After 4 Years North Carolina is dropping the M&P.

[JonInWA]

Jon,

I'm curious what didn't work. Can you shed some light on this?

Thanks!

Absolutely, Fixer. First, as I mentioned, I Really, really liked the 8357-and wanted it to work reliably. Unfortuately, it didn't...I found three areas of issue/problem, two of them critical in my opinion, mitigating against it being anything but a fun/range gun-which doesn't work in my particular universe (all of my guns are double-duty tasked as self-defense and competition {mostly IDPA} guns).

First: I keep my guns meticulously cleaned and lubed...but the Cougar needs to be run wet (disproportionately so, in my opinion), especially regarding the area of the rotating barrel towards the breach that rotates within the slide, and on the cam tooth and its mating track on the barrel where there's metal-on-metal reciprocation/rotation. During a steel plate match, where my lube had migrated and/or cooked off (and the match wasn't a particularly high roundcount/high intensity), at about the 120 round point, the gun seized up, and the slide/receiver couldnt be seperated to go into battery until the gun had 1) cooled down, and 2) been re-lubed. During this match, the gun was fired in 6-12 round incriments (it was a man-on-man steel plate match, with 5-plate racks). If I still had the gun, I'd probably resort to a coating of TW25B on the components mentioned, but as Berettas tend to be pretty tightly toleranced, I don't know if that would have been a viable solution either...

Second: During and IDPA back-up gun side match (which the 8357 qualfied for, due to its barrel length being less than 3.8"), I had repeated chamberig/extraction issues-and this was a low roundcount stage, of around 10 rounds totall, as I recall (and out of frustration, I ran it a couple of times as well). I was using Winchester White Box factory .357 SIG; the remainder of the box was sent to Winchester's labs for examination, where they were given a clean bill of health for assembly, tolerencing, powder load, etc. (Winchester was kind enough to send me certificated to buy double the amount of ammunition concerned, which was a nice gesture). ToddG and I discussed this at length; the .357 cartridge and the Cougar had significant extraction issues, which Beretta never really successfully resolved, despite ammunition switches and tweaking of the extractor/extractor springing-it really seems to be a fundamental issue of design/ammunition incompatibility.

Third: Beretta cheaped out and used the same sights as on the 8040 .40 Cougar. While this can work for some guns, I wasn't real happy with it on the 8357. As I recall, I had to use a 6 o'clock hold, as opposed to my preferred/trained/muscle-memoried center hold POA/POI, and there were really no replacement sight configured for the .357 SIG available, and I figured that a gunsmithing solution would be disproportionately expensive-especially since I already possessed ample guns in the 8357's niche.

So-the 8357 went away, to be replaced with a SIG-Sauer P229 DAK with both .40 and .357 SIG barrels. Due to its relative weight and chunkiness, that gun eventually went away as well, so I'm currently berift of any .357 SIG chambered pistols-I have high hopes for the Gen4 Glock G31 and G32, however; we'll see. I tend to think that the Gen4 system offers the most benefits to higer pressure/quicker spiking cartridges such as the .40, .357 SIG, 10mm, etc. Realistically, ballistically with my Gen 3 G34 with Winchester 127 gr +P+ Ranger cartridges I'm pretty close to .357 SIG performance levels anyhow, so I'm in no big rush-plus, due to the ammunition panic, I haven't seen much, if any .357 SIG for over 6 months in my area (metro Seattle).

The 8357 had a lot of potential-the balance and ergos were excellent (aside from fairly sharp safety levers)-very similar to the venerable SIG-Sauer P225. Beretta's fit, finish, and component craftsmanship was of very high order. It conceled nicely, but was large enough to be a good duty gun, and the combination of the .357 SIG cartridge with the recoil-reducing benefits of the 8357's rotating barrel potentally was an excellent marriage-but it just didn't work-not for me, not for the NCHP...

Best, Jon

[fixer]

Absolutely, Fixer. First, as I mentioned, I Really, really liked the 8357-and wanted it to work reliably. Unfortuately, it didn't...I found three areas of issue/problem, two of them critical in my opinion, mitigating against it being anything but a fun/range gun-which doesn't work in my particular universe (all of my guns are double-duty tasked as self-defense and competition {mostly IDPA} guns).

First: I keep my guns meticulously cleaned and lubed...but the Cougar needs to be run wet (disproportionately so, in my opinion), especially regarding the area of the rotating barrel towards the breach that rotates within the slide, and on the cam tooth and its mating track on the barrel where there's metal-on-metal reciprocation/rotation. During a steel plate match, where my lube had migrated and/or cooked off (and the match wasn't a particularly high roundcount/high intensity), at about the 120 round point, the gun seized up, and the slide/receiver couldnt be seperated to go into battery until the gun had 1) cooled down, and 2) been re-lubed. During this match, the gun was fired in 6-12 round incriments (it was a man-on-man steel plate match, with 5-plate racks). If I still had the gun, I'd probably resort to a coating of TW25B on the components mentioned, but as Berettas tend to be pretty tightly toleranced, I don't know if that would have been a viable solution either...

Thanks for the insight Jon.

I have a handful of PX4s--thus my curiosity.

I have not done any experimentation, but I wonder if there is any design differences between the cougar and the PX4 in the cammed locking mechanism. I've unbelievably good luck with the PX4 in any lubrication regime.

I'd take this to PM but your inbox is full

Thanks again for your experience here.

[JonInWA]

PM inbox box is now cleaned up (sorry, all-my bad!)-feel free to discuss further with me either there, or continue to here.

Best, Jon

[Sparks2112]

Jon,

I'm curious what didn't work. Can you shed some light on this?

Thanks!

Rotating barrels are bad....

[Tamara]

Rotating barrels are bad....

The rotating barrel short-recoil setup is like a bug zapper for firearms engineers. The idea looks so good on paper that they just can't stay away from it.

[DocGKR]

How many firearms engineers actually shoot?

How many have ever had to rely on their products to save their lives?

[Clyde from Carolina]

How many firearms engineers actually shoot?

How many have ever had to rely on their products to save their lives?

Good point. Off the top of my head, tanker combat vet Kalashnikov comes to mind, and we know reliability and simplicity were always the key attributes of his most famous design.

[JonInWA]

There have only been 2 successful rotating barrel designs that I'm aware of that stood the test of time/field use-the Steyr-Hahn 1912, which despite a non-detachable magazine (necessitating stripper clip reloads) reportedly did extremely well in the filthy environment of WWI trench warfare combat, and the French MAB P.15, which, while successful, was heavy and offered little, if any advantages over the contemporary FN/Browning Hi Power, thus pretty much constraining it to almost exclusively French military use.

The Austro-Hungarian Empire's loosing WWI, and the Empire's subsequent demise, and it's chambering in the relatively obscure/propritary 9mm Steyr caliber pretty much precluded any potential post WWI use of the Steyr-Hahn, although post Anchluss the Nazis rebarrelled thousands of Austrian Army Steyr-Hahns from 9mm Steyr to 9mm parabellum, and presumably used them in second-line units in WWII.

Best, Jon

[Clyde from Carolina]

There have only been 2 successful rotating barrel designs that I'm aware of that stood the test of time/field use-the Steyr-Hahn 1912, which despite a non-detachable magazine (necessitating stripper clip reloads) reportedly did extremely well in the filthy environment of WWI trench warfare combat, and the French MAB P.15, which, while successful, was heavy and offered little, if any advantages over the contemporary FN/Browning Hi Power, thus pretty much constraining it to almost exclusively French military use.

The Austro-Hungarian Empire's loosing WWI, and the Empire's subsequent demise, and it's chambering in the relatively obscure/propritary 9mm Steyr caliber pretty much precluded any potential post WWI use of the Steyr-Hahn, although post Anchluss the Nazis rebarrelled thousands of Austrian Army Steyr-Hahns from 9mm Steyr to 9mm parabellum, and presumably used them in second-line units in WWII.

Best, Jon

You just reminded me I have a Steyr-Hahn in my safe that was a gift from my brother in law that I have never fired. Need to score a stripper and some ammo. :-)

[JonInWA]

You just reminded me I have a Steyr-Hahn in my safe that was a gift from my brother in law that I have never fired. Need to score a stripper and some ammo. :-)

Clyde, I'd take it to a competant gunsmith for a detailed examination first. As I recall from a Robert Shimek articla years ago, I believe that the Steyr-Hahns can be subject to tolerance stacking issues, where if the gun is loaded and put on safe the mechanical firing sequence can be initiated (as is when the safety lever is moved to the "on safe" position), with an unanticipated "boom" being the result.

Once it gets a clean bill of health, however, I'd use it and enjoy it. They had an eviable reputation in WWI, and are beautifully built. IMA Military Replicas currently makes a reproduction holster for it- http://www.ima-usa.com/austrian-wwi-...l-holster.html

Best, Jon