Originally Posted by
Jerm
I definitely wouldn't say that it "requires a bunch of fixes and upgrades out-of-the-box..."
That's what I was thinking, too. I don't think that most of the stuff we see folks do with their M&Ps are required fixes. They're things that enhance the shooter's ability to use the pistol as well as they can, but they're not strictly necessary.
The trigger jobs, sight swaps, Apex sears, are all more in the "like-to-have" category from a functional standpoint. Not "have-to-have." I've had the triggers on each my .45 and 9c tweaked, and while I definitely like the results, there's no way I can objectively say that it was an absolute must. Better? Hell, yes, but I could have gone on shooting either with what I had.
Same with sights; I like the Warrens on my .45 better than the originals, but I still have stock sights on the 9c and it shoots as well as I can shoot it once I had the rear drifted a tad. May change them over, may not.
If your slide sometimes closes on its own upon slamming a mag in, so long as it doesn't cause feed problems and you don't fall into the trap of thinking of it as a "feature" (it's NOT, it's a result of a certain combination of circumstances), then it's certainly difficult to objectively define it as a design flaw. Subjectively, it's damned easy.
Parts breaking before they're ideally supposed to are another thing entirely, a pretty distinct "must have." Given how popular the M&P series pistols have become (due to good design!), I don't think that the tales of such things are common enough to point to anything than the intermittent QC issues common to even the very best of mass-produced manufactured items.
I think that it boils down to the shooter remembering that -- just because they define something as a requirement as a shooter in no way indicates that it is the same as a requirement for a given platform to function in the way it was designed.
Last edited by JSantoro; 05-05-10 at 11:02.
Contractor scum, PM Infantry Weapons
Bookmarks