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

[JonInWA]

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.

Fixer, color me skeptical (not with your or your personal account, but with the PX4 in general)...After the 8357 Cougar, I'm pretty soured on Beretta's approach regarding the rotating barrel concept, and view the PX4 as pretty much the same mechanically as the Cougar. ToddG has had some experience with Canadian border guards whom have been issued the PX4, and at least anecdotally the reports aren't good, apparently with the guns continuing to have a tendency to seize up under use; hopefully he'll chime in here, or PM him.

The PX4 may be at its best in 9mm, as opposed to the higher intensity, quicker pressure spiking .40. The boys and girls over at the www.berettforum.net seem to love 'em, other than a previous "trigger stinging" issue, but that's more of a hobbyist/low intensity use forum.

Regardless, and especially with a PX4, I'd take DocGKR's advice before dedicating a PX4 to defensive carry use: Run a thousand round through one first as a reliability check-if there are hiccups, the roundcount restarts at zero; if it passes that, run at least(and I'd suggest 200 rounds is a more realistic minimum, but hey, ammunition being what it is today...) a box of your carry ammunition through it. I'd also heavily lube the cam tooth and barrrel areas where there is metal-on-metal reciprocation/torquing with TW25B, and apply adequate lubrication to the other areas appropriately.

I currently have, and run fairly heavily, a Beretta 92D (including at our recent IDPA State Championship Match last weekend-the gun performed superbly). I have not been tempted to venture into the realm of the PX4. YMMV...(and it sounds like yours fortituitously has to date).

Best, Jon

[Ed L]

I originally wrote:

I was only aware that this issue effected some 9mm M&Ps. If I remember correctly, an explanation was that S&W used the same extractor in the M&P9s as they did in the M&P40s, and this sometimes caused issues.

Tamara responded:

Right, which makes me think it's gotta be something different, although similar, with .357SIG guns.

I checked with Randy Lee of Apex Tactical. It seems that this problem occurs more frequently with 9mm M&Ps than with other calibers. But the problem is not confined to the 9mm M&P. The Apex failure resistant extractor fits all caliber M&Ps with the exception of the Shield. All of the M&Ps other than the Shield use the same extractor.

So this could indeed be the problem affecting the NCHP M&P.357s. But its hard to reach any conclusions from the vague description in the original article; as well as the possibility that they incorrectly described things.

[Tamara]

All of the M&Ps other than the Shield use the same extractor.

This does not surprise me. Part of Glock's amazing profit margin comes from using as many common parts across as many guns as possible. Those trying to muscle in on that market are going to do likewise...

[TigerStripe]

According to Randy Lee in the M&P FRE install youtube video a .40 or .45 may need to have some area relieved for the FRE to function as it is designed to primarily fix the extraction problems in the M&P9. All of my FTE/double feeds occurred with the factory extractor and 9mm WWB 115gr ammo.