I think you assessment of the situation is as accurate as your barrels. ;-)

I wasn't satisfied with the accuracy of my M&P 40 always hitting at 5 o'clock if I aimed at 11 I was right on ,installed a Storm Lake ported barrel and it made a big difference. I didn't change my hands either

Thanks. I wish we didn't have to have this conversation. But the deficits in the system gave me the opportunity to build a company. A mixed blessing I suppose...

The PC guns of today are definitely not what they were 20 years ago. I have friends who used to work in the Performance Center back then and I even own a few guns that they built during their tenure. The fit, finish and accuracy of them are second to none. I for one miss the days when artisans would craft a pistol (or revolver) with passion and pride. It may not have been that profitable of a venture for the company at that time, but they set the benchmark extremely high for what limited production run firearms could be...

First, I am very happy to see your business is doing very well. I like that. It's American. That being said, it is sad S&W's standards (engineering and customer service) aren't as high as they use to be. They have to be aware of this and are publicly denying this information.

Well said Randy Lee! It is sad what passes for a "performance center" gun these days. Regards 18DAI

__________________
7 +1 Rounds of hope & change

I think it's like he said... it just isn't as cost effective to provide that level of fit, finish, and accuracy. When 98 out of 100 people wouldn't know a 10" gun from a 6" gun from a 1" gun, it doesn't make sense to spend that much more building in the benefits that people won't even realize. There are probably substantial diminishing returns with that kind of business model. If you can earn 90% of the profit while doing 35% of the work, but that last 10% of the profit takes the other 65% of the work... well, it's easy to see why it makes business sense.

This is why it hurts when the performance center models -- especially ones that are equipped with slides milled for red dots made specifically for competitive shooters -- are as bad or worse than some off the line models. There is a reason why I spent $700 for a PC gun when I could have purchased a base FS for hundreds less... and it was just for the over-travel screw or the rounded striker block. I wanted to get a gun that was put together by someone who cared that it was going to be owned by someone else who cares. Oh well. Like Randy said... for most, good enough is good enough. My primary issue with that is that I would like to know what I'm paying for BEFORE I buy so I can make an informed decision. I don't buy a Honda Civic expecting Corvette performance. However, if I was purchasing a Corvette, I'd want to know ahead of time if it was going to accelerate like a Honda Civic. Just because Chevy believed that 99% of Corvette buyers would never run the car hard enough to find out that it handles like a Civic doesn't mean that it's okay to only give it that level of performance. For example, Ruger has never pretended to be the best fit and finished guns out there. IMO, they are relatively crudely finished and constructed in many ways; but when you buy one you know that they are affordable and built like tanks... you are fully aware ahead of time what they are, and they don't pretend to be anything more.

But this is the state of things these days, I suppose. I've noticed a drop off in a lot of QC. Don't get me wrong... I'm not one of the folks that is pining for the good ol' days of guns. I know that modern machining and CNC means that guns today are much more uniformly constructed. However, the QC aspect seems to have taken a backseat to profits in a lot of cases. IMO, I think that's where S&W is right now... probably a victim of their own rampant success. There was a time in the recent past where I was seeing more issues with new SIGs, as well... not sure if they have tightened things up but most of what I've seen and bought recently has been top notch. I don't think I've ever seen an HK that has poor QC; and despite the fact that they are filled with MIM and stamped parts, they are incredibly robust, reliable, and accurate guns based on my experience. S&W revolvers used to be very finely put together -- especially the PC guns. I miss that because I don't think that there is a comparable alternative on the market today. It's why I haven't bought a new S&W revolver in a number of years... the past two PC revolvers I've owned needed warranty work.

The best we can do is make our voices heard. Let them know when they do something right and let them know when they do something wrong. Vote with your dollars. This is the only way to get the accountants and the supply chain and production guys all on the same page.

I ordered one of the first Apex gunsmith fit barrels, the first day they were released. It's always worked well, but I always shot up all the ammo in it. Today, when I shot an IDPA match, when there was a round in the chamber and I went to eject it, I found it very difficult to eject and a couple of times, I had to shoot it to get the slide open. I took it home and found that the American Eagle 147 grain FMJ flat point ammo, hits the lands and sticks there. My S&W factory barrel doesn't do this. I'm going to call Randy tomorrow and see if I can send the barrel back to them and have them ream the chamber a few thousandths deeper.

__________________
NRA R.S.O. & Life Member

The first barrels had this issue. He has since changed the barrel to include a relief cut to allow for ejection of loaded ammo. He said that if you sent the barrel in, they can cut the relief cut for you. I'm sure they will tell you the same when you call.

I've been looking for an excuse to get rid of the M&P Pro 9 and get a Walther PPQ, so I thought I'd try to fix the Apex barrel myself and if I ruined it, I had an excuse to buy the PPQ and sell/trade in the Pro with the factory barrel installed.
The Apex barrel didn't give proper headspacing, compared to the factory barrel. I was able to fix the problem and it works like it should now. I have machine shop skills and the proper tools to do the job.

__________________
NRA R.S.O. & Life Member

Randy, have you taken a look/tested what grouping size difference you can make with an APEX barrel in the M&P .40 S&W yet?

Are you referring to using our barrel as a .40 to 9 conversion? If so, the answer is no.

While it may function, the hood width really needs to match the slide cut out to prevent lateral shifting of the brass (and barrel) as it is being extracted from the chamber. In a 9mm slide, the vertical sidewall of the breech limits the sideways travel as the extractor wants to push the case to the left.

We will have something for the .40 owners in the near future...

Second trip to the range with the Apex SDI barrel. Ran well, which is good, because the first outing was less than great. I had left it a bit tight and was getting some FTE. It got better as I ran the gun and after just a tiny bit more filing seems good now (100 rounds without a hiccup).

Can't really say how much more accurate or not it is for sure, but the groups seemed tighter.. especially at 15 and 25 yards. I might play with a rest and compare with the old barrel in the name of science.

Thanks for your reply. No, I meant a .40 S&W Apex barrel to go in a .40 S&W M&P Pro CORE 4.25". And have you tested is there any significant group size improvement in .40 like you demonstrated and delivered in the 9 mm?

In post #235 in this thread I shared data with the group sizes I am currently getting in my .40 M&P as a reference.

Just another happy SDI customer here. Approximately 500 rounds to date through the SDI and no malfunctions. My gun was a new PC ported 5". I tried 6 different types of ammo at 28 yards with factory sights using a rest and the best I did was get 8 shots (out of 10) to hit a 6"x6". Grouping was random with the ones that did hit the target. My best results were with heavier bullets (147 gn IIRC). Installed a SDI and suddenly I became a better shooter. The first time I shot the SDI, I shot 7 rounds at 31 yards (still using factory sights) and the group was 2.7". I did post pictures of both on another forum. I didn't try any other types of ammo because that was good enough for me to KNOW that when I missed a target while practicing more traditional pistol shooting, the problem was ME and not the gun. I also disagree on the whole practice more philosophy with an inaccurate gun. Before I purchased the SDI, I did plenty of practicing and when I missed, I didn't know if it was my fault or the gun's fault beyond 12 yards. I certainly couldn't call my shots. When you can't determine the source of the problem, practicing more will only help to a certain degree. Now, I know when I miss, the problem is ME and not the gun so I can evaluate what I might have done wrong and work on improving that.

And I'm patiently waiting for you to move out of CA so I can get a threaded barrel. (just pulling your chain Randy, whenever you get around to it is fine with me ).

not sure I agree... My carry gun may save my life ! I want it as accurate as I can get.. my family is a lot more important then a bulls eye at the range !!!

Hi Ron,

Unfortunately we won't have a .40 barrel planned until after we relocate to a less restrictive state.

I'm working on it...

Randy, why doesn't the 9C have the same inherent issues as the full size. My compact is MUCH more accurate in comparison to my full size.

That's a good question. I never thought of that. ...however I also never owned a M&P 9C.

Typically, the shorter barrels and slides will shoot more consistently in almost all polymer, striker fired pistols.If you get a chance to talk to Julie Golob or Dave Sevigny at a match, they will most likely agree as they both have seen this phenomenon when they were shooting for Team Glock.

The main reason is that the bullet has a greater chance of exiting the barrel before barrel destabilization can take its toll (we are talking 9c, G26/G27 etc.).
The longer the barrel, the longer the time the bullet is in the barrel. If the system has too short of a dwell time then the trajectory of the bullet will have greater variability because the axis of the bore is pointed in slightly different directions.

