S&W 99 in 45 ACP vs M&P45

[TSQUARED]

I am considereing the S&W99 in 45 ACP vs the newer M&P45. Has anyone had any expereince with the reliability and longevity of the S&W99 in 45 ACP? I shoot the S&W99 in 9mm and have not experienced any problems but have only given it ca 5000 rounds.

[Fastbolt]

My only exposure to the SW99 45 was for some extended T&E.

Personally, while I happen to like the 99 series, I just didn't care for the SW99 chambered in .45 ACP. It was reasonably accurate enough. No feeding/functioning problems were experienced or observed during the T&E period by any of the shooters.

It just wasn't as 'easy' to shoot as some of the other .45's being used according to some shooters. (The M&P series had not yet been released.) I found the SW99 45 accurate enough from a practical perspective, but not as 'easily accurate' as the HK USP 45, for example. I wasn't the only shooter to make this observation, either.

On the other hand, I've found my M&P 45 (full-size) to be amazingly accurate, even when the trigger was on the rather heavy end of expected tolerance when NIB. The consistency of accuracy of my M&P 45 has easily rivaled that of my 1911's (both Colt & S&W models). It's easily become my favorite .45 to choose for range training.

Now, if you can find a NIB SW99 45 with the lifetime warranty available it might be helpful. The reason I say this is that the Walther parts can be pretty expensive if you have to pay for them. The sear housing block, for example, costs approx $100 (retail) if it has to be replaced ... and since the ejector is molded into the housing block, if the ejector ever breaks the housing block must be replaced. Better to have this done under the S&W lifetime warranty, if at all possible.

Personally (and this is entirely subjective), I find the grip dimensions and overall ergonomics of the M&P to be superior to those of the SW99 45. The grip girth and height seem larger in the SW99 model than really needed for the 10-rd mag capacity, and the 99's backstrap inserts don't offer the sane extent of interchangeability as the M&P's grip inserts (which also change the palm swell).

There are some refinements and advantages found in the 99 design, but I feel there are some further refinements and advantages found within the M&P series.

If possible, being able to try an example of each would probably make selection an easier process for someone, but the availability of a used, or rental, SW99 might make that difficult or problematic.

I happen to like the 99 series best when chambered in 9mm (much like I prefer the Glock series when chambered in 9mm).

I happen to like the M&P best when chambered in .45 ACP.

Or, to put it this way ... which is very subjective, and is only my personal opinion ... as much a I liked the SW99 series (carrying an issued SW99 40 and owning both 9mm & .40 models), I was ready to order the SW99 45 when it was announced.

Once I handled and fired the T&E SW99 45, though, I changed my mind (from the very first range exposure).

I'm much happier with the M&P 45.

That's just me, though. There are some pleased owners of the SW99 45.

Try one of each at a range if at all possible.

[TSQUARED]

Fastbolt,
Many thanks for your detailed summary. I have an older Glock 36 (the ultra slim one only 1 inch wide) and was considering another plasrtic 45. I enjoy shooting my S&W99 in 9mm but I'll go for the M&P in 45.
Tony

[Out West]

Fastbolt is one of my favorite posters. I always give his opinions extra weight. Because of that, I'm wondering if I should give the M&P 45 a try. Of all the S&W 99's the 45 is my favorite. I sold the 99's in 9mm and 40, but kept the 45 acp. I've owned only one M&P and it was in 40 S&W. I sold it. Nothing wrong with it, but nothing to elevate it over any of the other 40's in my stable. I know Fastbolt has shot them all. If he is thinking that the M&P in 45acp is better, then I probably need to check one out.

As much as I like the 99 in 45acp, I have say that a 1911 remains my favorite platform for this caliber. This may be scope drift for the original thread, but Fastbolt have you found any polymer pistol in 45 the equal to the 1911? Just curious. Thanks for letting me ramble.

PS: Fastbolt, you leaving the lightning? If so, where are you headed next?

Out
West

[Fastbolt]

Howdy Out West.

Haven't left CA yet. Too many things have come up since retirement which have preoccupied us and we're still not completely sure we're going to leave the state after all.

As far as the M&P 45 being "better", it depends on your priority of considerations.

I do like a nicely done TDA (DA/SA) trigger, and the 99 series does offer a good one. That's one of the things I like about my SW99 9c ... the trigger.

The discussion of the advantages & disadvantages of the 99 v. M&P series is going to be relative to the owner's perspectives and what they tend to think is more important to them. No surprise, and perfectly understandable.

The M&P incorporates some interesting and practical refinements to the plastic pistol concept.

