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

There were several direct response videos to the MAC tests, showing no hydrolock issues. They were performed in a similar manner as the MAC testing.

There was a part change to the striker assembly done at one point. The change was to address an issue where the striker would break at a thinner section, especially in pistols that seen a lot of dry fire.

This change also altered the striker cups, which changed from a more solid round shape, to a segmented shape. Similar to the "maritime" cups you can get for a Glock.


As far as the OP's question about the M&P 2.0, no one outside S&W or the ones running the pistols testing know if the new 2.0 is similar to the rejected design. At least no one willing to spill the beans on this forum...
 
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.
Click to expand...
You're confusing the term "Tolerance" with "Clearance". It's a common misunderstanding.

Clearance is the space between parts.

Tolerance is how far the part can deviate from design specification and still be considered "in spec". It is a necessary allowance for mass production and part interchangeability without hand fitting.

(ie. You might have a specified clearance of 2mm with a tolerance of +/- 1mm. So the measured clearance can be anywhere from 1mm to 3mm and still be considered within spec. )

Blueprinting BTW is taking all those tolerances out. Building a gun (or engine) that is as close to the spec as humanly possible with nearly no allowable tolerance. This would require a lot of hand fitting of course and usually involves rejecting a lot of parts that are on the outside of tolerance.
 
Last edited:
I doubt they will go with any caliber other than 9mm... There really isn't much difference between the 9mm and 45 as far as deadliness is concerned...

Everyone thinks the 1911 is the way to go, but according to the testing, the M9 was more reliable than the 1911... while requiring less armorer maintenance.
 
marine6680 said:
I doubt they will go with any caliber other than 9mm... There really isn't much difference between the 9mm and 45 as far as deadliness is concerned...

Everyone thinks the 1911 is the way to go, but according to the testing, the M9 was more reliable than the 1911... while requiring less armorer maintenance.
Click to expand...

A bigger issue is that if the U.S. remains in NATO (which I suspect it will do), 9mm is the primary round used in service handguns by Western militaries. Having common rounds -- which can be shared in times of logistical shortfalls -- is one of the things the militaries that work together like to use.
 
Yes Walt, I meant to mention that as well. Ammo commonality with allies, and at this point, even many potential enemies, mean ammo shortages are less likely to happen.

They went Sig, and that is the direction I thought they would go... It fit their design criteria better than any other submitted pistol (as far as I know) and from a logistic standpoint, it really makes sense.
 
So there is consensus that 9mm is going to stay THE military sidearm caliber in the near future? No Advent if PDW calibers like 5,7?
 
From American Rifleman, the Keefe Report:

There's been little from the Army about how the trial is going—despite repeated request from this magazine. Smith was cut; are other makers out of the race, too? If Smith & Wesson knows, the other entrants no doubt know whether they were cut. The only reason we know the S&W Military & Police is out is because Smith had to announce it through the SEC. The other gunmakers are being polite and giving the Army the opportunity to make the announcement. And we look forward to the invitation for that press conference.
Click to expand...

https://www.americanrifleman.org/ar...sson-latest-casualty-in-us-army-pistol-trial/

And again once news about Sigs triumph...

Now we will reach out to the Army to find out more about the process and what it learned while making the decision on adopting the SIG Sauer P320. We would like to report on what happened during the testing, how the submitted guns measured up to the Army’s RFP and the testing process. After all, ensuring our soldiers have the best possible equipment is an important consideration for all American citizens, especially NRA members. Why the decision to stick with 9x19 mm NATO? How did the other entrants do in testing? What was the mean rounds between failures? How important a role did the modular nature of the P320 play in the selection process?
Click to expand...

https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2017/1/23/the-keefe-report-i-was-wrong-about-the-xm17/

The American Rifleman is likely the best source for non-official military news on this as of now.

tipoc
 
I know this is beating a dead horse but I would still like to know why the M&P was rejected. I went to a gun show in Greensboro NC this past weekend and spent a significant amount of time looking at the M&P 2.0 and the Sig P320. I ended up buying the M&P FDE with the 5 incn barrel. It felt better in my hand, was nice and tight and seemed well made.

