Jump to content


Photo

M&P Pistol Users Weigh In


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#1 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Members
  • 7,974 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 10 September 2017 - 10:43 AM

I am switching "platforms" from Glock to something else. So far, S&W M&P is at the top of the heap, for various reasons, but mostly ergo's. The grip is nice and high, and it gives me the no safety, striker fired configuration that I want from full size double stacks, to the small single stack Shield, in both 9 and 45.

I'd like to hear from long time users the good, bad, and ugly across the different gens and any strengths or idiosyncrasies associated with each. I'm not big on modding defensive guns, so if it needs part "x" to work, I'd like to know that too. I'm also not a trigger snob, so I don't need or want a trigger @ 3 lbs to be happy. Just a consistent, clean break.

If you're an instructor or spent a lot of time on the range and seen them choke, I'd like to hear that as well.

TIA

#2 Terry 9595

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Joined: 17-April 13

Posted 10 September 2017 - 11:26 AM

I just went through the M&P 2.0 Armorer training.  The new 2.0 is a great gun.  It has a full meatal frame so the gun does not flex, so better shot placement. 

 

The grip has been modified for better hand grip so better shot placement. 

 

It has a fully support chamber.  Nice to have if you get a hot load, some re-loader puts in to much powder.  The chamber will not brake apart.

 

I have shot it, seems to take what ever round I put into it.

 

But word to the wise, don't buy a gun on someone else's  likes or dislikes.   Rent the same make and model at a range and shoot it for yourself.  What's great for me maybe #$$% for you.


Terry K. Bell

 

Member of NRA

Member of ISRA

State of Illinois Licensed Firearm Instructor - 263.000152

State Police Certified Instructor for FCCL

Utah Firearm Instructor  I111295

NRA Law Enforcement Instructor- Handgun, Shotgun and Patrol Rifle

NRA Instructor for

        Certified Home Safety

        Certified Pistol

         Personal Protection In The Home

         Certified Shotgun

         Refuse To Be A Victim

 

NRA Range Safety Officer

Licensed Private Detective

License Security Contractor

 

 

 

 


#3 Thiokol

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,055 posts
  • Joined: 15-September 08

Posted 10 September 2017 - 12:33 PM

I have an original M&P 9mm and the 2.0 9mm, both have 4 1/4" barrels. Right out of the box, the 2.0 has a better trigger. The trigger on the original was okay but not great. However, after around 500 rounds, it smoothed out considerably. Like you, I'm not a fan of modding a pistol. I like mine bone stock.

 

The main differences are: The 2.0 has a very aggressive grip surface. When you pick it up for the first time, you would think that it would be painful to shoot but it's not. As previously stated, it has a longer metal chassis. It also has some cutouts that supposedly save some weight. The trigger is the main improvement. It's much crisper than the original and has a positive reset. Additionally, the beavertail has been shortened and the safety levers are smaller than those on the original. Lastly, the 2.0 has an ambidextrous slide lock.


U.S. Air Force Veteran
ISRA Member
NRA Member
Smith & Wesson Collectors Association Member #2262

#4 2and10

  • Members
  • 6 posts
  • Joined: 07-May 17

Posted 10 September 2017 - 12:47 PM

I was pleasantly surprised by the ergonomics and feel of the M&P9c. Was not a huge fan of the trigger out of the box but it has gotten better with usage. Enjoy shooting it and may look at a Shield but I still prefer the familiar feeling of my Glocks in compact and full size. Good luck

#5 Frank

    "Frank can Glock"

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,357 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 09

Posted 10 September 2017 - 01:23 PM

Before you totally give up on the Glock platform, check out the new Gen 5 models. I had a chance to handle and dry-fire the new models. I've been shooting glocks since the Gen 2 models, and I am always skeptical of "new and improved" models. However, they did something to the new Gen 5 models that I need to investigate more. When dry-firing a Glock, I notice that the front sight will dip to the right a bit when the striker releases. Unless I focus and adjust my grip, trigger control, this happens to me a lot. I talked to the LGS manager, and he said he noticed the same thing before I even mentioned it. 

 

Otherwise, the removal of the finger grooves is a nice touch. I handled both the Gen 5 G19 and G17. I can't wait to fire one on the range.

