Quote:
Originally Posted by S&Wshooter
I haven't heard many good things about the M&P
|
Haven't talked to enough people who own them. But every time I look at the Handguns section of Armslist, or the Classifieds on other gun boards I visit, it seems as though there are a lot of people trying to sell or trade M&Ps. When I was trying to sell my 4506, I had four guys who made me trade offers on TFL. Guess what two of them wanted to trade? M&Ps.
What I figure this means is that the M&P is really, REALLY popular and there are just lots floating around (like 1911s and Glocks), or people who buy them tend to hate them and try to sell them quickly. And I'm guessing the latter reason is why, because I haven't seen anyone shooting an M&P at my range yet. Of course, that's still an anecdote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9870
Just saying you cant base a gun based on performance of the ffirst models, a lot of guns, almost all, have teething problems. Glock failed at first but dont see anyone saying its unfit for duty based on the first models. It looks like smith and wesson has ironed out some flaws.
|
First of all, what do you mean by "failed"? That word implies serious design flaws. The main reason Glocks were not accepted by most militaries/LE agencies when they first came out was because the polymer-framed pistol was still a new and unproven concept in the 80s, so most people weren't willing to embrace it immediately. That's why all of the M9 entries were all-metal pistols, and it's also why you didn't see too many American or European police agencies starting to issue Glocks until the early-90s.
With the M&P, the same issue doesn't apply. It is simply (by many accounts) not a particularly good pistol,
and it has quality issues. It's not like it's a revolutionary or unproven design, as Glocks were 25 years ago.