armorer, I'd look more toward the warranty and customer service support.
Firearms are machines, and as such they're going to experience wear as the normal consequence of firing them. They may also experience damage or unexpected breakage/failure of a part or assembly at some point or another. (Drive by any brand of motor vehicle dealership you like, and see how often the service dept has techs sitting around for want of something to repair or service.
How the companies respond to the needs of their customers is pretty important. Nowadays I think that not having to pay for shipping a firearm back to a company is a significant cost savings for warranty work.
Now, that "mixed blessing" I mentioned? Since the Glock is one of the simplest pistols to maintain and repair, that seems to have resulted in a lot of people thinking they're suddenly qualified to "do their own work", "modify", "accessorize" and even "improve" them.
I'm been to enough armorer classes that I'm ready to break out of the teens when it comes to the number of them I've attended. However, I've not yet been through a class where I didn't observe mistakes and problems when students were learning to work on guns (and I made my share of them during the first classes).
Now, consider that those mistakes were made by people who had watched an instructor perform something ... listened to the explanation of how and why it was done a certain way (the way demonstrated) ... had an armorer manual open in front of them, as well as any notes they were taking ... and usually had another person on either side who might be recertifying and was available to help them for the asking ... but they still made the mistakes. I've seen class guns really damaged by armorer students. I've known of people failing written tests (even in Glock classes).
So, folks that think they can learn how to "work on" their own guns just by reading a copied manual, or watching something done in some video clip, can still make the same mistakes (or worse) as students have done while sitting in classrooms ... except there isn't any instructor present to backstop them and catch & correct their mistakes.
In reference to your comment about "idiot proofing" guns? If it wasn't for the constant evolution of increasingly better idiots, that might be possible.
Seriously, though, LE/Gov users are placing increasingly heavier demands on the manufacturers regarding what they desire in the way of service life, performance, durability and even ease of maintenance and "field repair" (which from the factory perspective means any repair done outside the factory, such as what's done by agency armorers). This is giving us better options, meaning us as private owners, too.
I remember when I was given a copy of some fed testing done on some service-type pistols back in 87-88. One of the manufacturer comments noted in the report was when a president of one major company said that if the agency wanted a pistol that would last for more than the standard military service life requirements (5K rounds at that time), they should specify it in writing and the engineers would make a gun to meet those specs. (We're talking about a couple of different make 9mm aluminum frame guns which were observed to experience frame cracks at 10K rounds.)
We've come along way since then (and those manufacturers subsequently ended up making alloy pistols to meet a higher service life spec as time passed).
Now, I happen to find features, qualities and serviceability sufficient to meet my personal needs in the Glock, Walther 99 and S&W M&P pistol lines. All of them. Maybe not "equally", but along some ebb & flow of different features considered among them. They're all good, though.
I own 3 Glocks (9's/.40), 2 SW99's (9/.40) and 2 M&P's (.40 & .45). I'd like to keep all of them.
I have enough Glocks.
I'd like to own more M&P's.
I may, or may not, pick up one of the PPQ's someday (although I really, really like my SW999c, which is the standard action 9mm compact). Might just depend on the price and whether they offer a compact 9mm model (my preference in the 9's). Dunno.
Sorry for the rambling, but it's late.
Did I come close to giving you any info you wanted?
At first I thought he was screwing around with me, just to see how I'd react. He looked a bit sheepish, but finally admitted he'd been wearing it for a couple of days when he was out doing some fence work on his property and using his chainsaw. He said he hadn't bothered to field-strip and clean it since he was going to be bringing it to me for an annual inspection, but that it had functioned just fine (with sawdust all over inside the frame) when he had done some shooting just before coming over to my place.
