S&W - M&P Problems - How bad are they
- Thread starter HoosierQ
- Start date
- Status
fastbolt
Member
You're welcome HoosierQ, but take anything I say with a grain of salt. I'm only a basic LE armorer ... not a licensed gunsmith, factory technician or engineer.
At the end of the day the significant majority of functioning issues reported to occur in semiauto handguns are generally caused by the shooter/user in some manner (including maintenance issues), followed by a very small percentage of ammunition-related issues, followed by an even smaller percentage of actual gun-related issues.
Having been fortunate enough to have attended more than my fair share of armorer classes (more than a Baker's Dozen
), and having worked as a LE firearms trainer/armorer for a fair number of years ... I've seen, experienced or have learned of all manner of issues and problems occurring which involved almost all of the major makes/models/calibers of LE weapons (and ammunition lines) in the hands of folks.
People sometimes start to express personal feelings about their favorite handguns like they do their favorite sports team.
Fortunately for me, I don't have much interest in sports.
It's just a handgun, and I could sit back and relax with a good cigar and talk about the good and bad attributes of virtually any service-type firearm as long as anyone might wish.
At the end of the day the significant majority of functioning issues reported to occur in semiauto handguns are generally caused by the shooter/user in some manner (including maintenance issues), followed by a very small percentage of ammunition-related issues, followed by an even smaller percentage of actual gun-related issues.
Having been fortunate enough to have attended more than my fair share of armorer classes (more than a Baker's Dozen
), and having worked as a LE firearms trainer/armorer for a fair number of years ... I've seen, experienced or have learned of all manner of issues and problems occurring which involved almost all of the major makes/models/calibers of LE weapons (and ammunition lines) in the hands of folks.People sometimes start to express personal feelings about their favorite handguns like they do their favorite sports team.
Fortunately for me, I don't have much interest in sports.
It's just a handgun, and I could sit back and relax with a good cigar and talk about the good and bad attributes of virtually any service-type firearm as long as anyone might wish.
havoc7usmc
Member
DITTO on FASTBOLT
FASTBOLT, You hit the nail on the head. I attended the Dec armor's course and enjoyed how well taught and prepared the class room was as compared to some other factory courses I've been to. I also like the way they made the frame and sub chassie and the "I" beam extractor...a lot more survivalbility in case of a KABOOM.
FASTBOLT, You hit the nail on the head. I attended the Dec armor's course and enjoyed how well taught and prepared the class room was as compared to some other factory courses I've been to. I also like the way they made the frame and sub chassie and the "I" beam extractor...a lot more survivalbility in case of a KABOOM.
Commander Crusty
Member
I only have about 300 rounds through my full size M&P .45 but no malfunctions so far. This pistol has a wonderful feel and I usually shoot a hinged trigger better than a sliding trigger so I have no problems with the trigger pull. Nothing has shaken loose, fallen off or cracked. I'd say you should send yours back to the factory for repair.
gglass
Member
Holy thread revival batman!
I suppose that since the thread was started at the beginning of the year, you might as well finish the year with it.
P.S. I absolutely love all five of my M&Ps. 100% flawless!
M&P40 FS
M&P357 FS
M&P9c
M&P9 Pro Series (x2)
I suppose that since the thread was started at the beginning of the year, you might as well finish the year with it.
P.S. I absolutely love all five of my M&Ps. 100% flawless!
M&P40 FS
M&P357 FS
M&P9c
M&P9 Pro Series (x2)
fastbolt
Member
Yep, an older thread come back around ...
Since my last posting in this thread I've received one of the revised strikers for a M&P 45 as part of a normal parts order (I keep replacement parts on hand for any number of firearms for which I'm trained and certified as an armorer).
The new striker appears to be made from stainless steel instead of being MIM. Unlike the previous striker design which had a rebated shaft behind the head, the head and shaft/body are one large piece of the same diameter. Looks pretty robust. The striker's foot appears somewhat wider to the eye, but I didn't measure it. Nice smooth finish to the engagement surface.
Although I wasn't having any issues with my existing M&P 45 striker I dropped the newest one in the gun before a range session. I expected to feel some stiffness because of the new assembly (fresh spring and unworn surface on the striker foot, if nothing else), although the sear is the original existing sear. I thought I'd have to go through some of the initial roughness I'd felt when the original striker was 'new'.
Nothing of the sort. It actually seemed a bit smoother ... and it seemed that way right from the start. Interesting.
S&W has seemingly been pretty busy responding to owner/user feedback with their new M&P pistol series since its official introduction back in Jan '06. Thee have been a number of revisions and improvements here & there.
The more I learn about the M&P pistol series and the more I use a couple of them, the more impressed I become with them.
Since my last posting in this thread I've received one of the revised strikers for a M&P 45 as part of a normal parts order (I keep replacement parts on hand for any number of firearms for which I'm trained and certified as an armorer).
