I have one S&W M&P, a .45 ACP full-size with the thumb safety.
I plan on keeping it, but have no real plans of adding another, which I suppose means I like them OK but can't say I went crazy over them. I guess I'm more or less neutral.
As polymer framed pistols go, if I were shopping for one right now, I'd get another M&P. I like them better than other polymer pistols I've tried (mostly Glocks). I'm mostly going to compare the M&P to Glocks here, partially because Glocks make up most of my polymer frame gun experience and partially because it seems the natural thing to do.
The grip feels better to me than any other polymer gun. Even if they didn't have changeable backstraps and were all made in one-size-fits-all medium, I'd still like it better than others I've tried.
The M&P's metal magazine body fixes one of my main Glock complaints: The Glock plastic-encased mags are a lot fatter than they need to be and make carrying spares a little clumsier. That was the big advantage XDs had over them to me.
I don't know if that many people take mag size into consideration. I carry spare mags, so a mag being fatter than it needs to be matters to me.
After having a couple break a hook off, I'm not real happy with the standard Glock trigger return spring. I'm no engineer, but it always seemed to me that a coil spring with hooks on the end caused the hooks to bear the stress of the entire spring, and the sharp bend to form the hook would be the weak point. Growing up on the farm, there was never a shortage of springs in the trash barrel that came off some farm implement after breaking off a hook.
The S&W M&P still uses a similar arrangement. Their spring, however, has a rubbery insert in the coils that supposedly dampens the vibrations that leads to breakage. I don't know about that, but at least they did something, and mine hasn't snapped yet. I'd rather see something else, but it's a start.
It doesn't have such a strong "sproinggg" sound and feel when dry firing, so maybe it does work.
The M&P comes with metal sights, unlike the Glock and some others.
I've never had a Glock plastic front sight shear off, but I've seen it happen to others a couple of times (although at least once, I think it came from crowding cover and banging it off the edge of that cover). But I have carried one until the front sight became worn and misshapen. I know it's easily replaced, but I'd rather not have to.
Maybe most people get night sights or change to them ASAP, which naturally fixes that anyway. But regardless of that also, the M&P comes with metal sights.
Overall, I guess I'm saying the M&P fixes most of my complaints about Glocks.
It also seems to be at least as good as any other polymer gun.
I had gotten away from polymer guns but got my M&P because of hearing how great they were and seeing so many of them in use. That usually isn't enough reason for me to get something new, but two things helped:
-I knew of several people who switched to M&Ps that I thought would never consider changing from what they carried for years. Nothing else swayed them, so they saw something in the M&P.
-Instructors liked them. I always pay attention to the opinion of instructors, since they see so many guns.
-I like big bullets, but I also see the argument for more bullets. All hi-cap .45s I tried felt terrible to me. I wanted to try a hi-cap .45 that fit a human hand, and the M&P 45 felt pretty decent. Although at 10 rds, many would not call the M&P 45 a hi-cap.
So I went shopping for an M&P.
I wanted either a 9mm or .45. The shop had them in all variations. Comparing the 9 and .45, the .45 looked only slightly bigger in some places and the same in others, so I eliminated the 9mm.
I wish now I had compared slide width closer, as I think the .45 is way too wide. It's maybe no wider than a Glock or XD, but still too wide for me.
They had the M&P .45 with and without the manual safety. I didn't think the manual safety was necessary, but when I handled the "safety-less" one, my thumb kept looking for a place to rest. Too much 1911/HiPower use, I guess. So I got the safety.
It has operated with everything I've loaded into it- JHPs, cast SWCs, round nose jacketed or cast, and bullet weights from 165 to 235 grains.
Everything shoots pretty well. Groups are about as small as I can make them. The trigger being heavier than I'm used to takes some concentration, but is not a huge deal.
Control is good, and I can run multiple shot drills almost as well as with the 1911s I'm used to.
The controls are easy to reach and operate. The thumb safety is close to being in the same place as a 1911, but just enough off to feel a little different. I've never failed to disengage it, but have thought so a couple of times.
Nothing has broken, bent, or otherwise failed.
The gun works fine, but I seldom carry it. I only carry it on those rare days when I will be someplace where I can't take a gun. If I might have to leave a gun in the car, I'd rather leave a $550 gun I can probably replace on the way home than one of the HiPowers or 1911s I usually carry. Those are a little harder to replace.
If doing my M&P shopping trip over, I'd look harder at the 9mm. That wide slide of the .45 drives me nuts.
When it comes down to it, the M&P .45 is only a couple of ounces lighter than the similar sized Colt LW Cmdr or S&W Sc Cmdr. They are also slimmer, and have better triggers. The M&P trigger is really crisp, but also heavy.
So comparing the M&P 45 with LW Cmdrs, the M&P's advantages are that it holds two more rounds, is a couple of ounces lighter, and is cheaper. The weight reduction is more than offset by the width to me. I don't notice the minor weight difference. Two extra rounds are always nice, but not worth the tradeoffs to me in this comparison.
Sorry, I turned this into a book on the M&P.
