How did S&W lose the LE market?

[Silversmok3]

I am a latecomer to the cadre of 3rd Generation S&W owners,so much of the history of these guns vis a vis law enforcement is obscure to me.I know from various readings at one point in time S&W had a good share of the American law enforcement market,but now Glocks seem to be the preferred firearm in LE today.

This is perplexing to me, as in the unlikely event I were drafted tomorrow into a Marshall's posse id be taking one of my S&W 3rd Gens into the fight. There is a major difference to me in workmanship and quality of a S&W semi-auto compared to a Glock, and in fact many LE members still carry their so called 'obsolete' Smiths into duty now. Was it bad customer service, or politics & legalities that caused the migration to Glock duty pistols,or some other factor?

Thanks in advance for your replies.

 

[ispcapt]

We issued S&W autos for 32 years. When we got ready to swap out again for new guns the Glock bid was 1/2 of S&W's bid. Difference of over $1/4 million.

 

[Rangerpat]

Silversmok3,
Do a search on this forum or Google: "Fresh Air, NPR interview, Glock the rise of the American Gun." The book is written by Paul Barrett. I believe it will help answer your question.

 

[Snowbandit]

Glock is underbidding everybody and Smith's quality dropped into the tank. Raising prices and cutting quality is not a very good marketing plan but seems to be the one Smith & Wesson has adopted.

 

[18DAI]

Yep, dollars did them in. In the vast majority of LE agencies, bean counters not shooters decide what rides in your holster.

Why do you think S&W is giving some LE agencies all those free M&P pistols? If you can't pass a T&E, appeal to the bean counters!

Thank God for "approved lists". Some of us can still carry decent handguns on the job. Regards 18DAI

 

[silentflyer]

Remember the old adage, "take comfort in knowing your weapons system is built by the low bidder" ....

 

[dsk]

It wasn't just S&W, pretty much everybody lost out to Glock when bidding. There was a time when Berettas were almost as common in police holsters as Smiths, now they're in an even worse position than S&W is. Fortunately they're starting to come back with their M&P line, winning over one department at a time. But it's going to be a long road back, and Glock continues to sell pistols for less than many companies can even make theirs for.

 

[VTHokiesDuckHunter]

Funny, of the LE departments that don't issue Glocks, and that have a choice, I see more and more of them carrying SIGs.

SIG is currently making the equivalent to the 3rd Gen/4th Gen that S&W should have made.

Departments that like hammer fired DA/SA guns, or that like all metal guns have only these choices:

SIG
Beretta
1911's

Some Leo's are also discovering that the FN guns are very robust, have great ergonomics, are great shooters, and are hammer fired DA/SA guns. You will start seeing a lot more of those in holsters on a LEO near you soon.

Of course if you are a striker fired/DAO loving type department and dollars are the main differentiation, then Glocks and S&W M&P will duke it out over price

 

[KarmannGhia]

When you're buying 1000+ units, price matters. Glock's marketing and their ability sell for less put them at the top. S&W's M&P is coming back and riding on a lot of hips. I love 3rd gens, but plastic will always be cheaper, and cheaper sells when volume is involved.

 

[Broadside]

Yep, dollars did them in. In the vast majority of LE agencies, bean counters not shooters decide what rides in your holster.

Huh?!

This may come as a shock to a "non-bean counter" like you, but police budgets, like all budgets, are finite. Every dollar spent on a service pistol and leather is one less dollar available for radios, vehicles and training.

Firearms are purchased just like everthing else in government procurement. A list of requirements is published and vendors submit bids that meet the requirements. The lowest bidder that meets the requirements wins the bid.

The idea of penetrating a market by selling at a loss is nothing new. That's how Beretta initially got in the L.E. market themselves with the Beretta 92. When the Connecticut State Police were replacing their revolvers, Beretta offered to give the 92 to them free of charge.

In many cases Glock will offer to sell pistols to agencies for just the cost of new night sights and take their old pistols in trade. They then go and sell the old pistols for $200 to $300 each. Glock has decided that this is a good business model for them.

On the other side, it keeps my tax dollars down and allows me to pick up L.E. trade-in pistols at a decent price.

 

[stevieboy]

Smith's loss of market share is no mystery. It was caught flat-footed when Glock first marketed its product. Smith was, at the time, making steel revolvers, steel-framed semiautos, and some alloy semiautos. The shift from these guns to polycarbonate framed guns was a market revolution that Smith, and other manufacturers, simply did not anticipate.

Today, there is no shortage of fine polycarbonate framed semiautos. Glock makes them, but so do Smith, Ruger, Sig, CZ, Beretta, and Springfield Armory, just to name a few. All of these guns are high-quality, well-made pieces. Although people argue the relative merits of these guns endlessly, the truth is that none of them is heads and shoulders above the others in terms of quality, performance, and reliability. My guess is that Smith and most or all of these other manufacturers are offering their products to law enforcement agencies at prices that are competitive with Glock's.

