I have witnessed LE firearms sales from the sales end for many years as it is the business of a very good friend of mine. Unfortunately when it comes to brand of firearm it always has to do with politics and wheel greasing and not consideration for officer safety. Caliber choice is most often a matter of opinion of the man in charge. JMHO
NC Highway Patrol "ditching" M&P357?
- Thread starter Harkrader
- Start date
catcus-jack
Member
That's is the funniest thing I have read here in a long time.What about the all the problems with the M&P line.If you don't think they have problems then you are fooling yourself.I would be furious if I had to give up a Sig for a M&P.
Doug M.
Member
*
No doubt that there have been problems with M&Ps. The barrel/slide/accuracy crud with the M&P 9 is disgraceful, for example. This kind of stuff is not limited to S&W, either. When a police Lt. is referred to as the "Glock Gremlin Guru" and has been for over 5 years, that's a bad sign. However, if you look at the info available from agencies and trainers where there are collectively a LOT of rounds downrange, M&Ps are less troublesome than most other makes. Within that group, SIG has had awful problems. The one I bought was so messed up the dealer rejected it before I even saw it.
If shooters were Catholics, DA/SA would be a mortal sin. It serves no conceivable purpose, and is counterproductive to the purpose of a defensive sidearm. Managers (they are not leaders) who advocate such should be removed for incompetence and dereliction. I'd be more interested/confident in a used rebuilt 3rd generation S&W DAO than I would a new DA/SA anything.
lhump1961
US Veteran
Pass the popcorn, please....
Fastbolt
Member
If I recall correctly, they experienced some wear/breakage with the other make/model of service pistol they previously used chambered in .357SIG, as well.
The cartridge is hard on guns. Even harder than .40 S&W.
If I had to support guns chambered in it I'd be replacing recoil springs pretty frequently, to try and keep the guns alive as long as possible.
catcus-jack
Member
Last edited:
Doug M.
Member
Actually, military personnel with the exception of a very few people in the SOCOM community do not shoot near as much as the people to whom I am referring. Included in my source group are people who did a lot of time in the military, and have serious qualms about the training provided to most personnel. Unlike me, they have the qualifications to make that commentary, and I will take their word for it.
That's putting aside that although a sidearm is by definition a secondary weapon anyway, it is even less important to most military folks. My background is from the LE side. As a (retired) officer and as a prior LE legal advisor, I am pretty familiar with the issues involved, and my statements are consistent with the legal advice I have given and would continue to give. Even as far back as my academy in 1989, the DA/SA format was roundly criticized by the instructors. It can be overcome to a great extent, but that is a waste of training time and money, foisted on personnel who had no say, by people who were not even arguably qualified to have an opinion, let alone make a decision of such import.
That's putting aside that although a sidearm is by definition a secondary weapon anyway, it is even less important to most military folks. My background is from the LE side. As a (retired) officer and as a prior LE legal advisor, I am pretty familiar with the issues involved, and my statements are consistent with the legal advice I have given and would continue to give. Even as far back as my academy in 1989, the DA/SA format was roundly criticized by the instructors. It can be overcome to a great extent, but that is a waste of training time and money, foisted on personnel who had no say, by people who were not even arguably qualified to have an opinion, let alone make a decision of such import.
Last edited:
Comrad
Member
Well, from here I smell money, somebody is making money. Just saying. Makes the world go 'round.
I just had to add this to the mix: Texas DPS switching service pistols for troopers | khou.com Houston
Previous NCHP weapon was a SIG229DAK. Prior to that they used the Beretta Cougar ( unknown caliber ). I think they had a lot of issues with that weapon and we're glad to see it gone.
I, as a NC tax payer, cannot understand the reasoning in going from a SIG that most troopers liked, to a S&W, and now back to a SIG. All of this in a few short years..
I, as a NC tax payer, cannot understand the reasoning in going from a SIG that most troopers liked, to a S&W, and now back to a SIG. All of this in a few short years..
The very latest M&P LE pistols demonstrate that S&W continues to listen to end users and actively works on improving their products. I think most officers would be very well served with one in a duty holster. Whether one manufacturer builds a better product than another is rarely the sole criteria for choosing replacement service pistols. Most here would agree that money and politics get factored in to the decision making process. Beretta ignored the service end of the equation and the reality that you need to make concessions if you want LE market share. The 92 remains an excellent platform that some would prefer over Glock, Sig or an M&P. A better gun doesn't necessarily trump financial and/or other considerations.
The 357Sig is a fine round. It does have limited loadings and there are tradeoffs in muzzle blast, noise and accelerated wear. For some, the intermediate barrier penetration is a huge draw for this round. The 40S&W can be loaded to meet that same need. You can push a 9x19 fast with +P+ loads, but most manufacturers don't warranty such use and the case is marginal at extremes. Better to chose a caliber designed to handle greater power requirements. The 357Sig case is designed for high pressures and the bottle neck design enhances feeding reliability. The form factor allows it to fit most platform designs that also work for 9mm and 40S&W. Looks really great on paper...
But without enough critical mass in the form of a broader base of users, the round lost its opportunity to provide any ammunition manufacturer the ability to enjoy sufficient enough economies of scale to allow it to be price competitive with the 9mm and 40S&W and encourage more load development. With the pendulum swinging back to 9mm these days, it seems a fair certainty the 357Sig with never be more than a niche player that few departments will ever seriously consider going forward.The handwriting already is on the wall and the take away here is that there simply isn't anything compelling enough about the 357Sig for agencies to make a case for ignoring more practical considerations.