The new striker appears to be made from stainless steel instead of being MIM. Unlike the previous striker design which had a rebated shaft behind the head, the head and shaft/body are one large piece of the same diameter. Looks pretty robust. The striker's foot appears somewhat wider to the eye, but I didn't measure it. Nice smooth finish to the engagement surface.
Although I wasn't having any issues with my existing M&P 45 striker I dropped the newest one in the gun before a range session. I expected to feel some stiffness because of the new assembly (fresh spring and unworn surface on the striker foot, if nothing else), although the sear is the original existing sear. I thought I'd have to go through some of the initial roughness I'd felt when the original striker was 'new'.
Nothing of the sort. It actually seemed a bit smoother ... and it seemed that way right from the start. Interesting.
S&W has seemingly been pretty busy responding to owner/user feedback with their new M&P pistol series since its official introduction back in Jan '06. Thee have been a number of revisions and improvements here & there.
The more I learn about the M&P pistol series and the more I use a couple of them, the more impressed I become with them.
Dwrice
Member
S&W got things right with the M&P's. There were huge problems with the SW99's they were selling to Law Enforcement in the late 90's. When I was in the academy another department had just switched to 99's so their guys showed up at the range with weapons fresh out of the box. I don't think that any of those guys got more then three rounds down range before they jammed. All the problems were workmanship related. The guy firing in the lane next to me had excess metal on the the feed ramp which was keeping the rounds from feeding. So when SW came out with the M&P I looked at it with that in mind. I quickly discovered that the M&P is the real deal.
fastbolt
Member
I do tend to prefer the M&P series to the Walther 99 series (including the SW99/990L), but I own a couple of SW99's and carried an issued one for a few years.
There were some revisions and improvements made in the SW99 line along the way. Once S&W helped figure out that the .40 S&W mags needed revision (and provided the info to Walther, who passed it on to the mag company) it helped resolve some feeding issues which had been reported with the .40's made in both manufacturer's model lines.
I was told of some other changes here & there, too ... such as the locking blocks being dressed better, the extractors being better polished, etc.
The use of the open-ended/hooked slide stop lever spring S&W requested for their licensed model line was a stronger spring, but it came with a potential disadvantage. The hooked end could be snagged when the frame was being cleaned if someone was inattentive, and the spring bent. Replacing the spring meant removing the locking block, which meant removing a rolled steel pin. I met a few armorers who preferred not to remove that pin themselves.
S&W used the mag catch lever spring as their standard extractor spring, which was heavier than the original extractor spring and was reported to offer better functioning in the .40 & .45 models. At one point S&W advised armorers to reverse the orientation of the extractor springs in the slides, too.
Then, there was reportedly the use of different dimensioned trigger bar guides in some SW99's which caused some light strike issues due to the trigger bar being cammed down and releasing the striker a bit too soon in DA mode. One of my SW99's had that issue and I was told how to resolve it by a repair tech working in the Walther America facility. He had encountered a few P99's with the same problem (which makes sense since it was the same Walther made parts in Walther frames involved). I learned later on that Walther had a range of differently dimensioned trigger bar guides which were used, but that Walther hadn't informed S&W engineers of the tolerances or provided a gauge until late in the SW99/990L's production. The AS & QA models use different trigger bar guides (and different striker springs, BTW), in addition to the obvious difference of the sear housing block not needing to function in single action mode.
I've seen some differences in production involving SW99 .40 barrels made at different times. The differences included how the muzzle crowns were cut, the barrel tabs were cut & finished, the feed ramp shape & finish and the shape of the chamber mouth.
A change which S&W made to enhance functioning during unlocking/locking involved making a machined relief under the barrel at the rear, where the bottom of the barrel needed to clear the top of the recoil spring assembly. (Ever hear the scrunching/screeching noise in an early SW99 or a Glock when the slide was being manipulated by hand?) I saw a couple of different length relief cuts on SW99 .40 barrels once this change was introduced. Nice refinement.
At one point Walther changed the internal frame dimensions in the area of the sear housing block, too. I only figured this out when I was replacing a sear housing block in an early production SW99 (broken ejector, which is molded into the housing block) and found the dimensions of the block and its bottom pin were different. The enw block wouldn't fit into the older frame unless the pin from the older block was installed in the new block. I confirmed this observation by calling S&W and asking about any recent changes.
My SW99's have provided excellent service ... once I replaced the early .40 mags with the revised ones, and corrected the trigger bar guide tolerance issue in the 9mm model. I've fired many thousands of rounds through them, in addition to issued models.
