why did DoD reject the S&W M&P?

C

chrisp51

New member
Just curious but why did the DoD reject the S&W M&P from the modular handgun system trials? I never heard anyone say why it was rejected.
 
classified weapons appropriation criteria is rarely...publicized. at this point all I've heard is that M&P was dropped and Ruger dropped out. now it's between sig, Glock, and Beretta. I really hope the sig becomes the new sidearm, I loved the M11, M9 was a chore.
M&P likely choked on high roundcount/low maintenance testing, I've watched several "torture tests" where the M&P completely failed. it has extremely loose tolerances which are the main reason I'm selling mine.
 
classified weapons appropriation criteria is rarely...publicized.
Click to expand...

The testing protocol and the results for the adoption of what became the Beretta M9 can be found online from multiple sources. The same is true for more recent adoptions of military firearms with other countries. I doubt this is classified. Given how early it was dropped I doubt it even got into the extensive testing phase.

I really hope the sig becomes the new sidearm, I loved the M11, M9 was a chore.
Click to expand...

To my knowledge it's the P320 in the competition, not one of the classic SIGs.

M&P likely choked on high roundcount/low maintenance testing, I've watched several "torture tests" where the M&P completely failed.
Click to expand...

I can watch torture tests of SIG P226s failing too. Come to think of it I can find tests of pretty much every pistol failing. I'm no huge fan of the M&P, but the quote above is pure speculation (which you admit).
 
Last edited:
After I acquire the new CZ the 2.0 in 45 is my next plastic gun. I clean mine so no worries there.

I almost bought one of the FDE 5's a few weekends ago but just couldn't get over the latest plastic offering from CZ coming out soon.

Once the 45 2.0 comes out I'll hunt one of those down.
 
I agree with TunnelRat. Gossip and speculation is all there is. As to failing tests,
he's right. I agree that Ruger dropped out very early. Mike Fifer was adamant
about losing control of his company to the military. Only a couple of companies
can handle the approx. final $1.2 billion dollars that this will eventially cost with all the supplies, parts and etc. and that figure would probably rise just as almost all military costs.
Again, the Army is notoriously very slow on decisions compared to other Service Organizations.
 
I don't see the M&P as a Military handgun it was designed as a civilian/Police gun. The M&P will choke quicker then a Glock with sand and mud in the action probably due to the tighter tolerances of the M&P its not designed for combat tours out in the elements it is designed as an urban day to day carry gun where going through sandy and jungle environments seeking out combatants is not its purpose. Beretta M9 is a proven handgun in combat but if its not properly maintained it too will fail abnormally quick.

I can also see why Ruger failed because like I said with the M&P they are not combat oriented handguns they are not built for extreme elements and high round count with little maintenance they are average Joe defensive handguns.
 
Interesting.The Glock was a contender when the same Army picked the Berretta to replace the 1911.Apparently they rejected the Glock then.
I'm not commenting on the Glock or the Berretta,BTW.

tahuana:
I've watched several "torture tests" where the M&P completely failed. it has extremely loose tolerances which are the main reason I'm selling mine.
Click to expand...
Are there links to these "several tests"? I'd like to learn.
I'd also like to know more about "loose tolerances". What does that mean?
I have spent 30 years as an R+D machinist,Served as a"Quality Assurance Co-coordinator",where I managed non compliant parts an material,and documented what was wrong with them,notified suppliers,etc.I know my way around reading a drawing and Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing.
I have an idea what the term "loose tolerancing" might mean,but I would like for you to give me an idea why you say that.
I do not have a set of design drawings to study the tolerances of an M+P,and I have not taken my sample of one pistol apart and done a dimensional study of the parts.That,BTW,would tell me nothing about the tolerances.

A drawing might show only .002 between min and max material condition for a part that was designed to assemble with .030 nominal clearance.

Now,please tell me,if you are building airplanes: Suppose you are designing a component to bolt to a bulkhead with 4 ea 1/4 -28 screws. This is a Quality airplane!! Generally,would you expect the hole to be dimensioned .281 at Min Material Condition,or at .257 +/- .003 ? "Quality" would be the tighter tolerance,yes? Or NO?A 1/4 in bolt will go through a .254 hole easy,right? .A .281 hole....that rattles! Right? Loose Tolerances!!!

There is a lot to tolerancing. Cost IS a component of Quality. If you meet PERFORMANCE parameters at lower COST,you have produced higher Quality.
Hint,with our aircraft part,one bolt goes through a .254 hole real easy.But you have 4 screws!(8 holes,4 clearance,4 tapped) So now positional tolerance requirements get very tight! Holes off location (worst case) by .0015 for the tapped and clearance holes make a part the mechanic cannot put the screws through!! Holding .001 position is costly.Why do it? Use .281 clearance holes! Parts are lighter!

And some assemblies perform better (define "better")with higher clearance.
You can fit a 1911 bushing to .0005 clearance and it will slip fit.What happens as the barrel tilts into lockup/link down?
How about five inches goes into 1000 inches 200 times.So,at about 25 yds .001 bushing clearance is about .200,or 1/5 in. WOW! So,if I go LOOSE TOLERANCES of (Holy Mole) .005 sloppy thousandths on a production bushing,it matters 1 in at 25 yds. Production parts,fit any barrel. Clearance .001,hand fit the "tilt" in.Each part requires bench time.Adds $30 +or-to the gun.
 
Last edited:
One of the reasons I started this thread was due to the new M&P 2.0. Is this gun substantially different than the gun that was eliminated from the trials? I like the way it looks and I also like the option of the manual safety.
 
/Facepalm


Ruger never even entered/submitted a pistol. Statements by Ruger, claim that they decided it was too much money and risk to be worth the effort. There is speculation that the "American" pistol was designed to be submitted, but was just introduced to the civilian market instead.


I have seen many tests of the M&P working through sand, dirt, and mud... MAC did a test a while back, and his M&P had issues with hydro lock, but seemed to handle the crud fine. Others responded with their own videos, showing the pistol working well, even in water. It is speculated that MAC has an early model M&P before the newest striker design, which had channels that would prevent the issue.

MAC's testing had Glocks not doing very well either. The M&P handled the crud better than the Glock.

The VP9 failed spectacularly, and I wonder if the open slide plate is a factor... The PPQ had some malfunctions... So the German guns were not holy grails.

The Sig 320 Performed fairly well overall. I believe it was the best of the modern striker designs.

A cheap Sig 226 clone actually passed the testing with flying colors.


What does that show?

That the M&P isn't some prissy gun that can't hang with the "big boys"... Even if its argued to be not as good, its at least not completely out of step with them...


I do agree that the M9 is a good pistol, let down by poor maintenance practices, than design flaws.


At this point, we can only guess the reasons for the down selection going as it has... It could be that the ammo supply requirement is to blame, that the partnership S&W made to get the ammo side, wasn't good enough. WHo knows...
 
If you're looking for a comparison there are plenty of articles from gun magazines or videos on YouTube you can find with a google search. To my knowledge nothing that was changed would have made this pistol "pass".

MAC's testing had Glocks not doing very well either. The M&P handled the crud better than the Glock.

The VP9 failed spectacularly, and I wonder if the open slide plate is a factor... The PPQ had some malfunctions... So the German guns were not holy grails.

The Sig 320 Performed fairly well overall. I believe it was the best of the modern striker designs.

A cheap Sig 226 clone actually passed the testing with flying colors.
Click to expand...

See what's interesting to me about this is perspective. I've watched the videos multiple times and IMO the M&P did notably worse than the Glock and the P320 didn't do particularly well, certainly not to the point of me calling it the best(though I'd argue that pistol also had something wrong with it when it was getting light strikes outside of the test). The Rex Zero One isn't particularly "cheap", neither in cost nor really in construction from what I can tell (and ironically did far better than the actual P226).

Frankly those videos are good entertainment and may offer some insight, but both those and the videos by Rob Ski are being taken way too seriously by the "firearms community". After MACs videos I literally saw a bunch of VP9s flow into local gun stores. When people can take one video on the internet and decide that something they owned is apparently garbage I think they lost the plot.
 
I agree that Ruger dropped out very early. Mike Fifer was adamant
about losing control of his company to the military.
Click to expand...


I may have the following details wrong, so feel free to correct me if I've got it wrong:

I'm not sure Ruger even entered the competition, although they were named as one of several in the competition. I read a news release from Ruger's CEO last year explaining their decision not to compete -- saying they simply weren't interested in developing a design that they couldn't be sure THEY would produce.

As I understand it, the company that wins the competition is not guaranteed that it will be the firm that actually builds the weapon. (And implicit in that is the possiblity that the winner may "own" the design and produce it themselves.)

Ruger said that even though their design is fully compatible with the design objectives, they would rather sell their design themselves, and going to the trouble to develop a better weapon only to have to turn the design over to the government didn't interest them.
 
Last edited:
Yes, they offer at best a single test sample or two... And people do put a lot of stock into them... Both MAC and the AKU guys.

The VP9 failed miserably, but I still really love mine.

I also have no issues with his methodology... While it may not be "scientific" he is at least attempting to stay within the bounds of reality and is reasonable in how and what he does... While attempting to be as consistent as he can.

I also have no problem with the methods of the AKU guys, their biggest problem is the small sample set of one. They freely admit that the "sand tornado" is not really viable as a test, but some just like to see it done... Or can't wrap their head around the fact that it isn't very informative or consistent enough to make any comparisons with.

I am also working off of memory of the videos.

And taking the hydrolock into account, I would say the M&P did worse, but seeing responce videos showing either just the water test, or the full blown test... Where the M&P did just fine, I have to conclude that there was an issue with his gun. He admitted the pistol was an earlier model as well, and there was a striker design change implemented.

