The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: The Semi-automatic Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old January 17, 2017, 11:25 PM   #1
chrisp51
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 25, 2012
Location: NC
Posts: 148
why did DoD reject the S&W M&P?

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.
chrisp51 is offline  
Old January 17, 2017, 11:59 PM   #2
tahunua001
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 21, 2011
Location: Idaho
Posts: 7,839
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.
__________________
ignore my complete lack of capitalization. I still have no problem correcting your grammar.
I never said half the stuff people said I did-Albert Einstein
You can't believe everything you read on the internet-Benjamin Franklin
tahunua001 is offline  
Old January 18, 2017, 12:31 AM   #3
TunnelRat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 12,181
Quote:
classified weapons appropriation criteria is rarely...publicized.
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.

Quote:
I really hope the sig becomes the new sidearm, I loved the M11, M9 was a chore.
To my knowledge it's the P320 in the competition, not one of the classic SIGs.

Quote:
M&P likely choked on high roundcount/low maintenance testing, I've watched several "torture tests" where the M&P completely failed.
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).
__________________
Know the status of your weapon
Keep your muzzle oriented so that no one will be hurt if the firearm discharges
Keep your finger off the trigger until you have an adequate sight picture
Maintain situational awareness

Last edited by TunnelRat; January 18, 2017 at 12:39 AM.
TunnelRat is offline  
Old January 18, 2017, 07:18 AM   #4
ritepath
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 22, 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,419
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.
__________________
There's only one...
ritepath is offline  
Old January 18, 2017, 05:07 PM   #5
Doc Holliday 1950
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2014
Location: Bout as south as it gets
Posts: 1,238
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.
__________________
Shoot well and be Accurate,

Doc
Doc Holliday 1950 is offline  
Old January 18, 2017, 06:30 PM   #6
Tibult
Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2015
Posts: 79
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.
Tibult is offline  
Old January 18, 2017, 07:53 PM   #7
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,273
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:
Quote:
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.
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 by HiBC; January 18, 2017 at 08:13 PM.
HiBC is offline  
Old January 18, 2017, 08:00 PM   #8
chrisp51
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 25, 2012
Location: NC
Posts: 148
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.
chrisp51 is offline  
Old January 18, 2017, 08:06 PM   #9
marine6680
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 24, 2012
Location: Parker, CO
Posts: 4,594
/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...
marine6680 is offline  
Old January 18, 2017, 08:07 PM   #10
Model12Win
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2012
Posts: 5,854
Who knows at this point? It's a massive cluster with no end in sight.
Model12Win is offline  
Old January 18, 2017, 08:11 PM   #11
TunnelRat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 12,181
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".

Quote:
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.
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.
__________________
Know the status of your weapon
Keep your muzzle oriented so that no one will be hurt if the firearm discharges
Keep your finger off the trigger until you have an adequate sight picture
Maintain situational awareness
TunnelRat is offline  
Old January 18, 2017, 08:24 PM   #12
Walt Sherrill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 1999
Location: Winston-Salem, NC USA
Posts: 6,348
Quote:
I agree that Ruger dropped out very early. Mike Fifer was adamant
about losing control of his company to the military.

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 by Walt Sherrill; January 18, 2017 at 08:37 PM.
Walt Sherrill is offline  
Old January 18, 2017, 08:28 PM   #13
marine6680
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 24, 2012
Location: Parker, CO
Posts: 4,594
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.
marine6680 is offline  
Old January 18, 2017, 08:46 PM   #14
Model12Win
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2012
Posts: 5,854
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.
Model12Win is offline  
Old January 18, 2017, 08:58 PM   #15
Rogervzv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 5, 2011
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Posts: 1,075
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.
__________________
The difference between a citizen and a civilian is that the citizen makes the safety of the body politic his personal responsibility, protecting it with his life. The civilian does not.
Rogervzv is offline  
Old January 18, 2017, 09:43 PM   #16
TunnelRat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 12,181
Quote:
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 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.
__________________
Know the status of your weapon
Keep your muzzle oriented so that no one will be hurt if the firearm discharges
Keep your finger off the trigger until you have an adequate sight picture
Maintain situational awareness
TunnelRat is offline  
Old January 18, 2017, 09:54 PM   #17
Walt Sherrill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 1999
Location: Winston-Salem, NC USA
Posts: 6,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogervzv
Those former Commie guns tend to be very robust that way.
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.
Walt Sherrill is offline  
Old January 18, 2017, 10:35 PM   #18
tahunua001
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 21, 2011
Location: Idaho
Posts: 7,839
Quote:
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).
certainly true on all counts, however the M&P seems to be especially susceptible to hydrolock, and sand, in particular.

