Inert weapons are produced by separate manufacturers and these are available-at least in the red gun variety, as are Simuntions.
Different height front sights are available from the factory.
The 'tampon' produces a trigger return spring that outlives that of the Glock. Exactly what is your issue with it? Does the existence offend some sensibility? It's a captured part of the spring and requires no effort on the users part.
We've had X00 M&Ps in service since early 2006 with no mag drop issues... or any other issues, thank you very much.
I am a little surprised to hear your response since you are well aware of the problems with the trigger return spring, having posted about it before. Your post, repeated as follows:
"The "tampon" is in there from the factory as a vibration damper. High volume testing indicates that the trigger return spring does, in fact, fail rapidly (~2500-3000 rounds) without it. . . . Since a new trigger return spring is less than $3, buy a new one."
http://smith-wessonforum.com/smith-...30660-magic-cotton-trigger-return-spring.html
By way of additional explanation for my comments, when the SIGMA first came out, a well known writer, Frank James, I think, did a torture test, which included cooling the pistol by dunking. The M&P uses the same return spring system with the captured "tampon." The tampon got wet, disintegrated, and the spring broke within an alarmingly short time. Nowhere near the 2,500 to 3,000 rounds you mentioned in your earlier post.
An S&W representative, Ken Jorgensen I think, was present. No one knew the cause, assumed it was "one of those things," the spring was replaced and it broke again very shortly after another dunking. They then noticed the felt pad or insert (tampon) was gone again, and the lights went on.
This was written up in the article - back in the days when gun reviews actually were more than manufacturer press releases!
Since it was assumed that the weapon would not be "dunked" in normal circumstances, no apparent change was made to the design. That may be a good assumption with the SIGMA, but the M&P is specifically marketed to the military, where a weapon may find itself submerged for all sorts of reasons. Police, being civilians, do not put their pistols to the same challenges as do the military. Police problems with handguns are admittedly due more to neglect than hard use.
The "sensibility" it offends, if you want to call it that (I prefer to just call it a preference) is that no other serious military pistol in the world depends upon such a part (the tampon) to make sure coil springs don't break because the spring harmonics, without a felt pad, cause the spring to shatter at an unpredictable time rendering the pistol inoperable just when you need it most.
I am aware of the tendency of the Glock trigger spring to shatter, but that problem is completely eliminated by use of the New York trigger spring, which is a leaf spring instead of a coil spring.
The shattering of the S&W trigger spring is not the only problem with the tampon. If the tampon gets wet, it is like having a soaked sponge next to a steel part twenty-four/seven, and even if the tampon does not disintegrate and fall out, as it did when the SIGMA was tested, it will still destroy that spring by rust, which will happen very fast. Unlikely? I don't know as S&W does not report frequency or type of repair problems with its model, that being a trade secret and none of our business. S&W will not even acknowledge that there have been any failures with its internal lock, so I am not surprised if they do not disclose M&P trigger spring issues.
I do understand S&W has quietly addressed the problem of the tampon, not with a better spring so as not to require the tampon, but by giving agencies a "maintenance schedule" so that agency armorers replace that spring on a regular basis.
I just don't like that. Others may be able to live with it, but I don't like it. If you and your agency are happy, then fine. If folks are aware of a problem and choose to accept it and live with it, that is fine with me. I was merely trying to answer the questions posed by the original poster, and as big of a fan of S&W as I am, I assure you it is not easy to point out these issues, which some may consider non-issues. On the other hand, I will not ignore problems which are known and not, in my opinion, adequately addressed, especially in an item of personal safety equipment on which the user gambles his life.
I mean, I do not begrudge S&W for its M&P pistol line, but one measure of ANY gun company that markets a gun for self-defense, is how they address discovered problems. I have no issues with there being problems, just the failure to address discovered problems.
As to different height sights, factory reps have told me they are available, but if so they are pretty hard to get. Customer service people don't seem to know about them, have no idea which one to send you for the distance you need to move the group up or down and even if they did, the sights are exceedingly hard to replace, even with a sight pusher.
As to magazine drop issues, I am glad your agency has had no issues, but there have been many well documented issues with that problem, and it seems to be a big problem in .40 caliber Shields.
To the credit of S&W, they have apparently been quietly making evolutionary changes, attempting to address many of the user-identified problems, and that is a good thing.
I certainly do not mean to insult either you or your agency's pistols, however, you asked for some clarification, and I wanted to answer you.
I am sure that agency experience is different than individual experience, as I am sure that S&W goes out of its way with respect to agencies.