 

 

The other pistol I would recommend looking at is the HK VP9. The ergonomics are phenomenal and the trigger/striker release is fantastic. I have owned one for a few years and it still feels like I can't miss with this pistol. I would love to try the new VP9 compact, but haven't had the chance. If it weren't for agency requirements, I would probably switch to the VP9 platform for home defense and EDC.

 

Good luck on your quest. My wife has a full-sized M&P 9mm for home defense and loves it. 

 

And I'll echo Terry's comments above. Don't buy a gun based solely on an internet recommendation. Rent or borrow one and test fire it if at all possible before buying. 

 

-- Frank


NRA Life Member - NRA Basic Pistol Instructor - NRA PPIH Instructor - NRA PPOH Instructor - USPSA Range Officer - IL Firearms Concealed Carry Instructor - ITWT Club Member #438

"The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside." -Moore v. Madigan, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 11, 2012


#6 TRJ

    Joyful Stoic

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 6,524 posts
  • Joined: 05-January 14

Posted 10 September 2017 - 02:22 PM

Frank just gave me cover to post and +1 the VP9 suggestion. Both my wife and I are VP9 (more specifically HK aficionados). With the VP9, you can have a system that has a compact carry size VP9SK and a threaded barrel VP9 tactical version should suppressors ever happen here.  There's already a VP40 and there's a VP45 rumored in the pipeline. 

 

I've done a number of classes with my VP9. I've put about 8k rounds through it. Not ONE hiccup. Prior to the VP9 I used to alternate between USP9 and Beretta 92, both also supremely reliable. The VP9 was my first striker gun, and boy was it the right choice for me. 

 

In the battle between my (wife's) Shield and my G43, the G43 wins the daily carry comfort competition, but the Shield is probably my favored gun between them. I shoot it just a touch better (larger grip surface and better sights.) 

 

I'm very curious about the M&P 2.0 so be sure to post up impressions if you decide to go that way. I'm sure it's the bee's knees too because the original M&P guns were great shooters (with mushy triggers).



#7 blck10th

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 555 posts
  • Joined: 13-December 15

Posted 10 September 2017 - 03:03 PM

Subscribing. When available I Going to be looking hard at the 2.0 compact. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

#8 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Members
  • 7,974 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 10 September 2017 - 06:50 PM

Thanks for the comments fellas.

Fear not, I'm not just up and dumping the Glocks on a whim. I won't get rid of them all, anyway. After 8 Glocks and many thousands of rounds, I've still not had a malfunction. That's hard to leave. But I've just had it with the grip. It's not comfy for me at all. There are so many guns that feel better to me. I do like the HK's as well, but S&W has a broad lineup offering the same "feel," which I value.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

#9 Eric D.

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • Pip
  • 64 posts
  • Joined: 26-March 15

Posted 10 September 2017 - 07:25 PM

I have the full size M&P (4.5" barrel) 1.0, my wife has the M&P compact of the same vintage.  Both are nice.  I upgraded my sights to something I thought I'd like better than the stock sights, and now I much prefer her gun to mine (eventually, I'll change my sights back or replace them with something else).  I've shot the M&P 2.0's and they are a bit improved.  Maybe it was just me, but I really didn't find them all that different.  The grip was better, and they have more grip inserts so you can find a size that fits your hand a bit better.  The trigger on my M&P 1.0 is decent; I didn't notice the ver. 2.0 trigger to be appreciably better (it was a S&W demo gun, so I assume it had more than a few rounds through it).  I think if I had to buy something similar again, I'd throw the Ruger American Pistol into the mix and see how it compared.  I shot a few incarnations of that gun, and it felt pretty good.  I'd have to try it side-by-side to really tell.



#10 BigJim

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,957 posts
  • Joined: 30-June 08

Posted 11 September 2017 - 08:58 AM

I have the original M&P full size 9mm and I love it.  It's fun to shoot and quite accurate.  After shooting thousands of rounds through it has never failed me.  It's one of my two carry guns.


Big Jim
-----------------------------------------
I will not be commanded,
I will not be controlled
And I will not let my future go on,
without the help of my soul

The Lost Boy - Greg Holden

#11 HeavyDuty

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 933 posts
  • Joined: 01-October 13

Posted 11 September 2017 - 09:17 AM

I moved back from M&Ps to Glocks last year, but still have all my M&Ps because the used market is so depressed.

