M&P : Why not a winner?

[JohnKSa]

Unless someone from the testing organization posts on the thread or releases a statement, how could anyone possibly know why the M&P was dropped from the competition?

It could have been because it didn't meet one of the specifications in the requirements. For example, in the competition that selected the M9, one entry was disqualified for having "insufficient firing pin energy". Here are the requirements--all 350+ pages of them. https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=6b270ab67d59ba947c5fdbc3e97ee8e2

It could have been because it didn't perform as well as the other entrants.

It might have been something else.

We won't know until there's an official statement issued.

 

[Martowski]

Keep in mind that what makes the best piece of equipment for long term use for an entire Army is vastly different that what may be best for an individual. Supply chain, maintenance, ongoing cost, etc. are all major factors. And, they aren't selecting one firearm for one person's preferences, they are purchasing a piece of equipment to perform a function for all soldiers... no different than selecting any other piece of equipment that may or may not happen to have a barrel and trigger.

 

[PabloJ]

There is nothing wrong with the "Military" & "Police" S&W. I would not hesitate to use one to save my life. What army or police agencies choose to use is irrelevant to me.

 

[jjones45]

There is nothing wrong with the "Military" & "Police" S&W. I would not hesitate to use one to save my life. What army or police agencies choose to use is irrelevant to me.

Yeah I've personally seen police departments all over carrying sigs, xd's, glocks, 3rd gen s&w's, p series rugers, m&p's, hk's and beretta's. I think I seen police officers carrying p99's or sw99's in the past as well. That tells me all are worthy of defending ones life and its more than just what's the best pistol that goes into the selection process. We all knew when the army decided on the m9 that it wasn't because it was the best, but rather because it did good enough and was cheaper than the p226

 

[Varminterror]

I tend to feel the public opinion sway caused by these contract award announcements are just foolish. So many folks look at these announcements as proclaiming ONE WINNER to be ultimately superior and everything else to be junk.

But consider this - the guy who WINS the Olympic gold in the 100m is the fastest man on Earth in that year, but the other guys in the top 5 or top 25 are still the fastest guys on Earth. Being second doesn't get you a government contract, but it also doesn't take anything away from the design. Still one of the best on the market.

I'm not an S&W M&P guy, but there are a great number of pistols I would pick AFTER the S&W.

 

[sakata8242]

The Army had already decided on the P320 going into the MHS trial. If you read their published requirements they were essentially written with the P320 in mind. But of course they needed an "open" trial to waste taxpayer money to eventually "select" the handgun they wanted from the beginning.

 

[whatnickname]

I seem to recall that as part of Smith & Wesson's capitulation with the Clinton Administration years ago that our beloved Billy Bob "I did not have sex with that woman" Clinton promised the the Federal Government would "encourage" law enforcement and government agencies to adopt Smith & Wesson pistols. Wow that promise really worked out well! About the only part of that deal that stuck were the dumb ass locks that are on Smith & Wesson handguns today. I was in a local gun shop that was part of the S&W Stocking Dealer program back then when the S&W rep marched in and laid the law down to the dealer..."If you're gonna sell assault rifles, you will not be permitted to sell any Smith & Wesson guns..." I really enjoyed watching the S&W rep being told to stick his guns where the sun don't shine." Doesn't necessarily hurt my feelings that Smith & Wesson is coming up short today. HEY SMITH & WESSON! SOME OF US HAVE A LONG MEMORY!!!!

 

[tipoc]

We don't actually know why the M&P was not selected, or why Glock was not selected, nor any of the others. We also don't know why the Sig was. We know not alot about the testing or the process.

At some point the specifics of the testing and other factors will be disclosed, one way or the other, and we'll have a better idea. That will involve the military making a statement on it, or one or more of the manufacturers releasing their accounts of the process. Till then it's mostly speculation.

tipoc

 

[tipoc]

posted in error.

 

[jjones45]

I thought the sig p320 was the only true modular design and that's pretty much why it won over the rest. That's what the army wanted but had to have a "fair" trial for other companies to compete. I think we are looking too deep into this, it's kind of cut dry in my opinion. What sakata8242 said.

 

[tipoc]

I thought the sig p320 was the only true modular design and that's pretty much why it won over the rest. That's what the army wanted but had to have a "fair" trial for other companies to compete. I think we are looking too deep into this, it's kind of cut dry in my opinion. What sakata8242 said.

Manufacturers did not have to meet all the criteria in order to compete. They only had to meet enough. This is why it came down to a final four from the original 16. So it was not "cut and dried". Had being "modular" been the dominant criteria those that weren't would never have gotten in the door, but they did.

Keep in mind that the FBI had nearly identical criteria in their selection process. Many thought the Sig was a shoo-in there. But it was Glock that got that prize.

tipoc

 

[jjones45]

Manufacturers did not have to meet all the criteria in order to compete. They only had to meet enough. This is why it came down to a final four from the original 16. So it was not "cut and dried". Had being "modular" been the dominant criteria those that weren't would never have gotten in the door, but they did.

Keep in mind that the FBI had nearly identical criteria in their selection process. Many thought the Sig was a shoo-in there. But it was Glock that got that prize.

tipoc

Yeah the army wasn't going to make the same mistake the FBI made lol. Glock is still trying to make those m models work right from what I hear. I read some of the 300+ pages and it was clear they wanted the p320. Yeah you drag a few along in the top 4 just in case durability or reliability issues arise with the gun you want. They didn't, so Sig won. No other gun could also go from 9-40-357 Sig. I know it's more to it than that but it really was selected before the trials were even started from my understanding and that's why a couple of those finalists are filling some sort of law suit or something correct? What's the reason the FBI went with the glock instead of the p320 if you care to share? If sig can offer a p320 at $209 I'm sure glock can offer one even cheaper

 

[tipoc]

I find that the place to keep your eye on is the American Rifleman for these things. They have serious connections that others only hope to have or pretend to have.

Look through this from the Keefe Report;

I'm adding this short video as well.

https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2017/2/12/nra-gun-gear-of-the-week-us-army-s-new-pistol/

https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2016/6/30/keefe-report-fbi-selects-new-service-pistol/

https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2017/1/23/the-keefe-report-i-was-wrong-about-the-xm17/

https://www.americanrifleman.org/ar...-the-aglockalypse-marine-raiders-and-the-fbi/

While the requirements for the both the FBI and the Army were published what the exact tests were, how different guns performed in those tests, how many guns were involved in the tests and the results of those tests are, well unknown. Unless the government releases the results of one or more of the manufacturers makes an announcement, we won't know. Likely those will come in time, but right now we don't know.

We know alot about the trials that led to the adoption of the M9 and the M11. This is because alot of information was made public due to law suits and congressional investigations into the trials. The info will come in time. But right now it's not there yet.

tipoc

 

[czhen]

Or may be Sig learned the lesson when Beretta won the last selection, and offered better prices. I wonder how many rounds will take to the polymer frame to get lose around the trigger group rendering the pistol useless.

 

[JTQ]

Or may be Sig learned the lesson when Beretta won the last selection, and offered better prices.

And they put a safety on the gun.

People always make nefarious claims about how the Beretta won the contract (base in Itally, etc.). The facts are the Beretta was less expensive (still is on the commercial market), and the Beretta had a safety on the gun and the SIG didn't. Not a lot of folks think too much about an auto loader without an active safety these days since we're 30+ years into the "Glock era", but in the late 1970's and early 1980's, nearly every semi-auto pistol had a manual safety. Switching to a 9mm was a big deal, choosing one without a way to make it safe would have been a big leap at that time.

I'm actually surprised the current winning SIG has a thumb safety on it. I would have thought by now all the senior decision makers had lived their whole shooting lives in the "Glock era", and a manual safety would not have been required, or even desired.

 

[czhen]

I always had my serious dudes about army acquiring strike fire pistols with no other safety than the trigger regardless the brand.

 

[Coal Dragger]

As mentioned the P320 was the only entrant that is actually modular. The competition had several years of the P320 flying under the radar being all modular and whatnot, to introduce similar versatility. They failed. At the same time Big Army has been looking to replace their used and abused M9's, and M11's.

I have no doubt the Army looked at the P320 and wrote the request based on those capabilities. Why wouldn't they? If someone else wanted to step up and offer a product that was modular they could have. Glock, Ruger, and S&W just submitted their pistols and didn't really try.

The Army picked a solution that will be easier to maintain and issue. Since the pistol is modular changes can be made at the company sized unit level without sidelining the pistol. Got a jacked up grip frame? Slap a new one on, no need to send the frame to higher echelon maintenance. Have a shooter with tiny little hands? Pull a small diameter grip frame out, and have them slap it on. Same for the unit gorilla. Does the unit have different mission requirements that might call for concealment? Put a compact slide assembly on.

There are other advantages, since the serial number part is just the trigger group, significant changes can be made by buying parts. Many units have budgets for this, but not to acquire different weapons.

As far as the S&W M&P, did Smith ever fix the atrocious accuracy issues of the 9mm M&P's? I've shot a few of them, and frankly the mechanical accuracy of the pistol is very lacking.

We have one P320 at my house, and despite my personal preference for my HK VP9 I can not fault the P320. After figuring out it is sprung for full powered duty ammo, it has been 100% reliable. Plus it displays typically excellent SIG mechanical accuracy, and comes with a trigger that makes it easy to achieve that accuracy. Maybe I should go order a larger grip module for the P320 and wring it out some more, it's my wife's pistol but it may grow on me.

 

[Hangingrock]

As far as the S&W M&P, did Smith ever fix the atrocious accuracy issues of the 9mm M&P's? I've shot a few of them, and frankly the mechanical accuracy of the pistol is very lacking.

I have a limited sample of a S&W MP9 and MP9c compared to Gen3 Glock G17 and G19. The S&W MP pistols were on par with the Gen3 Glock pistols at 50Yds, 25Yds, and 7Yds slow and rapid fire from standing position. I'm not a bench hugger. That said I also have a Ruger RAP9 which overall at the ranges specified was slightly more accurate than the S&W MP9 or Glock Gen3 G17 with NATO spec ball and 147Gr JHP Speer & Winchester.

 

[LiveLife]

As far as the S&W M&P, did Smith ever fix the atrocious accuracy issues of the 9mm M&P's?

M&P 9 barrel twist rate went from 1:18 to 1:24 and currently 1:10 (1 or 2 dimples on bottom of barrel lug) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/barrel-twist-rate-and-accuracy.780301/

S&W also improved the trigger few years ago and again on the new M&P 2.0.

 

[reddog81]

I agree with Coal Dragger. I'm not surprised the the SIG won, but I am kind of surprised no one else came up with something similar. The Army was looking for a modular handgun. The discussions about replacing the M9 have been on going for years and years. Was every other manufacturer asleep at the wheel?

Not only does the SIG get the Army contract but they set them selves up to be the basis for modular handguns going forward. The design could morph into something similar to the AR15 with the ability to change grip size, change caliber, swap barrels, change out the slide, etc.

 

[jmf552]

I've been involved with military procurement, both as a Navy officer and later working in Marketing for a major defense contractor. There is a huge factor that most posts here are not focusing on: Where are the guns going to be made? When I was in marketing, we had to break down where every single part in a weapon system came from and let Congress know. Sigs are made in NH in the US, so the representatives and senators from NH were pushing for it and probably got it in exchange for votes someone else wanted on something else. That's the way it works, folks.

S&W in MA was not pushing their congresspeople as hard, or they had other priorities. Procuring pistols is small potatoes in defense procurement. It's stuff like aircraft, carriers, major missile systems, etc. that get attention. As one of my mentors in defense marketing told me: "Defense procurement is not set up to be efficient or effective. It is meant to be representative, to spread the money around." Even when we procure something not made in the US, there is a behind-the-scenes deal going on between the manufacturing country and the State Department and/or Department of Commerce.