Rationale to M&P pistols for serious use?

[Handy]

I think I "get" the Pistol Forum philosophy:

Select a quality weapon that has parts and options available to it, shoot it enough to know that your example works, then concentrate on that platform to achieve the best performance possible for the amount you are able to practice.


Since the M&P pistols came out, they have had a rash of broken triggers, non-resetting triggers (sear bounce?), wild manufacturing tolerance, horrendous accuracy, early unlock (probably causing at least one case head separation), cracked slides and a variety of broken small parts. I'm aware every manufacturer has its problems, but even compared all Glock problems over 30 years, the M&P seems like it has had a particularly problematic production history.


Why would people serious about self defense concentrate on such an apparently sketchy platform? Clearly S&W's warranty department is good about replacing parts (often not fixing the problem), and Apex has done a stellar job introducing improvements and fixes for the series, but that isn't the same as working from a quality base.


I give everyone credit here for not getting their feelings hurt that I'm picking on their gun. I'm genuinely curious why folks looking for an ergonomic upgrade from a Glock would choose this problematic line of pistols over pistols of better repute - even if they don't have as many aftermarket gizmos available.


I don't have any skin in this game - I'm not into striker guns. I think if I was I'd go with a VP9, or the pistol that it is "almost as good as"; the PPQ. They seem to shoot very well and offer fewer unexpected surprises to their owners. The M&P seems like a fun project, not a lifesaving tool.

[GJM]

1) The only consensus at Pistol-Forum is that there is no consensus.

2) The M&P has not received much love on PF for a long time. Early on, the Glock was stumbling with the Gen 4 intro and Gen 3 extractors, and there were not many other good options. The M&P appealed to many folks early on, but that ship has sailed.

[ranger]

I will get flamed but if you read the internet long enough every pistol seems to be discredited (then back in favor then discredited again). I am carrying a M&P9FS right now - works great, carrys well, 17 rounds of 9mm - it has 10-8 rear sight and tritium night sight front plus APEX duty trigger kit - otherwise stock. Has been 100% reliable on all range trips with factory ammo and my reloads.

I have a M&P PRO 5 inch that I shoot regularly as my "gamer gun" for IDPA - thousands of my reloads down range. There are multiple competitors in NW GA who shoot M&Ps who do well. I have seen lots of M&PS and never seen the rash of issues on the internet. I do not have issues with my Glocks, CZ P07/P09 (other than I am a poor shooter with TDA), or my "cheap" SA Range Operator 1911 in 9mm. I even have a ParaOrdnance P14 and a PO 16 that work!

[HCM]

I think I "get" the Pistol Forum philosophy:

Select a quality weapon that has parts and options available to it, shoot it enough to know that your example works, then concentrate on that platform to achieve the best performance possible for the amount you are able to practice.


Since the M&P pistols came out, they have had a rash of broken triggers, non-resetting triggers (sear bounce?), wild manufacturing tolerance, horrendous accuracy, early unlock (probably causing at least one case head separation), cracked slides and a variety of broken small parts. I'm aware every manufacturer has its problems, but even compared all Glock problems over 30 years, the M&P seems like it has had a particularly problematic production history.


Why would people serious about self defense concentrate on such an apparently sketchy platform? Clearly S&W's warranty department is good about replacing parts (often not fixing the problem), and Apex has done a stellar job introducing improvements and fixes for the series, but that isn't the same as working from a quality base.


I give everyone credit here for not getting their feelings hurt that I'm picking on their gun. I'm genuinely curious why folks looking for an ergonomic upgrade from a Glock would choose this problematic line of pistols over pistols of better repute - even if they don't have as many aftermarket gizmos available.


I don't have any skin in this game - I'm not into striker guns. I think if I was I'd go with a VP9, or the pistol that it is "almost as good as"; the PPQ. They seem to shoot very well and offer fewer unexpected surprises to their owners. The M&P seems like a fun project, not a lifesaving tool.

The Glock is a mature system and was nearly thirty years old when the M&P was introduced.

The majority of the issues with the M&P have been with the 9mm and .357 sig versions. The .40 and 45 versions have been pretty trouble free.

The accuracy issues in the 9mm versions pretty munched killed it from. a PF point of view.

Larry Vickers really summed up the main issue with the M&P when he said it would have been a great gun if S&W had spent an additional $50 or $70 per gun on production and QC.

S&W's dilemma is their need to compete with Glock on price.

[GJM]

Larry Vickers really summed up the main issue with the M&P when he said it would have been a great gun if S&W had spent an additional $50 or $70 per gun on production and QC.

S&W's dilemma is their need to compete with Glock on price.

Thought he said $10-20?

[Greg]

I even have a ParaOrdnance P14 and a PO 16 that work!

Now that's just crazy talk right there.

[60167]

I had a dog in the fight when I was issued one as a duty sidearm. It was my job to know how to shoot it, maintain it, and work around it's many shortcomings. When I changed employment I got rid of all my M&P support gear with stunning quickness. I'll never look back.

There are places that still issue the M&P. I feel sorry for those who have to put up with them.

[LockedBreech]

For what it adds to the conversation, my State's highway patrol was Glock for about 10 years, went M&P for 4, and went back to Glock a few months ago. I was talking to one of the Troopers about it (and in fact bought his old issued M&P off him as a gift for a former Trooper) and they said overall the M&P was fine, but it just didn't quite shoot as well and wasn't quite as well supported as Glock. They had a few more issues and a harder time getting someone on the phone than when they were with Glock. Plus a strong majority of the Troopers favored a return to Glock. Slightly better logistics + street officer opinion shifted them back into Gaston's camp, and I imagine they'll stay there a long time.

[HCM]

Thought he said $10-20?

Could be - it's been a while.

Either way the M&P should cost more to produce since it has has a stainless slide with complex shapes vs the carbon steel Glock slide which is simply a square bar.

[Handy]

Are .40 and .45 versions made in a different factory/production line so that the quality standards are different, or has the poor quality of the M&P line somehow not affected the performance of the .40/.45 versions?


Was there any move toward pistols like XD, FN or P99QA/PPQ when the Gen 4 became a problem? Did the M&P seem like a much more viable choice at the time?

[orionz06]

1) The only consensus at Pistol-Forum is that there is no consensus.

2) The M&P has not received much love on PF for a long time. Early on, the Glock was stumbling with the Gen 4 intro and Gen 3 extractors, and there were not many other good options. The M&P appealed to many folks early on, but that ship has sailed.

They were good until they weren't. They were loved at one point by many members though S&W's continual efforts to avoid making an awesome gun pushed most away. I still need to try an Apex barrel and see if I can't wind up with a useful gun. If so I might snag another and head back down that road, I did shoot them better and haven't been able to match my M&P numbers with a G17.

[SoCalDep]

My department has over 6,000 M&P9s in service. Those using them were trained by me and 15 other guys.

They are not as accurate as I'd like, but for the majority they are more accurate than the prior issue handgun. This is clear through test scores, observation of performance under stress, and, though there are several factors involved, performance in actual shootings appears to have improved significantly as well.

I've seen more reliability and breakage problems per capita with Glocks of both Gen 3 and Gen 4 than with the M&P (though I still like Glock). I have seen broken trigger return springs. One gun had well over 60,000 rounds when it broke. I shoot a lot and have never had one break. I saw a cracked slide. That gun likely had well over 100,000 rounds through it. I broke a slide stop on one of mine that had around 30,000 rounds.

We do occasionally get guns with issues, but those guns have problems out of the box (usually an extraction issue) and are few and far between.

Personally, I don't like the M&P. It's not accurate enough for my preference and I don't like the trigger. I could fix those things but not within our policy. That said, the M&P has proven itself to me.

[GJM]

Could be - it's been a while.

Either way the M&P should cost more to produce since it has has a stainless slide with complex shapes vs the carbon steel Glock slide which is simply a square bar.

I thought the Vickers quote was more or less "but for $10-20 in manufacturing cost, S&W managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory with the M&P pistols."

As to different standards, I think S&W is willing to sacrifice sales to the fraction of one percent of the gun buying public that can shoot a group at 25 yards, because the general buying public continues to snatch up the current pistolsas quickly as they can make them.

[DocGKR]

I carried a variety of 1911's from 1986 to 2010, including custom 1911's from the biggest names in the business. I stopped carrying 1911's in 2010 and switched to the M&P45. The M&P45 proved nearly as accurate as my custom 1911's, just as reliable, for a fraction of the cost, while being much lighter to carry and having a larger magazine. They were also soft shooting and extremely adaptable to a large variety of hand shapes. In addition, I was involved in an M&P40 trial, where they fired thousands of rounds through each pistol with good accuracy and no functional issues--much better than the G22's.

In 2012, I stopped getting free .45 Auto ammo, so switched over to 9mm. I prefer shooting the M&P9, but had more magazines, accessories, and achieved bit better accuracy with the G19. Yes--S&W dropped the ball on the M&P9 full size, much like Glock did with the introduction of the gen4's.

On the other hand, the M&P9c works quite well for CCW, as they proved quite accurate and reliable, but were just a bit short in the grip for rapid mag changes compared to the G19.

There is a strong possibility in the near future I will need to go back to the M&P9c, M&P9 (with Barsto barrels), and possibly M&P45's; I will be perfectly happy doing so.

[Luke]

Hopefully with all these handgun procurements we will see a M&P gen 2.

I am just a regular joe but me and my old M&P got along pretty good. Loved the ergonomics of the gun.

[JSGlock34]

I think there was a lot of early enthusiasm with the M&P that did not quite bear out as time went on. When released, it appeared to be the first viable competitor to Glock's dominance of the important LE sales market. Glock's sales tactics aren't the most popular in the industry and folks were eager to see someone knock them off the throne. The M&P improved on the Glock formula with ambidextrous controls and a configurable backstrap. Price was competitive. The M&P fared well in .40, passing the BATFE trials. ToddG's endurance test results were encouraging. The Magpul Dynamics guys (Haley and Costa) ran them in Art of the Dynamic Handgun. Kyle Lamb released a VTAC model and the M&P featured prominently in his book, Stay in the Fight. Lots of buzz.

All that inertia is hard to slow down, even with accuracy problems at 25 yards and a host of viable competitors (VP9, SIG P320, PPQ, etc) seeking their share of the market. With the MHS contract up for grabs, we'll see if S&W's partnership with General Dynamics injects that extra QC that Larry Vickers observed was lacking.

[Handy]

Clearly, it is an excellent design. The production is so haphazard that I wouldn't trust an M&P of any variety until they are all in tolerance. General Dynamics is a fascinating company - I hope they walk into the S&W plant and fix what ever is wrong. It is embarrassing to have one of the last American industries producing stuff of this quality.

[DocGKR]

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?14800-Trend-of-leaving-M-amp-P-platform/page7

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?9625-9-mm-Glock-vs-M-amp-P

[ReverendMeat]

Was there any move toward pistols like XD, FN or P99QA/PPQ when the Gen 4 became a problem? Did the M&P seem like a much more viable choice at the time?

I think people would've migrated to the P99 if Walther's marketing was anything more than "brick through a plate glass window."

[HCM]

I think people would've migrated to the P99 if Walther's marketing was anything more than "brick through a plate glass window."

It didn't help that P99 hit the U.S. Market just as the 1994 AWB. went into effect.

[Handy]

It isn't like the P99 went away. It has been in stores the entire time, and it came out at about the same time as the USP.

A decent piece of gear shouldn't need a popularity contest to be in consideration.

[Unobtanium]

I love my mp9 fs. I have shot thousands of rounds through it, it is accurate, reliable, and I find it much more shootable than my Glock 19s. Sample of one. Works great for me.

