Smith & Wesson M&P no longer in US Army pistol trials

Status
Not open for further replies.
Which is why I'd be a little surprised to see glock get it either. 4" at 50 meters would be asking a lot of an off the shelf glock, but maybe accuracy enhancements were successfully made to the glock entry. I hear S&W tried to make accuracy enhancements to meet the criteria, but it was either not enough, or perhaps the accuracy improvements hindered reliability.
 
This gentleman used to work on the M9 for the AMU.

He now does custom gun work and offers the AMU package to accurize the Beretta 92 FS. This is the pistol he built for the Army Marksmanship Unit so it could be shot in the service pistol match at Camp Perry and would be competitive with the 1911.
He guarantees 1.3 inch 10 shot groups at 50 yards from a machine rest

http://www.samscustomgunworksusa.com/handguns/beretta92customwork.html
 
Sure, there are undoubtedly plenty of match grade pistols and a handful of mass produced pistols that can easily meet and exceed the 4" at 50 meters requirement, I'm sure there are lots that can do 2", but an off the shelf glock or M&P isn't normally capable of it.

I would pay to see the video evidence of a stock M&P shooting consistent 4" groups at 50 meters, be it from a machine rest or otherwise, and I like M&P's.
 
I'd love to see what M&P, Glock, SIG, etc all would do with a machine rest at 50 meters.

I never stretch any of my autoloaders out past 25 meters and the limitation is 100% me and my not so good eyes.
 
It isn't clear which benchmark of accuracy you are referring to.

If you are referring to the 1.5" guaranty, I agree

If you are referring to the 3" one, it is hardly a particularly difficult standard to reach for quality factory service pistols.

I don't think I misspoke, but again, most service pistols can not and do not shoot 3" groups from a rest at 50 yards, period. Not even the most carefully loaded ammo will turn in that kind of accuracy out of a service pistol, unless said gun is a P210. It takes a carefully fitted firearm to achieve 3" at 50 yards. Anything grouping tighter than that is particularly noteworthy, and it has been this way for decades now.

You used an X-5 in this thread as a supposed example of a "226" that can easily shoot sub 3" groups at 50 yards. I maintain that this is misleading information. You used a $2200+ hand-fitted pistol as an example of service grade pistol accuracy, but that gun is far, far from such a classification, and I'm pretty sure you are quite well aware of that. The glaring difference here is, I used a semi-custom $2k pistol as an example of the type of careful fitting and component selection that is typically required to get a service pistol design to shoot 3 inches or better at 50 yards.

I've seen nothing to suggest that SIG's P320 is going to turn in 3" or better groups at 50 yards in any situation short of a miracle. The generalization that the 320, en masse, performs at that level or better is just too far of a leap.

You can tune a gun to make it perform darn near however you want, but that is irrelevant since Uncle Sam isn't going to put race guns in soldier's hands.
 
Also, if you want to know why the M&P probably failed (especially the 9mm), read this thread, especially starting with post #20 by Randy Lee of apex. With Apex custom fit barrels, M&P 9's are doing consistent sub 2" groups at 50 yards, but we all know S&W can't afford and the Army aren't going to accept a custom fit barrel for every pistol they issue. I've read that factory M&P 9 barrels were 1 in 18 or 1 in 24 but have finally gone to 1 in 10, which is good, but still not enough to get match grade 50 yard accuracy.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?8390-Apex-Barsto-barrel-M-amp-P-9mm

The resistance due to the increased torque forces imparted to the barrel by the bullet in the M&P helps to prolong the dwell time. Think of it as trying to twist and pull on the barrel while firing the pistol. The faster twist increases the rotational forces on the barrel which, in a sense binds the barrel in the slide for a slightly longer period of time. The slower the twist, the less binding effect. It is a minimal gain, however our test results at 50 yards between factory 1:18.75, 1:10, a 1:16 and our 1:10 show statistical relevance to the idea.

