quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
Why, and compared to what? The 2.0 seem like solid, accurate pistols, with good features and ergonomics, especially when compared to their prime competitor, which is Glock. The original (1.0?) had issues, but were still viable. The 2.0 redesign seems to have dealt with most, if not all, of those issues. If one think was left, it was the hinged trigger, which seems like more of an opinion issue than a real problem. Now they're even replacing that.

quote:

Originally posted by Black92LX:
<snip>

The M&P is a very lack luster pistol in my opinion.

<snip>

Compared to anything really. Though lack luster does not equate to a bad pistol.
The M&P is a reliable and reasonably priced pistol. They are just dull and no frills. They sell but aren’t highly sought after.
Folks don’t really come into the shop and say hey do you have any M&Ps like they do Sigs, Glocks, etc. In my anecdotal experience Most folks who end up buying them are led to them after arriving at the shop.

They also don’t have much of a Military or Police following.
Cincinnati Police is the only large police department I can think of that are issued M&Ps. It’s been awhile but I presume they are still issued them.
They were the if I am not mistaken the first department in the country to get M&Ps that would have been around 2004 or 2005 as they were making the transition from the Gen3 5906 (I think) Smiths to the M&P when I was there.

Other than that I can’t think of any agency that I have come across or worked with that issues M&Ps.
While I know they are out there they aren’t common place.

Are they a bag gun, certainly not as I said I own one but the only reason I bought it was because it was cheap and was looking for a truck gun.

Well, I guess it all makes sense now. According to this thread-

You can’t hardly give away M&Ps in 9mm, and they are junk.

Glock 20s fly off the shelf so much so that Glock doesn’t make any. You can’t hardly give a Glock 19 away though.

Guess Smith is going to make a trillion dollars that Glock is leaving on the table by wasting their time on 9mm guns.

Sound about right?

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
Well, I guess it all makes sense now. According to this thread-

You can’t hardly give away M&Ps in 9mm, and they are junk.

Glock 20s fly off the shelf so much so that Glock doesn’t make any. You can’t hardly give a Glock 19 away though.

Guess Smith is going to make a trillion dollars that Glock is leaving on the table by wasting their time on 9mm guns.

Sound about right?

That's kinda what I got from it. I teach a lot of cops and other citizens. I need to make sure and tell them M&P doesn't have a following.

Didnt read the whole thread so I wotn comment of MP bashing or hate.

For me they have always been really nice ergonomically, somewhere behind HK and ahead of Glock.

I just never liked their triggers. But for 10mm I'll have to give it a shot and hope APEX or someone makes an aftermarket trigger, which it sounds like a .45 trigger might work. I'll have to do more research.

It's good to see another modern pistol being offered in 10mm.

Hopefully Sig sees to manufacture their P320 in 10mm this year.

Now, if only the price of 10mm ammo would come down a little...

When I think of lackluster, in a very literal sense, I think of Glock. I can't think of a gun that displays less interest in aesthetics and ergonomics than Glock. That being said, they do do work very well from in reliability and accuracy. But from my standpoint the current M&P line is vastly better in ergonomics, and is probably a better looking gun (insofar as poly-striker guns actually have any aesthetics), while being very comparable in reliability and accuracy. The only real advantage I see that Glock has over the current M&Ps is third party support. And I can't think of much I'd want out of the aftermarket for an M&P that I wouldn't be able to get.

quote:

Originally posted by Black92LX:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
Why, and compared to what? The 2.0 seem like solid, accurate pistols, with good features and ergonomics, especially when compared to their prime competitor, which is Glock. The original (1.0?) had issues, but were still viable. The 2.0 redesign seems to have dealt with most, if not all, of those issues. If one think was left, it was the hinged trigger, which seems like more of an opinion issue than a real problem. Now they're even replacing that.

quote:

Originally posted by Black92LX:
<snip>

The M&P is a very lack luster pistol in my opinion.

<snip>

Compared to anything really. Though lack luster does not equate to a bad pistol.
The M&P is a reliable and reasonably priced pistol. They are just dull and no frills. They sell but aren’t highly sought after.
Folks don’t really come into the shop and say hey do you have any M&Ps like they do Sigs, Glocks, etc. In my anecdotal experience Most folks who end up buying them are led to them after arriving at the shop.

They also don’t have much of a Military or Police following.
Cincinnati Police is the only large police department I can think of that are issued M&Ps. It’s been awhile but I presume they are still issued them.
They were the if I am not mistaken the first department in the country to get M&Ps that would have been around 2004 or 2005 as they were making the transition from the Gen3 5906 (I think) Smiths to the M&P when I was there.

Other than that I can’t think of any agency that I have come across or worked with that issues M&Ps.
While I know they are out there they aren’t common place.

Are they a bag gun, certainly not as I said I own one but the only reason I bought it was because it was cheap and was looking for a truck gun.

quote:

Originally posted by Underdog:
I've been thinking a my safe needs a 10mm.

Wonder what the recoil is like for a pistol not all metal.

Proud owner of the Glock 29SF, and I must say that it should be managable. It's not the most pleasant thing to shoot, but I'm able to make consistent follow ups and nice groups.

I am pretty sure Hartford CT PD issues M&P in .45

If my comments were in any way interpreted as bashing the M&P, that's not the case. While I don't really get super excited about any poly-striker gun, I'm confident that I could pick up any XD, M&P, Glock, or P320 and feel confident that it would provide reliable service. They're all quality products.

I am, however, heavily invested in the P320 platform, both in gear and training, and I prefer the ergos and the trigger on the Sig as IMO it's quite a bit better than the offerings from the other 3. So while I prefer the P320 to the others, it's more personal preference, and I'm by no means saying that the other companies make bad guns.

