-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
M&P Discussion moved here from Four Seasons subforum
- Thread starter dwarven1
- Start date
I just shot an M&P .45 today... Ehhh. Not my cuppa tea. I liked the Performance Center 1911 a LOT better.![[grin]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/041.gif "Grin [grin]")
I like the M&Ps.. but I actually used the PC1911 BEFORE trying the M&P .45... yes, I'm in love with the PC1911!
dixidawg
NES Member
I just shot an M&P .45 today... Ehhh. Not my cuppa tea. I liked the Performance Center 1911 a LOT better.
My sentiments exactly.
I love my M&P full-sized 9 mm, but I wasn't as taken with the M&P .45. The sample I tested at S&W today may have been damaged, as it didn't hold the ten ring even when shot slow-fire at seven yards.
I think there were two M+P .45s out there, eventually. (could be
wrong). The one I shot tended to cluster the shots to the left of
the X. Of course a lot of it was probably due to my inexperience with
this particular gun as well. The trigger was "interesting" to say the
least. It also didn't help that the front sight was fogged up with S+B .45
ACP gunk, I could barely make out the white dot, so I was basically seeing
a whitish gray post up front for alignment.
I did better with the .40 S+W version overall, though... getting the majority
of my 50 round box of ammo inside of the black.
I did like the guns but I don't think I would buy the .40 or 9mm unless I
move out of this state, unless I was going to use one for IPSC production
or something. The compacts might be an option once they start
appearing more. Not sure if they're crippled too, but they'll probably crippled
less (per size ratio) than their larger counterparts. Having all that dead
space in the mag just seems inherently wrong, to me. The .45 did pique
my interest from that standpoint, although if I got one I would definitely
choose the next smaller backstrap size. The front to back grip size was a
bit too large.
-Mike
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
All my combat sights are set so that the POI is exactly where the dot is covering. My M&P is the same way. The only exeption to this is my 1911 in which I have the top of the front sight=POI.I agree, the white dots suck when dirty like that.
I had the exact opposite experience with the M&P .45 today. It was dead nuts on and shot about as well as my sight picture. I shot the M&P .40 in a vertical string to the right of my POA. Part of that was learning the M&P trigger and the M&P .40 came before the .45.
Comparing the M&P to the performance center 1911 is really not a fair comparison. It would be better to compare a Burwell tuned M&P in an action shooting situation to the PC 1911, that is where the light weight frame and more than adequate trigger will shine over a heavy weight all steel gun. If you aren't making transitions than the M&P doesn't have much to offer you that a 1911 can't do better. The M&P is just another DAO duty gun, not a panacea. I like to think of it as the poor man's mass legal 2011 with affordable mags.
There is also weight for carry but that isn't a factor with my restricted license.
The front sight dot (especially fiber optic) is pretty essential for action shooting. Black sights shine for precision paper punching but not for close shots at 7 yards on IPSC sized targets. Different tools for different schools so to speak. The black is always there for those 25 yard shots.
Comparing the M&P to the performance center 1911 is really not a fair comparison. It would be better to compare a Burwell tuned M&P in an action shooting situation to the PC 1911, that is where the light weight frame and more than adequate trigger will shine over a heavy weight all steel gun. If you aren't making transitions than the M&P doesn't have much to offer you that a 1911 can't do better. The M&P is just another DAO duty gun, not a panacea. I like to think of it as the poor man's mass legal 2011 with affordable mags.
There is also weight for carry but that isn't a factor with my restricted license.
The front sight dot (especially fiber optic) is pretty essential for action shooting. Black sights shine for precision paper punching but not for close shots at 7 yards on IPSC sized targets. Different tools for different schools so to speak. The black is always there for those 25 yard shots.
True to a point, but I guess when shooting the two side by side (or back to back) the differences are just that much more obvious. The PC1911 with the clean easy break contrasted with the notchy M&P with an odd reset. Ergonomics are both good IMO but quite different. The PC1911 trigger just made everything else pale in comparison... but again it's a $1500 gun vs. a $500 gun. I'll keep my M&P .40 and save for the PC1911.