The 357Sig is a fine round. It does have limited loadings and there are tradeoffs in muzzle blast, noise and accelerated wear. For some, the intermediate barrier penetration is a huge draw for this round. The 40S&W can be loaded to meet that same need. You can push a 9x19 fast with +P+ loads, but most manufacturers don't warranty such use and the case is marginal at extremes. Better to chose a caliber designed to handle greater power requirements. The 357Sig case is designed for high pressures and the bottle neck design enhances feeding reliability. The form factor allows it to fit most platform designs that also work for 9mm and 40S&W. Looks really great on paper...
But without enough critical mass in the form of a broader base of users, the round lost its opportunity to provide any ammunition manufacturer the ability to enjoy sufficient enough economies of scale to allow it to be price competitive with the 9mm and 40S&W and encourage more load development. With the pendulum swinging back to 9mm these days, it seems a fair certainty the 357Sig with never be more than a niche player that few departments will ever seriously consider going forward.The handwriting already is on the wall and the take away here is that there simply isn't anything compelling enough about the 357Sig for agencies to make a case for ignoring more practical considerations.
kevin in nh
Member
I have several Sigs....and have carried a 229 in 357 Sig as a police officer 17 years....the same one I was issued 17 years ago! I, along with a couple of "the young guns" shoot them a lot...I personally have put no less than 8 thousand rounds through it...without a hitch...there are 16 of us...no issues. We were told the quality of the ones we recieved in 95/97 was the best so we had them replace springs sights etc....here in New Hampshire I have dispatched plenty of Deer and even a Moose....not to mention the windshield test, car doors, etc....its record on one shot stops is impressive....all 16 of us have complete confidence in the pistol and the round
4506517
Member
Lol.....most of the HP guys I work with HATE the M&P........
Why of course!
Walt Sherrill
Member
It's now 2016 and the NCHP (my son is a State Trooper) has been using the SIG P229 for quite some time.
It wasn't politics that led the NCHP to switch to the M&Ps. As I understand it, it was money -- and S&W made them an offer they couldn't refuse. (Glock has done that a lot.)
The Troopers began having problems with proper function -- feeding and extraction during training and periodic qualifications. As they started looking for solutions, they found that a few other agencies around the country were also having problems with certain .357 SIGs weapons (not just S&W). One I heard mentioned was that a few agencies were having problems with the sub-compact Glock models used by some officers.
S&W sent their experts down to Raleigh, tested and evaluated the guns, took some back with them and worked on solutions, but never found any. It wasn't long after that happened, that S&W discontinued production of the .357 M&Ps. (I suspect .357 SIG models will eventually come back, but that may take some design changes or a new model.)
There seem to be no problems now that the P229 is back in State Trooper holsters. Many of the NC State Troopers seemed to like their M&Ps, and a number were able to buy their duty guns from the State (as is often the case) when the guns were changed out. They get sweetheart deals on those guns -- and keep them for personal use or sell them for a good profit. The State recovers it's costs.
I don't think the problems were widespread, but they occurred often enough to cause concern -- but there were never problems in line-of-duty situation, probably because Highway Patrol officers seldom have to fire their handguns on the job. They'll use TASERs and similar tools far more often. But a gun that MIGHT NOT function right was a big, nagging concern. Many Troopers are also issued AR-15-type weapons, which are kept in the back of their vehicles.
It wasn't politics that led the NCHP to switch to the M&Ps. As I understand it, it was money -- and S&W made them an offer they couldn't refuse. (Glock has done that a lot.)
The Troopers began having problems with proper function -- feeding and extraction during training and periodic qualifications. As they started looking for solutions, they found that a few other agencies around the country were also having problems with certain .357 SIGs weapons (not just S&W). One I heard mentioned was that a few agencies were having problems with the sub-compact Glock models used by some officers.
S&W sent their experts down to Raleigh, tested and evaluated the guns, took some back with them and worked on solutions, but never found any. It wasn't long after that happened, that S&W discontinued production of the .357 M&Ps. (I suspect .357 SIG models will eventually come back, but that may take some design changes or a new model.)
There seem to be no problems now that the P229 is back in State Trooper holsters. Many of the NC State Troopers seemed to like their M&Ps, and a number were able to buy their duty guns from the State (as is often the case) when the guns were changed out. They get sweetheart deals on those guns -- and keep them for personal use or sell them for a good profit. The State recovers it's costs.
I don't think the problems were widespread, but they occurred often enough to cause concern -- but there were never problems in line-of-duty situation, probably because Highway Patrol officers seldom have to fire their handguns on the job. They'll use TASERs and similar tools far more often. But a gun that MIGHT NOT function right was a big, nagging concern. Many Troopers are also issued AR-15-type weapons, which are kept in the back of their vehicles.
Last edited:
silversport
Member
thanks for that insight Walt Sherrill...I have had a M&P 357c for some time now (but admittedly under 1000 rounds fired) and mine has been a very nice shooter, accurate as anything and soft shooting to boot...I hope it continues along this path...
Bill
Bill
grumpy7159
Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 59
- Reaction score
- 17
I have the P229 (DAK) and the M&P (full size) in .357 SIG. No problems with either yet. I was looking for a M&P 357c with none to be found. I am thinking about converting my 40c to 357c. I like the round and I like the DA/SA of my P226 and the trigger. I see a trade in my future for another Sig. I see the logic in the HP's choice.
Chief's preference, purchasing agents, special deals, forfiture money, marketing ploys, cool factor, etc., etc., etc. There are 100+ reasons why a department changes guns and very few of them involve performance or officer satisfaction. The same way the LASD woes with the M&P were 100% training based. Unfortunately in a world of media mind control and zero accountability, it had to be the gun (until it wasn't the gun). When i read about a department ditching an M&P I rejoice in the potential for low cost surplus M&P's hitting the market. Woo Hoo!