[mmc45414]

I am going through a phase of primarily focusing on one platform, and it turned out to be the M&P. There was no grand strategy, I used to have Glocks and XDs, and wanted one of everything I didn’t already have. Actually that is not true, I wanted three or four of everything I did and did not have. My favorite just always seemed to be the G23, bracketed by the G27 and G35. I had an XD 40 and XD 45 5”, and sent the 45 out to Springer for the trigger work.

Then I bought an M&P 45c. Then I put an Apex sear in it. Then I started to really like it. Then I bought an M&P 40 and put an Apex sear in it. Then some shithead stole the G23 out of my truck. Since I was shooting the M&P most of the time I replaced it with a M&P 9c, figuring I would get another G23 again someday later and I kept all of the holsters and magazines.

Then I got the hots for a new 686 Sporting in 20g, and if I was going to shoot more 20g I wanted a SL900, and all that adds up to thousands of dollars. And I realized I had thousands of dollars worth of redundant striker fired guns and gear that was just rounding out a collection, and I have always contended I am a shooter not a collector. So I sold off all of the XD and Glock stuff and bought my shotgun, loader and the rest of the M&Ps, including a FS 9 that got the Apex barrel.

I like the angle of the grip and shorter reach to the trigger. I had success at my level with the Glocks, and like their triggers better, but it seemed like I was forcing the grip angle. And they feel like a piece of lumber. I consider the ergonomic relationship to be as important as the mechanical accuracy, and I realize this has a lot to do with the shape of my hand and being a 1911 user in my formative years. I like the 45 holster is compatible with the 9/40. I like there is no issue with cast bullets. I like the availability of sight upgrades being almost equivalent with the Glocks. And yeah, I will admit that I like the price. Just back from Gulf Shores and I took my trade in 40c that I think I paid $340 for, knowing it would spend a lot of time locked up in the car while I was drunk on the beach.

Are they the best? Are there better? It seems like it is human nature for people to want the absolute best device but are willing to accept compromise in their performance. I am gonna keep shooting my M&Ps for the time being and try and continually make myself better. Pretty sure the pistol is good enough to not be the weak link here :)

[spinmove_]

I carried a variety of 1911's from 1986 to 2010, including custom 1911's from the biggest names in the business. I stopped carrying 1911's in 2010 and switched to the M&P45. The M&P45 proved nearly as accurate as my custom 1911's, just as reliable, for a fraction of the cost, while being much lighter to carry and having a larger magazine. They were also soft shooting and extremely adaptable to a large variety of hand shapes. In addition, I was involved in an M&P40 trial, where they fired thousands of rounds through each pistol with good accuracy and no functional issues--much better than the G22's.

In 2012, I stopped getting free .45 Auto ammo, so switched over to 9mm. I prefer shooting the M&P9, but had more magazines, accessories, and achieved bit better accuracy with the G19. Yes--S&W dropped the ball on the M&P9 full size, much like Glock did with the introduction of the gen4's.

On the other hand, the M&P9c works quite well for CCW, as they proved quite accurate and reliable, but were just a bit short in the grip for rapid mag changes compared to the G19.

There is a strong possibility in the near future I will need to go back to the M&P9c, M&P9 (with Barsto barrels), and possibly M&P45's; I will be perfectly happy doing so.

Just out of curiosity, why would you need to switch back to an all M&P set of pistols? That seems like quite an overhaul in pistols and accessories.

[rob_s]

When the M&P first came out, there were still a lot of guys that weren't ok with the Glock because:plastic and because:change and because:old. They had been that way for so long that they couldn't very well just go buy a Glock and still save face. The M&P let them buy a plastic gun without buying a Glock, and a lot of the guys in particular that I'm thinking of eventually wound their way 'round to the Glock once they thought everyone had forgotten their previous Glock hate by then.

Currently, it's often a snowflake gun. And some people that think the gun itself matters. That's fine by me.

I do often recommend the M&P to non-gun friends who want a gun for the house or because they feel like they should own one, because the M&P can be had with a safety and that makes a lot of first-time buyers feel good.

If someone has spent time with the Glock, and then spent time with the M&P, and actually quantitatively shoots the M&P better, then I saw shoot the M&P. I don't think the gun really matters, but if you do and you have the numbers to prove it, I say shoot the gun you shoot best, all else being equal. The other parts of the carry-gun equation (availability of support gear, availability of spare parts, availability of differing sized models for differing tasks, etc.) have largely been caught up for the M&Ps so I see no real downside.

[JM Campbell]

I shoot and carry 3 confirmed good mp9fs. I experiment with a 5" core pro. I carry and practice with a shield 9mm. All have proven accurate and I shoot all of them better then I did P30LS, P30 LEM, G17, g19, sig 2022.

Sample of 1.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

[Greg]

I've only owned one and it was one of the inaccurate 9mm full sized guns.

Even though I didn't like that M&P I've always rooted for S&W to fix the accuracy and give the trigger a more positive feel and reset.

It still seems like they could slap a Mark II name on it and fix the issues, but I think the clock is ticking and if they don't do it soon they will be too late,

I believe S&W changed the barrel twist rate last year on the 9mm. If they want to convince people the guns are accurate now they should ship every single one with a factory test target like the German Sig Sauers had.

[orionz06]

I believe S&W changed the barrel twist rate last year on the 9mm. If they want to convince people the guns are accurate now they should ship every single one with a factory test target like the German Sig Sauers had.


Not sure the twist was an issue. My bad guns weren't fixed with a Storm Lake barrel while others in my possession at the time were 2" guns at 25y and others that were 3-5" guns improved with the Storm Lake.

The twist certainly shut some people up though.






Sent from my Nokia 3310 using an owl

[DamonL]

If you like an external safety on a striker-fired pistol, I think the M&P is the only choice.

[JAD]

If you like an external safety on a striker-fired pistol, I think the M&P is the only choice.

My P7 would disagree, but it's hard to hear it from under that pile of obsolescence and fragility.

[DocGKR]

"That seems like quite an overhaul in pistols and accessories."

Already have them from my M&P journey in 2010-2013.


"Just out of curiosity, why would you need to switch back to an all M&P set of pistols?"

California. Unlike my Glocks, my M&P's actually run reliably with 10 rd mags.

[oldtexan]

If you like an external safety on a striker-fired pistol, I think the M&P is the only choice.

Damon, some versions of the FNS-9 and FNS-40 have frame-mounted manual safeties, as do, dare I say it, the Ruger SR series guns.

[spinmove_]

Already have them from my M&P journey in 2010-2013.



California. Unlike my Glocks, my M&P's actually run reliably with 10 rd mags.

Huh, and here I just assumed you sold them off when you moved to Glocks.

That's an interesting data point. I guess if there were ever a magazine restriction coming down the pipe where I lived I might be looking at an M&P9c. It's not a bad size, but it's ever so annoyingly just that much smaller than a G19.

[flyrodr]

Got an M&P 9c around the time they were introduced, because of wear and tear my 1911s were causing on me, and wanted to drop to 9mm from .45. Went with the M&P mostly because grip angle was similar to the 1911, certainly more so than that of a Glock, and it offered the interchangeable inserts. Understood that the Glock was the standard for polymers, but just liked the way the M&P felt. Shot the heck out of it, and eventually broke tab off the off-side slide lock, and later, experienced the "dead trigger". S&W addressed both very quickly. Never experienced any accuracy issues (as Doc noted, those were mostly in the FS models). Later got a second 9c. Have had no issues with it. Bought a FS. It was OK, but accuracy was borderline, so I eventually sold it. Went to a 9mm FS CORE, and it's been fine. Apex kits in both (Duty in compacts, comp in CORE). Maybe lucky, or maybe it's the 1911 background (use 'em, break 'em, fix 'em), but I've been happy with the M&Ps. Of course, I'm still happy with the 1911s, particularly after getting one in 9mm. All-steel, 5-inch gun recoils like it was a .22. OTOH, it carries like an all-steel, full-size 1911. But it's not my carry gun.

[Sammy1]

I have an M&P40 2008 gun that runs great. The only thing I've replaced is the RSA and mag springs, that's it.

[DamonL]

What a tough crowd. ;)

P7 - Do they make those anymore? I sold mine when it doubled in price.
FN - I really like their rifles...
Ruger - umm, it's a Ruger.

Thanks. ;););)

You guys are killing me. LOL.

I do own an M&P9c and an M&P45, both with thumb safety.

[KeeFus]

I carry a M&P 45 mid-size for duty. Great sidearm & Very accurate. How accurate you may ask? Grizzly21 and I taught a patrol rifle class a couple weeks ago. One of the students asked me if I could hit the 2/3 IPSC steel from the 100 yard line. I unholstered and hit the steel on the first shot with Gold Dot 230 grain. When doing accuracy work it really comes down to fundamentals.

One issue we had with them when we issued them 5 years ago was bad magazines. S&W sent me enough springs and followers to update 45 pistols. I even sent a few to JLW. Two came from the factory with flawed extractors. I received them back in less than 2 weeks and they ran great. Raleigh & Durham PD carries them with no issue...that's a sample of roughly 1400 guns.

Are there issues wih the 9? Yes. S&W doesnt seem motivated to fix it correctly. I have a M&P 9fs and I replaced the barrel with one from KKM Precision. Accuracy issue fixed I would put it up against any other production 9mm at this point. I carry it off-duty along with a 642.

NC Probation and Parole is on their second batch on M&P 40s...nothing was wrong with the first batch they carried for roughly 5 years. There are a couple guys here that work there and maybe they'll chime in. I haven't heard of any issues but Im not in that loop. I have shot a few 40's and they were just as accurate as my 45. Oh, Charlotte PD (roughly 1400 LEOs) also carries the 40. I dont think theyre complaining.

M&P's arent a "snowflake" pistol. Theyre good. You just have to properly vet a pistol that you want to carry. All the manufacturers have issues. I know of a large agancy in this state that is currently replacing trigger bars on their P226 357Sigs. They also had to replace extractors on some after shooting a few rounds.

Although I love my M&P 45 we are transitioning to Glock 17's...because you know, better qualification scores or some shit. Its all Grizzly21s fault. He's a Glock fanboy. I hope we dont have any issues... Seriously though, i relish the fact of having more ammo on my belt.

[HCM]

Damon, some versions of the FNS-9 and FNS-40 have frame-mounted manual safeties, as do, dare I say it, the Ruger SR series guns.

Yes they do but I would not choose to carry either of them safety on. Both have small, un-ergonomic safety levers which are difficult to disengage reliably.

[Sam]

Already have them from my M&P journey in 2010-2013.



California. Unlike my Glocks, my M&P's actually run reliably with 10 rd mags.

If someone did sell off their supply of M&P9s in the past few years, what's the next best thing for Californians?

[olstyn]

I think people would've migrated to the P99 if Walther's marketing was anything more than "brick through a plate glass window."

Yup. The fact that they partnered with a competitor (S&W) as their importer for a long time was a very weird thing, too. I mean really, if you're S&W, which product are you going to promote more, yours or the one you make less money on because most of the profit goes back to Germany? Shocking how that turned out... :rolleyes:


It didn't help that P99 hit the U.S. Market just as the 1994 AWB. went into effect.

Certainly can't have helped. Who needs a 15 round double stack gun when you're not allowed to have more than 10 rounds anyway? There was a complete lack of pre-ban mags, too, so Glock had won that fight before it began.


It isn't like the P99 went away. It has been in stores the entire time, and it came out at about the same time as the USP.

A decent piece of gear shouldn't need a popularity contest to be in consideration.

