DPS drops M&P

[Excaliber]

If anyone wants to carry a rifle made by a company that can't figure how to stake a carrier key, go for it.

I don't have a dog in the fight, just strong opinions.

If I struck a nerve with the friendly banter about DPS, I apologize. It was all meant in fun... Have some great friends in the agency....


...sometimes 8 or 9 get together to change a lightbulb

An improperly staked carrier key should be immediately detected and fixed by the armorer upon initial inspection of newly arrived guns. One agency I worked for issued Bushmasters and we had no significant issues with them.

I'm not advocating for the Bushmaster as a brand. I had one quite some years back and it was quite satisfactory, but I'm not personally familiar with their current production quality.

My point was that a patrol officer doesn't need a super expensive rifle to do his job. A plain jane Rock River or similar gun works just fine once it's been inspected and shot enough to establish its reliability.

There are just so many better options than a Bushmaster, DPMS or RR for similar money. The rifle should come correct from the factory and not require armorer level intervention to just make the gun right from the get go. After an armorer lays hands on the weapon and fixes all the problems (that should have been right when received), was that rifle significantly cheaper than something like a Colt, BCM, LMT or DD rifle? While I realize these guns will likely be low round count guns used as a patrol rifle, I've seen my share of people have lower end ARs go down in carbine classes which doesn't bode well for something that your life depends on.

It also cracks me up when I read something in an ad to the effect of "X department uses [insert sketchy quality gun]" as some means of validating the gun. It just tells me that someone got a good deal on a bunch of crappy guns.

You may have misread my posts.

I did not say that guns requiring armorer level intervention should be accepted and repaired. I said that a significant defect should be picked up during armorer inspection as soon as the guns are received. If such a defect is identified, the gun should be sent back to be repaired by the manufacturer. If the guns are not armorer inspected upon receipt, I'd say a critical step in the purchase process is being overlooked.
In many agencies, the budgetary reality is a choice between a "lower end AR" or no AR. I won't criticize agencies that purchase the best they can with the resources they have.

I also did not state or imply that an agency's mere purchase of a particular gun should be read as an endorsement. I did say that an agency I worked for made the decision to purchase a brand of rifle you look down upon and in fact did not encounter any issues with them. Just as that agency's choice should not be read as an endorsement for any other purchasing decision, your low opinion of those guns is personal and should not be used by itself to eliminate any given brand for another agency's purchases.

I am well aware that some manufacturers use more expensive parts and have better quality assurance programs than others, and their prices reflect those costs. However, performance is the name of the game. If in fact a given set of guns works well, the logo on the receivers is not especially important.

[Big Bronze Rim]

An improperly staked carrier key should be immediately detected and fixed by the armorer upon initial inspection of newly arrived guns.

I think I read everything correctly. You wrote it "should be immediately detected and fixed by the armorer upon initial inspection " implying that it was going to be fixed at the armorer level, not sent back. While the armorer will likely do a better job than sending it back to the factory, the sad truth is that it should have been done right in the first place. I also agree that it is critical that an armorer lay hands on the rifle for inspection and I definitely am not trying to argue with you or your experience just basing my opinion on how you wrote your previous post.

In many agencies, the budgetary reality is a choice between a "lower end AR" or no AR. I won't criticize agencies that purchase the best they can with the resources they have.

I agree completely.

I also did not state or imply that an agency's mere purchase of a particular gun should be read as an endorsement. I did say that an agency I worked for made the decision to purchase a brand of rifle you look down upon and in fact did not encounter any issues with them. Just as that agency's choice should not be read as an endorsement for any other purchasing decision, your low opinion of those guns is personal and should not be used by itself to eliminate any given brand for another agency's purchases.

In no way was I implying that you said anything about the endorsement. I just find it amusing when someone touts what I generally see as a lower quality rifle as the best thing ever because department XYZ uses it.