Got my Dawson Sights on so had to try her out tonight. I was just out practicing/plinking and then I decided to do a test with my last 12 rounds. I didn't want to be accused of suddenly becoming a better marksman or that the Dawson Sights alone were responsible for these results so I tested both barrels.
***Disclaimer - I did find a significant improvement in groups (~35% smaller group) using the Dawson Sights combined with the SDI compared to the factory sights***
In any case, first I put the factory barrel back and shot 6 shots at 24 yards using my tactical bag to rest my wrists on. Only 5 of the 6 hit the target. Of the ones that hit, there was at least an 8" extreme spread (my calipers don't measure that large). I apologize that I forgot to snap a photo of the target with the factory barrel. Then I took the next 6 shots withe the SDI. Nothing else was different. I believe the picture speaks for itself.

I completely understand the dwell time scenario....I guess I can't understand how S&W didn't get it right with the full size 9's compared to other 9's like the ppq, Vp9, or Xd (with 4 inch or more barrels) . My entire collection is M&P's (and a Springfield Range officer champion in .45 ). And I have Apex FSS kits and poly triggers in my FS, 9c, and both Shields have the carry kit with aluminum trigger. By far, the full size is the worst gun from an accuracy standpoint, compared to the 9c and Shield. Of course, the Springfield .45 is a tack driver. I have since put the full size up for sale since getting the 9c and shooting them side by side. The 9c got me really thinking about how bad the full size actually was....I did NOT expect the 9c to be that accurate, but it just is, so the full size is going. The full size can be all over the paper, flyers all over the place...at first I thought it was just me, but it's not, it's the gun. It's basically a big paperweight to me at this point.

When I was looking to buy my first M&P I wavered back and forth between the fill size pistol and the 9c. Bought the 9c as its versatility was attractive and the LGS gave me a nice deal on an older NIB gun they had had in stock for some time.

I'm very happy with the 9c and and feel rather lucky to have made that decision now reading about the full size guns.

I'm not sure why the factory designed the barrel lockup the way they did. Only the engineers know the answer to that question. I suspect that an assumption was made that the barrel only had to be locked up when the slide was fully forward. Unfortunately, we know that is not the case.

Often times, the engineers are not themselves shooters- so they rely on feedback from professional shooters. There can be a cycle of mis-information and incorrect premises, because while the top shooters know how to shoot (and what works for them) they do not necessarily posess the engineering/diagnostic mindset. So it sort of becomes the blind men describing an elephant, and the engineers taking that data and following it down the rabbit hole to see where it leads.

Not shooting to point of aim is meaningless with respect to accuracy. Group size is what counts.

Size does matter, although smaller is better in this instance.

Just an FYI: for a right-handed shooter, the 7:00-8:00 area (low left) is known to target shooters as "jerkers corner".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think it's especially frustrating because you would imagine a company like Smith and Wesson would have the resources to get something like this worked out... If not in pre-production, then definitely at some point a decade into making the pistol. Of course considering the wayward journey that they took to finally arrive at a design (of their own) that would be a commercial success, I suppose it's not surprising that we are where we are -- and that they probably aren't willing from a business standpoint to rock the boat on what has become their bread and butter product line.

I agree.....if Randy could figure it out, they should have been able to. Randy should patent it, then sell it back to Smith for a super large sum because he fixed a problem for them that they couldn't solve themselves....saves a LOT on R&D! LOL!

Anyone have ANY idea what the next generation guns may look like? I've seen no leaks pertaining to the submission they made to the military trials. This thread "almost" has me sold on ordering an SDI barrel just to try it in my full size, but another part of me wants to just sell the full size (with Apex FSS and trigger) and go for a PPQ.....decisions. How the heck did Walther get it right the first time? And S&W couldn't have taken notes from the PPQ since they distribute them?

It appears that the next generation of military sidearms are going to look a lot like a Glock 19.

__________________
7 +1 Rounds of hope & change

I'm not sure about the 2nd gen (or version 2.0 or whatever it will be called)... it seems like they are pretty tight with the info and people have been talking about this gun for quite a while without anything emerging.

