Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 61

Thread: Massachusetts State Police Upgrades to Smith & Wesson M&P[emoji2400] M2.0 as Official

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by DpdG View Post
    The NHSP issues with the P220 were due to Sig struggling to implement NHSP’s requirement of a magazine disconnect (legacy training program from their prior 4566). I believe they went from 220 to MP45/ 4.5” around 2006-7, and have gone through multiple replacement/generations since (around 2012 with a new batch of 1.0, then 2.0 around 2018 or so). Rumor is they are finally dropping their mag disconnect safety requirements and likely transitioning to P320/9mm rather soon.
    MA State Police started out with P-226 in 9mm traditional DA/SA, at some point they transitioned to P-226 40 DA/Sa and then from what I heard went to P-226 40 DAKs and the troopers hated the DAKs. eventually then transitioned to the M&P 45. I would not be surprised if they got the new 2.o for little
    or no money at all I am sure S&W does not want to loose the State Police contract in their home state.

  2. #22
    Columbus, GA PD was running the M&P45 til a few years ago when they opted for the 2.0 in 9MM just so they didn’t have to buy different holsters.

    I know the 45s were pretty damn solid. Did S&W ever get the accuracy issues with the 9MM variants squared away?
    “Conspiracy theories are just spoiler alerts these days.”

  3. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    S.W. Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by HCountyGuy View Post
    Columbus, GA PD was running the M&P45 til a few years ago when they opted for the 2.0 in 9MM just so they didn’t have to buy different holsters.

    I know the 45s were pretty damn solid. Did S&W ever get the accuracy issues with the 9MM variants squared away?
    Not to get side tracked, but….

    I’m surprised to hear they didn’t have to change holsters when going from a M&P 45 1.0 to a M&P9 2.0.

    My agency went from a M&P9 1.0 to a M&P9 2.0 and had to switch holsters. Yes the new guns fit in the old holsters, by Safariland said there WAS a difference. Enough so that they would not be responsible if the retention system failed during a weapon retention struggle when using in a 1.0 holster when using a 2.0 gun.

  4. #24
    Site Supporter psalms144.1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Bloomington, IN
    In my never ending quest to find something that's not a Glock that might be my all the time "compact" gun, I've been seriously tempted by the M&P line. I had a 2.0 45 with TS that I regret selling pretty much every day. When/if S&W starts putting the Shield Plus trigger group into the 2.0s (will that make it a 2.5? 3.0?) I don't know that a Compact 9mm and FS .45 won't follow me home from the gun store...

  5. #25
    The Nostomaniac 03RN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by Beat Trash View Post
    Not to get side tracked, but….

    I’m surprised to hear they didn’t have to change holsters when going from a M&P 45 1.0 to a M&P9 2.0.

    My agency went from a M&P9 1.0 to a M&P9 2.0 and had to switch holsters. Yes the new guns fit in the old holsters, by Safariland said there WAS a difference. Enough so that they would not be responsible if the retention system failed during a weapon retention struggle when using in a 1.0 holster when using a 2.0 gun.
    Good way to sell some new holsters

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by MandoWookie View Post
    I am still aggrieved that they discontinued the 2.0 sub compact .45 M&P.

    And the 1.0s are impossible to find as well.
    I was at the gun show in Raleigh, NC a few years ago. One firearm messed up my mind the whole day.....that was the M&P 1.0 45acp compact 8+1 capacity. No thumb safety. And yes, it was Glock 19 size with a .45 acp diameter at the muzzle. Needless to say, when I left the show, that pistol came with me. The pistol size/caliber just blew my mind. I didn't know the pistol existed, much less looking for it. That was a good day!!

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Beat Trash View Post
    Not to get side tracked, but….

    I’m surprised to hear they didn’t have to change holsters when going from a M&P 45 1.0 to a M&P9 2.0.

    My agency went from a M&P9 1.0 to a M&P9 2.0 and had to switch holsters. Yes the new guns fit in the old holsters, by Safariland said there WAS a difference. Enough so that they would not be responsible if the retention system failed during a weapon retention struggle when using in a 1.0 holster when using a 2.0 gun.
    CPD is running Lvl 3 Derpa holsters so make of that what you will. They wanted to switch to 9MM to help improve qualification scores but didn’t want to have to shell out money to change holsters. I doubt the admin involved gave much thought to retention during a struggle as long as the gun didn’t literally fall out of the holster.
    “Conspiracy theories are just spoiler alerts these days.”

  8. #28
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    S.W. Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by 03RN View Post
    Good way to sell some new holsters
    Yep…

    Especially when factoring in spare holsters on hand and a few special assignments who are issued two different holsters, you’re buying about 1,200 new holsters, all at once, that you didn’t budget for initially.
    Last edited by Beat Trash; 06-25-2021 at 09:33 AM.

  9. #29
    Member SecondsCount's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Utah, USA
    Quote Originally Posted by MandoWookie View Post
    I am still aggrieved that they discontinued the 2.0 sub compact .45 M&P.

    And the 1.0s are impossible to find as well.
    I had a M&P 45C.1 for a while and it was a fantastic shooter for the money spent. My 1911s got used far more often so I traded it off for a nice target rifle in 6BR. I can't say I miss it but if anyone asks, they are solid pistols.
    -Seconds Count. Misses Don't-

  10. #30
    Member John Hearne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Northern Mississippi
    IIRC, the problems with NHSP had to do with extractor tensioning issues. The internal extractor in the P220ST was very sensitive to heat treatment. The early ones ran forever and I believe they were made in Germany. Sig US could never get the heat treatment right - I had two fail at 750 rounds. This is why Sig went with the external extractor in later P220ST's.
    • It's not the odds, it's the stakes.
    • If you aren't dry practicing every week, you're not serious.....
    • "Tache-Psyche Effect - a polite way of saying 'You suck.' " - GG

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •