PDA

View Full Version : M&P9 barrel saga



DocGKR
07-02-2013, 02:09 AM
I recently picked up a new M&P9 (Ser # HAHxxxx), as it was of post July 2012 production, I assumed it had a new barrel. Mark Housel put an RMR02 on it and I added the normal stippling, Apex Duty Kit, and Catalyst mag release:
http://i1292.photobucket.com/albums/b580/DocGKR2/MampP9ambiRMR02_zpseec933f2.jpg

Then I went to shoot it with Fed AE9FP 147 gr FMJ. Even when shot from the bench off sandbags, I still got 2-3 flyers in every 10 shot group at 25 yds:
http://i1292.photobucket.com/albums/b580/DocGKR2/newMampP9OEMbarrel25yds_zpsa185e166.jpg

Thinking I might not know how to shoot anymore, I grabbed the G19 w/RMR02 and OEM barrel I carried all last year and shot a 10 rd group at 25 yds. I quickly realized there was a problem with the M&P9, not me, as the G19 shot fine:
http://i1292.photobucket.com/albums/b580/DocGKR2/G19OEMbarrel25yds_zps2e86bf36.jpg

Grabbed a known good older 1/18 twist M&P9 upper assembly I had and dropped it on the new lower--shot a bit better:
http://i1292.photobucket.com/albums/b580/DocGKR2/oldMampP9OEMbarrel25yds_zps7dd7b573.jpg

Next, tried putting a KKM drop-in barrel I had lying around in the new M&P9:
http://i1292.photobucket.com/albums/b580/DocGKR2/newMampP9KKMbarrel25yds_zps2a25b807.jpg

Shot pretty good, so this is what I used at the recent Ken Hackathorn class: http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?8711-AAR-Ken-Hackathorn-2-Day-Advanced-Handgun-24-25-June-2013-in-Castro-Valley-CA

Now I was still curious why the M&P9 shot so badly with the OEM barrel. After looking at it, I noticed there was no dimple on the underside of the barrel--thus indicating an older 1/18 twist barrel, as shown by Hilton Yam at MSW: http://modernserviceweapons.com/?p=3719 Careful inspection of twist rate indicated it was an old 1/18 twist barrel.

S&W was kind enough to send me a new 1/10 twist M&P9 barrel w/dimple to replace the older 1/18 barrel that some how inadvertently had been put in my pistol as it was being built.

When I tried the new 1/10 twist OEM replacement barrel in my new M&P9, the results were not ideal despite trying several groups:
http://i1292.photobucket.com/albums/b580/DocGKR2/newMampP91-10OEMbarrel25yds2_zpsb5b350e2.jpg

http://i1292.photobucket.com/albums/b580/DocGKR2/newMampP91-10OEMbarrel25yds_zps17b9f750.jpg

Finally I dropped the KKM barrel back in and got a reasonable group:
http://i1292.photobucket.com/albums/b580/DocGKR2/newMampP9KKMbarrel25yds2_zpse1e5d509.jpg

Bizzarre...

orionz06
07-02-2013, 06:23 AM
Interesting. I am gonna guess that S&W will not be swapping barrels for the poor saps who own M&P's with the older barrels.

fixer
07-02-2013, 07:12 AM
Thanks for the great post. I'm surprised the new barrel did not help much. I think there was another person here who was having issues with the M&P accuracy and a new barrel fixed it.

It is the hit or miss on this issue that keeps me out of the M&P line. Even though my M&P shoots ok, I'm not tempting fate.

Bill Riehl
07-02-2013, 07:43 AM
Wow.

Food for thought on striker fired gun designs:

Cocking the hammer on the Browning tilt barrel principal has more influence on slide velocity than recoil spring weight (within normal windows). Including delaying unlocking of the barrel. That is why flat bottom/small radius FPSs are so popular with the 1911/P35 crowd.

Rich
07-02-2013, 02:33 PM
Been waiting a very long time to buy a M&P 9mm or even a Gen 4 G19.

I'm just waiting for the Doc to say GTG

Until then I will use my late 90`s`s metal frame DA Pistols

ToddG
07-04-2013, 10:26 AM
I've said all along, switching to 1/10 twist is not going to fix this problem.

Ernest Langdon developed a solution to the accuracy problem back in '07 -- that's six years ago -- with the engineers at Smith. It used the same twist as the original barrel... which is the same twist Smith has used in all its 9mm guns going back to the beginning of time. I have one of those barrels. It was first shot extensively by Ernest and then got wrung out quite a bit by Gordon Carrell (http://www.downrange.tv/blog/tag/gordon-carrell/) before dropping in my lap. It shoots ridiculously tight groups with any ammo I've tried.

The problem, as Bill pointed out, is the barrel dwell time.

I'm sure there is some legitimate corporate/engineering reason why Smith doesn't just adopt the Langdon barrel profile. But for the life of me I can't imagine what it is or how it could possibly be more costly than the continuous beating the M&P's reputation gets.

Bill Riehl
07-04-2013, 10:40 AM
I've said all along, switching to 1/10 twist is not going to fix this problem.

Ernest Langdon developed a solution to the accuracy problem back in '07 -- that's six years ago -- with the engineers at Smith. It used the same twist as the original barrel... which is the same twist Smith has used in all its 9mm guns going back to the beginning of time. I have one of those barrels. It was first shot extensively by Ernest and then got wrung out quite a bit by Gordon Carrell (http://www.downrange.tv/blog/tag/gordon-carrell/) before dropping in my lap. It shoots ridiculously tight groups with any ammo I've tried.

The problem, as Bill pointed out, is the barrel dwell time.

I'm sure there is some legitimate corporate/engineering reason why Smith doesn't just adopt the Langdon barrel profile. But for the life of me I can't imagine what it is or how it could possibly be more costly than the continuous beating the M&P's reputation gets.

I'd venture to say it's because 99.99% of the M&P crowd doesn't care if it shoots patterns rather than groups. That said, I'd /personally/ take a M&P over any other striker fired pistol.

I'm still of the opinion that a poly framed P35 sans mag safety would be a huge step forward in pistol designs. But that's just me talking out of my rear end ;)

PS - have it use 92 or 226 mags.

JodyH
07-04-2013, 11:01 AM
I'd venture to say it's because 99.99% of the M&P crowd doesn't care if it shoots patterns rather than groups.
I'd venture to say it's because 99.99% of the M&P crowd doesn't know if it shoots patterns rather than groups.

fixed it for you
:cool:

Bill Riehl
07-04-2013, 11:20 AM
I'd venture to say it's because 99.99% of the M&P crowd doesn't know if it shoots patterns rather than groups.

fixed it for you
:cool:

I stand corrected :D

Seriously, why tolerate that from a pistol...with a RD sight....off bags? I'd be three kinds of pissy if I had a pistol that did that at 25yrds.

Anyone have a picture of the Langdon bbl? Just curious about it right now.

1slow
07-04-2013, 11:58 AM
Could the hammer cocking by slide effect on barrel dwell time be one of the reasons HK45 and HK P30 shoot so well?
Is it harder to get a striker fired pistol to shoot as well ?
It would seem that the longer the barrel remains locked up, or at least in a parallel relationship to the slide and thus sights, the more accurate the pistol is likely to be. Old bullseye shooters in the 1970s used to tell me this.
I think that, the sooner the barrel is allowed to tilt and unlock, the more ammo variation would impact accuracy because barrel might be tilting before the bullet departed. Ammo pressure variations could thus cause bullet departure at various barrel tilts. If the barrel stays locked up and /or parallel longer ammo variation should affect it less.

ToddG
07-04-2013, 12:38 PM
I'd venture to say it's because 99.99% of the M&P crowd doesn't know if it shoots patterns rather than groups.

I'd venture to say it's because 99.99% of the M&P crowd doesn't know the difference between shooting patterns and groups.

Fixed it for you. :cool:

(and again, lest anyone think this is an attack on M&P shooters in particular, the above comment would be true for almost any brand and model of production pistol)

ed l
07-04-2013, 07:23 PM
(and again, lest anyone think this is an attack on M&P shooters in particular, the above comment would be true for almost any brand and model of production pistol)

Just my casual observation of various pistol shooters at public ranges is that most don't even fire their handguns at 25 yards and would be happy if they got the targets that DocGkr shot at 7 yards vs the 25 yards distance where he shot them.

YVK
07-05-2013, 01:27 AM
Could the hammer cocking by slide effect on barrel dwell time be one of the reasons HK45 and HK P30 shoot so well?
Is it harder to get a striker fired pistol to shoot as well ?
It would seem that the longer the barrel remains locked up, or at least in a parallel relationship to the slide and thus sights, the more accurate the pistol is likely to be. Old bullseye shooters in the 1970s used to tell me this.
I think that, the sooner the barrel is allowed to tilt and unlock, the more ammo variation would impact accuracy because barrel might be tilting before the bullet departed. Ammo pressure variations could thus cause bullet departure at various barrel tilts. If the barrel stays locked up and /or parallel longer ammo variation should affect it less.

I think this makes theoretical sense. That said, my Gen4 G17 holds 10 rounds inside 3x5 card at about 18-20 yards, just like my P30 does. My MP shoots around that card. It's like perfect hostage resque gun, just aim at the hostage.

Comedian
07-05-2013, 10:06 AM
Apex has been promising a Bar Sto solution for many moons now. I wonder when this will finally happen?

YVK
07-05-2013, 10:13 AM
My fear is that the answer is never.

Anybody knows a gunsmith who can weld up a barrel to an oversized dimensions and then fit it in?

rsa-otc
07-05-2013, 10:18 AM
My fear is that the answer is never.

Anybody knows a gunsmith who can weld up a barrel to an oversized dimensions and then fit it in?

Grant over at M4C forum is fitting Storm Lake barrels and is reported to achieve excellent results.



http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=104659

Bill Riehl
07-05-2013, 10:43 AM
I think, and this is me talking after a cursory evaluation of the M&Ps I have, the problem would be (to fix the dwell time issue) that the barrel can't travel that much further back before encroaching on the mag-well/altering feed path.

The Langdon bbl (still want to see a pic of that) might very well address the issue, but it might not lend itself to production line use.

Another remedy is a higher slide mass or hydraulic recoil assembly ($50 guide rod).

The M&P accuracy issue could be solved, but it won't be by putting match bbls or different twist rates in it. It needs some additional tweeking.

ToddG
07-05-2013, 10:47 AM
The Langdon bbl (still want to see a pic of that) might very well address the issue, but it might not lend itself to production line use.

I could get you a photo. Or I could, you know, send you mine to look at.

Bill Riehl
07-05-2013, 10:57 AM
I could get you a photo. Or I could, you know, send you mine to look at.

Pic. That is a one of a kind thing, and I'd hate to be associated with it being lost, damaged or stolen. I'm just curious as to what the changes were.

Shenaniguns
07-05-2013, 11:04 AM
Apex has been promising a Bar Sto solution for many moons now. I wonder when this will finally happen?


Randy worked hard on designing a barrel with the correct dwell, unfortunately ATS is at the mercy of BS to produce the barrels.
There was one batch produced that I know of so far but there was a problem with them.

ToddG
07-05-2013, 11:05 AM
Actually, I think somewhere between 8 and 12 exist. I'm not worried about it getting lost or anything unless your shop is really that disorganized.

Bill Riehl
07-05-2013, 11:10 AM
Actually, I think somewhere between 8 and 12 exist. I'm not worried about it getting lost or anything unless your shop is really that disorganized.

Nope. It's not. You have my address in a email signature right?

ToddG
07-05-2013, 11:48 AM
Nope. It's not. You have my address in a email signature right?

Yeah but I'll PM you to be certain it goes to the right place.

LorenzoS
07-05-2013, 02:01 PM
This is why I dumped my M&P9 in favor of a P30. Mine went back to S&W for a new barrel that yielded no improvement. A KKM drop-in did improve accuracy to a barely acceptable level. I am not interested in playing accuracy roulette. Many of the S&W apologists claim that only some units have an accuracy problem, or that you can just keep sending it back to S&W until they fix it. I have better things to do with my time.

Plan
07-08-2013, 10:11 AM
As someone who is pretty deeply invested in the M&P platform, I find this issue extremely frustrating. The aftermarket options are either unavailable (Apex/Bar-Sto), expensive/waitlisted (G&R/storm lake), or offer marginal improvement (KKM drop-in). The only thing keeping me from dumping my M&P9 for a P30 is that I like that I can train with a gun that mimics my issued service weapon (M&P40) and have holster interchangeability.

Admittedly, I have a long way to go in ironing out the kinks in my personal abilities regarding pistol accuracy, but working exclusively with the M&P has really dimished my ability to track any accuracy improvements I have made.

JonInWA
07-08-2013, 02:25 PM
Why not just dump the M&P 9mm and get another .40 M&P? I don't find the difference in ammunition to be all that significant; if anything, .40 has been more available and less expensive than 9mm (although the 9mm situation appears to be significantly loosening up in my area (Seattle metro).

Best, Jon

Bill Riehl
07-08-2013, 03:02 PM
I have an earlyish 9mm Pro that is so inaccurate, I don't think I've actually looked at it in years.

I have an earlyish 357Sig that is accurate...insofar as polymer service pistols can be "accurate." ;) Lots more slide mass on that 357. Just saying.

TigerStripe
07-10-2013, 10:33 PM
I have a 2006 M&P9FS that I shot a quarter sized group from somewhere between eight to ten yards. It is stock other than the Apex extractor. I know that's not great shooting but I'm not the best shot. I left the M&P platform to go back to Glock (G19) because of the overall accuracy issues within the 9mms. Also the fact that Glock has a far greater selection of parts, sights and that my G17 mags will work in my G19 pushed me that way as well. However my new to me 2008 G19 has decided to throw brass at my face.

ER_STL
07-11-2013, 03:01 PM
First post on the board.

It’s my unscientific opinion that the early unlocking of the barrel in the M&Ps has to be what is contributing to poor accuracy. With my G17 and G19, the barrel stays locked in the same relationship with the slide as it was in when it’s in full battery for the first 2-3 mm of travel rearwards before it finally unlocks under the slide. Both guns shoot tight groups. With the new M&P9 I bought last week (test-fire date 4/8/2013), the barrel unlocks the moment pressure is applied to move the slide rearward. I literally cannot retract the slide at all before the barrel starts to unlock. The barrel to slide lockup on both Glocks is also a bit tighter than on the M&P9, where I can feel a small amount of movement if I grip the barrel at the breach end and wiggle it while the gun is in full battery.

In some of the slow-motion video I’ve seen of pistols firing, it would appear that on longer-barreled guns, the slide often starts its rearward movement before the bullet leaves the muzzle. A tiny dip at the rear during unlock could certainly lead to shooting a few inches high at 25 yards. If unlocking also allows for any side-to-side movement, it would also account for the wider patterns seen in some of the 25 yard groupings shown.

Would the solution be to modify the geometry of the barrel where it meets the slide at the top (to provide more resistance before unlocking) or does it have more to do with how the barrel locks into the locking block?

As a plug to S&W, I’ve had nothing but good interactions with them over the phone (previous 2007 M&P9 issues and a single call for my 442). The M&P9 described above is on its way back to them to fix what looks like a bent trigger bar. I’m hoping it proves to be an accurate gun when I get it back.

TR675
07-11-2013, 03:18 PM
I have a 2006 M&P9FS that I shot a quarter sized group from somewhere between eight to ten yards. It is stock other than the Apex extractor. I know that's not great shooting but I'm not the best shot.

That's actually pretty great shooting.

RockBottom
07-12-2013, 10:17 AM
Why not just dump the M&P 9mm and get another .40 M&P? I don't find the difference in ammunition to be all that significant; if anything, .40 has been more available and less expensive than 9mm (although the 9mm situation appears to be significantly loosening up in my area (Seattle metro).

Best, Jon

The M&P40 does NOT have these accuracy problems, is that correct?

Mike

JMS
07-12-2013, 11:15 AM
It's safe to say that if you have an M&P that doesn't group well past 15yd, it's almost certainly one of the 9mm variants.

The .40s haven't shown this trend though it's not unheard-of, and the .45s DEFINITELY have not...triggers are notable gripes across the entire M&P lineup, with the .45s being the most unpleasant.

BigT
07-12-2013, 11:22 AM
I have seen one .40 that wouldn't group at all. May have been a lemon.

While I haven't shot it all that much my 45 mid size shoots straighter than I can hold. 200gr XTP's gave me about 2" at 20 metres.

Aray
07-12-2013, 12:19 PM
Orionz06 and I each had an M&P 9FS with accuracy we wanted to improve. We purchased 2 Storm Lake barrels, and one of the 2 barrels fixed my gun; one didn't. Neither helped his.

YVK
07-12-2013, 07:20 PM
Orionz06 and I each had an M&P 9FS with accuracy we wanted to improve. We purchased 2 Storm Lake barrels, and one of the 2 barrels fixed my gun; one didn't. Neither helped his.

Were those drop-in barrels, or those that require fitting?

DocGKR
07-13-2013, 01:06 AM
I recently acquired two M&P9c's with HPF serial number prefixes; one has a single dimple barrel and received an RMR07, the other a dual dimple barrel and got an RMR02.

http://i1292.photobucket.com/albums/b580/DocGKR2/MampP9c_zps3fb9d592.jpg

At 25 yds firing Fed 147 gr FMJ AE9FP, they shot very well, with no hit of any accuracy issues:

http://i1292.photobucket.com/albums/b580/DocGKR2/MampP9cRMR02_zps330efb2b.jpg

http://i1292.photobucket.com/albums/b580/DocGKR2/MampP9cRMR07_zps08a7f13b.jpg

tomr
07-13-2013, 10:50 AM
Sorry Doc, could you please explain the significance of HPF and the dimples you describe?

I recently acquired two M&P9c's with HPF serial number prefixes; one has a single dimple barrel and received an RMR07, the other a dual dimple barrel and got an RMR02.

http://i1292.photobucket.com/albums/b580/DocGKR2/MampP9c_zps3fb9d592.jpg

At 25 yds firing Fed 147 gr FMJ AE9FP, they shot very well, with no hit of any accuracy issues:

http://i1292.photobucket.com/albums/b580/DocGKR2/MampP9cRMR02_zps330efb2b.jpg

http://i1292.photobucket.com/albums/b580/DocGKR2/MampP9cRMR07_zps08a7f13b.jpg

DocGKR
07-13-2013, 10:59 AM
"HPF" is the first the digits of the serial number and gives a rough idea when the pistols were made.

The original M&P barrels were 1/18 twist and were unmarked. Recently they introduced a new 1/10 twist barrel; these were marked with a single dimple on the bottom of the barrel. In the past few weeks, barrels with two dimples have started showing up. Hilton Yam has a nice write up over on Modern Service Weapons: http://modernserviceweapons.com/?attachment_id=3720.

http://modernserviceweapons.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/20130629-1024x1024.jpg

GJM
07-13-2013, 11:37 AM
You shoot any 115 or 124?

tomr
07-13-2013, 12:08 PM
Thanks Doc
Jerry Miculek, in a YouTube video posted back in january described 2 barrel changes. Both twist rate and barrel hood geometry were apparently changed. You can see it here at about 11:16 in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcR2armhilo&feature=c4-overview-vl&list=PLFWh-_7kw52r9fDK9CnvtJkn2ENTC5WWC

Its been difficult, as a consumer, to discern between what S&W is actually doing and what the momentum of web mythology infers. I get that S&W would've done this as a "soft start" - running change - to avoid a run on the bank of warranty claims and obsoleting pipeline inventory for their distributors and dealers. The crazy market of 2013 has helped the latter.

Your accuracy experience, albeit an "n of one", and the information on serial numbers and dots is helpful to clarify whats what. Thanks again.



"HPF" is the first the digits of the serial number and gives a rough idea when the pistols were made.

The original M&P barrels were 1/18 twist and were unmarked. Recently they introduced a new 1/10 twist barrel; these were marked with a single dimple on the bottom of the barrel. In the past few weeks, barrels with two dimples have started showing up. Hilton Yam has a nice write up over on Modern Service Weapons.

DocGKR
07-13-2013, 03:08 PM
Over the past 2 decades, we generally only have had 147 gr readily on hand; I'll try to find some of the lighter weights and give them a whirl.

tomr
07-13-2013, 06:46 PM
So now Im wondering.... If one goes back to Todd Greens post #6 on page 1,

"I've said all along, switching to 1/10 twist is not going to fix this problem.

Ernest Langdon developed a solution to the accuracy problem back in '07 -- that's six years ago -- with the engineers at Smith. It used the same twist as the original barrel... which is the same twist Smith has used in all its 9mm guns going back to the beginning of time. I have one of those barrels. It was first shot extensively by Ernest and then got wrung out quite a bit by Gordon Carrell before dropping in my lap. It shoots ridiculously tight groups with any ammo I've tried.

The problem, as Bill pointed out, is the barrel dwell time. "

And then J. Miculek's discussion of the barrel hood changes - about 12:35 into that video, (above) - is it possible these are the same thing? And mebbe is the 2 dot barrel the one with both changes?

DocGKR can you see any difference in the hood on that 2 dot barrel?

,

Over the past 2 decades, we generally only have had 147 gr readily on hand; I'll try to find some of the lighter weights and give them a whirl.

DocGKR
07-13-2013, 09:01 PM
Keep in mind the compact M&P9c's generally have not had any problems. The accuracy issues began to surface when the M&P9 barrel hoods were modified for the compact models, in order to streamline production.

GJM
07-13-2013, 09:20 PM
My recollection was that I had a 9C that wouldn't shoot, and just found this letter:



Feb 1, 2012

Smith and Wesson
2100 Roosevelt Avenue
Springfield, MA 01104

Customer service told me to send these pistols in for repair. I recently bought 7 new M&P pistols, and shot all 7 at 25 yards to determine accuracy before working these into my competition pistols used by my wife and me. Unfortunately, 4 of the 7 pistols, display unacceptable accuracy, as in +/- 8 inch groups at 25 yards, using WWB, HST 124+P and Federal AE 147 ball ammo. Details below:

1) 9C DVD..... Shoots +/- 8 inch groups, strung in windage at 25 yards. I swapped over another 9 C slide I have and it shot fine.

2) 9 FS DWS.... Shoots +/- 8 inch groups at 25 yards.

3) 9 FS DXB.... (has HD sights and Apex trigger professionally installed) Shoots +/- 8 inch groups at 25 yards. Interestingly, I pulled a barrel from another 9FS I have that shoots well, and it is equally inaccurate. When I took the “bad” barrel from this one, and stuck it in the other shooter 9 FS I have, the barrel shot fine, so I suspect something other than the barrel.

4) Pro DWS.... Shoots WWB +/- 8 inches at 25 yards. The other Pro I just got from you shoots acceptably.

It is obviously quite distressing to purchase seven new M&P pistols, and have only three that shoot 3-5-4 inches or better at 25 yards, since I use these pistols to shoot competitively. My M&P 45 pistols routinely shoot 2.5 inch groups at 25 yards, as does an old M&P 9 full size and two other Pro’s I have. Please be certain to test them at 25 yards, as they are no use to me with current accuracy.

Aray
07-13-2013, 09:39 PM
Were those drop-in barrels, or those that require fitting?

Drop in barrels.

walkin' trails
07-14-2013, 09:11 AM
I took delivery of a new full size 9 this past week and got to the range with it on Friday. With Winchester Ranger 124 grain FMJ, it shot a four-round, three inch group at 25 yards off hand. There was a fifth round, which I threw due to a trigger jerk. The barrel of my pistol has a dimple on the bottom as depicted in the photo of the two barrels. I would post a photo of the target, but I haven't figured out how to do so yet.

I cleaned this pistol and lubed it up with Slip 2000 before firing and ran 200 rounds through it with no malfunctions. The trigger started out crisp (for a factory polymer framed pistol) but gritty. At the end of the range session, the grit was gone. Ejection, as best I could tell from the confines of a booth of an indoor range, did not seem to be erratic - I did not get pelted in the face or head with brass. Besides the ball ammo, I also ran 50 rounds each of Federal Hydra Shok and Winchester Ranger bonded, both 147 grain with no hiccups.

Rich
07-14-2013, 09:14 AM
The M&P40 does NOT have these accuracy problems, is that correct?

Mike

Ive seen a few complaints with the 40cal

None with the 45acp


But I aint going back 45acp

I guess if I want a new pistol it will be the a HK P30 9mm

Should be easy to trans from a 98 DA/SA P229 40cal to a P30 9mm.

I was wanting less weight and recoil

Other than that the sig p229 is fine

Rich
07-14-2013, 09:16 AM
I took delivery of a new full size 9 this past week and got to the range with it on Friday. With Winchester Ranger 124 grain FMJ, it shot a four-round, three inch group at 25 yards off hand. There was a fifth round, which I threw due to a trigger jerk. The barrel of my pistol has a dimple on the bottom as depicted in the photo of the two barrels. I would post a photo of the target, but I haven't figured out how to do so yet.

I cleaned this pistol and lubed it up with Slip 2000 before firing and ran 200 rounds through it with no malfunctions. The trigger started out crisp (for a factory polymer framed pistol) but gritty. At the end of the range session, the grit was gone. Ejection, as best I could tell from the confines of a booth of an indoor range, did not seem to be erratic - I did not get pelted in the face or head with brass. Besides the ball ammo, I also ran 50 rounds each of Federal Hydra Shok and Winchester Ranger bonded, both 147 grain with no hiccups.

Might try 10rd groups

Rich
07-14-2013, 09:18 AM
Keep in mind the compact M&P9c's generally have not had any problems. The accuracy issues began to surface when the M&P9 barrel hoods were modified for the compact models, in order to streamline production.

I had a 5906 and still have the 6906
And the 6906 would shoot better groups

Whiskey_Bravo
07-15-2013, 11:05 AM
Does anyone know if the "barrel hood design changes" noted in the Jerry Miculek video apply to only the CORE series 5" 9mm? I am curious if these barrels are now being used in the standard 5" Pro Series gun. I had a 9L at one point that I absolutely loved, but suffered from the accuracy issues listed here and other places.

tomr
07-15-2013, 11:09 AM
DocGKR, is it possible the "dots' you're seeing and were in that 10-8 posted picture are in fact Rockwell hardness test hits? And as such might have nothing to do with the twist and hood changes?


Does anyone know if the "barrel hood design changes" noted in the Jerry Miculek video apply to only the CORE series 5" 9mm? I am curious if these barrels are now being used in the standard 5" Pro Series gun. I had a 9L at one point that I absolutely loved, but suffered from the accuracy issues listed here and other places.

hvd229
07-16-2013, 03:25 AM
Did a quick accuracy comparison between my three M&P9 FS this morning and thought I would share. Shooting wasn't the best as I had just got off a 12 hour midnight shift and my eyes were a little tired. All ammo was 115gr Winchester FMJ. For this test I held at 6oclock on the bullseye with all guns to keep things equal. 10rd groups.

1) Serial # HAFXXXX, OCT 2012 production, my oldest gun that had accuracy problems and now has a KKM drop in Barrel. I couldnt find the orginal barrel to inspect it.
1644

2)Ser# HBCXXXX, MAR 2013 production, Barrel has two dots and this is by far the most accurate stock M&P I have ever owned. I recently shot a 295 of 300 on a bulls eye course at an FBI class with it.
1645

3)Ser#HACXXXX, may 2013 production, Barrel has two dots and was just bought last week.

Stock Barrel
1646

Storm Lake Barrel, No better than stock
1647

KKM Barrel, Little bit better but still nothing to write home about
1648

I noticed that the newest gun has significantly more front to back play between the barrel and the slide. I think this may get a trip back to Smith.

hvd229
07-16-2013, 03:28 AM
Just to aggrivate myself I grabbed one of the new recruit's Glock 17 gen4 with plastic sights and the crappiest stock trigger I have ever felt on a Glock and shot this:

1649

:mad:

LangdonTactical
07-16-2013, 04:08 AM
Ernest Langdon developed a solution to the accuracy problem back in '07 -- that's six years ago -- with the engineers at Smith.

Yeah, that was done off the books as I could not get them to do it as a program. The guy that helped me with this has been there at S&W for many years and has forgotten more about how guns work than I will ever know. He and the others helped me out and went out and had this done by the guys that build the barrels on the production line (as they have also be there for many, many years. Think 1970's time frame). I think we made like 7 barrels or something like that. They were all stainless barrels with no black finish like the production barrels. And they shot great.

Let me just say it did not go over well for me or the ones that helped me do this back then. No one got in any real trouble at the time as it never really full public at the time. But the word got out and there where ones that were not happy with what we did or how we did it. Because it worked, they could only make so much of a stink about it at the time. Almost all the barrels went to guys that where winning matches with the M&P, so that helped as well.

LSP972
07-16-2013, 09:24 AM
Yeah, that was done off the books as I could not get them to do it as a program. .

So, let's see... you came up with a product improvement that worked, but it was "un-sanctioned" and therefore confusing and/or unacceptable to the suits/engineers?

Gee... why am I not surprised?:rolleyes:

.

azant
07-16-2013, 12:00 PM
I have recently done some accuracy testing with various handguns for work. Those included M&Ps, Gen 4 Glocks, and HKs (P30 and HK45) in 9mm and .45 ACP. All the guns shot in the 2.5 inch and under range in .45 ACP. I was shooting with the dust cover on a pistol rest and my wrists braced on a sandbag while seated at 25 yards.

9mm was a whole 'nother story. I tested Winchester White box 115 FMJ (3.5 inch ammo), Winchester RA9T 147 gr JHP, and Winchester RA9BA 124 +P bonded JHP.

The P30 shot groups of 2 inches and under with regularity. I was being attacked by flies and other winged annoyances on the day I shot the P30 and while it was easily capable of groups in the 1.5 inch range, I kept jerking rounds out so that it averaged 2.1 inches.

The G17 shot a 1.9 inch average. No flies that day, nor on the M&P days that followed.

The first 2 M&P9s with no dimple barrels shot 8-12 inch groups with the WWB 115s, 6-8 inch groups with the 124 +P, and 4-5 inch groups with 147 JHP. One gun shot much better than the other and turned in 5.5 inch groups with 124+P and 4.2 inch groups with 147 JHP.

The second 2 M&Ps with single dimple barrels shot about the same as the better gun from the first test with 5.2 inch groups regardless of bullet weight.

I did shoot a couple of groups offhand just to see if the rest was a problem. I shot average groups of 4.5 inches that way regardless of bullet weight. I shot an M&P 45 and a Gen 4 G17 into 3 inches, also offhand, from 25 yards and in between M&P 9 groups. I know I don't shoot better offhand than from the rest, so maybe it affects the M&P9 somehow.

I know that I am not the world's greatest pistol shooter, nor am I really even good, but if I can shoot an M&P45 into 3 inches at 25 from a rest or offhand and I cannot shoot an M&P9 into the same groups size with quality ammo, then I don't think it is all me.

Your results and conclusions may vary.

ToddG
07-16-2013, 12:18 PM
I know that I am not the world's greatest pistol shooter, nor am I really even good ...

... said the guy on the F.A.S.T. Wall of Fame ...

Very solid data and not something that is likely to surprise most folks.

Out of curiosity, were the HKs LEM models or DA/SA?

GJM
07-16-2013, 02:11 PM
I have recently done some accuracy testing with various handguns for work. Those included M&Ps, Gen 4 Glocks, and HKs (P30 and HK45) in 9mm and .45 ACP. All the guns shot in the 2.5 inch and under range in .45 ACP. I was shooting with the dust cover on a pistol rest and my wrists braced on a sandbag while seated at 25 yards.

9mm was a whole 'nother story. I tested Winchester White box 115 FMJ (3.5 inch ammo), Winchester RA9T 147 gr JHP, and Winchester RA9BA 124 +P bonded JHP.

The P30 shot groups of 2 inches and under with regularity. I was being attacked by flies and other winged annoyances on the day I shot the P30 and while it was easily capable of groups in the 1.5 inch range, I kept jerking rounds out so that it averaged 2.1 inches.

The G17 shot a 1.9 inch average. No flies that day, nor on the M&P days that followed.

The first 2 M&P9s with no dimple barrels shot 8-12 inch groups with the WWB 115s, 6-8 inch groups with the 124 +P, and 4-5 inch groups with 147 JHP. One gun shot much better than the other and turned in 5.5 inch groups with 124+P and 4.2 inch groups with 147 JHP.

The second 2 M&Ps with single dimple barrels shot about the same as the better gun from the first test with 5.2 inch groups regardless of bullet weight.

I did shoot a couple of groups offhand just to see if the rest was a problem. I shot average groups of 4.5 inches that way regardless of bullet weight. I shot an M&P 45 and a Gen 4 G17 into 3 inches, also offhand, from 25 yards and in between M&P 9 groups. I know I don't shoot better offhand than from the rest, so maybe it affects the M&P9 somehow.

I know that I am not the world's greatest pistol shooter, nor am I really even good, but if I can shoot an M&P45 into 3 inches at 25 from a rest or offhand and I cannot shoot an M&P9 into the same groups size with quality ammo, then I don't think it is all me.

Your results and conclusions may vary.

I don't have my exact numbers in front of me, but when I did my M&P accuracy testing, I used a G4 Glock in 9mm and P30 9 as reality checks, and essentially duplicated your findings, excepting the dimpled barrels didn't exist then.

azant
07-16-2013, 04:25 PM
Out of curiosity, were the HKs LEM models or DA/SA?


They were TLG Special LEMs. :)

ToddG
07-16-2013, 04:48 PM
They were TLG Special LEMs. :)

:cool:

If you can pull the trigger on an LEM that well and pull the trigger on a Glock that well -- two significantly different triggers in my opinion -- then it's hard to see how the operator was at fault here.

JHC
07-16-2013, 08:56 PM
... said the guy on the F.A.S.T. Wall of Fame ...

Very solid data and not something that is likely to surprise most folks.

Out of curiosity, were the HKs LEM models or DA/SA?

LOL I seeee. Great shooting azant.

LtDave
07-16-2013, 09:48 PM
I have 3 M&P pistols. A FS .45, a FS .40 and a 9L. I also have a .357 Sig and 9mm threaded barrel for the .40.

The 9L is the most accurate 9mm pistol I own. More accurate than my P210 and several HK P7’s. The .45 shoots great, but the .40 gun is just meh.

My accuracy standard is 2" at 20 yards from a rest. So far, the only way I can get 2" or better is with the .357 barrel in the .40. And I have tested a lot of different bullet weights, powders, etc. I have only found a couple of .357 loads that work to my satisfaction. Even more challenging is getting one that will shoot to the sights.

TigerStripe
07-16-2013, 10:25 PM
Yeah, that was done off the books as I could not get them to do it as a program. The guy that helped me with this has been there at S&W for many years and has forgotten more about how guns work than I will ever know. He and the others helped me out and went out and had this done by the guys that build the barrels on the production line (as they have also be there for many, many years. Think 1970's time frame). I think we made like 7 barrels or something like that. They were all stainless barrels with no black finish like the production barrels. And they shot great.

Let me just say it did not go over well for me or the ones that helped me do this back then. No one got in any real trouble at the time as it never really full public at the time. But the word got out and there where ones that were not happy with what we did or how we did it. Because it worked, they could only make so much of a stink about it at the time. Almost all the barrels went to guys that where winning matches with the M&P, so that helped as well.

They could have paid you for (your input on) the barrel fix and had a pistol that was where the Glock was prior to the MIM extractor & Gen4 problems hit.

mnealtx
07-18-2013, 05:23 PM
DocGKR, is it possible the "dots' you're seeing and were in that 10-8 posted picture are in fact Rockwell hardness test hits? And as such might have nothing to do with the twist and hood changes?

If that were the case, wouldn't they have been present on *all* barrels and not just the new ones?

JV
07-18-2013, 05:25 PM
If that were the case, wouldn't they have been present on *all* barrels and not just the new ones?I don't think it's a safe assumption to say that QC tests never change. They may not have been doing hardness tests since the M&P's inception, but after discovering some issue, they've added it.

mnealtx
07-18-2013, 05:26 PM
Yeah, that was done off the books as I could not get them to do it as a program. The guy that helped me with this has been there at S&W for many years and has forgotten more about how guns work than I will ever know. He and the others helped me out and went out and had this done by the guys that build the barrels on the production line (as they have also be there for many, many years. Think 1970's time frame). I think we made like 7 barrels or something like that. They were all stainless barrels with no black finish like the production barrels. And they shot great.

Let me just say it did not go over well for me or the ones that helped me do this back then. No one got in any real trouble at the time as it never really full public at the time. But the word got out and there where ones that were not happy with what we did or how we did it. Because it worked, they could only make so much of a stink about it at the time. Almost all the barrels went to guys that where winning matches with the M&P, so that helped as well.

Can you speak (in general terms) as to what type of changes were made to change the dwell time?

mnealtx
07-18-2013, 05:28 PM
I don't think it's a safe assumption to say that QC tests never change. They may not have been doing hardness tests since the M&P's inception, but after discovering some issue, they've added it.

Agreed.

So, to prove the reverse... does anyone recall seeing 'dimple' barrels *before* the recent barrel change?

tomr
07-18-2013, 06:48 PM
Ah, not necessarily it depends on the QC protocol, in this case, that S&W adopted. Inspection is expensive, modern technology facilitates a lot of it and lowers the cost, but sampling is quite normal in large production facilities. In fact this might explain why there's one and 2 dots out there. Sometimes a Rockwell test comes back with hardness either too soft or too hard, in which case a retest might be performed or a re-heatreat followed by a retest. In this case I'm asking what those dots look like (in the flesh) as its hard to tell from the pics whether they're in fact a mfg. change code or RC test hits. Dont know.


If that were the case, wouldn't they have been present on *all* barrels and not just the new ones?

Bill Riehl
07-18-2013, 09:38 PM
The dimples I've seen aren't C scale perpetrator marks.

They could be B scale. If it is hardness, it looks like a 1/16 penetrator iirc.

Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk 2

Molon
07-24-2013, 06:45 PM
Smith & Wesson M&P9 Pro Series C.O.R.E.

https://app.box.com/shared/static/kfqoem4lvqcvquoalfbe.jpg


I recently purchase a new Smith & Wesson M&P9 Pro Series CORE pistol with a 4.25” barrel. This pistol has a serial-number prefix of “HBL” and the factory test-fire date is 5/17/2013. This pistol came from the factory with one of the “single-dimple” barrels previously described in this thread. I conducted a brief accuracy evaluation of this pistol at a distance of 25 yards shooting off of a bench with sandbags. Shooting was conducted with the pistol in its stock configuration, except for the mounting of a Trijicon RMR07 sight. (I did install an APEX trigger after the testing was completed, as you can see in the picture above.)

Control Ammunition. The ammunition used in this evaluation consisted of hand-loaded Hornady 124 grain FMJ-FP bullets (#35567B) with a nominal muzzle velocity of 1050 FPS. When fired from my 9mm test platform (a bench-rested Colt 6450 with a free-floated, stainless steel Noveske barrel with traditional rifling) this load consistently produces 10-shot groups at 25 yards that have extreme spreads of less than one inch. As an example, the 10-shot group pictured below has an extreme spread of 0.76”.


https://app.box.com/shared/static/upwo2ki2n4f152z9kgv9.jpg


Control Group. Prior to shooting the M&P9, I fired a 10-shot control group at 25 yards using another polymer-framed 9x19mm pistol that has previously proven to produce acceptable accuracy; a Springfield XD(M) with a 4.5” barrel. This pistol was also fired in its stock configuration, with the exception of mounting a Trijicon RMR07 sight. The 10-shot control group (pictured below) had an extreme spread of 1.92” and a score of 100-9X on the B-8 target.


https://app.box.com/shared/static/jjirm048iislmkhtzzfa.jpg



The M&P9. I obtained a rough-zero for the M&P9 pistol at a distance of 7 yards. A 10-shot group fired at that distance formed one ragged hole. Moving the target stand back to the 25 yard line, the M&P9 turned in a 10-shot group that had an extreme spread of 2.31” (shown below).


https://app.box.com/shared/static/hb8i2y1pdsqksu974er5.jpg


After a couple of adjustments to the RMR07 sight, the M&P9 was shooting dead-on for a POA=POI zero at 25 yards. A 10-shot group fired on an NRA B-8 target produced a score of 100-7X. The extreme spread for this group was 2.33”.


https://app.box.com/shared/static/3k1mcuqme02cvsktb1op.jpg



https://app.box.com/shared/static/majbt17et1qnbd39ujgb.jpg



….

Magic_Salad0892
07-24-2013, 06:52 PM
Oh my God. It's Molon. I haven't seen you post in years!

Glad to see it, man!

DocGKR
07-24-2013, 08:04 PM
Molon--Well Done!

Glad to see that level of accuracy from a stock M&P9!

Sparks2112
07-24-2013, 10:40 PM
Smith & Wesson M&P9 Pro Series C.O.R.E.

https://app.box.com/shared/static/kfqoem4lvqcvquoalfbe.jpg


I recently purchase a new Smith & Wesson M&P9 Pro Series CORE pistol with a 4.25” barrel. This pistol has a serial-number prefix of “HBL” and the factory test-fire date is 5/17/2013. This pistol came from the factory with one of the “single-dimple” barrels previously described in this thread. I conducted a brief accuracy evaluation of this pistol at a distance of 25 yards shooting off of a bench with sandbags. Shooting was conducted with the pistol in its stock configuration, except for the mounting of a Trijicon RMR07 sight. (I did install an APEX trigger after the testing was completed, as you can see in the picture above.)

Control Ammunition. The ammunition used in this evaluation consisted of hand-loaded Hornady 124 grain FMJ-FP bullets (#35567B) with a nominal muzzle velocity of 1050 FPS. When fired from my 9mm test platform (a bench-rested Colt 6450 with a free-floated, stainless steel Noveske barrel with traditional rifling) this load consistently produces 10-shot groups at 25 yards that have extreme spreads of less than one inch. As an example, the 10-shot group pictured below has an extreme spread of 0.76”.


https://app.box.com/shared/static/upwo2ki2n4f152z9kgv9.jpg


Control Group. Prior to shooting the M&P9, I fired a 10-shot control group at 25 yards using another polymer-framed 9x19mm pistol that has previously proven to produce acceptable accuracy; a Springfield XD(M) with a 4.5” barrel. This pistol was also fired in its stock configuration, with the exception of mounting a Trijicon RMR07 sight. The 10-shot control group (pictured below) had an extreme spread of 1.92” and a score of 100-9X on the B-8 target.


https://app.box.com/shared/static/jjirm048iislmkhtzzfa.jpg



The M&P9. I obtained a rough-zero for the M&P9 pistol at a distance of 7 yards. A 10-shot group fired at that distance formed one ragged hole. Moving the target stand back to the 25 yard line, the M&P9 turned in a 10-shot group that had an extreme spread of 2.31” (shown below).


https://app.box.com/shared/static/hb8i2y1pdsqksu974er5.jpg


After a couple of adjustments to the RMR07 sight, the M&P9 was shooting dead-on for a POA=POI zero at 25 yards. A 10-shot group fired on an NRA B-8 target produced a score of 100-7X. The extreme spread for this group was 2.33”.


https://app.box.com/shared/static/3k1mcuqme02cvsktb1op.jpg



https://app.box.com/shared/static/majbt17et1qnbd39ujgb.jpg



….


Very cool to see actual data.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

YVK
07-24-2013, 10:40 PM
Oh my God. It's Molon. I haven't seen you post in years!

Glad to see it, man!

I hate to use this kind of reply, but I've got nothing better to say than:

+1.

Having you pop up here just like that is a nice surprise, Molon.

Molon
08-11-2013, 07:39 PM
Smith & Wesson M&P9 Pro Series C.O.R.E.

https://app.box.com/shared/static/kfqoem4lvqcvquoalfbe.jpg


I recently purchase a new Smith & Wesson M&P9 Pro Series CORE pistol with a 4.25” barrel. This pistol has a serial-number prefix of “HBL” and the factory test-fire date is 5/17/2013. This pistol came from the factory with one of the “single-dimple” barrels previously described in this thread. I conducted a brief accuracy evaluation of this pistol at a distance of 25 yards shooting off of a bench with sandbags. Shooting was conducted with the pistol in its stock configuration, except for the mounting of a Trijicon RMR07 sight. (I did install an APEX trigger after the testing was completed, as you can see in the picture above.)

Control Ammunition. The ammunition used in this evaluation consisted of hand-loaded Hornady 124 grain FMJ-FP bullets (#35567B) with a nominal muzzle velocity of 1050 FPS. When fired from my 9mm test platform (a bench-rested Colt 6450 with a free-floated, stainless steel Noveske barrel with traditional rifling) this load consistently produces 10-shot groups at 25 yards that have extreme spreads of less than one inch. As an example, the 10-shot group pictured below has an extreme spread of 0.76”.


https://app.box.com/shared/static/upwo2ki2n4f152z9kgv9.jpg


Control Group. Prior to shooting the M&P9, I fired a 10-shot control group at 25 yards using another polymer-framed 9x19mm pistol that has previously proven to produce acceptable accuracy; a Springfield XD(M) with a 4.5” barrel. This pistol was also fired in its stock configuration, with the exception of mounting a Trijicon RMR07 sight. The 10-shot control group (pictured below) had an extreme spread of 1.92” and a score of 100-9X on the B-8 target.


https://app.box.com/shared/static/jjirm048iislmkhtzzfa.jpg



The M&P9. I obtained a rough-zero for the M&P9 pistol at a distance of 7 yards. A 10-shot group fired at that distance formed one ragged hole. Moving the target stand back to the 25 yard line, the M&P9 turned in a 10-shot group that had an extreme spread of 2.31” (shown below).


https://app.box.com/shared/static/hb8i2y1pdsqksu974er5.jpg


After a couple of adjustments to the RMR07 sight, the M&P9 was shooting dead-on for a POA=POI zero at 25 yards. A 10-shot group fired on an NRA B-8 target produced a score of 100-7X. The extreme spread for this group was 2.33”.


https://app.box.com/shared/static/3k1mcuqme02cvsktb1op.jpg



https://app.box.com/shared/static/majbt17et1qnbd39ujgb.jpg



….



Using the same methodology as described in my original post, I tested some 147 grain loads using the factory “single-dimple” barrel. I started with a hand-load topped with Hornady’s 147 XTP projectile with a nominal muzzle velocity of 950 FPS. This load turned in a 10-shot group at 25 yards that had an extreme spread of 2.4”. This is right in line with my original testing using 124 grain loads.

Next, I zeroed the sight for factory-loaded Federal 147 grain HST ammunition (P9HST2). This load produced a 25 yard group with an extreme spread of 4.6” (and a score of 96-3X.) This was a little disappointing, since the 147 grain HST load is my primary self-defense load. However, this is still a significant improvement over the 8” to 12” groups at 25 yards that members have reported with previous generations of the M&P9.



https://app.box.com/shared/static/xl9xqnqx6pistha4bpc5.jpg



….

TigerStripe
08-20-2013, 02:25 AM
Molon, that's fairly respectable accuracy for a stock M&P9. By that I mean the accuracy of the pistol, as the XDM group was tighter. Hopefully Smith & Wesson is at least putting a consistently fairly accurate M&P9 after +/- seven years. I wonder what the accuracy is with box store 115gr ammo.

S391
08-21-2013, 10:48 AM
Does anyone know if the "barrel hood design changes" noted in the Jerry Miculek video apply to only the CORE series 5" 9mm? I am curious if these barrels are now being used in the standard 5" Pro Series gun. I had a 9L at one point that I absolutely loved, but suffered from the accuracy issues listed here and other places.

I recently purchased a new M&P Pro (5", it came with the new CORE style grip inserts so I assume it is as current as you can get) and I pulled the barrel out last night and could not find a dimple... on top of that it shoots so poorly I am in the process of shipping it back to Smith & Wesson... I'm curious to see what they find. To say I'm disappointed is an understatement, I have a 4+ year old M&P pro that is lights out well past 30 yards so I'm hoping they can get the current model squared away.

Molon
08-21-2013, 11:52 AM
Molon, that's fairly respectable accuracy for a stock M&P9.

I don't disagree with your statement at all. It's also entirely possibly that I've become spoiled by the performance of my SIGs . . .:cool:



https://app.box.com/shared/static/bhzfffnle1nk73ytdkaa.jpg




https://app.box.com/shared/static/xlmmov9tjrqgrjz4ffj9.jpg



....

Sparks2112
08-22-2013, 04:45 PM
I don't disagree with your statement at all. It's also entirely possibly that I've become spoiled by the performance of my SIGs . . .:cool:



https://app.box.com/shared/static/bhzfffnle1nk73ytdkaa.jpg


They're hard to argue with in that regard.

https://app.box.com/shared/static/xlmmov9tjrqgrjz4ffj9.jpg



....

ASH556
08-27-2013, 03:03 PM
I've posted this here before, but since stock M&P accuracy with factory, lightweight ammo seems to be a hot topic, I figured this was relevant. I purchased a pair of M&P 9 full-size pistols in February of 2012. One is a daily carry and the other resides at home as a silencer host/night stand pistol. This test was done with the carry pistol. The pistol is completely stock with the exception of my swapping the factory sights for a takeoff set of factory night sights I purchased used. The ammunition used was S&B 124gr FMJ. Group was fired at 25yds, offhand, unsupported, approximately one round fired per second. You will note there is one flier in the group.

In an effort to establish a control baseline for the M&P, I also fired a 10 shot group under the same conditions with a Glock 17. You'll note a similar group size, also with a flier, and finally that the Glock group is left. The fliers are a trigger issue...straight back pull. The Glock shooting left is a grip issue and one of the factors that after 8 years with the Glock 19 drove me to switch to the M&P.

Ignoring the flier in each group, you will see a 4" spread. Now, I could've put the pistols on sandbags and perhaps shrunk the groups, but I think that this picture is just as telling. I'd consider myself a decent pistol shooter and the fact that there was no difference in group size between the Glock and the M&P shows me that the M&P is as capable of accuracy as the Glock is.

As a side note, I am recently working more on my 25yd pistol accuracy vs the more common 7 yds and have managed to produce similar if not slightly smaller groups since I took these pictures. My point is that the pistol is not the rate limiting step. My barrel has no dimple and based on the timeframe of purchase, I believe it to be one of the "bad" barrels. For me, it seems to work. I'm not saying there are not some M&P's with issues, but I do not think the problem is as widespread as many would like to make it seem.

http://i854.photobucket.com/albums/ab104/ASH556/20130125_202318.jpg
http://i854.photobucket.com/albums/ab104/ASH556/20130125_202225.jpg
http://i854.photobucket.com/albums/ab104/ASH556/20130125_202029.jpg

KevinB
08-27-2013, 05:15 PM
Issue as I understand it from S&W was not lighter bullets but 147gr ammo with the earlier guns...

DocGKR
08-27-2013, 09:50 PM
Hilton Yam noted on the old 10-8 that the 147 gr shot pretty well, but the lighter weight bullets had issues. In testing with the older M&P9's, the 147 gr loads invariable shot the best for us.

ToddG
08-28-2013, 11:38 AM
The reason people measure groups from a rest, and don't "discount fliers," is because it provides a much more consistent platform for measuring the gun's performance. Shooting offhand and discounting what you believe were bad trigger pulls masks potential differences in the guns because the results instead come down to measuring your performance.

In terms of history, the first M&P9 barrels, the ones made before the Compacts went into production, were fine. They were accurate with a wide variety of ammunition.

The earliest problems came when shooting ammunition with lower chamber pressures, which could range anywhere from 115gr Winchester White Box to many 147gr "subsonic" loads. Guns typically shot tight and to POA with 124+p ammo and then spread out (as well as elevated) groups with the weaker ammo.

Somewhere along the way Smith made a change so the POA would work for the 147gr ammo and at least some folks have seen improved accuracy out of the 147's compared to other bullet weights.

Of course, those are all generalities as individual guns, barrels, and ammunition can create outliers in the data.

ASH556
08-28-2013, 03:05 PM
it provides a much more consistent platform for measuring the gun's performance. Shooting offhand and discounting what you believe were bad trigger pulls masks potential differences in the guns because the results instead come down to measuring your performance.



This is bull. Putting a pistol in a rest is not the same as putting a rifle in a rest. There's not a stock and forend to support. Your hand is still by far the most in-contact with the pistol than any rest in order to fire (unless you're locking the pistol in a vise and pulling the trigger with a string). Simply resting your hands on a table and trying to support the 2-3" on the bottom of the frame in front of the trigger guard is doing little, if any, more to stabilize the pistol than what could be accomplished with a proper grip. One could just as easily tweak the pistol sideways when firing from a "rest" if not pulling straight back as could be done firing off-hand.

The other factor here is the control weapon. If we're purely talking group size produceable by a given pistol, and the group is small enough to be defined as a group, not a pattern, then it paints a very clear picture.

So, if we're to believe what you've said above, we'd better be concerned about the accuracy of a Gen3 Glock 17 as well. Because, after all, it produced the same flier as the M&P.

Now, if a shooter takes one pistol and shoots a 2" group and takes the other and shoots a 4" group, then you have something to talk about in terms of pistol accuracy issues. Molon's Sig is clearly a more accurate pistol than the M&P or XD he shot; at least with the load he's worked up for it. However, if the same shooter shoots two different pistols back to back and produces the same group size, it's reasonable to assume that the pistols are roughly equal in accuracy with the ammunition used.