The other problem is the wide variation in the slide's muzzle end barrel cut. The bore dimensions on the front end of the slide vary wildly, and the relief cut so that you can remove and install the barrel also varies by several thousandths. We know that as soon as you fire a shot, the gun with a factory or even aftermarket barrel loses uniform lock up stability. This is due to how the engineers designed the barrel locking surfaces. The looser the contact between the front of the slide and the bottom of the muzzle due to a larger bore or smaller barrel OD exacerbates the problem. This is in part, why some guns will show improvement with aftermarket barrels while others will not. The vertical slide to frame tolerances also contribute to the instability of the barrel because the bottom lug of the barrel never really makes contact with the locking block until the barrel is moving down and to the rear under recoil.

In order to achieve consistent accuracy the bottom lug should make contact with the horizontal surface of the locking block, and the front of the barrel needs to be as close to the slide bore dimension as possible.
 
For a striker fire gun, will the military require either a manual safety or a trigger similar to the Walther P99 that replicates a da/sa hammer fired trigger action?
 
For a striker fire gun, will the military require either a manual safety or a trigger similar to the Walther P99 that replicates a da/sa hammer fired trigger action?
Since none of the guns discussed are DA/SA, I would say no.
 
S&W actually made their 9mm guns less accurate when they moved away from the traditional 1/10 rate of twist (established by Georg Luger over a century ago and used by about everyone on the 9mm) to a slower rate of twist 1/18.75.

The idea was a mistake and earned the 9mm M&Ps a rep for inaccuracy when first introduced. It was corrected a few years ago when they went to the traditional rate of twist.

The slower rate of twist keeps the bullet in the barrel longer. This has often been favored buy bullseye shooters and other accuracy competitors (it began with the 38 Spl. decades back) , it allows for more careful follow through. But it also plays havoc with anyone with even a slight flinch or who is shooting fast under pressure. It ties accuracy with the gun to specific bullet weights.

tipoc
 
Can someone point to where in the report it discusses the accuracy requirements?

Also remember that no one has said why the M&P was disqualified. May not have been the accuracy, but something else.

tipoc
 
9mm M&P accuracy problems have nothing to do with twist rates. The barrels, slides and frames just don't fit together correctly. If it was a twist rate issue a drop in barrel would have fixed those guns, but they didn't.
 
A change in the rate of twist markedly improved the accuracy in my M&Ps and in others M&Ps I have shot. It effects the interface between the shooter and the gun.

Is it true that the Army wants 3" at 50 yards from production guns?

tipoc
 
Agree with boricua9mm on this one. Three inches a 50m/yds is not the norm for any service pistol.
 
A change in the rate of twist markedly improved the accuracy in my M&Ps and in others M&Ps I have shot. It effects the interface between the shooter and the gun.

Is it true that the Army wants 3" at 50 yards from production guns?

tipoc
But if you followed the people that have been trying for years to get a wide variety of really inaccurate M&Ps to function correctly, the twist rate thing has been tried, as well as a number of other things. In the end, the only really good solution anyone has found is a custom fit barrel, since the problem isn't rifling.

In other words, 1:18 rifling is not going to cause 7" groups at 25 yards. Even smooth bore barrel will still produce a 1-2" group from a fixture at that range.
 
The article cited from Jane's was from May.

I cited earlier an article from American Rifleman this month. The Army has not said why the M&P was disqualified. It's a guess it was accuracy.

According to Jerry Miculek the accuracy problems with the S&W M&P CORE pistol were solved by a change in the rate of twist of the barrel last year some time if not earlier. There were also adjustments made to the barrel where it locked up as has been suggested. These changes were made a year or three back.

The discussion linked to in pistol forum.com was from 2013.

It would be stunning to me for anyone to get sub 3" groups at 25 yards with stock factory guns in a ransom rest much less at 50 with a variety of factory loads.