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
Mike and I must have shot the same M&P .45!
I even think that the crude on the top of the front sight made it uneven!
Good shooting gun, but the trigger reset was best described as "strange"!
I definitely want one when they become available in MA.
Regrettably I didn't try any other of their M&P models. I really didn't want another 9mm or .40.
I even think that the crude on the top of the front sight made it uneven!
Good shooting gun, but the trigger reset was best described as "strange"!
I definitely want one when they become available in MA.
Regrettably I didn't try any other of their M&P models. I really didn't want another 9mm or .40.
Well, that's what I did..., and didn't do too badly with it either... my point was that picking up the
front would have been easier if it was cleaner. When a lot of gunk gets on the front of a gun's
sight, the front of the gun almost turns into a homogeneous grey blob. I own like, 4 handguns,
where there are no white dots at all, so I can use a set of black on black sights if I want to...
but on something like an M+P that doesnt have a "crisp" front to begin with, I find the dot to be
helpful... hell even if the dot was gone and the sight was clean (eg, a black cube) it would have
probably been easier.
-Mike
True to a point, but I guess when shooting the two side by side (or back to back) the differences are just that much more obvious. The PC1911 with the clean easy break contrasted with the notchy M&P with an odd reset. Ergonomics are both good IMO but quite different. The PC1911 trigger just made everything else pale in comparison... but again it's a $1500 gun vs. a $500 gun. I'll keep my M&P .40 and save for the PC1911.
Yeah, when in doubt, just buy both.
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
-Mike
I ran into the same thing, at least initially... I'm not normally a "reset
gamer" on anything but a 1911, but I did short stroke it a couple of times
and not have it go off, thinking "wtf". After that though, it never happened
again. Makes no sense though, because I own a few sigs and HKs, guns
which also don't have a really short reset, but the M+P seemed different... it
was almost like in the others you can feel a click once it resets, the M+P just
slides forward smoothly, and I didn't feel a click. Wasn't a horrible thing,
just took some getting used to initially. Some of it may have been
because I shot the PC945 before the M+P .45, which probably spoiled my
trigger finger rotten, because the reset on the former was very short.
-Mike
I liked the M&P, but there wasn't anything radical enough in the feature set to make me want to give up my P99, beyond having 10 rounds of .45, but I still like the 1911 platform better for .45's. To me, the most amazing thing about the M&P is that it can be had brand new for less money than I paid used for my P99 a year ago.
You and I are on the same page. I'm not even looking at a .40 or 9mm - I want a .45
I don't look at this gun as a panacea, just a step up perhaps from my trustworthy, but dated G22. I'm actually thinking about "thinning the herd" and my G22 and my ParaOrd Carry 6.45 may be sailing off into the sunset. I'm good with giving up my 15-rd high-caps for the Glock in favor of 10-rounds in a caliber I love, trust and am proficient with. Eleven .45 ACP Golden Sabres on deck is nothing to sneeze at...
That's why I am look at the new M&P, carl has them up at his shop new for less then most new glocks in 40 are and less then most used ones. So I am hoping the same will be the case with the compacts when they come out, I really love glocks and wanted a G26 but not for $700 for a used one!
I think if shooters were smart they would stop buying over price glock models like the compacts yeah they are hard to come by but to jack the price is not right. I sold a CZ 75B which are hard to come by, I put it at a high price due to I had 2 hi caps with it which you will never get here in Mass, but took a much lower offer for it almost close to MSRP.
I am not out to rape anyone sold a XD 5inch 40SW with night sights and 3 mags when I first moved back for the same $330 I paid to a guy I knewn from training for a job I worked. The next thing I see it on this forum here for over 300 more then I sold it to him that kind of back stabing on price is why I would never sell to him again and is why you some som hard to come by model going for nuts for money.