I'm really excited to see more 10mm offerings being brought to the market. I like to see companies branching out as competition only makes everybody better, and popularization of the caliber should only improve availability across the board. Honestly, these days, it's exciting to see anything new getting released that's not another plastic 9mm. Not that there's anything wrong with plastic 9mms, but I already have enough of them.

If Sig doesn't end up releasing a plain-jane 10mm P320 in the next year or so, I may get one of these as the M&P would be my choice over a Glock in that caliber (extremely thick slide, unsupported chamber that bulges brass in hot loads, and polygonal rifling that hates lead) or XD (ergonomically inferior to the other 3, in my opinion).

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
When I think of lackluster, in a very literal sense, I think of Glock. I can't think of a gun that displays less interest in aesthetics and ergonomics than Glock. That being said, they do do work very well from in reliability and accuracy. But from my standpoint the current M&P line is vastly better in ergonomics, and is probably a better looking gun (insofar as poly-striker guns actually have any aesthetics), while being very comparable in reliability and accuracy. The only real advantage I see that Glock has over the current M&Ps is third party support. And I can't think of much I'd want out of the aftermarket for an M&P that I wouldn't be able to get.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Black92LX:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by BBMW:
Why, and compared to what? The 2.0 seem like solid, accurate pistols, with good features and ergonomics, especially when compared to their prime competitor, which is Glock. The original (1.0?) had issues, but were still viable. The 2.0 redesign seems to have dealt with most, if not all, of those issues. If one think was left, it was the hinged trigger, which seems like more of an opinion issue than a real problem. Now they're even replacing that.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Black92LX:
<snip>
]

I would not argue at all that Glock is also very much a lack luster firearm. Though they have a huge following an almost nonsensical enthusiasm at times with all these $1k-$2k Gucci Glocks out there for lack of a better term.
So for that I put them and M&Ps in a different category. If Glock makes it they’ll sell oodles of them as fast as they can make them and continue to sell at a very solid pace.
The same can’t be said for the M&Ps though that still does not equate to the M&Ps being a bad gun.
The Glock is simple, reliable, and inexpensive and does nothing for me either. If it were not for employer requirements I would own none.

IIRC, the Massachusetts State Police are also.

quote:

Originally posted by longjohn:
I am pretty sure Hartford CT PD issues M&P in .45

Glock is like a Toyota, M&P is like a recent Hyundai. Both are utilitarian and reliable, the Toyota has a longer track record, the Hyundai has a bit better styling.

Good daily drivers basically.

Do I need to point out how much longer S&W has been making guns than Glock? I do agree with your daily driver analogy, though. Neither is a luxury product. I consider this a good thing.

quote:

Originally posted by tigereye313:
Glock is like a Toyota, M&P is like a recent Hyundai. Both are utilitarian and reliable, the Toyota has a longer track record, the Hyundai has a bit better styling.

Good daily drivers basically.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
Do I need to point out how much longer S&W has been making guns than Glock? I do agree with your daily driver analogy, though. Neither is a luxury product. I consider this a good thing.

quote:

Originally posted by tigereye313:
Glock is like a Toyota, M&P is like a recent Hyundai. Both are utilitarian and reliable, the Toyota has a longer track record, the Hyundai has a bit better styling.

Good daily drivers basically.

I think it is more of a comparison to the M&P specifically not S&W as a whole.
So for this category Glock has nearly 20 years more.

When someone says Glock you think of one type of pistol because that is all they do. When someone says Smith & Wesson I’d go to say very few folks think M&P. I’d say most think please let there be no lock.

This is true, but on the flip side, a lot of the skills and technology do transfer. And to another end of it, Smith (mainly because Glock forced them) has now been making poly striker guns for 25 years. Yes, for a while they were crap. Even the first M&Ps where not great. But what I like about what Smith has done is that they've really pushed continual improvement, and to a much greater degree than Glock, has given customers the change that they want. The current M&P is light years ahead of the Sigma, and even a huge improvement on the original M&P. Glock got it pretty good early, but really hasn't had much in the way of innovation since. So comparing current production to current production, I consider the M&P to be a better gun. But, of course, a lot of people are going to look at the older guns, and denigrate Smith because of that.

For a lot of gun guys, who tend to be traditionalists, and have long memories, when do you say a gun maker has gotten with the program, and write off past failures?

quote:

Originally posted by Black92LX:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
Do I need to point out how much longer S&W has been making guns than Glock? I do agree with your daily driver analogy, though. Neither is a luxury product. I consider this a good thing.

quote:

Originally posted by tigereye313:
Glock is like a Toyota, M&P is like a recent Hyundai. Both are utilitarian and reliable, the Toyota has a longer track record, the Hyundai has a bit better styling.

Good daily drivers basically.

I think it is more of a comparison to the M&P specifically not S&W as a whole.
So for this category Glock has nearly 20 years more.

When someone says Glock you think of one type of pistol because that is all they do. When someone says Smith & Wesson I’d go to say very few folks think M&P. I’d say most think please let there be no lock.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
Do I need to point out how much longer S&W has been making guns than Glock? I do agree with your daily driver analogy, though. Neither is a luxury product. I consider this a good thing.

quote:

Originally posted by tigereye313:
Glock is like a Toyota, M&P is like a recent Hyundai. Both are utilitarian and reliable, the Toyota has a longer track record, the Hyundai has a bit better styling.

Good daily drivers basically.

That's why I singled out M&P, as it is S&W's answer to the Glock. This analogy only applies to the plastic fantastic.