Each month gun magazines routinely test pistols from ransom rests at 25 yards and publish the results (not to mention what we see on the internet). Rare is it that a factory stock gun shoots consistently under 2" at 25 yards from a rest with a variety of ammo.

What mean radius is the Army asking for at 50 yards?

tipoc
 
For a striker fire gun, will the military require either a manual safety or a trigger similar to the Walther P99 that replicates a da/sa hammer fired trigger action?
Well I know the FNS that is still in the running can be ordered with or without a manual safety right now.

Not sure about the new polymer Beretta.

Obviously, Glocks are known for them.
 
tipoc- the accuracy requirement was stated in the linked article. Here's a link to the US MHS Solicitation

I just did a word search on 50 meters and accuracy- didn't see anything there- though note that I only did a brief search. The 50 meter accuracy claim was in the linked to article.

In the 351 page solicitation published in September 2015, DoD dictated that all competitors have modifiable grips, ambidextrous controls, magazine options, and rails. In addition, the Army requested all firearms have hits on a 4-inch target at a 50-meter range at least 90 percent of the time throughout the gun’s lifespan.

Unless that is in the solicitation, there could be a chance that 50 meter accuracy is incorrect perhaps?
 
Jus need to get a copy of purchase description "AR-PD-177

M.3.2.2.2 Sub-Factor 2: System Accuracy - Isolated (no solider in the loop)
The Modular Handgun System will be evaluated on the capability of the design to meet the accuracy and dispersion requirements of the
system against the criteria set forth in AR-PD-177, paragraphs 3.4.1.1.a and 3.4.1.1.b. and verified in paragraph 4.5.1.1. A total of
five (5) full size handguns from each vendor will be used to fire five 10-round groups of Ball rounds for a total of 250 rounds. In
addition, five (5) full size handguns from each vendor will be used to fire five 10-round groups of Special Purpose rounds for a total
of 250 rounds. Between the two types of rounds, an overall total of 500 rounds will be fired to determine system accuracy and
dispersion with each type of round. Handgun aim will be confirmed prior to each shot fired, and if required, handgun aim will be
adjusted. Evaluation will consider how closely the candidate Modular Handgun System comes to meeting the threshold accuracy requirement
based on the range at which a candidate system is able to maintain the accuracy requirement per AR-PD-177 cited above. For candidate
systems that fail to meet the threshold requirement, the assigned rating will be based on the overall risk of unsuccessful performance.
The closer a candidate system comes to meeting the objective requirement, the more favorable the rating will be received.
 
The discussion linked to in pistol forum.com was from 2013

Actually the thread I linked to was contributed to by Randy Lee for several years, including some recent posts. I would encourage everyone to read his contributations there and not dismiss them as old information if they're interested in the M&P.

The Berettas are made in Maryland and the Sigs are made in NH

Yeah but they're not US based companies - they're foreign owned.
 
Last edited:
I understand the piece about foreign companies, but these folks employ thousands of tax paying US citizens. I can't complain about that. I have been to the Beretta factory in Italy and the one in Accokeek, MD and both are staffed by pros, but the US one doesn't have 400 Italians taking a nap between noon and 5.
 
Thanks Kookla,

In the 351 page solicitation published in September 2015, DoD dictated that all competitors have modifiable grips, ambidextrous controls, magazine options, and rails. In addition, the Army requested all firearms have hits on a 4-inch target at a 50-meter range at least 90 percent of the time throughout the gun’s lifespan.

This means that if 10 rounds are fired 9 have to land within a 4" diameter bullseye (or a 4" diameter steel plate). If 250 rounds are fired 25 can miss that 4" criteria. If 225 hit at 54 yards it's cool.

That's a different picture then a requirement for under 4" groups.

Maybe, as Danez said, we can find... AR-PD-177, paragraphs 3.4.1.1.a and 3.4.1.1.b. and verified in paragraph 4.5.1.1.

tipoc
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top