JBP55
08-28-2013, 05:09 PM
I think it would take a very talented Bullseye shooter to shoot a pistol as well without a rest as it is capable of shooting with a rest.

JHC
08-28-2013, 05:14 PM
Hilton Yam noted on the old 10-8 that the 147 gr shot pretty well, but the lighter weight bullets had issues. In testing with the older M&P9's, the 147 gr loads invariable shot the best for us.

And Mike Benedict of Talon Tactical constantly shoots very good groups with his 147 gr reloads and his 5" guns. Including the one I had and traded off for it's 5-6" grouping with all my training ammo or carry ammo - 115 fmj and 124 gr stuff.

JHC
08-28-2013, 05:19 PM
I think it would take a very talented Bullseye shooter to shoot a pistol as well without a rest as it is capable of shooting with a rest.

+1 With the exception of a few exceptional outings, I can always shoot a tighter 25 yard group rested than offhand. Offhand is usually around 50% larger.

Bobbj22
08-28-2013, 05:36 PM
However, if the same shooter shoots two different pistols back to back and produces the same group size, it's reasonable to assume that the pistols are roughly equal in accuracy with the ammunition used.

Actually, it's only reasonable to assume that this shooter shoots those individual pistols with similar accuracy. Also, there's no need to get defensive over your current gun of preference. No one is saying your gun sucks. If you shoot it as well as others and like it better then that's what really matters but I wouldn't qualify your limited testing results (with numerous variables) as quantifiably substantial given the various methodical tests and sufficient empirical evidence leading to this thread.

GJM
08-28-2013, 05:40 PM
Most of my M&P 9 pistols would shoot at least one load well. My problem, is they would shoot most other loads terribly, and with a large POI shift. I had notes on each pistol, more so than on many of my rifles, and for example, while one might like Aguila 124 ball, another that shot 147 well but would be atrocious with Aguila. Trying to keep two practice and a carry M&P for my wife and I fed with practice and JHP ammo became a logistical nightmare. And, if you went somewhere requiring ammo, like TMJ at Rogers, you were back to square one figuring out what pistol would shoot want. I sure hope these latest M&P's shoot a range of loads acceptably.

ASH556
08-28-2013, 05:48 PM
Actually, it's only reasonable to assume that this shooter shoots those individual pistols with similar accuracy. Also, there's no need to get defensive over your current gun of preference. No one is saying your gun sucks. If you shoot it as well as others and like it better then that's what really matters but I wouldn't qualify your limited testing results (with numerous variables) as quantifiably substantial given the various methodical tests and sufficient empirical evidence leading to this thread.

I'm not defensive of the gun. I know what works for me and am pleased with it. I don't feel like anyone is saying my gun sucks either. My post was more about questioning how many accuracy issues there actually are with the M&P. For sure there are some clear cases, but I think everyone who is marginal or perhaps sucks at shooting a pistol suddenly finds themselves an easy out by blaming it on the gun as a "known" issue. Then, the "known" issue gets blown out of proportion.

I'm not trying to boast that I'm some superhuman pistol shooter either. However, to make claims that a test is invalid because it wasn't shot from a rest is ridiculous. The group I posted from my M&P is 6" with the flier, 4" without. If I had said I shot it from a rest, folks would've said, "Oh, sure, that's acceptable accuracy" but because I shot it offhand, somehow it's invalid. That seems like backwards logic to me. Theoretically, a gun should shoot better from a rest. However, unless a person owns or has access to a Ransom rest, simply resting their pistol on some sandbags and then posting it as evidence of a pistol's "true accuracy capabilities" is a farce. There's still too much human involvement at play.

I know my pistol shoots "at least" a 4" group at 25yds, in my hands. That's generally accepted by most as good performance, especially for a defensive carry weapon. Now, again, there are some M&P's with accuracy issues, but I don't think it's as widespread as the skill-lacking folks would have us believe.

...Clarification: I'm not referring to DocGKR or Molon as part of the skill-lacking bunch.

ToddG
08-29-2013, 02:05 PM
This is bull.

No, it's an established standard methodology. You won't find a top level bullseye shooter (or coach) who doesn't understand wobble zone. Shooting from a rest eliminates wobble. It also diminishes the chances (and effect) of trigger jerk and flinch. There's a reason why shooting from a rest (a) turns in better, more consistent results and (b) is used by just about everyone on earth for evaluating accuracy.

As for ignoring fliers, that's fine if you're trying to prove your gun (or your skill) is more accurate than it is. But particularly when we're talking about a model gun that is infamous for having lockup consistency issues, ignoring "fliers" is really just massaging data to get the result you want.

LorenzoS
08-29-2013, 02:18 PM
Most of my M&P 9 pistols would shoot at least one load well. My problem, is they would shoot most other loads terribly, and with a large POI shift. I had notes on each pistol, more so than on many of my rifles, and for example, while one might like Aguila 124 ball, another that shot 147 well but would be atrocious with Aguila. Trying to keep two practice and a carry M&P for my wife and I fed with practice and JHP ammo became a logistical nightmare. And, if you went somewhere requiring ammo, like TMJ at Rogers, you were back to square one figuring out what pistol would shoot want. I sure hope these latest M&P's shoot a range of loads acceptably.

This is what caused me to abandon the M&P. I can tolerate a gun that prefers certain types of ammo but not one with different preferences from one unit to the next.

FredM
08-29-2013, 02:22 PM
This is what caused me to abandon the M&P. I can tolerate a gun that prefers certain types of ammo but not one with different preferences from one unit to the next.

Same here.

ASH556
08-29-2013, 02:56 PM
I disagree with Todd, but whatever. That's the internet, right? His site, he's king.

JonInWA
08-29-2013, 04:02 PM
Continued, and new/shifting issues with the M&P have successfully served to eliminate it from my consideration. One thing that this thread, and others on the forum, and other credible reports/forums have brought to the forefront of my mind is that the M&P has great ergos, and great potential-marred by what appear to be systemic design and/or manufacturing issues. From this layman's point of view, it seems that Smith & Wesson knows the problem(s), has the engineering and manufacturing expertise wherewithal to resolve them, and has apparently made a decision based on cost-effectiveness to either ignore, band-aid, or resolve and concurrently cheap out in another area/component(s) to offset the resolution costs...creating yet another issue/problem area, and potentially compounding others.

Talk about wack-a-mole...

Plus, at the end of the day my reality is that I'm quite well served by my existing fleet of Gen 3 Glocks. While the M&P's ergos are arguably better in several areas, the Glock's aren't anything requiring much other than repeated use and practice to become "natural" and effectively muscle-memoried. Glock's certainly aren't perfect, and the Gen4 launch and torturous resolution(s) has been painful to watch (and assist friends in dealing with) (other than the Gen4 G21 which appears to be the "golden" Gen4, good to go once it hit the market), but I have greater faith in Glock than in Smith & Wesson at this point.

Best, Jon

JodyH
08-29-2013, 07:03 PM
The prediction I made in the first M&P thread on this forum was something to the effect of "S&W would find a way to screw up the pistol, just give them time."
I'm like a wizard or something!

Rich
08-31-2013, 06:25 PM
Continued, and new/shifting issues with the M&P have successfully served to eliminate it from my consideration. One thing that this thread, and others on the forum, and other credible reports/forums have brought to the forefront of my mind is that the M&P has great ergos, and great potential-marred by what appear to be systemic design and/or manufacturing issues. From this layman's point of view, it seems that Smith & Wesson knows the problem(s), has the engineering and manufacturing expertise wherewithal to resolve them, and has apparently made a decision based on cost-effectiveness to either ignore, band-aid, or resolve and concurrently cheap out in another area/component(s) to offset the resolution costs...creating yet another issue/problem area, and potentially compounding others.

Talk about wack-a-mole...

Plus, at the end of the day my reality is that I'm quite well served by my existing fleet of Gen 3 Glocks. While the M&P's ergos are arguably better in several areas, the Glock's aren't anything requiring much other than repeated use and practice to become "natural" and effectively muscle-memoried. Glock's certainly aren't perfect, and the Gen4 launch and torturous resolution(s) has been painful to watch (and assist friends in dealing with) (other than the Gen4 G21 which appears to be the "golden" Gen4, good to go once it hit the market), but I have greater faith in Glock than in Smith & Wesson at this point.

Best, Jon

+1

I really wanted a S&W M&P 9mm after all I had there're 5906 and 6906 and a slew of JKL frames

The mighty Glock 3rd gen G19 I still cant get my head around it. But it can shoot tight groups.

And like you stated Gen 4 21 seem okay . But isn't that the same with the M&P 45ACP

Im getting older I really don't want to go 45ACP .

Smith & Wesson knows about the large groups at 25Y ! They seem to be fine with it.

And you are correct about the feel of a pistol. After shooting a few cases it will become apart of you.

Rich
08-31-2013, 06:55 PM
No, it's an established standard methodology. You won't find a top level bullseye shooter (or coach) who doesn't understand wobble zone. Shooting from a rest eliminates wobble. It also diminishes the chances (and effect) of trigger jerk and flinch. There's a reason why shooting from a rest (a) turns in better, more consistent results and (b) is used by just about everyone on earth for evaluating accuracy.

As for ignoring fliers, that's fine if you're trying to prove your gun (or your skill) is more accurate than it is. But particularly when we're talking about a model gun that is infamous for having lockup consistency issues, ignoring "fliers" is really just massaging data to get the result you want.


I agree shooting from a quality rest will eliminate wobble.

I've seen different ways some shoot from the bench. And different types of rest used.

Ransom Rest - I would think would take wobble factor out. ( I know there have been problems with plastic frame pistols flexing)

Sand Bag - shooter uses two hand hold and use sand bag as a rest.

Pistol Rest . shooter rest dust cover on the rest. Or uses small sandbag on the rest and then rest the dust cover on the bag/rest.

Now I think the ransom rest would tell if the Pistol itself is accurate. Since the operator isn't holding it.

The other 2 ways have the operator holding on to the Pistol that could have some effect .

I'm not a Pro so I could be wrong

1slow
08-31-2013, 08:29 PM
A proper rest can reduce variables a lot. This helps hugely in testing gun and ammo. Once you get the gun and ammo sorted, then you see how it shoots in the position you will use it.
Your grip and position can effect point of impact vs. what you get from a rest. You need to know if it does and how. First you need to get as steady as you can to get the gun and ammo sorted. A rest helps.

hossb7
09-03-2013, 12:42 AM
Adding another anecdote to the thread:

I went out yesterday with my M&P9 (test fire date of 4/26/2011), Sig P226 9mm and a friend's Gen 3 Glock 19.

All shooting was done at 20 yards, all ammo was 124gr +P Gold Dots. I used two 5.11 pistol bags as a rest - not too hot but they worked in a pinch.

Glock:
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i231/hossb7/glock1920yards.jpg

M&P:
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i231/hossb7/MP920yards.jpg

Sig:
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i231/hossb7/sigp22620yards.jpg


In my own defense I'm normally better with the Sig but I shot that group cold and haven't picked up the gun in ~9 months. I didn't call the flier on the M&P, and it would have been a pretty respectable group without it. Also, that was my first time shooting a Glock 19 for groups.

Tod-13
09-04-2013, 11:54 AM
<snip>However, this is still a significant improvement over the 8” to 12” groups at 25 yards that members have reported with previous generations of the M&P9<snip>

I had a 2013 Pro CORE that was still doing the 8-12" at 25 yards, so at least some of the current generate guns still have the issue. YMMV, etc. (124 grain ammo) :(

ASH556
09-09-2013, 02:02 PM
No, it's an established standard methodology. You won't find a top level bullseye shooter (or coach) who doesn't understand wobble zone. Shooting from a rest eliminates wobble. It also diminishes the chances (and effect) of trigger jerk and flinch. There's a reason why shooting from a rest (a) turns in better, more consistent results and (b) is used by just about everyone on earth for evaluating accuracy.

As for ignoring fliers, that's fine if you're trying to prove your gun (or your skill) is more accurate than it is. But particularly when we're talking about a model gun that is infamous for having lockup consistency issues, ignoring "fliers" is really just massaging data to get the result you want.

Well, I'm not too proud to eat some crow. I put the pistol on sandbags this weekend and shot a couple 25yd 10-shot groups. The results were revealing. Those "fliers" that I thought were me, weren't. The stupid pistol "throws" a shot or two out of every 10 round group so that what would otherwise be a 2-3" group becomes a 6-8" group.

This weekend's experience leads to this thread. If anyone cares to chime in, I'd appreciate it:

http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?9514-Nailing-down-the-handgun(s)&p=159794#post159794

justintime
09-09-2013, 02:36 PM
Was Todd's m&p dated before these issues? Also are they still just as reliable or has that gone downhill too?

Tod-13
09-09-2013, 04:36 PM
Well, I'm not too proud to eat some crow. I put the pistol on sandbags this weekend and shot a couple 25yd 10-shot groups. The results were revealing. Those "fliers" that I thought were me, weren't. The stupid pistol "throws" a shot or two out of every 10 round group so that what would otherwise be a 2-3" group becomes a 6-8" group.

This weekend's experience leads to this thread. If anyone cares to chime in, I'd appreciate it:

http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?9514-Nailing-down-the-handgun(s)&p=159794#post159794

Mine wasn't throwing a shot or two. It looked liked a shotgun pattern.

ToddG
09-09-2013, 04:51 PM
Well, I'm not too proud to eat some crow.

Stick around long enough and you'll see all of us doing that once in a while. ;) Thanks for the honest report.


Was Todd's m&p dated before these issues? Also are they still just as reliable or has that gone downhill too?

The issue "back then" was that the guns would shoot +p ammo accurately and to POA, and weaker ammo (like 115gr practice fodder) very high and not nearly as accurate. Smith put a barrel in mine that shot everything accurately and to the same point of aim, but very high so the gun needed a custom (tall) front sight that they produced from a 3rd gen Smith sight.

JMS
09-09-2013, 05:32 PM
I personally think that the twist ain't the only thing they've jimmied with, here. Neither of mine (Feb 2009 and June 2012 guns) have ever been bad shooters, but having seen how much tighter a shooter Thing1 is since I got a fitted barrel....

Smith's only known about and getting told about the other thing for so long that I'd be Jack's complete lack of surprise if they only just got around to finally fixing the lockup thing along with altering the twist, and just continued to refuse to acknowledge that less-than-desirable lockup was a circumstance in the first place.

98z28
09-14-2013, 02:03 PM
More data points.

I picked up a new pair of M&P9 full size pistols this week. Both have test fire dates in May 2013 and "single dimple" barrels.

I shot both guns at 25 yards with the stock sights off of a rest*. Each gun saw four different types of ammo: Speer 124 FMJ Lawman, Speer 124+p Gold Dot, American Eagle 147 TMJ, and Federal 147 HST. Each gun fired at least three five-shot groups with each ammunition type.

First gun (serial #HAC**36):

Speer 124 FMJ: ~3.75" max extreme spread. One group went 2". POI ~1" above the front sight.
Speer 124+p GD: ~3" max extreme spread. One group went 1.5". POI ~1" above the front sight.
American Eagle 147 TMJ: ~4" max extreme spread. One group went 2". POI ~2.5" above front sight.
Federal 147 HST: ~4.25" max extreme spread. One group went 1.5". POI ~2.5" above front sight.


Second gun (serial #(serial #HAC**56):

Speer 124 FMJ: ~2" max extreme spread. POI ~2.5" above the front sight.
Speer 124+p GD: ~3" average extreme spread. POI ~2.5" above the front sight.
American Eagle 147 TMJ: ~3.25" max extreme spread. POI ~4" above front sight.
Federal 147 HST: ~6.75" max extreme spread (with one called flier). One group went 2.25". POI ~4" above front sight.

*The "rest" was a backpack full of ammo. I accidentally left the real rest at home and didn't feel like going back to get it as I wasn't expecting much out of the M&P's. Groups were measured with a tape measure and rounded the nearest quarter inch above the actual measurement.

Not the stellar accuracy seen from my Sigs and HK's, but it is consistent between guns and across the ammunition tested. Each gun seems to like 124 grain a little better and shoots 147 grain 1.5" higher. I can work with that.

Next week I'll pick up some CTC grips and do more formal accuracy testing (with a real rest). So far, I'm encouraged.

On a side note, the triggers are the most decent of any stock M&P I have handled. The take up was initially gritty, but smoothed right up with dry-fire. The break is much more of a hard wall than a roll, but it is developing a *slight* roll with dry fire (or maybe I am just getting used to it). It will take some more getting used to. I'm spoiled by the rolling DA Sig trigger. The reset is forceful with a tactile and audible click, without any false reset.

I also picked up a pair of 9mm Shields two weeks ago that show similar accuracy and consistency across the same four ammunition types. The triggers between the Shields and the full size M&P are quite similar, with the Shields' feeling a touch heavier. I don't have a trigger pull gauge to verify that.

Tamara
09-14-2013, 02:07 PM
Each gun seems to like 124 grain a little better and shoots 147 grain 1.5" higher.

Slower bullets can be expected to hit higher, so that's all cool.

wilco423
09-14-2013, 02:14 PM
Slower bullets can be expected to hit higher, so that's all cool.

Is that as a result of early unlocking or ballistics?

Tamara
09-14-2013, 02:15 PM
Is that as a result of early unlocking or ballistics?

Ballistics. Holds true in revolvers. (It seems counter-intuitive, but it's caused by the gun moving more while the round is still in the barrel.)

wilco423
09-14-2013, 02:17 PM
Ballistics. Holds true in revolvers.

Thanks.

JBP55
09-14-2013, 02:19 PM
Slower bullets can be expected to hit higher, so that's all cool.

This.

Gary1911A1
09-16-2013, 10:55 AM
Does anyone know anything about the two dimple barrels?

Kevin P
09-16-2013, 12:29 PM
Also are they still just as reliable or has that gone downhill too?