Handy, you're right that it's not a popularity contest, but you'll note that there's a stark difference between the number of people who've bought all other P99 variants and the PPQ, which is really just a SAO P99 with some cosmetic changes. Walther never bothered to effectively market the P99, so roughly nobody knew it existed, apart from those who paid attention to James Bond's carry piece. (Every movie during the Pierce Brosnan era had Bond carrying a P99.) On the other hand, they've marketed the PPQ more effectively, resulting in people knowing about it, and as a result, the PPQ has enjoyed much better levels of commercial success.

Note that none of the above is said with any malice - my personal carry gun is a P99c AS. IMO it's a great gun, but the fact of the matter is that just about every time I attend a USPSA match with people I haven't shot with before, at least one of those people asks me what it is because they don't recognize it. I realize that my anecdotal experience is not real market penetration data, but given how many times I've had that experience, I'm starting to feel like I might have a statistically valid sample size. :)

[JSGlock34]

I do often recommend the M&P to non-gun friends who want a gun for the house or because they feel like they should own one, because the M&P can be had with a safety and that makes a lot of first-time buyers feel good.

I've done the same. You can also find the M&P with a magazine safety as well, which isn't a bad feature for the first time buyer.

[LockedBreech]

Count me among those who have also recommended an M&P with thumb safety to a non-gun person. Took my buddy and his fiance to the range, we shot lots of stuff, they both liked the M&P but she wanted one with a safety, voila.

[Erick Gelhaus]

While I am a G17 at work and a G19 off-duty, I plan on switching back to my thumb safety equipped M&P9s. The only reason I'm using the Glocks is because I had a fair part in switching from the .40 to 9mm.

Yup, I'm buying Apex barrels for a couple, but there have never been any reliability or breakage issues and I've got a few.

The biggest reason I'll go back is the presence of the thumb safety. I prefer that for both on & off duty concerns.

[GJM]

I definitely see the thumb safety M&P model for experienced shooters looking for that extra bit of safety. However, when I have worked with less experienced shooters, they seem to consistently have problems getting the M&P safety in the right position for what they are doing. As in on safe when trying to fire and on fire when it should be on safe. Perhaps they could get it with regular shooting, but if they are not that dedicated, I would bet there is a good chance that safety will be on safe when they want to fire under stress. These folks were skilled hunting rifle shooters without extensive semi auto handgun experience.

[DocGKR]

"The biggest reason I'll go back is the presence of the thumb safety. I prefer that for both on & off duty concerns."

Yes indeed!

[HCM]

I definitely see the thumb safety M&P model for experienced shooters looking for that extra bit of safety. However, when I have worked with less experienced shooters, they seem to consistently have problems getting the M&P safety in the right position for what they are doing. As in on safe when trying to fire and on fire when it should be on safe. Perhaps they could get it with regular shooting, but if they are not that dedicated, I would bet there is a good chance that safety will be on safe when they want to fire under stress. These folks were skilled hunting rifle shooters without extensive semi auto handgun experience.

Do they have the same problems with the safety on their hunting rifles ?

[spinmove_]

Yes indeed!

I'm sure Google could answer this, but is it possible to outfit an M&P that didn't originally come with a safety to have a safety? If so, where is the best place to get those parts and how difficult is it? I know of at least a couple people that might benefit from such a thing.

[Artemas2]

I'm sure Google could answer this, but is it possible to outfit an M&P that didn't originally come with a safety to have a safety? If so, where is the best place to get those parts and how difficult is it? I know of at least a couple people that might benefit from such a thing.

Yep provided the gun has the cutouts in the frame and the proper sear block. It can be a pain in the butt to do. I'm just a dumb DIYer though.:)

You need
http://www.speedshooterspecialties.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=103_90_115&products_id=883
and
http://www.speedshooterspecialties.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=103_90_115&products_id=1188

[spinmove_]

Yep provided the gun has the cutouts in the frame and the proper sear block. It can be a pain in the butt to do. I'm just a dumb DIYer though.:)

You need
http://www.speedshooterspecialties.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=103_90_115&products_id=883
and
http://www.speedshooterspecialties.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=103_90_115&products_id=1188

At least the parts are relatively inexpensive. Thanks! I might be doing that project in the future.

[rob_s]

I definitely see the thumb safety M&P model for experienced shooters looking for that extra bit of safety. However, when I have worked with less experienced shooters, they seem to consistently have problems getting the M&P safety in the right position for what they are doing. As in on safe when trying to fire and on fire when it should be on safe. Perhaps they could get it with regular shooting, but if they are not that dedicated, I would bet there is a good chance that safety will be on safe when they want to fire under stress. These folks were skilled hunting rifle shooters without extensive semi auto handgun experience.

Which is pretty irrelevent.

Again, the point is to get a gun in the hands of someone who is relatively responsible but doesn't have one now. What I have experienced is that the options are (a) suggest a gun that meets their perceived criteria of (b) try and jam your opinion down their throat and they go buy a Bersa. Which isn't the end of the world, frankly, since they aren't any more likely to get into roving gun battles than the "450 hours of formal gun training" guy, so the gun they don't use for that is pretty immaterial.

For me, I don't care anymore what gun anyone else buys. I just prefer that people that didn't have one yesterday, who show some signs of being a decent human being, DO have one tomorrow. If that means they have their minds made up to buy a gun with a thumb safety or mag disconnect because that's what they think makes the gun "safer" in the home, then that's what I'm going to help them buy.

I spent a decade tilting and windmills trying to get people to unfuck their heads regarding guns and gear purchases. It turns out that (a) I was wrong about a lot of shit because I bought the gun/paranoia/training industry bullshit and (b) it was a waste of time because people aren't looking for actual opinions they are looking for you to substantiate their own.

[GJM]

Do they have the same problems with the safety on their hunting rifles ?

Not sure, as I don't go hunting with them, although they have spent twenty plus years hunting with bolt guns and semi-auto handguns are new to them. They all have revolvers, which obviously don't have a safety. Most folks up here carry their hunting rifles condition three until ready to shoot. There is a difference in the consequences, though, from being a second or two delayed getting a shot off at a sheep or caribou and being unable to get a shot off with a handgun they get for self defense.


Which is pretty irrelevent.

Again, the point is to get a gun in the hands of someone who is relatively responsible but doesn't have one now. What I have experienced is that the options are (a) suggest a gun that meets their perceived criteria of (b) try and jam your opinion down their throat and they go buy a Bersa. Which isn't the end of the world, frankly, since they aren't any more likely to get into roving gun battles than the "450 hours of formal gun training" guy, so the gun they don't use for that is pretty immaterial.

For me, I don't care anymore what gun anyone else buys. I just prefer that people that didn't have one yesterday, who show some signs of being a decent human being, DO have one tomorrow. If that means they have their minds made up to buy a gun with a thumb safety or mag disconnect because that's what they think makes the gun "safer" in the home, then that's what I'm going to help them buy.

I spent a decade tilting and windmills trying to get people to unfuck their heads regarding guns and gear purchases. It turns out that (a) I was wrong about a lot of shit because I bought the gun/paranoia/training industry bullshit and (b) it was a waste of time because people aren't looking for actual opinions they are looking for you to substantiate their own.

Rob, I am not a fan of the style you use to express your opinions.

When I provided some orientation for my friends, and let them shoot Glock and M&P pistols, they ultimately decided to get Glock 20 pistols for the field because of 10mm, and M&P .45 pistols for home defense. They wanted .45, liked the way the M&P felt and shot, and independently chose M&P 45 models without a thumb safety, specifically for the reason I described previously, and despite my preference for a thumb safety on the M&P. This seems relevant to the discussion, and is why I posted it.

[rob_s]

Rob, I am not a fan of the style you use to express your opinions.

Nor I you. Again, irrelevent to the discussion.


When I provided some orientation for my friends, and let them shoot Glock and M&P pistols, they ultimately decided to get Glock 20 pistols for the field because of 10mm, and M&P .45 pistols for home defense. They wanted .45, liked the way the M&P felt and shot, and independently chose M&P 45 models without a thumb safety, specifically for the reason I described previously, and despite my preference for a thumb safety on the M&P. This seems relevant to the discussion, and is why I posted it.

Good on you, and them. It is clear that you have plenty of time for that, and willing friends. I realize this is hard for you to grasp, but not everyone leads the life of leisure you do, so time is a commodity not a lot of us, or the people we encounter, have.

When that time to go to the range, give people the chance to shoot a bunch of guns, explain to them the pros and cons of each, and then let them pick what they want is not available, I find it best to guide them toward the best option for what they *think* they want rather than try to completely turn their opinion around. It's not just about my own time, but the time of those asking. They don't have time to go spend a couple of hours at the range just to decide what gun they buy either.

Some might say that means those guys, and maybe even me, shouldn't have a gun. I, obviously, disagree. I think it's better for them to have *A* gun rather than *THE* gun that *I* think is best for them.

Too often, people offering advice are incapable of understanding that it's not about them, it's about the person asking for the advice and their circumstances.

[GJM]

It is clear that you have plenty of time for that, and willing friends. I realize this is hard for you to grasp, but not everyone leads the life of leisure you do, so time is a commodity not a lot of us, or the people we encounter, have.

Rob, I aspire to a life of leisure, but that is not likely any time soon. I don't come to PF to talk about work.

In the mean time, I guess I will have to settle for this:

Washed Out - Life Of Leisure on Vimeo

https://vimeo.com/9880255

[TheNewbie]

This is a great thread I would hate to see derailed. GJMs "life of leisure" is a blessing to the rest of us. His experiences are something we can all gain knowledge from. Especially those like me who cannot afford all of them....

[Erick Gelhaus]

I definitely see the thumb safety M&P model for experienced shooters looking for that extra bit of safety. However, when I have worked with less experienced shooters, they seem to consistently have problems getting the M&P safety in the right position for what they are doing.
Well, twenty-ish years of carrying 1911s ruined me.


As in on safe when trying to fire and on fire when it should be on safe. Perhaps they could get it with regular shooting, but if they are not that dedicated, I would bet there is a good chance that safety will be on safe when they want to fire under stress. These folks were skilled hunting rifle shooters without extensive semi auto handgun experience.
In what condition did they carry their rifles? On or off safe?

[BehindBlueI's]

I have little use for a thumb safety in the hands of the non-dedicated user. For one, I've seen the results of pulling a dead trigger and then being victimized. It also breeds a second set of gun handling rules. "It's cool, the safety is on."

Mag safeties, on the other hand, make sense for the dabbler.

[mmc45414]

Which is pretty irrelevent.

Again, the point is to get a gun in the hands of someone who is relatively responsible but doesn't have one now.... I spent a decade tilting and windmills trying to get people to unfuck their heads... (b) it was a waste of time because people aren't looking for actual opinions they are looking for you to substantiate their own.

I had a moment of clarity a few months ago when I realized that people asking me about guns didn't mean they wanted to be like me someday. In most cases they want something that is like the fire extinguisher hanging on the wall, and in most cases if they ever need it they will better off with it than without it.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

[TheNewbie]

I have little use for a thumb safety in the hands of the non-dedicated user. For one, I've seen the results of pulling a dead trigger and then being victimized. It also breeds a second set of gun handling rules. "It's cool, the safety is on."

Mag safeties, on the other hand, make sense for the dabbler.

Can you elaborate on the story ?

[mmc45414]

As far as the orriginal post regarding the M&P being viable for serious use/users, I'll just leave this right here:
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160614/2334f4204b3093b92f6fcc90d265b605.jpg

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

[GJM]

Well, twenty-ish years of carrying 1911s ruined me.


In what condition did they carry their rifles? On or off safe?

