The M&P Project

The polymer-framed handgun was pioneered by Heckler & Koch in the 1970s but wasn’t popularized until Glock began manufacturing its series of pistols a little over 10 years later. By the turn of the century, they were everywhere. Military and police forces around the world adopted the new weapons readily, and they soon found a place among recreational and defensive shooters in the civilian market as well.

Today, almost every major firearms manufacturer has plastic-framed offerings. Even the first generation of such weapons had some obvious benefits. They offered high ammunition capacities at lighter weights than comparable steel or alloy-framed pistols, and Glocks in particular gained a reputation for unbeatable reliability. They were also bulky and, to some eyes, ugly.

The former problem was why I eventually dismissed my own Glock 19. The pistol’s awkward, oversized ergonomics simply didn’t suit my smaller hands. I wasn’t alone, and by the mid-1990s, pistols with modular frames began to appear in the marketplace. These guns provided a degree of built-in customization, allowing the weapon to be adapted to the user rather than demanding the opposite.

Smith & Wesson was one of the first major manufacturers to adopt this innovation. The new Military & Police series (recalling the M&P revolvers introduced at the dawn of the 20th century) features an interchangeable backstrap insert. A shooter can select small, medium, or large inserts to modify the overall size of the grip. In short, the M&P pistols implemented the Glock-style striker-fired action and passive safety mechanisms in a more elegant, ergonomic package.

This is what had intrigued me about the M&P pistols for several years. I even handled them at gun shows to confirm their favorable ergonomics, but I could never justify the restricted-capacity, dumbed-down (and possibly less safe) versions “legally” available in my native California. Meanwhile, aftermarket solutions also began to appear for some of the platform’s known weaknesses.

When I effected my escape from California last year, the legal barrier was removed. After a few months, I finally succumbed to curiosity and purchased an M&P9 Pro Series pistol, which supposedly has an improved sear over the standard models. As usual, though, I compared the new pistol to my dimensionally similar SIG-Sauer P220, which serves as my standard all-around sidearm. With the slimmest grip options installed on both pistols, the 17-round, 9mm-NATO M&P9 felt almost identical in my hand to the eight-round, .45-ACP P220. (In fact, the grip circumference differed by only about an eighth of an inch, favoring the big-bore, single-stack pistol for trimness.) With magazines loaded, the P220 outweighed the M&P9 by less than two ounces, contributing to the similar feel. (The pistols both weighed less than 2.5 lbs.) The Pro Series’ trigger break was also comparable, only slightly stiffer than the SIG-Sauer’s advertised 4.5-lb. single-action break.

However, trigger pull and trigger reset are the primary known weak points of the M&P pistol. Its standard trigger tends to feel mushy, and its geometry pulls the sights off target too easily—at least for me. The reset is also nearly imperceptible, which can slow down followup shots or cause the shooter to short stroke the trigger. Luckily, the marketplace has already provided some solutions.

Investing a couple hundred more dollars, I installed three components from Apex Tactical Specialties: an aluminum trigger, competition springs, and their reset-assist mechanism. The Apex kit replaced the highly curved S&W hinged trigger with a flatter, Glock-style trigger (complete with pivoting safety lever), which improved the trigger geometry, in my opinion, and gave a cleaner break. The new springs also reduced the overall trigger pull weight, further enhancing control. Finally, taking ingenious advantage of the unused channel for S&W’s internal locking system, the RAM provided the pistol with a tactile and audible trigger reset.

When the northwestern weather produced a warm, dry winter day, I finally headed to the local wet, muddy shooting range for some live-fire testing. Again, I put the M&P9 up against my trusty P220. Both guns performed well in my somewhat out-of-practice hands, shooting 2⅛-inch groups at approximately 10 yards, and that’s where the comparison ended. While the P220 may have slung the vaunted .45-caliber slugs very effectively, the S&W pistol put more than twice as many bullets down range and did so more easily.

This review, such as it is, would have been completed much earlier, but I also wanted to evaluate potential holsters for the pistol. As a mid-sized handgun, I thought that the M&P9 could prove suitable for everyday concealed carry. I tried variations of Kydex and hybrid holsters but found them lacking for my needs. In the end, I returned to traditional leather, selecting a highly canted inside-the-waistband holster that kept the pistol easily accessible but conveniently out of my way.

 
Now that I’m involved in the business of selling firearms with Dancing Giant Sales, I will be even more curious to see how the Smith & Wesson compares to other competing offerings from the latest generation of polymer-framed pistols, but the M&P series has demonstrated that the technology itself has improved from its rough beginnings. While not perfect out of the box, the M&P is meeting demands for a flexible, ergonomic pistol in effective calibers. These requirements will persist well into the future, if the defensive handgun continues to take its rightful place in civil society.

Ending Gun Violence in the United States

Cynical reasons aside, I still don’t understand why “gun violence” is worse than any other kind of violence. Nevertheless, let’s talk about reducing or even ending “gun violence” in the United States, but let’s also be honest about the means that would be used and the ends that would be achieved.

“Gun violence” has already been declining for about 20 years now, while the supply of firearms has steadily increased, but with each new highly publicized shooting, there is always an outcry for more “reasonable” or “common sense” gun controls. In fact, though, we are beyond this point. All reasonable controls have been in place for many years. Americans have already accepted violations of their Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendment rights in this pursuit.

Frankly, the only real options that remain are prohibition and confiscation. Obviously, if all firearms were removed from the country, there could be no more “gun violence” in the U.S., right? In the long run, this would mean disarming the police and military and closing the borders, but we can ignore those fantasies for this discussion.

So let’s get started!

First, we would have to repeal the Second Amendment. Since the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and other lawful purposes, we can no longer pretend that “the people” therein were the regular military or even the militia. However, this is a big hurdle to leap.

The Democratic Party has reliably supported stringent gun controls for decades now. Democrats will probably also gain solid control of the federal government in the near future, so passing a proposed Constitutional amendment may not be that hard. Getting it ratified by 38 states would be a much more difficult proposition. Though several of the most populous states are stalwart gun-control bastions, over 40 states have enacted legislation and policies that strongly support the right to arms.

Therefore, repealing or modifying the Second Amendment would likely fail.

Second, even if repeal were successful, additional legislation would be required to actually start prohibiting guns and removing them from society. While less difficult than a Constitutional amendment, federal legislation would face many of the same problems. Pro-gun states would no doubt refuse to go along with prohibition schemes.

This secondary crisis could logically lead to the dissolution of the United States. Assuming the right political processes were followed, such an event needn’t result in civil war or even lesser violence, but a great deal of social and economic disruption would be unavoidable. Populations would be displaced, and North America would likely find itself with several new republics.

Third, assuming that the United States remained intact following federal prohibition, approximately 400 million firearms would still have to be confiscated. (There are about 300 million in circulation right now, but the number would drastically increase during the repeal and prohibition processes.) General confiscation could be eschewed, allowing for a slow attrition process to remove firearms from American society. However, firearms are durable goods, so “gun violence” would persist for centuries without active confiscation efforts.

Of course, confiscation would raise additional Constitutional problems. The Fourth Amendment would have to be repealed or ignored in order to effectively search for and seize firearms from recalcitrant owners. The Fifth Amendment would demand that those who did comply should be justly compensated for their surrendered property—and if everyone complied, this would cost American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. If both were ignored …

Fourth, compliance with any confiscation regime would certainly be incomplete. Historical examples have proven this even in countries without such strong right-to-arms traditions. Nevertheless, even if only a third of American gun owners were actively non-compliant, that would represent over 100 million firearms remaining at large … in the hands of people highly motivated to resist and confound enforcement efforts.

The results would be bloody. With the Second Amendment gone, the Fourth Amendment suspended, and the Fifth Amendment ignored, the previously law-abiding resisters would face death or imprisonment for their non-compliance. With this final violation of their Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment, why wouldn’t they turn to violence? Why shouldn’t they?

The resistance and bloodshed might last generations—decades more of intensified “gun violence,” moved from its former home in the criminal underground into the front yards of polite society. Police would be killed on confiscation missions. Prohibitionist politicians and other political enemies of the resistance would be assassinated. The resistance fighters—now branded domestic terrorists—would themselves be killed or captured. They might be defeated in the long run … or they might not be. Constant, low-grade domestic warfare could be maintained indefinitely. Again, firearms are durable goods capable of lasting for hundreds or perhaps thousands of years, and the technology behind them is actually quite simple. How many more technological restrictions could our civilization accept or endure in the crusade to rid it of “gun violence”?

Finally, after many, many years and considerable costs in blood and treasure, we might succeed in removing all firearms from the United States. There would be no more “gun violence.” We would have addressed one of the hows of violence … but still not have touched any of the whys. Therefore, people would still become the victims of murder, rape, robbery, and other crimes of violence—just as the unarmed or disarmed always have.

Single-Stack Trifecta

 
Presently on hand at Dancing Giant Sales are three of the premier single-stack, polymer-framed, striker-fired pistols available on the market today. Slim, lightweight, and chambered for the capable 9×19mm Luger cartridge, these pistols are all intended as concealed-carry weapons for authorized civilians or as backup sidearms for police officers. Today’s trifecta includes the Ruger LC9s Pro, the Smith & Wesson M&P9 Shield, and the Walther PPS.

Though they share similar design philosophies, each pistol brings some noteworthy differences to the table. First, though, let’s look at their similarities in size, weight, and capacity. Clearly, the designer’s goal in each example was to create a defensive pistol so easy to carry that it would never be left behind as an inconvenience.

The pistols are all compact and slim—slimmer even than the U.S. m1911-series and the Kahr P-series pistols. These trim slide and frame widths make the guns easier to carry concealed, since overall thickness and grip length are the two dimension that most hamper concealability. Slim grips can also help shooters with smaller hands to wield their weapons more securely and effectively.