Curious as well.

98z28
09-16-2013, 01:53 PM
I haven't read of anyone finding a difference between the one-dimple and two-dimple barrels. Would be interested if anyone knows different.

Hilton Yam said he has thus far not been able to identify any differences between one- and two-dimple barrels (near the end of the comments): http://modernserviceweapons.com/?p=3719

I think Smith is just screwing with us for fun at this point...



Does anyone know anything about the two dimple barrels?

98z28
09-16-2013, 02:10 PM
Slower bullets can be expected to hit higher, so that's all cool.

Yep. I was stoked to have repeatable groups small enough to see the difference from two different guns with four different loads. I am trying to not get too excited until I get a laser on the guns and shoot some ten round groups from a proper rest, but I am cautiously optimistic.



Was Todd's m&p dated before these issues? Also are they still just as reliable or has that gone downhill too?

Still no widespread reports of reliability issues beyond the known teething issues. Unless you count being able to hit a target past 15 yards as part of handgun reliability... :eek:

Todd has mentioned that there were accuracy concerns with the 9mm guns at the time of his test. He just happened to get one that would shoot.

ToddG
09-16-2013, 07:25 PM
Todd has mentioned that there were accuracy concerns with the 9mm guns at the time of his test. He just happened to get one that would shoot.

I was sent a gun that had been through Smith's prep procedure used for law enforcement contract T&E. My barrel was accurate and consistent with different loads but it shot everything very high. Smith actually had to custom fabricate a front sight for me, using the taller Smith 3rd Gen front night sight and machining the sight base to fit the M&P slide cut.

walkin' trails
09-16-2013, 08:37 PM
I finally got a set of Heinies installed on my full size 9 that I bought new in July. It has the "one dimple" barrel. Went shooting with it again yesterday. I can't brag about the group size at 25, but not quite yet ready to blame it in the gun. I could keep them all in the damage-doing portion of a Progressive Force Tier 2 target; and sometimes the bullets hit where I thought I was aiming, but the groups were probably 8-9 inches. I seem to want to jerk the trigger on the second and third shots. All shooting was off-hand as I seem to be more accurate than than trying to improvise a bench position. Then I worked on FTAs at the five and seven as fast as fast as I could accurately shoot, and groups were acceptable. Next shot El Pres and the VTAC One Thru Five on a DEA-Dot target turned sideways at five and seven. Ugly trigger jerk showed when I shot too fast, bit otherwise cut the centers out of the dots. I can't say how inaccurate this gun really is as of yet. I qualified with it on my agency handgun course with a decent score and have hit the scoring area of Q-targets out to 50 yards. I still trying to get used to the large grip insert as it seems to be as close as possible to the grip diameter of ny M&P 45 with the small grip and a 4th Gen Glock, but the swell is weird. Anyway, going to keep in shooting it and learn to manage this trigger.

justintime
09-16-2013, 09:47 PM
I decided to give one a whirl. It was born in july of 13 - has one dimple. I have not tried the m&p since I had a horrible compact. The trigger is MUCH better than my previous m&p (although gritty) the reset is short and pronounced. The break seems to have gotten worse but Im hoping it gets better with some use. Wednesday I will take it and test accuracy.

walkin' trails
09-17-2013, 07:51 AM
The gritty trigger ion mine disappeared after 200 rounds. The pull is no different than my 2009-vintage full sized 45 . Acceptable for what I'm used to, but still a little heavier than a 5.5lb Glock. Not quite as heavy in perception to the Glock NY-1.

Gary1911A1
09-18-2013, 11:09 AM
I haven't read of anyone finding a difference between the one-dimple and two-dimple barrels. Would be interested if anyone knows different.

Hilton Yam said he has thus far not been able to identify any differences between one- and two-dimple barrels (near the end of the comments): http://modernserviceweapons.com/?p=3719

I think Smith is just screwing with us for fun at this point...

Thank you! I haven't gotten my two dimple barrel yet, but plan on testing my M&P from a rest. If it shoots well then I'll be looking to get some Apex Trigger Parts.

98z28
09-22-2013, 09:30 PM
The CTC grips arrived this week and I spent the afternoon doing accuracy work with two full size M&Ps. Both have May 2013 test fire dates and single-dimple barrels. I first got a rough zero with the lasers at 7 yards using 147 TMJ and then took the guns back to 25 yards. I fired five-shot groups off of a rest using the lasers to aim. I got some interesting (and consistent!) results. Both guns like 124+p Gold Dot. Neither gun likes 147 HST.

The 147 HST produced at least one non-called flyer in every five-shot string that would open an otherwise 2" group to 4" - 5". More interestingly, the flyer was the first round out of every group. This was a repeatable phenomenon out of both guns over 10+ five-shot groups with both 147 HST and American Eagle 147 TMJ. The first round would strike low and right. At first I wondered if I had developed a strange flinch, but I am a right-handed shooter and this did not happen with any of the 124gr loads over many more groups. Here is a typical group from both guns with 147 HST at 25 yards (one five-shot group from each gun):

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd128/stelks98z28/20130922_165203_zpscf3b7906.jpg (http://s220.photobucket.com/user/stelks98z28/media/20130922_165203_zpscf3b7906.jpg.html)


On the other hand, both guns consistently produced 2" - 2.25" groups with 124+p Gold Dot and 2" - 3" groups with 124 FMJ (Speer Lawman) with no odd flyers. Here is a typical target from both guns with 124+p GD at 25 yards (one five-shot group from each gun):

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd128/stelks98z28/20130922_165238_zpsb2a677c9.jpg (http://s220.photobucket.com/user/stelks98z28/media/20130922_165238_zpsb2a677c9.jpg.html)


I am bummed about the results with 147gr ammo, but am stoked to see the consistency with 124gr ammo from both guns. Both guns were purchased at retail from Gander Mountain and were not cherry-picked. Hopefully this indicates that Smith has made some effective changes, but I may have just gotten lucky.

In any case, there's some more data to throw on the pile.

Bill Nesbitt
09-23-2013, 08:39 AM
98z28, have you tried loading 15 rounds with the 147s and shooting 3 groups? I've heard that the first round loaded out of the mag could be a flyer sometimes.

Molon
09-23-2013, 09:09 AM
The CTC grips arrived this week and I spent the afternoon doing accuracy work with two full size M&Ps. Both have May 2013 test fire dates and single-dimple barrels. I first got a rough zero with the lasers at 7 yards using 147 TMJ and then took the guns back to 25 yards. I fired five-shot groups off of a rest using the lasers to aim. I got some interesting (and consistent!) results. Both guns like 124+p Gold Dot. Neither gun likes 147 HST.

The 147 HST produced at least one non-called flyer in every five-shot string . . .

. . . In any case, there's some more data to throw on the pile.



Five-shot groups are worthless. If you wish to contribute valid data for comparison to the groups that Dr Roberts, myself and other have posted in this thread, redo your testing firing 10-shot groups.

JHC
09-23-2013, 09:29 AM
Five-shot groups are worthless. If you wish to contribute valid data for comparison to the groups that Dr Roberts, myself and other have posted in this thread, redo your testing firing 10-shot groups.

OK if you say so. But for hand held groups, it seems that ten introduces a lot more shooter fatigue/variables. So if I'm interested in what the gun is built to do, I can get a ransom rest or try and execute a hand held shot perfectly ten time in a row? Seems a lot more indicative of shooter skill and skill endurance, including eyesight. I totally understand the stats and science of locking in prone with a 15 lb match grade AR and high powered scope to see what ammunition is truly capable of. I get that.

ToddG
09-23-2013, 10:07 AM
Seems a lot more indicative of shooter skill and skill endurance, including eyesight.

This.

Bill Riehl
09-23-2013, 10:25 AM
Just a FYI - spent more than a couple hours with Todd's barrel, my m&ps, and my G17s and 22s. This is more than a simple unlocking timing issue. Very interesting problem. And not going to be a trivial solution, imo.

Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk 4

98z28
09-23-2013, 10:26 AM
Five-shot groups are worthless. If you wish to contribute valid data for comparison to the groups that Dr Roberts, myself and other have posted in this thread, redo your testing firing 10-shot groups.

Molon,

Your reputation precedes you and I know you are right. I am grateful for the time you put in to gather and share data with the community.

Frankly though, I am more comfortable interpreting results from five five-shot groups than two or three ten-shot groups if I am the shooter. I am likely to introduce a called flyer on ten-round strings because I am impatient. I am trying to gather evidence on the mechanic ability of the gun and ammo combination, which requires eliminating as much of my influence as possible. For me at least, ten-round groups become as much a measure of my patience as the the firearm's mechanical accuracy.

I am fine with the error introduced from five smaller samples as compared to two or three larger samples, particularly when there is so little variance in the smaller samples. A larger sample is always better when we are trying to estimate the true population mean and variance, but I have to balance that with introducing non-random noise in the samples.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 4

98z28
09-23-2013, 10:49 AM
98z28, have you tried loading 15 rounds with the 147s and shooting 3 groups? I've heard that the first round loaded out of the mag could be a flyer sometimes.

Most groups were shot with only five rounds in the mag to force a break between strings. Some were fired with ten rounds in the gun because I am lazy (still took a break between strings and marked hits). None were fired with a full magazine.



Just a FYI - spent more than a couple hours with Todd's barrel, my m&ps, and my G17s and 22s. This is more than a simple unlocking timing issue. Very interesting problem. And not going to be a trivial solution, imo.

Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk 4

That does not give me the warm fuzzies.

Crow Hunter
09-23-2013, 11:59 AM
Just a FYI - spent more than a couple hours with Todd's barrel, my m&ps, and my G17s and 22s. This is more than a simple unlocking timing issue. Very interesting problem. And not going to be a trivial solution, imo.

Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk 4

Would you mind going into details?

I am interested both from a simply academic standpoint and I have been toying with getting a M&P 9c to evaluate.

My brother had one with the safety that I shot for a while and I decided that I definitely didn't like the safety, but I liked how it shot for me. He has since sold it and I have thought about getting one for myself.

Dragun
10-04-2013, 05:37 PM
On page 6 of this thread Ernest Langdon had some experienced S&W employees make several accurate barrels. I assume the costs were too prohibitive to produce these barrels for regular production. Personally, I would pay the extra cost for these barrels.

Chefdog
01-03-2014, 08:57 AM
Just a FYI - spent more than a couple hours with Todd's barrel, my m&ps, and my G17s and 22s. This is more than a simple unlocking timing issue. Very interesting problem. And not going to be a trivial solution, imo.

Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk 4

Apologies for resuscitating this thread, but I'm curious as to whether Bill (no more 1911guy?) would be willing to expound on his findings? I was considering an M&P9C, so I have been scrounging through all the old M&P posts to try and come to some conclusion, which apparently doesn't exist. Is it safe to assume, based on the above statement, that this is a systemic issue and getting one to shoot is a complete crap shoot?

Also, is the issue one that a particular sample either has or doesn't, and won't appear out of the blue, as seen with regard to extraction/ejection issue seen with G4 Glock cropping up after a couple thousand rounds?

Thanks for any further input on this issue.

Bill Riehl
01-03-2014, 04:07 PM
I'll share a few thoughts:

M&Ps don't unlock significantly faster or slower than Glocks. Also, if that were truly an issue, it would be easy to test with a stiffer recoil spring or striker spring. I have seen no indication that this is an issue, including inspecting fired cases.

The twist hypothesis is also dubious. To 25 yrds, a smooth tube should yield better than the accuracy reported by some.

The answer, IMHO, lies in the construction of the barrel.

I'm hesitant to go further than that on an open forum, as I don't want to insult bromancers, or contradict experts.

After all, what the hell do I know. I don't kick doors for a living.... :rolleyes:

Tamara
01-03-2014, 04:18 PM
I'm hesitant to go further than that on an open forum, as I don't want to insult bromancers, or contradict experts.

After all, what the hell do I know. I don't kick doors for a living.... :rolleyes:

Absolutely no snark or sarcasm intended when I say this, and if there were a special html tag for respectful, poker-faced dead seriousness, I'd use it: I really expected better than that. That answer is more useless than silence.

Chefdog
01-03-2014, 04:44 PM
The answer, IMHO, lies in the construction of the barrel.


Would you say that it's the design of the barrel, meaning that no M&P pistol will turn in the consistent accuracy across all bullet weights that Glock/HK/Sig seem to demonstrate?

Or, is it inconsistencies in manufacturing, meaning that you might get a good one, or you might get a bad one?

I don't mean to call you out, or force your hand, I'm just trying to glean some more useable information to help inform my decisions. If we were talking stereo equipment, then a failure of the product is merely inconvenient. For a pistol that could be required to make a precise shot at distance to save a life, a failure or flaw becomes somewhat more serious.

Alternatively, if you'd rather not divulge further specifics, you could address the issue by answering a question. Does the issue at hand preclude you from trusting ANY 9mm M&P for serious defensive use?
Thanks for the input, I appreciate it.

Crow Hunter
01-03-2014, 04:58 PM
I'll share a few thoughts:

M&Ps don't unlock significantly faster or slower than Glocks. Also, if that were truly an issue, it would be easy to test with a stiffer recoil spring or striker spring. I have seen no indication that this is an issue, including inspecting fired cases.

The twist hypothesis is also dubious. To 25 yrds, a smooth tube should yield better than the accuracy reported by some.

The answer, IMHO, lies in the construction of the barrel.

I'm hesitant to go further than that on an open forum, as I don't want to insult bromancers, or contradict experts.

After all, what the hell do I know. I don't kick doors for a living.... :rolleyes:

Stress induced during the machining process that starts trying to relieve as it heats up?

Now I am really intrigued.:)

Bill Riehl
01-03-2014, 05:11 PM
Absolutely no snark or sarcasm intended when I say this, and if there were a special html tag for respectful, poker-faced dead seriousness, I'd use it: I really expected better than that. That answer is more useless than silence.

You are quite right, Tam, as usual.

Will address the question tonight.

My apologies.

Bill Riehl
01-03-2014, 05:12 PM
Stress induced during the machining process that starts trying to relieve as it heats up?

Now I am really intrigued.:)

Not as far as I've seen.

Bill Riehl
01-03-2014, 06:10 PM
Ok, so this was the sample:

Todd's Langdon barrel, 4 Storm Lake barres (2 drop in, 2 un-gunsmithed gunsmith fit barrels), and nine 9mm full size barrels.

The 9 M&Ps varied in accuracy as follows (aproximations), shooting Fed 9BP, WWB, Hornady 115, 124 and 147XTPs
#1 - >5" at 25yrds. Seems about average in my limited experience with these.
#2 - Hit 3.5" at 25yrds with 147XTPs. Wouldn't group less than 5 otherwise.
#3 - 8-10" at 25yrds. Patterns, really.
#4 - Would do 4" with the federal load, nothing else.
#5 - Same as #4, aprox a 4" gun.
#6 - Didn't matter what load, everything went into about 6".
Barrels 7 thru 9 were purchased separately from the guns.

What I learned:

1. Barrel fit is not the issue. One of the SL drop in barrels was machined to match the external dimensions of a factory barrel. Accuracy was only marginally reduced from as received.

2. Rifling twist rate is a red herring. First, 25yrds isn't far enough to generate that kind of inaccuracy based on twist rates. A poorly kept secret with pistol barrel makers is this: a smooth bore tube will shoot to ~1ish inches at 25yrds from a fixture. I really don't know how this got started.

3. Barrel timing/unlocking: this is where I had my money initially. I'd have lost my money. Take a G17 and a M&P side by side and compare. Slide travel for unlocking is nearly identical, as are most of the parameters that determine timing. Additionally, this was tested by increasing the recoil spring weight up to a factor of 2 with the most inaccurate pistols. No change in accuracy was achieved. Additionally, fired cases showed no indication of early unlocking (bulges, smears on the case head, etc).

4. Barrels were determined to be the issue by exchanging the 8-10" barrel with the 4" barrels. The crap barrel shot like crap no matter the gun it was used in.

So, back to basics. As with most baffling things about firearms, application of first principals yielded good results. If your gunsmith doesn't own a surface plate, he ain't a gunsmith. First thing done was to check the barrel dimensions. In each S&W case, the chamber was found considerably out of axis from the bore. The Langdon barrel and the SL barrels were all within 0.0005 round, and 0.002 front to back (meaning the axis for the chamber was offset less than 0.001" from the bore axis). The SL barrels had a tighter chamber than the Langdon barrel. Externally, aside from the S&W "frosted" finish on the Langdon barrel, you couldn't distinguish a SL barrel and a Langdon barrel with a micrometer. The 10" S&W barrel was 0.012" out of square with the bore axis. I plan on doing chamber castings of each of these for comparison. Again, application of first principals.

The 8-10" gun shot 2.5" groups with the Langdon barrel using 124XTPs.

While a larger sample size is needed to say anything definitive, I'd not worry about losing my lunch money betting the problem is with the barrel manufacturing process. In other words, the chambering and crowning process.

Todd - my apologies on the lateness of these results, I still have not had time to fully document the Langdon barrel, and therefore I haven't forwarded the findings to you.

Best I can do right now.

Shenaniguns
01-03-2014, 06:25 PM
Nothing scientific and this is off memory but the M&P's sure seemed to unlock quicker than Glocks just from hand cycling them. I know Randy Lee did high speed video on the early unlocking.

OrigamiAK
01-03-2014, 06:40 PM
...What I learned...

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing, Bill!

Chefdog
01-03-2014, 06:42 PM
That seems to explain why the longer 147's tend to be more accurate out of the factory barrels, if my very basic understanding of the mechanics is correct.

Are you of the opinion that a quality aftermarket barrel is a solution to the problem, if one wanted to run a 9mm M&P? And out of curiosity, why do we not see these issues with other S&W barrels, especially the 9mm Shield?
Thank you for taking the time to test this and to report the results.

