I carry a Glock 23C because the department requires me too. That being said, I wrote that into policy when I selected the G22, G22C & G23C as my agency's issues sidearm. So when I say my department requires it, I am the department. Before that you could take a department Glock 17 or carry your personally owned weapon. I felt that we all needed to be on the same page with our duty weapons. But I am less than enamored with our .40 Glocks and as they wear out I am considering a change over to the M&P. How many of you LEO's carry an M&P on duty? Agency issue or personally owned?
How many LEO's on here carry an M&P?
- Thread starter mlk18
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
+1 - not issued but approved carry for a Fed agency ( I may or may not work for...)
Firespec35
Member
I know Detroit PD was issued them about a year ago. The ones I talk to seem to like them. Call S&W, they might make you a deal for a wholsale change
Forsmithers
Member
I transitioned from a dept. issued Glock 23 to an issued M&P in Feb. 2008. I am assigned to investigations so I was given the option of a full size M&P40 or the 40C. I opted for the 40C after shooting both and realizing that I would have the best of both worlds being able to carry 15 shot magazines with the compact as needed. With the flat base pad magazine this pistol is almost as small as a Glock 27. This makes it ideal for my daily plain clothes carry, off duty concealed carry and while working off duty or in uniform as needed.
So far, knock on wood, I have had no problems or issues with the 40C. I've got about 1,500 rounds. Even with using the longer 15 shot magazines without the x-grip installed. My dept. is "testing" the X-grip and will hopefully issue or allow us to purchase on our own.
I shoot the 40C better than the Glock 23 and it definitely feels and points better (for me) and I even think the recoil is lighter. Might be the large palmswell backstrap I have installed.
My dept. has about 1,700 in the fleet and I have heard of very few problems with the M&P4- and 40C. A few early guns were shipped back, especially some compacts that were having feeding issues. Thankfully mine is still functioning as it was designed. I am also happy with the accuracy out to 25 yards for a short barrelled compact. I haven't tried firing at any distance past 25, yet!
So far, knock on wood, I have had no problems or issues with the 40C. I've got about 1,500 rounds. Even with using the longer 15 shot magazines without the x-grip installed. My dept. is "testing" the X-grip and will hopefully issue or allow us to purchase on our own.
I shoot the 40C better than the Glock 23 and it definitely feels and points better (for me) and I even think the recoil is lighter. Might be the large palmswell backstrap I have installed.
My dept. has about 1,700 in the fleet and I have heard of very few problems with the M&P4- and 40C. A few early guns were shipped back, especially some compacts that were having feeding issues. Thankfully mine is still functioning as it was designed. I am also happy with the accuracy out to 25 yards for a short barrelled compact. I haven't tried firing at any distance past 25, yet!
RABULL
Member
M & P .45 Off Duty Personally Owned...
David Hineline
Member
I don't think your Glocks are wearing out.
SMMAssociates
Member
Semi-retired rent-a-cop.... If I had to go out in uniform, it'd be a 6" S&W M19 
....
But I have a full size and compact M&P40, and both are outstanding. I can see why they could replace the old M10HB I used to carry in soft clothes, before semis were common. I don't care for Glocks, but they're OK, too.
FWIW, the M&P40FS was a little troublesome at first. The front and rear sights were just way off.... Much cursing later, it's fine. The 40C, about four months old at this point, was 100% NIB. Both shoot beautifully.
My agency doesn't much care what we carry. Mostly a small 1911 in my case. The full size M&P is basically a range gun, while the little guy is for around the house - the 1911 kinda pulls my jeans down....
(I don't think my duty belt fits at all anymore. I turned back the uniform sometime in the last Century.... Just some dispatch and training, as well as some quick response if I'm on the road for some reason. The last one of those, I'm ashamed to say, was to get some fuel for another Officer's vehicle. The former day job had me taking alarm drops at all hours, too. Never should have told the alarm folks I had a pager.)
Just IMHO, and back on topic, if you're not stuck with 4" M10HB's like mine (I still have it), the M&P's a fine choice. I find the .40C to be kinda snappy, but not all that worse than the full size, and only slightly nastier than the .45 in a 1911. I doubt if anybody on the PD would have a problem with the full size, and the 40C's really pleasant compared to something like a J-frame.