I am well aware that some manufacturers use more expensive parts and have better quality assurance programs than others, and their prices reflect those costs. However, performance is the name of the game. If in fact a given set of guns works well, the logo on the receivers is not especially important.

If the gun has been vetted and works and the family of rifles has a good track record with the department than it's likely GTG. Some brands though have better track records than others.

[Excaliber]

An improperly staked carrier key should be immediately detected and fixed by the armorer upon initial inspection of newly arrived guns.

I think I read everything correctly. You wrote it "should be immediately detected and fixed by the armorer upon initial inspection " implying that it was going to be fixed at the armorer level, not sent back. While the armorer will likely do a better job than sending it back to the factory, the sad truth is that it should have been done right in the first place. I also agree that it is critical that an armorer lay hands on the rifle for inspection and I definitely am not trying to argue with you or your experience just basing my opinion on how you wrote your previous post.

In many agencies, the budgetary reality is a choice between a "lower end AR" or no AR. I won't criticize agencies that purchase the best they can with the resources they have.

I agree completely.

I also did not state or imply that an agency's mere purchase of a particular gun should be read as an endorsement. I did say that an agency I worked for made the decision to purchase a brand of rifle you look down upon and in fact did not encounter any issues with them. Just as that agency's choice should not be read as an endorsement for any other purchasing decision, your low opinion of those guns is personal and should not be used by itself to eliminate any given brand for another agency's purchases.

In no way was I implying that you said anything about the endorsement. I just find it amusing when someone touts what I generally see as a lower quality rifle as the best thing ever because department XYZ uses it.

I am well aware that some manufacturers use more expensive parts and have better quality assurance programs than others, and their prices reflect those costs. However, performance is the name of the game. If in fact a given set of guns works well, the logo on the receivers is not especially important.

If the gun has been vetted and works and the family of rifles has a good track record with the department than it's likely GTG. Some brands though have better track records than others.

This is certainly true, and since it is life safety gear, I agree that one should always go for the highest quality and best track record he can afford.

Unfortunately, that isn't always the best available - it's just the best we can do with what we have to spend.

[WildBill]

I also did not state or imply that an agency's mere purchase of a particular gun should be read as an endorsement.

I could bore you with a story, but I won't.

[gigag04]

Excaliber, knowing a bit of your background, I have to tip my hat to the common sense, budget-is-a-reality angle you offer to this conversation. It is one I often leave it out in my "top tier" or nothing approach to gear. I'm a self-admitted brand snob, and often use the criticality of the gear to justify buying premium kit. Now that I am a sales engineer for a major corporation, I often realize that is not the reality of things in how organizations with scrutinized purchasing decisions operate.

[Excaliber]

Excaliber, knowing a bit of your background, I have to tip my hat to the common sense, budget-is-a-reality angle you offer to this conversation. It is one I often leave it out in my "top tier" or nothing approach to gear. I'm a self-admitted brand snob, and often use the criticality of the gear to justify buying premium kit. Now that I am a sales engineer for a major corporation, I often realize that is not the reality of things in how organizations with scrutinized purchasing decisions operate.

Thanks, Gigag04.

When buying for ourselves, we are free to set whatever balance we'd like among cost, reliability, and performance, but when we're making decisions for organizations, we can't usually spend as much of their money as we'd like to get exactly what we want.

The challenge is finding the right balance between cost and performance and then being able to shepherd it through the approval process so we actually get what we need. Sometimes that means buying the rifle this year and the EOtech next year, and more often than not it means buying a Bushmaster, DPMS or Rock River instead of a Daniel Defense.

[G.A. Heath]

I got the official word from DPS today (Wed. April 16, 2014). The following is an exact quote from the email response:

The Department is currently doing additional testing and evaluation on the Smith & Wesson M&P handgun. The DPS suspended plans to train with and issue the handgun to the current trooper trainee class, after minor concerns were raised when firearms training began during trooper training. Because of the condensed timeframe of the recruit class, and the need to gather more information, trooper trainees in this class are using the standardissue Sig Sauer handgun.