ToddG
01-03-2014, 07:16 PM
Todd - my apologies on the lateness of these results, I still have not had time to fully document the Langdon barrel, and therefore I haven't forwarded the findings to you.

What's the saying? Cheap, right, fast, pick two. I'd rather it get done right and no one has paid you for the effort so I doubt any of us will complain about the delivery time. Since I won't need that barrel in the foreseeable future you certainly didn't impact me any.

Tamara
01-03-2014, 08:26 PM
Thank you very much, Bill. Seriously.

Chuck Whitlock
01-03-2014, 08:40 PM
In each S&W case, the chamber was found considerably out of axis from the bore..............The 10" S&W barrel was 0.012" out of square with the bore axis. I plan on doing chamber castings of each of these for comparison.

Any speculation on causation? Machinery just out of spec?
How easy would it be to demonstrate this defect to S&W for warranty purposes?

GJM
01-03-2014, 08:45 PM
The 9 M&Ps varied in accuracy as follows (aproximations), shooting Fed 9BP, WWB, Hornady 115, 124 and 147XTPs
#1 - >5" at 25yrds. Seems about average in my limited experience with these.
#2 - Hit 3.5" at 25yrds with 147XTPs. Wouldn't group less than 5 otherwise.
#3 - 8-10" at 25yrds. Patterns, really.
#4 - Would do 4" with the federal load, nothing else.
#5 - Same as #4, aprox a 4" gun.
#6 - Didn't matter what load, everything went into about 6".
Barrels 7 thru 9 were purchased separately from the guns.

I don't have my notes in front of me, and used different ammo, but this more or less was my experience with a similar number of M&P 9 pistols. I ended up with a pile of them trying to have a couple of shooters and couple of carry for both my wife and I. Mostly, I could get each one to shoot SOME load, but there was no consistency. Trying to stock a carry and shooter load that worked for each pistol became an exercise in logistics, with more notes per pistol than for my custom rifles, and ultimately caused me to abandon the platform. I actually had tape on each slide specifying what load THAT pistol would shoot. Maybe not a problem if you had one pistol and used one load, but ridiculous if trying to do what I was.

My experience in sending the ones that wouldn't shoot any load I tried back to the factory convinced me Smith had no clue how to fix the problem, and that they basically just grabbed another barrel or slide in an attempt to fix the problem.

Ignoring accuracy, the M&P was a joy to shoot, and it was a darn shame they didn't have anything near Glock/Sig/HK accuracy or I would probably still be shooting them. This is what the remains of my M&P experiment looks like today:

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg251/GJMandes/MampP_zpsb6d4af76.jpg (http://s250.photobucket.com/user/GJMandes/media/MampP_zpsb6d4af76.jpg.html)

Red Leader
01-03-2014, 11:52 PM
I'm taking great interest in this thread and the answers in it.

Do we know if Smith knows about this off-axis bore issue? And if so - taking proactive steps to fix it? It seems like something that (from a mechanical/machinist standpoint) could be pretty straightforward to remedy, given the other non-issue barrels they produce and no doubt the production capabilities and engineers/machinists they possess.

To me, it seems like an awfully/embarrassingly easy thing to try to correct, relatively speaking, for S&W to have taken such a huge dive in their reputation for one of their flagship products.

How was the performance of the drop-in Storm Lake barrels? Is there a solution on the board for an M&P9FS owner (like me and a lot of others) if S&W never steps up and delivers?

Maybe in the real world it isn't that easy, but that is how it is being presented. I hope it would be.

Bill Riehl
01-04-2014, 07:21 AM
Any speculation on causation? Machinery just out of spec?
How easy would it be to demonstrate this defect to S&W for warranty purposes?

Would depend if it were out of spec or not.

I chucked up a barrel in a lathe and indicated the crown and chamber. Took 15 minutes with the 4 jaw chuck. Your gunsmith would just need a lathe and a tenths indicator.

There will be a new M&P aftermarket barrel available soon.

The effectiveness of a barrel swap is dependent on the correctness of everything else also.

I'll say this: glock slides are essential just bars. M&Ps are heavily machined. They are at roughly the same price. Something had to give.

Tamara
01-04-2014, 08:04 AM
I wonder if the chambers are being bored with piloted reamers? I wonder if Smith is doing all their barrels in-house or sourcing them from an outside vendor?


(The first question is rhetorical, as they almost certainly are not. But it leads to the second question, since the problem is largely isolated to the 9mm guns. I have a FB friend who knows the answer to these questions. When I get to the shop and plug the laptop in, I'll shoot him a PM. Thanks again, Bill.)

JV
01-04-2014, 08:14 AM
If the issue is barrel making QC/Processes, and if the SL barrels are made well, at least up to the quality of the Langdon barrel, whey aren't more folks seeing a SL barrel fix their issues?

Chris Rhines
01-04-2014, 08:54 AM
Very, very interesting. Thanks for the insight, Bill.

I also found the M&Ps to be wonderful to shoot. It's a shame to let these kind of QA issues ruin an otherwise great platform.

ralph
01-04-2014, 09:04 AM
If the issue is barrel making QC/Processes, and if the SL barrels are made well, at least up to the quality of the Langdon barrel, whey aren't more folks seeing a SL barrel fix their issues?

I would venture to guess that the wide variation of tolerances between slides.. I was talking to Grant at G&R tactical as he sells SL barrels and fits them to M&P slides. He told me because of the differing tolerances from slide to slide it became necessary to fit each barrel individually, But, that's only part of the problem, locking block height can also cause problems as well. One cannot buy a "drop in" barrel, and expect it to fix their accuracy problems. At a minimum, the barrel needs to be fit to that slide. There's a good thread with some good info over on M4 carbine.. Frankly, I gave up on the M&P a few years ago, and sold my last one a week before Xmas.. They have too many unresolved issues..

rsa-otc
01-04-2014, 09:16 AM
I would venture to guess that the wide variation of tolerances between slides.. I was talking to Grant at G&R tactical as he sells SL barrels and fits them to M&P slides. He told me because of the differing tolerances from slide to slide it became necessary to fit each barrel individually, But, that's only part of the problem, locking block height can also cause problems as well. One cannot buy a "drop in" barrel, and expect it to fix their accuracy problems. At a minimum, the barrel needs to be fit to that slide. There's a good thread with some good info over on M4 carbine.. Frankly, I gave up on the M&P a few years ago, and sold my last one a week before Xmas.. They have too many unresolved issues..

And yet from what little I have read it seems that the Langdon barrel seems to be accurate in all the guns it is dropped in. It will be interesting to see if Bill finds out what is different about that design that accounts for the consistency from gun to gun.

Bill Riehl
01-04-2014, 09:17 AM
If the issue is barrel making QC/Processes, and if the SL barrels are made well, at least up to the quality of the Langdon barrel, whey aren't more folks seeing a SL barrel fix their issues?

It is a problem, not the only problem.

a barrel fixture is being made to check into this one problem.

Bill Riehl
01-04-2014, 12:04 PM
I'm taking great interest in this thread and the answers in it.

Do we know if Smith knows about this off-axis bore issue? And if so - taking proactive steps to fix it? It seems like something that (from a mechanical/machinist standpoint) could be pretty straightforward to remedy, given the other non-issue barrels they produce and no doubt the production capabilities and engineers/machinists they possess.

I have no idea. I'd hesitate to guess.

To me, it seems like an awfully/embarrassingly easy thing to try to correct, relatively speaking, for S&W to have taken such a huge dive in their reputation for one of their flagship products.

You are simplifying the human factor of this problem. Consider this: we are gun people. Hell, I own two M&Ps. I don't shoot them, but I want them to be right - badly. Do you think the S&W people are gun people for the most part? Not likely. One high end 1911 maker has a factory full of people who don't shoot much at all. They are more concerned about sitting on their tractor or whatever. But they aren't gun people, much less 1911 nuts (aside from one or two). So a 5" at 25yrd gun might meet the spec for the product, because, aside from the people on this forum, who gives a rats ass? Combat accurate, shoots better than me, and all that. Then you have experts pontificating that, without breaking out a micrometer or doing the divergence calculations, this is due to presumed instability of the bullet. Hell, for me/Blackfire to really definitively study and propose a solution, it'd cost S&W a pile of money. And there are already experts telling the world it's a twist problem, nee' early unlocking.

How was the performance of the drop-in Storm Lake barrels? Is there a solution on the board for an M&P9FS owner (like me and a lot of others) if S&W never steps up and delivers?

It was OK. In the guns where the langdon barrel worked really well, they worked really well. Some guns/slides just refused to shoot. I have ideas, but more work needs to be done to get any real insight into this.

Maybe in the real world it isn't that easy, but that is how it is being presented. I hope it would be.

I think you'll need to either measure and cherry pick a slide and frame, or gamble that you have one in order to get good accuracy.



The problem is this: a few people said it was a certain problem without actually verifying that that was the problem/only problem. Then when that didn't work, it became an early unlocking problem. And that's not working out.

While hardly scientific, this gives some insight:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rODDm1lsoi8

I see a flash before slide travel.

It's sad, but the fact of the matter is this: the M&P needs a Boland/Nastoff/etc level gunsmith. A real gunsmith. Not a parts swapper/fluff and buffer. Someone who is committed to making the gun work well. It takes a tremendous amount of time to do this, believe me. And there isn't a Boland level gunsmith out there anymore, IMO. Especially not one interested in the M&P to that level.

Chefdog
01-04-2014, 02:31 PM
While hardly scientific, this gives some insight:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rODDm1lsoi8

I see a flash before slide travel.
.
Thanks for providing more info on this topic Bill.
While I don't have a good enough understanding of engineering to get anything from the video, I did take something valuable from this post:
I will not be getting an m&p9c, despite my desire for a striker fired, compact 9 with a useable thumb safety. Damn. Back to the drawing board.

Bill Riehl
01-04-2014, 02:37 PM
Thanks for providing more info on this topic Bill.
While I don't have a good enough understanding of engineering to get anything from the video, I did take something valuable from this post:
I will not be getting an m&p9c, despite my desire for a striker fired, compact 9 with a useable thumb safety. Damn. Back to the drawing board.

I wouldn't let this stop me.

A 5" @ 25yr compact gun is a non issue IMO.

The solution to this is a new slide and barrel, IMO. Drop the stainless, simplify the styling, and refocus that on the barrel channel and breech face. Don't use steel as low in alloy as Glock, but not pre-hardened 4350 either. Unhardened 4140 might be a good choice.

Chefdog
01-04-2014, 03:00 PM
I wouldn't let this stop me.

A 5" @ 25yr compact gun is a non issue IMO.


Really? You would be confortable carrying an off the shelf m&p9 to defend your family? not trying to be a smart ass, im genuinely surprised.
I tend to always think about the worst case scenario, which for me would probably be having to make a precise (head) shot at someone who's holding one of my children. I'm realistic enough to know that I don't have the time or money to train every week and shoot thousands of rounds a year, so having a pistol that is as mechanically accurate as possible helps give me confidence to take a shot like that should I have to.

I'm also not naive enough to think that a custom 1911 will make me an NRA bullseye champion, but I'm not willing to accept a gun that will "probably be accurate enough" when I can buy one that is twice as accurate (for sake of argument). Point being, the smaller groups the gun is capable of, the higher likelyhood that I will be able to put rounds where they need to go. Someone at my level of marksmanship would be foolish to handicap themself with a gun that has demonstrated subpar accuracy.

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but by writing down my thoughts, maybe someone will be able to give some insight that I'm missing.
Again, I do appreciate the effort you've gone to explaining this to us, thank you.

DocGKR
01-04-2014, 03:06 PM
Chefdog--most M&P9's, even those that group like a shotgun at 25 yds, are reasonably accurate at 15 yds and in.

DocGKR
01-04-2014, 03:14 PM
Bill has hit the nail on the head.

S&W has fully dropped the ball on this.

Bill has clearly identified the solution--an in-specification slide needed, along with a quality barrel.

The barrels are the easy part, as there are several high quality after market barrels available that work quite well.

The problem is the slide.

Fortunately, there is a proven vendor who has designed a superb M&P replacement slide and can go into production if enough orders come in.

I urge anyone who wishes to solve their M&P9 accuracy issues to contact Unity Tactical and let them know they want to order a Unity M&P slide. Also contact folks like Apex Tactical, Speed Shooter Specialties, 10-8 Performance and let them know you would purchase a Unity Tactical M&P slide if they offered them for sale. The slides can be made in stock form or with the ATOM mount for RDS installation.

Keep in mind that S&W uses the same frame for the 9 mm, 357 Sig, and .40 S&W M&P's. Thus if you already have one caliber and want to add another, you can simply purchase a slide/barrel assembly in the alternate caliber and drop it on the frame--much like swapping uppers on an AR15.

Bill Riehl
01-04-2014, 03:15 PM
Really? You would be confortable carrying an off the shelf m&p9 to defend your family? not trying to be a smart ass, im genuinely surprised.
I tend to always think about the worst case scenario, which for me would probably be having to make a precise (head) shot at someone who's holding one of my children. I'm realistic enough to know that I don't have the time or money to train every week and shoot thousands of rounds a year, so having a pistol that is as mechanically accurate as possible helps give me confidence to take a shot like that should I have to. I'm not naive enough to think that a custom 1911 will make me an NRA bullseye champion, but I'm also not willing to accept a gun that will "probably be accurate enough" when I can buy one that has PROVEN to be twice as accurate (for sake of argument). Point being, the smaller groups the gun is capable of, the higher likelyhood that I will be a me to put rounds where they need to go.


I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but by writing down my thoughts, maybe someone will be able to give some insight that I'm missing.
Again, I do appreciate the effort you've gone to explaining this to us, thank you.

What do you mean by comfortable?

Off the shelf? Would depend on the gun, as from what I've seen, they vary quite a bit. If it met my standards, and after a thorough shake down/inspection, sure. Would give me no heartburn.

But this question is somewhat out of my lane ;)

KevinB
01-04-2014, 03:19 PM
My M&P9C groups quite well --- its a stock gun. Enough to easily pass our LE Duty Handgun qual - which to me is the driving criteria of a gun...
My only issue with the 9C is it is too big for a BUG (for me) and too small for a Duty gun (department criteria).

I'm curious in this - as I carry a M&P Pro CORE -- it does not appear to have any accuracy issues (its a mid 2013 build gun) other than inspired by me.
It does have ( according to talking to one of the Smith LE guys) a SL barrel (all Pro's according to him and others at S&W), so it seems they are aware of the barrel issue very clearly.

My intent is to get a threaded barrel for it - to run a AAC Ti-Rant 9S, however I'm holding off until I know the best barrel option.

Chefdog
01-04-2014, 03:37 PM
What do you mean by comfortable?

Off the shelf? Would depend on the gun, as from what I've seen, they vary quite a bit. If it met my standards, and after a thorough shake down/inspection, sure. Would give me no heartburn.

But this question is somewhat out of my lane ;)

Thanks, fair enough.

DocGKR
01-04-2014, 03:38 PM
Kevin,

The M&P9c do not seem to have the same incidence of accuracy issues as the M&P9fs...

KevinB
01-04-2014, 03:48 PM
Kevin,

The M&P9c do not seem to have the same incidence of accuracy issues as the M&P9fs...

Nor does the Shield (based on my sample size of two...)

Admittedly my CORE will almost hold with my 1911 for accuracy - IF I do my thing (which often does not happen), and second caveat past 25m my CORE does better due in part for the DeltaPoint I believe.

Shenaniguns
01-04-2014, 03:49 PM
The problem is this: a few people said it was a certain problem without actually verifying that that was the problem/only problem. Then when that didn't work, it became an early unlocking problem. And that's not working out.

While hardly scientific, this gives some insight:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rODDm1lsoi8

I see a flash before slide travel.

It's sad, but the fact of the matter is this: the M&P needs a Boland/Nastoff/etc level gunsmith. A real gunsmith. Not a parts swapper/fluff and buffer. Someone who is committed to making the gun work well. It takes a tremendous amount of time to do this, believe me. And there isn't a Boland level gunsmith out there anymore, IMO. Especially not one interested in the M&P to that level.



Kinda funny that you don't think Randy Lee is on that level who has done more for the M&P platform than anyone else. I do consider him a real gunsmith and is more than qualified on this subject. I should ask him to come back over to discuss this topic again.

Bill Riehl
01-04-2014, 04:19 PM
I'm out.

Cheers.

98z28
01-04-2014, 04:37 PM
Bill,

Thanks for the work you put in on the M&P and for sharing what you have here. Many of us are interested in identifying the cause(s) and finding a solution, but lack the knowledge or equipment to investigate. I'm hopeful that a commercial solution will be available one day, even if it doesn't come from Smith.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

Shenaniguns
01-04-2014, 04:39 PM
I'm out.

Cheers.

You're an engineer, so I expect you to do more research before saying something so bold.

You indirectly classified him as a part swapper (Of the parts he and Apex engineered and made )/fluff and buffer.
Do some research to see the guns he's actually built, most will be revolvers since they are heavily involved in IRC, but also include 1911's, CZ's and everything else built for Bianchi, USPSA etc...

Chefdog
01-04-2014, 04:40 PM
Chefdog--most M&P9's, even those that group like a shotgun at 25 yds, are reasonably accurate at 15 yds and in.

I can appreciate that Doc, but there's always the chance I might need to make a 25 yard shot. In that circumstance I certainly don't want the gun in my hand to throw one out there 6" wide.
For me, the benefits of the M&P aren't great enough to justify the possibility of having to buy/test/sell/repeat and/or jump through a bunch of hoops to find a good one. i'd rather get a known quantity in a Glock, Sig, HK etc. and deal only with normal reliability testing.

DocGKR
01-04-2014, 05:02 PM
The problem is, that you have just as much a chance of getting an unknown quantity with Glock or Sig now, as you do with S&W. I just spoke 20 min ago with a firearms training officer at an agency where a rookie's new Glock pistol could not go through a magazine without numerous malfunctions and failures to extract/eject properly...

