M+P 9

Help Support Ruger Forum:

3leggeddog

Single-Sixer
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
267
Location
Michigan
I was looking at a M+P 9 today , nice grip, feels good. BUT , the trigger which has a safety built in had a support "pin" near the outer edge of the main trigger! This did look to me like a weak set up = a trigger break waiting to happen! What have my friends been hearing ???
 
3leggeddog":2518x8l7 said:
I was looking at a M+P 9 today , nice grip, feels good. BUT , the trigger which has a safety built in had a support "pin" near the outer edge of the main trigger! This did look to me like a weak set up = a trigger break waiting to happen! What have my friends been hearing ???
Mostly what I''ve been hearing is BANG every time I pull the trigger. My M&P9 has been flawless since the day I bought it almost three years ago. No failures of any kind in at least 2000 rounds.

S&W did have some teething problems with the very first production guns but seems to have straightened them out quickly and the current guns are very reliable.

As you noted the ergonomics are about the finest of any pistol on the market. It comes with three grip sizes that can be changed in seconds so nearly anyone can find one that feels right.
 
yeah i have to agree i have had mine for a little over a year and have not had any kind of issues at all with it. I recommend it to anyone.
 
Put me on the M&P bandwagon. My M&P 40 chews up and spits out anything I've fed it without having a single problem. I've fed at least 3500 rounds through it in the last 18 months.
 
I've had an M&P9 for about 3 years. I've had no problems with any commercial or reloaded ammo. When I'm doing my part, the pistol is "accurate." The M&P's are good pistols.
 
A buddy of mine rented one a few weeks ago when we went to the range. This is a beautiful gun. Shoots really nice. It's now on my list of guns to buy. If I get another 9mm then this will most likely be it. I thought it was a great gun.
 
I had a S&W Sigma VE 40 a while back. Didn't have it long. But I heard from everyone I know that the S&W M&P is leaps and bounds better, gonna check one out here soon.
 
THe Sigmas are the bottom of the barrel. Cheap ... that's about it.

REV
 
DA_TriggR4Ruger":6bny4ari said:
revhigh":6bny4ari said:
THe Sigmas are the bottom of the barrel. Cheap ... that's about it.

REV

As a former owner, +1

Hey DA !!

I think Gator had a few and liked them. I've never shot one, but handled several, and wasn't impressed at all. Felt really junky to me.

Did you ever call CDNN to check on those Sigs with the replaceable backstrap ? NOt sure if they have any left, but I remember they were a VERY good deal.

REV
 
revhigh":25quoy9x said:
THe Sigmas are the bottom of the barrel. Cheap ... that's about it.
Unlike my SR-9, my Sigma has never needed to go back to the factory to service any problems.

If you complain about stiff triggers, then yes, I agree.

If you complain about accuracy, reliability, and quality of workmanship, then frankly, you don't know what you are talking about. I think the Sigmas are better made than the Ruger.

Just look at the barrel machining, below. One barrel is a BNIB Ruger SR-9, right before I sent it back to the factory because the muzzle end was cast undersized and not properly machined. The other barrel is a 5 year-old S&W Sigma barrel with thousands of rounds through it.

The quality of machining and final fit and finish is strikingly different.

New Ruger left, Used Sigma right
DSCF0256.jpg


New Ruger bottom, Used Sigma top
DSCF0259.jpg


New Ruger bottom, Used Sigma top
DSCF0257.jpg


New Ruger bottom, Used Sigma top
DSCF0258.jpg


I didn't even bother to make comparison photos between my M&P and the Ruger, because I though the fit and finish differences between my $275 Sigma and my $400 SR-9 were obvious enough.
 
Jumping Frog":2rc0myzz said:
If you complain about accuracy, reliability, and quality of workmanship, then frankly, you don't know what you are talking about. I think the Sigmas are better made than the Ruger.

There's far more to a quality gun than machining and casting marks (or lack thereof) on the barrel. Pretty (or more) machining does not necessarily equate to better, especially if the higher level of machining is in an 'it doesn't matter' area, or doesn't add to improved functionality.

I seem to recall that you don't carry your accurate, reliable, and high quality Sigma, but instead carry the far more highly thought of, and much more refined M&P. I wonder why ...

By the way, there's not ONE photo you posted that shows ANYTHING regarding the 'fit' part of the 'fit and finish' advantage that you claim the Sigma has over the Ruger. Personally, I wouldn't own a Ruger either, especially the SR9. The Sigmas I've handled felt and cycled like Jennings products or worse, even though they may have nicely machined surfaces, as you've shown. They may go BANG when the trigger is pulled, but KIA's drive down the road, too. That doesn't mean they're better than BMW's, just because a BMW had a recall, or other issues.

The thread below pretty much sums it up ...

http://policelink.monster.com/topics/58 ... cal-/posts

REV
 
Not sure how the M&P discussion got to Sigma vs SR9. I have the M&P9 and an SR9. I think the M&P is better pistol than the SR9, but not by much. The M&P seems to be less picky about ammo than the SR9 and has a "better" trigger. It's been darned dependable for 3 years. I've had the SR9 for three months so time will tell.

I'm not sure the barrel comparison means much. I did it with the M&P and SR9. The SR9 had a couple rub marks. I get slightly tighter groups at 15 yards with the SR9, both are about 1.5". I can see the front sight on the SR9 slightly better than the M&P.
 
greener":1oppjm41 said:
I'm not sure the barrel comparison means much.