The M&Ps are great guns, my move back to Glock has nothing to do with their quality, accuracy or reliability. My issue is that with the first generation at least the triggers were a little too mushy out of the box which is why all of mine have Apex trigger upgrades. But, after years of Glocks before moving to M&Ps in 2005 I never was completely happy with the reset on even Apex modified M&Ps. I have a pair of Shields (9 and 40), a 40c with 9 and 357 conversions, a 9FS and a 45c.

I'll probably keep my 45c regardless - I like it better than anything Glock is offering in a compact .45, but even that will probably change if they ever offer a Gen 4 30S - which looks unlikely with the new Gen 5s out.

I would recommend M&Ps without reservation.

#12 Hazborgufen

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 966 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 13

Posted 11 September 2017 - 12:43 PM

I'm a big fan of the M&P platform. I currently own the following:

Shield

M&P9c

M&P 9mm

M&P Pro 4.25" 9mm

M&P 2.0 9mm

 

The Pro is my nightstand gun and wears a TLR-01 and Crimson Trace lasergrips. The fullsize M&P 9mm is my current IWB concealed carry. I bounce around between that, the Shield, and the 9c. The 9c though is mostly redundant now that I've discovered how easily the fullsize conceals IWB with a reload (or two)

 

The 2.0 is a really nice pistol. The trigger is noticeably smother and crisper than the "1.0" version and the pistol just feels a little less sloppy, which leads to noticeably better groups. All of my full size 9mm M&Ps prefer 124gr ammo over 147gr as far as accuracy goes, but none have ever had a failure regardless of the ammo. They have no issue feeding HSTs or Gold Dots so I'm pleased with that. For reference, I usually shoot at least 500 rounds when the gun is new, right out of the box. I don't lube or clean the new pistol, I simply make sure the bore isn't obstructed then I go through box after box of ammo. For example, before carrying my 1.0 I went through 150 rounds each of 124 and 147 grain American Eagle 9mm, 100 rounds of 124 grain HST, and 150 rounds of 147 grain HST. In one range session. I put everything, including the Shield through similar paces. None have had any failures of any kind as of yet, so I've been very pleased.

 

The only problem with the 2.0 is that it too is redundant. The aggressive grip texture great when you're actually shooting the pistol but it is terrible for carrying IWB without wearing holes into every shirt you own or shredding your skin. If you always wear an undershirt or have more rugged clothes then maybe it won't be an issue. I suppose you could sand it a bit or put on a rubber sleeve but then what's the point? So my 1.0 fills the concealed carry role. I wish they would have gone with the grip texture from the Core/Pro line rather than the sharp texture they currently have. In fact, I put the backstrap from my Pro onto my 1.0 for carry.

 

I should also note that holsters for the older version might not fit the 2.0.

 

Once I decided against carrying the 2.0, I figured it would be my nightstand gun. Unfortunately when I tried installing the Crimson Trace lasergrips (which is listed as compatible with both the 1.0 and 2.0 on Crimson Trace's website) I saw that the frametool was redesigned. The backstraps from the older generation don't properly fit the 2.0, and thus the lasergrip doesn't fit correctly either. If you try to use it, there is no positive lock when you turn the frametool closed. This means it can spin freely in the grip, which could lead to it interfering with inserting or extracting a magazine. Oh well, my 4.25" Pro will remain my nightstand gun.

 

I really like the 2.0 as a shooter, but otherwise it really doesn't have much purpose for now. If Crimson Trace comes out with a lasergrip that properly fits the 2.0 I'll probably pick that up and then be happy. Or maybe I'll just use the 2.0 as a nightstand gun anyway without the lasergrip. Consider what you want to do with the pistol before settling on the 1.0 or 2.0 version.

 

I realize I wrote a lot about things I don't like, but that's only because I really DO like the platform as a whole so I'm being nitpicky. I too sold my Glock 19 and don't use my Glock 34 anymore because I simply didn't like how they felt. I shoot USPSA with a CZ, so the M&P have a comparable grip angle. Seemed silly to try getting used to the Glock when the M&P fit so well.