Quote:
Are there links to these "several tests"? I'd like to learn.
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.

Quote:
I'd also like to know more about "loose tolerances". What does that mean?
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.
__________________
ignore my complete lack of capitalization. I still have no problem correcting your grammar.
I never said half the stuff people said I did-Albert Einstein
You can't believe everything you read on the internet-Benjamin Franklin
tahunua001 is offline  
Old January 18, 2017, 11:06 PM   #19
TunnelRat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 12,181
Quote:
certainly true on all counts, however the M&P seems to be especially susceptible to hydrolock, and sand, in particular.
And yet in this test it does better underwater than the Glock while in the MAC test it did far worse. Again, these tests aren't hard and fast rules.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVW9IeY_iBs
__________________
Know the status of your weapon
Keep your muzzle oriented so that no one will be hurt if the firearm discharges
Keep your finger off the trigger until you have an adequate sight picture
Maintain situational awareness
TunnelRat is offline  
Old January 19, 2017, 12:20 AM   #20
tahunua001
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 21, 2011
Location: Idaho
Posts: 7,839
Quote:
these tests aren't hard and fast rules.
pretty sure I said that already...
Quote:
you'll find dozens of movies by rednecks and hillbillies that have little scientific value or practical conditions
__________________
ignore my complete lack of capitalization. I still have no problem correcting your grammar.
I never said half the stuff people said I did-Albert Einstein
You can't believe everything you read on the internet-Benjamin Franklin
tahunua001 is offline  
Old January 19, 2017, 12:51 AM   #21
TunnelRat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 12,181
Quote:
pretty sure I said that already...
pretty sure I did too...

Quote:
Come to think of it I can find tests of pretty much every pistol failing.
Quote:
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".
__________________
Know the status of your weapon
Keep your muzzle oriented so that no one will be hurt if the firearm discharges
Keep your finger off the trigger until you have an adequate sight picture
Maintain situational awareness
TunnelRat is offline  
Old January 19, 2017, 12:57 AM   #22
tahunua001
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 21, 2011
Location: Idaho
Posts: 7,839
so.... we're disagreeing....to agree?
__________________
ignore my complete lack of capitalization. I still have no problem correcting your grammar.
I never said half the stuff people said I did-Albert Einstein
You can't believe everything you read on the internet-Benjamin Franklin
tahunua001 is offline  
Old January 19, 2017, 01:06 AM   #23
marine6680
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 24, 2012
Location: Parker, CO
Posts: 4,594
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...
marine6680 is offline  
Old January 19, 2017, 07:19 AM   #24
SansSouci
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2013
Location: Heart of Reagan Country
Posts: 479
1911A1 oughta get the nod.

A P-220 in .45 ACP wouldn't be half-bad.
SansSouci is offline  
Old January 19, 2017, 07:49 AM   #25
DMK
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2001
Location: Over the hills and far, far away
Posts: 3,206
Quote:
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'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.
__________________
- Homeland Security begins at home: Support your Second Amendment -
www.gunowners.org - www.saf.org - act.nraila.org - www.grnc.org

Last edited by DMK; January 19, 2017 at 07:59 AM.
DMK is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.07088 seconds with 8 queries