So, what keeps Glock in a dominant position? Well, brand loyalty, once established, is a hard thing to break. If a department has used Glocks for a decade or more and they work well, what would motivate it to change manufacturers if everyone is offering their products at competitive prices? The answer, obviously, is that many will stick with that with which they are familiar. Glock will maintain a big market share until someone can produce a competitive product at a much lower price or until some other manufacturer produces something that is price competitive with Glock and a significant improvement. I suspect that will not happen for a long time if ever.

 

[1 old 0311]

We issued S&W autos for 32 years. When we got ready to swap out again for new guns the Glock bid was 1/2 of S&W's bid. Difference of over $1/4 million.

That's true but not all of it: Glock also bought the old LEO trade in's at RETAIL. How can they afford to do this? Easy. What do people buy? They buy what the LEO's use.

If 1 LEO sale gets you 20-30 civilian sales you did good!

 

[Silversmok3]

Interesting responses.So we can draw the conclusion that money savings is a primary reason why Glock is so popular among Law Enforcement.

I find it ironic that the Glock pistols are advanced as a great choice for the civilian shooter on account of the various police agencies using that brand,when in most cases the reason such pistols are even in police holsters is because of cost savings!

I do not write this to step on Glock owners' toes.

 

[VTHokiesDuckHunter]

A few toes may have been actually lost due to accidental discharge of the Glocks.................

 

[Fastbolt]

Post # 2 nailed it. It's the money. (Hey, how you doing, BTW?)

Glock's aggressive marketing (being able to undercut other companies with their bids) has been highly effective. No surprise.

Yes, the armorer training is simpler. Nothing to fit in the guns like in the S&W TDA's. That's a minor in-service issue, though. If the company offers free armorer training and parts support, it's only costing the agency another couple of days of employee time for the class. Another $200 - $300 in tools. (Petty cash.)

It's the cost per unit that can often become the pivotal consideration when it comes to procurement and bid processes.

Now, it didn't hurt that a Glock is easier and less expensive to make, either.

According to the rep at my last Glock armorer recert, a Glock frame pops out of a mold every 85 seconds. Last I was told, it required approx 30 minutes for a CNC cutter to make a 3rd gen frame. Which is going to cost more when it comes to production time per unit, and how many units can be produced in the same amount of time, overall?

Why do you think Sig Sauer has been putting so much emphasis on developing and producing a plastic striker-fired pistol that can compete in today's LE/Gov marketplace? Maybe they realize they're traveling down the same path as S&W when it comes to metal-framed service pistols remaining competitive for civilian gov sales.

If it wasn't for the military's buying the M9, how heavily do you think Beretta would remain invested in metal-framed pistols? Why do you think they've developed their own plastic pistol in the first place?

All the major makers are involved in developing new, or refining existing, plastic service-type pistols.

S&W just got stung first in the LE field. They were the ones to beat when they were on top. (But they've been doing their homework )

 

[CQB27]

Interesting responses.So we can draw the conclusion that money savings is a primary reason why Glock is so popular among Law Enforcement.

I find it ironic that the Glock pistols are advanced as a great choice for the civilian shooter on account of the various police agencies using that brand,when in most cases the reason such pistols are even in police holsters is because of cost savings!

I do not write this to step on Glock owners' toes.

If it were simply a money saving issue we would all be carrying Hi-Point Pistols.

Price per pistol is one reason. When I look at the rapid growth and continued dominance of the Glock in law enforcement I draw a few basic conclusions.

They are well made, funcitional, accurate and very reliable.

They are very competitive in price.

They have an excellent customer service history in the LEO community.

They were the first, and in many ways , still lead in the polycarb pistol family.

Smith and Wesson came to the table very late in the polycarb pistol game, as a result they have paid a price for that. By the way I currently carry a 5906 on duty. In March I will be issued a Glock 17. My department (110 officers) went through a 2 month "Test and Evaluation" that included the Glock 17/19. S&W M&P9, and SIG 229. Every officer shot all three and gave their input. The rank and file voted and the Glock won by over 90% margin.

 

[dsk]

What's so sad about this is that many folks (like me) detest plastic-framed pistols. I have one Glock and one Kel-Tec, that's it. My other guns are all metal except for grips and a few small parts.

BTW I wouldn't say that S&W was claught flat-footed. I don't think everyone anticipated that Glock's market strategy would pay off like it did, being the huge risk that it was. But by the time it became apparent that Glock was taking the market away from everyone else it took time to research, design, and produce a comparable product. Don't forget that S&W's first attempt was basically a Glock copy that got them into trouble for obviously borrowing features from it. The excellent M&P required a lot more careful design and development, and took years to bring to market. At least S&W actually has a decent competitor now. Most other manufacturers are quite ho-hum with their offerings, leaving not much incentive to get away from Glocks if the latter are working fine for the agencies.

