s&w m&p military sidearm
- Thread starter jamal28
- Start date
- Status
I would have liked it nearly infinitely better than M9 which U.S.Army gave me.
Less stuff to go wrong on it. Easier to maintain. Melonite is far better than the baked on finish Beretta use. Also, I won't have to suffer with having to deal with both DA trigger and a manual firng inhibitor thumb switch.
M9 for the most part worked okay. That's it. Just okay, not fantastic or wonderful. It worked as advertised most of the time. So, it is not that it is bad. It is just that among dozen quality pistol choices M9 comes near the bottom of the list of what pistol I'd take when I am in a war.
Less stuff to go wrong on it. Easier to maintain. Melonite is far better than the baked on finish Beretta use. Also, I won't have to suffer with having to deal with both DA trigger and a manual firng inhibitor thumb switch.
M9 for the most part worked okay. That's it. Just okay, not fantastic or wonderful. It worked as advertised most of the time. So, it is not that it is bad. It is just that among dozen quality pistol choices M9 comes near the bottom of the list of what pistol I'd take when I am in a war.
The M&P's have had some reliability issues. Our local PD really wanted to buy them, but had multiple issues during evaluations. After 2 years they finally gave up and purchased Glocks.
If they can get the bugs worked out the M&P, Glock or any other plastic striker fired gun would be an excellent choice.
BUT, Military specifications at this time have requirements that would exclude all of them from consideration. The specs would have to be re-written in such a way that they could even be considered.
To be honest, I don't see that happening. The Beretta is not my personal choice, but it works. I've owned them, wouldn't spend MY money for another, but if issued one would have complete confidence in it. The military was convinced in 1945 that a hi-cap 9mm was a far better choice than the 1911's we had been using. But then, as now there were too many perfectly useable guns in inventory and it simply wasn't economically feasible to change. Same situation now. While many other guns might be a slightly better choice, they ain't gonna change right now.
If they can get the bugs worked out the M&P, Glock or any other plastic striker fired gun would be an excellent choice.
BUT, Military specifications at this time have requirements that would exclude all of them from consideration. The specs would have to be re-written in such a way that they could even be considered.
To be honest, I don't see that happening. The Beretta is not my personal choice, but it works. I've owned them, wouldn't spend MY money for another, but if issued one would have complete confidence in it. The military was convinced in 1945 that a hi-cap 9mm was a far better choice than the 1911's we had been using. But then, as now there were too many perfectly useable guns in inventory and it simply wasn't economically feasible to change. Same situation now. While many other guns might be a slightly better choice, they ain't gonna change right now.
I doubt the M&P would pass an XM9 type trial. But that's opinion - it just doens't seem like that competent a design in terms of recallable failures, accuracy, etc.
What it wouldn't pass is the military's requirements for safety. They got rid of the 1911 because they didn't feel there was any particularly safe way of carrying it with a round in the chamber. Some sort of decockable mechanism was required, ala Sig, Beretta, P7. The light pre-sprung triggers characterized by Glock, M&P, etc aren't going to pass the requested specs.
What it wouldn't pass is the military's requirements for safety. They got rid of the 1911 because they didn't feel there was any particularly safe way of carrying it with a round in the chamber. Some sort of decockable mechanism was required, ala Sig, Beretta, P7. The light pre-sprung triggers characterized by Glock, M&P, etc aren't going to pass the requested specs.
ClickClickD'oh
Member
RX-79G" said:
Hence why a manual safety is optional on the M&P series. It was added as an intent to enter teh M&P 45 into the Joint Combat Pistol trial, which of course ended up never happening. Now it's an option on all the models.
razorback2003
Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2008
- Messages
- 1,231
I doubt the military would adopt the M&P because it does not have a visible hammer. The Beretta seems to work well and meets all the military safety/decocker and hammer requirements.
Maybe, but the 1911 had a safety and did not meet the criteria of the XM9 trials, and the JCP was a SOCOM program, so I think it might not be trial for a general issue arm, but a specialty gun like the MK 23, just cheaper.
The lack of visible hammer didn't prevent the P7 or P9S from participating in the XM9 trials.
As a general issue arm, the military is unlikely to choose a gun that has a light trigger. True DAO trigger weights might be a possibility - like a Glock with a NY2 trigger installed, but lighter than that would be going against the last century of policy.
SOCOM/Special Forces can approved almost anything, including guns built for Condition 1 carry only, which is why some units still are using 1911s. But we are talking about the same groups that also use S&W revolvers, HK rifles and Protec kayak helmets.
danez71
Member
The M&Ps just got the Los Angeles Sheriffs Dept contract after passing extensive testing.
http://www.smith-wesson.com/wcsstore/SmWesson2/upload/other/LA_SDPR_LA Approved.pdf
I lost the info of who all was included in the tests but Sig and HK failed and Glock was not considered due to having to pull the trigger to disassemble.
I think they would be a good candidate for the Military but the Mil specs wouldn't allow then to be considered.. nor Glock.. nor a bunch of others.
http://www.smith-wesson.com/wcsstore/SmWesson2/upload/other/LA_SDPR_LA Approved.pdf
I lost the info of who all was included in the tests but Sig and HK failed and Glock was not considered due to having to pull the trigger to disassemble.
