Mortech
Member
Had my M&P since Feb , finally got the info I needed to yank the mag safety and sear lever . It took all of 5 minutes to do , on the accuracy side mine is alot more accurate with 180gr loadings than 165gr .
Smith & Wesson M & P
- Thread starter marksman13
- Start date
- Status
Recently picked up an MP9 and love it, it has replaced my Glock 19. The M&P defenitely handles better than Glock, the changable backstraps are awesome, no annoying finger grooves or steep grip angle, the grip feels like a single stack and no plastic mags. First polymer pistol that is an improvement over Glock, IMO.
Coronach - what do you think is the weak point about the mags? Are they flimsy or thin steel? Do the basepads look weak? I'm curious.
To the poster that said he had read bad things about the 9mm version, what things? Do you have any links? I'm curious about that, too.
Thanks.
To the poster that said he had read bad things about the 9mm version, what things? Do you have any links? I'm curious about that, too.
Thanks.
The mags have several faults, none of them really terrible, but annoying.
1. When you drop them (when empty), the followers can get jammed in the UP position. You have to invert them and jam the follower into the deck/bench/other hard surface to get it to pop free. I think a follower redesign would fix it- it's like they tip slightly when the spring is slack and they are jarred by hitting the ground.
2. When loading a partially loaded magazine, the slide can fail to strip the top round. I had this happen three times in about 800 rounds. I'm trying to see if it is isolated to a single magazine, if it is my gun, or if it is a systemic problem. It has yet to do it when running through a full magazine. It only happened when dropping the slide on a magazine loaded with six rounds.
3. Again, on a partially-loaded mag (again, it was six rounds), if you slam it into the gun too hard, it will cause the top round to pop upwards at an odd angle and fail to feed. Only happened to me once, but I saw it happen to a couple of other guys. Will not do it on a full magazine (I tried).
4. Again, on a partially loaded magazine, if you slam the magazine home and allow your palm to slide off of the front (like you were doing it in a hurry and slipped), you can take the baseplate with you, and cause the magazine to puke out spring, follower, and rounds at your feet. I have heard of this happening with partially loaded mags, but I've only been able to replicate it with an empty one. I don't think it would be possible with a full one. Also, the baseplates look like they may have been modifed since I last tried this (we were T&Eing the guns when Pax brought it to my attention, and I know the Smith rep got informed).
Mike
1. When you drop them (when empty), the followers can get jammed in the UP position. You have to invert them and jam the follower into the deck/bench/other hard surface to get it to pop free. I think a follower redesign would fix it- it's like they tip slightly when the spring is slack and they are jarred by hitting the ground.
2. When loading a partially loaded magazine, the slide can fail to strip the top round. I had this happen three times in about 800 rounds. I'm trying to see if it is isolated to a single magazine, if it is my gun, or if it is a systemic problem. It has yet to do it when running through a full magazine. It only happened when dropping the slide on a magazine loaded with six rounds.
3. Again, on a partially-loaded mag (again, it was six rounds), if you slam it into the gun too hard, it will cause the top round to pop upwards at an odd angle and fail to feed. Only happened to me once, but I saw it happen to a couple of other guys. Will not do it on a full magazine (I tried).
4. Again, on a partially loaded magazine, if you slam the magazine home and allow your palm to slide off of the front (like you were doing it in a hurry and slipped), you can take the baseplate with you, and cause the magazine to puke out spring, follower, and rounds at your feet. I have heard of this happening with partially loaded mags, but I've only been able to replicate it with an empty one. I don't think it would be possible with a full one. Also, the baseplates look like they may have been modifed since I last tried this (we were T&Eing the guns when Pax brought it to my attention, and I know the Smith rep got informed).
Mike
It is pretty big. If I were looking for a CCW gun in this system, I'd wait for the "Baby" version. OTOH, if you can CCW a 1911 or BHP, you can carry this.
It's a full sized gun, but not a honkin' brick like, say, a S&W Gen III duty gun.
Mike
M&P Trigger Job
If anyone is interested here is a link on how to do a trigger job on the M&P.
http://www.burwellgunsmithing.com/misc/M&Ptriggerjob.pdf
Art
If anyone is interested here is a link on how to do a trigger job on the M&P.
http://www.burwellgunsmithing.com/misc/M&Ptriggerjob.pdf
Art
Coronach ~
You're mistaken: it is possible with a full magazine. There's one hapless person I know personally who catches some grief from his co-workers because it happens every stinking time he loads the gun in a hurry. Don't know what he's doing, but he's doing it real good.
Poor guy.
pax
I tried it with a full mag- no way in heck I can make it happen. I wonder if there was a magazine revision, and I have the new style? I dunno.
Mike
PS: Also, I take it that it happens with multiple magazines? He doesn;t just have a defective one, does he?
Mike
PS: Also, I take it that it happens with multiple magazines? He doesn;t just have a defective one, does he?
JesterXD40
Member
Glad to hear that the M&P is getting brought back from the sigma blues.
As to comparing the Glock to the M&P...
As to comparing the Glock to the M&P...
I am gonna go out on a limb here and I hope I dont start a Glock riot...but the M&P is a WAYYYYY better pistol in .40cal compared to .40cal glocks...now 9's I dont know because I never fired an M&P 9mm but as far as ergo, performance, features, and sights go...its a better pistol and by far is NO WAY a knock-off of glock. Sigma yes. M&P no. Most people say any other polymer frame pistol other than a glock is a knock off of a glock and glock isnt even the originator of the polymer frame pistol its the Heckler & Koch VP70.
greener
Member
I bought an M&P9 a couple of days ago. Did a coin toss between the M&P and XD. Overall, I liked the M&P slightly better. After 250 rounds, I'm not disappointed in the pistol. Feels good, sights are easy to see (something us older folks with bifocals sometimes have a problem with) and shoots pretty consistent groups at 10-12 yards. First field strip was a bit clumsy. Second was a snap.