#13 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Members
  • 7,974 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 11 September 2017 - 01:20 PM

I'm a big fan of the M&P platform. I currently own the following:
Shield
M&P9c
M&P 9mm
M&P Pro 4.25" 9mm
M&P 2.0 9mm
 
The Pro is my nightstand gun and wears a TLR-01 and Crimson Trace lasergrips. The fullsize M&P 9mm is my current IWB concealed carry. I bounce around between that, the Shield, and the 9c. The 9c though is mostly redundant now that I've discovered how easily the fullsize conceals IWB with a reload (or two)
 
The 2.0 is a really nice pistol. The trigger is noticeably smother and crisper than the "1.0" version and the pistol just feels a little less sloppy, which leads to noticeably better groups. All of my full size 9mm M&Ps prefer 124gr ammo over 147gr as far as accuracy goes, but none have ever had a failure regardless of the ammo. They have no issue feeding HSTs or Gold Dots so I'm pleased with that. For reference, I usually shoot at least 500 rounds when the gun is new, right out of the box. I don't lube or clean the new pistol, I simply make sure the bore isn't obstructed then I go through box after box of ammo. For example, before carrying my 1.0 I went through 150 rounds each of 124 and 147 grain American Eagle 9mm, 100 rounds of 124 grain HST, and 150 rounds of 147 grain HST. In one range session. I put everything, including the Shield through similar paces. None have had any failures of any kind as of yet, so I've been very pleased.
 
The only problem with the 2.0 is that it too is redundant. The aggressive grip texture great when you're actually shooting the pistol but it is terrible for carrying IWB without wearing holes into every shirt you own or shredding your skin. If you always wear an undershirt or have more rugged clothes then maybe it won't be an issue. I suppose you could sand it a bit or put on a rubber sleeve but then what's the point? So my 1.0 fills the concealed carry role. I wish they would have gone with the grip texture from the Core/Pro line rather than the sharp texture they currently have. In fact, I put the backstrap from my Pro onto my 1.0 for carry.
 
I should also note that holsters for the older version might not fit the 2.0.
 
Once I decided against carrying the 2.0, I figured it would be my nightstand gun. Unfortunately when I tried installing the Crimson Trace lasergrips (which is listed as compatible with both the 1.0 and 2.0 on Crimson Trace's website) I saw that the frametool was redesigned. The backstraps from the older generation don't properly fit the 2.0, and thus the lasergrip doesn't fit correctly either. If you try to use it, there is no positive lock when you turn the frametool closed. This means it can spin freely in the grip, which could lead to it interfering with inserting or extracting a magazine. Oh well, my 4.25" Pro will remain my nightstand gun.
 
I really like the 2.0 as a shooter, but otherwise it really doesn't have much purpose for now. If Crimson Trace comes out with a lasergrip that properly fits the 2.0 I'll probably pick that up and then be happy. Or maybe I'll just use the 2.0 as a nightstand gun anyway without the lasergrip. Consider what you want to do with the pistol before settling on the 1.0 or 2.0 version.
 
I realize I wrote a lot about things I don't like, but that's only because I really DO like the platform as a whole so I'm being nitpicky. I too sold my Glock 19 and don't use my Glock 34 anymore because I simply didn't like how they felt. I shoot USPSA with a CZ, so the M&P have a comparable grip angle. Seemed silly to try getting used to the Glock when the M&P fit so well.


Thanks. Nitpicks is exactly what I'm interested in.

So far, I'm seeing no deal breakers.

#14 Bitter Clinger

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 752 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 14

Posted 12 September 2017 - 08:15 AM

I have an older M&P 9 version 1.0 which I've put close to 5000 rounds through and I've used a variety of ammo from really good stuff to crappy lacquered steel case, "smells like farts" Russian Brown Bear.  I've never had a malfunction with any ammo in the M&P.

 

I looked at a bunch of guns before settling on the M&P and it came down to the M&P, Glock and Springfield XD.  The Springfield had too many safeties and other gadgetry on it so it was out.  The Glock just didn't feel right in my hand, even though it shot OK.  The M&P felt good, shot nice and just had an overall quality to it which pushed it over the top for me.  It had interchangeable handgrips which the others did not.  I also like the fact that it has a supported barrel which should help with overly hot loads.  Back when I bought my M&P, the issue with "exploding Glocks" was just coming to light, so the supported barrel was a plus.

 

The original trigger was heavy, so I put in an Apex sear (a 20 minute job) which made a huge difference.

 

I also have a 1.0 Shield which has also never had a malfunction, but the trigger is very heavy.  If I were to do it again, I'd get the Performance Center model, but at the time "Performance Center" guns from S&W did not exist.



#15 OldMarineVet

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,714 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 14

Posted 12 September 2017 - 08:53 AM

I have an older M&P 9 version 1.0 which I've put close to 5000 rounds through and I've used a variety of ammo from really good stuff to crappy lacquered[/size] steel case, "smells like farts" Russian Brown Bear.  I've never had a malfunction with any ammo in the M&P.
 