I think they would be a good candidate for the Military but the Mil specs wouldn't allow then to be considered.. nor Glock.. nor a bunch of others.
THIS. ^^^
There is no handgun in the world that would be anything more than a slightly incremental improvement over the Beretta M9. Considering the money currently invested in M9 pistols, parts, accessories, and training, (and the relative insignificance of the pistol in modern warfare) there is absolutely no reason at all for the military to replace them.
Every M16/M4 replacement program to come along (at least 4 so far), has died for the same reason. Sure, there are better rifles out there. But even the best of them they are only slightly better than the AR platform, so why bother?
Alot of people said no major army would ever adopt a striker fired pistol as there standard sidearm but look at the british they just ordered 25,000 glock 17 just for there army with the option to order more whenever needed. So for those who say the us military wouldnt adopt a strikerfired pistol i think there a glimmer of hope. It just takes a little time. The us military is always slow to change.
mgmorden
Member
I think the M&P would serve the function just fine (I certainly trust my M&P or my Glock a lot more than my Beretta 92), but as has been already stated its not enough of an upgrade to justify replacing all the M9's in service.
Realistically the role of a handgun in military combat is pretty limited anyways. As long as they have something that works its good enough.
Realistically the role of a handgun in military combat is pretty limited anyways. As long as they have something that works its good enough.
JTQ
Member
What pistol was that?
Quiet
Member
danez71 said:
The LASD adopted it five years after they started testing.
The first batch was recalled and the S&W M&P pistols were taken off the approved list for duty use, after several kaboom issues during Academy training. S&W fixed the issues and LASD proceeded with adopting it.
The H&K P-2000, H&K P-30, SIG P-220, SIG P-226 and SIG P-229 are all on the LASD approved list for duty use.
Last edited:
danez71
Member
Yes... I know the M&P failed at first. I dont think it was kaboom issues though. I believe it was extraction issues according to the LASD document that was floating around. Doesn't really matter... they didn't pass.
The point of posting it was to point out that the past is the past and they are now approved and have won the contract.
I know Glock was not considered for this round and it was only because of the 'pull the trigger to disassemble' issue. So Glock wasn't tested. There were some guns not tested because they felt the grip was too big for the smaller handed officers.
I don't know which HKs and Sigs were tested and failed. The testing was done to award a new contract for the weapon being issued by the dept; not to determine which items stay on the approved list.
And come to think of it..... I'm not sure if it was both HK and Sig... or if was only one or the other.
All of the detail info comes from a close trusted source that is LASD and is not exaggerator, has never owned a M&P until he was just issued one but does own several glocks, Sigs, and HKs and loves them all.
The post wasn't to disparage any other mfg and, again, to point out that the past is the past and they are now approved and have won the contract.
(I'm mentioning all of that because I don't want people thinking that I'm saying that M&P is the "best" and start a brand war.)
LightningMan
Member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2008
- Messages
- 1,029
I heard that the early problems with the M&P 9mm pistols (only) were caused primiarly because the M&P was originally designed with the .40 S&W in mind. But because some prefer the 9mm, they (Smith & Wesson) had not fully tested the design for the 9mm, the problem was caused by using the same extractor used for the .40 S&W which was probably the reason for the recall. At least thats what I was told by a friend of mine, so I don't know this as a fact, but it makes sence. LM
I think it would be an upgrade to the antiquated dinosaur called the M9. The M&P9 is lighter, easier to operate and maintain.
The Glock 17 would be a better choice because it is even easier to maintain at an armorer level. It is in use by many military around the world that don't play political games when acquiring weapons. They simply want the best and practical weapon they can afford.
The Glock 17 would be a better choice because it is even easier to maintain at an armorer level. It is in use by many military around the world that don't play political games when acquiring weapons. They simply want the best and practical weapon they can afford.
Quiet
Member
danez71 said:
I agree that it doesn't matter now, because S&W fixed the issue.
But, here's a little history...
LASD first started testing the M&P9 in 2008 and pulled it during Academy class usage in 2009.
S&W fixed the issues that LASD had with it.
LASD reauthorized the M&P9 in 2011 and the M&P45 in 2012.
Also in 2012, they went back to testing the M&P9 with the Academy classes. Which finally lead to the M&P9 being adopted in 2013.
No other manufacturer was selected or tested to be the new replacement sidearm.
This email went out on 04-2009.danez71 said:
"PISTOL BARREL BROKE INTO TWO PIECES JUST AHEAD OF THE FIRING CHAMBER." = was the kaboom issue
Last edited:
4thPointOfContact
Member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2007
- Messages
- 852
If you're in charge of writing the requirements, you can write them to favor whatever firearms platform you like.
You don't want to chose a firearm that has a striker? Write a requirement that it have a visible hammer.
You like the M14 over the M16? Write the requirement that it use stick powder (the M16 was developed using ball) and watch the system you don't like develop jams.
You don't like System-A, write a requirement that the new system weigh 10 grams less than System-A.
You don't want to chose a firearm that has a striker? Write a requirement that it have a visible hammer.
You like the M14 over the M16? Write the requirement that it use stick powder (the M16 was developed using ball) and watch the system you don't like develop jams.
You don't like System-A, write a requirement that the new system weigh 10 grams less than System-A.
- Status
