LA Sheriffs Dept dropping M&P9?...

E

EJO

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2008
Messages
161
Reaction score
74
Location
OHIO
Can anyone provide some detail on a post that the LA Sheriffs Dept is dropping the M&P9 from use because of stove-piping and problems with cracked/broken barrels?... Memo reads "effective immediately, the S&W M&P9 is no longer an authorized on-duty/off-duty handgun for sworn personnel."
Interested in buying one and would like more details and information.
 
Register to hide this ad
Welcome to the forum
icon_smile.gif
.

There have been significant problems with the M&P regarding failures to extract. In addition, one was recieved with an improperly machined barrel that would not eject spent casings.

The memo was issued after a M&P barrel broke into two pieces, just ahead of the firing chamber, a few weeks ago, IIRC. That barrel had less than 10,000 rounds. In the interest of full disclosure, I am not a fan of the M&P, having been in on a T&E at my former agency. They chose another plastic gun, and were wise to do so IMHO.

M&P users in that agency are being issued Beretta 92's as replacements.

The 3rd generation pistols are much more reliable, accurate, and a better value, to me. Hope this helps. Regards 18DAI.
 
Thanks for the reply...
Don't own one (only 'poly' gun I own is an FNP-9) but have shot the M&P and for me, it fits well and had a real good shooting experience with it. Have had several S&Ws over the years, NEVER a problem and they're great pistols... They don't come much better than my 5906!!
Just trying to get some details (re: isolated or a 'run' problem?) for purchasing. Never been a 'plastic/striker' fan but the FNP is a very good shoot and was considering the M&P.
Thanks
 
I have an FNP-45. Superb pistol. Very reliable, and tack driving accurate. It is superior to the M&P, again IMO. YMMV. Regards 18DAI.
 
I am not particularly fond of stiker fired pistols, but I do own a M&P9. So far, I have about 4,000 rounds through it without a single hicup. The only other polymer frame gun I own is a FNP-9. This is a great da/sa gun with a hammer and a decocker.

But the 3rd gen pistols are unbeatable!
 
Remember the NYPD Glock fiasco? Even the dropped from a plane/run over by a bulldozer/ blown up in a blender, super plastic fantastic from Austria has had it's wide spread problems. And Glock came out of that ok. I think as long as the problem gets fixed and S&W does the thing by the LASD they'll be ok too.
 
This is a copy of the letter:


LASD BULLETIN EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY:





Subject: PLEASE BRIEF YOUR PERSONNEL - Officer Safety - M&P pistols no longer authorized

Importance: High

Quality of Smith & Wesson 9mm M&P pistols has become a concern because of a recent barrel failure on an in-service deputy's pistol, coupled with additional extraction jams on deputy recruit pistols (46% of recruit class experiencing some degree of malfunctions – mostly phase-2 jam failures to extract spent casings).

A JDIC announcment canceling the authorization of Smith & Wesson 9mm M&P semi-automatic pistol models follows.

Please brief your personnel.

NOTE: Sworn personnel carrying a replacement pistol (instead of a S&W M&P) must shoot pistol qualification ASAP with that replacement on-duty and/or off-duty pistol.

Personnel who were trained to use the M&P pistol during January – April 2009 can contact BC Range for additional information.

SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT BROADCAST ANNOUNCEMENT

TRAINING BUREAU WEAPONS TRAINING

TO: ALL SWORN PERSONNEL



SUBJECT: OFFICER SAFETY ALERT - SMITH & WESSON M&P PISTOLS

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS HAVE FORCED A DEPARTMENTAL RE-EVALUATION OF THE SMITH & WESSON 9MM M&P SEMI-AUTOMATIC PISTOL AS AN AUTHORIZED OPTIONAL HANDGUN FOR SWORN PERSONNEL.

EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, THE SMITH & WESSON 9MM M&P FULL SIZE PISTOL IS NO LONGER AN AUTHORIZED OPTIONAL ON-DUTY PISTOL.

EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, THE SMITH & WESSON 9MM M&P COMPACT PISTOL IS NO LONGER AN AUTHORIZED OPTIONAL OFF-DUTY PISTOL.