I looked at a bunch of guns before settling on the M&P and it came down to the M&P, Glock and Springfield XD.  The Springfield had too many safeties and other gadgetry on it so it was out.  The Glock just didn't feel right in my hand, even though it shot OK.  The M&P felt good, shot nice and just had an overall quality to it which pushed it over the top for me.  It had interchangeable handgrips which the others did not.  I also like the fact that it has a supported barrel which should help with overly hot loads.  Back when I bought my M&P, the issue with "exploding Glocks" was just coming to light, so the supported barrel was a plus.
 
The original trigger was heavy, so I put in an Apex sear (a 20 minute job) which made a huge difference.
 
I also have a 1.0 Shield which has also never had a malfunction, but the trigger is very heavy.  If I were to do it again, I'd get the Performance Center model, but at the time "Performance Center" guns from S&W did not exist.

Hmm. there was an issue of "exploding Glocks" that was coming to light? Any references, please?

#16 Hazborgufen

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 966 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 13

Posted 12 September 2017 - 09:23 AM

 

Hmm. there was an issue of "exploding Glocks" that was coming to light? Any references, please?

 

 

About 10 years ago Glocks in .40 S&W were blowing up. They had an unsupported chamber and I think the chamber tolerances were ever so slightly off, which led to weird pressure issues that resulted in kabooms.



#17 Hazborgufen

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 966 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 13

Posted 12 September 2017 - 10:04 AM

Thanks. Nitpicks is exactly what I'm interested in.

So far, I'm seeing no deal breakers.

 

 

If you are planning on buying used, be aware that the "1.0" has gone through several revisions but that S&W didn't change the name or generation of the model. For example, very early M&P 9mm pistols had accuracy issues due to (if I recall correctly) the barrel they used having too slow of a twist rate and the barrel hood and lugs having some less than ideal geometry. This was fixed and all new barrels have a dimple under the chamber to indicate it is the new barrel, so check for this if you are buying used.

 

This picture shows the old geometry compared to the newer geometry.

 

This picture shows where to find the dimple to verify a newer production barrel.

 

Additionally, the trigger was changed after the Shield was introduced. The original M&P had a somewhat mushy trigger without a positive reset (so I've heard). After the Shield came out S&W changed the trigger on their other models so that they have a much more positive reset.

 

Honestly though, buying new is a pretty good deal. You have until the 30th to get in on their $75 "Perfect Summer Hideaway" rebate. S&W makes lots of versions of the same pistol (thumb safety, Massachusettes trigger, California Compliant 10 round mags, Colorado Compliant 15 round magazines, different color options, etc.) so if you are buying online, double check the specific SKU by looking on their website to make sure you pick the exact right one. The model names on their website are not descriptive enough to just eyeball and the state compliant models are frequently listed before the fully featured versions, so be sure to actually click the entry and check the specifications to make sure you don't accidentally end up with a 10 round magazine or something.



#18 Hipshot Percussion

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,257 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 14

Posted 12 September 2017 - 12:13 PM

kahr


“I have fought the good fight to the end; I have run the race to the finish: I have kept the faith."  Timothy Chapter 4 verse 7

 

"Legitimate self-defense has absolutely nothing to do with the criminal misuse of guns."   Gerald Vernon, veteran firearms instructor

 

New Gunner Journal

 


#19 OldMarineVet

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,714 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 14

Posted 12 September 2017 - 12:23 PM

Hmm. there was an issue of "exploding Glocks" that was coming to light? Any references, please?

 
About 10 years ago Glocks in .40 S&W were blowing up. They had an unsupported chamber and I think the chamber tolerances were ever so slightly off, which led to weird pressure issues that resulted in kabooms.

I'm not able to find any Glock recalls about this. What does an "unsupported chamber" mean? One not supported by Glock? Thanks

#20 Hazborgufen

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 966 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 13

Posted 12 September 2017 - 01:01 PM

 

 

Hmm. there was an issue of "exploding Glocks" that was coming to light? Any references, please?

 
About 10 years ago Glocks in .40 S&W were blowing up. They had an unsupported chamber and I think the chamber tolerances were ever so slightly off, which led to weird pressure issues that resulted in kabooms.