As for the PPQ, I honestly don't really understand the level of hype that that gun gets. The trigger is nice, but it didn't make me want to buy one right then and there after trying it. So much is made of what a "good" trigger means in a striker fired gun. For some people, the Glock trigger is "great" just because it has a tactile reset. Or the M&P trigger is terrible just because it doesn't. Personally, I can't stand the bladed trigger safety on these guns... it's one of the things that has kept me from buying an Apex trigger. If it were up to me, I'd go the route that SIG has with the P320, but that gun has other issues that make it less than compatible for me (specifically the location of the slide catch lever, which is also kind of an issue on the PPQ, IMO, as well as the VP9). The reality is that none of these triggers should be considered "great". If you want to feel a great trigger, you need to try a tuned 1911. If you want to feel a great double-action trigger, you need to try one of the S&W revolvers tuned by Randy.

If by "get it right", you are talking not about the trigger but about the accuracy thing, I think it's not just Walther (assuming that they have good accuracy... I've never bench rested one). Glocks are reasonably loose-fitting guns that are filled with stamped metal parts just slipping and sliding over one another, yet they make it work. They aren't target guns, but I have found every one that I've owned or shot to be acceptably accurate.

It would probably make the most sense given what is out there right now if they really felt the need to give up on the M9. However, if we are talking specifically about the MHS trials, it doesn't fit the criteria in many ways (not the least of which is the "M" in MHS). I'm not sure how they would justify spending massive amounts of tax payer dollars to switch from the M9 to the Glock... the guns, holsters, training, infrastructure, etc, etc, etc... it would be a huge waste of our money considering how small of a role handguns play in the day-to-day operations of Big Army personnel.

And before people get their panties in a bunch about needing to address the reliability issues with the M9 (and I know this is going to sound blasphemous to the Glock fanboys out there), I would bet that if Glocks were chosen to replace the Berettas and they got treated to the same lack of routine maintenance and care (ie, replacing parts -- mainly springs and magazines) for as long as the M9 has, you'd start to see stories creeping out about reliability issues with the Glocks as well.

But we have now strayed pretty far off the topic of this thread.

I did some googling looking for other input on optimal barrel length for auto pistols... did not find anything where others have sorted this. It makes a lot of sense to me.

This seems to say for a given round, there is some maximal or optimal barrel length that allows the bullet to clear the barrel before the barrel destabilizes.

By barrel destabilization, he's talking about how the M&P barrel unlocks earlier than a lot of other designs (what he is referring to when he talks about dwell time). Therefore, the M&P barrel "destabilizes" very quickly since it come unlocked from the slide very quickly and therefore it starts having a lot of potential movement of the barrel very quickly. The shorter barrels means that the time the bullet spends in the barrel is a lot lower than with a longer barrel.

This phenomenon is not specific to a "given round" so much as it is a factor of a particular design. A 9mm bullet traveling at 1200 fps in a Glock 17 vs the same bullet at the same speed in an M&P9FS vs the same bullet at the same speed in a VP9 is going to see different levels of effect from the barrel destabilization because they all start destabilizing at different times.

Certainly it's design specific, but isn't dwell time limited based on the how much recoil a given round generates? I'm thinking it takes more oomph to cycle with a longer dwell time.

Watch Randy's youtube video about the Apex barrels. I understand the confusion here... when I have heard about dwell time previous to the Apex barrel and the M&P, it was in the context mostly of the AR15. Here it is referring to the amount of time that the high pressure gas is being directed back to cycle the action and it occurs between the time the bullet passes the gas port (effectively "turning on the pressure") and the time that the bullet leaves the barrel (effectively "turning down the pressure" since it now can escape out of the muzzle). If the gas port is placed too close to the muzzle, the dwell time is too short to cycle the gun effectively.

What you're interpreting as "dwell time" is probably the time between the ignition of the round and the cycling of the slide, where nothing happens to the barrel or slide. Am I correct? Regardless, what Randy means when he talks of dwell time is the time between the ignition of the round and the point where the barrel unlocks from the slide. On the stock M&P, the slide moves back the teeniest amount and the barrel is already locking, meaning it is loose and free to flop around. The Apex barrel changes the geometry of the lugs so the barrel rides back with the lugs contacting the locking block for a substantially longer distance (and period of time, ie "dwell time") before unlocking from the slide and tilting or moving free. The whole upper moves as a unit for a much longer time with the Apex barrel than with the factory barrel. IMO, this is what corrects the very poor accuracy of some guns (along with tightening the slide-to-barrel fit).