Angus, for twenty years I carried and competed with a 1911, and the safety on and off was automatic. Plus, the 1911 thumb safety is very ergonomic.

I had an experience last summer with my DA/SA USP 45, when I was going to fire a second shot on an animal, and I had put the thumb safety on after shot one, and couldn't make it go bang for a moment until I figured out what had happened. After that I disabled the thumb safety ability of the USP with variant 3 decock only plates. I am sure the thumb safety would come right back to me if I shot a 1911 again, but I am not right now. I have always thought it would be a great experiment to slip the thumb safety on, on a group of high level Production shooters' CZ pistols, and watch what happened when they drew to start the stage -- probably a lot of puzzled looks and not much noise.

I haven't been in the hunting field with those guys enough to know what they exactly do with their thumb safety after they chamber a round on the stalk, but condition three is pretty standard for regular carry in the field up here. The bit of familiarization I gave them as they were trying out some of my pistols is surely all the pistol training they have received in the four years since that happened and they bought those pistols.

[BehindBlueI's]

Can you elaborate on the story ?

More than one, but basically they pulled a dead gun due to safety still on and were then shot, disarmed, or assaulted. Sometimes the bad guy fled at the sight of the gun, but when they didn't it went poorly.

Also ADs due to "but the safety was on" mentality. Magazine disconnect would prevent roughly 1/3 of the ADs I see, though.

[Handy]

As far as the orriginal post regarding the M&P being viable for serious use/users, I'll just leave this right here:
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160614/2334f4204b3093b92f6fcc90d265b605.jpg

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Is that someone famous?

[TheNewbie]

More than one, but basically they pulled a dead gun due to safety still on and were then shot, disarmed, or assaulted. Sometimes the bad guy fled at the sight of the gun, but when they didn't it went poorly.

Also ADs due to "but the safety was on" mentality. Magazine disconnect would prevent roughly 1/3 of the ADs I see, though.


Where these easy to use safeties like a 1911 or M&P? Anyway, just goes to show you really need a thing called TRAINING to help you perform better.

Still mistakes can happen.

[rjohnson4405]

Is that someone famous?

Recently deceased Pat Rogers

[BehindBlueI's]

Where these easy to use safeties like a 1911 or M&P? Anyway, just goes to show you really need a thing called TRAINING to help you perform better.

Still mistakes can happen.

Some were 1911s. I can't recall any M&P thumb safety issues in real shootings, although I've witnessed them in training classes.

Yup, training would certainly be the best answer. However few people are going to do that, and even fewer will train realistically enough to really know if they can work the safety under stress, while being grappled, etc. It's one of the reasons I continue to recommend a revolver for the handgun dabblers. Their odds of shooting themselves because in administrative handling is greater than their odds of a higher capacity gun making the difference in a self defense situation. Getting that first shot off successfully will also matter more often than needing more than 6 rounds.

Oh, and to back up the comment about dabblers and their expectations of the safety allowing unsafe gun handling:

http://i1206.photobucket.com/albums/bb456/wesnellans/3A6D797F-DE67-4487-81AA-8E7A865CE358.png

[Talking Monkey]

^That is super depressing.

[john c]

My department has over 6,000 M&P9s in service. Those using them were trained by me and 15 other guys.

They are not as accurate as I'd like, but for the majority they are more accurate than the prior issue handgun. This is clear through test scores, observation of performance under stress, and, though there are several factors involved, performance in actual shootings appears to have improved significantly as well.

I've seen more reliability and breakage problems per capita with Glocks of both Gen 3 and Gen 4 than with the M&P (though I still like Glock). I have seen broken trigger return springs. One gun had well over 60,000 rounds when it broke. I shoot a lot and have never had one break. I saw a cracked slide. That gun likely had well over 100,000 rounds through it. I broke a slide stop on one of mine that had around 30,000 rounds.

We do occasionally get guns with issues, but those guns have problems out of the box (usually an extraction issue) and are few and far between.

Personally, I don't like the M&P. It's not accurate enough for my preference and I don't like the trigger. I could fix those things but not within our policy. That said, the M&P has proven itself to me.

SoCalDep;

Do these issue pistols have a manual safety? If so, can you please give your thought on it?

Also, have you noticed any quality variations over the production dates of these pistols?

[HCM]

Is that someone famous?

Among serious gun people ? Yes.

Patrick A Rogers.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?20380-Pat-Rogers-RIP&highlight=Rogers

Among many other things Pat crammed into a full life, he was an instructor at Gunsite under Jeff Cooper.

Unlike some others from the old school Pat was a thinker and did not believe in stagnation.

"Change is constant".

On transitioning from the 1911 to the M&P 45 and subsequently to the M&P 9:

http://www.swatvault.com/weapons-training-and-tactics/putting-down-the-man-gun/


https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?20381-Pat-Rogers-Quotes&highlight=Rogers

[HCM]

So it seems we have established:

1) With or without a manual safety, the four rules of gun handling apply at all times.
2) Thumb safeties require training
3) The untrained or minimally trained are better off without manual safeties, at least on a handgun.

I believe switching back and forth between point and pull pistols and pistols with manual safeties is a bad idea. Pick one or the other and train with it.

If training is not going to happen - first choice - revolver - second choice point and pull pistol.

BBI's comments about magazine safeties and non dedicated users are spot on IME. The issue being the so not understand the cycle of operation. We see this even among LEO's fron the lower part of the bell curve.

[Hot Sauce]

I believe switching back and forth between point and pull pistols and pistols with manual safeties is a bad idea. Pick one or the other and train with it.


Logically, that makes sense.

However, in my own experience, I have to say that in the case of the M&P it was not a hindrance. And that's based on the way I hold a pistol. The safety is positioned in such a spot, that if I get a solid two thumbs forward grip, for it to feel just right the safety has to be depressed. It's a reference point for being ready to fire. If something feels off about my grip, my finger is not ready to go on the trigger. Just the same as with a non-safety gun. Doing classes with both non-TS M&Ps and TS M&Ps has not shown the switching to be problematic at all.

But I understand you're talking about Joe Average, not me specifically, so I understand where simplifying and using the KISS method makes things easier (and probably safer).

[HCM]

Logically, that makes sense.

However, in my own experience, I have to say that in the case of the M&P it was not a hindrance. And that's based on the way I hold a pistol. The safety is positioned in such a spot, that if I get a solid two thumbs forward grip, for it to feel just right the safety has to be depressed. It's a reference point for being ready to fire. If something feels off about my grip, my finger is not ready to go on the trigger. Just the same as with a non-safety gun. Doing classes with both non-TS M&Ps and TS M&Ps has not shown the switching to be problematic at all.

But I understand you're talking about Joe Average, not me specifically, so I understand where simplifying and using the KISS method makes things easier (and probably safer).

I've been using point and pull pistols at work for the past 20 years, currently Glocks. I have a personal fondness for 1911's and have occasionally tried to fire the gun with the safety on. However, I have no such issues running AR-15 variants because I've always trained to use the safety with ARs.

Like many things, it's simply a training issue.

[Tamara]

Carried M&Ps from the middle of 2011 to January of this year. Not necessarily by any particular choice, but because I told myself before an Indy 1500 show that I was going to buy the first used M&P 9 FS or Glock 19 I found for less than $400 and put some effort into learning to shoot it.

8608

By the time I switched to the Glock 19, I'd accumulated a pair of backup M&P 9's, one of which was milled for a DeltaPoint, an M&P 357 (with the intent of acquiring a .40 barrel for it for ammo droughts), and a brace of .22 trainers. I shot that main gun in a couple 3 gun matches, some bowling pin matches, and classes with ToddG, Pat Rogers, Ernest Langdon, John Murphy, and Mas Ayoob. The two-tone one, my carry gun, didn't group super-awesomely but was accurate enough to ring 6" steel plates at 25 yards, and I didn't really notice that the others had the same accuracy issues. No Apex parts except for putting a RAM in my carry gun right when I got it, which I probably shouldn't have done in retrospect because riding that reset waiting for the click is teh debbil and messed up my shooting.

I didn't notice, between personal guns, rentals, and customer guns, that M&Ps were any more problematic than other flat-black people poppers. *shrug*

[BehindBlueI's]

8608


Is that knife...bedazzled?

[DocSabo40]

Among serious gun people ? Yes.

Patrick A Rogers.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?20380-Pat-Rogers-RIP&highlight=Rogers

Among many other things Pat crammed into a full life, he was an instructor at Gunsite under Jeff Cooper.

Unlike some others from the old school Pat was a thinker and did not believe in stagnation.

"Change is constant".

On transitioning from the 1911 to the M&P 45 and subsequently to the M&P 9:

http://www.swatvault.com/weapons-training-and-tactics/putting-down-the-man-gun/


https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?20381-Pat-Rogers-Quotes&highlight=Rogers

Interesting reads, thanks for posting those. I'm surprised that Mr. Rogers considered DA/SA or DAO triggers "unmanageable". Can anyone elaborate on his view on that? Did he have a specific criteria/perfomance standard or did he just mean "more difficult"?

[Handy]

Interesting reads, thanks for posting those. I'm surprised that Mr. Rogers considered DA/SA or DAO triggers "unmanageable". Can anyone elaborate on his view on that? Did he have a specific criteria/perfomance standard or did he just mean "more difficult"?

Not to be insulting to the late Mr. Rogers, but isn't that the Jeff Cooper party line?

[Tamara]

Is that knife...bedazzled?

No, that's just a dark blue waved Delica. The screws are stainless.

[Tamara]

Interesting reads, thanks for posting those. I'm surprised that Mr. Rogers considered DA/SA or DAO triggers "unmanageable". Can anyone elaborate on his view on that? Did he have a specific criteria/perfomance standard or did he just mean "more difficult"?

Institutionally, DA/SA triggers are seen as harder to teach people, especially people who aren't going to practice or shoot unless they're being made to.

[HCM]

Not to be insulting to the late Mr. Rogers, but isn't that the Jeff Cooper party line?

Yes, Pat was a former Gunsite instructor.

However, unlike Cooper who never really seem to have much use for revolvers, Pat spent the majority of his NYPD career with Smith & Wesson and Ruger double action / DAO revolver's.

Pat also began shooting rifles and 1911s in the Marine Corps in the early 60s and spent many years as a high-powered rifle competitor. Jeff Cooper also was a rifle shooter long before he got into Handguns.

I've noticed those with significant rifle experience prior to moving to handguns tend to prefer 1911's and striker fired triggers.

Personally, I've carried DA revolvers, a DA/SA auto, a DAO auto, an LEM auto, a DAK auto, and now have moved into Glocks they all work, but the DAO and the DAK or both notably slower for me than the others.

Pat was also not a fan of the Glock having experienced mixed results with them in NYPD service.
.

[Tamara]

Not to be insulting to the late Mr. Rogers...

I really don't think you are capable of that.

[1slow]

Yes, Pat was a former Gunsite instructor.

However, unlike Cooper who never really seem to have much use for revolvers, Pat spent the majority of his NYPD career with Smith & Wesson and Ruger double action / DAO revolver's.

Pat also began shooting rifles and 1911s in the Marine Corps in the early 60s and spent many years as a high-powered rifle competitor. Jeff Cooper also was a rifle shooter long before he got into Handgu

I've noticed those with significant rifle experience prior to moving to handguns tend to prefer 1911's and striker fired triggers.

Personally, I've carried DA revolvers, a DA/SA auto, a DAO auto, an LEM auto, a DAK auto, and now have moved into Glocks they all work, but the DAO and the DAK or both notably slower for me than the others.

