That matches my experience, yes. It's a shame, because some should have been really good guns. For a dedicated Condition One 1911 toter, especially in the early '90s, the little Firestars were such an appealing package for BUG-type chores. But, like a replica of Michelangelo's Pieta done in soft-serve ice cream, the form was perfect while the substance left something to be desired.Originally Posted by JAD
This is a similar post by JoninWA on the Wilson Combat making M&P Barrels thread
"On the one hand, it's great the Wilson/Apex et al have the commitment and wherewithal to come up with this sort of after-market support for the M&P.
On the other, I'm a bit disgusted that S&W simply doesn't get their act/manufacturing together for once and for all regarding the M&P; their failure to do so seems to necessitate aftermarket components and fixes. Such can work for and aficionado/hobbyist, but I see as a significant detriment to organizations and dedicated users on a budget. Especially since competitors can deliver comparable platforms at an equal or lower buy-in cost, without the aftermarket fix nonsense seemingly necessitated. As I've mentioned before, the S&W approach seems to resemble a game of Wack-A-Mole more than a serious market contender.
Unless (and I realize that this may be the case for some) a M&P intrinsically really offers a significant difference to a shooter/organization, it seems to make little sense to have to invest in both the gun and subsequent components and/or gunsmithing efforts merely to achieve parity with its competitors (such as Glock, Walther, FN, HK etc.)..."
I find it interesting that so many people criticize the M&P because enthusiasts replace the trigger components with APEX yet there is a whole industry that revolves around customizing 1911, P35, Glock, AKs, and ARs.
I suspect that 90+ (99+?) percent of M&Ps do not get the APEX parts and sit in LEO holsters or civilian gun safes, night stands, and glove boxes.
That said, I am surprised that S&W does not buy the rights to the APEX parts and sell all the M&Ps with the APEX DCAE kit and APEX extractor and "PRO" models with the DCAE (optionally the competition kit), APEX trigger, APEX extractor, and a "match" barrel.
Last edited by ranger; 06-15-2014 at 08:44 AM. Reason: speling
Thanks for the thread-jump quote/insert Brian-my first baby-step towards immortality, Pistol-Forum wise...
Seriously, on the one hand, I don't have a dog in this fight-because of 1) my overall satisfaction with my Glocks (all Gen 3 to date, but I'm certainly receptive towards a Gen4 G22 or G31, among others), and 2) what I see as a serious systemmic debacle(s) inherent to the 9mm M&P (be it intrinsic, manufacturing or material in nature) I've avoided picking one up personally...
...but on the other hand, I recognize the appeal and potential of the M&P, and I've seen shooters I respect do more than well with them. On an earlier criticism, I ascribed the 9mm M&P into having the desirability of an XD; a more personal analogy might be to equate the 9mm M&Ps with my previous Beretta 8357 Cougar. It was a gun with superb ergonimics, acceptable compactness, manufactured with exceptional materials and finish and decent accuracy-but it just flat out didn't have the reliability that I require in a weapon that would be used as a defensive tool. And Beretta had simply used the exact same sights for the .357 gun as they'd used for their .40 version-in some guns, that'll work-in the 8357, it didn't.
In my mind, it's one thing to go aftermarket (or to alternative parts offered seperately by the manufacturer, but at an additional cost to the user) to add an additional fillip/fine tuning to a gun, but it's another thing entirely to see the need to do so to achieve base-line acceptable performance/accuracy. And then there's the additional cost of the various aftermarket solutions-while they seem to be reasonably priced, they ain't cheap, and significantly add to what becomes for many the real-world base-line price of a 9mm M&P-that can be painful (and insurmountable) obsticle to organizational bean-counters (and spousal resource allocation review/approval boards). And it's another thing to further see the manufacturer ostensibly fix/eridicate one flea, only to seemingly see it hop into another, previously unaffected area, presumably due to the manufacturer "cheaping out" in the newly affected area/component(s) to achieve cost pariety to fix the first.....
I was thoroughly unimpressed with Glock when they foisted the Gen4 features seemingly necessary for the .40 and .357 SIG across-board functioning and durability onto what had been the industry's gold-standard-the 9mm Gen 3 Glocks (and then later switching the extractor material out, inducing further issues to both Gen 3 and Gen4 guns). Shifting internal architecture between Gen 3, Gen 3 SF, and Gen4 guns my well have been causal factors inducing functional and reliability issues in Glocks. But Glock, to their credit (and probably more to the credit of the organizational and internet uproar/massive problem exposure), apparently has pretty much isolated and rectified these issues for the most part.
The potential of the 9mm M&P is certainly there. But Smith & Wesson's history with the platform is, shall we say, a bit spotty...and there are some very viable contenders, both in terms of market niche and price point. My suspiscion is the the HK VP9 may turn out to be a slow death-blow to the M&P, essentially making the 9mm striker-fire combat/duty handgun niche a Glock-versus-HK battle for supremacy, with the M&P quickly relegated to the sidelines as an unfortunate has-been...
Best, Jon
M&p with the dcaek is the easiest gun to run fast that I have ever tried. I am in love with the m&p and I can't tell they are inaccurate just ammo sensitive.
I'm not. Judging by the results I see at the public range, most shooters aren't good enough to notice a difference. S&W would spend millions of dollars buying a subsidiary company for a customer base too tiny to matter.
The same problem exists with the car business: enthusiast oriented family cars sell poorly, because the typical car buyer doesn't know the difference between the Nurburgring and a cul de sac.
The Minority Marksman.
"When you meet a swordsman, draw your sword: Do not recite poetry to one who is not a poet."
-a Ch'an Buddhist axiom.
I'd lodge one small disagreement: the M&Ps not going anywhere, for the very reason the Sigma is still around.
Gotta market to the Cletus Demographic. Had HK priced their VP9 at par with S&W, you'd be right that the M&P would be history But the average gun buyer is going to look at the price tag and think "what do I get for the extra $150". Remember , they think shooting a pistol at 50 yards is alchemy.
Cletus will ignore the HK because his Taurus PT709 does the job anyways. Police agencies bound by penny pinching city administrators won't have a chance to pick the HK, not with Glock and S&W in the mix at a lower price.
The Minority Marksman.
"When you meet a swordsman, draw your sword: Do not recite poetry to one who is not a poet."
-a Ch'an Buddhist axiom.
If there was a like button....
And yeah, previously my Geography was a little hinky. But I stand by my mistrust of South American guns (this includes the "excellent" Bersa pistols). Gun snobbery it may be, my model of "save about a hundred extra dollars and buy a Glock" has worked, because I can fix any problem with the Glock. I personally prefer to buy a gun that has a lot of aftermarket support because well...any gun can break and if you shoot enough, they most certainly will break.
Further, many guns you could find in the 80's, you can find today. Difference being they have been improved upon over the years. Barring the 3rd gen smith autos...which I think we all miss.
I wish it was the golden age of ammo prices and availability.
I don't think anyone has really commented on price. In 1993 I paid $440 (pre-tax) for a new Gen2 G17. This pistol erratically ejects empty brass. I've taken brass to the face and sometimes it throws them high and drops them straight on top of my head. It doesn't happen all the time--maybe 2 out of 50. In 1993 I knew one other person who owned a G17 and he shot less than 50 rounds a year. He never mentioned how his gun ejects brass. (I'm still good friends with this guy and his pistol probably doesn't have 400 rounds through it yet.) When I bought my G17, I didn't consider its ejection performance reason to ship the gun back to Austria, but I think a lot of people today would send it back to the factory (mainly because gun forums have primed them to look for problems that previously wouldn't have been a big deal). A Gen3 G17 today costs $535 retail (25% price drop in real dollars compared to 1993) and is easier to find. I paid $425 (pre-tax) for a GSSF Gen4 G19 a couple of months ago, which calculates to 60% of the inflation-adjusted price of my 1993 G17.
I think a pre- vs post-Glock narrative of the pistol industry is a reasonable tale to tell. Glock has driven down price across the board and driven up the number of choices available to the consumer. I don't handle enough pistols to comment on industry QC, but the choice to price ratio seems indicative of a golden age.
I don't mean to introduce thread drift, but I think the assault weapons ban really helped the pistol industry. After the we lost 1994 battle against the AWB, the NRA had more resources for lobbying for expanded concealed carry, which, in turn, helped expand the pistol market. Increased consumer demand, combined with trying to catch up with Glock is what produced the current boom in pistol choices.
Reply With Quote