Regards,
....But I have a full size and compact M&P40, and both are outstanding. I can see why they could replace the old M10HB I used to carry in soft clothes, before semis were common. I don't care for Glocks, but they're OK, too.
FWIW, the M&P40FS was a little troublesome at first. The front and rear sights were just way off.... Much cursing later, it's fine. The 40C, about four months old at this point, was 100% NIB. Both shoot beautifully.
My agency doesn't much care what we carry. Mostly a small 1911 in my case. The full size M&P is basically a range gun, while the little guy is for around the house - the 1911 kinda pulls my jeans down
.... (I don't think my duty belt fits at all anymore. I turned back the uniform sometime in the last Century.... Just some dispatch and training, as well as some quick response if I'm on the road for some reason. The last one of those, I'm ashamed to say, was to get some fuel for another Officer's vehicle. The former day job had me taking alarm drops at all hours, too. Never should have told the alarm folks I had a pager
.)Just IMHO, and back on topic, if you're not stuck with 4" M10HB's like mine (I still have it), the M&P's a fine choice. I find the .40C to be kinda snappy, but not all that worse than the full size, and only slightly nastier than the .45 in a 1911. I doubt if anybody on the PD would have a problem with the full size, and the 40C's really pleasant compared to something like a J-frame.
Regards,
Skeptic 9c
Member
I'm not LEO. I wonder about "standarization" on a single pistol for all personnel. Years back there was a lawsuit, according to Ayoob, because female personnel could not get a weapon sized to their hands. Way back when, one Sheriff just standardized on the round the State Police used and allowed his folks to use whatever S&W that was chambered for the round. I recall it was the Federal 9mm at that time.
Geoff
Who has a small hand but still finds the M&P 9c just a bit large in the grip.
Geoff
Who has a small hand but still finds the M&P 9c just a bit large in the grip.
SharpshooterOPD
Member
Along with conducting all my department's firearms training, maintaining department issued weapons, and operating as a sniper for our tactical team, I am also tasked with writing/revising department policy concerning response to resistance/aggression (AKA use of force). A little more than a decade ago, we adopted the SW99 as a duty handgun. During the ensuing revision of our firearms policy, I made the same mistake you did; i.e. officers were required to carry only the department issued pistol. My thinking at the time was undoubtedly the same as yours; standardization of training, ammunition, holsters, etc. At the same time, however, officers were still permitted to carry basically whatever they could qualify with for off-duty purposes. Thus, I was still training/qualifying officers with revolvers, and most any semi-auto that would spit out a bullet.
Then, three years ago last month, after extensive testing and consultation with the ordnance division of the Columbus Ohio Police Department, we adopted the M&P .40 (not because the SW99's were worn out or giving us problems, but rather because S&W offered us a heck of a deal on a trade for brand new M&P's). This time, when I revised the firearms policy, I included an allowance for officers to carry a pistol other than the standard issued M&P if they obtained authorization to do so. This still allowed me some control over what was being carried on the street (so there will be no Desert Eagles or Peace Makers), but it gave officers the opportunity to deviate from the department issue if they felt the need to do so. Since I'm confident in my ability to train officers with most anything out there, I didn't concern myself with that aspect; and as far as ammunition and holsters go, they must provide their own if they opt for something other than the standard issue items.
Interestingly, the only person to take advantage of the new allowance is our detective; which makes sense considering his plain-clothes attire does not always lend itself to a full-size holster pistol. Even he, however, reverts to his M&P on those occasions where he finds himself back in uniform. This also solves the problem mentioned above concerning the "one size fits all" concept in those instances where it doesn't.