Funny you should mention 1911's, though.

Once I started doing a lot of shooting with my M&P45 FS, I found I enjoyed shooting it as much as my 1911's ... and then I found I was taking it to range sessions to the exclusion of both my 1911's and my S&W 3rd gen TDA .45's.

The smallest grip insert for the M&P 45 seems to closely approximate the overall feel and grip angle of a flat mainspring housing on my 1911's (which I prefer). Granted, the hinged trigger is never going to approach that of the straight 1911 press. Don't be surprised if you experience some initial muzzle depression while becoming accustomed to the M&P 45, as I've seen that with a few 1911 shooters who adopted the M&P 45.

Which brings me to another interesting (to me, anyway) observation regarding the M&P 45 ...

I've seen a couple of Glock .45 shooters and a handful of SERIOUS 1911 shooters (instructors) order M&P 45's after trying them. It's created commonality of interest among shooters of other platforms. Not for any particular feature, mind you ... although they all express a lot of appreciation and respect for the surprising inherent accuracy ... but for its combination of features and virtues which make it, as one experienced 1911 owner/shooter described it, a good "fighting pistol". Interesting.

One Glock shooter immediately shot better with the M&P 45 compared to when he was shooting his G21SF.

I've done some shooting with the M&P 45 out to 50-75 yards to compare it to my better 1911's, and the M&P 45 can easily produce every bit as good of accuracy at those distances ... despite the different trigger ... and on some days it's allowed me to do better. Go figure.

I'm leaving my M&P 45 stock for now. I might consider a PC sear and some fine tuning at some point down the road. It's just that initial trigger pull weight averages of 8 1/2 - 9 lbs have smoothed out and lightened up to a very predictable 5 1/2 - 6 lbs average (on a digital gauge) and it's working very well for me just as it is ...

I wouldn't ever recommend you run out and trade off your SW99 45 ... but I think you might enjoy trying a M&P 45 sometime.

I'm seriously thinking of getting a M&P 45c sometime. Just enough shorter in length & height to make it more appealing for CCW use. I really liked the M&P 45c I handled and tried out recently.

Gotta run.

Talk to you later.

[ExiledvikingII]

Thanks for the very informative input, Fastbolt. I have a 9mm M&P FS that I am very fond of. I am currently looking to buy an M&P45. I also have a few 1911s and I am wondering about the thumb safety offered on the M&P45. I have handled 2 at a gunstore, one with the thumb safety and 1without, and I found that I preferred the M&P45 without the thumb safety. Does your M&P45 have a thumb safety?

[Fastbolt]

My M&P 45 has the thumb safety, but my M&P 40c doesn't.

I got the model with the thumb safety because it came with factory night sights at the time and I'm a long time 1911 owner & shooter. I was curious about the thumb safety.

They don't 'feel' like that on a 1911. The detent plunger and spring don't give the same stiffness as on a 1911.

The interesting aspect of the M&P thumb safety is that it doesn't interfere with running the slide (to empty the chamber). It just blocks the back of the trigger bar on the right side.

Depending on the shooting grip used, a thumb might be able to bump up and engage the thumb safety. Depends on the shooter. I know one 1911 shooter who experienced this while shooting mine.

Although I grew up shooting a 1911, I didn't adopt the extended thumb safety lock levers for quite a while once they became popular, preferring to remain with the standard lever. That being the case, I wasn't exactly married to the idea of resting my thumb on top of the lever as is popular among some training venues. Also, owning, using and training with a different number of pistols eventually resulted in my adopting a fairly low thumb position, which doesn't lend itself to either unintentionally engaging a rearward located slide stop lever or the M&P's thumb safety ... so far, anyway.

I'm a bit ambivalent on the thumb safety for the M&P. It doesn't bother me to depress it having spent so many years shooting 1911's, nor does it bother me to have a M&P without the lever (having used a lot of TDA & DAO-type pistols without 'thumb safeties' having to be deactivated in order to shoot them over the years). Neither of my Glocks have this feature, nor do my SW99's.

The M&P's thumb safety was originally incorporated because of an expected military specification for the anticipated military service pistol trials. (Likewise the roll pin used for the extractor in the .45 models.) Naturally, the commercial market seemed to jump on the idea and want it in the rest of the M&P model line.

I'm considering getting the 45c at some point equipped the same way as my full-size M&P 45, if only for the sake of conformity.

The thing is that it can obviously be a training issue, just as it is when people are taught and trained to use 1911's. Something for each person to carefully consider for themselves, I'd think.