S&W M&P

[rubberneck]

Wow, the mentality in support of this rule is very illuminating if it is representative of all of IDPA...

For those that are tired of putting up with that sort of nonsense, welcome to USPSA Production!

You can rest easy mpolans becasue as of right now all I shoot is IDPA and think that rule is stupid and pointless. If you went to a local match and asked 100 shooters I would bet 80 of them would agree as long as the mod doesn't give one shooter and advantage.

[Woody Allen]

..

Edited March 4, 2006 by Woody Allen

[ryan45kim]

Does this imply you want me to put those stupid 80 series parts back in my Para to shoot

IDPA.

[Chuck Anderson]

It's cheating because there is a rule that specifically precludes it. If you want to buy an LE gun that doesn't have it, go for it. If you want to bug S&W till they see the error of their ways, go for it. If you want to deliberately remove a part in violation of the rules, cheat away.

And I was told by a person the SO'd the last Nationals that there told specifcally not to look for it or call people on it. If they don't care about it at Nationals I won't lose sleep over a couple guys who hide behind screen names while calling others cheaters.

My name is Chuck Anderson, it's in my profile, "Peter". It's a simple rule. It says no removing safeties. My idea of cheating is knowing there is a rule and deliberately violating it. Do I think that it's a good rule, no. I personally hate mag disconnects. If you want to get away with it I really don't care. I don't shoot IDPA. Not because of any problems I have with it, there just isn't a club nearby. I think that if there is a rule and the SO's are told to specifically not look for it that it's kind of ridiculous. Does that mean that it's legal? If I don't pull over and stop every person that's driving 5 mph over the speed limit does that somehow change the limit? It's still against the rule. You're never going to convince me that deliberately violating a rule, knowing you're violating it, is not cheating.

[rubberneck]

You're never going to convince me that deliberately violating a rule, knowing you're violating it, is not cheating.

It must be nice to see the world in clear black and white with no shades of grey. As a LEO do you "cheat" the taxpayers but not enforcing the rules to the letter of the law or is there room for an intelligent adult to decide that for themsleves?

You can talk till your blue in the face and you will never convince me that altering a gun to match an exsisting production configuration is cheating. I am still waiting for you to explain how I would gain an advatage by doing so. I am going to assume that since you have never bothered to address those points that you are incapable of doing so. Instead you feel free to call me a cheater. Whatever helps you get to sleep at night.

BTW Chuck there is no reason to put "" around my name, then again I wasn't calling anyone a cheater if I did I would have signed my name to it to begin with. Thats just me.

Edited March 4, 2006 by rubberneck

[Crusher]

I stopped shooting a BRHP in IDPA because of this rule, Mr. Garthwaite built a very fine HP for me and because the mag disconnect was removed (C&S trigger installed) I did not want to utilize a mag to ULSC nor get binged by some silly rule to be knocked out of a santioned match (yea the liklyhood is slim but the possibility still existed)

I then decided I still want to play in IDPA/ESP (even without my beloved HP) so I had STI build a ESP gun for me to play. Box compliant, .40 cal (doubles as a USPSA back up to the back up) bushed barrel ESP racer. It just fits in the box, weighs in at 41.9 oz and shoots a 137-139 PF .40 minor. As a bonus I have a nice carry gun that is utilized as such on occasion.

IMHO the rule is silly but it is NOT worth getting binged for and running the risk of a match DQ.

As far as the configurations of S&W products without doing an inquiry to S&W a RO/MD will have no way of determining what actual configuration the gun left the factoy and therefore is really an un-enforceable issue.

Is it "cheating"? It is a violation of the rules, but I thought "cheating" was further defined as gaining an unfair advantage not mearly violating the rules.

[rubberneck]

IMHO the rule is silly but it is NOT worth getting binged for and running the risk of a match DQ.

As far as the configurations of S&W products without doing an inquiry to S&W a RO/MD will have no way of determining what actual configuration the gun left the factoy and therefore is really an un-enforceable issue.

Is it "cheating"? It is a violation of the rules, but I thought "cheating" was further defined as gaining an unfair advantage not mearly violating the rules.

When I carry I carry a Hi-Power that was worked on by Novaks long before I started shooting IDPA. They removed the mag disconnect as part of the action work, now if I were to rely on a overly strict interpretation of the rules my carry gun can't be used in a sport where carry equipment was meant to be used. Never mind the fact the Browning produced tons of factory guns without them.