From the late 70's through the mid-90's, Law Enforcement agencies across the country began the practice of churning out iron clad policies covering almost everything from pinning on an officers badge to shooting a bad guy who was intent on putting a bullet hole through that badge. I think those policies were probably necessary at the time because there was little standardization of anything from one jurisdiction to the next. These days, I think we are worlds ahead of where we were back then. Not only is there far more consistency throughout the field, but professional standards are also becoming far more common, as are college degrees and formally trained leaders. Not surprisingly in this era of enlightenment, some of those policies from the past are becoming cumbersome, if not downright counterproductive. It is also, perhaps, not tremendously shocking that those of us who "grew up" in the age of the iron clad policy will have the hardest time letting them go. I think, however, we need to do so; or else we will needlessly retard the growth of these educated, creative, and (dare I say it?) computer savvy, young officers who are coming into the field now. Granted, they still need to have some discipline instilled in their psyche; and they need guidance to be sure, but just maybe they don't need the iron clad, blunt instrument over the head sort of measures we did. The very ones, you other old timers may remember too, that we questioned the need for when we were rookies.
Sorry, I guess I wondered way off the course of the original question. Just trying to help.
HRF
Then, three years ago last month, after extensive testing and consultation with the ordnance division of the Columbus Ohio Police Department, we adopted the M&P .40 (not because the SW99's were worn out or giving us problems, but rather because S&W offered us a heck of a deal on a trade for brand new M&P's). This time, when I revised the firearms policy, I included an allowance for officers to carry a pistol other than the standard issued M&P if they obtained authorization to do so. This still allowed me some control over what was being carried on the street (so there will be no Desert Eagles or Peace Makers), but it gave officers the opportunity to deviate from the department issue if they felt the need to do so. Since I'm confident in my ability to train officers with most anything out there, I didn't concern myself with that aspect; and as far as ammunition and holsters go, they must provide their own if they opt for something other than the standard issue items.
Interestingly, the only person to take advantage of the new allowance is our detective; which makes sense considering his plain-clothes attire does not always lend itself to a full-size holster pistol. Even he, however, reverts to his M&P on those occasions where he finds himself back in uniform. This also solves the problem mentioned above concerning the "one size fits all" concept in those instances where it doesn't.
From the late 70's through the mid-90's, Law Enforcement agencies across the country began the practice of churning out iron clad policies covering almost everything from pinning on an officers badge to shooting a bad guy who was intent on putting a bullet hole through that badge. I think those policies were probably necessary at the time because there was little standardization of anything from one jurisdiction to the next. These days, I think we are worlds ahead of where we were back then. Not only is there far more consistency throughout the field, but professional standards are also becoming far more common, as are college degrees and formally trained leaders. Not surprisingly in this era of enlightenment, some of those policies from the past are becoming cumbersome, if not downright counterproductive. It is also, perhaps, not tremendously shocking that those of us who "grew up" in the age of the iron clad policy will have the hardest time letting them go. I think, however, we need to do so; or else we will needlessly retard the growth of these educated, creative, and (dare I say it?) computer savvy, young officers who are coming into the field now. Granted, they still need to have some discipline instilled in their psyche; and they need guidance to be sure, but just maybe they don't need the iron clad, blunt instrument over the head sort of measures we did. The very ones, you other old timers may remember too, that we questioned the need for when we were rookies.
Sorry, I guess I wondered way off the course of the original question. Just trying to help.
HRF
Last edited:
Milpolice
US Veteran
M&P 40
I carry a Sig 220 (45 ACP) for duty but prefer the lighter M&P 40 for off duty carry and traffic details not requiring "full" duty belt.
I carry a Sig 220 (45 ACP) for duty but prefer the lighter M&P 40 for off duty carry and traffic details not requiring "full" duty belt.
JamesArthur60
US Veteran
In Ohio, Columbus and Cincinnati were the first to switch to the M&P 40 when that model/design was introduced by S&W.
Stu454
Member
Atlanta PD carries the M&P .40; I'm unsure what else may or may not be allowed.
Standardization is extremely common with law enforcement sidearms. When we did allow people to select their own service weapon (within certain guidelines) we were the only department I knew of in the area that did. We issue the Glock 22, but keep a supply of both G22C and G23C for people who are recoil sensitive, have smaller hands or work primarily out of uniform.
Sounds like we both think along the same line SharpshooterOPD and I will likely be following the same path you did. Ironically the only person who does not carry a department issue Glock in my agency is the Lead Detective, who carries an H&K Compact .45acp. I have a feeling however that if I make the switch to the M&P people will be happier and the issue of standardization will disappear.