There a G26 on here now for $750 but has not sold and it shouldn't for that much when its close to MSRP they it should sell. Hey I am all for maybe making $50-$70 over MSRP but no more.
So, you're telling us that selling something at what the market will pay for
it is "raping someone"? Hardly. I agree the prices are often artificially
high but it's all about a supply demand thing. I know if I got an XD for
$300, and I had to turn around and sell it for whatever reason, I wouldn't
cut myself short by offering it at what I paid for it... as $300 is well below
the MA market price for an XD. Maybe I would sell it for $300 to a good friend
or something, but I'm not going to let the lions swallow it up for what I
paid for it when I could easily get double.
-Mike
I'm all about supply and demand and letting the market set prices. But in MA since Glocks are held ARTIFICIALLY high, I have an issue with this. Yes, I have some new Glocks the I bought at under $600 each. If I were to sell them to someone on here I can assure you all I wouldn't ask for "market" prices. I feel that would be supporting the damn AG crap from my own little view. My little quirk I guess.
I think you'll find that you'll be more accurate by matching the top of the front sight to the top of the rear notch, than you will be trying to line up the front and rear dots. Try it.
I do quite well on IDPA with my Wilson Combat 1911 with all-black sights, thank you very much. Not so great on indoor stages, but I find these sights much faster than any white-dot sights I've used (including those on my Kimbers).
Black sights work just great on tan cardboard targets, IMHO. I find them a bit harder to use on black targets. YMMV.
Last edited:
TY43215
NES Member
when my eyes were better I preferred all black sights to anything. They show the perfect sight picture for all the hand gun shooting sports. As my eyes get older, I have had to lean on the fiber optic crutch many switch to as age sets in. Some younger folks never really learn what a good sight picture is now that we have three dot and all the other types.
A good set of Bomars or Millet are still the best sights IMO. The new to US LPA sights are great also.
I would like to try that Wilson some time and see if I can see the front sight.
I'll be glad to let you give it a go the next time we're at a match together.
My eyes are starting on the downward slope, so who knows how long I'll be able to see the black front sight. I was at the eye doc a couple weeks ago when he used the b-word for the first time. Sigh.
I just shot an M&P .45 today... Ehhh. Not my cuppa tea. I liked the Performance Center 1911 a LOT better.
A biiiig +2 here. I was NOT the least bit impressed with the compact .40 M&P at all - between the magazine falling out of the gun at random intervals and the gun refusing to chamber freakin' FMJs, it's off the list completely. I had been considering the compact 40 as a carry gun, but it failed more in the 30 rounds I put through it than my TWO SW99s have in the 2 years and 2500+ rounds I've put through both of them...
The M&P .45 ACP was decent, but I think I'll save my money for a Sig 220...
I'm sure you are correct but it would require lots of sight changes on my Sigs and Glocks unless I was willing to shot them all a little low.
I should give it a shot at the range shooting at bullseye targets.
If the dots are installed properly, then when the dots are lined up, the top of the front sight is even with the top of the rear notch. That is, a plane intersecting the dots should be parallel with a plane set on top of the sights. These two planes are just a couple millimeters apart. So if they are parallel, then the difference in point of aim would just be a couple millimeters (the height difference between the center of the dots and the top of the sights).
The difference is that (for me at least) it is easier to accurately line up the top of the sights than it is to accurately line up the center of the dots.
Humor me. The next time you go to the range, shoot it benchrest using the top of the front sight and the top of rear sight. I think you'll find it shoots to point of aim.
I just shot an M&P .45 today... Ehhh. Not my cuppa tea. I liked the Performance Center 1911 a LOT better.
I'm with you. the M&P slid around in my hands and just didn't feel right. I like a more agressive texture on the grip or a rubber grip.
Matt
I had some grip issues with the M+P .45 I tried as well, but in my case it probably could be resolved by changing out the grip strap to one which was
one step smaller.
The .40 on the other hand fit my hand well and didn't slip much at
all.
-Mike