I guess the guys that load one round less in their mags becuase their gun won't function properly when the magazine is loaded to capacity are cheaters becuase the rule book states that the mag has to be loaded to capacity at the start of the stage.

The funniest thing about all of this is that I let a guy who doesn't shot the sport get to me by calling me a cheater. Silly me. That is all I have to say about the subject. Back to my low down dirty cheating ways.

[John Thompson]

The magazine disconnect is not a "safety" in my interepation as it has nothing to do with the safe operation of the gun; it is a counter to being disarmed by an attacker. It in no way effects the perfromance of the gun or the shooter. Unlike those who peen or tape of the grip safety of their 1911's which is apparently legal. I dare someone to DQ my gun for not having the disconnect. I would be one more former USPSA/IDPA member. By the way my gun also doesn't have the internal lock system either. I can't see how having to unlock my gun with a key after the start signal is somehow an advantage.

Kevin,

The palm swell is great and it really trumps all the other manufactorers whi jumped on the removable backstrap bandwagon.

My cataloge lists the trigger reset as .140" and reset to fire as .300"

Edited March 4, 2006 by John Thompson

[Patrick Sweeney]

<sigh> We all agree that the rule says what it says. The words are clear. However, what the words mean isn't, and what purpose they serve is also unclear.

Let me try again: We have two pistols lying on the table. Niether has a magazine disconnector. The factory built one of them without it. The other was removed sometime after it left the factory.

Is there a functional difference betwen them?

If lacking a magazine disconnector is cheating, then how can a factory-made, LEO-bought, surplused to the wholesaler pistol that never had one be kosher, but taking one out is cheating? If an LEO arrives to shoot the match with an issue pistol lacking the M-D, is he cheating? He's using what his employer has issued him to do his job. If he isn't, how can I, standing next to him with identical equipment, be cheating?

Were I in an arguing mood, I might even take a stab at the proposition that an M-D is less safe than other pistols: you have to insert a magazine to UASC. Putting a magazine back into a pistol that you're attempting to unload can't be a good thing.

But back to the original point of this particular discussion: How can a factory-built pistol lacking a magazine disconnector be cheating?

[Behr]

My thinking goes with John on this one. I don't think the magazine disconnect is a safety, it's an optional feature like the internal locking feature, night sights, 10 or 15 rd magazines. How can it be a safety inherent to the design, for purposes of this rule, if not all M&P's leave the factory with this feature installed on any given day?

But anyway I got one ordered and can't wait to get it in my hands to put it through its paces.

Man I hope going 5 mph over the limit isn't cheat'n cause that makes me a big cheater. While drive'n a squad car too, just patroling around

[Chriss Grube]

All right you guys have done it now you have awoken the "baby Jesus and made him cry" You must now all abide by the letter of the law and the rules. Please contact the IRS and advise them of which deductions you illegally took on the last 5 years tax returns. You must attend church on Sunday and not go to any of the matches held on Sunday as it is the day of rest.

[Crusher]

On a M&P note regarding somthing entirely different did you guys know the recoil spring set ups from IMSI for Glocks run fine in the M&P's? Thats right grab a 11,13,15 # set up flat coil on a steel GR and just pop it in the M&P.

Is that legal?

[chp5]

On a M&P note regarding somthing entirely different did you guys know the recoil spring set ups from IMSI for Glocks run fine in the M&P's? Thats right grab a 11,13,15 # set up flat coil on a steel GR and just pop it in the M&P.

Is that legal?

My guess is yes- it's legal as long as it's not 2 oz over the factory (I think that's the weight limit).

Did you try this yourself or did someone tell you it works? Thx.

[Crusher]

Did you try this yourself or did someone tell you it works? Thx.

Guns owner swaped it out and we shot it with the 13# with minor loads, appers to be less muzzle rise (not much to begin with) that with the factory (belive its a 17#) and minor ammo.

[Flexmoney]

[Forum Administrator Hat on]

I'm not sure at what point a device is a "safety". I'm not sure at what point breaking the rules becomes cheating...or, whatever.

I can easily make the call that the thread has drifted into an argument that doesn't need to be here.

If you'd like to continue talking about the gun that started this thread, please do so. If you want to continue the "cheater debate" then take it off the forum. Emails and PM's are a good place for that, if you must. Expect any new post that continues the "cheater" debate to get deleted and lost to the forum trash can.

The Heavy Hand has put on the moderating glove.

[Forum Admin Hat off]

It's not currently on the list.

And, if they follow the guidelines... 2,000, available for one year

What guideline is that?