SINCE FIRST APPROVAL AS AN OPTIONAL PISTOL ON DECEMBER 10, 2008, THE FULL-SIZED AND/OR COMPACT VERSIONS OF THE 9MM SMITH & WESSON M&P PISTOL HAVE BEEN DEPLOYED BY 49 SWORN PERSONNEL ON AND OFF DUTY. ONE OF THESE PISTOLS WAS DELIVERED NEW WITH AN IMPROPERLY MACHINED BARREL THAT WOULD NOT EJECT SPENT CARTRIDGE CASINGS. ANOTHER OF THESE PISTOLS EXPERIENCED A BARREL FAILURE IN MID-APRIL OF THIS YEAR. AFTER FIRING LESS THAN 10,000 ROUNDS OF TRAINING AMMUNITION. THIS PISTOL BARREL BROKE INTO TWO PIECES JUST AHEAD OF THE FIRING CHAMBER.

ADDITIONALLY, A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF DEPUTY ACADEMY CLASS #377 RECRUITS WITH ISSUED NEW SMITH & WESSON 9MM M&P FULL-SIZE PISTOLS HAVE EXPERIENCED PHASE-2 PISTOL MALFUNCTIONS, CAUSED BY SPENT CASINGS FAILING TO EXTRACT FROM BARREL CHAMBERS, DURING THE PAST TWO WEEKS OF TRAINING. CLASS #377 RECRUITS WILL BE ISSUED BERETTA 92FS PISTOLS ON WEDNESDAY APRIL 29, 2009, AND THEIR M&P PISTOLS REMOVED FROM SERVICE.

PERSONNEL SAFETY AND RELIABLE EQUIPMENT REMAIN OUR PRIMARY CONCERNS.

DIRECT ANY QUESTIONS TO LIEUTENANT MICHAEL C. REYNOLDS [email protected] OR SERGEANT DAVID NELL [email protected] AT THE B.C. RANGE.



LEROY D. BACA, SHERIFF KBL/SNDG
 
With something approaching 750,000 M&Ps in use, there isn't a design issue here. The memo reads like the typical CYA memo from staff folks to mitigate possible liability while the situation is examined in detail-or to drive a nail into a product someone on the command staff doesn't like.

The gent(s) who counseled patience has/have the correct viewpoint. Especially in view of current ammo/budget issues, the weapon may be being blamed for ammo deficiencies. I can recall several situations where the ammo proved to be the issue rather than the weapon.
 
I hate to say it but i dumped both my M&P's a compact and a pro because both would routinely fail to extract empty casings from the chamber. I first thought rounds might be out of spec, burr etc but it happened with alot of types of factory ammo. The result was a jam that was very tough to clear.nI love Smith's but how could they let these leave the factory like this.
 
The memo reads like the typical CYA memo from staff folks to mitigate possible liability while the situation is examined in detail-or to drive a nail into a product someone on the command staff doesn't like.
Click to expand...

The memo gave me that impression, too. I guess I am not used to bureaucrats and how they think. Seems like much ado about (comparatively) nothing.
 
SUCKS BIG TIME! I just found an M&P 9mm service model used about $115 less that new, box, two mags, paperwork, the whole 9 yards.Put it on layaway, bought two more mags and plan to pick it up this weekend.

I want to use it in IDPA since 9mm ammo is so high and I don't have a full size 9mm anymore. How can I tell what generation tat I have?
 
I've never heard anyone refer to an M&P as being from a particular generation. They have made some "rolling" design changes, like to the striker design, but this appears to be isolated. Don't worry about your gun, if it doesn't work-and chances are that it will, every time- Smith will fix it.
 
One memo does not a condemnation make.

The M&P is getting a hatch job on the internet without any facts other than this memo and anactodal evidence.

I urge caution in repeating these or endless speculating about it without any input from S&W.

As for IDPA, my M&P is great for it.
048_G.sized.jpg
 
Rumor control and the speed at which cries of 'the sky-is-falling' on the internet can be amazing.

Let's wait until the dust settles.

These sorts of things are not new when it comes to production handguns and LE/Gov usage.

I can think of a large state agency which had 200 of their new pistols arrive with out-of-spec trigger bars which caused them to decock without firing when the trigger was pulled. They remained with the make/model and had the problems resolved.

Another agency wanted 3,000 replacement parts because ONE part exhibited a manufacturing problem which was discovered before the pistol affected was placed in service, but not in any in-service guns already in use. They remained using that make/model.

Another agency demanded new parts for 2,500+ .45's for light-strike issues, apparently threatening to return to using a previous make/model. They remained with that make/model once the manufacturer satisfied them. (I was told that had also experienced a previous magazine problem with the same make/model which resulted in a revision of the magazine assembly.)

Another agency apparently tired of feeding issues and changed make/model.

Another large agency worked with one manufacturer for almost 2 years before they tired of not having what they determined was a barrel manufacturing problem resolved to their satisfaction. They adopted another make/model ... and immediately had minor problems with that one.

Another large agency pulled a few thousand guns for light-strike issues and then returned them to service once new parts received.

The list goes on and on ... and the above list includes 4 major manufacturers.

Failures in one series of testing involving a make/model which didn't happen in another series of testing? It happens.

Sometimes the manufacturer resolves the issues with replacement parts or guns and the agency/agencies continue using the guns ... and sometimes the agency/agencies just go with a different manufacturer.

Sometimes a gun make/model which doesn't pass muster during one round of testing does better in another subsequent round a few years later and is adopted ... and sometimes the opposite occurs.

People like to wave banners of makes/models as if this were a sports event. They're just firearms. Things happen. Sometimes it's during manufacture, sometimes during production, sometimes during fitting and then sometimes after the customer gets it and starts using it (maintenance & user influences or the occasional ammunition issue).

The examples I listed above intentionally lacked the identity of the manufacturers involved, but many folks on this forum, and others, have spent a lot of money on similar makes/models of the same firearms and express a lot of pride of ownership. I really doubt the significant majority of those owners have any idea of the issues experienced by LE users of the same make/model guns.

Things happen at times.
 
Originally posted by EJO:
Can anyone provide some detail on a post that the LA Sheriffs Dept is dropping the M&P9 from use because of stove-piping and problems with cracked/broken barrels?... Memo reads "effective immediately, the S&W M&P9 is no longer an authorized on-duty/off-duty handgun for sworn personnel."
Interested in buying one and would like more details and information.
Click to expand...

The only reason MORON cops like the author of the memo at the link on the internet do not get the hell sued out of them for publishing libelous crap is because S&W and other gun companies want to try to keep business and tend to err on the side that the "customer is always right."

That may be so, but it does not allow some MORON cop to defame a product and thereby cost the company thousand if not more dollars in lost revenue.

The only way this crap will ever stop is when one of these idiots gets sued personally by a manufacturer.

If an agency prefers Beretta or Glock, OK, but no need to crap on a competitors brand in the process.

I am quite certain that if given a FAIR chance, S&W could fix this situation, if there is any problem other than ammo or operator error.

I suspect that there are other issues at work here, and if it is within the power of S&W to make it right, it will. S&W cannot, however, fix "stupid" or operator error or bad ammo or crappy training, or a host of other problems.

S&W can, however, fix a bad batch of steel or some other problem with the 2 bad barrels out of the 49 pistols in service. The other part of the problems is that a bunch of recruits had failures to eject. So, according to this memo we have two bad barrels and a bunch of recruits with failures to eject. Sounds like bad ammo or bad technique to me. If it is the pistol, why didn't the "expert" armorers on the LASD fix the pistols or send them in if they were unable?

This whole thing seems like a shrill, hysterical over reaction by an agency or individual with an axe to grind. Perhaps that person should have tried S&W customer service before going crazy with the memo.

Wasn't it some lunatic California agency that did the 10mm/.40 S&W test, calling the .40 caliber the "10mm Short," before firing the Glock pistol and then bashing it when it had a frame crack and repeated malfunctions even though Glock had instructed that the pistol was a prototype not to be fired?

In any event, I doubt we have the full story. If it seems I am angry about this, I am, because I feel that the agency and its training people have "rushed to judgment" and put out bad press on a good product without knowing the cause.

That is outrageous, even if it is in the name of officer safety. Why not just quietly pull the pistols that do not work until the problem is found?

Perhaps gun companies should get together and concentrate on commercial sales and just not sell to the bothersome cop shops.

The FBI did more damage to S&W in one swoop over their attempt to design a new trigger system for the 1076 and NJ pulled the same crap with S&W, just as NYPD and LAPD have done with Glock and as several agencies have done with SIG. If I were these companies, I might just put up a sign that says "commercial sales only - no cops - don't ask."

The other alternative is that the gun companies begin putting a clause in the contracts that positively forbids publication of these issues, and if the agency wants to keep the right to unfairly defame the gun company, then the price charged for the product could be quadrupled.