Pat was also not a fan of the Glock having experienced mixed results with them in NYPD service.
.

Colonel Cooper wrote about S&W 60 and 29 favorably for their purposes. He regarded DA/SA autos as " an ingenious solution to a non existent problem."

[Handy]

I really don't think you are capable of that.

Well thanks. I try not to be.


On topic:
Found another thread of PF about "guns that fail". I am still a bit surprised that the M&P isn't regarded closer to Taurus by the folks here. Unexpected small parts failures seem to be a running theme across the line, which is what prompted the thread in the first place. Anything can break, but the M&P seems to break when it has been working fine. Even Apex parts are part of the pattern.

[Willard]

Well thanks. I try not to be.


On topic:
Unexpected small parts failures seem to be a running theme across the line, which is what prompted the thread in the first place. Anything can break, but the M&P seems to break when it has been working fine. Even Apex parts are part of the pattern.

Small parts failure....strikers & slide release were improved. Anything else?

[Malamute]

Well thanks. I try not to be.





Zoom.

[GardoneVT]

Colonel Cooper wrote about S&W 60 and 29 favorably for their purposes. He regarded DA/SA autos as " an ingenious solution to a non existent problem."

I came across a copy of Elmer Keith's book at my local library, I tragically can't recall the title right now.It was written back in the 50's IIrC.

You get a sense of the culture around guns back then, as well as the mechanics behind what trainers viewed as "proper" back then.
Basically revolvers were like the Glocks of today- a Proper Gun was a six shot something in .357 Magnum or bigger.

Semi autos were considered hipster guns amoung the pros of the day.The S&W 39 was essentially an Experimental Project Gun; too new to have a track record yet among the ISP troops, although Keith had overall good things to say about the pistol and it's quick reload capability.
Much was said about the 9mms relative "weakness" compared to .357 Magnum standard issue fare.

The punchline: Keith preferred the 39 as it was ready to fire out of the holster. The unwritten rule on semi autos appears to be this; if SAO, carry Condition 2 or 3. Both would be inferior speed wise to a DA revolver out of the holster .

Coopers solution was to advocate C1. The traditionalists saw DA/SA as the solution.

No disrespect intended to the Good Colonel, but I would lean in favor of the traditionalists on this one. It's also much easier and safer for the Common Non-Gun person to acclimate to , versus C1 carry.

[RevolverRob]

My experiences with soul-less plastic people poppers has always leaned heavily towards the M&P, in particular the 9. I had an M&P9 Core for a bit with an RMR on top and an Apex trigger. I liked the gun, but could not consistently get an index where I found the dot in the RMR. Which I always felt was odd, because I later bought my dad an M&P9FS with thumb safety (he is/was a 1911 guy) with a Deltapoint mounted on top with milling by L&M Precision. That gun I had no issues indexing, which has since led me to believe the issue was the RMR, not the grip, but it felt, at the time at least, that the gun not the optic was the issue.

Anyways on the accuracy front, I've always been disappointed by the M&P9FS accuracy. My dad's and my Core would only hold 3" at 25-yards with the Deltapoint on top and shooting 124-grain +P HST. It didn't matter what I did, 3" was the best the gun could do. My dad was satisfied with that level of accuracy, so I have left it alone. But if it were my gun, I'd drop in an Apex barrel to see if I could get anything better out of it. I ended up trading the Core away and I haven't bothered to dabble in striker-fired polymer guns since.

Although...I see L&M is doing milling for the VP9 now...Hmm...a VP9 with a Deltapoint Pro with the 7.5 MOA Triangle? That sounds like a winning combination to me....

[Tamara]

I didn't notice, between personal guns, rentals, and customer guns, that M&Ps were any more problematic than other flat-black people poppers. *shrug*

[Nephrology]

My experiences with soul-less plastic people poppers has always leaned heavily towards the M&P, in particular the 9. I had an M&P9 Core for a bit with an RMR on top and an Apex trigger. I liked the gun, but could not consistently get an index where I found the dot in the RMR. Which I always felt was odd, because I later bought my dad an M&P9FS with thumb safety (he is/was a 1911 guy) with a Deltapoint mounted on top with milling by L&M Precision. That gun I had no issues indexing, which has since led me to believe the issue was the RMR, not the grip, but it felt, at the time at least, that the gun not the optic was the issue.

Anyways on the accuracy front, I've always been disappointed by the M&P9FS accuracy. My dad's and my Core would only hold 3" at 25-yards with the Deltapoint on top and shooting 124-grain +P HST. It didn't matter what I did, 3" was the best the gun could do. My dad was satisfied with that level of accuracy, so I have left it alone. But if it were my gun, I'd drop in an Apex barrel to see if I could get anything better out of it. I ended up trading the Core away and I haven't bothered to dabble in striker-fired polymer guns since.

Although...I see L&M is doing milling for the VP9 now...Hmm...a VP9 with a Deltapoint Pro with the 7.5 MOA Triangle? That sounds like a winning combination to me....


....3" at 25 yards is pretty good for an inexpensive polymer handgun. I don't see why you found that disappointing. If it was a Wilson Combat, sure, maybe, but if someone were selling me a used M&P9 and told me they verified it could at best 3" at 25yds offhand, I wouldn't bat an eye.

[RevolverRob]

....3" at 25 yards is pretty good for an inexpensive polymer handgun. I don't see why you found that disappointing. If it was a Wilson Combat, sure, maybe, but if someone were selling me a used M&P9 and told me they verified it could at best 3" at 25yds offhand, I wouldn't bat an eye.

Yea, 3" isn't bad per-se, but it isn't great either. And I'm kind of OCD in that way. If I cannot produce sub-2" groups with the gun on-demand, either because I suck at shooting it, or it is mechanically incapable of that accuracy, I don't keep/carry it. It's a personal thing, mostly, I want accurate guns, really accurate guns. Most importantly I want guns that are on-demand accurate. Which means, I never want to wonder if this is the mechanical-accuracy-induced flyer that appears every 5-10 rounds while shooting at the range with my plastic gun. Which tends to count out the majority of the plastic people-poppers around here. I know that my standards are exceptional and sit as an outlier in the accuracy department.

Partially, those standards are derived from my initial shooting background in Bullseye Competition. Later on playing with some PPC guns reinforced my love of really accurate handguns. Simply put, I want and carry guns that put bullets precisely where I want them. And I've never quite gotten that out of M&Ps or Glocks. Which could be as much a symptom of me as it is the gun. I try, about once every four or five years with a plastic gun, but I haven't had one stick yet. Usually, it is a short lived fling, that involves me buying a gun, trying it for a few hundred to few thousand rounds. After the initial learning curve I either don't find my accuracy is up to par or my timing isn't up to par. I give it 6-weeks and if I don't make some significant gains with dry-fire and range fire in that time, I dump it and move on. Because I have a safe full of really accurate guns, I tend to not try to stick it out with something that is sub-par for me.

[Handy]

Small parts failure....strikers & slide release were improved. Anything else?

Triggers, trigger bar, striker spring, trigger spring (Apex and OEM).


I realize it is all anecdotal.

[Handy]

I came across a copy of Elmer Keith's book at my local library, I tragically can't recall the title right now.It was written back in the 50's IIrC.

You get a sense of the culture around guns back then, as well as the mechanics behind what trainers viewed as "proper" back then.
Basically revolvers were like the Glocks of today- a Proper Gun was a six shot something in .357 Magnum or bigger.

Semi autos were considered hipster guns amoung the pros of the day.The S&W 39 was essentially an Experimental Project Gun; too new to have a track record yet among the ISP troops, although Keith had overall good things to say about the pistol and it's quick reload capability.
Much was said about the 9mms relative "weakness" compared to .357 Magnum standard issue fare.

The punchline: Keith preferred the 39 as it was ready to fire out of the holster. The unwritten rule on semi autos appears to be this; if SAO, carry Condition 2 or 3. Both would be inferior speed wise to a DA revolver out of the holster .

Coopers solution was to advocate C1. The traditionalists saw DA/SA as the solution.

No disrespect intended to the Good Colonel, but I would lean in favor of the traditionalists on this one. It's also much easier and safer for the Common Non-Gun person to acclimate to , versus C1 carry.

And no one ever believes me when I tell them people used to carry 1911s hammer down.

[HCM]

And no one ever believes me when I tell them people used to carry 1911s hammer down.

Some people did. Doesn't mean it was a good idea.

[mmc45414]

And no one ever believes me when I tell them people used to carry 1911s hammer down.
I believe C3 was the required method when they were military issue. A friend was a USMC MP and even they were required to.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

[GJM]

My main issue with the M&P9 was ammo logistics.

I was trying to look after two shooters and a carry M&P for me, and the same for my wife. I could get each pistol to shoot, but that load varied -- meaning one pistol might shoot load X well, but another would only shoot load Y and another load Z. And that was just for ball, with JHP being a whole different story. When you added in going to Rogers, which required TMJ ammo, it became crazy when I had more load notes on my M&P pistols than my hunting rifles, and nearly as many different 9mm loads as Ammoman. What drove us back to a Glock, was if it said 9mm on the box, you could be pretty sure it would shoot acceptably, and in all your Glock pistols.

[Handy]

I believe C3 was the required method when they were military issue. A friend was a USMC MP and even they were required to.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

My father was required to go condition 4 - magazine in pocket - when transporting nuclear weapons. But what was the norm in 1911, 1917, 1944 and other eras was not what was the norm stateside in the 1960s. All of the pre-WWII SAO hammer designs were intended to allow Condition 2 "safely". Non-stop Condition 3 is arguably a weird modern adaptation of an old design.

[deputyG23]

The Glock is a mature system and was nearly thirty years old when the M&P was introduced.

The majority of the issues with the M&P have been with the 9mm and .357 sig versions. The .40 and 45 versions have been pretty trouble free.

The accuracy issues in the 9mm versions pretty munched killed it from. a PF point of view.

Larry Vickers really summed up the main issue with the M&P when he said it would have been a great gun if S&W had spent an additional $50 or $70 per gun on production and QC.

S&W's dilemma is their need to compete with Glock on price.


My nephew is the Sheriff in a small SW VA county that, according to him, was the first agency to buy the M&P when they first came out. He is a gun person and the majority of his staff are all shooters and they have been very satisfied with the .40 M&P. They just traded the originals in last year for new versions of the same model.

[DocGKR]

IIRC, one of the first agencies to go with the M&P was Cincinnati PD--their first few M&P's were pre-production test guns.

[Lomshek]

Coopers solution was to advocate C1. The traditionalists saw DA/SA as the solution.

No disrespect intended to the Good Colonel, but I would lean in favor of the traditionalists on this one.

It's also much easier and safer for the Common Non-Gun person to acclimate to , versus C1 carry.

:confused:

[Tamara]

:confused:

DA trigger w/no safety is more resistant to woobie-checking than SA/SFA and doesn't require that the shooter practice enough to make taking the safety off an automatic thing.

[Nephrology]

DA trigger w/no safety is more resistant to woobie-checking than SA/SFA and doesn't require that the shooter practice enough to make taking the safety off an automatic thing.

But does require that the shooter remember where the decocker doodad is, how to use it, and when/why (i.e. after every string of fire). IMO a decocker vs manual safety is kind of a wash, but I will cede to others with more experience than me.

[Tamara]

But does require that the shooter remember where the decocker doodad is, how to use it, and when/why (i.e. after every string of fire). IMO a decocker vs manual safety is kind of a wash, but I will cede to others with more experience than me.

It's too bad the P250 had such teething problems, because I think that thing's got an ideal trigger on it for the non-"gun person".