I'm thinking of dwell time the same way and I'm thinking the change in the geometry of the lugs that gives a longer dwell time takes a bit more power to cycle. Does that make sense?

It sounds reasonable, but it's not really the case to any significant degree. The slide is held in place by the recoil spring's tension. When properly fitted, the Apex barrel is tighter all around, including putting downward pressure on the locking block, which the factory slide doesn't do. However, it doesn't take much more oomph to get the slide on its way backward during the firing sequence. This is especially true when the barrel starts to wear in over the first few hundred rounds.

In general, the barrel remains locked into the slide for longer because the lower lug rides on the locking block, preventing the barrel from dropping down and coming unlocked. On the factory barrel, these areas don't interact so the barrel is free to start dropping down right away. You are correct in that the contact that the Apex barrel makes is added friction, which in theory probably makes it slightly harder for the slide to move rearward. But I think that a vast, vast majority of the force countering the slide action in either case is purely from the force needed to compress the recoil spring.

The dwell time increase is not because the Apex barrel makes everything lock up so tight that it takes a greater amount of force to overcome the friction holding it locked (and therefore greater amount of time) to unlock the barrel. When the barrel is newly fitted and done so in the recommended tight manner, there is a little hitch at the very end of chambering a round where the lug's pad has to slip onto the locking block. But this wears away after a couple of shooting sessions... and just feeling the force it takes to retract the slide by hand, it's not a significant difference over stock.

It's really hard to describe what I'm saying without diagrams / pictures... and even then, it's hard to get the workings of it explained without actually showing someone in person what happens. Basically, the slide and Apex barrel move back as a single unit for a fraction of an inch and then the barrel starts to drop. The slide and factory barrel don't really move back hardly at all before the barrel starts to drop. I imagine the slide begins to move back at about the same time after ignition in both cases and do so at roughly the same speed.

If that was the case, you could simply achieve the same effect by putting in an extra, extra heavy recoil spring. (which some people have tried with varying degrees of success) However, you can only go so heavy before your gun won't cycle fully.

Just dropped by this thread and still a little disgusted about my own experience. I have the PPQ and it's without a doubt the best 9mm poly I have ever owned. I would have loved to have my M&P 9mm FS with similar accuracy and trigger as the PPQ and could have gotten there with an Apex overhaul.

My primary beef with S&W is that smug pompous sounding form letter in which they tell you that their pistol isn't the problem. If they were at all at ease with those statements they would back up their trial testing of returned pistols. However can anyone point to their test they run when I mailed my pistol back?

I mean, what ammo did they use? Shooting from bag/vice? What distance? How many rnds? Got any pictures of these "non-problematic" pistol targets? What is acceptable accuracy for a 9mm M&P?

No answers, just "no problem found with your pistol" even though we weren't able to shoot a 10" pattern at 10yrds... lol

No sir, I'll not own any company's products with that attitude!

Regardless of the science behind the accuracy (or lack thereof), my M&P 9 Compact, Pro 9 and Shield 9 have always sucked in this department. I had to fit an Apex barrel and trigger kit ($300) into the Pro to get acceptable accuracy out of it. I traded the Compact 9 toward a Walther PPS M2 that out of the box, has a far better trigger and is far more accurate than any of the M&P's. It shoots 2.5-3 inch benched 25 yard groups, which is almost as good as my Apex'd Pro.
I will never buy another S&W, unless they clean up their act.

__________________
NRA R.S.O. & Life Member

My apex MP9 Performance Pro shoot 1.5" or less groups all day long at 25 yards. Before I turned it into a custom apex it shot 3.5" groups or less.
Shot again two days ago, still working like a dream with over 1000 rounds threw it.