KevinB
01-04-2014, 05:04 PM
You're an engineer, so I expect you to do more research before saying something so bold.

You indirectly classified him as a part swapper (Of the parts he and Apex engineered and made )/fluff and buffer.
Do some research to see the guns he's actually built, most will be revolvers since they are heavily involved in IRC, but also include 1911's, CZ's and everything else built for Bianchi, USPSA etc...


I think your reading a lot more into it than that.

Chefdog
01-04-2014, 05:16 PM
The problem is, that you have just as much a chance of getting an unknown quantity with Glock or Sig now, as you do with S&W. I just spoke 20 min ago with a firearms training officer at an agency where a rookie's new Glock pistol could not go through a magazine without numerous malfunctions and failures to extract/eject properly...

Then i suppose it comes down to which potential problem is most likely, and then which is easiest to resolve?

Shenaniguns
01-04-2014, 05:32 PM
I think your reading a lot more into it than that.


I probably did, I apologize Bill.

Bill Riehl
01-04-2014, 07:29 PM
No need.

Cheers!

http://i1277.photobucket.com/albums/y491/feral45/20140104_182806_zps52bdd2bc.jpg (http://s1277.photobucket.com/user/feral45/media/20140104_182806_zps52bdd2bc.jpg.html)

http://i1277.photobucket.com/albums/y491/feral45/20140104_182754_zpsc1a137f3.jpg (http://s1277.photobucket.com/user/feral45/media/20140104_182754_zpsc1a137f3.jpg.html)

http://i1277.photobucket.com/albums/y491/feral45/20140103_134607_zps954cad55.jpg (http://s1277.photobucket.com/user/feral45/media/20140103_134607_zps954cad55.jpg.html)

All is well.

ToddG
01-04-2014, 10:36 PM
The problem is, that you have just as much a chance of getting an unknown quantity with Glock or Sig now, as you do with S&W.

That's very true and I'd say it extends to almost every manufacturer these days.

However, if I buy a Glock and it won't run, I can send it to Glock and they'll fix it. There are also probably lots of aftermarket solutions available.

If I buy a SIG and it won't run, I can send it to SIG and they'll fix it.

If I buy an inaccurate S&W, Smith is likely to say it's within spec and tell me there's nothing they'll do. And based on what Bill has revealed in this thread, I'd say there is nothing they can do at this point.

Regarding the issue of whether a 5"/25yd gun is good enough, I'd simply repeat what I've said before: precision is additive. A gun that will only do 5" under ideal conditions from a rest might not keep inside the critical zone of a torso at 25yd under less ideal conditions. Shoot enough groups to get a statistically signifiant average and everyone will shoot a 5" gun worse than a 1" gun. Now, that worse is perhaps going to be less meaningful to the guy who shoots 10" on his best day as opposed to the guy who shoots 2" on his best day, but it'll be worse regardless.

GJM
01-04-2014, 10:45 PM
If I buy an inaccurate S&W, Smith is likely to say it's within spec and tell me there's nothing they'll do. And based on what Bill has revealed in this thread, I'd say there is nothing they can do at this point.

Regarding the issue of whether a 5"/25yd gun is good enough, I'd simply repeat what I've said before: precision is additive. A gun that will only do 5" under ideal conditions from a rest might not keep inside the critical zone of a torso at 25yd under less ideal conditions. Shoot enough groups to get a statistically signifiant average and everyone will shoot a 5" gun worse than a 1" gun. Now, that worse is perhaps going to be less meaningful to the guy who shoots 10" on his best day as opposed to the guy who shoots 2" on his best day, but it'll be worse regardless.

I started to write an almost identical post twice this afternoon and stopped. Despite the fact that my current manufacture Sig and Glock pistols are accurate and reliable, if they have a problem, they can be fixed. I have heard of a "fix" from S&W for the M&P 9's accuracy problems about every few months for the last 3 or 4 years. I am starting to wonder if there is something about the design, as opposed to the manufacturing process, that makes the M&P 9 inconsistent on accuracy. Surely S&W or Apex would have solved this problem by now if it was straightforward to fix?

In training, if forced to pick, I would take the accurate pistol over the reliable pistol, because while I know the stoppage wasn't me, with an inaccurate pistol I can't be certain whether a miss is me or the pistol. While I would flip and take reliability over accuracy in my carry gun, that just isn't necessary with all the options available now that are reliable and accurate.

DocGKR
01-04-2014, 11:30 PM
I am pretty convinced by Bill's analysis--the M&P9 issue is the QC on the tolerances for the slide and attention to detail on the barrels. If the design was flawed, the M&P's in other calibers would not shoot as accurately as they do. I'll stick by the recommendations I made on page 16 of this thread...

GJM
01-04-2014, 11:35 PM
Is there a working theory as to why the .45 and .40 barrels, presumably made on the same line by the same workers, haven't suffered from the same issues?

Chuck Haggard
01-05-2014, 12:31 AM
I assume the 9mm conversion barrels in the .40s do not have this issue?

DocGKR
01-05-2014, 12:51 AM
I have not seen enough of them to come to any conclusion on the conversion barrels.

There are a whole lot less .45 Auto M&P's made. I suspect much of the problem is the shear volume of M&P9's being produced and the pressures to shave costs and increase profits. Also keep in mind that the M&P was originally designed as a .40 so is likely optimize for that caliber...

Chefdog
01-05-2014, 06:39 AM
Regarding the issue of whether a 5"/25yd gun is good enough, I'd simply repeat what I've said before: precision is additive. A gun that will only do 5" under ideal conditions from a rest might not keep inside the critical zone of a torso at 25yd under less ideal conditions. Shoot enough groups to get a statistically signifiant average and everyone will shoot a 5" gun worse than a 1" gun. Now, that worse is perhaps going to be less meaningful to the guy who shoots 10" on his best day as opposed to the guy who shoots 2" on his best day, but it'll be worse regardless.

Thanks Todd. This is precisely what I was attempting to convey a few pages back, but wasn't quite able to articulate.

Bill Riehl
01-05-2014, 07:37 AM
Does the S&W PC offer an accuracy package on the M&P? I can't find it on the website.

How much would you guys pay to fix the accuracy issue? $200? $300? $400?

If you needed to spend $1100 total to get a 2" M&P, would that be worth it? If not, what's the ceiling?

JV
01-05-2014, 07:52 AM
I'd spend $300 to $350 to get a fix that's guaranteed to work.

Chris Rhines
01-05-2014, 08:00 AM
At this point, I don't think I'd go back to the M&P platform at all. Apart from the accuracy problem, there are too many design and engineering issues that trouble me.

That said, M&P9s go for around $450 around here. I'd be willing to pay another $400 (around the price of a quality match barrel, fitted by someone who knows what he's doing) for consistent 2"/25 yard accuracy.

Of course, that brings us into HK/Sig/CZ Shadow territory, which makes me ask myself what the M&P brings to the table that the others don't...

Chefdog
01-05-2014, 09:05 AM
Sorry, double tap.

Jaywalker
01-05-2014, 09:07 AM
Of course, that brings us into HK/Sig/CZ Shadow territory, which makes me ask myself what the M&P brings to the table that the others don't...
Rhetorical, I know, but let me answer seriously, to wit: the M&P has a significantly shorter trigger reach.

Chefdog
01-05-2014, 09:07 AM
How much would you guys pay to fix the accuracy issue? $200? $300? $400?

If you needed to spend $1100 total to get a 2" M&P, would that be worth it? If not, what's the ceiling?


When it comes down to it, I'd rather not spend ANY money to try and "fix" gun A, when I can buy gun B/C/D and not risk the same problem (assuming equal chance of "normal" issues WRT all manufacturers these days). Top it off with dissapointing service from S&W (who are usually very good I hear) and there's really no decision to make, for me.

ToddG
01-05-2014, 09:30 AM
How much would you guys pay to fix the accuracy issue? $200? $300? $400?

I'd already have spent $100 on an AEK & RAM, plus possibly another $80 on an Apex sear & firing pin block. I'm $180 into a gun to get a nice trigger pull. I've got to be prepared to spend another $45 for an Apex extractor and heck, might just buy it outright to be on the safe side so now I'm at $225. Now on top of that add more money to get accuracy comparable with a stock gen4 Glock? That's getting hard to swallow.

YVK
01-05-2014, 09:45 AM
I'd spend $300 to $350 to get a fix that's guaranteed to work.

That would be my ceiling. Chris and TLG bring up valid points of "what's the point". Not sure where the benefit in competition would be.
For a carry gun, option of manual safety for AIWB holstering, best CT grips for a polymer gun, and the fact that it is pretty easy to shoot well continue to make it attractive to me on theoretical grounds.

Bill Riehl
01-05-2014, 10:06 AM
There you go.

I'm getting more and more convinced you can't get a good nylon framed gun for less than $1k, and a steel one for less than $1500.

CCT125US
01-05-2014, 10:52 AM
I'm getting more and more convinced you can't get a good nylon framed gun for less than $1k

I managed to pick up one P30 v3 for $750. Yes, it was used, but threads like this keep me faithful. Yet another money saver thread.

GJM
01-05-2014, 10:55 AM
and a steel one for less than $1500.

So it sounds like you ordered one of those Matt Mink CZ SP01 Shadows too?

Bill Riehl
01-05-2014, 11:01 AM
So it sounds like you ordered one of those Matt Mink CZ SP01 Shadows too?

Nope!

I think I might send my X5 Tactical to salient though.

TR675
01-05-2014, 11:10 AM
Given the investment I have in M&P's, I might pay $300 for a definitive fix.

Nephrology
01-05-2014, 11:10 AM
There you go.

I'm getting more and more convinced you can't get a good nylon framed gun for less than $1k, and a steel one for less than $1500.

My 9mm glocks are GTG and were less than 500 bucks

ToddG
01-05-2014, 11:12 AM
Given the investment I have in M&P's, I might pay $300 for a definitive fix.

Each.

Bill Riehl
01-05-2014, 11:16 AM
There are a lot of guys who couldn't say that about their G17.

GJM
01-05-2014, 11:18 AM
"The fix."

That is the reason I still have that bin of M&P pistols -- after the fix they may be worth something, either to me or someone else.

TR675
01-05-2014, 11:28 AM
Each.

Nah. I have one FS 9 that I might trick out. But that would be as a game/training gun only.

I have a 9c for carry/real use and it doesn't have accuracy problems - or maybe I'm not accurate enough to find them. I prefer the 9c enough that I'll end up getting another one of those as a back up, if I ever get around to it. The FS's don't do anything for me that the 9c's don't, barring faster reloads.

The main investment I'm talking about is all of the support gear/accessories I don't want to replace. Sights, holsters, lasergrips, magazines...

I have a similar investment in Glock stuff, but I prefer lots of things about the M&P.

Chuck Whitlock
01-05-2014, 12:00 PM
Rhetorical, I know, but let me answer seriously, to wit: the M&P has a significantly shorter trigger reach.

I'm beginning to believe that this is going to be a critical factor for me. Alas, one that the manufacturers fail to publish specs for.

Tamara
01-05-2014, 12:44 PM
Top it off with dissapointing service from S&W (who are usually very good I hear) and there's really no decision to make, for me.

That's the thing, though. A lot of people complaining about the disappointing customer service are disappointed that Smith refused to fix a gun that, from Smith's point of view, isn't broken.

If 5 inches @ 25yds is "within spec" then as far as S&W is concerned, you're taking your Camry to the dealer and expecting a warranty fix because it won't get 50 MPG.

JV
01-05-2014, 12:46 PM
If 5 inches @ 25yds is "within spec" then as far as S&W is concerned, you're taking your Camry to the dealer and expecting a warranty fix because it won't get 20 MPG.

FIFY

Tamara
01-05-2014, 12:55 PM
FIFY

Whatever. We can go with 8 MPG, if it makes you feel better.

As long as the window sticker didn't say 9MPG, Toyota's in the clear.


ETA: I know that Massachusetts has some sort of "Average Group Size" testing for handguns with barrel lengths of 3" or less, which means that there is a legal concept of what "good" and "bad" accuracy is in the state of Massachusetts. Anybody have more knowledge of that?

JV
01-05-2014, 12:59 PM
As long as the window sticker didn't say 9MPG, Toyota's in the clear.Except that we don't have that sticker. I bought my gun with a reasonable expectation of accuracy, I got a 6" gun. That's not reasonable, IMO.

Chefdog
01-05-2014, 01:04 PM
That's the thing, though. A lot of people complaining about the disappointing customer service are disappointed that Smith refused to fix a gun that, from Smith's point of view, isn't broken.

If 5 inches @ 25yds is "within spec" then as far as S&W is concerned, you're taking your Camry to the dealer and expecting a warranty fix because it won't get 50 MPG.

Then, hopefully, I learned my lesson and won't buy another Hondawesson M(ilitary) & P(arking), even though they have the snazzy replaceable seatbacks and thumb airbags.

ralph
01-05-2014, 01:21 PM
That's the thing, though. A lot of people complaining about the disappointing customer service are disappointed that Smith refused to fix a gun that, from Smith's point of view, isn't broken.

If 5 inches @ 25yds is "within spec" then as far as S&W is concerned, you're taking your Camry to the dealer and expecting a warranty fix because it won't get 50 MPG.

Does anybody know at what range S&W does test at? Last I heard, it was 15yds...

Bill Riehl
01-05-2014, 01:23 PM
Except that we don't have that sticker. I bought my gun with a reasonable expectation of accuracy, I got a 6" gun. That's not reasonable, IMO.

You'd think a $1000ish PC gun would be available with a reasonable accuracy guarantee. Maybe it's just select slides and barrels with the PC sear.

Anyone here have a 8-10" gun they want to try an experiment with?

TCinVA
01-05-2014, 01:55 PM
Whatever. We can go with 8 MPG, if it makes you feel better.

As long as the window sticker didn't say 9MPG, Toyota's in the clear.


True, the M&P doesn't come with an accuracy guarantee.

...but we all know S&W knows better. If they're holding that a gun that shoots 10" groups at 25 meets spec, it's a business decision and we all know it.

If Glock got away with pretending problems didn't exist, why can't Smith? Or so the thinking likely goes...

KevinB
01-05-2014, 02:56 PM
True, the M&P doesn't come with an accuracy guarantee.

...but we all know S&W knows better. If they're holding that a gun that shoots 10" groups at 25 meets spec, it's a business decision and we all know it.

If Glock got away with pretending problems didn't exist, why can't Smith? Or so the thinking likely goes...


What handguns outside specifically marketed Bullseye or Freestyle guns do?

From the manufactures standpoint, quite often the shooters are just as much to blame when claims are made.

I'm not arguing that M&P's have had some issues - but when you look at the many rev's I would argue that S&W does see an issue, and is trying to fix it.

That said - what sort of group should a $400 pistol shoot? a $600 pistol, or a $3000 pistol...

JV
01-05-2014, 02:58 PM
That said - what sort of group should a $400 pistol shoot?<= 4" @ 25Y.

Trajan
01-05-2014, 02:58 PM
Don't use steel as low in alloy as Glock, but not pre-hardened 4350 either. Unhardened 4140 might be a good choice.




I urge anyone who wishes to solve their M&P9 accuracy issues to contact Unity Tactical and let them know they want to order a Unity M&P slide. Also contact folks like Apex Tactical, Speed Shooter Specialties, 10-8 Performance and let them know you would purchase a Unity Tactical M&P slide if they offered them for sale. The slides can be made in stock form or with the ATOM mount for RDS installation.


This is something I have never thought of before. I really like the idea of the ATOM and T-1, and looking on their page I see their slides are 17-4 stainless. My question is in regards to the "low alloy" in Glocks, how would a stainless slide improve it?

I had just assumed in the firearms application that if the steel was strong enough, it didn't really matter.

Bill Riehl
01-05-2014, 03:06 PM
That said - what sort of group should a $400 pistol shoot? a $600 pistol, or a $3000 pistol...

Good question.

More so, how do you QC/ensure it?

Bill Riehl
01-05-2014, 03:09 PM
This is something I have never thought of before. I really like the idea of the ATOM and T-1, and looking on their page I see their slides are 17-4 stainless. My question is in regards to the "low alloy" in Glocks, how would a stainless slide improve it?

I had just assumed in the firearms application that if the steel was strong enough, it didn't really matter.

Erosion of the breach face.

Stainless affords much greater erosion/corrosion resistance. Glocks are famous for breech face pitting.

DocGKR
01-05-2014, 03:35 PM
"Glocks are famous for breech face pitting."

Absolutely, as several large LE agencies can attest. On the other hand, the M&P's do not generally suffer this same issue, as agencies which authorize both pistols have discovered...

GJM
01-05-2014, 04:09 PM
Erosion of the breach face.

Stainless affords much greater erosion/corrosion resistance. Glocks are famous for breech face pitting.

As I recall, TLG stopped his G17 test at just over 71,000 rounds because of this issue. I would have to go dig through his reports, but I have a recollection his 17 was still shooting +/- 2 inch groups at 25 yards with HST 124+P right up to the end of the test.

Would Glock give you a new slide on request, if you contacted them with this problem, or would they declare you had gotten your money's worth out of a pistol with 70,000 rounds?

JV
01-05-2014, 04:11 PM
FWIW: I've never had Glock ask for a round count before replacing a part. But I've never replaced a slide or barrel.

ToddG
01-05-2014, 04:19 PM
Would Glock give you a new slide on request, if you contacted them with this problem, or would they declare you had gotten your money's worth out of a pistol with 70,000 rounds?

I was told that Glock would replace the slide under warranty.

Bill Riehl
01-05-2014, 04:23 PM
As I recall, TLG stopped his G17 test at just over 71,000 rounds because of this issue. I would have to go dig through his reports, but I have a recollection his 17 was still shooting +/- 2 inch groups at 25 yards with HST 124+P right up to the end of the test.

Would Glock give you a new slide on request, if you contacted them with this problem, or would they declare you had gotten your money's worth out of a pistol with 70,000 rounds?