 

I'm not able to find any Glock recalls about this. What does an "unsupported chamber" mean? One not supported by Glock? Thanks

 

 

See this picture for an example.

 

Notice how the round in the far left chamber has more of the case wall exposed over the feedramp? That area is a weak point and can result in damage to cases and in a worst case scenario can lead to damage to the gun. People who reload are very familiar with "Glock bulge" caused by the unsupported area above the feedramp in reused cases and have to properly resize in order to use the case.

 

I don't think a recall was ever issued, Glock just increased the amount of material under the brass to add support over the years. I believe most of the kabooms were in Gen 2 and older .40 caliber and 10mm models. Gen 3, Gen 4, and presumably Gen 5 have mitigated the issue.

 

Edited to add: Notice in that picture above that the newer OEM chamber (the middle one) had more support under the case. The one furthest to the right is an aftermarket barrel and has even more support. The support is a trade off when it comes to reliable ammo feed since with less material in the way the cartridge is more likely to feed, whereas with more support there is a chance the ammo won't feed and will lead to a malfunction. The issue arises when the lack of material means that the chamber can't handle the pressures.


Edited by Hazborgufen, 12 September 2017 - 01:06 PM.


#21 OldMarineVet

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,714 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 14

Posted 12 September 2017 - 03:07 PM

Great explanation, Hazborgufen . Thank you. But, I'm just trying to assess blame here.

I have heard these Glock horror stories for years...things like "exploding Glocks" and "lucky the dropped gun wasn't a Glock" from another current thread. People shooting themselves in the leg drawing a Glock...as if Glocks would fire themselves if they were left on a table...

So what is to blame for the "exploding .40 cal Glocks?" My EDC for years (G27) even with an appendix holster (shudder, shudder... and I constantly practice live draws!) Who is to blame? Is it Glock? Is it some reloaders? If Glock, how did they get away without issuing a recall? Thanks

Edited by OldMarineVet, 12 September 2017 - 03:16 PM.


#22 Hazborgufen

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 966 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 13

Posted 12 September 2017 - 03:51 PM

Great explanation, Hazborgufen . Thank you. But, I'm just trying to assess blame here.

I have heard these Glock horror stories for years...things like "exploding Glocks" and "lucky the dropped gun wasn't a Glock" from another current thread. People shooting themselves in the leg drawing a Glock...as if Glocks would fire themselves if they were left on a table...

So what is to blame for the "exploding .40 cal Glocks?" My EDC for years (G27) even with an appendix holster (shudder, shudder... and I constantly practice live draws!) Who is to blame? Is it Glock? Is it some reloaders? If Glock, how did they get away without issuing a recall? Thanks

 

Fair enough. The only Glocks I owned were Gen 4 and they were in 9mm, so I have no first hand information, just the speculation that I've read. My opinion of Glock pistols is actually very high and I won't speak ill of them (outside of a tongue in cheek teasing during fanboy arguments), but I simply prefer M&Ps personally. 

 

I will say that I am familiar with brass having "Glock bulge" and it wouldn't surprise me if the earlier generation Glocks with less support in the chamber might have had some issues, especially when shooting higher pressure ammunition. Aside from a careless reloader using fatigued brass and loading to crazy pressures, I can see how tolerances stack so perhaps some Glocks had an even slightly higher cut chamber from the factory, combined with a .40 S&W +p factory load being loaded slightly hotter, combined with a bullet that has been chambered and unloaded repeatedly leading to some bullet setback. In the perfect storm it is a possibility.

 

As for the drop safety issue, it's my understanding that the test was very much non-standard in that the pistol was thrown like a frisbee for 15 feet with a 4 foot drop to simulate dropping a pistol while running or having it knocked out of your hand. Gen 1 Glocks failed that test because the metal rail for the slide was too small. Glock upgraded that and it hasn't been an issue ever since Gen 3 I believe.

 

That's one of the reasons that I'm not so upset that the P320 failed a test that it wasn't designed to pass. Sure, it shouldn't have happened in the first place, but now that it's been identified Sig has already offering a free fix. It's embarrassing for the company, and frustrating for the owners of the pistols, but in the end everything is being resolved.

 

Really, I think the reason Glock gets picked on is because it's the Big Dog when it comes to LE sales and subsequent consumer market share. That and their "Glock Perfection" motto earn them at least some playful teasing.