Of course it doesn't mean a thing. To pick one piece of a gun that looks cosmetically better than another gun's equivalent part, and then extrapolate from that comparison that the prettier part is an indication of a better overall gun is ludicrous.

The M&P's are decent guns, although I'd pick the XD line over the M&P line if the price were equivalent. I don't think either one, including the new XD/M line, which is supposedly a 'Match' barrelled gun compares to the accuracy of either Sigs or CZ's. I shot a friends 9MM XD/M and was unimpressed with it, as was the owner, who sold it a few weeks later.

Both the M&P line and the XD line would be about equivalent to the Glock line, IMO, and none of them compare from an accuracy standpoint to the CZ or Sig line, but all of them are better than the SR9, which suffers greatly from it's terrible trigger.

REV
 
revhigh":18euztl3 said:
greener":18euztl3 said:
I'm not sure the barrel comparison means much.
Both the M&P line and the XD line would be about equivalent to the Glock line, IMO, and none of them compare from an accuracy standpoint to the CZ or Sig line, but all of them are better than the SR9, which suffers greatly from it's terrible trigger.

REV

"terrible trigger" ? My SR9 trigger was gritty until I did some polishing. Now it is crisp and a bit on the heavy side. My son's first comment on the SR9 after firing it was that he liked the trigger. I guess one man's terrible trigger is another's "I like it."

Of the ones you mentioned, I like the CZ75. Haven't seen much from the Sigs that really make them stand out. I'd add the Beretta to the mix.

All the ones I've fired shoot well with the right ammo. I haven't locked any into a rest to check gun/ammo consistency, but they seem to be pretty consistent. None of them have been inherently accurate. Accuracy is something the shooter does, assisted by gun/ammo consistency. Some that I've fired have been more "accurate" than others, but I haven't seen one I'd take to a Bullseye match. Don't believe they were designed for that.
 
greener":1mtco8un said:
Accuracy is something the shooter does, assisted by gun/ammo consistency.

I can't agree with the above statement. When you take 5 guns and bolt them into a ransom rest and shoot them all at the same distance with the same ammo, and 3 guns give 4 inch groups, and one gives a 2.5 inch group, and the last one gives a 1.5 inch group. The last gun is absolutely more ACCURATE than the other 4. That directly translates into accuracy IN YOUR HAND if you are confident in your shooting abilities. I shoot so many rounds each year that I am totally confident in my shooting abilities.

For example, I typically shoot at a distance of 50 feet. I am not that great a shot (others at my club are much better), but I can generally keep all 5 rounds of a group in a circle about as big as a billiard ball. Pretty much all day long, with EVERY SINGLE gun I own. I can go from a 4 inch Ruger GP100, to a 1911, to a CZ75, to a 7.5 inch SRH, to a Glock, and my groups pretty much never change unless I screw up (or get lucky LOL). Now if I get a gun that I CAN'T shoot into the same size group, there's an issue somewhere. It's either me, the gun I'm shooting, or the caliber or load that I'm shooting. Since I shoot consistently with almost any gun I shoot, including my friend's guns, I don't think it's me. I've owned guns that really sucked for accuracy ... a 9MM S&W 39-2, a 9MM Taurus 92F, a 9MM Ruger P89, a .40 Ruger P91, a .40 Beretta 96, and a .40 CZ 40B. All of those guns just flat out WOULD NOT SHOOT WELL. The issue was not me, it was not the caliber, IT WAS THE GUN. The P91 I had would shoot 8-10 inch groups at the same distance that I shot 2 3/4 inch groups with every other gun. I've NEVER had a revolver exhibit those kind of accuracy issues.

One thing you have to realize is that there are differing degrees of accuracy. If you as a person are capable of shooting a 3 inch group, and you have a gun that isn't capable of that level of accuracy, then YOU will not be able to shoot a 3 inch group WITH THAT GUN. On the other hand, if the gun is capable of 1 inch accuracy, that doesn't mean that YOU will be able to shoot 1 inch groups. A gun that may be OK for YOU, shooting 3 inch groups, may not be accurate enough for a person who's capable of shooting 1.5 inch groups.

Pistols, by virtue of all the sloppy moving parts, shorter barrels, shortened sight radiuses, hand held usage (non-rested), all result in very poor accuracy compared to long guns (rifles).

THere is DEFINITELY a difference in accuracy capabilities between various pistols, and brands of pistols. Far and away more than just gun/ammo 'consistency' as you refer to it.

Regarding Sigs, I've never seen a Sig that wasn't outstandingly accurate. I've also never seen a brand that was more consistantly accurate than Sig. CZ is close, but not at Sig levels. There's a reason that Sigs cost $800, and Rugers cost $400, and it isn't ALL because there's millions upon millions of 'Sig snobs' that are willing to pay double the cost of the Ruger for the same performance. You may not appreciate the brand, but there's millions of people who do see enough of a difference to plunk down nearly twice as much for a Sig. And they're not all doing it because they're 'Sig snobs'. I own two Sigs ... A P226 and and P225 (P6), but I bought them used for $400 and $250. Both are spectacularly accurate. Better than ANY other auto I own except for 1911's.

REV
 
greener":2bn4jnhn said:
Terrible trigger ??? My SR9 trigger was gritty until I did some polishing. Now it is crisp and a bit on the heavy side.

So I guess you'd call a GRITTY, HEAVY trigger a GOOD trigger ???? :roll:

Most people aren't interested in playing amateur gunsmith with a brand new, out of the box pistol, and they shouldn't have to.

REV
 
Top