Discussion in 'Handguns: Autoloaders' started by mshootnit, Jan 28, 2017.
I've never heard any glaring issues with the M&P platform.
its all politics and money...like most things in life......not really best pistol.
that the MP2.0 will hang right in there with the 320 and the glock?
I have no hidden agenda Im just askin how good is the pistol.
Personally, I don't care for the 320s, or many striker fired guns, but the M&P 2.0 is one I do like a lot, in fact I'm picking one up tomorrow.
I don't have any significant experience with the P320, but as an owner of both an M&P and a Glock - I don't notice the M&P to be any less reliable, and I personally shoot the M&P a lot better. Granted, that's probably more due to familiarity (I've got only about 1,000 rounds through the Glock compared to around 12,000 through the M&P), but to me the M&P does just handle and shoot better.
My only problem is, the Army it trading in one 9mm pistol for another. What good?
I don’t think the military choosing the Sig lessens the quality of an M&P or Glock at all. They just thought the Sig was the best for them. I think the Glock is best for me. Maybe you think the M&P is best for you.
We aren’t fielding lots and lots of pistols like they are. At least I’m not.
There is your answer. The only pistol submitted that meets the requirements for a MODULAR Combat Pistol was the Sig 320. In this aspect alone the competition was over before it started.
As a hypothetical example, I could see the Secret Service looking for a weapon system that could be configured as a handgun, a PDW and a PCC, since they use all those weapons. In fact, it might make a lot of sense for them to do so...hmmm....
Anyway, when they finally selected the winner of that trial, it wouldn't necessarily be the best pistol, best PDW, or best PPC available; it would just be the one that matched the way they wrote the specs most closely. It almost certainly WOULDN'T be the best handgun for a citizen, since the compromises required to meet those requirements would probably cost it a great deal of functionality in any one of the configurations.
A friend of mine that owned a gun shop was telling me about a bid he had submitted to a local police department in response to a request for purchase of shotguns. He said the specifications for the shotgun matched only one shotgun, a Remington riot style shotgun, the model number I don't recall. His bid was for another brand shotgun which came very close to the bid specifications but he didn't get the contract. He was told by a friend in the police department that the chief wanted Remington and used the factory specifications published by Remington in the request for bid. I have no idea how many pistols are considered modular but it makes you wonder if someone wanted Sig and only Sig.
I work for the fed govt and can tell you that while this is not supposed to happen, it's not rare. In a govt (any level) request for proposals,you are using public $ so they make you need to run a fair and open competition . You also only get the funding once so you need to get it right the first time. However, there are companies out there that will gladly take your $ and leave you stunned with the miserable product/services on the contract they beat out a reputable vendor on. Once you get stung once or twice with a low bid to deliver an inferior product you (as the one writing the contract) learn to write your requirement specs as tight as you can (and still get past the legal department).
In defense of the chief he may have been considering that he may need to keep these guns for a decade or more before he gets upgrade $ again. He knows reliability will be what he needs and warranty service, parts, aftermarket accessories, vehicle mounts, etc will be plentiful. Where as if he got say RIA M5's (which are still an excellent shotgun), he may struggle with these logistics issues down the road.
Then again, maybe he just likes Remington
This all goes back to the thieves who were pocketing the money on contracts to supply beef for Indians forced to live on reservations in the desert with no means of farming or keeping animals. They "paid" for prime beef and then bought diseased animals barely on the hoof to deliver. The US looks like a deep pockets victim and the scammers are lined up to fleece YOU and ME.
There is also the service requirements - take the M4 quad rail, for example, It adds hundreds to the contract price of an M4, has four feet of rail on it, and no soldier ever can use it all up and still carry the gun effectively in combat. Nobody is suggesting he should, either. That rail is an institutional compromise to mount a wide variety of SOPMOD equipment unique to that unit, it's TOE and the MOS of the soldiers in that unit. Unlike the M203 which forced a questionable compromise in finished barrel diameter for over 40 years to mount it, the services got it right and stated their need in the spec for rails to do that job across all the units. And we got exactly that. No, it's not the best thing for you or me, it's a cheese grater on your hands, makes the weapon nose heavy, and It's kinda ugly, too. Using it, the troops keep it as bare as they can for a lighter weight and wear gloves even in the summer to protect their hands.
Things in specifications for military use might actually be useless for us. Goes to the modular requirement - we will see no benefit at all buying and using one gun. The service will see a big benefit swapping out the grip unit if it's damaged - instead of turning in a serial number tracked item to higher level repair. Meaning the armorer could request a new grip and change it out, vs deadlining the gun for weeks and shipping it off. Done right - and we are speculating on that - the repair will be cheaper and faster at the unit level. It's a matter of simply disassembling the weapon, pulling out the integral trigger unit assembly, and dropping it into another grip. No punches, hammers, spring orientations, lost parts, etc. It means it's unit repairable - and if the unit needs a different sized grip, that can be done too.
Big picture you and I will benefit from that, too, when you decide to assemble one to your specific wants. It will take about an hour even with a bare slide, and be up and running. A 1911? Days fitting the hammer and sear, among other things. Glocks aren't much better, and no drop in trigger units, it's all pins and spring assembly like it or not. P320's offer the next step up in service and repair for a fleet numbering in hundreds of thousands, for you and me it's versatility and a wider variety of options.
Handguns with integral pins holding trigger parts have just been made obsolete. It's the kind of thing that happened with computers, the 386 made the 286 obsolete. Both worked side by side for a few years in offices, Glocks will still be on the street for quite a while. But the next design parameter is now out there and you should expect to see a lot of drop in trigger unit guns in future offerings. It's not only simpler for the fleet users, and for us, it's easier to make in a factory, too.
Ironically, Glock missed the party in 1984 when we choose the M9, and now, with the P320, they are officially relegated to the "old school" of designs no longer considered current. Since the MP is just a slave to the same thinking - pin the parts in the integral frame - there's no question why. We just stepped forward and we aren't looking back.
Tirod, great post.
See FN FNS trigger https://fnamerica.com/products/pistols/fns-9/
By this time the 5906 was out of production, but Smith & Wesson agreed to a special run with a minimum number to be purchased. It was going to cost about 3X as much as the M&P and no way it was in the budget. The chief drug his feet for over a year looking at other options and finally consented to giving Glocks a try. They met all requirements and were adopted.
I don't know exactly what happened during the military trials, but Ruger and Smith dropped out early If the M&P couldn't make the cut for our local PD they probably didn't stand a chance with the military. Glock never really had a chance because it didn't meet the criteria. I've never shot one of the 320's but by all accounts it seems like a good choice.
Separate names with a comma.