The trigger on the standard M&P 45 is heavier than that on the standard 9/.40/.357SIG models, and the accepted tolerance range (according to my armorer class and at least my early manual) is +/- 2 lbs in relation to the 'standard weight'.
My M&P 45 came with a trigger on the heavier end of the tolerance range. Doesn't that just figure?
Anyway, while it took me a couple of hundred rounds to become familiar with the trigger stroke on it when it was new it didn't prevent me from immediately realizing a very surprising and satisfying level of practical accuracy with my then-new M&P 45.
After a couple of range sessions and upwards of 500-odd rounds had been fired I realized the trigger was starting to feel noticeably smoother. I didn't bother to recheck the trigger weight with my digital gauge because the actual number wouldn't matter to me as long as the inherent accuracy was so good.
Now, a little more than a year later, more than 2,600+ rounds have been fired through my M&P 45. Reliability has been consistently ... even monotonously ... reliable. The ammunition used hasn't been terribly varied, granted. While approx 100-odd rounds has been FMJ (left-over in my range bag, so to speak), the rest has been a combination of only 3 different major brand, duty-type JHP loads.
I actually enjoy taking my M&P 45 to the range for a normal range day/training session more than taking one of my several 1911's.
Go figure that one out.
Recently, I finally had to leave the M&P 45 at home and take one of my 1911's, a stainless Colt Government XSE, to the range for a couple of sessions and a few hundred rounds.
I feel there are a number of inherent refinements and nice features of the M&P pistols series which I like when compared to the other polymer frame pistols I own and use, being Glocks and SW99's. I've addressed my thoughts in other threads from time to time and won't repeat it all again, but some of the features I like about the M&P pistol series are:
Several design features of the M&P are interesting.
Enhanced frame strength (w/steel sub-chassis)
Frame rails are easily replaced if damaged (without frame replacement)
Heavy slide dust cover to resist damage if dropped
Beavertail grip frame to reduce potential for slide bite
Grip inserts include palm swells as well as back strap dimension differences
Ambidextrous slide stop levers
Reversible magazine catch button
Large, robust extractor (and roll pin used in the .45 model)
Stainless steel recoil guide rod assembly
Beveled barrel hood
Through-hardened stainless steel barrel & slide (no zone tempering)
Trigger return spring used in the striker assembly
There have been some ongoing revisions and changes based upon owner/user feedback, too.
Slide stop lever spring tension increased.
Striker design revised a couple of times.
Magazine body finish changed.
Follower design (at least in the .40 S&W models)
A number of the spare parts I've ordered while building a spare parts supply have been identified as revisions. (Not uncommon with S&W, though, as they're always revising parts among their other handgun model lines, as well.
)
All things considered, I think the M&P pistol series is a welcome addition to the current polymer-frame pistol market.
Being a certified LE armorer for Glock, SW99/P99 and the M&P, I have a bit of familiarity with those designs. I also own a pair of each design in different calibers. (In my humble opinion, some folks who live in polymer houses ought to be careful when it comes to tossing rocks around about occasional issues arising with different makes/models.)
While I plan to keep the Glock and 99 series pistols I already own, I doubt I'll be buying more Glocks or 99 series pistols, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find myself picking up at least another M&P.
I'm thinking about a M&P 45c to add to my retirement CCW collection. The standard size M&P 45 I own is a just a bit larger than I'd prefer for normal CCW usage now that I'm retired and don't envision having to invoke peace officer status and take an enforcement action. The M&P 45c might be small enough that I'd be willing to use it in my normal rotation of CCW weapons nowadays.
I just like the way the M&P 45 has been done, all things considered. I already have other design 9mm pistols which serve my needs well, so I don't have any immediate plans to pick up a M&P 9 ... and of the 5 pistols I own chambered in .40 S&W, the M&P 40c is a dandy little pistol but it just doesn't stand out as being something that would 'replace' the rest of them for the most part.
Kind of how I tend to like the Glock and 99 series designs when chambered in 9mm (although I own and have used models chambered in .40 S&W in both designs, as well), I happen to like the M&P when chambered in .45 ACP.
Kind of nice to have so many choices in the pistol design field, isn't it?
Of course, I still choose to carry one or another of my J-frames more than my various 9mm, .40 S&W or .45 ACP pistols. I figure I just came back around to revolvers after the better part of almost 3 decades in the LE field and not quite 20 years as a firearms instructor.
I'll always have an enjoyment and great respect for traditional double action and single action metal-framed pistols, too, for that matter.