#23 DD123

    Freedom Lover

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 7,782 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 14

Posted 12 September 2017 - 08:00 PM

The whole Glock unsupported chamber thing is a bit of a misnomer.  The chamber is designed that way so that if there is an overpressure cartridge, or barrel obstruction, that the blast gets directed downwards.  Whenever you see a catastrophic failure on video involving a Glock, what you usually see happen is the blast shoot out the mag, versus the explosion directed outwards, or backwards towards the user.  It's a safety feature.  

 

Even the size of the chambers are loose in comparison to something like an XD.  I have a G29, and was running loads about as hot as Hornady Custom.  These are my personal handloads, and they are pretty wicked in such a small gun.  I picked up an aftermarket lone wolf barrel, and did a test.  After taking the lone wolf barrel out to the range and firing some rounds through it, I came back home and took the brass fired out of it, and took my OEM barrel, and the fired brass out of the lone wolf just dropped right in.  When I took the fired brass from my OEM barrel and tried to fit it into the lone wolf barrel, even if I had a hammer I wouldn't be able to get it in.  The lone wolf barrel has a much tighter fitting chamber than the Glock barrel does.  

 

A Glock armorer shared all of this with me a few years ago when I started reloading.  He said the looser unsupported chamber is meant to be that way to improve reliability, and safety in the event that you have a bad round or obstructed barrel.  

 

I believe the first .40 s&w guns made by Glock had issues with the locking block and frame not being strong enough for the round itself, so there were significant wear issues, like other guns manufactured during the time.  They all were using a 9mm frame build to withstand the abuse of 9mm versus .40 s&w.  While they have tightened up the chambers a bit, and beefed up the frame and locking blocks, the chambers are still loose as all heck.  

 

I think we tend to see more Glock bulge on brass loaded to open shooter pressures.  9mm open is loaded to something like +++P++ lol.  


Edited by DD123, 12 September 2017 - 08:03 PM.

Force and intimidation are the tools of tyrants.  - Ron Paul

 

If Democrats quit shooting people, "gun violence" would go down by 80%.......

 

Taxation is theft

 

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny" - Thomas Jefferson


#24 Bitter Clinger

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 752 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 14

Posted 16 September 2017 - 07:28 AM

In some rare extreme cases, this is what was happening to people:

 

https://tse3.mm.bing...yAD6D6&pid=15.1

 

I think that's what was causing the scare at the time.



#25 OldMarineVet

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,714 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 14

Posted 16 September 2017 - 08:51 AM

The whole Glock unsupported chamber thing is a bit of a misnomer.  The chamber is designed that way so that if there is an overpressure cartridge, or barrel obstruction, that the blast gets directed downwards.  Whenever you see a catastrophic failure on video involving a Glock, what you usually see happen is the blast shoot out the mag, versus the explosion directed outwards, or backwards towards the user.  It's a safety feature.  
 
Even the size of the chambers are loose in comparison to something like an XD.  I have a G29, and was running loads about as hot as Hornady Custom.  These are my personal handloads, and they are pretty wicked in such a small gun.  I picked up an aftermarket lone wolf barrel, and did a test.  After taking the lone wolf barrel out to the range and firing some rounds through it, I came back home and took the brass fired out of it, and took my OEM barrel, and the fired brass out of the lone wolf just dropped right in.  When I took the fired brass from my OEM barrel and tried to fit it into the lone wolf barrel, even if I had a hammer I wouldn't be able to get it in.  The lone wolf barrel has a much tighter fitting chamber than the Glock barrel does.  
 
A Glock armorer shared all of this with me a few years ago when I started reloading.  He said the looser unsupported chamber is meant to be that way to improve reliability, and safety in the event that you have a bad round or obstructed barrel.  
 
I believe the first .40 s&w guns made by Glock had issues with the locking block and frame not being strong enough for the round itself, so there were significant wear issues, like other guns manufactured during the time.  They all were using a 9mm frame build to withstand the abuse of 9mm versus .40 s&w.  While they have tightened up the chambers a bit, and beefed up the frame and locking blocks, the chambers are still loose as all heck.  
 
I think we tend to see more Glock bulge on brass loaded to open shooter pressures.  9mm open is loaded to something like +++P++ lol.

You said "He said the looser unsupported chamber is meant to be that way to improve reliability, and safety in the event that you have a bad round or obstructed barrel."