S&W had addressed the gripes I had with the first gen M&P so I went with S&W again. I have nothing against Sig. I own both the 226 and 228 and they are great shooting pistols. The 320 did not fit my hand as well and it seemed bulky and unbalanced. I also thought the trigger on the S&W was better than the one on the Sig. My first gen M&P had a trigger pull of about 6.5 lbs but version 2.0 has a crisp break at about 4.25 lbs.

It has to be that the modularity of the Sig was just so much better than the M&P. I guess if everything else was equal the Sig would win on modularity. Maybe one day I will find out the reason for S&W's rejection but I feel I made the best decision for myself.

By the way the M&P with the 5 inch barrel is a perfect fit in the M82 issue holster made for the M9. I wonder how much that would have saved on the bottom line?
 
Maybe one day I will find out the reason for S&W's rejection but I feel I made the best decision for myself.
Click to expand...

Honestly, isn't that all that matters? If the firearm is reliable for you and you seem to shoot it well why does what the DoD did really matter? I feel shooters, myself included, seem to spend a wasteful amount of time convincing others of why what we bought is the best choice, when really all that matters is that what we got works for us.
 
The Army chose Sig-Sauer because its criteria required the first three letters of the winner's name to include the letters S, I, and G. There also had to be an "R" in the name.

Believe me people, this is how the Army really decides things.

They should bring back the 1911 and be done with it. Still unsurpassed.
 
Rogervzv said:
They should bring back the 1911 and be done with it. Still unsurpassed.
Click to expand...

Many folks love the 1911s. Many (perhaps most) of them are relatively experienced or sophisticated shooters. The vast majority of folks using handguns in the military are not experienced or sophisticated shooters, and start from a different place and look for different qualities in the guns they shoot. The same holds true for the LEOs using handguns.

Why isn't the .45 more widely used by the US military?

  • For a broader audience, the 1911 is not as easily(or as well) handled/shot by all shooters.
  • A 9mm round will kill just as well as a .45 round, if the shooter hits what he or she is aiming at (i.e., a CNS target); if he or she doesn't, he or she will have more chances with a higher capacity gun.
  • For use in joint operations with other nations, there would be no ammo compatibility and almost no ability to borrow from or offer ammo to the other party. (NATO, for example, widely uses 9mm ammo; there is little or no use of the .45.)
  • For ongoing maintenance, the 1911 is arguably a bit less easy to maintain than most of the later guns used by modern militaries around the world.
 
Last edited:
^^^ Walt, you forgot an important one.
  • 9mm cartridges are much smaller than .45 ACP, so they're cheaper to make, a soldier can carry more of them, and they take up less space and load capacity on trucks, transport aircraft, and so forth.
Logistics can never be disregarded when discussing modern mechanized warfare. Although the guys doing the fighting generally want the deadliest and most powerful doohickey they can get, it's often better from an overall strategic standpoint to use something that works 95% as well but is lighter, smaller, and less costly.
 
I love a good 1911, but they are not the end all be all...

They have limitations... Mostly in the lack of capacity, higher weight, and higher maintenance requirements... I have read more than once that the M9 was more reliable than the 1911 as well. Even if we give the 1911 some leeway and say it is as reliable as the M9 was, it still has its other deficiencies.

We can make a reasonable assumption that the reliability and performance of the Sig 320 was similar to the M9... I doubt it was vastly superior, it was the features, ergonomics, and lighter weight that mattered... And resulted in the selection.

As far as the points above about the 1911...

More capacity is always better than less. (Provided you stay within the bounds of reason, of size and weight)

Lighter weight is better than heavy... Because you have to carry it around a lot.

Easier maintenance at the individual and armorer level is better...

45acp really isn't much better if any, at stopping a threat, than 9mm... HP or FMJ... Hitting a vital area is the most important thing, a slightly bigger hole isn't going to make a drastic affect, if any, on bleeding rate... all else being equal. The more bullets, the more chance to hit a vital spot. Also, more bullets means a better chance of defending against more enemies.
 
Frankly, I think that the FBI and Army went to 9mm because the guns are generally easier for the women to rack the slide.

1911: it's like a Glock only for men.

Seriously, soldiers for generations have mastered the care, maintenance, and use of the 1911. Battle tested and proven.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top