Unloaded, each weighs under 20 oz., well under the weight of a typical full-sized handgun. As small as they are, though, these pistols probably still won’t fit in the typical pants pocket—with the possible exception of the Ruger and its optional flush-fitting magazine. That nod still goes to Kahr and the recent crop of subcompact .380-ACP pistols.

That said, the Ruger LC9s is the smallest and thinnest of the three. The Shield is slightly larger in all dimensions, and the Walther PPS is larger still. Which is the most comfortable arrangement would depend on the individual shooter. All three are up to the task when concealed carry is required.

And that brings us to magazine capacity. Single-stack guns aren’t known for the impressive amount of firepower they can deal out between reloads, but these pistols all deliver at least seven rounds from their standard magazines, which puts them on par with the vaunted U.S. m1911 pistol. (Modern 9mm hollow-point bullets, such as the Federal HST, are also dreadfully effective, even out of short barrels.) Larger, eight- or nine-round magazines are included or readily available. The Walther also has an extra-small six-round magazine available.

With limited magazine capacities, accuracy is all the more important, and ergonomics are central to how easy it is to shoot a pistol effectively. However, ergonomics can be personal and subjective. What is comfortable and natural for one shooter may not be for another. These three pistols all differ noticeably in their grip size and shape and their trigger geometry and actuation.

The S&W has an oval-shaped grip with a gentle palmswell. It has some texturing, but that doesn’t seem to add much traction. The grip frame of the PPS is flatter and more rectangular. It incorporates textured finger grooves, which combined with the grip’s other rough textures do seem to aid traction. (Of the three, the PPS is also the only with interchangeable small and large backstrap inserts.) The LC9s has a narrow, waisted, almost triangular grip. Its fine checkering feels good but also appears to have dubious utility.

The Walther and Ruger both share Glock-style triggers with integrated safety levers, while the Shield utilizes a hinged trigger safety. The S&W has a relatively short pull with a somewhat stiff break. Its highly curved geometry leads the shooter to pull the sights slightly off target when using the modern technique. (Fortunately, aftermarket upgrades are available.) The PPS has a similarly short pull but a very stiff break. However, its flatter trigger shape helps the shooter keep the sights aligned while pressing the trigger home. The LC9s is entirely different. Its trigger pull feels very long, but it is also fantastically smooth and light, with a crisp, surprise break.

Price also differentiates these three pistols. The LC9s Pro is the least expensive at retail, selling for $30–$40 less than the Shield. However, the Ruger ships with just one magazine, which explains the otherwise favorable price difference. By contrast, the PPS is over $100 more expensive than the Shield.

Finally, let’s consider aesthetics. Looks may not be important for the utilitarian concerns of a concealed-carry piece, but they do say something about the overall care invested in a given design and about the craftsmanship that goes into its manufacture.

The Shield shares the handsome lines of its larger M&P brothers. The PPS has that angular European look, but its sloped slide lends it some elegance over more blocky designs. At a glance, the Ruger appears to be the most boring of the three, resembling any number of other subcompact pistols, but the lines of its various components all flow together in subtle, curvilinear refinement. In short, I would call none of them ugly.

Though the gun-control bastions of California and New England are unlikely to reform without a federal mandate, over 40 states allow their citizens to lawfully carry concealed firearms. As a result, more and more responsible Americans are making the decision to carry a handgun for self-defense. Walther, Smith & Wesson, Ruger, and many other firearms manufacturers are meeting this growing demand, producing defensive sidearms in convenient, effective packages.

Dancing Giant Sales

When I fled California in pursuit of relative freedom, one of the factors that brought me to Washington was the Evergreen State’s more reasonable set of gun-control laws. Therefore, you can imagine my chagrin when, just a few months later, the people elected to surrender their legal rights to privacy and property and to subject themselves to “universal” background checks even more stringent than California’s own regime. Admittedly, the voters were probably duped into passing Initiative 594 through propaganda financed by Michael Bloomberg and other plutocratic prohibitionists. No surprise that one-percenters would prefer to see the 99 percent armed with nothing more than torches and pitchforks!

In any case, though I voted against it, the measure became law, and essentially all legal firearm transfers in Washington are now subject to criminal background checks and thus require the agency of a licensed dealer. Rather than just grumbling about this development, I decided to turn the situation to my financial advantage by becoming a firearms dealer myself. So shortly after the November election, I began the long process of obtaining the various necessary licenses. After all, if I can somehow profit from the law, then it will surely be defeated in court or at least be blunted by corrective legislation. Meanwhile, I can earn some economic rent while making it incrementally easier for would-be gun owners to legally acquire their firearms from the most affordable sources.

Today, after eight months, four licenses, two inspections, various background investigations, several hundred dollars in fees, and numerous fingerprints and photographs, Dancing Giant Sales is officially open for business.