Yes, that's my understanding also. A plus on reliability and safety, but a minus on accuracy. I've not found the minus on accuracy noticeable. I happily accept that design tradeoff. Reliability is a high priority for me. I especially appreciated the video somebody posted awhile ago of "fishing" (shooting fish) from a Glock underwater!

Edited by OldMarineVet, 16 September 2017 - 08:52 AM.


#26 DD123

    Freedom Lover

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 7,782 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 14

Posted 17 September 2017 - 09:16 AM

 

The whole Glock unsupported chamber thing is a bit of a misnomer.  The chamber is designed that way so that if there is an overpressure cartridge, or barrel obstruction, that the blast gets directed downwards.  Whenever you see a catastrophic failure on video involving a Glock, what you usually see happen is the blast shoot out the mag, versus the explosion directed outwards, or backwards towards the user.  It's a safety feature.  
 
Even the size of the chambers are loose in comparison to something like an XD.  I have a G29, and was running loads about as hot as Hornady Custom.  These are my personal handloads, and they are pretty wicked in such a small gun.  I picked up an aftermarket lone wolf barrel, and did a test.  After taking the lone wolf barrel out to the range and firing some rounds through it, I came back home and took the brass fired out of it, and took my OEM barrel, and the fired brass out of the lone wolf just dropped right in.  When I took the fired brass from my OEM barrel and tried to fit it into the lone wolf barrel, even if I had a hammer I wouldn't be able to get it in.  The lone wolf barrel has a much tighter fitting chamber than the Glock barrel does.  
 
A Glock armorer shared all of this with me a few years ago when I started reloading.  He said the looser unsupported chamber is meant to be that way to improve reliability, and safety in the event that you have a bad round or obstructed barrel.  
 
I believe the first .40 s&w guns made by Glock had issues with the locking block and frame not being strong enough for the round itself, so there were significant wear issues, like other guns manufactured during the time.  They all were using a 9mm frame build to withstand the abuse of 9mm versus .40 s&w.  While they have tightened up the chambers a bit, and beefed up the frame and locking blocks, the chambers are still loose as all heck.  
 
I think we tend to see more Glock bulge on brass loaded to open shooter pressures.  9mm open is loaded to something like +++P++ lol.

You said "He said the looser unsupported chamber is meant to be that way to improve reliability, and safety in the event that you have a bad round or obstructed barrel."

Yes, that's my understanding also. A plus on reliability and safety, but a minus on accuracy. I've not found the minus on accuracy noticeable. I happily accept that design tradeoff. Reliability is a high priority for me. I especially appreciated the video somebody posted awhile ago of "fishing" (shooting fish) from a Glock underwater!

 

They were designed with military use in mind.  During a battle, a soldier typically doesn't have time to clean their firearm, so to ensure reliability with regard to the round being able to be chambered, they loosened up the chambers a bit.  

 

They have tightened them up slightly over the years, but they're still far looser than say a Springfield XD/XDM chamber.  

 

I see a lot of Glock hate on social media regarding the loose, unsupported chambers, but one thing you'll never see a Glock hater admit is the fact that Glock, or any company for that matter, wouldn't design something in a way to encourage injuries and subsequent lawsuits, especially to the point that they literally don't change it very much with later generations.  I only own two Glock's, and I don't particularly like them because of the awkward point of aim, and how high my right hand rides on the grip.  I've never not had them go bang every time, and they feed nearly every type of bullet I feed them.  

 

But back to the OP:  I haven't had a chance to shoot any M&P's, but I can share what I've seen at 3 gun matches, along with the many 3 gun FB pages I'm a member of.  There are a number of people using M&P's, and I generally don't hear anything negative about them.  People do customize them by installing, or having parts tuned and installed, but that's mainly to lighten trigger pull, sights, extended mags, and stuff like that designed for accuracy and speed.  Seems that most are happy with them.  


Force and intimidation are the tools of tyrants.  - Ron Paul

 

If Democrats quit shooting people, "gun violence" would go down by 80%.......

 

Taxation is theft

 

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny" - Thomas Jefferson


#27 ScopeEye

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 954 posts
  • Joined: 05-January 14

Posted 17 September 2017 - 09:27 AM

9mm I prefer M&P over Glock  but not by much  I shoot both very well

45 cal I really like my G30

 

Glock is FUGLY

Another one to consider is FN


Edited by ScopeEye, 17 September 2017 - 09:29 AM.

Illinois Carry Member

NRA Life Member

ISRA

 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users