[Nephrology]

It's too bad the P250 had such teething problems, because I think that thing's got an ideal trigger on it for the non-"gun person".

Also too bad Beretta discontinued the 92D, for the same reasons.

[TheNewbie]

I actually thought the DAK was a pretty decent trigger, especially for non gun people. If the one I had been issued was in 9mm v .357 sig, I would have tested it even more.

[JSGlock34]

Can't help but quote Todd here...(one of his first posts on pistol-training.com (http://pistol-training.com/archives/31)).

"Actions in action
25-Sep-07 – 09:33 by ToddG
One day a hundred or so years ago, a man built the first semiautomatic pistol. It was an ingenious thing, a gun that could load itself and fire many rounds from a single magazine. He made it so that one could have a short and light trigger which makes it easy to hit what one aims at.

Then someone said, whoa brother, something might touch the trigger when it’s not supposed to and fire the gun accidentally, for I cannot be bothered to learn the manual of arms. So the manual safety was created, so that there was a way to prevent one from using the short and light trigger except when absolutely intended.

Then someone said, whoa brother, sometimes I forget to take the safety off and I cannot fire my gun, for I cannot be bothered to learn the manual of arms. So the double action pistol was created, so that one could fire one’s pistol without dealing with a pesky safety while still having a reasonably hard time of making loud noises unintentionally.

Then someone said, whoa brother, it is hard to learn two different trigger pulls and often I forget to decock my pistol before holstering, for I cannot be bothered to learn the manual of arms. So the double action only was created, so that one could enjoy the safety of a long heavy trigger pull every time and thus avoid ventilating one’s own leg.

Then someone said, whoa brother, your trigger pull is too long and too heavy and I cannot hit anything I shoot at, for I cannot be bothered to learn the manual of arms. So the striker-fired pistol was created, so that one could have a short and light trigger which makes it easy to hit what one aims at.

Then someone said, whoa brother, something might touch the trigger when it’s not supposed to and fire the gun accidentally …

Train hard & stay safe! ToddG"

He also had a good article on HK LEM vs. SIG DAK (http://pistol-training.com/articles/hk-lem-vs-sig-dak), which seems germane to the discussion...

[Tamara]

If I could wave a magic wand and turn everybody who had to carry a gun for work* into the sort of person who engaged in actual dry-fire practice every other day and hit the range for structured practice at least once a week, I would. And I'd let them carry whatever kind of gun they wanted.


*Or got a CCW permit because of fears of crime, so they could keep a gun in the car in case they had to drive "someplace dangerous".

[Cincinnatus]

Why not recommend the HK P2000 9mm in LEM to non-gun people?

1.It is cheap enough to be competetive with other guns--much cheaper than P30.
2. One trigger pull to "learn"
3. Enough ammo capacity to matter
4. Small enough to actually carry
5. Longer trigger pull so less *likely* to ND
6. Well built with decent QC to where issues are far more unlikely
7. Very little recoil, even for those with arthritis, etc

8. On the downside--much harder to find in-stock examples of.
9. Slide can be hard to rack when hammer isn't precocked for those with weak hands
10. LEM can be difficult to be proficient at without lots of practice, but on the other hand, since non-gun people are not going to be drilling match-level accuracy anyway, it is well able to do minute-of-badguy even in hands of some less skilled (I have doubts on this last one--thoughts?)
11. Lever mag-release (small ones on stock pistol) can be hard for some to pick up, if they're not going to practice.

In the plus column--there's no safety to take off.

[Tamara]

Why not recommend the HK P2000 9mm in LEM to non-gun people?

In my experience, the five hundred dollar threshold seems to be a big deal to the "Not Gonna Be A Shooting Hobbyist" market. It's like there's some sort of huge psychological gulf between the $499 Gen3 Glock and the $539 Gen4, to say nothing of the $559-$599 HK.

[Handy]

Can't help but quote Todd here...(one of his first posts on pistol-training.com (http://pistol-training.com/archives/31)).

"Actions in action
25-Sep-07 – 09:33 by ToddG
One day a hundred or so years ago, a man built the first semiautomatic pistol. It was an ingenious thing, a gun that could load itself and fire many rounds from a single magazine. He made it so that one could have a short and light trigger which makes it easy to hit what one aims at.

Then someone said, whoa brother, something might touch the trigger when it’s not supposed to and fire the gun accidentally, for I cannot be bothered to learn the manual of arms. So the manual safety was created, so that there was a way to prevent one from using the short and light trigger except when absolutely intended.

Then someone said, whoa brother, sometimes I forget to take the safety off and I cannot fire my gun, for I cannot be bothered to learn the manual of arms. So the double action pistol was created, so that one could fire one’s pistol without dealing with a pesky safety while still having a reasonably hard time of making loud noises unintentionally.

Then someone said, whoa brother, it is hard to learn two different trigger pulls and often I forget to decock my pistol before holstering, for I cannot be bothered to learn the manual of arms. So the double action only was created, so that one could enjoy the safety of a long heavy trigger pull every time and thus avoid ventilating one’s own leg.

Then someone said, whoa brother, your trigger pull is too long and too heavy and I cannot hit anything I shoot at, for I cannot be bothered to learn the manual of arms. So the striker-fired pistol was created, so that one could have a short and light trigger which makes it easy to hit what one aims at.

Then someone said, whoa brother, something might touch the trigger when it’s not supposed to and fire the gun accidentally …

Train hard & stay safe! ToddG"

He also had a good article on HK LEM vs. SIG DAK (http://pistol-training.com/articles/hk-lem-vs-sig-dak), which seems germane to the discussion...

That's a good story, but there has never been a time when anyone carried a cocked single action anything without a safety. All early autos were either carried Condition 2 (just like every revolver and hammer fired rifle and some striker fired rifles) or it had a safety.

From a design perspective, there has never been a time when firearms were as likely to ND as they are today, because there were never any handguns that couldn't be either decocked or safed until the 1980s.


I understand the point Todd was making, but people have avoided Condition Zero since pretty much the first matchlock. No one has ever been as cavalier about their inability to mishandle a firearm as this generation.

[Lomshek]

DA trigger w/no safety is more resistant to woobie-checking than SA/SFA and doesn't require that the shooter practice enough to make taking the safety off an automatic thing.

I get it. Was more about the line
It's (DA/SA) also much easier and safer for the Common Non-Gun person to acclimate to , versus C1 carry.

I'll counter it with "Oh it's a DA trigger so trigger discipline goes out the window" and then they forget that it's not DA after the first shot. I mastered DA/SA before trying anything else and get the perceived advantages but have long ago given up on arguing that any system or condition is "safer" for the person who doesn't practice because ultimately they don't practice.

/thread hijack

[BehindBlueI's]

I'll counter it with "Oh it's a DA trigger so trigger discipline goes out the window" and then they forget that it's not DA after the first shot. I mastered DA/SA before trying anything else and get the perceived advantages but have long ago given up on arguing that any system or condition is "safer" for the person who doesn't practice because ultimately they don't practice.


I've not seen that to be true. NDs, or at least those that cause injury and thus cross my desk, are nearly always on the first shot. I'm not in front of my stats, but about 1/3 are pulling the trigger to break it down, roughly 1/2 is general dicking around with the gun, legitimate mechanical malfunctions, toddlers who find guns, etc. The remaining is reholstering (or re-waistbanding or re-pocketing), and only a small portion of that small portion is after firing a shot. I can give real numbers if you want, but that's the broad strokes.

[JSGlock34]

That's a good story, but there has never been a time when anyone carried a cocked single action anything without a safety. All early autos were either carried Condition 2 (just like every revolver and hammer fired rifle and some striker fired rifles) or it had a safety.

From a design perspective, there has never been a time when firearms were as likely to ND as they are today, because there were never any handguns that couldn't be either decocked or safed until the 1980s.


I understand the point Todd was making, but people have avoided Condition Zero since pretty much the first matchlock. No one has ever been as cavalier about their inability to mishandle a firearm as this generation.

Perhaps you need to study where the manual safety on the 1911 comes from to understand Todd's parable.

[Handy]

I've not seen that to be true. NDs, or at least those that cause injury and thus cross my desk, are nearly always on the first shot. I'm not in front of my stats, but about 1/3 are pulling the trigger to break it down, roughly 1/2 is general dicking around with the gun, legitimate mechanical malfunctions, toddlers who find guns, etc. The remaining is reholstering (or re-waistbanding or re-pocketing), and only a small portion of that small portion is after firing a shot. I can give real numbers if you want, but that's the broad strokes.
Part of the reason for that has got to be because there are so few gunfights compared to every other kind of gun handling that goes on. The chance of being in a shooting, then forgetting to decock, then actually having an ND because you forgot AND put your finger on the trigger is all pretty low to happen together.


And that assumes that forgetting to decock a DA/SA gun makes it realistically any more likely to have an ND with than a gun like a Glock which is already pretty much cocked.

Thanks for sharing this.

[GJM]

Part of the reason for that has got to be because there are so few gunfights compared to every other kind of gun handling that goes on. The chance of being in a shooting, then forgetting to decock, then actually having an ND because you forgot AND put your finger on the trigger is all pretty low to happen together.


And that assumes that forgetting to decock a DA/SA gun makes it realistically any more likely to have an ND with than a gun like a Glock which is already pretty much cocked.

Thanks for sharing this.

Actually it is more likely -- because the next time the person draws their "DA" blaster and applies the 7 pounds they are used to starting their ten pound DA trigger pull with, they get a premature loud noise.

[Handy]

Perhaps you need to study where the manual safety on the 1911 comes from to understand Todd's parable.

I do understand. JMB came up with the inertial firing pin so his designs could be carried hammer down on a round without the previous and awkward rear sight firing pin safety. Then he was asked to add a grip safety in case a soldier dropped his gun, and so he patented a grip safety that allowed the hammer to be lowered with one hand. He was then asked to add a safety lever so the gun could be kept ready for immediate fire during pause in the fighting. He was against it, but complied.

The point of all that was not that the Army kept changing its mind - they still wanted a gun that could be carried condition 2, then drawn, cocked and fired with one hand from horseback. They just wanted some extra features for contingencies, not an overhaul of how the gun was to be carried or used.

Todds parable reads as if the 1911 was always intended to be carried cocked, and the existence of the safetyless 1910 version means that it was supposed to be carried cocked and unlocked. But holstering a cocked handgun with an external hammer didn't become normal until a long time later, and carrying a cocked weapon with no safety until a few years ago.

[Handy]

Actually it is more likely -- because the next time the person draws their "DA" blaster and applies the 7 pounds they are used to starting their ten pound DA trigger pull with, they get a premature loud noise.

Sure, if they forgot to decock after administratively loading the gun, then managed to walk around that way for however long until they got in a fight without noticing or having it pointed out.

Usually the "forgot to decock" thing goes along with post action - where the normal habit of decocking is disrupted by stress. While either is possible, the second is more likely of the two.

However, if cops (for instance) were forgetting to decock after loading with great regularity, that would be reflected in the stats BehindBlueLs is talking about. Pulling the trigger early is an ND, after all.

BTW, the issue of forgetting to decock when loading is one reason I really like guns that combine the decocker and slide release. They are separate steps, but one more easily leads to the other. Shame it is not a more common feature.


I agree that engaging an SA trigger when you expect DA is bad news, but it takes some steps to get to that point, and then fail to recognize that the trigger is not where you expect it to be.

Clearly, an "amateur" can ND any light trigger and miss with any heavy trigger, but a reasonably heavy DAO trigger is probably the best compromise for mugging defense while not shooting anyone he shouldn't. DA/SA at least puts a DA where it is most helpful.