I have asked what those minor concerns were and will share what I get back.

[G.A. Heath]

I got the rest of the information and the exact reply I got back follows:

A couple of handguns experienced sight movement of less than 10 microns after repeated firing of about 3,000 rounds. (A micron equals one-millionth of a meter.)

There were also feeding and ejection issues that have not been replicated in additional testing, which involved firing up to 5,000 rounds.

[gthaustex]

More information from the Austin paper today:

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/dps- ... old/nfcbQ/

[LTUME1978]

I have been watching the posts on this thread to see where it went. 10 micron movement???? How did they measure that? We sometimes have to work in tenths of a thousands inch (0.0001) dimension and that takes climate control to have accurate/repeatable measurements. Going to 0.00001 inch takes climate control of plus or minus 1 degree F and temperature acclimation time of 24-48 hours before grinding/measuring. That sounds like a lot of nonsense to me as no one could tell the difference in practical shooting (if they could even measure the change in position of the sight by 10 microns).

Feeding and extraction issues that can't be repeated after 5000 rounds???? Sounds pretty good to me.

Several of us shoot the M&P in IDPA at PSC and they are excellent pistols. I have had mine since just before our fearless leader was first elected as president. The only time I had feeding/extraction issues was because I screwed something up on my reloads. Once I got everything where it needed to be, I have not had one in a looooong time. I don't clean my M&Ps very often (good cleaning once a year but they do get lubed regularly). One of the guys that we shoot with put 70,000 rounds through his before it got a really good cleaning. He is about to move to master so the pistol is not what is holding him back (reliability or accuracy).

Me thinks someone in Austin has other reasons to not use the M&P than the quality/performance/value of the pistol. I have some very nice 1911s but my M&P 45 is my go to pistol if things get bad and is what is on my night stand every night (with a 14 round magazine in it :-) ).

[Excaliber]

I got the rest of the information and the exact reply I got back follows:

A couple of handguns experienced sight movement of less than 10 microns after repeated firing of about 3,000 rounds. (A micron equals one-millionth of a meter.)

There were also feeding and ejection issues that have not been replicated in additional testing, which involved firing up to 5,000 rounds.

10 microns?

10 micron = 0.000 393 700 787 4 inch

That's about 4/10,000ths of an inch.

They must be using micrometers on the sights to have picked this up.

[WildBill]

I got the rest of the information and the exact reply I got back follows:

A couple of handguns experienced sight movement of less than 10 microns after repeated firing of about 3,000 rounds. (A micron equals one-millionth of a meter.)

There were also feeding and ejection issues that have not been replicated in additional testing, which involved firing up to 5,000 rounds.

10 microns?

10 micron = 0.000 393 700 787 4 inch

That's about 4/10,000ths of an inch.

They must be using micrometers on the sights to have picked this up.

I can't read the article since I am not a subscriber so I can't tell exactly what they measured.

The best way to accurately measure such small distances is optically.

[Big Bronze Rim]

I got the rest of the information and the exact reply I got back follows:

A couple of handguns experienced sight movement of less than 10 microns after repeated firing of about 3,000 rounds. (A micron equals one-millionth of a meter.)

There were also feeding and ejection issues that have not been replicated in additional testing, which involved firing up to 5,000 rounds.

Talk about blowing smoke. I just did the math, and if it moved 10microns, at 25 yards with the M&P's sight radius of 6.4", that would equate to a 0.55" shift on target, not to mention I have no idea how they accurately measured that amount of sight movement. I'd doubt that many shooters can shoot well enough even notice that amount of sight movement. There is definitely something else at play here.

[ShootDontTalk]

This smells like that nasty four letter word "politics". A Ransom rest will not hold that variation on target.

[gigag04]

Cheers for cheap surplus mags