Of the 50-odd SW99's (and at least 1 P99) I've helped maintain and service, I've only had to replace a handful of broken or damaged parts (Walther parts) over the course of several years. I can think of 2-3 ejectors (sear housing block), a couple of extractor springs and an extractor, a slide end cap, a couple of rear sights & sight base plungers, trigger bar guide. That sort of thing. More parts for normal service (springs) and when revised parts were provided (barrels, extractors & mags). Some of the guns have had as little as a couple or more thousand rounds fired through them during that time, and a few others have edged upward of several thousands of rounds. A couple of them have exceeded more than 50,000 rounds according to one guy who shoots his 3 SW99's quite a bit. He hasn't had the time to reach as high of a round count with his 3rd gun, but he's working on it.
Overall, I always felt the 99 series incorporated some refinements over the Glock series, and I think the M&P line incorporates some refinements over the 99 series. I've been certified as an armorer for all of them and have some experience maintaining, owning and shooting examples of each line. I own a couple of each maker's models and find them all serviceable for their intended roles.
When I buy another plastic framed pistol, though ... which is likely ... I think it's a safe bet that it will be another M&P.
There were some revisions and improvements made in the SW99 line along the way. Once S&W helped figure out that the .40 S&W mags needed revision (and provided the info to Walther, who passed it on to the mag company) it helped resolve some feeding issues which had been reported with the .40's made in both manufacturer's model lines.
I was told of some other changes here & there, too ... such as the locking blocks being dressed better, the extractors being better polished, etc.
The use of the open-ended/hooked slide stop lever spring S&W requested for their licensed model line was a stronger spring, but it came with a potential disadvantage. The hooked end could be snagged when the frame was being cleaned if someone was inattentive, and the spring bent. Replacing the spring meant removing the locking block, which meant removing a rolled steel pin. I met a few armorers who preferred not to remove that pin themselves.
S&W used the mag catch lever spring as their standard extractor spring, which was heavier than the original extractor spring and was reported to offer better functioning in the .40 & .45 models. At one point S&W advised armorers to reverse the orientation of the extractor springs in the slides, too.
Then, there was reportedly the use of different dimensioned trigger bar guides in some SW99's which caused some light strike issues due to the trigger bar being cammed down and releasing the striker a bit too soon in DA mode. One of my SW99's had that issue and I was told how to resolve it by a repair tech working in the Walther America facility. He had encountered a few P99's with the same problem (which makes sense since it was the same Walther made parts in Walther frames involved). I learned later on that Walther had a range of differently dimensioned trigger bar guides which were used, but that Walther hadn't informed S&W engineers of the tolerances or provided a gauge until late in the SW99/990L's production. The AS & QA models use different trigger bar guides (and different striker springs, BTW), in addition to the obvious difference of the sear housing block not needing to function in single action mode.
I've seen some differences in production involving SW99 .40 barrels made at different times. The differences included how the muzzle crowns were cut, the barrel tabs were cut & finished, the feed ramp shape & finish and the shape of the chamber mouth.
A change which S&W made to enhance functioning during unlocking/locking involved making a machined relief under the barrel at the rear, where the bottom of the barrel needed to clear the top of the recoil spring assembly. (Ever hear the scrunching/screeching noise in an early SW99 or a Glock when the slide was being manipulated by hand?) I saw a couple of different length relief cuts on SW99 .40 barrels once this change was introduced. Nice refinement.
At one point Walther changed the internal frame dimensions in the area of the sear housing block, too. I only figured this out when I was replacing a sear housing block in an early production SW99 (broken ejector, which is molded into the housing block) and found the dimensions of the block and its bottom pin were different. The enw block wouldn't fit into the older frame unless the pin from the older block was installed in the new block. I confirmed this observation by calling S&W and asking about any recent changes.
My SW99's have provided excellent service ... once I replaced the early .40 mags with the revised ones, and corrected the trigger bar guide tolerance issue in the 9mm model. I've fired many thousands of rounds through them, in addition to issued models.
Of the 50-odd SW99's (and at least 1 P99) I've helped maintain and service, I've only had to replace a handful of broken or damaged parts (Walther parts) over the course of several years. I can think of 2-3 ejectors (sear housing block), a couple of extractor springs and an extractor, a slide end cap, a couple of rear sights & sight base plungers, trigger bar guide. That sort of thing. More parts for normal service (springs) and when revised parts were provided (barrels, extractors & mags). Some of the guns have had as little as a couple or more thousand rounds fired through them during that time, and a few others have edged upward of several thousands of rounds. A couple of them have exceeded more than 50,000 rounds according to one guy who shoots his 3 SW99's quite a bit. He hasn't had the time to reach as high of a round count with his 3rd gun, but he's working on it.
Overall, I always felt the 99 series incorporated some refinements over the Glock series, and I think the M&P line incorporates some refinements over the 99 series. I've been certified as an armorer for all of them and have some experience maintaining, owning and shooting examples of each line. I own a couple of each maker's models and find them all serviceable for their intended roles.
When I buy another plastic framed pistol, though ... which is likely ... I think it's a safe bet that it will be another M&P.
- Status