[GJM]

In the Front Sight compilation of ND's there, all the main platform types -- striker, DA/SA and the 1911 are fairly equally represented. About as many ND's happen drawing as holstering. Apparently shooting on a square range there is stressful enough for some people to ventilate themselves.

[Handy]

In the Front Sight compilation of ND's there, all the main platform types -- striker, DA/SA and the 1911 are fairly equally represented. About as many ND's happen drawing as holstering. Apparently shooting on a square range there is stressful enough for some people to ventilate themselves.

BehindBlueL's information reflect both shooting range NDs and those at home and other places where guns are handled but not shot. No toddlers fired any Glocks at Front Site.

[BehindBlueI's]

In the Front Sight compilation of ND's there, all the main platform types -- striker, DA/SA and the 1911 are fairly equally represented. About as many ND's happen drawing as holstering. Apparently shooting on a square range there is stressful enough for some people to ventilate themselves.

Front Site is likely to over represent the holstering/drawing aspect of gun handling as compared to the world outside of training simply based on the numbers of draws and reholsters. I would not expect it to jive with my own stats based purely on the ratio of admin handling vs shooting being completely different, no children being present, and more serious clientele who are less likely to shoot their buddy through the car seat while dicking around with a gun. Most folks holster their guns about once a day.

I would also point out they've had roughly one a year for the past 20 years. I've getting real close to 50 this year alone, and we're still in June.

If you want to get right down to it, though, the gun that's significantly under represented is the revolver. Easiest admin handling, heavier and longer trigger, often with a hammer for visual/tactile feedback during holstering...powerful combination to overcome. For Joe Average, the odds of getting in a shooting where capacity beyond a revolver matters vs how often folks manage to shoot themselves...still seems like a DA revolver is the right choice for an awful lot of gun toters.

[BehindBlueI's]

BehindBlueL's information reflect both shooting range NDs and those at home and other places where guns are handled but not shot. No toddlers fired any Glocks at Front Site.

While technically true, we've had zero injuries on shooting ranges from NDs this year.

[Handy]

I wonder if it would accurate to say that well trained people, though less likely to have an ND, are also able to ND with more types of guns? The flip side to familiarity.

[breakingtime91]

Actually it is more likely -- because the next time the person draws their "DA" blaster and applies the 7 pounds they are used to starting their ten pound DA trigger pull with, they get a premature loud noise.

I find this a stretch; I also feel like your opinion has changed since you switched back glock

[GJM]

I find this a stretch; I also feel like your opinion has changed since you switched back glock

Where did you get the idea that I "switched back Glock." Up here, I carry a DA/SA HK USP With .45 Super daily.

I shoot multiple systems -- always have and plan to do the same in the future. It is important to know the strengths and weaknesses of each system. My opinion continues to evolve, but in this instance I have been aware of this "gotcha" with DA/SA pistols ever since Bill Rogers made me aware of it at the Rogers School, when I first shot there with a DA/SA gun. It is also the reason that I extend a DA/SA gun, and then row through the trigger in one motion, rather than start pressing the trigger early as some people do DA.

[GJM]

I find this a stretch; I also feel like your opinion has changed since you switched back glock


https://www.frontsight.com/SafetyReports.asp?Action=ShowSingle&ID=5


Incidents 1, 5, 6

[rsa-otc]

As I have previously mentioned I supervised/trained a staff of approximately 100 armed personnel between 1979 and 1990, from 1990 forward it has been approximately 40. This covers literally a 1000 plus different people who except for approx 10 people who transitioned to S&W 45XX series autos in the late 80’s until 1990.
All personnel were equipped with S&W K frame Revolvers.
My experience with ND/AD's over the last 38 years less than 10.
1 was holstering after being issued the gun in the am. Company weapons were kept locked in a cabinet loaded and issued out each am and turned in after the shift ended.
1 was me when I was testing the action and allowed myself to be distracted while unloading the gun.
2 were guns that became cocked in the holster and the employee discharged the gun while trying to de-cock.
1 was after cleaning the weapon and inadvertently loading the weapon before checking the action.
1 was pulling the trigger to prove it was empty after only firing 5 of 6 rounds while pointing the gun at yours truly during a training session.
1 was handling the gun in the truck (playing with the gun).
1 was in a hotel room after failing to properly clear the gun prior to dry fire.

[Casual Friday]

Why not recommend the HK P2000 9mm in LEM to non-gun people?

1.It is cheap enough to be competetive with other guns--much cheaper than P30.
2. One trigger pull to "learn"
3. Enough ammo capacity to matter
4. Small enough to actually carry
5. Longer trigger pull so less *likely* to ND
6. Well built with decent QC to where issues are far more unlikely
7. Very little recoil, even for those with arthritis, etc

8. On the downside--much harder to find in-stock examples of.
9. Slide can be hard to rack when hammer isn't precocked for those with weak hands
10. LEM can be difficult to be proficient at without lots of practice, but on the other hand, since non-gun people are not going to be drilling match-level accuracy anyway, it is well able to do minute-of-badguy even in hands of some less skilled (I have doubts on this last one--thoughts?)
11. Lever mag-release (small ones on stock pistol) can be hard for some to pick up, if they're not going to practice.

In the plus column--there's no safety to take off.

The first pistol I will recommend to a new shooter these days is the P2000 LEM for the reasons in your Pro column. If the price gives them the willies, then I suggest the P250. So far, the friends and family I've made those recommendations to has resulted in 1 of each being chosen, and I haven't heard them speak of having trouble with the triggers. I think not having any experience with short, light striker fired guns allows a person to shoot the trigger for what it is and not trying to shoot it the way you'd shoot another.


In my experience, the five hundred dollar threshold seems to be a big deal to the "Not Gonna Be A Shooting Hobbyist" market. It's like there's some sort of huge psychological gulf between the $499 Gen3 Glock and the $539 Gen4, to say nothing of the $559-$599 HK.

Yep, my time behind a gun counter in a big box store showed me the same. When I began working there, one of the gruelingly boring power point presentations I had to sit through by the store manager talked about a study a supermarket chain did decades ago where a product that is labeled $4.99 will sell whereas the same product marked $5.00 might not. People focus on that first digit.

[Casual Friday]

Oops double tap...

[LockedBreech]

I've been really close to grabbing the P2000 LEM V2 a few times because they're so darn affordable by HK standard, but had been told that the V2 pull is a bad time. Knowing there might be some utility there as a new-shooter gun will have to be something I keep in mind.

[Casual Friday]

I've been really close to grabbing the P2000 LEM V2 a few times because they're so darn affordable by HK standard, but had been told that the V2 pull is a bad time. Knowing there might be some utility there as a new-shooter gun will have to be something I keep in mind.

Nah it's not that bad, but a light hammer spring and heavy trigger return spring makes it better in my opinion.

[Cincinnatus]

Nah it's not that bad, but a light hammer spring and heavy trigger return spring makes it better in my opinion.
In other words, basically make it a V4 or TLG version instead of a V2.

[Nephrology]

1 was pulling the trigger to prove it was empty after only firing 5 of 6 rounds while pointing the gun at yours truly during a training session.

Given that you are still alive (or at least communicate very well for the undead), I presume that either 1. you had an impromptu trip to the ER or 2. their aim is even worse than their common sense.

[rsa-otc]

Short story;

Early in my instructor career I had a student on the line that was in the process of negligently handling the gun while having only shot 5 rounds. As I'm screaming from 15 feet away that he had only fired 5 rounds he turns toward me and says "It's empty see" and to prove his point squeezes the trigger while pointing the gun in my direction. Diving for the floor I found I couldn't outrun a 38. Right arm was trailing behind and was grazed. The scar has been an excellent teaching point for 35 plus years, although it's fading away.

Over a 38 year career it's the only time someone was ever injured on a range that I controled. I intend to retire with that record intact.

Needless to say I am now a range Nazi over muzzle discipline.

[Cincinnatus]

Short story;

Early in my instructor career I had a student on the line that was in the process of negligently handling the gun while having only shot 5 rounds. As I'm screaming from 15 feet away that he had only fired 5 rounds he turns toward me and says "It's empty see" and to prove his point squeezes the trigger while pointing the gun in my direction. Diving for the floor I found I couldn't outrun a 38. Right arm was trailing behind and was grazed. The scar has been an excellent teaching point for 35 plus years, although it's fading away.

Over a 38 year career it's the only time someone was ever injured on a range that I controled. I intend to retire with that record intact.

Needless to say I am now a range Nazi over muzzle discipline.

After recovering medically--or maybe before--did you pummel the idiot that shot you?

[BehindBlueI's]

I wonder if it would accurate to say that well trained people, though less likely to have an ND, are also able to ND with more types of guns? The flip side to familiarity.

I suspect the main factors at play are man-hours of handling firearms and losing the fight against complacency.

If I drive 15,000 miles a year, I'm more likely to crash than someone who drives 500 miles a year, even if I'm a better driver. So, time on the gun actively handling it matters.

If I've done the same thing 1000 times and it hasn't hurt me, my lizard brain tells me that the 1001 time won't either. It's why rote performance and forcing ourselves to pay attention are both so important.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

After recovering medically--or maybe before--did you pummel the idiot that shot you?

The individual was so distraught he had to secure his head and neck to prevent his injury from thrashing for his own safety.

[GJM]

I suspect the main factors at play are man-hours of handling firearms and losing the fight against complacency.

If I drive 15,000 miles a year, I'm more likely to crash than someone who drives 500 miles a year, even if I'm a better driver. So, time on the gun actively handling it matters.

If this tracks aviation, it is slightly different. For pilots flying below a threshold amount of 300-400 hours, which is related to currency, lower time pilots have a higher accident rate, despite flying fewer hours. At some point beyond that threshold amount, more hours means more exposure in the air, and a higher risk. I bet it is similar with drivers.

[LSP552]

If this tracks aviation, it is slightly different. For pilots flying below a threshold amount of 300-400 hours, which is related to currency, lower time pilots have a higher accident rate, despite flying fewer hours. At some point beyond that threshold amount, more hours means more exposure in the air, and a higher risk. I bet it is similar with drivers.

It is. Young drivers have a higher crash rate than more experienced drivers, in general.

[Handy]

I agree with the above, but I also meant that someone who has practiced pulling a DA trigger 10,000 times has somewhat defeated the heavy trigger pull making him conscious of trigger movement.

[rsa-otc]

After recovering medically--or maybe before--did you pummel the idiot that shot you?

Let's just say I wasn't the only that left the range bloody. I don't count that as an injury against my record though. LOL

[Nephrology]

Short story;

Early in my instructor career I had a student on the line that was in the process of negligently handling the gun while having only shot 5 rounds. As I'm screaming from 15 feet away that he had only fired 5 rounds he turns toward me and says "It's empty see" and to prove his point squeezes the trigger while pointing the gun in my direction. Diving for the floor I found I couldn't outrun a 38. Right arm was trailing behind and was grazed. The scar has been an excellent teaching point for 35 plus years, although it's fading away.

Over a 38 year career it's the only time someone was ever injured on a range that I controled. I intend to retire with that record intact.

Needless to say I am now a range Nazi over muzzle discipline.

There is not enough self control in my body to have resisted the urge to beat the living daylights out of him.

[Mr_White]

In the Front Sight compilation of ND's there, all the main platform types -- striker, DA/SA and the 1911 are fairly equally represented. About as many ND's happen drawing as holstering. Apparently shooting on a square range there is stressful enough for some people to ventilate themselves.


https://www.frontsight.com/SafetyReports.asp?Action=ShowSingle&ID=5


Incidents 1, 5, 6

So........I haven't gone back and done any extensive analysis of these reports from Front Sight. But if SFA, DA/SA, and SAO are fairly equally represented in NDs, isn't that totally out of proportion to how heavily those guns are represented in classes? Generally there are many more SFA than any of the other action types, though I'm sure that has changed some over time.