The (USPSA) Red rule book didn't have a "gun list", it just had rules and criteria. The 2,000 and available for one year was the rule there.

When we went to the Green (current) rule book, my area Director and the head of NROI informaed me that the above criteria would be used to decide if a gun made it onto the "list" or not.

[Patrick Sweeney]

Judging from the number of slides and barrels heaped in bins when I went through the factory, the 2,000 unit part has been met months ago. So I guess it then depends on what date you pick as "available" to count a year from.

Considering that it is one of our biggest gun makers rolling this out, and they are looking to steal big chunks of market share, making the Production gun criteria is a given. It'd be a pretty persnickety MD at a club match who disallowed an M&P because it hasn't been available for a year until, say, November 2006.

Flex, thanks for the reminder.

[Vlad]

It's not currently on the list.

And, if they follow the guidelines... 2,000, available for one year

What guideline is that?

The (USPSA) Red rule book didn't have a "gun list", it just had rules and criteria. The 2,000 and available for one year was the rule there.

When we went to the Green (current) rule book, my area Director and the head of NROI informaed me that the above criteria would be used to decide if a gun made it onto the "list" or not.

Did they change the fact that we automaticaly inherit additions from IPSC? Because if we still take their list then all that it needs to happen is for a gun to make it on that list, and then the USPSA 2000 count is meaningless, not to mention the fact that it doesnt match the rule book.

[Lee Watne]

I was pretty excited about the new S&W M&P untill I found out about the magazine disconnect. I have seen more fumbling and frustration with High Powers and their magazine disconnect than almost anything else on the "Unload and show clear". I see S&W advertises availability of buying the gun without for military or police. Now, if the magazine disconnect is considered a safety item for someone snatching your gun, wouldn't military or police need it more than anyone else since they are in harms way lots more than the rest of us?

[Patrick Sweeney]

Lee, we've been over that, and Flex has reminded us. Either let it rest or find the thread closed.

[EricW]

Before the thread is closed...

I called S&W last week about the M&P. S&W *will* sell internal parts. I asked twice to make sure.

FYI for those who wondered.

[We can get parts for our Glock's and S&W's. Hello? Springfield Armory?]

[John Thompson]

If anyone throught the mag disconnect debate got out of hand, I posted on a "tactical" forum about the M&P. Some guys said they hated it because of the Kal/Mass compliance features on it and the old Klinton deal. When I posted that the Klinton deal died with the last owner and I wasn't going to use that as a consideration when putting the best gun that I can in my holster this was the reply:

"I really don't care whether you purchase S&W or some other gun. Where I part company is that I do not rationalize away principals for convenience.

The difference between illusion is delusion is that believing illusion to be true is delusion.

Ethics is a bomb proof sense of integrity, morality is what people without ethics have to make them more socially acceptable."

If anyone can interept that send me a PM

[Flexmoney]

It's not currently on the list.

And, if they follow the guidelines... 2,000, available for one year

What guideline is that?

The (USPSA) Red rule book didn't have a "gun list", it just had rules and criteria. The 2,000 and available for one year was the rule there.

When we went to the Green (current) rule book, my area Director and the head of NROI informaed me that the above criteria would be used to decide if a gun made it onto the "list" or not.

Did they change the fact that we automaticaly inherit additions from IPSC? Because if we still take their list then all that it needs to happen is for a gun to make it on that list, and then the USPSA 2000 count is meaningless, not to mention the fact that it doesnt match the rule book.

They told me that they were going to look into un-linking the USPSA list from the IPSC list. And, that they were going to review the guns on the list to see if they meet the USPSA criteria. I'm not sure if either of those things happened.

[chp5]

Before the thread is closed...

I called S&W last week about the M&P. S&W *will* sell internal parts. I asked twice to make sure.

FYI for those who wondered.

[We can get parts for our Glock's and S&W's. Hello? Springfield Armory?]

That's great news and a smart move by S&W, IMO. I hope SA follows suit . . .

[Jim Watson]

Amen.

There is bound to be some spoilage as gunsmiths and tinkerers find out what can be done and what can't.

[steven t]

Question for Mr Sweeney, in your article in Front sight you stated that the M&P had standard dovetail cuts for the Novak sights. Are theese the same dimensions as the sights on Smith & Wessons 1911 line. I am wondering if a set of Heinie Slant pros for the Smith & Wesson 1911's would work on the M&P. Excellent article buy the way, so good infact I had to run out and buy one . I wont be able to run through its paces untill Thursday but just playing with it I'm really liking it.

Steve