 

[murphydog]

At the time of their introduction here, Glock had a fairly unique and easy to use product that was marketed aggressively. The polymer H & K P9 was earlier but complex and didn't sell well to the LE community.

 

[markfi]

LE

Glock sells the standard frame G22/17/19 etc to Departments for $350 ea without night sights. They are taking in Sig's and Beretta's, etc and selling them. If they get them for $300-$350 ea in trade the Dept pays little to nothing and gets new guns. Several Departments have gone this way. Sanford NC police traded in old Sig 220's in for Glock 37's. S&W has moved forward with their M&P line and sells to Police for about $25 more than Glocks. Charlotte PD, NC Highway Patrol and Raleigh PD use the M&P. I see a lot of Departments going to the M&P in my area because they can also get M&P AR15's. S&W lifetime guarantee and Armorers training are part of the package. With the new poly holsters it is cheaper to switch. The older holsters we used to use cost a lot of money and now we use Blackhawk Serpa, that cost us $27 ea.

 

[ispcapt]

That's true but not all of it: Glock also bought the old LEO trade in's at RETAIL. How can they afford to do this? Easy. What do people buy? They buy what the LEO's use.
If 1 LEO sale gets you 20-30 civilian sales you did good!

What you quoted from my post was all true. All of it. I was commanding our R&D at the time so I had more than just passing knowledge of the process.
But since you're interested in the truth, here's the story. (all of it true)
We had been issuing S&W autos for 32 yrs. We were the first agency to issue autos in fact. In the late 1990s the legislature gave us $1/4 mil to upgrade our guns. Our director decreed we would be going to .40. We tested 15 different makes/models. After over a year of testing the top 3 were selected for bids. In ranking order they were SIG, S&W and Glock. The bids were for 2553 new guns, all new leather, 750 rds per sworn for transition training ammo, and duty ammo. We would be trading in our old 5904/6904 and had up to $1/4 mil to spend.
Glock's bid was a shade over $1/4 mil.
S&W's bid was about double Glock's bid.
SIG's bid was about $1.1 mil.
We had no desire to move from S&W as we'd been issuing it for 32 yrs, had a very good track record with it, and worked well with the S&W folks. What it came down to was the bids which was Glock. Unless there was some factual fault with Glock's bid then we're required to take the lowest bid of an acceptable product. Those are government purchasing laws. Can't spend more for something just because you want it if a suitable product can be purchased for a less price. You don't even want to try going around those rules. People lose jobs and go to jail for violating purchasing laws.
Figure the cost of 2553 guns, new leather ($100+/sworn), and almost 2 million rds of ammo and divide that into $250K. Glock would have had to sell our old S&Ws above retail to equal even police price for their guns.
So your "theory" that Glock was buying back guns at retail isn't exactly true. Everyone was bidding on the same package. If you've taken any business courses you would recognize what Glock was doing is called creative marketing. Glock wanted our business. They wanted to take us away from S&W because it was marketing for them. How much so? The year Glock got our business we were the featured article in the Glock annual. It's advertisemnt. So in that regard what you wrote is true. The public will buy what the police are buying. And in this case Glock made sure the public knew they had taken the business away from S&W. What was the impression left for the public? It was that Glock must be better or the wouldn't have gotten the contract and busted up a 32 yr hold by another company. Truthfully, that was not the case at all but that's the impression Glock wanted to give. Had the public known that the only reason Glock got the bid was because they were $250K under the next closest bid and it wasn't anything about superior quality.
All companies do the same thing to a degree. The local PD, about 300 sworn, had been carrying 6904/6906s and were looking to upgrade. This was just as the 357 rd came out but no one was really jumping on it. SIG made the PD a heck of a deal. SIG took the PD's old 6904/6906 and in return gave the PD new SIGs in 357 plus all new leather plus transition training ammo for everyone plus enough duty ammo to last everyone 2 yrs. SIG also promised that if the 357 rd didn't perform as expected or if it didn't pick up more during the next 2 yrs that SIG would trade them for new .40s at no cost. There's no way a very well used 6904 could be priced to make a profit over the price of a new SIG, new leather, and ammo. No way SIG could sell the old 6904/6906 to recoup the cost of what they gave the PD. But what SIG got was advertisement.
S&W was doing the same thing in the early 70s and 80s.
It's not just gun companies. Any business that deals with large population buyers do the same thing. Chevy did it in 1991/92. Dodge did it in the mid 80s. It's about getting their product out there in mass and then using that as advertisement.