quote:

Originally posted by Jjmcd:

quote:

Originally posted by Edmond:

Definitely could not have said that 20 years ago, correct?

To me, that means the 9mm has evolved quite a bit. But does it also mean that the .357 SIG hasn't evolved?

I think that the issue is that Bullet design for the 9MM has evolved, and the velocity for the 357 SIG has Devolved. The bullet diameter is essentially the same (.355) and here are some differences in the bullet design that allow the 9MM +P+ to have greater expansion then it has had in the past. This is a combination of metallurgy. The key element for the 9MM was over penetration control. stopping at the 15 inch mark is important. Energy transfer is important. Accuracy is important. So research has improved.

On the 357 Sig, reduction of velocity to be 9MM + 30 % is a decision of manufacture. I wish that they had not done it. But it was needed to allow some departments (Including the Air Marshals) to have greater control. The US Secret Service had the same issues. Getting better qualification scores trumps threat resolution every time. Getting better qualification scores trumps threat resolution every time.

I would tend to believe accuracy and good hits, with a lower powered round trumps hoping one of my high powered rounds hits where I am aiming.

it's an extreme example, but would you rather go against a blind man with a 50 AE, or a top rated IDPA/IPSC shooter with a pellet gun.



TXPO

Another agency transitioning from Sig P226 DAK 357 Sig to the Sig 320 357Sig is the Texas Department of Public Safety, started replacement early this year.

quote:

Originally posted by wheeler1191:
Another agency transitioning from Sig P226 DAK 357 Sig to the Sig 320 357Sig is the Texas Department of Public Safety, started replacement early this year.

They went with the P320 FS 9mm. They are moving away from the .357 as well. They are issued to new recruits, and the 226 will be switched out by attrition.


TXPO

9MM was a good choice.

I'm interested if they would have introduced more 9MM service pistols into the evaluation had they known up front that they were going to switch to 9MM. The Smith & Wesson M&P 2.0 is a hell of a service pistol.

quote:

Originally posted by bubbatime:
9MM was a good choice.

I'm interested if they would have introduced more 9MM service pistols into the evaluation had they known up front that they were going to switch to 9MM. The Smith & Wesson M&P 2.0 is a hell of a service pistol.

Fair question. There are some others I would have liked to have tried had I known that a caliber switch was coming, such as the VP9 and the Generation 5 Glocks. We picked the pistol before the caliber, so we had two options for full sized service pistols in .357 Sig.

quote:

Originally posted by bubbatime:
9MM was a good choice.

I'm interested if they would have introduced more 9MM service pistols into the evaluation had they known up front that they were going to switch to 9MM. The Smith & Wesson M&P 2.0 is a hell of a service pistol.

TXDPS originally picked the 1.0 genration M&P 9mm, the 320 hadn't be introduced yet.

DPS started issuing them out to the new recruit class and they began having, issues with ejections and accuracy.

They promptly pulled them and held on to their 226 until they could get a hold of the 320 for T&E. Wasn't too long after that they picked it up.


DPS had tested several pistol when they were looking for something to replace thers Sigs. I know they tested Glocks, the M&P, and H&K. At the time the 320 was rumored, but they didn't have them to test.

When DPS picked the M&P I was surprised, as they have been a Sig agency for as long as I have been an officer, over 20 years.

And so they continue to be a Sig agency...

TXPO

quote:

Originally posted by Texaspoff:

quote:

Originally posted by bubbatime:
9MM was a good choice.

I'm interested if they would have introduced more 9MM service pistols into the evaluation had they known up front that they were going to switch to 9MM. The Smith & Wesson M&P 2.0 is a hell of a service pistol.

TXDPS originally picked the 1.0 genration M&P 9mm, the 320 hadn't be introduced yet.

DPS started issuing them out to the new recruit class and they began having, issues with ejections and accuracy.

They promptly pulled them and held on to their 226 until they could get a hold of the 320 for T&E. Wasn't too long after that they picked it up.


DPS had tested several pistol when they were looking for something to replace thers Sigs. I know they tested Glocks, the M&P, and H&K. At the time the 320 was rumored, but they didn't have them to test.

When DPS picked the M&P I was surprised, as they have been a Sig agency for as long as I have been an officer, over 20 years.

And so they continue to be a Sig agency...

TXPO

TX DPS made the decision to switch from .357 to 9mm first for much the same reasons KOAM cited. Both cost and Availability of large quantities of .357 were significant factors.

With regard to the guns, there is more to that story.

The M&P 1.0 was selected unilaterally with out input from the field or testing of other platforms. Suffice to say this was the result of shenanigans...

As noted the M&P 1.0 had issues and never saw street use.

The result was an actual testing process with mutiple platforms being tested, including the S&W M&P which did not pass the testing. The three guns which passed were the HK VP9, the Glock 17 Gen 4, and the SIG P320. SIG was selected for various official reasons. Personally I agree the real reason was DPS had been a SIG Agency since transitioning from revolvers and having been burnt the went to what they knew. I can’t blame them given the circumstances.

It’s worth noting the M&P 2.0 was withdrawn from the Military MHS competition and was unsuccessful in the recent DHS ICE and FBI testing.

Those competitions resulted in the SIG 320 as the new M17, a variation of the SIG P320 Carry as the new DHS /ICE gun with a variant of the FN 509 also passing. The Glock M model won the FBI contract but the P320 Compact was the last competitor before the Glock wad selected.

What was the problem with the SW M&P 2.0 in 9? Mine has been excellent so far. Can any one reveal the problems?

quote:

Originally posted by ArLEOret:
What was the problem with the SW M&P 2.0 in 9? Mine has been excellent so far. Can any one reveal the problems?

The withdrawal of the 2.0 from the MHS was supposedly based on inability to meet accuracy requirements.

The details of the DHS and FBI trials are covered by NDA.

The M&P was the first gun eliminated in the recent Danish Military Pistol trials. The Danes wound up with the SIG P320 X Carry.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/...ice-pistol-2019-one/

The M&P’s are interesting because certain calibers have been good (45 &40j and others have been problematic (9mm & .357).

For example, the M&P .45s have been the best overall and are exceptionally accurate. The 9mm M&P’s, have been plagued with accuracy issues and inconsistent accuracy from gun to gun. This has been reduced with the 2.0’s but some are still popping up with accuracy problems.

The M&P was designed around .40 cal. The .40s have been decent and don’t seem to share the accuracy issues of the 9mm but the .357 sig versions had major durability and reliability issues.

Many theories have been put forth for the cause these issues but I think Larry Vickers called it early on when he said the M&P could have been a great gun if S&W was willing to raise the unit / QC cost $30 to $40 per unit.

Any recommendations for an IWB holster for the 320 Carry? I know holster are very much an individual preference, but surprisingly enough, a number of manufacturers don't offer such an option for the 320. (Don't get me started on the issue FNS-9.) Thanks and be safe.

Curious as well. I have a leather IWB holster by TT gunleather that does well but wondering if anyone has something else.

I carry my Sig P320 Carry all the time, great pistol.

quote:

Originally posted by Forlorn Hope:
Any recommendations for an IWB holster for the 320 Carry? I know holster are very much an individual preference, but surprisingly enough, a number of manufacturers don't offer such an option for the 320. (Don't get me started on the issue FNS-9.) Thanks and be safe.