# agencies switching from SIG to M&P... why?



## slantroutes

A friend of mine works in a federal law enforcement agency in the dept of homeland security that is in the process of switching out their SIG p229s for the M&P. Apparently this is happening throughout the federal government as well as in local law enforcement agencies. The most obvious reason for this is the savings. The M&P seems to be a fine gun and is so much cheaper, after all. I was wondering, though, if there's more to it than price. What are some distinct advantages of the M&P over the SIG for law enforcement?


----------



## johna91374

Other than the cost I don't see an advantage. The P226 is about the most reliable semi auto I've ever seen. Why would you want to replace it ?


----------



## FNISHR

I'd say it's just the bidding war, again.


----------



## Gunners_Mate

coast gaurd just switched all m9's to sigs p229r daktm .40cal, and man are they sweet! As a navy guy im pretty jealous rockin the ol m9...

my guess is the switch is due to cost. sigs are great, but your paying for it.


----------



## Ra

I am sorry, but can someone enlighten me on how swapping an entire weapon platform, for a different weapon platform has anything to do with savings? A real world example if you please.


----------



## denner

Lower Bid. I don't know if this is an advantage but the M&P is considerably lighter and has interchangeable backstraps for different size hands, but a better pistol no. Likewise, polymer frames are much less expensive to produce than aluminum or steel framed pistols.


----------



## rgrundy

Sounds like someone did a study with the outcome decided beforehand. Anyone with even a limited amount of background knows that the SIG P226/229 is a better pistol all around and will outlast the M&P too. Sounds like politics if it's true at all.


----------



## clockworkjon

I'm no SIG expert (though I DID stay at a Holiday Inn last night) but aren't SIGs DA/SA? M&Ps are all DAO and maybe they figure without manual safeties or 2 different trigger pulls, they would be more efficient or easy to use. That or its just a bidding war, or its American made, etc.


----------



## jakeleinen1

I know why it is happening... Because the government will do anything they can to save a penny to put (which will go back in their own pockets) even if officiers are put more at risk by it...

Now I am not dissing the M&P, its a fine firearm, however the Sig Sauer is an outstanding firearm and thats what officiers should be armed with.

Had it been a change from the P226/ 9 to a Glock, that would be a different story considering how many lawmen carry glocks... But M&P??? LAME


----------



## kg333

Sounds like it's time for me to start looking for police surplus Sigs...

KG


----------



## FNISHR

kg333 said:


> Sounds like it's time for me to start looking for police surplus Sigs...
> 
> KG


Well, my son tells me he's seen several P226's in apparently good shape around for about $475.00, whether it relates to this or not.


----------



## chessail77

Current Sig production is in New Hampshire USA.....


----------



## mook012

Ra said:


> I am sorry, but can someone enlighten me on how swapping an entire weapon platform, for a different weapon platform has anything to do with savings? A real world example if you please.


No - There is no logical reasoning, it's just the feds spending money as usual. Oh, they will try and baffle you with figures but in the end - it's the same ol,same old. They find some lame excuse to spend money you have to pay in taxes.


----------



## Charliefox

A lot of those agencies have been carrying thier Sigs for almost 20 years. Low bidder wins when it comes to Government contracts. A little transition training and all will be well...

I haven't heard anything bad about the current crop of M&Ps. Most of the stuff I've been hearing is about switching from "real guns" to "plastic guns", however the local Feds I've worked with that have swapped have actually seen qualification scores go up. That can't be a bad thing.


----------



## recoilguy

Ra said:


> I am sorry, but can someone enlighten me on how swapping an entire weapon platform, for a different weapon platform has anything to do with savings? A real world example if you please.


Real world example.....wait he said Federal Gov't agency.......

M&P's are realnice weapons. If I were used to a Sig it would be a tough switch to make even to a good gun just to save 50 bucks a gun on 5,000 guns......yeah I know thats a 1/4 million but the fed Govt poops that away every day. spent properly its nothing. I would pitch in the extra 50 myself to have the gun I wanted.

