MSP transitioning to M&P45?

At least with the 1911 there is a mechanical safety, grip safety, and firing pin safety to defeat. The M&P? The sear and a firing pin safety.
For general issue, those M1911 features are reasons in favor, not reasons for. The words "manual safety" have long been dirty words when it comes to LE side arms for general issue..
 
For general issue, those M1911 features are reasons in favor, not reasons for. The words "manual safety" have long been dirty words when it comes to LE side arms for general issue..

My apologies, I'm not understanding the idea of "reasons in favor vs reasons for". Niether agreeing or disagreeing with your reply I just dont understand it and I think when you explain it to me I'll consider myself a dope for missing your point.

I think the following is common thought regards the 1911 or any firearm with a manual safety...

From the liability end (management, bean counters) a manual safety is frowned upon under the guise "well its not passive and the officers will fail to use it therefore the gun will be dangerous."

From the operator there is the thought "It will slow down my ability to put the weapon into action, it could fail making the gun inoperable at a critical time of need, it will require more training/cost to master"

These are valid points.

Perhaps incorrectly I have a completely opposite view.

First the manual safety by its hard mechanical design will probably continue to work where a passive system is more likely to fail or be overcome. Therefore the weapon is safer.

In the second regard the manual safety on a gun such as the 1911 is just about ergonomically perfect so moving it on and off happens almost instinctively, no more difficult than gaining the muscle memory to decock a DA/SA. This type safety has a low rate of failure (never heard of one) that results in disabling the gun. A manual safety requires more training but its unfortunate that firearms training no matter what weapon is bottom of the budget list.

I didnt bring up the 1911 to create a JMB was great thread - the internet is full of those. I just wanted to express my opinion that the M&P - despite S&W calling it otherwise - is a single action gun.
 
Last edited:
. I just wanted to express my opinion that the M&P - despite S&W calling it otherwise - is a single action gun.

first I want to thank you for understanding exactly the principal arguments for NOT issuing the M1911 as a general police service weapon, even if you don't agree with them. I would disagree with your hypothesis that the M&P is essentially a single-acton gun. It isn't S&W that is making that a unilateral statement. It meets the definition of a DAO pistol because the pistol is not re-cocked after the trigger is pulled and the slide retracted. The pistol must be cocked by the internal trigger mechanism. The new Kimber Solo is a "hammerless" single action pistol in that it is recocked by firing a round and the slided retracted and the trigger mechanism does not cock the pistol. That's the definition.

A thumb safety is available as an option on M&P pistols.

Like yourself I am not quite sure exactly what Officer Obie meant when he said "reasons in favor vs. reasons for" and can only speculate that perhaps he has perhaps been eating some brownies made with Arlo Guthrie's recipe at Alice's Restaurant.

Authorities that I respect such as Cooper, Ayoob, and Taylor have long held that mastering the 1911 requires dedication which is probably why the military always mandated Condition 3 for carry. I think if an individual officer wishes to qualify and carry the M1911 he or she should be authorized to do so, that flies in the face of conventional wisdom of allowing police officers to carry what they want. This is a concept that was more prevalent some decades ago primarily in the western and southern states, although I know of a Lunenburg Reserve Cop who carried a 1911, but that was back in the 1980's.

What is needed is a handgun for the masses which in one respect is why the revolver was an attractive police sidearm for so many, many years. The simpler the better.

You may not like it, and I may not especially like it, but sadly that is the reality of it.
 
I would disagree with your hypothesis that the M&P is essentially a single-acton gun... It meets the definition of a DAO pistol because the pistol is not re-cocked after the trigger is pulled and the slide retracted.


This is fun.

Agreed the gun is not cocked by the action of the slide moving reward in recoil ala the 1911 or DA/SA style pistols with a hammer.

My understanding of the M&P system is that the striker is cocked upon the return of the slide to battery. My 1903 rifle is cocked in the same manner as the bolt moves forward the striker catches on the sear and remains in place as the bolt is pushed forward. The striker spring is compressed upon closing of the bolt - cock on closing.

A Colt Single Action Army, the classic definition of a single action gun, is not cocked by any mechanism powered by the discharge of the cartridge, after the shot is fired the operator manually cocks the hammer. The trigger perfroms only one function - releasing the sear to drop the hammer.

The classic double action revolver is considered double action because the trigger performs two functions - it cocks the hammer and at a preset position the sear is tripped and the hammer is free to fall and fire the cartridge. Double action - cocking the hammer and releasing the sear.

Where is the double action in the M&P? In order to soothe the fears of the bean counters and maintain the Double Action description necessary to be accepted by the liability experts as a service pistol S&W contends that the minimal movement imparted by the trigger to the sear which slightly moves the striker rearward prior to it falling off the sear meets the description of double action. I think you could also argue its a trigger in need of tuning.
 
Last edited:
I don't think the M&P can fire at rest from the limited "cocking" that takes place during a slide rack, much like a Glock- course I could be wrong about this, but I don't get the
impression that an M&P is set up like that.

It's not like a Springfield XD, or a P99AS, where the gun actually has a fully cocked striker at "loaded rest. "

I think of guns like an M&P or a Glock as "Spring Assisted DAO" rather than single action. Single action to me implies that a pull of a trigger moves a sear of some sort which causes the gun to fire, while not really doing anything to the hammer/striker.

If you're pulling the hammer/striker back AT ALL as part of the process of firing, the gun is NOT single action, IMO.

-Mike
 
If you're pulling the hammer/striker back AT ALL as part of the process of firing, the gun is NOT single action, IMO.

-Mike

I just took my M&P apart to take a looksey.

On the right side of the lower frame there is a hump attached to the trigger action bar that moves rearward about 1/8 inch to depress the firing pin safety.

The only action that occurs in regards to the sear/striker relationship is that due to the fact the ramp of the sear must be taller to engage the striker and because that sear rides on a pivot pin, as it is pulled along its arc it moves the striker back probably .001 as it disengages from the striker. Polish round the back of the sear slightly it would probably smooth out the trigger pull and cause even less striker movement, this will occur with use (if done wrong with stones it would probably make a striker/sear lock up that will fail).

Looking at the weak firing pin hits the striker makes on a primer it could be argued that that .001 inch of movement is absolutely necessary to guarantee operation but if that is the case the spring pressure of the M&P is at the absolute low spec of power to ensure ignition.

Just my observations. I am a fan of the gun but my belief is still that calling it double action is smoke and mirrors. If that is whats needed to get a better pistol issued go for it.
 
Last edited:
I fail to see how it matters one way or the other.

I agree. The only reason it was brought up was in regards to the statement "the 1911 will be issued to the STOP team but a single action pistol will never be general issue".

My belief is that if they have issued a single action pistol in the form of the M&P .45.
 
I agree. The only reason it was brought up was in regards to the statement "the 1911 will be issued to the STOP team but a single action pistol will never be general issue".

My belief is that if they have issued a single action pistol in the form of the M&P .45.

That is your opinion and you provide a good argument, except the powers to be have defined the MP series to be DAO. Do you consider the Glock Safe Action a DAO?

A 1911 will never be a general issue pistol with the MSP or with most police agencies. Why do you think it should be ?[horse]
 
I know the 1911 never will be a general issue pistol for police agencies and I wont beat that dead horse. It would be a great weapon for those wanting to train and learn the gun, but for the powers that be there is some irrational, unfounded fear of the gun. I wont give the "its unsafe" crowd any validation of their claims.

Regards the Glock I've never looked at one. I am not familiar with the action the trigger imparts to the striker. If it moves the striker even an eighth of an inch I would call it DAO. Take a really close look at the movement the M&P sear imparts to the striker and you can see the movement is so small it is more a case of tolerance stacking than a DA firing system. Just because S&W's marketing department has filed paperwork with the ATF claiming DAO design doesnt mean it actually is. I hear a lot from the powers that be and I can tell that if its warm and yellow its not rain.

The M&P is a good gun. I have appreciated the back and forth debate of the SA vs DAO system.

One thing I find surprising on the M&P is the learning curve required for the striker pistol - I didnt expect it. The gun has great hand feel and the trigger is nicer than the DAK. Instead of that long DAK pull the M&P requires only that you remove a little slack than you apply a reasonable amount of pressure to snap the sear. Still groups with a Combat Commander, a Smith M27 or a K22 will be pretty much one hole but groups with the M&P are like a teenager with acne. Practice, practice, practice.
 
Last edited:
Maybe I'm missing something, but Glock has adjustable grips, at least on the Gen4. As well as a wide range of standard grip sizes for different models, i.e. SF to full size.

Not to mention the M&P Grips are not that great, and that in circles it has been said that Glock gets money for copyright infringment from S&W, how much is undisclosed.


Ya but Glock's SUCK!
 
That copyright infringement, IIRC, deals with the Sigma.

IIRC S&W had some gigantic settlement with Glock that let them continue to use the infringed upon IP to some degree or another.... otherwise if it was a royalty or something like that, S&W would have dumped the Sigmas a long, long time ago.

Not sure if this still works, but at one time you could swap Sigma 9mm and Glock 17 barrels and they would work in the other pistol... that's how much S&W ripped core parts of the Glock design off. [laugh]

-Mike
 
IIRC S&W had some gigantic settlement with Glock that let them continue to use the infringed upon IP to some degree or another.... otherwise if it was a royalty or something like that, S&W would have dumped the Sigmas a long, long time ago.

Not sure if this still works, but at one time you could swap Sigma 9mm and Glock 17 barrels and they would work in the other pistol... that's how much S&W ripped core parts of the Glock design off. [laugh]

-Mike

Mike,

Both you and Joe are correct. The royalties dealt with the Sigma pistol. My understanding is that S&W eventually did a re-design and no longer had to pay the royalties on each Sigma sold. The M&P series is regarded as a totally original design with no possibility of patent infringement.
 
Hate resurrecting old threads...but curiosity got the best of me! What model M&P do the MSP carry? The 4.5 or 4 inch?
 
I actually believe its the 4.5. The 4.5 is the model that ships with no ext. safety, 3 mags, reduced trigger and night sites. That is SW "LE" package.
 
Trust me, the state police are using the 4 inch mid size model. I see the gun every day.

Ok. They must have chosen a different model for the 45 than the rest of the municipalities that switched to them. That doesn't surprise me either.

EDIT I have been told that others have the 4 inch, too. Interesting...
 
Last edited:
Are the sigs marked with Mass state police?? i know my 65-2 3 inch and 4 inch are marked on the backstrap i would like to add another MSP gun to the collection ..... any information would be helpful
.
 
Are the sigs marked with Mass state police?? i know my 65-2 3 inch and 4 inch are marked on the backstrap i would like to add another MSP gun to the collection ..... any information would be helpful
.

I was told that all MSP Sigs are being, or have been destroyed and that the troopers were not even able to purchase their issued gun, because of some defect in the DAK model that was produced specifically for the MSP. Unfortunately, I don't think you will be able to add to your collection.
 
Back
Top Bottom