[BehindBlueI's]

If this tracks aviation, it is slightly different. For pilots flying below a threshold amount of 300-400 hours, which is related to currency, lower time pilots have a higher accident rate, despite flying fewer hours. At some point beyond that threshold amount, more hours means more exposure in the air, and a higher risk. I bet it is similar with drivers.

If I'm 1/2 as likely as a new driver to crash in any given mile but drive 10 times as many miles a year, I'm still more likely to have a crash in that year.


So........I haven't gone back and done any extensive analysis of these reports from Front Sight. But if SFA, DA/SA, and SAO are fairly equally represented in NDs, isn't that totally out of proportion to how heavily those guns are represented in classes? Generally there are many more SFA than any of the other action types, though I'm sure that has changed some over time.


Yup. I elected to not get that deep into it, but with a lot of these stats we know the numerator without knowing the denominator.

[breakingtime91]

If I'm 1/2 as likely as a new driver to crash in any given mile but drive 10 times as many miles a year, I'm still more likely to have a crash in that year.




Yup. I elected to not get that deep into it, but with a lot of these stats we know the numerator without knowing the denominator.

I think you nailed it. It gets dangerous to make assumptions or decisions based off statistics half done..

[Handy]

So........I haven't gone back and done any extensive analysis of these reports from Front Sight. But if SFA, DA/SA, and SAO are fairly equally represented in NDs, isn't that totally out of proportion to how heavily those guns are represented in classes? Generally there are many more SFA than any of the other action types, though I'm sure that has changed some over time.

It is such a small sample because they are only reporting injury NDs. I don't think there's a lot to conclude from such a small sample about anything except that each type of weapon is possible to ND.

[BehindBlueI's]

It is such a small sample because they are only reporting injury NDs. I don't think there's a lot to conclude from such a small sample about anything except that each type of weapon is possible to ND.

There are some people that if you locked them in a padded room with a cast iron ball for 24 hours, at the end of the day the ball would be lost, broken, or pregnant. The question is which is most resistant to human error. I believe, although I can't prove (again see numerator vs denominator) that the revolver is the most resistant to oopsies, and the DAO is next, then the DA/SA. What I can show is about 1/3 of the NDs wouldn't have occurred because there is no need to pull the trigger on a revolver to remove the slide...

[Handy]

I finally read the FS incidents. Funny how all three "failed to decock" NDs were SIGs. The reason I got rid of my SIG P225 was that it was the only gun of many, many weird ones I had that ever got me confused which lever did what. I think they are fine if they are the only gun you train with, but as soon as you start using a gun with the slide release in the forward position it starts to confuse things.

Again, not a big enough sample to conclude anything, just interesting.


The other thing of interest is that none of the NDs were from DA triggers. The TDA guns were thought to all be cocked. Everything else is a Glock, XD or 1911.

[Casual Friday]

In other words, basically make it a V4 or TLG version instead of a V2.

Yes thanks for the clarification. I'm still working on memorizing the encyclopedia of LEM versions.

[TheNewbie]

Of the linked NDs, it didn't seem like any were done with a decocked DA/SA gun or DAO/LEM/DAK.

[GJM]

I finally read the FS incidents. Funny how all three "failed to decock" NDs were SIGs. The reason I got rid of my SIG P225 was that it was the only gun of many, many weird ones I had that ever got me confused which lever did what. I think they are fine if they are the only gun you train with, but as soon as you start using a gun with the slide release in the forward position it starts to confuse things.

Again, not a big enough sample to conclude anything, just interesting.


The other thing of interest is that none of the NDs were from DA triggers. The TDA guns were thought to all be cocked. Everything else is a Glock, XD or 1911.

If you make a practice of putting your thumb on top of the hammer when holstering, it doesn't matter where the lever is located, or if it has no lever at all, like the CZ Shadow many of us shoot.

[Handy]

If you make a practice of putting your thumb on top of the hammer when holstering, it doesn't matter where the lever is located, or if it has no lever at all, like the CZ Shadow many of us shoot.

You betcha. My issue was that the P225 decocking lever made a lousy slide release.

[GJM]

You betcha. My issue was that the P225 decocking lever made a lousy slide release.

They seem backwards to me, too. The two levers are close enough, that generally I just put my thumb on both levers, and figure that way I will get what I want to happen.

[JTQ]

The reason I got rid of my SIG P225 was that it was the only gun of many, many weird ones I had that ever got me confused which lever did what.
I'm always intrigued by Beretta 92FS/M9 threads on most forums that can't get a page in before somebody starts complaining about the Beretta's "odd" safety/decocker. That's a design that's been used over and over by many makers from the Walther P38, S&W TDA guns, Ruger P-Series, etc., while other than some fairly recent Turkish knock off guns, I believe SIG is the only one using that style of decocker.


GJM, since we're off the beaten path a bit anyway and into the striker guns/carry positions/ND stuff, if I recall correctly you've mentioned in the past your wife is firmly in the Glock camp. What does she use for a holster and what carry position does she use?

[Handy]

I'm always intrigued by Beretta 92FS/M9 threads on most forums that can't get a page in before somebody starts complaining about the Beretta's "odd" safety/decocker. That's a design that's been used over and over by many makers from the Walther P38, S&W TDA guns, Ruger P-Series, etc., while other than some fairly recent Turkish knock off guns, I believe SIG is the only one using that style of decocker.


GJM, since we're off the beaten path a bit anyway and into the striker guns/carry positions/ND stuff, if I recall correctly you've mentioned in the past your wife is firmly in the Glock camp. What does she use for a holster and what carry position does she use?

It's not the Sig decocker that's the problem. HK P9S, Walther P5 & P88, CZ99 and others have forward decockers. But that forward lever is also the slide release, which is a great design. If you're going to have two levers above the grip, the forward one needs to be the slide release to jive with most people's habits.

[GJM]

GJM, since we're off the beaten path a bit anyway and into the striker guns/carry positions/ND stuff, if I recall correctly you've mentioned in the past your wife is firmly in the Glock camp. What does she use for a holster and what carry position does she use?

She basically thinks there are only two kinds of pistols -- a Glock and everything else. And, everything else doesn't matter.

She does not carry the Glock AIWB. She has been fortunate enough to be a Gadget tester for years. Her EDC is a Glock 26 in lower 48, and in AK a 27 in town or 29 in the field. She uses a Mitch Rosen Upper Limit for EDC in town and either a Fricke Gideon in the field or a Safariland ALS holster on various attachments. Her game rig is a Blade Tech OWB on a Boss plate.

[JTQ]

Thanks, GJM.

[Handy]

She basically thinks there are only two kinds of pistols -- a Glock and everything else. And, everything else doesn't matter.

She does not carry the Glock AIWB. She has been fortunate enough to be a Gadget tester for years. Her EDC is a Glock 26 in lower 48, and in AK a 27 in town or 29 in the field. She uses a Mitch Rosen Upper Limit for EDC in town and either a Fricke Gideon in the field or a Safariland ALS holster on various attachments. Her game rig is a Blade Tech OWB on a Boss plate.

Has the 29 proved more reliable than the .40 Glocks you have?

[BehindBlueI's]

It's not the Sig decocker that's the problem. HK P9S, Walther P5 & P88, CZ99 and others have forward decockers. But that forward lever is also the slide release, which is a great design. If you're going to have two levers above the grip, the forward one needs to be the slide release to jive with most people's habits.

I know thus is crazy talk, but I've got no problem with Sig controls because I stick to Sig pistols.

[Handy]

I know thus is crazy talk, but I've got no problem with Sig controls because I stick to Sig pistols.

Agreed:


I finally read the FS incidents. Funny how all three "failed to decock" NDs were SIGs. The reason I got rid of my SIG P225 was that it was the only gun of many, many weird ones I had that ever got me confused which lever did what. I think they are fine if they are the only gun you train with, but as soon as you start using a gun with the slide release in the forward position it starts to confuse things.

[TheNewbie]

We were looking for a guy with a gun, I pulled out my issued XD and my finger slipped onto the trigger. Thankfully the grip safety was not depressed. It would have only went into the ground but still........scared some safety into me.

[GJM]

Has the 29 proved more reliable than the .40 Glocks you have?

Very reliable with Hornady XTP factory ammo. Not so reliable with the heavy field loads that we bought the pistol for.

This may be an interesting way to look at a Glock 29. It is more reliable with 10mm ammo loaded to .40 power levels, than a Glock manufactured in .40 shooting .40 loads. :)

[Handy]

Very reliable with Hornady XTP factory ammo. Not so reliable with the heavy field loads that we bought the pistol for.

This may be an interesting way to look at a Glock 29. It is more reliable with 10mm ammo loaded to .40 power levels, than a Glock manufactured in .40 shooting .40 loads. :)

Can't say I'm surprised. 9mm pistols were never a good choice to turn into .40. And 10mm wasn't really intended to be anything but a combat pistol, but Glock was at least doing their best work when they designed the first 9mm and 10mm guns. .40 and .45 were such afterthoughts. If I had to carry a .40 Glock I'd strongly consider a 10mm gun with a .40 adapter barrel.

[Digiroc]

Although I am a big fan of Smith & Wesson, the M&P line of pistols have no more allure for me than Glocks. I've had a 5906 for nearly three decades and own a CS9 "Chiefs Special" for carry. I have just recently added 1006 and 1076 10mm and my most recent purchase is an even older model 411 a .40 caliber (my first 40) which is also a carry weapon.

The 3rd generation Smith & Wessons are the last semi-auto pistols I'd even consider. Maybe I'm just set in my beliefs but plastic pistols just don't get it for me. Not only that, but I like a hammer on all my handguns, although I have a S&W "Pro Series" J frame with an enclosed hammer.

The trigger pull on the DA/SA 3rd gen guns are very close to that of my J frame revolvers and with the decocker/safety I feel are they are the best choice for both safe operation and the ability to bring to action quickly.

I've spent many years with several 1911s and am comfortable (or used to be) with cocked and locked, and the need to take the safety off to fire the weapon. But I've had enough "flinch tests" by failing to take the safety off to ponder the benefits of DA. I'd even consider a DAO weapon.

Digiroc

[stinx]

MY agency currently has 80 M&P 40's in the field. We have had M&P's since 09, we have had no issues as far as the guns being unreliable. Our guns have been reliable, and all of ours are issued with a Wml. The agency next to us has transitioned out of GLock 22's in 40 to Glock 17's due to their 3rd and 4th gen 40's being unreliable with a iml attached. YMMV All things considered I would like to transition my agency back to a 9mm, The Glock 19 Gen 4 is on the top of the list

[luckyman]

They seem backwards to me, too. The two levers are close enough, that generally I just put my thumb on both levers, and figure that way I will get what I want to happen.

Ah I can't believe I thought it was just me! I feel much less stupid now.

[LockedBreech]

MY agency currently has 80 M&P 40's in the field. We have had M&P's since 09, we have had no issues as far as the guns being unreliable. Our guns have been reliable, and all of ours are issued with a Wml. The agency next to us has transitioned out of GLock 22's in 40 to Glock 17's due to their 3rd and 4th gen 40's being unreliable with a iml attached. YMMV All things considered I would like to transition my agency back to a 9mm, The Glock 19 Gen 4 is on the top of the list

It's an impressive measure of Glock's marketing acumen that an agency with unreliable Glocks transitioned to another Glock.

I love the G19G4.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk