Smith & Wesson Forum

Go Back   Smith & Wesson Forum > Smith & Wesson Semi-Automatic Pistols > Smith & Wesson M&P Pistols
o

Notices

Smith & Wesson M&P Pistols All Variants of the Smith & Wesson M&P Auto Pistols


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-15-2018, 04:52 PM
mdrd375 mdrd375 is offline
Member
M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial  
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 18
Likes: 1
Liked 7 Times in 5 Posts
Default M&P and the MHS Army trial

Does anyone know what happened to the M&P in the testing the Army did and why it was dropped?
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #2  
Old 10-15-2018, 04:54 PM
Doug M.'s Avatar
Doug M. Doug M. is offline
Member
M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial  
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Washington State
Posts: 7,445
Likes: 14,494
Liked 9,263 Times in 3,702 Posts
Default

I'm pretty sure you can find the results with use of your favorite search engine. I used to know, but no longer recall. I do recall there were some shenanigans in the trial that are likely to come up again and again.
__________________
NHI, 10-8.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #3  
Old 10-15-2018, 05:50 PM
wnderr wnderr is offline
Member
M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial  
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: 40 Mi West of Chiraq
Posts: 291
Likes: 37
Liked 169 Times in 104 Posts
Default

If I remember correctly, the Smith was not modular enuf, and asked that their weapon be withdrawn!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-15-2018, 06:01 PM
Russian Bot Russian Bot is offline
Member
M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial  
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 6
Likes: 7
Liked 4 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wnderr View Post
If I remember correctly, the Smith was not modular enuf, and asked that their weapon be withdrawn!
Don't think so, their press releases made it sound like they were informed of the Army's decision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SEC Report
We and our partner in the pursuit of the U.S. Army’s Modular Handgun System, or MHS, solicitation to replace the M9 standard Army sidearm have been notified by the Department of the Army that our proposal was not selected to advance to the next phase of the competition
(Their partner being General Dynamics)

I haven't been able to find anything concrete on this either, and there may not be since obviously this sort of thing is always largely political and less about what's best than it should be...
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #5  
Old 10-16-2018, 12:41 PM
Fastbolt's Avatar
Fastbolt Fastbolt is offline
Member
M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial  
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: CA Central Coast
Posts: 4,638
Likes: 914
Liked 6,591 Times in 2,191 Posts
Default

Many guns companies remain closed mouthed about why their guns may not win a contract. Not uncommon for people involved in the testing to be required to sign NDA's.

From what little I've heard, the M&P's weren't picked to proceed to the actual test-fire stage of the MHS testing.

FWIW, the original M&P's passed the testing and were accepted for issue by LASD, LAPD and the CHP out here on the West Coast in the last several years. (I was told that only academy cadets were initially getting the M&P 9's at LAPD, as they have a lot of existing guns in the field, as well as a list of authorized guns that may be personally owned.)
__________________
Ret LE Firearms inst & armorer
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #6  
Old 10-16-2018, 01:12 PM
andyo5's Avatar
andyo5 andyo5 is offline
Member
M&P and the MHS Army trial  
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Posts: 2,370
Likes: 497
Liked 943 Times in 518 Posts
Default

Here's an article on the subject:
The 8 Pistols That Battled to Win the Army's XM17 MHS Competition

It appears that S&W did retract their entry, since it did not meet the requirement of modularity and therefore stood no chance of success.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-16-2018, 01:42 PM
wnderr wnderr is offline
Member
M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial  
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: 40 Mi West of Chiraq
Posts: 291
Likes: 37
Liked 169 Times in 104 Posts
Default

I may not know much, but my rememberer works pretty good!
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #8  
Old 10-16-2018, 06:39 PM
deadduck357 deadduck357 is offline
Member
M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial  
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Tx
Posts: 139
Likes: 22
Liked 49 Times in 37 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andyo5 View Post
That article is very lacking and probably shouldn't be solely relied upon. It states the Glock 19 didn't meet the MHS requirements because of the lack of a manual safety. Glocks entry, the 19MHS did have a manual safety from the factory.

DOD hasn't released any of the test results and probably won't for a few years, if ever.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #9  
Old 10-17-2018, 07:39 AM
CBStuard CBStuard is offline
Member
M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial  
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Manassas Va
Posts: 437
Likes: 1
Liked 182 Times in 127 Posts
Default

One could surmise, based on their selection, that they really aren't interested in making any details public.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-17-2018, 07:45 AM
Telecaster Telecaster is online now
Member
M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial  
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,499
Likes: 852
Liked 4,534 Times in 1,504 Posts
Default

No gun maker would want to make public anything that would suggest their gun has a flaw.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-17-2018, 08:14 AM
Backon4 Backon4 is offline
Member
M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial  
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 540
Likes: 4
Liked 72 Times in 38 Posts
Default

When the requirements were released I thought it was a slam dunk for SIG. They were the only one to introduce a true modular platform. As long as it didn’t fail at everything else it was theirs to lose.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #12  
Old 10-17-2018, 09:25 AM
CB3's Avatar
CB3 CB3 is offline
Member
M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial  
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Utah
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 2,383
Liked 2,954 Times in 1,054 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Backon4 View Post
When the requirements were released I thought it was a slam dunk for SIG. They were the only one to introduce a true modular platform. As long as it didn’t fail at everything else it was theirs to lose.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Government solicitations are sometimes written in such a way that only a specific item, basically already in existence, will meet the criteria. Other bidders are often excluded by tight specifications favoring the manufacturer of the one item already chosen.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #13  
Old 10-17-2018, 09:28 AM
Ziggy2525's Avatar
Ziggy2525 Ziggy2525 is offline
Member
M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial  
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,530
Likes: 624
Liked 3,247 Times in 1,007 Posts
Default

This comes up on glocktalk (surprise) every now and then. A person posted a link to the army procurement scorecard. IIRC, Sig was selected because of financial terms (it’s the government, right) not the quality of their pistol. Sig’s price was something like 1/2 the next closest bidder and Sig alone agreed to co-license patent rights on the pistol with .gov so .gov had the ability second source parts. The P320 met the minimum functional requirements with by far the best financial terms. It was wasn’t necessarily picked because it was the “best” pistol.
__________________
Vegan by proxy.

Last edited by Ziggy2525; 10-17-2018 at 09:31 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #14  
Old 10-17-2018, 12:35 PM
Fastbolt's Avatar
Fastbolt Fastbolt is offline
Member
M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial  
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: CA Central Coast
Posts: 4,638
Likes: 914
Liked 6,591 Times in 2,191 Posts
Default

I sometimes wonder where people get the weird impression that local, state or federal government agencies are looking to select the "best" of some particular type of equipment, rather than the equipment which meets the minimum stated requirements and offers the best cost?
__________________
Ret LE Firearms inst & armorer
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #15  
Old 10-17-2018, 06:04 PM
ScaryWoody ScaryWoody is offline
Member
M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial  
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 605
Likes: 105
Liked 399 Times in 248 Posts
Default

If you want to buy military arms that have been rigorously tested and cost is not the driving factor, look to the Seals.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-18-2018, 11:35 AM
jim46ok jim46ok is offline
Member
M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial  
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Idaho
Posts: 415
Likes: 34
Liked 156 Times in 103 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Telecaster View Post
No gun maker would want to make public anything that would suggest their gun has a flaw.
"FLAW" is in the eye of the beholder......Not satisfying the particular criteria for a Government contract does not necessarily mean it has a "flaw"...
__________________
CERAKOTE Svcs.
Class 01 FFL
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-18-2018, 11:45 AM
Telecaster Telecaster is online now
Member
M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial  
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,499
Likes: 852
Liked 4,534 Times in 1,504 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jim46ok View Post
"FLAW" is in the eye of the beholder......Not satisfying the particular criteria for a Government contract does not necessarily mean it has a "flaw"...
Yup, and that's the point. Some customers perceive it as flawed if it didn't pass military testing. Someone had a thread on this forum not long ago claiming something like he wouldn't own any gun that didn't meet military testing. That was his criteria of "flawed." I'm not saying it's right, it's just the way it is.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-18-2018, 01:14 PM
bubbatime bubbatime is offline
Member
M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial  
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 101
Likes: 69
Liked 178 Times in 54 Posts
Default

The request solicitation was written EXACTLY for the Sig. Must meet this, must be that, which coincidentally, was exactly what the Sig 320 already was. It was rigged from the get go.

I would have preferred that Glock won. The Britts use the Glock, as do many other nations, and it is very much the ideal battle pistol. Requiring a safety is horse non-sense. Well trained army's dont need a safety, and train around the gun, not the idiots that will blow away their knee caps because they cant safely handle a gun without a safety.

The good news is, that the Sig will become a very well tested, engineered, and battle ready platform after Private Snuffy and friends get their hands on them. We are likely to see many mid model upgrades over the years to improve the platform and make it better.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-18-2018, 01:27 PM
rsrocket1 rsrocket1 is offline
Member
M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial M&P and the MHS Army trial  
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: DFW Texas, a free state!
Posts: 755
Likes: 42
Liked 326 Times in 197 Posts
Default

I wonder if they were deselected because of too many cartridges flipping over in the magazine

But maybe that's just a Kansas thing.

<inside joke from a thread in 2015>
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-18-2018, 01:30 PM
jrx35 jrx35 is offline
Member
M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial  
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 47
Likes: 15
Liked 19 Times in 16 Posts
Default

The good news on the MHS test is that a lot of the proposed pistols have made it to the commercial market. No doubt the P320 line will sell ok due to its service linkage (like the Beretta 92/M9).

I'm not sure but wondering if the 5" FDE M&P 2.0 model was an outcome of this, as there isn't a black version at this point.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #21  
Old 10-18-2018, 06:11 PM
southerncomfort's Avatar
southerncomfort southerncomfort is offline
Member
M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial  
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 113
Likes: 138
Liked 99 Times in 59 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bubbatime View Post
The request solicitation was written EXACTLY for the Sig. Must meet this, must be that, which coincidentally, was exactly what the Sig 320 already was. It was rigged from the get go.
Sorry, but the requirements for a major acquisition like MHS take years to write, and industry is continually consulted along the way before they’re finalized. Manufacturers are always at different states of technology maturity in their product lines, that doesn’t mean the system was “rigged.” If the other entrants had been serious about winning (ready to dump a lot of $ into it) they could have had submissions that met all the major tech criteria. They didn’t. You know if you submit a non-modular handgun to the “Modular Handgun System” competition, you’ve pretty much sealed your fate.
__________________
Southern Comfort
Retired USAF
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-18-2018, 06:58 PM
one eye joe's Avatar
one eye joe one eye joe is offline
US Veteran
M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial  
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: New England
Posts: 4,190
Likes: 3,543
Liked 3,996 Times in 1,627 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fastbolt View Post
Many guns companies remain closed mouthed about why their guns may not win a contract. Not uncommon for people involved in the testing to be required to sign NDA's.

From what little I've heard, the M&P's weren't picked to proceed to the actual test-fire stage of the MHS testing.

FWIW, the original M&P's passed the testing and were accepted for issue by LASD, LAPD and the CHP out here on the West Coast in the last several years. (I was told that only academy cadets were initially getting the M&P 9's at LAPD, as they have a lot of existing guns in the field, as well as a list of authorized guns that may be personally owned.)
THIS MAKES A GREAT DEAL OF SENSE TO ME. IMHO--NDA OR NOT--IT WOULD BE FOOLHARDY FOR A MANUFACTURER TO SHARE THE REASONS WHY THEIR ENTRY WAS REJECTED......

IN LIGHT OF THIS, I AM NOT SURPRISED THAT LITTLE HARD EVIDENCE EXISTS.....
__________________
'Nam 1968-69.DAV,VFW,NRA Inst.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #23  
Old 10-18-2018, 08:16 PM
Fastbolt's Avatar
Fastbolt Fastbolt is offline
Member
M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial  
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: CA Central Coast
Posts: 4,638
Likes: 914
Liked 6,591 Times in 2,191 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by one eye joe View Post
THIS MAKES A GREAT DEAL OF SENSE TO ME. IMHO--NDA OR NOT--IT WOULD BE FOOLHARDY FOR A MANUFACTURER TO SHARE THE REASONS WHY THEIR ENTRY WAS REJECTED......

IN LIGHT OF THIS, I AM NOT SURPRISED THAT LITTLE HARD EVIDENCE EXISTS.....
It's not so much that "hard evidence" is or isn't involved, but that industry giants often have a proprietary or commercial interest in not spewing the results of things all over the public domain.

Sometimes it's entirely anticlimactic, too. I remember being told by one company that they discovered one of their submissions was disqualified for an out-of-spec chamber-spec, only to later have it determined that a test person had mistakenly used the wrong chamber gauge. By the time it was realized, the testing had proceeded so far that it would've been a major issue to appeal it, so the company let it go. in the interest of not making unnecessary waves. I was told that they felt their opportunity would come back around for the next testing, so why make waves and potential bad feelings?

Sometimes the info might be reported and filed in a way that makes it available to public scrutiny, though, as was the case when the P250 didn't meet a state gov test (I think it was), and the results of some of the testing (including explanations) was made available online.

Today's loser is tomorrow's winner, and vice versa. Etc, Etc.

Only the brand/flag waving loyalists and fans tend to make a big deal out of some particular test, anyway. For the rest of us it's just another episode in the ever-ongoing series of proposals, bids and multiple tests that may reveal the good, as well as the occasional warts and hiccups. No biggie.
__________________
Ret LE Firearms inst & armorer

Last edited by Fastbolt; 10-18-2018 at 08:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10-19-2018, 05:58 PM
apd9216 apd9216 is offline
Member
M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial  
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Northeast WI
Posts: 36
Likes: 10
Liked 26 Times in 15 Posts
Default

The MHS trials were a sham and not even completed by protocol. Personally, I think DoD would've been better off going with Glock, but the Sig contract was $69 million cheaper. But, you get what you pay for...and it wasn't long before 101st Airborne released reports of their Sigs ****ting the bed.

YouTube
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #25  
Old 10-23-2018, 11:38 PM
Sheepdoggit Sheepdoggit is offline
Member
M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial  
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 47
Likes: 44
Liked 12 Times in 7 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andyo5 View Post
Here's an article on the subject:
The 8 Pistols That Battled to Win the Army's XM17 MHS Competition

It appears that S&W did retract their entry, since it did not meet the requirement of modularity and therefore stood no chance of success.
How was the Glock entry any less modular? How was the SIG's any more modular? The idea of the modularity was to make a gun that could fit a number of hand sizes. In my opinion, both the Glock and S&W M&P pistols do that better than the SIG P320/XM17 & 18 because the user simply changes the backstrap and doesn't have to get a whole new frame. Thinking about army logistics, you can keep the frame options with the M&P and Glock, but how is that supposed to work with a bunch of different frames to store? I believe the reason the Army went with the SIG was purely political because the track record that has been established clearly favors both the Glock and M&P in my opinion (by a long mile).

The SIG didn't even pass its MRBS test (mean rounds between stoppage). As the Department of Defense released earlier this year, "During PVT [Production Verification Test], the XM17 with ball ammunition met its requirement for MRBF but not its requirement for MRBS. The XM18 with ball ammunition did not meet its MRBF or MRBS requirement."

IMHO, Smith & Wesson probably withdrew because they knew the game had been rigged so that no matter what, SIG was getting the contract.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #26  
Old 10-25-2018, 02:58 PM
M29since14 M29since14 is offline
SWCA Member
M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial  
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 11,907
Likes: 10,039
Liked 10,047 Times in 4,758 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheepdoggit View Post
...IMHO, Smith & Wesson probably withdrew because they knew the game had been rigged so that no matter what, SIG was getting the contract.
Sounds logical. I am not defending the M&P9. Based on what I know, I probably wouldn’t have chosen it if I were making the selection. I continue to be underwhelmed by the accuracy of the M&P9s I get to shoot. I have no idea what they will do in a machine rest but I don’t have much luck with them. I shoot my M17 Bravo much better than any factory-stock M&P9 I have ever picked up.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 10-25-2018, 05:55 PM
akdude akdude is offline
Member
M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial  
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 370
Likes: 169
Liked 87 Times in 56 Posts
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by apd9216 View Post
The MHS trials were a sham and not even completed by protocol. Personally, I think DoD would've been better off going with Glock, but the Sig contract was $69 million cheaper. But, you get what you pay for...and it wasn't long before 101st Airborne released reports of their Sigs ****ting the bed.

YouTube

Sig was 110 Million $ cheaper! Not 69 Million!
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 10-27-2018, 09:35 AM
FloridaS&W FloridaS&W is offline
Member
M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial  
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 307
Likes: 289
Liked 353 Times in 139 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheepdoggit View Post
IMHO, Smith & Wesson probably withdrew because they knew the game had been rigged so that no matter what, SIG was getting the contract.
I have had a small business for 20 years, and after experiencing how idiotic their decision process is, I won't even try for government contracts any more. Many times it has nothing to do with which company makes a better product or is more qualified.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #29  
Old 10-27-2018, 02:25 PM
Ziggy2525's Avatar
Ziggy2525 Ziggy2525 is offline
Member
M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial  
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,530
Likes: 624
Liked 3,247 Times in 1,007 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FloridaS&W View Post
I have had a small business for 20 years, and after experiencing how idiotic their decision process is, I won't even try for government contracts any more. Many times it has nothing to do with which company makes a better product or is more qualified.
It’s been awhile since I was involved in govt contracts, so it may have changed. My experience had been it wasn’t just “many times,” it was pretty much every time that the selection of a vendor for a government contract didn’t have anything to do with product quality or vendor qualification.

It’s a bureaucracy. How you check the boxes and play the game matters more than quality and capability.
__________________
Vegan by proxy.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #30  
Old 10-27-2018, 03:21 PM
Doug M.'s Avatar
Doug M. Doug M. is offline
Member
M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial  
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Washington State
Posts: 7,445
Likes: 14,494
Liked 9,263 Times in 3,702 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M29since14 View Post
Sounds logical. I am not defending the M&P9. Based on what I know, I probably wouldn’t have chosen it if I were making the selection. I continue to be underwhelmed by the accuracy of the M&P9s I get to shoot. I have no idea what they will do in a machine rest but I don’t have much luck with them. I shoot my M17 Bravo much better than any factory-stock M&P9 I have ever picked up.
*
While the problems with accuracy in the first models of the M&P 9 are well documented, and I have seen a few different explanations (I think the best one is on "pistol-forums", but it is over my head and quite a while since I looked for that), I am not aware of any such problems with the 2.0 models.
__________________
NHI, 10-8.

Last edited by Doug M.; 10-28-2018 at 06:10 PM. Reason: bad tying and poor proofreading. As usual.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #31  
Old 10-28-2018, 05:10 PM
Sheepdoggit Sheepdoggit is offline
Member
M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial  
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 47
Likes: 44
Liked 12 Times in 7 Posts
Default

The biggest gripe I have with the M17 is that it couldn't pass the Army's goal of 2000 MRBS. The DOD memo from early this year confirmed that and other problems, yet the SIG fanboys keep touting it won. Somehow I think a Glock, and maybe even an M&P, could shoot 2,000 rounds without a hitch. The P320/M17/M18, however, does not seem uber reliable; and the contract, which I read verbatim as someone who used to review and revise government contracts, was specifically designed so that cost was the last thing to be considered and not chosen above reliability.

I carry a SIG (in addition to an M&P and a Glock), but the M17 should not have won, and the Army violated its contract by adopting it before giving Glock a chance at the PVT (production verification test). That isn't an opinion. If the rules of grammar and spelling still exist, it is a fact.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf DOD MHS SIG Sauer XM17 XM18 problems.pdf (606.3 KB, 39 views)

Last edited by Sheepdoggit; 10-28-2018 at 05:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #32  
Old 10-28-2018, 07:07 PM
M29since14 M29since14 is offline
SWCA Member
M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial  
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 11,907
Likes: 10,039
Liked 10,047 Times in 4,758 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug M. View Post
*
While the problems with accuracy in the first models of the M&P 9 are well documented, and I have seen a few different explanations (I think the best one is on "pistol-forums", but it is over my head and quite a while since I looked for that), I am not aware of any such problems with the 2.0 models.
Doug, I fully understand results with one gun prove nothing. That said, I just had the chance to try one of the Compact 2.0 models and while the gun felt very good to me, and it’s trigger was much better than what I have seen in previous M&P9s, this particular gun still exhibited the tendency to consistently throw one round out of a five-round group, using both types of 9mm ammo I had available at the moment. (One was 115 grain and the other 124 grain. Both were good quality FMJs, one of them US production, the other Swiss.) I really would have liked to see this gun shoot with my M17, which is relatively new to me, but unfortunately it did not. That 2.0 Compact was a great looking and feeling gun - by far the best of the plastic 9s, IMO. I’ll keep watching and shooting the 2.0s when I get the chance. Right now, the accuracy bug still seems to be a problem, based on what little I’ve heard and seen.

I realize this leans in the direction of thread drift and I hope my comments weren’t too distracting.

Last edited by M29since14; 10-28-2018 at 07:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 10-28-2018, 07:11 PM
shawn mccarver shawn mccarver is offline
SWCA Member
M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial  
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,907
Likes: 3,513
Liked 6,728 Times in 2,620 Posts
Default

All along, I had assumed the M2.0 M&P would have a removable chassis like the P320. That seems like a better plan.

And S&W could have gotten it right by making it so that the different grip modules still had the replaceable backstraps and so that recoil springs did not show through from the bottom because the dust cover wasn't the right length.

And then the M2.0 arrived. Yawn.

I wouldn't have picked it either.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 10-28-2018, 07:28 PM
Deadeye Dick's Avatar
Deadeye Dick Deadeye Dick is offline
Member
M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial  
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 405
Likes: 215
Liked 198 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CB3 View Post
Government solicitations are sometimes written in such a way that only a specific item, basically already in existence, will meet the criteria. Other bidders are often excluded by tight specifications favoring the manufacturer of the one item already chosen.
Yup. It is not uncommon for a government agency to have already made up their minds about an item/supplier (politics and or money are nearly always involved) before bids are even requested. So as CB3 stated a list of parameters are carefully written that it is essentially a description of the one product that they have already preselected. It can be pretty blatant at times.
__________________
Life Member B.A.S.S., NAFC
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 10-28-2018, 07:31 PM
sigp220.45's Avatar
sigp220.45 sigp220.45 is offline
US Veteran
M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial  
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 8,075
Likes: 27,786
Liked 33,571 Times in 5,253 Posts
Default

I think the bid request called for modular design. Not what the M&P has to offer.

I think the Sig is a fine choice.
__________________
“What you got, ain’t new.”
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 10-28-2018, 08:26 PM
Deadeye Dick's Avatar
Deadeye Dick Deadeye Dick is offline
Member
M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial  
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 405
Likes: 215
Liked 198 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CB3 View Post
Government solicitations are sometimes written in such a way that only a specific item, basically already in existence, will meet the criteria. Other bidders are often excluded by tight specifications favoring the manufacturer of the one item already chosen.
Yup. It is not uncommon for a government agency to have already made up their minds about an item/supplier (politics and or money are nearly always involved) before bids are even requested. So as CB3 stated a list of parameters are carefully written that it is essentially a description of the one product that they have already preselected. It can be pretty blatant at times.
__________________
Life Member B.A.S.S., NAFC
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 10-30-2018, 12:21 PM
apd9216 apd9216 is offline
Member
M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial M&amp;P and the MHS Army trial  
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Northeast WI
Posts: 36
Likes: 10
Liked 26 Times in 15 Posts
Unhappy

Quote:
Originally Posted by akdude View Post
Sig was 110 Million $ cheaper! Not 69 Million!
You are correct! My math was off...
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New 329PD first trial Don_G S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present 27 02-22-2013 11:48 PM
That's it! Not carrying until trial's over rrick Concealed Carry & Self Defense 69 04-16-2012 12:25 PM
The Trial montezumaz The Lounge 4 06-02-2009 06:12 AM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
smith-wessonforum.com tested by Norton Internet Security smith-wessonforum.com tested by McAfee Internet Security

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:27 PM.


Smith-WessonForum.com is not affiliated with Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (NASDAQ Global Select: SWHC)