View Full Version : Considering the switch...Glock to M&P
I've had a Glock 19 since I turned 21 eight years ago. I've shot several thousand rounds through the guns (actually had 3 of them) and competed with them as well. I'm very confident with the Glock 19. I also have a factory threaded barrel and an AAC Evo9 for it. The things I wish I could change about the Glock are the grip hump and the trigger, it pinches my finger between the bottom of the trigger and the trigger guard.
At the range today I shot my buddy's M&P 9. It solved all of the issues of the Glock for me as well as having a softer recoil impulse and 2 additional rounds in the mag, but about the same overall size.
What would I be giving up to swap the Glock for an M&P? How is resale on silencers?
Robb Jensen
02-11-12, 16:21
S&W sells a M&P9 combo which has both a standard barrel and a threaded barrel (and a M&P45 like that too). Resale sucks on suppressors. All you may have to do is get a different booster for your current suppressor to use it on the M&P.
I've had a Glock 19 since I turned 21 eight years ago. I've shot several thousand rounds through the guns (actually had 3 of them) and competed with them as well. I'm very confident with the Glock 19. I also have a factory threaded barrel and an AAC Evo9 for it. The things I wish I could change about the Glock are the grip hump and the trigger, it pinches my finger between the bottom of the trigger and the trigger guard.
At the range today I shot my buddy's M&P 9. It solved all of the issues of the Glock for me as well as having a softer recoil impulse and 2 additional rounds in the mag, but about the same overall size.
What would I be giving up to swap the Glock for an M&P? How is resale on silencers?
You can get a grip reduction done to the Glock to remove that hump in the back, there are several shops that do it. M&P's are great guns, and I don't think you'd be giving up reliability or accuracy in switching, if you can shoot the M&P as well as you do the Glock.
Just my .02, I like the Glock trigger a little better, but of course YMMV. And as far as I know, resale on suppressors is terrible. Why wouldn't that one work with the M&P?
I've had a Glock 19 since I turned 21 eight years ago. I've shot several thousand rounds through the guns (actually had 3 of them) and competed with them as well. I'm very confident with the Glock 19. I also have a factory threaded barrel and an AAC Evo9 for it. The things I wish I could change about the Glock are the grip hump and the trigger, it pinches my finger between the bottom of the trigger and the trigger guard.
At the range today I shot my buddy's M&P 9. It solved all of the issues of the Glock for me as well as having a softer recoil impulse and 2 additional rounds in the mag, but about the same overall size.
What would I be giving up to swap the Glock for an M&P? How is resale on silencers?
As far as reliability is concerned they are the same in my opinion. M&P 9's have hit and miss accuracy issues beyond 15 yards in some. Its really a toss up if you end up with accuracy issues but it is very real problem. You should check out the thread about it. If that is not a concern then the only problem may be with the trigger of the M&P. Did your friend have an Apex DCAEK installed? The trigger on a new M&P can be very gritty and has a very weak reset. However Apex did help the situation tremendously but its something else you have to buy. The only other annoying aspect of the M&P is that within the first 100 rounds you might have the front sight's white paint fall out. This has happened to me and 7 of my friends regardless of model, however S&W will make things right. (A huge plus for the M&P is the outstanding customer service and warranty S&W has.)
Anyway it may sound like a painted a bad picture of the M&P, but honestly I still prefer M&P over Glocks but that is what works for me. I have no clue about resale value on silencers so can't help there.
I know the can would work with the M&P, but it's more of a novelty and I only paid the tax on it so I don't have anything in it. My thought was if I could sell the 19, Metacarpal holster, 6 mags, silenced, and factory threaded barrel and get pretty close to the price of two M&P's that would be nice...one for home, one for carry.
SW-Shooter
02-11-12, 18:57
At least read this first.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=52771
blasternank
02-12-12, 09:09
The great thing about guns is if you search for the one you want you can usually find a great price. Later if you don't care for it you can sell it and hopefully not lose any money. Go with the one that you like. It's no sin to have your g19 and an m&p or sell the g19 and get the m&p. If grip is an issue the new g4 has changeable back straps like the m&p.
What would I be giving up to swap the Glock for an M&P?
What would you really be gaining that a few minutes with a Dremel to fix the trigger guard won't solve? Does the hump actually affect your shooting? If you've got thousands of rounds through the platform by now it should be a non issue IMO, but that can be fixed too.
At least read this first.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=52771
The majority (if not ALL) of the issues listed in that thread were resolved last Summer (FYI).
C4
OP, we can work out some kind of trade for the pistol and mags (don't want the can or holster) for a new M&P if interested.
C4
Nephrology
02-12-12, 09:37
The majority (if not ALL) of the issues listed in that thread were resolved last Summer (FYI).
C4
Really?
http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=97829
I have a G27 w/NS and love the gun.
I'm also in the process of getting a M&P .40C with the frame Cerakoted OD & keep the slide black w/VTAC NS and a Competition AEK from APEX.
Can't wait to take it to the range and see how well it compares to the G27.
Really?
http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=97829
Yes, really. When I think of serious issues, they involve the gun just not being reliable.
The accuracy thing is hit and miss and since most people cannot shoot 8" groups at 25yds anyway, I wouldn't get to excited about it.
On top of that, Bar-Sto is going to have some semi-drop in barrels that will fix any accuracy issues.
C4
OP, we can work out some kind of trade for the pistol and mags (don't want the can or holster) for a new M&P if interested.
C4
Yeeeaaah, cause older proven G19's are quite desireable. OP - sure give the differant gun a go. Probably won't make a big night and day difference in results but it stimulates the gun economy. ;)
i love my m&p and i love my g19 so i dont know what to do other than get both
What would you really be gaining that a few minutes with a Dremel to fix the trigger guard won't solve? Does the hump actually affect your shooting? If you've got thousands of rounds through the platform by now it should be a non issue IMO, but that can be fixed too.
I didn't say I couldn't shoot it well. It's just not comfortable. I've scored a few 500's in the indoor GSSF Leauge matches, so that means I can shoot at least 8" groups offhand @ 25yds. That was all with my box stock 19. Not saying I'm a ninja or anything, but I've been fortunate enought to have some excellent pistol instruction.
So yes, I can do it with a Glock, but I don't enjoy it. It's the same as using a CAR stock on an M4. Does it get the job done? Sure, but my SOPMOD feels a whole lot better and allows me to shoot better because I'm more relaxed and comfortable.
Now, that being said, the 9mm accuracy issues in the M&P 9 are a bit concerning to me. I guess I could take a gamble and then send 'em back if they don't work. I just wonder how big the issue really is. I think it's harder to quantify than a failure issue, though, because far fewer people proportionally are able to shoot a pistol well enough to quantify the accuracy issues.
More thoughts?
I have and M&P 9L that shoots as well as any of my Glocks.
I ordered a threaded barrel from Storm Lake to run my can on my M&P.
More thoughts?
I'm just not really seeing a compelling reason to change platforms & trade off mags, holsters, reinvest in sights, ect to fix something that can be resolved relatively easily. I ditched my G19 and got an M&P9C because I convinced myself that I needed the ambi capability of the slide release... that I never use and is difficult to manipulate. So I sold off the Glock & lost a ton of money and I'm still getting the Smith set up comparably to how I had the Glock. In the end, it worked out I suppose. The M&P conceals a bit better than the G19, & I can get to the mag release a bit better and I have a viable way to use a laser but overall not much difference. I'm just hoping that you don't fall into the same self-created trap that I did.
ASH556--I love the M&P and am currently qualified on both M&P and Glock. However, in your case, I don't think I would change just yet. If you have proven, reliable G19's, I would NOT get rid of them; a good G19 is about the best overall handgun available, so why go away from a proven performer? There is a reason why so many seasoned professionals in top LE and military organizations choose the G19 over all other options. More importantly, it sounds like you have not fully reached the maximum potential in your shooting of the G19. There are numerous easy to perform modifications to relieve the trigger guard and eliminate the backstrap "hump" to make the pistols more comfortable for your hand. If you were shooting 500+ rounds per week and had gotten good instruction from some of the better trainers in the industry, had modified the pistols to your liking, and still had issues with the G19, then you might consider switching--but until you have reached that plateau, I'd stick with optimizing what you have. Finally, before considering switching, I'd pick up an M&P and shoot it for a year or so--at least 5000 rounds over 12 months, as well as a couple high intensity classes to ensure to will work for you. Don't be one of those fools who jump from pistol to pistol just for the sake of change, to be different, or trendy...learn to truly master the superb tools you already own.
Don't be one of those fools who jump from pistol to pistol just for the sake of change, to be different, or trendy...learn to truly master the superb tools you already own.
Superb advice, except that you're gonna single-handedly kill the gun business.
Okie John
Yes, really. When I think of serious issues, they involve the gun just not being reliable.
The accuracy thing is hit and miss and since most people cannot shoot 8" groups at 25yds anyway, I wouldn't get to excited about it.
On top of that, Bar-Sto is going to have some semi-drop in barrels that will fix any accuracy issues.
C4
Also don't forget that across a few forums there are really only 5-10 guys bitching about accuracy. The rest of the world is happy as can be.
Also don't forget that across a few forums there are really only 5-10 guys bitching about accuracy. The rest of the world is happy as can be.
Correct.
S&W has been winning lots of US and International contracts (large contracts like 20,000 guns). Accuracy have never been a problem on those contract bids.
C4
packinaglock
02-15-12, 19:16
i love my m&p and i love my g19 so i dont know what to do other than get both
It worked for me. :D
Superb advice, except that you're gonna single-handedly kill the gun business.
Okie John
I don't think the 3 people who will listen to him will have a substantive impact on the gun industry. :)
snackgunner
02-15-12, 22:41
On top of that, Bar-Sto is going to have some semi-drop in barrels that will fix any accuracy issues.
C4
I really hope you're right about that. Would truly be a great thing for the M&P.
im competely opposite of you, i have a mp9l, and i would trade it for a glock in a heartbeat. its accurate and reliable , but i physically cant get used to it. i think im hardwired for glocks since ive been shooting them for so long
Also don't forget that across a few forums there are really only 5-10 guys bitching about accuracy. The rest of the world is happy as can be.
Does it matter that many of the most accomplished and well respected shooters on these forums have also "bitched" about the accuracy issues of the M&P 9mm pistols? The fact that Apex is putting so much work into their Bar-Sto 9mm M&P barrels should be a clue to anyone doubting the claims of poor accuracy in the 9mm M&P's. If the accuracy of the M&P9 didnt need to be improved Randy Lee and Co. wouldnt be wasting their time.
To the OP....
In my opinion the 9mm M&P's are plagued with some issues which were a deal breaker for me. Keep in-mind that I carried the M&P9 as my duty and off-duty pistol for the last 3 years. All of the issues revolve around the barrel, locking block, and magazines in my opinion.
The barrel and locking block are what appears to be the weak link where the accuracy issues are concerned. From comments from Randy of Apex it appears that S&W used the wrong twist rate in their 9mm barrels. My observations have led meto believe that the accuracy gets worse as the round count increase due to increased wear on the locking block. The metal of the locking block must be softer that that used in their barrels. After only a few hundred rounds, the locking blocks on the 3 M&P9's that I owned looked like they had been beaten with a brick. The increased wear on the locking block can't be good for the lock-up of the barrel. Do I have scientific data to support my observation? Nope, but logic has to come into play at some point.
The magazines: I have had the rounds/follower get stuck half way up the magazine tube too many times to count. The mags needed to be disassembled to fix this.
"Auto-forward": This is something that is a fact of life with most polymer framed pistols and even some metal framed pistols as well. The specific issue I have found with the M&P9 (9mm) variants is that with every hollow point round I have loaded and fired thru my 3 M&P9's and numerous other M&P9's that I have access to have all choked on HP ammo. The nose of the HP rounds get hung-up at the bottom of the feed ramp. This is something I can replicate with every M&P9 I have ever handled. The most recent production M&P9 that I purchased which was a mid/2011 production pistol did something different when it "Auto-forward-ed". It would not pick-up a round from the magazine at all. The slide would go forward on an empty chamber. I tried to avoid the "auto-forward" as much as I could, but under stress during slide-lock reload drills it would eventually happen. With FMJ/Ball training ammo it would cycle/load just fine. Add HP/Duty ammo and you end up with a FTF.
I invested well over $2000 on the 9mm M&P platfrom due to the ergonomics of the platform (3x pistols/14 magazines/Holsters/Pouches/Apex DCAEK, etc.), but the Magazine/Auto-forward/FTF issue was the end of the line for me. If they ever correct these issues I would gladly give the 9mm M&P another try. Until then my 9mm Glocks run & shoot like they should.
If I were looking for a carry pistol in .40 or .45 the M&P would likely be my first choice. M&P in 9mm? Not so much.
ETA: As far as large municipality/Govt contract purchases of weapons are concerned, I have been a cop for 16 years and I work with and know hundreds of guys carrying guns purchased for them by their agencies. The overwhelming majority of them only shoot their pistols once a year to meet an annual qualification mandate. "Accuracy" for them is hitting an 8.5x14" sheet of paper @ 15 or 25yds max.
The auto forward was deal breaker for me also. As were a few other issues. I do like the ergos and the trigger break but I'm back to being firmly entrenched in glocks, after buying 3 M&P's.
To the poster who said most folks can't shoot into 8" at 25 yards so it doesn't matter ..... There are so many things in regards to this, so lets make it simple......If your pistol shoots 8" at 25 yds and you can only shoot say a 10" group...you now have a 18" variable spread ...
If you can still shoot a 10" group with a 1.5" gun...well you get the idea.
Why wouldn't you want an accurate gun?!
I want a gun that goes bang every time and puts the bullet where I send it.
Thanks to everyone for the thoughts and experiences. I've been curious about the M&P ever since it came out couple years ago. At that time, there simply wasn't enought market support for me to consider it a viable option, but that has changed. I'd especially like to thank Doc for taking the time to post, and Nick, I can appreciate your experiences as well.
The bottom line for me is that after shooting the M&P and my 19 side by side last Saturday, I see enough of a difference to make me want to give it a shot. I do appreciate Doc's position that the 19 can be modified to fit me, but that's more money into a gun to "see" if I like it, and that won't add anything to it's resale value (should that need arise, though my pistol is probably the last gun I would sell).
Monday night I ordered two M&P 9's from Grant and Tuesday morning I sold my 19. Did I mess up? Time will tell, but if so, it's not a ton of money difference to get back into the 19's if the M&P's don't work out. My local market is pretty hungry and there's no "good" local source. I sold my used 19 with box and 2 mags for $450 in 5 minutes flat on a local classifieds site and had 5 more offers in the next 5 minutes that it took me to mark the pistol as sold. A couple guys even offered me $500 for it if I would sell it to them instead. The point is, if I determine that the M&P is not for me, there are plenty of local guys that would be happy to take them off my hands.
Thanks again for all the input and experiences!
Unfortunately as far as this thread is concerned my experience with Glocks and M&P's is with both .45 models. I've owned both the G21 and the M&P 45 Mid. As is I greatly prefer my M&P 45 to the G21. It is very very accurate and the weapon fits my hand perfectly. I've probably put close to 2K rounds through it in the last year and the only hiccup was with Hornady steel cased ammunition. This was totally an ammo problem that was verified by others in the class I was taking experiencing the same problems when shooting it. I've thought about switching to the M&P 9 but the accuracy issue has deterred me from doing that. When I compare the two rounds, 9mm and 45ACP, the main drawback to the 45ACP is the cost. If I were to make the leap to 9mm then I'd probably still go with a M&P.
Phillygunguy
02-16-12, 08:44
Well im probably a big dumbass I bought an M&P 9 and 45 and glock 19 and glock 17 rtf2 I shoot the m&p 9 & glock19 the best I love both platforms but the magazine springs still suck on the M&P 45
sniperfrog
02-16-12, 11:02
I'll probably ditch my M&P9 as soon as I figure out what I want next. Wont be a Glock but I am thinking of a PPQ or HK P30.
My M&P40 with Storm Lake 9mm conversion barrel has had zero issues but my M&P9 has been frustrating.
Well, until I can outshoot mine, I'm sticking with the M&P 9 platform. There are sooo many good things about the M&P series IMO, that it's not worth changing just yet. I considered switching to .40 S&W version as 9mm accuracy issues seems to be only remaining issues with the line, but additional cost of ammo will easily pay for accuracy upgrades to M&P 9 within several cases. My M&P 9 has been 100% reliable since I purchased it, and I don't take care of my stuff that much. In fact, I'm kind of doing that intentionally to see how robust the handgun is. As I practice, I'm getting better and better at my shot placement so I know I don't outshoot the gun (and that's with a 100% stock gun), I've had no failures whatsoever with FMJ and JHP ammo, and I absolutely love the way the gun feels in my hand. YMMV.
Yes, really. When I think of serious issues, they involve the gun just not being reliable.
The accuracy thing is hit and miss and since most people cannot shoot 8" groups at 25yds anyway, I wouldn't get to excited about it.
On top of that, Bar-Sto is going to have some semi-drop in barrels that will fix any accuracy issues.
C4
Yes and Apex is developing a new locking block for the gun, but neither are available yet and, as I understand it, the first barrels won't be available until at least June and the locking block has no eta at this point. Is this not correct?
And I do understand that you can send it back to them until they fix it, but, in all honesty, that's kind of a pain in the a*s. I like the M&P .45, but, at this point,until bar-sto and Apex release their products, I think the 9mm is questionable. Better would be if Smith and Wesson would just take care of the problem themselves before the gun leaves the factory.
Also don't forget that across a few forums there are really only 5-10 guys bitching about accuracy. The rest of the world is happy as can be.
There's more than five or ten people having the problem. Some choose not voice it on the internet. Some choose to just put the gun in their safe or sell the gun. Not to mention the people that never practice beyond seven yards because they think every defense situation is going to be within that distance. Those people are not complaining because they have no idea whether or not the gun has accuracy issues at fifteen yards and beyond. They never shoot at that distance. And as Nickdrak said, some of the most respected shooters in the community are acknowledging the problem, so you can't just say it's five or ten people.
I'll probably ditch my M&P9 as soon as I figure out what I want next. Wont be a Glock but I am thinking of a PPQ or HK P30.
I JUST did the PPQ. The P30 looks and feels great, but for the cost... PPQ, they're so close and $350+ priced differently.
IMO, the biggest things keeping me from the M&P are the accuracy issues which I believe will be worked out sooner than later. And the fact that you NEED to go to apex and buy a trigger kit for a brand new gun. Why doesn't S&W just fix the trigger!?
I'll buy an M&P9 down the line, when at least one issue is fixed.
Jason Weekley
02-16-12, 15:31
There still tends to be an accuracy issue with the M&P9, groupings are unsatisfactory at 25 yards. Auto fowarding is still an issue as well. I have three M&P's, two 9's and one 45. the 45 accuracy is excellent at all distances although it auto fowards as well. All are 2011 preduction guns.
IMO 9mm Glocks and M&P 45's
There's more than five or ten people having the problem. Some choose not voice it on the internet. Some choose to just put the gun in their safe or sell the gun. Not to mention the people that never practice beyond seven yards because they think every defense situation is going to be within that distance. Those people are not complaining because they have no idea whether or not the gun has accuracy issues at fifteen yards and beyond. They never shoot at that distance. And as Nickdrak said, some of the most respected shooters in the community are acknowledging the problem, so you can't just say it's five or ten people.
One of those guys "bitching" :rolleyes: about the lacking accuracy of the M&P9 is Kyle Defoor.
Jason Weekley
02-16-12, 16:16
One of those guys "bitching" :rolleyes: about the lacking accuracy of the M&P9 is Kyle Defoor.
Chris Costa doesn't bitch about it but he does recognize the accuracy issue. All of his M&P's sport Storm Lake barrels begause of the accuracy problem.
Chris Costa doesn't bitch about it but he does recognize the accuracy issue. All of his M&P's sport Storm Lake barrels begause of the accuracy problem.
Except drop in barrels don't always fix it. If they have a smith fit one they would be selling like crazy.
Chris Costa doesn't bitch about it but he does recognize the accuracy issue. All of his M&P's sport Storm Lake barrels begause of the accuracy problem.
Just to clarify, I was being sarcastic with the "bitching" comment regarding Defoor.
I have a love-hate relationship with my M&P9.
I love the way it shoots and feels in my hand.
I hate the way it auto-forwards.
Loading magazines to 15 rounds it strips a round consistently (so far) even with the auto-load, but I aim to do slide-lock reloads and dropping rounds on the ground is annoying!
Anyway, I am picking up a gen 4 glock 19 and am going to run it through the paces. The 19 is a good compromise between a compact and a full size and can pull double duty as both a good combat handgun and a CC. It will be my first and only glock and I will be keeping the M&P with the hope that someone makes them slightly less easy to auto-load.
Grant made some noise in one of the "M&P issues" threads about having a slide stop that fixed the auto-forwarding. Maybe he can comment...
Grant made some noise in one of the "M&P issues" threads about having a slide stop that fixed the auto-forwarding. Maybe he can comment...
Yes I have made one that fixed it, but it was never adopted by S&W.
Some M&P's auto forward with ease. Some do not. One of the reasons why the guns do it is because of poor mag insertion. To quote Mr. Hackathorn, "Inserting a mag is a finesse drill."
I think his comments stems directly from all of his 1911 experience in that if you aggressively insert a mag into a 1911, you risk totally locking the gun up and screwing yourself. So typically, experienced 1911 shooters are the best at mag changes. Coming from this world, I rarely ever see my M&P auto forward.
On the flip side, there are TONS of people that love the fact that the M&P will auto forward and would flip out if they didn't do it any more.
C4
SpookyPistolero
02-17-12, 08:58
I've been an ass a lot, too, when it comes to picking a pistol. Started out with Glocks, learned to perform any and all maintenance on them (luckily a monkey with a rock could work on one). Shot them in IDPA a lot. Switched to the 1911 for all the reasons people do so. Scores/accuracy/'comfort' with the platform dropped. Went back to my G19/34. Tried a FN-X9, same as above. Went back to glocks. Tried the M&P9, couldn't shoot it worth a damn, and after selling it heard of the severe accuracy issues that some of them have (I am confident mine was one of them), went back to Glocks.
The point is, it's a moronic cycle to engage in. Break the cycle. Pick something, learn it, shoot the ****ing hell out of it. Don't judge it based on 'feel' when in your living room or a gunshop. Just shoot it.
Desire leads to attachment, and attachment to illusion.
Yes I have made one that fixed it, but it was never adopted by S&W.
Some M&P's auto forward with ease. Some do not. One of the reasons why the guns do it is because of poor mag insertion. To quote Mr. Hackathorn, "Inserting a mag is a finesse drill."
I think his comments stems directly from all of his 1911 experience in that if you aggressively insert a mag into a 1911, you risk totally locking the gun up and screwing yourself. So typically, experienced 1911 shooters are the best at mag changes. Coming from this world, I rarely ever see my M&P auto forward.
On the flip side, there are TONS of people that love the fact that the M&P will auto forward and would flip out if they didn't do it any more.
C4
Grant, would you consider producing/selling the slide stop as an aftermarket part?
Grant, would you consider producing/selling the slide stop as an aftermarket part?
Not currently.
C4
Some M&P's auto forward with ease. Some do not. One of the reasons why the guns do it is because of poor mag insertion. To quote Mr. Hackathorn, "Inserting a mag is a finesse drill."
He was the one who showed me how to reload the M&P properly as to avoid any issues with auto-forwarding.
To the op,
Are you still considering to sell the evo9?
To the op,
Are you still considering to sell the evo9?
Not for now. I sold the Glock barrel and piston (13.5x1LH) and already had a 1/2x28 piston that will match the M&P's so I think I'll keep it for now. However, feel free to make me an offer via PM if you're interested. You never know;)
If I may butt-in, slightly off-topic?
What is the diff in dimensions between M&P45 full- and M&P45 mid-size? This is within the context of conscealment and EDC.
I have a M&P40 full-size with about 6,000 rounds through it. Great gun, but I am thinly built and the M&P40 prints on my shirt.
So, I bought Glock19 gen4, it shoots well and it conceals better, but I prefer M&P ergonomics and also I would like a 45 for EDC.
I was considering the M&P45c, but I learned on this forum about the M&P45 mid-size, which might be a better option...
On the S&W website I see that they have 4.25" barrels (like mine). They also have 4" barrels, but the rest of the dimensions look the same. Barrel length is not the issue in my instance, the height of the grip and the mag is the issue.
I think his comments stems directly from all of his 1911 experience in that if you aggressively insert a mag into a 1911, you risk totally locking the gun up and screwing yourself. So typically, experienced 1911 shooters are the best at mag changes. Coming from this world, I rarely ever see my M&P auto forward.
I slowed down my magazine insert at the very last minute and stopped my M&P from auto forwarding. I will need more repetitions to make it subconcious.
If I may butt-in, slightly off-topic?
What is the diff in dimensions between M&P45 full- and M&P45 mid-size? This is within the context of conscealment and EDC.
I have a M&P40 full-size with about 6,000 rounds through it. Great gun, but I am thinly built and the M&P40 prints on my shirt.
So, I bought Glock19 gen4, it shoots well and it conceals better, but I prefer M&P ergonomics and also I would like a 45 for EDC.
I was considering the M&P45c, but I learned on this forum about the M&P45 mid-size, which might be a better option...
On the S&W website I see that they have 4.25" barrels (like mine). They also have 4" barrels, but the rest of the dimensions look the same. Barrel length is not the issue in my instance, the height of the grip and the mag is the issue.
I have a .45 mid..The only difference between it and the full sized pistol is about 1/2" They share the same frame, the mid has a 1/2" shorter barrel, (4")..that's it..
Thanks Ralph,
Does the mid-size 45 shoot any different to a full-size 45?
I have a .45 mid..The only difference between it and the full sized pistol is about 1/2" They share the same frame, the mid has a 1/2" shorter barrel, (4")..that's it..
Thanks Ralph,
Does the mid-size 45 shoot any different to a full-size 45?
That, I could'nt tell you, as I only have a .45 mid..And have'nt had a chance to try a full size pistol. From what I've read, there is no difference..That only makes sense, I can't see how a 1/2" or so of barrel legnth, could make any noticable difference..
Pivo, as Ralph noted, the M&P45 full-size and mid-size carry exactly the same, as the only difference is 0.5" of barrel length. The M&P45 compact is exactly the same slide and barrel as the mid-size, the only difference with the compact is the shorter grip that results in 2 less rds in the mag and a reduced "beavertail" tang on the frame--this does make it carry easier. Recoil feels essentially the same for me, I can't tell much difference between all 3 sizes of M&P45--all will serve you well. I am using the full size M&P45, mainly because when we went with it, there was no mid-size; if I was going to adopt a .45 ACP handgun right now, I'd likely go with the M&P45 mid-size w/ambi-safety and be done with it.
More importantly, as I have written previously, unless you have a strong compelling reason to go with .45 ACP, I'd stick with 9 mm. The nice aspects of .45 ACP are that it makes large holes, can be very accurate, and offers good penetration of some intermediate barriers. Unfortunately, magazine capacity is less than ideal, .45 ACP is more expensive to practice with, and in general is harder to shoot well compared with 9 mm. .45 ACP makes the most sense in states with idiotic 10 rd magazine restrictions, in departments that give you lots of free .45 ACP ammo, or in situations where modern expanding ammunition is restricted due to asinine, illogical regulations. For self-defense, CCW, and most urban LE duty, there are a lot of advantages in carrying a 9mm--easy to shoot one handed, relatively inexpensive to practice with, lots of bullets. When I injured my strong hand a few years ago and lost its use for several months, I found out how much more effective I was using a G19 weak handed compared to a 1911...
If you feel the M&P full size was a bit too large for you to comfortably CCW, you like the size of the G19, but prefer the ergonomics of the M&P, I strongly suggest you go with an M&P9c or perhaps M&P40c if you are issued free .40 ammo.
op, if you can get both and over time you'll gravitate towards one over the other.... that's what i did with the PPQ and the gen419--
the gen 4 19 stayed........
JerryDefense
02-19-12, 18:09
I have a full-size M&P 9mm I got from G and R Tactical with an Apex kit and single dot rear night sight and Ameri-Glo Orange front night site.
It has served me very well. I have shot several thousand rounds through it with on 3 malfunctions and 2 of them were on the same day.
I can do the Triple Threat Drill in under 10 seconds and I am consitantly in the top 10% of most training classes I have taken.
I carry mine 12-16 hours each and everyday and if you are getting it to carry everyday I say it is a great buy.
If you are wanting a 25 yard pistol save up and get a $3,000 custom 1911 but the reality is that if you as a CCW Permit holder are "defending" yourself at 25 yards and beyond you are really risking a lot in court.
Just my opinion but as others have said whatever one you choose train with it and train hard.
If you are wanting a 25 yard pistol save up and get a $3,000 custom 1911 but the reality is that if you as a CCW Permit holder are "defending" yourself at 25 yards and beyond you are really risking a lot in court.
Just my opinion but as others have said whatever one you choose train with it and train hard.
I disagree with that statement. Any service weapon from $400 - $4,000 should be able to hold 2.5" groups or better at 25 yards. In an active shooter situation or for a low probability shot, you may need better accuracy than some M&Ps can provide. If I didn't believe in the possibility of low probability occurances, I wouldn't carry in the first place.
I've put a lot of rounds through my M&P 9mms, neither one can hold 6" at 25 yards rested (2010 and 2011 vintage guns). That's simply not good enough. They will sit in my safe until a fix is available, and after shooting another make of pistol for the past 12K rounds or so, I may not go back.
You can make excuses for the accuracy issues of the M&P, but they're still excuses.
Tango Charlie145
02-19-12, 19:44
Pivo, as Ralph noted, the M&P45 full-size and mid-size carry exactly the same, as the only difference is 0.5" of barrel length. The M&P45 compact is exactly the same slide and barrel as the mid-size, the only difference with the compact is the shorter grip that results in 2 less rds in the mag and a reduced "beavertail" tang on the frame--this does make it carry easier. Recoil feels essentially the same for me, I can't tell much difference between all 3 sizes of M&P45--all will serve you well. I am using the full size M&P45, mainly because when we went with it, there was no mid-size; if I was going to adopt a .45 ACP handgun right now, I'd likely go with the M&P45 mid-size w/ambi-safety and be done with it.
More importantly, as I have written previously, unless you have a strong compelling reason to go with .45 ACP, I'd stick with 9 mm. The nice aspects of .45 ACP are that it makes large holes, can be very accurate, and offers good penetration of some intermediate barriers. Unfortunately, magazine capacity is less than ideal, .45 ACP is more expensive to practice with, and in general is harder to shoot well compared with 9 mm. .45 ACP makes the most sense in states with idiotic 10 rd magazine restrictions, in departments that give you lots of free .45 ACP ammo, or in situations where modern expanding ammunition is restricted due to asinine, illogical regulations. For self-defense, CCW, and most urban LE duty, there are a lot of advantages in carrying a 9mm--easy to shoot one handed, relatively inexpensive to practice with, lots of bullets. When I injured my strong hand a few years ago and lost its use for several months, I found out how much more effective I was using a G19 weak handed compared to a 1911...
If you feel the M&P full size was a bit too large for you to comfortably CCW, you like the size of the G19, but prefer the ergonomics of the M&P, I strongly suggest you go with an M&P9c or perhaps M&P40c if you are issued free .40 ammo.
Doc.
I really enjoy how you repost the same good information in ref to the "comparison matters" This sage advise should be followed and appreciated.
Strength and Honor and many thanks!
TC
RagweedZulu
02-19-12, 19:59
Pick something, learn it, shoot the ****ing hell out of it. Don't judge it based on 'feel' when in your living room or a gunshop. Just shoot it.
The above has been my mantra for years.
I love these guys...
"Ooo! This grip is comfy! I bet I'll shoot this one way better than my Glock!"
JerryDefense
02-19-12, 20:03
I disagree with that statement. Any service weapon from $400 - $4,000 should be able to hold 2.5" groups or better at 25 yards. In an active shooter situation or for a low probability shot, you may need better accuracy than some M&Ps can provide. If I didn't believe in the possibility of low probability occurances, I wouldn't carry in the first place.
I've put a lot of rounds through my M&P 9mms, neither one can hold 6" at 25 yards rested (2010 and 2011 vintage guns). That's simply not good enough. They will sit in my safe until a fix is available, and after shooting another make of pistol for the past 12K rounds or so, I may not go back.
You can make excuses for the accuracy issues of the M&P, but they're still excuses.
I would like to respectfully disagree with you. If you want a gun better suited for shooting at 25 yards and beyond with accuracy and effectiveness I have had great luck with the M&P 45ACP. The ones I have shot were tack drivers.
I would like to make one point.
If you are use your firearm as a CCW permit holder you have to fear for your own safety and that would be an incredibly tough sell if the aggressor is at 25 or more yards.
If you think you want to walk that path please, please, please take several classes from LAV and Ken Hackathorn. For anyone to take a 25 yard shot in a life and death situation and all that stress you better have some serious training!!
If you want to simulate this, a little bit, try this.
Go to the range next time and prep your pistol and set it down at the 25 yard line, sprint down to your target and touch it, sprint to your pistol, turn around and sprint to your target and then back to your pistol.
Finally pick up you pistol and fire 4 rounds in 8 seconds.
If you can keep it in a 6" group you are a rock star.
I am agree that we need to constantly stretch and challenge ourselves. I just don't believe it is wise to encourage people to think they should take 25 yard shots against an agressor unless they are in combat or very well trained LE.
I think what we end up with is injured by-standard.
I think that this would be an illusion just like watching someone moving and shooting and saying "that's not that tough" without ever doing it ourselves.
Each and everyone of us sucked the first time we tried it and shooting under significant stress will be no different.
So train, train train!!!!!
Just my opinion.
RagweedZulu
02-19-12, 20:11
I say go with a 1911.
:sarcastic::sarcastic:
Not changing the subject, but I guess I am.
Is there any advantage of upgrading the stock M&P barrel to a Storm Lake match SS barrel?
Thank you, good man!
Pivo, as Ralph noted, the M&P45 full-size and mid-size carry exactly the same, as the only difference is 0.5" of barrel length. The M&P45 compact is exactly the same slide and barrel as the mid-size, the only difference with the compact is the shorter grip that results in 2 less rds in the mag and a reduced "beavertail" tang on the frame--this does make it carry easier. Recoil feels essentially the same for me, I can't tell much difference between all 3 sizes of M&P45--all will serve you well. I am using the full size M&P45, mainly because when we went with it, there was no mid-size; if I was going to adopt a .45 ACP handgun right now, I'd likely go with the M&P45 mid-size w/ambi-safety and be done with it.
More importantly, as I have written previously, unless you have a strong compelling reason to go with .45 ACP, I'd stick with 9 mm. The nice aspects of .45 ACP are that it makes large holes, can be very accurate, and offers good penetration of some intermediate barriers. Unfortunately, magazine capacity is less than ideal, .45 ACP is more expensive to practice with, and in general is harder to shoot well compared with 9 mm. .45 ACP makes the most sense in states with idiotic 10 rd magazine restrictions, in departments that give you lots of free .45 ACP ammo, or in situations where modern expanding ammunition is restricted due to asinine, illogical regulations. For self-defense, CCW, and most urban LE duty, there are a lot of advantages in carrying a 9mm--easy to shoot one handed, relatively inexpensive to practice with, lots of bullets. When I injured my strong hand a few years ago and lost its use for several months, I found out how much more effective I was using a G19 weak handed compared to a 1911...
If you feel the M&P full size was a bit too large for you to comfortably CCW, you like the size of the G19, but prefer the ergonomics of the M&P, I strongly suggest you go with an M&P9c or perhaps M&P40c if you are issued free .40 ammo.
I would like to respectfully disagree with you. If you want a gun better suited for shooting at 25 yards and beyond with accuracy and effectiveness I have had great luck with the M&P 45ACP. The ones I have shot were tack drivers.
I would like to make one point.
If you are use your firearm as a CCW permit holder you have to fear for your own safety and that would be an incredibly tough sell if the aggressor is at 25 or more yards.
If you think you want to walk that path please, please, please take several classes from LAV and Ken Hackathorn. For anyone to take a 25 yard shot in a life and death situation and all that stress you better have some serious training!!
If you want to simulate this, a little bit, try this.
Go to the range next time and prep your pistol and set it down at the 25 yard line, sprint down to your target and touch it, sprint to your pistol, turn around and sprint to your target and then back to your pistol.
Finally pick up you pistol and fire 4 rounds in 8 seconds.
If you can keep it in a 6" group you are a rock star.
I am agree that we need to constantly stretch and challenge ourselves. I just don't believe it is wise to encourage people to think they should take 25 yard shots against an agressor unless they are in combat or very well trained LE.
I think what we end up with is injured by-standard.
I think that this would be an illusion just like watching someone moving and shooting and saying "that's not that tough" without ever doing it ourselves.
Each and everyone of us sucked the first time we tried it and shooting under significant stress will be no different.
So train, train train!!!!!
Just my opinion.
I guess my department is full of rockstars then. Part of our quarterly qualification course is similar to your "test." We do that part after we have already sprinted 100 yards and fired 30 rounds.
As far as the justification of a 25 yard shot by anyone other than a superhuman, I tend to disagree. If someone is threatening you with a firearm from 25 yards or further, is that not deadly force? Can their bullet not cover that distance in a fraction of a second and take you out? As someone that knows much more about this than me once said, "you need to solve your problem before it solves you." I would much rather stop the threat by any means available, than stand there and say oh well, he looks too far away I guess I can't do anything about the lethal threat.
As far as switching to the M&P, I am considering that myself. I use 9mm and .40 S&W Glocks, and would like the M&P 9 for training purposes. However, I won't be purchasing any M&Ps until this accuracy issue is taken care of. I tried a M&P 40 a couple of years ago, and had the same issues that people seem to still have with the current ones. The M&P 40 that I had would not shoot any better than 7-8" at 25 yards, as well as hitting about 8-10" high (with a taller front sight installed). I am not willing to spin the wheel and hope that I get one of the few accurate M&Ps out there. Until I hear of more consistent accuracy from the M&P 9/40 line, I will stick with my Glocks.
I disagree with that statement. Any service weapon from $400 - $4,000 should be able to hold 2.5" groups or better at 25 yards. In an active shooter situation or for a low probability shot, you may need better accuracy than some M&Ps can provide. If I didn't believe in the possibility of low probability occurances, I wouldn't carry in the first place.
I've put a lot of rounds through my M&P 9mms, neither one can hold 6" at 25 yards rested (2010 and 2011 vintage guns). That's simply not good enough. They will sit in my safe until a fix is available, and after shooting another make of pistol for the past 12K rounds or so, I may not go back.
You can make excuses for the accuracy issues of the M&P, but they're still excuses.
First, lets talk about gun fighting distances. Most of them are inside of 10 feet.
Second, no $400-$600 svc grade pistol (specifically a polymer type weapon) is TYPICALLY going to shoot 2.5" groups at 25yds. Yes there are examples of ones that will do it, but they are not all that common.
Believe it or not, a polymer pistol shooting around 5" groups is 100% acceptable for LE and Mil use.
C4
Not changing the subject, but I guess I am.
Is there any advantage of upgrading the stock M&P barrel to a Storm Lake match SS barrel?
Not IMHO.
C4
MikeCLeonard
02-20-12, 11:52
Second, no $400-$600 svc grade pistol (specifically a polymer type weapon) is TYPICALLY going to shoot 2.5" groups at 25yds. Yes there are examples of ones that will do it, but they are not all that common.
Believe it or not, a polymer pistol shooting around 5" groups is 100% acceptable for LE and Mil use.
Grant,
From your experience, could you say what types of groups are typical at 25 yards from Glock 9mm's?
Granted, they are outside the $400-$600 range...but what about Hk's 9mms? (P30, USP, P2000)?
if I was going to adopt a .45 ACP handgun right now, I'd likely go with the M&P45 mid-size w/ambi-safety and be done with it.
I have exactly that. An M&P 45 mid-size w/ ambi-saftey. I like it quite a bit actually. It's a ton smaller in my hand than any FN, Glock, HK, or other polymer 45 I got a chance to fondle. I can hit gongs at 100y with it. Only complaint is the sights are a little low for suppressor use.
On that note and only slightly off topic. Threading a midsize barrel for .578 threads is VERY difficult to fit in the midsize/compact slide. The slide being .5" shorter makes the longer threaded barrel very difficult to fit in. The angle of "approach" of installing the barrel into the slide is too steep. My machinist had to remove a little from the threads (go shorter than spec) to make it fit. PITA really. I really don't think you'll ever see a factory threaded midsize or compact 45.
Also in case this reaches anyone interested, because the threads were shorted a tiny bit, I had to remove a little material off the protuding portion of the guide rod. Not much, and probably not enough to cause any issues, but it had to be done. Another solution would have been to get a longer Silencerco piston to stick the can out a little more, would have been a custom order.
I've had my M&P9 full size for just at a year now. I, by far, shoot this gun 120% better than any gun I've owned before it. I use it for USPSA, 3gun and Carry, and with just under 3500 rds down the pipe as of last weekend, I can say I've had 0 issues with it. By switching from an Glock 17 and 34 to this M&P, I went from a D class shooter in USPSA to a high B.
Some M&P's auto forward with ease. Some do not. One of the reasons why the guns do it is because of poor mag insertion. To quote Mr. Hackathorn, "Inserting a mag is a finesse drill."
C4
You have mentioned this before. I practiced it a bit and the auto-forwarding was less of an issue, but the idea of finessing a magazine into a magwell doesn't sit right with me. When I load a magazine I am looking to do two things: load as quickly as possible and using enough force to ensure the magazine fully seated. It seems that dancing around a fine line of too much force (autoload) and too little force (mag not fully seating) could be problematic.
I shot 1911s for several years before switching to the M&P and never had a problem with loading with too much force. When I did have problems it was because i did not use enough force and the magazine didn't seat properly. Maybe this is because my 1911s are Wilson Combat, maybe not. The same goes for my carbines. I insert the magazine with enough force to ensure it seats properly. Having a magazine fall from your magwell at a class may be embarrassing, but having a mag fall from your magwell in a real life scenario could be deadly.
When it comes to my M&P I find myself having to find a line that I do not fully trust I could find while under life or death stress. Oh crap, I inserted the mag too hard and it auto-forwarded without chambering a round. Oh crap, I didn't insert the magazine hard enough and it didn't fully seat. Oh, wait, I got it just right. Ok, now I can shoot this perp. That just doesn't sit well with me.
I wonder what Mr. Hackathorn would say about finessing under stress? The same thing my karate instructor would say? Ten thousand repetitions and I'll do it just fine?
Ugh. Maybe I should stick to steel framed handguns.
Gutshot John
02-20-12, 15:38
People invariably overthink things like autoforwarding. Usually its either the result of poor thumb placement or a hard insert of the mag. The former can be a problem, the latter usually not.
When autoforwarding results in a misfeed its invariably in my experience caused by the thumb on the slide release. This is resolved by training and practice.
If its caused by the magazine slamming home it would almost certainly have to be caused by the mag bottoming out in the well and therefore, since its fully seated before the slide goes home, it invariably feeds properly.
Either way I think you're better served by doing what you do, soft insert then hard, and if it autoforwards then just aim and pull. Don't try to modify your insertion technique by trying to finesse it. If it doesn't go bang than resort to remedial action which you'd do anyways.
Grant,
From your experience, could you say what types of groups are typical at 25 yards from Glock 9mm's?
Granted, they are outside the $400-$600 range...but what about Hk's 9mms? (P30, USP, P2000)?
I have a GEN 2 G19 I carry a lot. It shoots 3-4" 10rd groups. This seems to be pretty common IMHO.
The HK's typically shoot 2-2.5 from what I have seen.
My Walther PPQ shoots 2.5-3" groups.
C4
You have mentioned this before. I practiced it a bit and the auto-forwarding was less of an issue, but the idea of finessing a magazine into a magwell doesn't sit right with me. When I load a magazine I am looking to do two things: load as quickly as possible and using enough force to ensure the magazine fully seated. It seems that dancing around a fine line of too much force (autoload) and too little force (mag not fully seating) could be problematic.
I shot 1911s for several years before switching to the M&P and never had a problem with loading with too much force. When I did have problems it was because i did not use enough force and the magazine didn't seat properly. Maybe this is because my 1911s are Wilson Combat, maybe not. The same goes for my carbines. I insert the magazine with enough force to ensure it seats properly. Having a magazine fall from your magwell at a class may be embarrassing, but having a mag fall from your magwell in a real life scenario could be deadly.
On a 1911, you can over insert a mag and trap it. Did you have a speed chute on your 1911?
You can create a double feed on AR as well by slamming the mag to hard. Proper technique is use the push/pull method to ensure it is locked.
When it comes to my M&P I find myself having to find a line that I do not fully trust I could find while under life or death stress. Oh crap, I inserted the mag too hard and it auto-forwarded without chambering a round. Oh crap, I didn't insert the magazine hard enough and it didn't fully seat. Oh, wait, I got it just right. Ok, now I can shoot this perp. That just doesn't sit well with me.
That is entirely on you and your ability and what you are comfortable with. To take a reality check for a minute, most all CCW conflicts are over with just two shots fired (no reload needed). With that said, it is a technique and practice thing. I am constantly amazed at the number of people that are either gripping the mag wrong, holding the gun too low or striking the frame as they insert the weapon.
I wonder what Mr. Hackathorn would say about finessing under stress? The same thing my karate instructor would say? Ten thousand repetitions and I'll do it just fine?
Ugh. Maybe I should stick to steel framed handguns.
You have to be careful about not reading into Mr. Hackathorn's comment and understanding the basis for his comments. Sticking a rectangle based object into a rectangular hole with enough force to lock it in, BUT not so much as to cause the weapon to malfunction is a test of one’s dexterity (under stress). Some have better hand eye coordination than others, but it is something you can practice (for free) in the comfort of your home.
C4
First, lets talk about gun fighting distances. Most of them are inside of 10 feet.
Second, no $400-$600 svc grade pistol (specifically a polymer type weapon) is TYPICALLY going to shoot 2.5" groups at 25yds. Yes there are examples of ones that will do it, but they are not all that common.
Believe it or not, a polymer pistol shooting around 5" groups is 100% acceptable for LE and Mil use.
C4
I believe on the order of ~20% of handgun shootings occur at distances >30 ft. So, yes, the probability of needing 2.5" or better at 25 yards is low. However, so is the probability of ever needing to fire a shot at any distance for that matter.
Still, a gun that is mechanically capable of 5" @ 25 yards is very unforgiving of making hits at 25 yards under stress. Your hold has to be perfect to achieve that 5". Given the maxim that group size doubles under stress, you're more likely to end up with 10" groups @ 25 yards, and given a moving target utilizing cover, 10" @ 25 yards or even 5" @ 12.5 yards may not be good enough to end the fight.
And on top of that, shelling out hundreds of $ for training to be held back by your equipment isn't fun. Many trainers use 25 yard group shooting at distance to diagnose errors. The feedback a 5" gun is giving isn't constructive to the shooter.
I suppose I should consider myself luck in that my polymer framed sample(s) of one, two G4 G17s, will print 2.5" at 25 yards for 10 rd groups. I also owned a PPQ I sold recently that would do the same. Ammo plays a big part, I find the Glocks accuracy potential to be load specific.
I love a lot of things about my M&Ps. My reloads and splits have never been quicker, but the accuracy issue needs fixed before I'll pick them up again. At which point, if I wasn't already heavily invested in the platform, I wouldn't consider them due to cost vs. the competition to achieve comparable results.
On a 1911, you can over insert a mag and trap it. Did you have a speed chute on your 1911?
You can create a double feed on AR as well by slamming the mag to hard. Proper technique is use the push/pull method to ensure it is locked.
C4
My full size 1911 has a speed-chute and my 4" has none. I actually prefer no speed chute. I can load either just as quick.
I do not CCW (for many reasons) so any scenario I envision is SHTF.
I believe on the order of ~20% of handgun shootings occur at distances >30 ft. So, yes, the probability of needing 2.5" or better at 25 yards is low. However, so is the probability of ever needing to fire a shot at any distance for that matter.
Still, a gun that is mechanically capable of 5" @ 25 yards is very unforgiving of making hits at 25 yards under stress. Your hold has to be perfect to achieve that 5". Given the maxim that group size doubles under stress, you're more likely to end up with 10" groups @ 25 yards, and given a moving target utilizing cover, 10" @ 25 yards or even 5" @ 12.5 yards may not be good enough to end the fight.
And on top of that, shelling out hundreds of $ for training to be held back by your equipment isn't fun. Many trainers use 25 yard group shooting at distance to diagnose errors. The feedback a 5" gun is giving isn't constructive to the shooter.
I suppose I should consider myself luck in that my polymer framed sample(s) of one, two G4 G17s, will print 2.5" at 25 yards for 10 rd groups. I also owned a PPQ I sold recently that would do the same. Ammo plays a big part, I find the Glocks accuracy potential to be load specific.
I love a lot of things about my M&Ps. My reloads and splits have never been quicker, but the accuracy issue needs fixed before I'll pick them up again. At which point, if I wasn't already heavily invested in the platform, I wouldn't consider them due to cost vs. the competition to achieve comparable results.
5" groups at 25yds is 100% acceptable for a combat pistol. Whether or not that is acceptable is a different thing.
C4
My full size 1911 has a speed-chute and my 4" has none. I actually prefer no speed chute. I can load either just as quick.
I do not CCW (for many reasons) so any scenario I envision is SHTF.
The reason I asked about the speed chute is because they generally protect against over mag insertion.
C4
crusader377
02-20-12, 22:17
I've had my M&P9 full size for just at a year now. I, by far, shoot this gun 120% better than any gun I've owned before it. I use it for USPSA, 3gun and Carry, and with just under 3500 rds down the pipe as of last weekend, I can say I've had 0 issues with it. By switching from an Glock 17 and 34 to this M&P, I went from a D class shooter in USPSA to a high B.
+1 on this. I bought a M&P 9 based on the recommendations from fellow forum members and the M&P's real world accuracy matches anything else that I have shot. The combination of good mechanical accuracy, easy to acquire sights, and low recoil makes the M&P a very tough pistol to beat using it at speed or in real world situations IMO.
JerryDefense
02-21-12, 08:42
I guess my department is full of rockstars then. Part of our quarterly qualification course is similar to your "test." We do that part after we have already sprinted 100 yards and fired 30 rounds.
As far as the justification of a 25 yard shot by anyone other than a superhuman, I tend to disagree. If someone is threatening you with a firearm from 25 yards or further, is that not deadly force? Can their bullet not cover that distance in a fraction of a second and take you out? As someone that knows much more about this than me once said, "you need to solve your problem before it solves you." I would much rather stop the threat by any means available, than stand there and say oh well, he looks too far away I guess I can't do anything about the lethal threat.
Based upon your statement above I would agree that you are a part of an elite group of men and I am so thankful you take your calling to "Serve and Protect" so seriously, it is rare.
My statement is for the "average guy" who has his CCW and has had little if any formal training from someone like LAV or Hackathorn. I have contact with a lot of people who have their CCW and think they are now ready to save the world but have never attempted to move and shoot let alone barricade or room clearing training and that scares me to death.
I shot with one of these naive people about 2 weeks ago and even with his laser, which fixes everything - not, he could not accurately hit a target at 10 yards.
Once again thank you for your service and and I hope you passion to train and be the best you can possibly be rubs off on neighboring departments.
TacticalSledgehammer
02-21-12, 11:07
This is kinda late now since the OP already made his decision, but I'd recommend looking at Lone Wolf's frames for glock for anyone else in this position. It would be a good option to consider if you loved your glock but hated the frame.
First, lets talk about gun fighting distances. Most of them are inside of 10 feet.
Second, no $400-$600 svc grade pistol (specifically a polymer type weapon) is TYPICALLY going to shoot 2.5" groups at 25yds. Yes there are examples of ones that will do it, but they are not all that common.
Believe it or not, a polymer pistol shooting around 5" groups is 100% acceptable for LE and Mil use.
C4
Averages don't necessarily equal reality on the street.
Using a LE/Mil handgun accuracy standard of 5" @ 25yd is not something I would ever rely on. Our (LE) firearms training has always been geared towards the lowest common denominator, as is the vast majority of Mil pistol training. It certainly is not something to aspire to.
The vast majority of street cops are satisfied with a 70% passing score during their annual qualifications. That is beyond unacceptable in my opinion.
Several years ago I bought one of the early M&P 9Cs. You know, the ones that were supposed to be so many problems. I had one FTF in the first couple magazines. Then I fired about 8000 rounds trouble free. I let a guy on the range shoot it and he accidentally bumped the bag release a couple times unseating the magazine so I contact Smith as the later models had a stiffer mag release spring and a better mag catch. They quickly sent me a return package. I sent it in and got it back within a week with a new mag release spring, new mag release, and a new recoil spring. I've fired about 2000 more rounds through it since with no issues. It still has the original magazine springs, which I should probably change.
Remember if you start a thread online about having trouble with anything you'll get a bunch of responses. There are a lot of thread like that about Glocks too. Both are great weapons.
Nephrology
02-21-12, 16:28
First, lets talk about gun fighting distances. Most of them are inside of 10 feet.
Second, no $400-$600 svc grade pistol (specifically a polymer type weapon) is TYPICALLY going to shoot 2.5" groups at 25yds. Yes there are examples of ones that will do it, but they are not all that common.
Believe it or not, a polymer pistol shooting around 5" groups is 100% acceptable for LE and Mil use.
C4
That is roughly twice what Larry Vickers considers to be the minimum standards for mechanical accuracy.
http://vickerstactical.com/tactical-tips/accuracy/
Another question I get frequently asked is what is the acceptable mechanical or intrinsic accuracy for a service pistol or carbine. Meaning what should the weapon/ammo combination be capable of producing from a shooting device or rest that eliminates shooter error. Keep in mind I come from a surgical accuracy oriented special operations background with little margin for error. Based on this and years of experience I have concluded that a service pistol should be capable of head shots at 25 yds and a service carbine should be capable of the same at 100 yds – basically 5 inch groups. However there is a catch; I have found that under conditions of stress a shooter will only be able to shoot to within roughly 50 % of the accuracy potential of a given weapon. And that is only for the best shooters; the majority will not even be close to that. That means in order to achieve my standard of head shots (5 inch groups) at a given distance the weapon/ammo combination needs to be capable of at least 2.5 inch groups. I personally measure that accuracy standard with 10 shot groups. Many quality service pistols and carbines with good ammo will achieve this but there are many other factors involved such as sights and trigger pull characteristics. By these criteria it is not hard to see why a tuned 1911 pistol is so popular in selected spec ops units. Keep in mind that any effort to make a weapon more accurate almost always means tightening tolerances which can lead to a less than acceptable reliability standard for a combat weapon. A balance between accuracy and reliability has to be achieved. Surprisingly there are many pistols and carbines that do a good job offering an acceptable blend of both. In addition weapons of this type will require a higher degree of end user maintenance to keep them running. Don’t expect a pistol to shoot like a custom 1911 but be as forgiving about maintenance as a Glock 17; it just doesn’t happen that way.
Gutshot John
02-21-12, 16:55
Lots of stuff being thrown out in this thread with very few terms/conditions being defined.
Mechanical accuracy in the shooting context means eliminating the shooter as a variable. I.E. if you locked the gun into a ransom rest.
Are we talking 2.5" groups from a bench and on a rest? Or 2.5" groups standing with two-hands?
The former is possible, the latter is unlikely. Some people can do it, but it is not a "standard" to which people should aspire and I think that was all Grant was trying to say.
In machining terms, mechanical accuracy is expensive, repeatability/predictability is not.
That is roughly twice what Larry Vickers considers to be the minimum standards for mechanical accuracy.
http://vickerstactical.com/tactical-tips/accuracy/
Yes. His standards are WAAAAAAY above what the MAJORITY of LE, Mil and Civy's can do with a pistol.
If LE (quals) and Civys (CCW) followed this standard, 98% of cops would not be allowed to carry a pistol and 95% of civy's wouldn't get a CCW.
C4
Averages don't necessarily equal reality on the street.
Using a LE/Mil handgun accuracy standard of 5" @ 25yd is not something I would ever rely on. Our (LE) firearms training has always been geared towards the lowest common denominator, as is the vast majority of Mil pistol training. It certainly is not something to aspire to.
The vast majority of street cops are satisfied with a 70% passing score during their annual qualifications. That is beyond unacceptable in my opinion.
Agree, but again, this is you (personally) and your standards.
As you know, the majority of LE CANNOT shoot 5" groups at 25yds (10rd groups).
C4
Lots of stuff being thrown out in this thread with very few terms/conditions being defined.
Mechanical accuracy in the shooting context means eliminating the shooter as a variable. I.E. if you locked the gun into a ransom rest.
Are we talking 2.5" groups from a bench and on a rest? Or 2.5" groups standing with two-hands?
The former is possible, the latter is unlikely. Some people can do it, but it is not a "standard" to which people should aspire and I think that was all Grant was trying to say.
In machining terms, mechanical accuracy is expensive, repeatability/predictability is not.
Correct and thanks for the assist.
All LE shoot LARGE targets (where 10" groups 50ft is acceptable)when qualifying. This IS the accepted standard (or worse in some states/organizations). :(
C4
Lots of stuff being thrown out in this thread with very few terms/conditions being defined.
Mechanical accuracy in the shooting context means eliminating the shooter as a variable. I.E. if you locked the gun into a ransom rest.
Are we talking 2.5" groups from a bench and on a rest? Or 2.5" groups standing with two-hands?
The former is possible, the latter is unlikely. Some people can do it, but it is not a "standard" to which people should aspire and I think that was all Grant was trying to say.
In machining terms, mechanical accuracy is expensive, repeatability/predictability is not.
We're talking 2.5, two handed standing at 25 yards. Maybe most can't do it, but I'm curious to know why you think people shouldn't aspire to it? How do you know if you can do it or not unless you train for it and keep trying?
To the OP:
Here is my reflection on owning a newly manufactured (Dec. 2011) and all-improved 9 mm FS MP:
-accepted an FFL transfer 01.26.2012. Shot gun for groups and couldn't keep all 10 rounds on 8x11" sheet of paper, let alone bullseye, at 25 yards. Few days before it I shot a 3 inch group with my HK, same ammo.
- brought it home, and on initial takedown, a sear deactivation lever fell out. Not an MP guru, but by all accounts, this is only possible if there was no pin installed at all.
- sent to S&W, received back 02.18.2012 with new barrel and annotation "pins replaced". Took it to the range. The accuracy is better, good news. The gun ejects spent casings right in my face, not so good news.
My not so humble opinion, 9 mm MP is POS. The gun has a systematic accuracy problem affecting large number of pistols. The whole under-15-yards thing is OK is a cop-out. Not only it doesn't satisfy requirements of advanced shooters, it would be counterproductive to those who aspire to become advanced. Falling out lever shows lack of any decent quality control. Correction of one problem at a cost of introducing another is plain frustrating.
I am going to shoot my MP one more time, for diagnostic purposes in regards to ejection issues, but, unless ejection mysteriously goes back to normal, I'll be demanding a refund from S&W.
This is a long way of saying that there is no way I would go from proven-reliable Glock to this abortion of a cost-cutting manufacturing.
Gutshot John
02-21-12, 20:49
We're talking 2.5, two handed standing at 25 yards. Maybe most can't do it, but I'm curious to know why you think people shouldn't aspire to it? How do you know if you can do it or not unless you train for it and keep trying?
Hey if that's a standard that you want to hold yourself to...go for it. I see zero downside, that said it's going to be an exercise in slow-fire/bullseye shooting, it's not combat shooting. I think however there are better ways to spend limited training time and ammo dollars than trying to shoot 2.5" groups because you think it somehow makes you a death-dealer per LAV. If you're fully capable of shooting 5" groups at 25 yards, focus on other things: reloads, malfunctions, off-hand etc.
The notion that the M&P 9mm is a POS is overdone. Both my M&P 9mm is capable of shooting cloverleafs from the bench/rest at 25 yards. I'm far more accurate with it than my Glocks. Some guns are probably lemons but my money is that most of the accuracy bitches are shooter related.
Hey if that's a standard that you want to hold yourself to...go for it. I see zero downside, that said it's going to be an exercise in slow-fire/bullseye shooting, it's not combat shooting. I think however there are better ways to spend limited training time and ammo dollars than trying to shoot 2.5" groups because you think it somehow makes you a death-dealer per LAV. If you're fully capable of shooting 5" groups at 25 yards, focus on other things: reloads, malfunctions, off-hand etc.
The notion that the M&P 9mm is a POS is overdone. Both my M&P 9mm is capable of shooting cloverleafs from the bench/rest at 25 yards. I'm far more accurate with it than my Glocks. Some guns are probably lemons but my money is that most of the accuracy bitches are shooter related.
Appreciate the reply. And no, death dealer is a completely different thing, though I do like Underworld. I do think it's a standard to aspire to. I understand about training different drills, time etc, but, for me, accuracy drills are drills as well. All are important and all require time. It's a question of breaking up the training schedule to accommodate. But yes, I do try to set my goals extremely high.
I don't think the M&P 9mm is junk; however, I do think that some very reputable shooters have called the gun's accuracy into question. I understand that you have two good ones and that's great, but some do not. Some that can shoot pretty well are having problems with the pistol. As I said before, I think they're questionable right now. Not your pistols, but the M&P 9 in general. And in all fairness I doubt it would bother me as much if there was a fix for it, which there isn't right now. The trigger is fixable. Apex made that possible, but if you have an accuracy problem, there's no way to fix it until Bar-sto finishes the match grade barrel and gets it into production. If I owned one that couldn't shoot anything smaller than an 8"group beyond 15 yards, I would be very frustrated, so I can understand how others are.
Gutshot John
02-22-12, 00:12
When I hear people read about 2.5" groups at 25 yards as the accuracy standard on the internet, and then find that they cannot meet that standard, they blame the gun and not themselves. Do I buy into the hype when this assessment is parroted far and wide on the internet? Nope.
I think when you talk about reputable shooters, who have lots of time behind a gun, call into question the accuracy of a gun. That's one thing. Have they tested an adequate sample of all guns available? Maybe not but I still respect their opinion. The only thing I've heard from these reputable shooters is that some guns have problems, but by and large most guns provide more than adequate accuracy.
Until that gets quantified in any meaningful way what am I supposed to trust other than my own experience?
While I agree that individual guns might have problems, I don't think that this is representative of most of the guns on the market.
My experience with the gun is that the accuracy is at least as good and superior to the Glocks I own. Should I doubt my lying eyes? I currently have two M&P 9mms, but I've owned several more. I wouldn't hesitate to buy another, in fact I'm in the market for another.
As for Apex, I don't doubt that it has some benefit for some. I put one on one of my guns but only realized a marginal improvement. Another M&P has a stock trigger that is far superior to the Apex.
G34Shooter
02-22-12, 10:36
We're talking 2.5, two handed standing at 25 yards. Maybe most can't do it, but I'm curious to know why you think people shouldn't aspire to it? How do you know if you can do it or not unless you train for it and keep trying?
No the 2.5" and under standard is the mechanical accuracy of the handgun plus ammo.
I like Vickers thoughts on accuracy:
http://vickerstactical.com/tactical-tips/accuracy/
Another question I get frequently asked is what is the acceptable mechanical or intrinsic accuracy for a service pistol or carbine. Meaning what should the weapon/ammo combination be capable of producing from a shooting device or rest that eliminates shooter error. Keep in mind I come from a surgical accuracy oriented special operations background with little margin for error. Based on this and years of experience I have concluded that a service pistol should be capable of head shots at 25 yds and a service carbine should be capable of the same at 100 yds – basically 5 inch groups. However there is a catch; I have found that under conditions of stress a shooter will only be able to shoot to within roughly 50 % of the accuracy potential of a given weapon. And that is only for the best shooters; the majority will not even be close to that. That means in order to achieve my standard of head shots (5 inch groups) at a given distance the weapon/ammo combination needs to be capable of at least 2.5 inch groups. I personally measure that accuracy standard with 10 shot groups. Many quality service pistols and carbines with good ammo will achieve this but there are many other factors involved such as sights and trigger pull characteristics. By these criteria it is not hard to see why a tuned 1911 pistol is so popular in selected spec ops units. Keep in mind that any effort to make a weapon more accurate almost always means tightening tolerances which can lead to a less than acceptable reliability standard for a combat weapon. A balance between accuracy and reliability has to be achieved. Surprisingly there are many pistols and carbines that do a good job offering an acceptable blend of both. In addition weapons of this type will require a higher degree of end user maintenance to keep them running. Don’t expect a pistol to shoot like a custom 1911 but be as forgiving about maintenance as a Glock 17; it just doesn’t happen that way
My perspective on the gear ferris wheel:
Although I am too late for the OP, I would suggest not changing guns. I have spent 20 years and 20 grand chasing the perfect system, the perfect caliber... . I have ended up right where I started, with 4 glock 19s.
I bought the M&P 9mm and 20 mags from Botach - (they actually shipped them). The gun would not produce the accuracy that I had become accustomed to from my Glocks. I put an Apex DCAK and RAM in. Made a huge difference to the handling of the pistol but did not improve accuracy much. It comes down to money. TO get the gun to be what I wanted, I was going to have to get an aftermarket barrel and the apex parts. Call it 400 bucks worth of mods to get a ergonomically enhanced G19. COnversely, I could get a G19 and just have the grip reduced, and call it good. I'm a Glock armorer so that played into the decision somewhat, but at the end of the day, the numbers just didn't add up. Back to G19s I went. I also promised myself not to get back on the ferris wheel... and this time I mean it.
We're talking 2.5, two handed standing at 25 yards. Maybe most can't do it, but I'm curious to know why you think people shouldn't aspire to it? How do you know if you can do it or not unless you train for it and keep trying?
I think the point is to not dedicate your training to it if there are other areas lacking. One needs to honestly assess their own shooting and their needs and practice accordingly. Not many people have the luxury of time and/or money to shoot the volume needed to do everything they want.
No the 2.5" and under standard is the mechanical accuracy of the handgun plus ammo.
I like Vickers thoughts on accuracy:
http://vickerstactical.com/tactical-tips/accuracy/
Another question I get frequently asked is what is the acceptable mechanical or intrinsic accuracy for a service pistol or carbine. Meaning what should the weapon/ammo combination be capable of producing from a shooting device or rest that eliminates shooter error. Keep in mind I come from a surgical accuracy oriented special operations background with little margin for error. Based on this and years of experience I have concluded that a service pistol should be capable of head shots at 25 yds and a service carbine should be capable of the same at 100 yds – basically 5 inch groups. However there is a catch; I have found that under conditions of stress a shooter will only be able to shoot to within roughly 50 % of the accuracy potential of a given weapon. And that is only for the best shooters; the majority will not even be close to that. That means in order to achieve my standard of head shots (5 inch groups) at a given distance the weapon/ammo combination needs to be capable of at least 2.5 inch groups. I personally measure that accuracy standard with 10 shot groups. Many quality service pistols and carbines with good ammo will achieve this but there are many other factors involved such as sights and trigger pull characteristics. By these criteria it is not hard to see why a tuned 1911 pistol is so popular in selected spec ops units. Keep in mind that any effort to make a weapon more accurate almost always means tightening tolerances which can lead to a less than acceptable reliability standard for a combat weapon. A balance between accuracy and reliability has to be achieved. Surprisingly there are many pistols and carbines that do a good job offering an acceptable blend of both. In addition weapons of this type will require a higher degree of end user maintenance to keep them running. Don’t expect a pistol to shoot like a custom 1911 but be as forgiving about maintenance as a Glock 17; it just doesn’t happen that way
My mistake and you're correct.
I think the point is to not dedicate your training to it if there are other areas lacking. One needs to honestly assess their own shooting and their needs and practice accordingly. Not many people have the luxury of time and/or money to shoot the volume needed to do everything they want.
I understand his point. My question regarding his original statement, which is what you quoted, was asking why he thought that. Everyone has to assess their own goals for themselves. Me, I'd like to shoot 2.5" groups at 25 yards and shoot the FASTest drill in under four seconds. Will I ever be able to? I have no idea, but that doesn't stop me from trying or from working on it. In subsequent posts, I didn't say or imply that Gutshot John is wrong; I said he's wrong for me. Not at all the same thing.