I don't know.

It would be interesting to dig a little further into the pitting issue, honestly. You know, I'm teaching an engineering forensics class this summer...

I'd say you M&P fans have a three pipe problem on your hands. :D

DocGKR
01-05-2014, 04:47 PM
The agencies that have reported the worst pitting issues mandate lead-free training ammo (both lead-free projectile and primer).

Trajan
01-05-2014, 05:02 PM
I don't know.

It would be interesting to dig a little further into the pitting issue, honestly. You know, I'm teaching an engineering forensics class this summer...

I'd say you M&P fans have a three pipe problem on your hands. :D
It would be a very interesting if you did.

Is this a random issue, or an almost guaranteed issue? IIRC Defoors Glock 17 went 200k+ with just some spring changes and a second set of sights before the barrel wore out. Not sure what the breech looked like.

JV
01-05-2014, 05:20 PM
IIRC Defoors Glock 17 went 200k+ with just some spring changesI think there's more to this than springs. This thread has been moved or deleted since I copied it (01-13-2012), but the URL used to be:
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=96530

Question to Kyle Defoor:

...how many malfunctions you had, how long it took to reach 200k rounds, etc?

Answer:

Malfunctions- I honestly don’t know. Just the normal stuff like when you break trigger springs and slide release springs. I think there was one squib round in there, the rails had to be replaced a few times, a number of extractors, etc.


I'm not sure how the rails on Glocks are replaced without changing out the whole frame, after-all that's what they did with the E series guns that had a rail defect - complete frame swap.

Tamara
01-05-2014, 05:22 PM
...M&P fans...

Weird. That's like being a... I don't know... a Mr. Coffee fan.

Trajan
01-05-2014, 05:36 PM
I think there's more to this than springs. This thread has been moved or deleted since I copied it (01-13-2012), but the URL used to be:
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=96530

Question to Kyle Defoor:


Answer:



I'm not sure how the rails on Glocks are replaced without changing out the whole frame, after-all that's what they did with the E series guns that had a rail defect - complete frame swap.

Oh wow.

I found a post on his website mentioning it (he didn't mention the rails though): http://www.kyledefoor.com/2010/03/well-i-did-it.html

JV
01-05-2014, 05:49 PM
(he didn't mention the rails though): http://www.kyledefoor.com/2010/03/well-i-did-it.html

It also doesn't mention the extractors. I'm kind of surprised to read it only had 2 recoil springs. I wonder if that's a typo?


The ole girl has had 2 sets of sights, 2 recoil springs, and 8 trigger return springs.

Trajan
01-05-2014, 06:08 PM
It also doesn't mention the extractors. I'm kind of surprised to read it only had 2 recoil springs. I wonder if that's a typo?

That's what I was thinking, but then again, maybe that's why he had to replace his rails?

ralph
01-05-2014, 07:52 PM
The agencies that have reported the worst pitting issues mandate lead-free training ammo (both lead-free projectile and primer).

DocGKR:

Why do the lead free bullets and lead free primers cause more pitting issues? How many rounds does it take to cause damage?

Bill Riehl
01-05-2014, 07:58 PM
DocGKR:

Why do the lead free bullets and lead free primers cause more pitting issues? How many rounds does it take to cause damage?

DDNP priming mixture.


Number of rounds would depend on a number of things.

Greg Bell
01-05-2014, 09:21 PM
My G19 has some pitting on the breech face. I pretty much blame it for my occasional FTFs. On the other hand, it is an 89 model with original "non recall" recalled parts so it has earned its character lines.

Lomshek
01-12-2014, 03:52 AM
Anyone here have a 8-10" gun they want to try an experiment with?

Bill, I'd be up for loaning a gun (or three). The first M&P I bought which is about 3 years old has some common problems. Horrible accuracy with some loads, radically different POI for the same POA and some sketchy "high above POA" impacts. I'd have to do some digging to see if I saved the test case envelope with date on it. None of the ones below are quite 10" guns but they're far from what I'd call acceptable accuracy and have no consistency between loads.

All guns shot below are various M&P 9 FS's with thumb safety. One target includes a group I shot with my Ruger P94 which I've had for years and has about 75K rounds through it and a few groups with a Ruger 22/45 which I know to be an accurate gun to show what I'm capable of (2" or so 10 round groups at 25 yards).

All groups are 10 rounds fired from a rest at 25 yards by me with a dead center hold (top of front sight post centered on the target center dot). I hosted an AFHF a couple years ago and am in no danger of winning any trophies but can shoot fairly well.

Here's a photo of some test targets I fired after missing a number of shots on a 35 yard USPSA classifier I called as good shots. Those misses started my investigation into what was the gun and what was me.

Original barrel on original M&P (Ser# MRE). The left-most target was shot with a Ruger 22/45 and P94 to compare.
http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z67/bonecreekgunclub/Forum%20photos/MREOriginalBarrelTargetCollage.jpg

Replacement barrel on original M&P (Ser# MRE).
http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z67/bonecreekgunclub/Forum%20photos/MP9MREtargetcollage.jpg

So in a funny twist the new barrel shoots WWB to POA and in a near respectable 5 1/2" group but HST 147 and Ranger 127 (plus my handload) to 5" - 7" groups and nearly 6" above POA. :mad:

I've since bought a second gun and my brother in law has as well with targets below.

Ser # DXE
http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z67/bonecreekgunclub/Forum%20photos/MP9DXEtargetcollage.jpg

Ser# HBK. Far left target is the Ruger 22/45 for a control group.
http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z67/bonecreekgunclub/Forum%20photos/MP9HBKTargetCollage.jpg

I'm at the point I was going to buy a spare locking block, weld it and the barrel hood up and recut everything for a tighter fit and longer lock up to see what it would do as well as crown the barrel.

I was also planning on installing an Apex FSS kit to see how much of the problem is the M&P curved trigger & pull which does not seem conducive to me shooting my best groups. As of now everything is pure factory.

The gun has gone to the factory twice for a new barrel about a year ago. The first replacement barrel didn't have the leade cut properly (or at all) so longer rounds like the Ranger 127 +p+ wouldn't fully chamber.

ETA - One thing that is clear is the complete lack of consistency from gun to gun in what shoots well or poorly and what POI a given load will shoot.

Bill Riehl
01-12-2014, 07:15 AM
I'd be interested, but as Todd can vouch, I'm not getting paid for this, so it's not a priority for me. If you send me a gun, it could take months to get it back.

WilsonCombatRep
01-12-2014, 12:13 PM
Great post


Bill, I'd be up for loaning a gun (or three). The first M&P I bought which is about 3 years old has some common problems. Horrible accuracy with some loads, radically different POI for the same POA and some sketchy "high above POA" impacts. I'd have to do some digging to see if I saved the test case envelope with date on it. None of the ones below are quite 10" guns but they're far from what I'd call acceptable accuracy and have no consistency between loads.

All guns shot below are various M&P 9 FS's with thumb safety. One target includes a group I shot with my Ruger P94 which I've had for years and has about 75K rounds through it and a few groups with a Ruger 22/45 which I know to be an accurate gun to show what I'm capable of (2" or so 10 round groups at 25 yards).

All groups are 10 rounds fired from a rest at 25 yards by me with a dead center hold (top of front sight post centered on the target center dot). I hosted an AFHF a couple years ago and am in no danger of winning any trophies but can shoot fairly well.

Here's a photo of some test targets I fired after missing a number of shots on a 35 yard USPSA classifier I called as good shots. Those misses started my investigation into what was the gun and what was me.

Original barrel on original M&P (Ser# MRE). The left-most target was shot with a Ruger 22/45 and P94 to compare.
http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z67/bonecreekgunclub/Forum%20photos/MREOriginalBarrelTargetCollage.jpg

Replacement barrel on original M&P (Ser# MRE).
http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z67/bonecreekgunclub/Forum%20photos/MP9MREtargetcollage.jpg

So in a funny twist the new barrel shoots WWB to POA and in a near respectable 5 1/2" group but HST 147 and Ranger 127 (plus my handload) to 5" - 7" groups and nearly 6" above POA. :mad:

I've since bought a second gun and my brother in law has as well with targets below.

Ser # DXE
http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z67/bonecreekgunclub/Forum%20photos/MP9DXEtargetcollage.jpg

Ser# HBK. Far left target is the Ruger 22/45 for a control group.
http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z67/bonecreekgunclub/Forum%20photos/MP9HBKTargetCollage.jpg

I'm at the point I was going to buy a spare locking block, weld it and the barrel hood up and recut everything for a tighter fit and longer lock up to see what it would do as well as crown the barrel.

I was also planning on installing an Apex FSS kit to see how much of the problem is the M&P curved trigger & pull which does not seem conducive to me shooting my best groups. As of now everything is pure factory.

The gun has gone to the factory twice for a new barrel about a year ago. The first replacement barrel didn't have the leade cut properly (or at all) so longer rounds like the Ranger 127 +p+ wouldn't fully chamber.

ETA - One thing that is clear is the complete lack of consistency from gun to gun in what shoots well or poorly and what POI a given load will shoot.

Lomshek
01-12-2014, 08:56 PM
I'd be interested, but as Todd can vouch, I'm not getting paid for this, so it's not a priority for me. If you send me a gun, it could take months to get it back.

Bill, With that timeline I'm going to keep it/them and do some tinkering on my end. If at some point your business allows you to narrow the time to a month or so let me know and I'll send you one.


Great post

Thanks!

A couple questions to both of you (and anyone else knowledgeable) if you don't mind. My experience is limited to a few guns and I don't know which of my expectations are reasonable and which are not.

What kind of 25 yard POI change will a quality 9mm gun (2" at 25 yards as an accuracy standard) demonstrate with different loads (115 - 147gr, standard pressure to +p+)?

Would the same theoretical "quality gun" hold 2" groups with some loads and 6" groups with others (or what is an acceptable variance)?

The fact that each of my three guns shoots a different load to POA (sort of) and at least a barely acceptable accuracy standard (5"ish) is frustrating in the extreme. I'd like to have a single round that is acceptable in all of them. No way am I going to maintain multiple SD & competition loads for each gun.

My idea of acceptable with factory barrels is 4" or less with most quality loads or 2" or less with a fitted barrel.

Baring other fixes I'll get an Apex FSS trigger and Apex/BarSto barrel when it comes available. I personally like the M&P ergo's and want a thumb safety rather than relying on a crunchy overly stiff trigger for a safety factor hence my willingness to try and make the M&P work for me. I've fired a DA/SA well for years but decided to go for the shorter consistent trigger pull of a striker fired gun.

My barely-knows-what-he's-doing guess as to the inconsistent results. Based on what Bill reported a few pages back on poor machining quality some combination of powder burn rate, bullet weight and OAL allows some recoil & velocity rate to hit the sweet spot of everything coming together for a randomly accurate load.

Lomshek
01-13-2014, 11:26 AM
On the subject of expectations what's the average POI change or accuracy variation at 25 yards for a factory Glock or XD? Being similar striker fired polymer guns I'd expect the M&P to hold its own against them.

Overall I'm wondering besides being more accurate with a specific load does a fitted barrel make better or worse (as compared to a factory barrel) the POI shifts and accuracy spread (best to worst shooting ammo).

ASH556
01-14-2014, 11:50 AM
This is a quote from a thread I started here a few weeks ago addressing/documenting some of the same issues:


Purpose/Theory:

As a civilian, it is my belief that I should be most proficient with the weapon I carry daily - a pistol. If I need to use it to defend myself or others, it will likely be in a public place and thus, due to the high probability of collateral damage, a high degree of accuracy is important to me. I don't much buy into the whole "belly gun" or 7 ft concept. Sure, that's a possible scenario, but so is a longer shot (and all of these "possibilities" are low-probability because I generally don't go into bad areas and have enough situational awareness to avoid getting into bad situations).

Anyway, all of that to give a background or end purpose for what follows:

As I've posted here before, I have a pair of Smith M&P 9's. One stays at home with a Surefire X300/DG switch, Crimson Trace Grips, and an AAC EVO-9. It is the "house" gun and is also the one my wife chose for "hers" and after shooting several different pistols, shotguns, and carbines, is the one she now has the most training with. It is a plenty accurate pistol and can produce 3" 10-shot groups at 25 yds.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7314/9889267613_5158bab141_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/87859750@N03/9889267613/)
Untitled (http://www.flickr.com/photos/87859750@N03/9889267613/) by ASH556 (http://www.flickr.com/people/87859750@N03/), on Flickr

The other M&P is my daily carry gun. It wears Trijicon HD sights, a Surefire X300, and has been stippled. I really love everything about the pistol except its accuracy. I sent the barrel, slide, and block (they were on another frame at the time) back to Smith for poor accuracy once already. When it came back with a new barrel, it did shoot better (in the 3"-4" range). Then, I swapped everything over to this frame and accuracy went to hell. As you'll see in the pics below, we're talking about an average of 6" groups from the bench. What makes it even more frustrating is that I can regularly produce the same size groups standing free hand as off the bench, which means I can out-shoot the pistol, right? I've researched aftermarket barrel options and they are not inexpensive, and results are not really conclusive either that they help that much. So, the question is, do I send the pistol back to Smith again and hope they hit on some magic, dump the pistol and get into another carry platform, or be okay with that accuracy (really, I'm not).

I began the range session (25yds indoor) with 10 rounds of Speer 124gr Gold Dots from my carry magazine, seated, and supported. Another thing I wanted to determine was the POA/POI relationship with the HD sights and different ammo. Hence, the "cross" to aim at. For all groups, the center of the cross was the POA.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7300/11635376684_4d27e9a46f_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/87859750@N03/11635376684/)
124 GDHP (http://www.flickr.com/photos/87859750@N03/11635376684/) by ASH556 (http://www.flickr.com/people/87859750@N03/), on Flickr

Next, I fired 10 rounds of Federal HST 147gr, note both the windage and elevation shift. You'll see the group move back down and right with lighter loads:

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3766/11635238093_87caf31202_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/87859750@N03/11635238093/)
147 HST (http://www.flickr.com/photos/87859750@N03/11635238093/) by ASH556 (http://www.flickr.com/people/87859750@N03/), on Flickr

Then, 10 rounds of Federal American Eagle 147gr:

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5529/11635002395_c5829a10ea.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/87859750@N03/11635002395/)
147 FAE (http://www.flickr.com/photos/87859750@N03/11635002395/) by ASH556 (http://www.flickr.com/people/87859750@N03/), on Flickr

And 10 rounds of S&B 115gr (note the group is back down and to the right again)

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5511/11635240803_a2d5f478ee.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/87859750@N03/11635240803/)
115 S&B (http://www.flickr.com/photos/87859750@N03/11635240803/) by ASH556 (http://www.flickr.com/people/87859750@N03/), on Flickr

I then put up a clean B16 target and with the same methodology I fired a 10-shot supported group using Aguila 124gr FMJ:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7418/11635005115_ca3765fbcb.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/87859750@N03/11635005115/)
124 AGUILA (http://www.flickr.com/photos/87859750@N03/11635005115/) by ASH556 (http://www.flickr.com/people/87859750@N03/), on Flickr

Seeing these results and knowing that I had previously shot similar-sized groups standing, free-hand at 25 yds, I decided to try my luck and shot this, again with the Aguila 124gr:

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3805/11635006355_3bd3fd51b4.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/87859750@N03/11635006355/)
124 AGUILA FREE (http://www.flickr.com/photos/87859750@N03/11635006355/) by ASH556 (http://www.flickr.com/people/87859750@N03/), on Flickr

And these are past groups fired from the same pistol setup, 25 yds standing free-hand with Magtech 124gr FMJ:

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2805/10897048084_7ccd10154c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/87859750@N03/10897048084/)
9mm 25yd offhand pre-adjust (http://www.flickr.com/photos/87859750@N03/10897048084/) by ASH556 (http://www.flickr.com/people/87859750@N03/), on Flickr
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2829/10896951366_fe67237c0a.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/87859750@N03/10896951366/)
9mm 25yd offhand post-adjust (http://www.flickr.com/photos/87859750@N03/10896951366/) by ASH556 (http://www.flickr.com/people/87859750@N03/), on Flickr
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3789/10897198513_a1066b370c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/87859750@N03/10897198513/)
9mm 25yd offhand 5-shot (http://www.flickr.com/photos/87859750@N03/10897198513/) by ASH556 (http://www.flickr.com/people/87859750@N03/), on Flickr

So, what do you make of that? Crappy pistol? Send it back or sell and replace?

I also want to take a pistol class this year, but it seems foolish to spend money for good instruction knowing on the front end that my skill level already supersedes what the pistol is capable of.

Thanks for you input!

ASH556
01-14-2014, 11:57 AM
I want to disclaim a few points about the above post: In the first pic of the good group with the suppressed M&P, that is a different gun (I own 2 M&P's). If I could get my other M&P to shoot like that one, I would be 100% happy. Another point about that pic is that the pistol with the can wears stock sights, so I cannot see over the suppressor. My point here is that I cannot guarantee a 100% repeatable POA, and that might account for the 2 shots that some might call "fliers."

Because my 2 M&P's are the only 2 pistols I own (well, I also have an M&P22) I would be very interested in getting my "bad one" to shoot well. In fact, I just sent it back to Smith yesterday (second time that slide and barrel have been back). A pair of accurate M&P 9's and an accurate M&P22 to match would make me completely content with pistols.

Based on the data Bill posted earlier in this thread, and my results with my threaded barrel, I'm wondering if Smith put more effort into those so they wouldn't get a bunch of off-axis baffle strike warranty claims. Oh, and both of mine were purchased in March of 2012 from Grant.

Wannabe
03-18-2014, 12:14 AM
Just read all 24 pages. I really really want one of these guns. And had plans on buying one. Every time I saw someone tcomplain about accuracy I would wonder why they just didn't get a aftermarket barrel and fix the issue. Now I see there is much more going on. It's a real shame too. And on a side note. I wish bi had a friend like bill, crazy smart!