Attached Images

image.jpg (71.7 KB, 137 views)

The M&P Pro9 I've is one of the most inaccurate firearms I have ever owned. This model pistol is a huge black eye for S&W. Bought new, shot 5.5" low, couldn't group tighter than 9"...yes 9" at 25 yards. A Ruger P85 I had years back is three times the pistol this M&P Pro9 is. I called Smith and Wesson and was basically told to forget any factory repairs. Not the same company who warrantied my DX revolver years back.
I've built 1911's and don't have problems shooting good groups, so I know it is the gun. After close investigation the M&P taught me to distrust striker fired pistols and many shooters think accuracy is keeping all shots on a full size humanoid targets at 10 yards. I determined lock time was the issue, altered the slide stop for longer unlocking travel, cleaned up the roughness in the frame tunnel. Even lightened the striker spring so the slide would get closer to closing fully. Retested it with three brands and different bullet weights. 7" carefully fired groups...best accuracy. Let it get hot and all bets are off. I was ready to drill and install a ball and detent into the locking block and barrel as a last attempt before selling it. Never mind the atrocious action it was produced with. For all the negatives, I like how the pistol handles, fires and tracks...says alot coming from a died in the wool steel frame guy. That is the ONLY reason I haven't sold it.

Didn't try any other after market barrels because nothing was different about them. Just read info on the Apex and feel it is a winner. The sight of lockup areas in a catalogue picture has prompted me to check it out closer. I'll be trying this barrel...

Adding my $.02.

Replaced factory barrels (recent manufacture, two dimples) in two guns with Apex 5" semi-drop in. Results:

• M&P9Pro C.O.R.E.: before 4.94", after 3.21".

• M&P9Pro: before 4.87", after 3.36".

Those are averages of 8 groups 10 shots each, excluding worst shot in each group, at 25 yards, unsupported.

Fitting in C.O.R.E. was somewhat tricky. Took me a while to realize that the barrel does not go completely up because it binds at the muzzle. I think this phenomenon is called "springing". Once I figured that part out, the rest was easy.

With factory barrels, both 9Pro and C.O.R.E. without a red dot shoot better with 115 or 124 grain bullets. 147 grain goes high, and vertical dispersion is noticeably larger. C.O.R.E. with a red dot installed shoots 147 grains just fine, probably because the additional mass attached to the slide causes the barrel to unlock later. With Apex, all bullet weights shoot the same in both guns.

No stoppages of any kind so far (about 400 rounds).

Never saw a pistol barrel that didn't shoot straight!

What exactly does this mean? That every single bullet out of every single pistol you've ever shot had fired out like a laser and grouped into a single hole?

To begin with, I didn't say "I" did that.

Most factory standard barrels, especially on modern day pistols, are capable of shooting very straight.

Update: ~1200 rounds through my Apex. ZERO malfunctions. No appreciable loss of accuracy since I first installed it. I say no appreciable loss of accuracy because I haven't shot off of a bag for several hundred rounds. Shooting freehand, I am still hitting alphas at all ranges as long as I do my part.

The barrels themselves are fine. It's when you design the pistol around them that funny things sometimes start to happen.

I've been wanting to write up a proper review, but can't seem to find the time to do it. I've had ZERO malfunctions in the 1k ish rounds fired through the Apex Barrel. I have yet to bench it, but can without a doubt say the accuracy is head and shoulders better than the Factory Barrel.

With the Factory barrel, I literally couldn't hit a 12 inch plate from 25 yards. With the Apex barrel, I can't miss it. I also can't miss the plate from 50 yards with the Apex barrel. When pushed out to 75 yards, I'm able to hit the plate at about a 70% rate. The misses, I know are my fault, and not the barrels. To say I'm happy with the barrel would be an understatement. I used to always wonder why I shot other people's Glocks, HK's, Sigs, etc better than my own guns. Now I know. If you have a question about your M&P's accuracy, get one of these barrels. It has transformed my pistol. Of course, you'll still have to do your part, but at least you'll finally be able to know if it's you or the gun.

I'm just happy to hear that people are having good luck with our barrels.
The M&P has a lot of check marks in the "Plus column". It just needed a few tweaks here and there to make it into an exceptionally accurate pistol.
No-one thought the gun was capable of shooting sub 1" groups at 50 yards, yet there are people doing just that.

Not only am I have great success with the barrel, your customer service was impeccable, and literally second to none. I've been using Apex products ever since I bought my first M&P pistol back in 2010. I needed some help with the Apex barrel, and Randy went above and beyond to make me happy. I can't speak highly enough of him and his company. Randy, you are a humble gentleman with a wealth of knowledge I can only dream of. M&P owners sure are lucky you're around!