No bang in Mumbai Police’s new guns

[xl_target]

Gotta agree there, Glocks are not fussy feeders at all. In fact the Glock is considered to be very reliable and its ability to operate under adverse conditions with very little maintenance is well known.

The M&P series of autoloading pistols work just fine, though. While they don't have Glock's track record, as they are relatively new, my personal experiences with them in both 9mm and 40 S&W were positive. I found them to be reliable, very accurate and the recoil was very manageable. They also feel much better in my hands than a Glock.
Today's S&W is not the same company that it was in the days when it signed the 2000 agreement with the Clinton administration.
From Wikipedia

In March 2000 Smith & Wesson signed an agreement with the Clinton Administration in order to avoid lawsuits. The company agreed to numerous safety and design standards, as well as limits on the sale and distribution of their products. Gun clubs and gun rights groups responded to this agreement by initiating large-scale boycotts of Smith & Wesson by refusing to buy their new products and flooding the firearms market with used S&W guns, cutting into their market share. This agreement signed by Tomkins PLC ended with the sale of Smith and Wesson to the Saf-T-Hammer Corporation. The new company, (Smith and Wesson Holding Corporation), publicly renounced the agreement which was received positively by the firearms community.

A little more than a year later, S&W was broke and in May 2001, it was purchased for a song by the Saf-T-Hammer Company. Today, Smith and Wesson is one of the largest manufacturers of handguns in the US. The M&P series of autoloaders (handguns and rifles) has been quite a success for them. Their snubby revolvers are also very popular for concealed carry. They have also made inroads into the Law Enforcement markets. Not everyone holds the transgressions of its former owners against S&W anymore.

[HSharief]

Its not the arrow, its the Indian. In this case, in more ways than one.

I can't believe the audacity of some aholes when vitamin M is the player. How can they place M over the security of our countrymen, especially those who serve and protect. This is just crazy.

[tingriman]

Glocks are very fault tolerent handgun. They use striker firing system instead of hammer, so the military issued ammunion of 9mm which has hard primer may sometime refuse to detonate. This might have been the problem faced by the Punjab Police. Again, S&W MP 9mm also has the same firing system, that is, it is also a striker firing handgun instead of hammer firing. My understanding is, if Glock can give problem, same is going to happen with S&W MP. The problem of hard primer is the real issue which needs to be resolved. This issue of hard primers on ammunition can be over come by installing a Red Spring instead of the regular spring in the striker assembly of Glock, this is the other way to work out.

cheers,
tingriman

[timmy]

Today's S&W is not the same company that it was in the days when it signed the 2000 agreement with the Clinton administration.

xl, you are correct about this and I consider myself informed that S&W has indeed corrected its anti-gun corporate stance.

However, I would like to say that my objections to S&W's stance far pre-dated S&W's ownership by Tomkins in 2000. The company has had a long history of opposing gun rights going back at least 25 years before the 2000 agreement with the Clinton Administration. In 1975, when Bangor Punta was S&W's parent company, they came out in favor of anti-RKBA measures, as outlined by S&W's VP of Marketing at the time, Dick McMahon, in an interview with Massad Ayoob.

I confess the fault of not updating myself on this 8 year old issue, however my animosity toward S&W had been incubating since the 70s... and that's a lot of inertia.

[xl_target]

I understand your feelings. There is still a lot of resentment at Ruger over Bill Rugers unfortunate statements. Though I am very happy with the Ruger products that I own, I have not bought a single Ruger product in the last two decades or so. Even though the company is very sucessful today and is no longer owned by the Ruger family, I still have some reservations about them. However, they do make some really desirable guns and I so badly want a Mk II (not a Mk III) pistol, a Vaquero, an LCP, an LCR, an SP101, an M77 international in .308, etc, etc. One of these days, i'll probably succumb to the temptation and buy something else from them.

[MoA]

Thouh I have used Glock's extensively and have even owned a few, including a 23 currently, I would rather have a SW any day. The plasticky feel of the Glock and the generous tolerances make it less than desirable in my books.
As for the M4 or the M16 family in general they are finicky and require meticulous maintenance. Not something I would think would happen in Mumbai.
As for the 50 BMG, well why not? Would a .338 LPM be a more appropriate caliber, I dont know. Since at ranges under 1K there is little to distinguish between them. For anti-personal sniper roles even a .300 WM or .308 would be adequate.
The author of the article is more sensational than knowledgeable.

[boris]

funny is that these press guys have no idea what about weapons and print as they are experts,ask them about safety in a gun they'd be all blank.

the guy doesnt even know that the delta's are using HK 416 not HK m4 colt had raised issues with the company over the use of m4 name in their project.