With the Glock and P99 being proven, reliable, accurate designs for much longer time and with arguably better build quality,
what does the M & P really do any better or differently?
considering the dud they made with other polymers like the Sigma?
Really?With the Glock and P99 being proven, reliable, accurate designs for much longer time and with arguably better build quality, what does the M & P really do any better or differently? Can S & W even build something to the reliability level of either of those guns, considering the dud they made with other polymers like the Sigma?
I said Glock and P99.The most obvious advantage that the M&P has over the small frame Glock line is that it was designed to function optimally with the .40...whereas the Glock was adapted from the 9mm.
The M&P introduced to the LE market the interchangeable backstraps to fit different hand sizes. This was sus a huge improvement that Glock needed to respond with their Gen4 models
Your title is about the M&P line, why do you keep bringing up the Sigma to find shortcomings?
What then, exactly, is your reason for posting --deleted--?For the people think I'm just saying --deleted-- for fun and incite argument
So trading away reliability is worth saving a few bucks, like what say a $100?
The Sigma was brought up to show that they don't have a good record of making polymers
Of course I know it's a cash grab by S&W. My objection was what benefit does introducing such a product offer to buyers? I'm hoping to find an answer here how it does anything different or better than already well-established polymers.To answer your edit (seems like you haven't read many of the responses), we get choices if we decide we want a poly striker fired handgun, that's what we get. S&W gets the chance to make money and recapture some of the market they lost to Glock, that's what they get.
Is there something so wrong with that? Even YOU admit that you hate Glocks, do you really object to someone offering some competition? There are a lot of people out there who will eagerly choose an M&P over a Glock, and that alone is reason for the M&P to exist.
Whatever you think about the Sigma has no bearing on the M&P, it has proven to be a solid performer that is arguably every bit the equal of the Glock.
I'm hoping to find an answer here how it does anything different or better than already well-established polymers.
Thanks for bein a supporter. I am as lost as you. And as a heads up, the P-99 improved the ergonomics of the Glock about 12 years before the M & P came out so I still don't see what the M & P did different.No doubt. I just made a thread (I didn't know this one was here) about how the S&W M&P took the blocky Glock design and made it better ergonomically.
Ok so you are taking the ergonomics angle, but I mentioned the P99 in the first post and that gun made the improvement you speak of long before the M & P came outIt fits my hand much different, therefore I shoot it more accurately.
With the Glock and P99 being proven, reliable, accurate designs for much longer time and with arguably better build quality, what does the M & P really do any better or differently? Can S & W even build something to the reliability level of either of those guns, considering the dud they made with other polymers like the Sigma?
Update:
For the record, I hate Glocks. Used to own a G19 and sold it due to its poor ergonomics and uncomfortable serrated trigger. I do like the P99 much better though. The point of this thread is to ask is how the customer benefits from another polymer Glock clone. What better do we get? Anything?! Yes, I know it's a cash grab by S&W, but what do we get?
Your question is pointless. It's a matter of "free market" and "competition." Whether or not there's a benefit to buyers will be decided in the market place by buyers who choose to buy or not buy the pistol. Whether or not there's a benefit for Smith & Wesson will also be decided by the market place.SIGfiend said:...My objection was what benefit does introducing such a product offer to buyers? I'm hoping to find an answer here how it does anything different or better than already well-established polymers....
Now that's just a silly statement. Smith & Wesson is a business, and its purpose is to make money. It makes money by manufacturing things and selling them. It's perfectly proper and appropriate for Smith & Wesson to manufacture something and put it into the stream of commerce for people to buy.SIGfiend said:Of course I know it's a cash grab by S&W...
Of course I know it's a cash grab by S&W. My objection was what benefit does introducing such a product offer to buyers? I'm hoping to find an answer here how it does anything different or better than already well-established polymers.
Sounds like a lousy deal. The P99 did a lot, it got to the ergonomics point first, then it added a cocked indicator, ambi mag release.The P99 does not have the same ergonomics as the M&P. The P99 has more ambi controls, but I will not consider it because I don't like the placement of those controls. I much prefer the style on the M&P.
If you question is "what is different about it?" it has already been answered. Each company puts their own flavor on the gun. The controls are slightly different and the grip is a bit different, some have more or less ammunition than the "standard" amount for that size gun.
However, in the grand scheme of things, no, the M&P is not very much different from all of the others. It still is a polymer-framed striker-fired pistol with a trigger safety. I would not agree with you on your theories about their other guns being a dud, or about this being less reliable than a Glock. But it's not a "better" gun than the others, just like the others aren't a "better" gun than the M&P.
Did you just say that the M&P is unreliable?
Care to back that up?