At 250 rounds, I had none of the problems mentioned in the earlier posts. The pistol does tend to shoot a tad left and about 4" low. Did this with another shooter, so I suspect it is the pistol and not me. This is the first 9mm I've fired more than 5 rounds. I shoot mostly rimfires with adjustable rear sights, so I going to do a bit of contemplation on whether the fixed sights have uncovered a shooting mechanics problem I've adjusted away with other pistols.
Overall, my impressions are pretty postive. The pistol feels good, the trigger is pretty good. Once I get the low-shooting resolved, the left tendency is an easy fix. It doesn't get rave reviews from the range yet, but I will certainly do what I bought it for and, I believe, reliably and well.
At 250 rounds, I had none of the problems mentioned in the earlier posts. The pistol does tend to shoot a tad left and about 4" low. Did this with another shooter, so I suspect it is the pistol and not me. This is the first 9mm I've fired more than 5 rounds. I shoot mostly rimfires with adjustable rear sights, so I going to do a bit of contemplation on whether the fixed sights have uncovered a shooting mechanics problem I've adjusted away with other pistols.
Overall, my impressions are pretty postive. The pistol feels good, the trigger is pretty good. Once I get the low-shooting resolved, the left tendency is an easy fix. It doesn't get rave reviews from the range yet, but I will certainly do what I bought it for and, I believe, reliably and well.
One thing that bothers me about the M&P is, the grip is just a little longer than I wish is was. To me, it looks a little out of proportion and the concealability is compromised a bit by the long grip.
But this gun was designed for uniform belts, so it's not an issue for it's intent.
I know there's going to be a compact version, but that's not what I'm interested in. I would like the current barrel/slide length, but a slightly shorter grip - maybe ~1/2".
(Actually, that's not the only thing I'm not wild about, but that's the main thing.)
"But hey, that's me..."
But this gun was designed for uniform belts, so it's not an issue for it's intent.
I know there's going to be a compact version, but that's not what I'm interested in. I would like the current barrel/slide length, but a slightly shorter grip - maybe ~1/2".
(Actually, that's not the only thing I'm not wild about, but that's the main thing.)
"But hey, that's me..."
The grip is kinda long. I imagine that has to do with two things:
1. The need to fit all kinds of hand sizes, from dainty little female hands (one of the officers in my unit has the smallest hands I've ever seen on an adult), to huge slabs of meat (another officer on my unit could palm my head like a basketball), all the while...
2. Maintining a 15+1 magazine capacity in .40 cal.
Doing both means that the only place you have to go is 'down'. And since it is designed as a gunbelt-residing duty gun, it's not that big of an issue. I think it looks out of proportion due to the fact that the barrel is a 4.25"er and not a 5"er. You have a "full sized" grip mated to a "medium sized" slide.
Personally, I wonder why they went with 4.25" and not 5", given the fact that this is designed as a duty gun. The only reason I can imagine is weight/balance. I'd sure like to see what a 5" would feel like before I decide whether or not this was a good decision.
Mike
1. The need to fit all kinds of hand sizes, from dainty little female hands (one of the officers in my unit has the smallest hands I've ever seen on an adult), to huge slabs of meat (another officer on my unit could palm my head like a basketball), all the while...
2. Maintining a 15+1 magazine capacity in .40 cal.
Doing both means that the only place you have to go is 'down'. And since it is designed as a gunbelt-residing duty gun, it's not that big of an issue. I think it looks out of proportion due to the fact that the barrel is a 4.25"er and not a 5"er. You have a "full sized" grip mated to a "medium sized" slide.
Personally, I wonder why they went with 4.25" and not 5", given the fact that this is designed as a duty gun. The only reason I can imagine is weight/balance. I'd sure like to see what a 5" would feel like before I decide whether or not this was a good decision.
Mike
i forget if it was posted here or another board(i can't seem to find it with a search), but i saw a post a while back re: S&W part numbers to the models that don't have the magazine safety. anyone know the part no for the .40s&w w/o magazine safety?
i think there was some mention that you can't order one unless you're LE...but don't they say that about Remington police models?
oh, and i'm not one of those anti-safety bigots, i was thinking of shooting it in uspsa and explaining to every RO that i'm inserting a empty magazine for the hammer down portion seems a bit tedious. thanks.
---
thanks lunde!
i think there was some mention that you can't order one unless you're LE...but don't they say that about Remington police models?
oh, and i'm not one of those anti-safety bigots, i was thinking of shooting it in uspsa and explaining to every RO that i'm inserting a empty magazine for the hammer down portion seems a bit tedious. thanks.
---
thanks lunde!
Last edited:
lunde
Member
An M&P in .40 Auto without a magazine disconnect (and without an internal lock) would have the following product codes: 209300 (two 15-round magazines and standard sights) or 309700 (three 15-round magazines and night sights; LE model).
They were discussing it a while ago here. I hypothesized that maybe the 9s were having a problem and the 40s weren't, but it turned out that some of the problems being discussed were in 40s, so I dunno.
Sounds like QC let a few lemons get through, of each type. Happens. I'm not sure that there is any reason to think that it is anything more than the usual QC woes of a company churning out a bajillion units of a given product.
Mike
Sounds like QC let a few lemons get through, of each type. Happens. I'm not sure that there is any reason to think that it is anything more than the usual QC woes of a company churning out a bajillion units of a given product.
Mike
- Status