Gutshot John
02-22-12, 21:04
I understand his point. My question regarding his original statement, which is what you quoted, was asking why he thought that. Everyone has to assess their own goals for themselves. Me, I'd like to shoot 2.5" groups at 25 yards and shoot the FASTest drill in under four seconds. Will I ever be able to? I have no idea, but that doesn't stop me from trying or from working on it. In subsequent posts, I didn't say or imply that Gutshot John is wrong; I said he's wrong for me. Not at all the same thing.
The thing is that the 2.5" accuracy standard mentioned by LAV is a mechinical accuracy standard. Meaning the gun has to be capable of that with the assumption that once you introduce the human element that the group is going to double in size if you shoot in any way close to a realistic way.
Likewise if your gun isn't mechanically capable of that accuracy...why are you wasting your time using it as your training standard? The LAV quote makes this point explicitly and yet people aren't paying attention to anything beyond "2.5 inch groups."
A 2.5" group at 25 yards is really the purview of bullseye shooters. This is the antithesis of combat shooting. If you want to be a bullseye shooter than knock yourself out. There is value in that skill, but its not what most shooters should focus on. I can do the pure precision thing. I qualified expert in the military. It didn't make me a good shooter though.
The problem is that in this thread and on the errornet writ large, people take LAV's quote out of context and think that's a standard to which they should aspire.
There are two fundamental issues here:
First the OP is asking whether he should make a switch from one gun to another. I'd agree with those that say that there is little point in switching if the current system works for you. Why go through the cost both in actual dollars and retraining unless there is significant and measurable gain by making the switch? I did make the exact same switch he's contemplating and gained both accuracy and speed. I can't answer whether he will see the gain I realized. I know it was worthwhile to me.
Second the issue is which is the superior firearm. This debate is nonsensical. Both firearms offer things, there is no clear objective choice, only subjective judgment. Both weapons are excellent firearms, both weapons have some negatives, both weapons have experienced problems. Expecting a gun to be 100% reliable, while delivering bullseye shooting accuracy isn't entirely reasonable, again the LAV quote makes this point explicitly.
All that said, if your gun, that you spent good money on, is giving you either accuracy or reliability problems, send it back and tell the manufacturer to fix it.
G34Shooter
02-22-12, 21:35
Gutshot, if smith fixed the accuracy problems instead of saying it's "in spec" than the m&p 9mm's it wouldn't be as big a deal.
You may not agree with Lav's accuracy standards but many of us do.
Gutshot John
02-22-12, 21:44
Gutshot, if smith fixed the accuracy problems instead of saying it's "in spec" than the m&p 9mm's it wouldn't be as big a deal.
Fixed what? most guns seem to shoot just fine and are at least as comparable to other guns. I shoot mine far more accurately than I do my Glocks. Are individual guns problematic? I'd buy that. If I got one, I'd send it back to Smith and say fix this shit. If I was consistently shooting 5" groups at 25 yards in a genuinely tactical manner, I'd be quite happy. The claim made by some on this thread that such a standard is "unacceptable" or "unreliable" is bizarro internet commando nonsense.
You may not agree with Lav's accuracy standards but many of us do.
Where did I say I disagreed with his standards? His standards are for a 2.5" MECHANICAL accuracy out of a firearm. That's a fine standard for a gun, however it's a standard not met by most $500 production guns on the market. If your gun can't meet that mechanical accuracy standard, how does a shooter train to that standard? The answer? He/She can't.
Mechanical accuracy, by definition, eliminates shooter error, meaning that the gun, locked into a ransom rest, or shot from the bench/rest is capable of that standard. That's the only standard LAV mentioned, that the gun be capable of that potential, not that it was a standard for a shooter to meet.
It is funny however that the term mechanical accuracy was used. Accuracy is a whole different standard than repeatibility/predictability. In machining/manufacturing terms, the former is very expensive...the latter is not.
You all need to read and actually UNDERSTAND what LAV said. I never disagreed with him at all.
Gutshot, if smith fixed the accuracy problems instead of saying it's "in spec" than the m&p 9mm's it wouldn't be as big a deal.
You may not agree with Lav's accuracy standards but many of us do.
S&W has never lost an LE contract bid in the US or Internationally because of an accuracy issue.
Currently, the M&P has beaten the GEN 4 Glock (and other pistols) in Belgium, Taiwan and Australia for extremely large contracts (over 20,000 pistols in some instances).
M4C is a small sub-section of the shooting world. Many of the members on this forum CAN shoot under 5" groups at 25yds. This is not the norm.
Its kind of like a formula 1 driver saying that a Porsche 911 is not very fast. In his world, no it isn't. For the 99% of drivers out there, yes it is.
C4
G34Shooter
02-22-12, 21:52
Fixed what? most guns seem to shoot just fine and are at least as comparable to other guns. I shoot mine far more accurately than I do my Glocks. Are individual guns problematic? I'd buy that. If I got one, I'd send it back to Smith and say fix this shit.
Where did I say I disagreed with his standards? His standards are for a 2.5" MECHANICAL accuracy out of a firearm. That's a fine standard for a gun, a standard not met by most production guns on the market. If your gun can't meet the mechanical accuracy standard, how does a shooter train to that standard? The answer? He/She can't.
Mechanical accuracy, by definition, eliminates shooter error. It is funny however that the term mechanical accuracy was used. Accuracy is a whole different standard than repeatibility/predictability. In machining/manufacturing terms, the former is very expensive...the latter is not.
You all need to read and actually UNDERSTAND what LAV said. I don't disagree with his assessment at all.
You may want to read it again, the 2.5" is for mechanical to try and achieve his 5" head shot standard. Seems like I may have misunderstood you since I pretty much agree with you now.
G34Shooter
02-22-12, 22:01
Maybe we do expect too much for $500? Glock which does meet these accuracy standards on average has set a high standard that the m&p is still chasing.
I'd easily pay smith for an accurized version with a test target.
The thing is that the 2.5" accuracy standard mentioned by LAV is a mechinical accuracy standard. Meaning the gun has to be capable of that with the assumption that once you introduce the human element that the group is going to double in size if you shoot in any way close to a realistic way.
Likewise if your gun isn't mechanically capable of that accuracy...why are you wasting your time using it as your training standard? The LAV quote makes this point explicitly and yet people aren't paying attention to anything beyond "2.5 inch groups."
A 2.5" group at 25 yards is really the purview of bullseye shooters. This is the antithesis of combat shooting. If you want to be a bullseye shooter than knock yourself out. There is value in that skill, but its not what most shooters should focus on. I can do the pure precision thing. I qualified expert in the military. It didn't make me a good shooter though.
The problem is that in this thread and on the errornet writ large, people take LAV's quote out of context and think that's a standard to which they should aspire.
There are two fundamental issues here:
First the OP is asking whether he should make a switch from one gun to another. I'd agree with those that say that there is little point in switching if the current system works for you. Why go through the cost both in actual dollars and retraining unless there is significant and measurable gain by making the switch? I did make the exact same switch he's contemplating and gained both accuracy and speed. I can't answer whether he will see the gain I realized. I know it was worthwhile to me.
Second the issue is which is the superior firearm. This debate is nonsensical. Both firearms offer things, there is no clear objective choice, only subjective judgment. Both weapons are excellent firearms, both weapons have some negatives, both weapons have experienced problems. Expecting a gun to be 100% reliable, while delivering bullseye shooting accuracy isn't entirely reasonable, again the LAV quote makes this point explicitly.
All that said, if your gun, that you spent good money on, is giving you either accuracy or reliability problems, send it back and tell the manufacturer to fix it.
If you're asking me, I didn't say my gun was or wasn't capable of shooting 2.5" groups at 25 yards. Provided I can shoot 2.5" groups at 25 yards and provided my groups 50% of that in a stress situation, all things being equal, I'm at your 5" group. And even if it's 3" or 3'5" at 25 and it opens up to double the size... You get my point. Again, I'm not saying you should do it. I'm saying those are my standards. Since I don't think it's a waste of time, it's not. I'm not saying that I'm right for everyone, just right for me, which I've pointed out a number of times. IMO, there's nothing wrong with striving for perfection. In fact, I think far too many people don't set their goals high enough. I'm not just talking about shooting. I'm talking about a lot of things here and something is impossible until someone actually does it, then it's possible and quite frankly someone or more than one person has already done it, so it is possible. Right for you is not necessarily right for me or anyone else. It's just right for you.
Gutshot John
02-22-12, 22:09
Maybe we do expect too much for $500? Glock which does meet these accuracy standards on average has set a high standard that the m&p is still chasing.
I'd easily pay smith for an accurized version with a test target.
I'm not sure I've seen where Glock meets this standard across the board anymore than the M&P.
While individual M&Ps may not, individual Glocks fail a reliability standard of late.
The M&Ps I own shoot far more accurately than the Glocks I own. My M&P FS 9mm, from a bench/rest, will shoot cloverleafs at 25 yards.
So which is the better gun? That's again a subjective choice. I like both guns and wouldn't hesitate to trust my life to either/both. YMMV.
Gutshot John
02-22-12, 22:13
IMO, there's nothing wrong with striving for perfection.
This would be true if there wasn't such a thing as opportunity cost.
Which is the perfect gun? The AR or the AK? The 9mm or 45? It's the same sort of debate.
There is an old saying, Voltaire I think, "Perfect is the enemy of good."
Re. accuracy: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=99921.
I picked up my new pair of M&P's from Grant Wednesday night. My Kydex from Comp-tac came in yesterday. I still haven't had a chance to put a round through these guns (hopefully this weekend), but overall, the first impressions are good. The triggers I have feel very nice. I've been practicing "finesse" mag insertion with dummy rounds and haven't induced an autofeed yet:D.
Anyway, here's a quick pick of my new EDC setup:
(M&P 9FS, Comp-Tac MTAC Minotaur IWB, second mag in Comp-Tac carrier, OLD Surefire E2, Benchmade 5000SBK Presidio)
http://i854.photobucket.com/albums/ab104/ASH556/20120223_223853.jpg
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.