RCG


----------



## SparkyEE

My friend has 2 M&P pistols, I have the M&P 9mm full size.
My friends 2 are nice reliable guns. Mine jams -all-the-time-. It's already been back to S&W once, and will be going back again.
I've tried different ammo, and my firearm has jammed for several other people.
Maybe I just got a "bad one". But right now, I wish I had a Sig or XDM.


----------



## RugerNut

They are going to M&Ps because it's better then anything out there,esp. a Glock. Oh,and it's American made! :smt1099


----------



## Jhabbal

The NC Highway Patrol switched to S&W and the guys I know don't like them from their Sig's. Several have mentioned they are junk compared to the Sig and from what I hear it was all about price, which is not surprising.


----------



## mook012

Folks...regardless of your rationalizations...these idiots are still spending money - your money! Whether it's a 1/4 million or a quarter - it's your money and not the Federal Governments and guess what - they spent all of your money along time ago now they are spending future tax money that they don't have and you haven't worked for yet. There is absolutely nothing wrong with what they carry now.If they want to change out weapons then do it by attrition. It's like buying Christmas presents on a credit card - you still have to pay the price and they can't. Common sense becomes uncommon very quickly when spending other peoples money.


----------



## Dynamik1

mook012 said:


> Folks...regardless of your rationalizations...these idiots are still spending money - your money! ... If they want to change out weapons then do it by attrition.


I agree - if you have 100 firearms in your small department and they are all functioning perfectly, where is the impetus to replace them all? They're not leased - its not like the payment is going to be lower or the ammo costs cheaper. This has got to be some form of lobbying or quid pro quo.

Or am I missing something? If they replaced them by attrition, then yes, the armourer will have 2 platforms to support - extra cost? Maybe. Minimal. In law enforcement is there a practice of replacing all fireamrs every X years for reliability reasons?


----------



## Bulldog

Jhabbal said:


> The NC Highway Patrol switched to S&W and the guys I know don't like them from their Sig's. Several have mentioned they are junk compared to the Sig and from what I hear it was all about price, which is not surprising.


That's weird because my brother in law and a friend of mine are highway patrols. They lied their Sig's and even bought them when they switched. But both did say that they and a couple of others really liked the M&P better. buddy of mine owned a Sig that give him fits. I mean to the point he was about to trash it. Jams, failure to feeds, stove pipes. Seems like everytime I talked to him he was complaining about it. It was bad enough he bought a cheap Taurus revolver to carry over his Sig and he actually sold the sig and still has the revolver. My brother in law said that they ran a batch of ammunition that give them problems in their's.

I have never had any problems out of either one of my M&P's. I do know that some agencies will switch to a different make and switch calibers also.

I think if I am not mistaken (and I believe I read this too I will find the link in a few) that part of the reason was the ability to switch stuff to help out left handed shooters, and also the different palm swells to fit the different hand types allowing the shooter to feel more comfortable thus producing more accurate results.

Edit: Found the link

North Carolina HP Converts to Smith & Wesson M&P Pistols and Rifles



> The M&P pistol's reliability, ambidextrous operating controls and three interchangeable palm swell grip sizes were noted by officials within the agency as key reasons for the selection of the new duty sidearm. The North Carolina Highway Patrol added that the polymer pistol's accuracy, reliability during testing and ability to disassemble the firearm without pressing the trigger were all primary factors in their decision-making process.


----------



## Bulldog

Dynamik1 said:


> I agree - if you have 100 firearms in your small department and they are all functioning perfectly, where is the impetus to replace them all? They're not leased - its not like the payment is going to be lower or the ammo costs cheaper. This has got to be some form of lobbying or quid pro quo.
> 
> Or am I missing something? If they replaced them by attrition, then yes, the armourer will have 2 platforms to support - extra cost? Maybe. Minimal. In law enforcement is there a practice of replacing all fireamrs every X years for reliability reasons?