Sounds like we both think along the same line SharpshooterOPD and I will likely be following the same path you did. Ironically the only person who does not carry a department issue Glock in my agency is the Lead Detective, who carries an H&K Compact .45acp. I have a feeling however that if I make the switch to the M&P people will be happier and the issue of standardization will disappear.
SMMAssociates
Member
Way too much common sense here for LE admin types ....
IMHO, if the department provides "armorer" services, some standardization is necessary. Otherwise, the smith's spending a lot of time at school.... Great for them, but....
I'd rather see a standardized ammunition selection (i.e., "all 9mm") than standardizing a gun. But that's just me.... Saves inventory time. Standardized weapons saves inventory issues, too, but that's another story if you're not as big as Columbus, for example.
The old "sharing ammunition" idea made sense when everybody had a .38 and dump pouches, but both speedloaders and magazine-fed weapons kind of changed that. Today, too, you may be giving away a substantial chunk of your supply if you toss somebody a magazine.... Unless you're like a buddy of mine who carried 91 rounds of 9mm on duty.... If you're carrying two spare magazines, for example, and give one away.... (IMHO, if things get that bad, you're already in very deep stuff. Bible reading and prayer may be the only real answer
.)
What really frosts me (and, I'm sure, others) is when a guy who hasn't been on the road since flintlocks were common is the one who makes these policies. One reason why Para's "LDA" was very well received by the LE community was that while it is in Condition One, it doesn't look like it. The chairborne rangers don't really know, and it's called "Double Action" so their reticence against SA guns is somewhat mitigated....
(I'm not convinced that Para's marketing people understand this....)
Anyway, a big WELL DONE for the guys who are willing to think about this sort of thing in a useful way, and not just "because I like 'em"....
(I met a kid one night who stopped by the club range wondering what all the cars were about at around 0130. He carried a Glock 'cause his Chief liked them. He'd never seen a 1911! We showed him one.... The real problem is in these kids not knowing how to "safe" something they're not used to seeing.... Small PD's may not have the luxury of calling another Officer who knows that model....)
Regards,
....IMHO, if the department provides "armorer" services, some standardization is necessary. Otherwise, the smith's spending a lot of time at school.... Great for them, but....
I'd rather see a standardized ammunition selection (i.e., "all 9mm") than standardizing a gun. But that's just me.... Saves inventory time. Standardized weapons saves inventory issues, too, but that's another story if you're not as big as Columbus, for example.
The old "sharing ammunition" idea made sense when everybody had a .38 and dump pouches, but both speedloaders and magazine-fed weapons kind of changed that. Today, too, you may be giving away a substantial chunk of your supply if you toss somebody a magazine.... Unless you're like a buddy of mine who carried 91 rounds of 9mm on duty.... If you're carrying two spare magazines, for example, and give one away.... (IMHO, if things get that bad, you're already in very deep stuff. Bible reading and prayer may be the only real answer
.)What really frosts me (and, I'm sure, others) is when a guy who hasn't been on the road since flintlocks were common is the one who makes these policies. One reason why Para's "LDA" was very well received by the LE community was that while it is in Condition One, it doesn't look like it. The chairborne rangers don't really know, and it's called "Double Action" so their reticence against SA guns is somewhat mitigated....
(I'm not convinced that Para's marketing people understand this....)
Anyway, a big WELL DONE for the guys who are willing to think about this sort of thing in a useful way, and not just "because I like 'em"....
(I met a kid one night who stopped by the club range wondering what all the cars were about at around 0130. He carried a Glock 'cause his Chief liked them. He'd never seen a 1911! We showed him one
.... The real problem is in these kids not knowing how to "safe" something they're not used to seeing.... Small PD's may not have the luxury of calling another Officer who knows that model....)Regards,
SharpshooterOPD
Member
The old "sharing ammunition" idea was one of the big arguments for standardizing ammunition back in the day. Unfortunately, I have always seen a problem with that line of reasoning. Specifically, if we are in a shootout, fighting for our lives, and you run out of ammunition; well...I love you brother, but I ain't sharing my ammo! Along those lines, I'm not aware of an instance where an officer's life was saved because someone managed to toss him (or her) some extra rounds.
HRF
HRF
Similar threads
- Locked