The 320 if I am remembering correctly did well as far as the crud... not perfect though, but the light strikes were a big issue, but I take into account the light strikes outside of the testing and knowing mine does not have this issue, I don't look at the light strikes as damning in and of themselves. But my memory could be faulty... I have seen other similar tests done on the 320, where the pistol just ran like clockwork with no issues. The more data I can find, the better and more valid of an average I can get.

Glock did pretty well, but was not without fault as I remember it.

The Rex is cheaper than a typical Sig 226, but by all accounts is made well... So, "low cost", may be a better term.


What is good, is that his tests have inspired others to replicate his methods, providing more data points to go by. More data is always good... Though such tests are not conducted with as much thought and attention to detail as military testing would be.
 
The waste of taxpayer money that's been a result from this whole new pistol "trial" process is absolutely nauseating. I just want it to be over. That's coming from an active duty military guy.
 
It sure would have been cool to see the CZ75B go through those torture tests. I would have been very interested in how it did. Those former Commie guns tend to be very robust that way.

As far as the "waste of money" thing goes, here is the thing. Buying the pistols themselves is not all that big of a deal. What is a big deal is that the whole US Army/military supply system and maintenance system has to be ramped up to support whatever the choice is. So it is kind of important that the military make the right choice -- which would have been either the Ruger or the S&W. I can't believe only foreign guns made the cut.

The other thing is that traditionally the US military has regarded the pistol as a serious weapon of war. (Hence the fabulous 1911 .45). For other armies the pistol has functioned more as a badge of rank, i.e. a perk for officers.
 
And taking the hydrolock into account, I would say the M&P did worse, but seeing responce videos showing either just the water test, or the full blown test... Where the M&P did just fine, I have to conclude that there was an issue with his gun. He admitted the pistol was an earlier model as well, and there was a striker design change implemented.
Click to expand...

The hydrolock issue from the tests I've seen isn't as repeatable as other issues, for many manufacturers. I've seen videos where stock Glocks without maritime spring cups do just fine, and others where they don't do well at all (the one in MAC's test did okay despite not having the cups but it did happen at least once). I've seen the same for the M&P as well. It might just be parts changes over time, or just that particular issue isn't as repeatable. I remember messaging with MAC before he formalized those tests and did some things ad hoc that the element tests involve one where hammer fired pistols have an advantage. He pointed out that cocked and locked pistols, ala 1911, still can get debris between the hammer and firing pin. However for DA/SA pistols with the hammer at rest against the slide I think they might prove more reliable.

Another issue I took with that test of the M&P was the APEX trigger, not the kit but the trigger itself. In doing multiple installs of that part myself there were some pistols where I had to open up the trigger bar loop to get it to function properly after the install as there wasn't enough travel to reliably release the striker. In the test he had a number of times where he mentioned a very, very heavy trigger. I think what was actually happening was the trigger was up against the frame (since the trigger has a built in overtravel stop) and by simply applying more pressure the striker was just barely releasing. I've seen this on installs of that part I've done myself. To me with some dirt or mud between that trigger and the frame you could potentially turn what is normally a working trigger into one that isn't. I think doing it stock might be better.

I still like MAC and AKOU. They're pretty up front about the limitations and end goals of such testing. Unfortunately it does feed people with already existing bias and can really influence those without a lot of firearms experience to adopt or ditch designs based off of testing of single examples. But that was true before their videos with gun shop legends.
 
Rogervzv said:
Those former Commie guns tend to be very robust that way.
Click to expand...

CZ makes great guns, but the 75 and the later 75B wasn't really designed as a military weapon for use by the Warsaw Pack military.

The 75 was designed around a round that wasn't (and would never be) used in the Communist Bloc (i.e., 124 gr 9mm Sellier & Bellot hardball). It was apparently designed for export to the West.

The West's embargo of most Soviet Bloc products kept CZ products from ever getting much of a chance until the Soviet Union fell. You could buy some in West Germany and Canada imported them, but few made their way to the U.S. It was widely used (but not in very great numbers) in Africa and the Middle East, often in the same areas that also used FN Hi-Powers.
 
I can watch torture tests of SIG P226s failing too. Come to think of it I can find tests of pretty much every pistol failing. I'm no huge fan of the M&P, but the quote above is pure speculation (which you admit).
Click to expand...
certainly true on all counts, however the M&P seems to be especially susceptible to hydrolock, and sand, in particular.

Are there links to these "several tests"? I'd like to learn.
Click to expand...
go to youtube and type in "m&p torture test" you'll find dozens of movies by rednecks and hillbillies that have little scientific value or practical conditions, but do show a definite trend in the conditions stated above.

I'd also like to know more about "loose tolerances". What does that mean?
Click to expand...
interesting that you've never heard this, it's common phraseology around these here parts. loose tolerances is normally a good thing, touching surfaces between moving parts that are mated too tightly(tight tolerance) are not very forgiving of debris entering the gap. however when tolerances are too loose, or to say that there is a great deal of space between moving parts, it opens the floodgates for more material, and larger debris to enter the handgun and impede moving parts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top