The more of this crap I see, the better I like Ronnie Barrett for his principled stand in refusing to sell or service cops in places where he cannot sell commercially. (Note I do not use the word "civilian" as cops are civilians too, despite their tired over use of the term to indicate a citizen who is not a cop.)

Rant concluded.
 
Originally posted by shawn mccarver:
Originally posted by EJO:
Can anyone provide some detail on a post that the LA Sheriffs Dept is dropping the M&P9 from use because of stove-piping and problems with cracked/broken barrels?... Memo reads "effective immediately, the S&W M&P9 is no longer an authorized on-duty/off-duty handgun for sworn personnel."
Interested in buying one and would like more details and information.
Click to expand...

The only reason MORON cops like the author of the memo at the link on the internet do not get the hell sued out of them for publishing libelous crap is because S&W and other gun companies want to try to keep business and tend to err on the side that the "customer is always right."

That may be so, but it does not allow some MORON cop to defame a product and thereby cost the company thousand if not more dollars in lost revenue.

The only way this crap will ever stop is when one of these idiots gets sued personally by a manufacturer.

If an agency prefers Beretta or Glock, OK, but no need to crap on a competitors brand in the process.

I am quite certain that if given a FAIR chance, S&W could fix this situation, if there is any problem other than ammo or operator error.

I suspect that there are other issues at work here, and if it is within the power of S&W to make it right, it will. S&W cannot, however, fix "stupid" or operator error or bad ammo or crappy training, or a host of other problems.

S&W can, however, fix a bad batch of steel or some other problem with the 2 bad barrels out of the 49 pistols in service. The other part of the problems is that a bunch of recruits had failures to eject. So, according to this memo we have two bad barrels and a bunch of recruits with failures to eject. Sounds like bad ammo or bad technique to me. If it is the pistol, why didn't the "expert" armorers on the LASD fix the pistols or send them in if they were unable?

This whole thing seems like a shrill, hysterical over reaction by an agency or individual with an axe to grind. Perhaps that person should have tried S&W customer service before going crazy with the memo.

Wasn't it some lunatic California agency that did the 10mm/.40 S&W test, calling the .40 caliber the "10mm Short," before firing the Glock pistol and then bashing it when it had a frame crack and repeated malfunctions even though Glock had instructed that the pistol was a prototype not to be fired?

In any event, I doubt we have the full story. If it seems I am angry about this, I am, because I feel that the agency and its training people have "rushed to judgment" and put out bad press on a good product without knowing the cause.

That is outrageous, even if it is in the name of officer safety. Why not just quietly pull the pistols that do not work until the problem is found?

Perhaps gun companies should get together and concentrate on commercial sales and just not sell to the bothersome cop shops.

The FBI did more damage to S&W in one swoop over their attempt to design a new trigger system for the 1076 and NJ pulled the same crap with S&W, just as NYPD and LAPD have done with Glock and as several agencies have done with SIG. If I were these companies, I might just put up a sign that says "commercial sales only - no cops - don't ask."

The other alternative is that the gun companies begin putting a clause in the contracts that positively forbids publication of these issues, and if the agency wants to keep the right to unfairly defame the gun company, then the price charged for the product could be quadrupled.

The more of this crap I see, the better I like Ronnie Barrett for his principled stand in refusing to sell or service cops in places where he cannot sell commercially. (Note I do not use the word "civilian" as cops are civilians too, despite their tired over use of the term to indicate a citizen who is not a cop.)

Rant concluded.
Click to expand...

Were you there? Are you a member of the LASD? Well, i am a retired member of the NYPD, and i can tell you that the Glock 19 WAS a serious issue with the job, and Glock IGNORED numerous requests to address it until the job contatced Ruger for replacements. Only when faced with losing their biggest contract (not to mentin the free advertising) did they bother to address it. They'd rather let 20,000 cops walk the beat with a defective weapon.

I have handled the M&P. It feels super smooth. If the LASD feels their officers woule be better served with something else, what do you care?
 
I guess I'd rather be sued by a manufacturer than explain to an Officer's widow or orphaned children why I didn't address an equipment issue that I had any knowledge of. My first responsibility is to my Officers. As much as I like and enjoy my Smith and Wesssons, they are just another vendor as far as the agency is concerned. I would also doubt the the LASD went out of it's way to make this public.
 
Interesting.

My town just traded in its old 4006's for M&P .40's and a major city in my state went to the M&P this summer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top