I have heard things like they put so much wear on pistols due to the qualifications during the year that every so many they buy new guns. I know the NC highway patrol had the options to buy their's back. Anything they didn't buy were going to S&W at almost a 1 for 1 swap. I am sure they had a killer deal with buying over 1500 pistols (not to mention the rifles) that buy the time the officers bought their sigs they probably paid for alot of them.


----------



## Charliefox

There is a certain level of liability with older weapons, regardless of use or functionability. Also, it is easier to train/re-train on a new platform at one time than having to support multiple weapons, not to mention less expensive. My former department went from several different weapons to the Glock 22, period. It allowed a single transition training session, one type of weapon for the armorer, and allowed accessories (holsters, magazines and pouches, etc) to be ordered in bulk at a lower price. Training was also standardized to one particular weapons platform, making training more efficient. 

It's still a butt-ton of money to spend, but as I stated earlier, most of the agencies that are switching are coming to the life cycle of thier weapons. Making the switch all at once makes sense, especially if the new company provides incentives to buy thier guns, which S&W is doing. Its all about market share; most police holsters that were filled with Glocks will be refilled with M&P's over the next few years because S&W is making sweet deals.


----------



## Ala Tom

Government agencies use a bidding process in which the requester establishes various levels of requirements to be met under the contract. The agency works with bidders to make sure they all understand the requirements of the contract. Then they look for the lowest bidder. Sometimes it gets a little complicated but the agency looks at things like support cost and support requirements as well as cost of manuals replacement parts, training and life-cycle. They look at most of the things discussed here. But in the end, other things being equal, they pick the lowest bidder. Most Government procurements are on the are honestly done. They are under careful scrutiny.


----------



## Redhound80

A key factor to remember is this, the writing of the proposals for the contract specifications is done by LEO agency personnel. It is usually done after a period of test and evaluation of potential firearms. No LEO I know would put an inadequate firearm in the hands of his brother and sister officers. I am not saying every situation is exactly this way but for the most part the agency writes the proposal to meet their operational standards.

So as a taxpayer, if the contract meets the contract specifications of the agency then I am all for saving taxpayer money.

Gordy


----------



## Flyboy_451

*I can think of several operational reasons to switch*

from traditional double action pistols in general and a couple for switching away from Sigs specifically. The design of the Sig pistols places the center line of the barrel much higher above the center line of the arm than many other pistols. This results in the gun having more leverage to use against you in recoil, causing more muzzle rise than with other guns with a lower bore axis. Sigs also have a fairly long trigger reach and a heavy double action pull. The long reach coupled with the heavy pull can make it very difficult for people with small hands to grip the gun and manipulate the trigger properly for effective shooting. In my opinion, these are the two strongest arguments against the Sig.

As far as double action pistols in general; they are more difficult to train with due in part to the heavy pull of the trigger in double action, and in part because of the transition from double action to single action for subsequent shots. Add to this the need to de-cock the pistol to make it safe and it turns into a pretty tall order to take someone from ground zero to proficiency in the modest training time that most law enforcement undergo. The de-cocker is one of my biggest complaints when it comes to law enforcement firearms.

I have witnessed and testified with regard to many negligent discharges as a result of an officer failing to de-cock his double action pistol after a firefight. This is largely because the average LEO is not a firearms enthusiast and does not practice enough to make this action automatic. When the adrenaline starts pumping, and the heart rate skyrockets, you WILL suffer a loss of fine motor control. You WILL forget things that seem very simple and natural to do, if you have not done them recently and frequently enough to make them muscle memory. It's easy to remember to de-cock while on the range. Not so much after a gunfight and your mind is racing and your heart is pounding.

I have been involved with training officers through the transition from revolvers to double action autos and then to the "safe action", striker fired autos. I can tell you from experience that it is far easier to train people, in a limited time-frame, with the striker fired pistols than it is with a traditional double action pistol. This, in my opinion, is why so many law enforcement agencies rely on Glocks and other similar designs. In the training arena, KISS is the best answer, ALWAYS.

JW


----------

