I bought a M&P9 M2.0 3.6" Subcompact recently. It's my sixth M&P and third M2.0 specifically, but I only own two M&P pistols at the moment (the other being a Shield). The problem is that the frame tool does not seat tightly in place. It doesn't fall out, but when I grab the gun it moves in both directions. Does anyone else experience this problem with their M&P?
1 (8).jpg
Extended rant: Two of my M&P's have been Shields, but they don't have frame tools. The one applicable
M2.0 I owned, a M&P9 M2.0 4" Compact which I sold, didn't have this problem, nor did any of my M1.0's in the past. If anything, some of them were very stiff and difficult to remove (which is better than the frame tool being unstable in my opinion). It does not appear as if the tool itself is damaged or deformed in any way, so I assume it's either out of spec, or there is something wrong internally inside the frame, or the tolerances of both the frame and tool are stacking in an unfavorable way, or S&W changed the design.
I know it probably sounds like a minor thing, but I noticed it right away for a reason. The tool is supposed to act as part of the frame and should provide a stable platform for your hand as it wraps around the pistol grip. I can feel a difference between picking this gun up and my Shield, for example (or any other pistol I own). It's subtle, but I am conscious of it.
Although I am very happy with the M&P design in general, the quality control seems subpar over the last five or six years or so (or at least that's when I happened to run into most issues). For example, I bought a Performance Center Shield last year that has the worst trigger on an M&P I've owned (and it was the only PC I ever owned). Worse, the manual safety has three distinct audible positions: off, false on, and on. The pistol was returned to me no defect found indicating everything was within spec. It was bad enough that the 7 lb. trigger caused it to be worse than my non-PC M1.0 Shield (which didn't experience visible front sight disruption upon pulling the trigger), but to hand it back to me with the safety not working perfectly is unacceptable.
One time prior to this I had a full-size M&P9 with the frame tool channel visibly deformed out of the box, though it did not wiggle (the channel looked like an asymmetric oval). It was obvious someone at the factory jammed the tool inside and deformed the channel upon assembly (although I can't rule out someone at the gun store doing it, but it was in backstock so I doubt it). S&W replaced the frame tool which was also marred, but they did not not replace the polymer frame itself ruling it was only cosmetic. But since the channel was an enlarged an oval, it might of ended up loosening over time so I ended up selling the pistol shortly thereafter.
I also had an M&P Bodyguard 380 have its firing pin break dry firing it right out of the box before I even shot it. After I got it back, a year later it broke again and I had either only fired a couple hundred live rounds—tops—or dry fired it with snap caps.
Lastly, the very first M&P pistol I bought new when they were first released (an M&P40c) had a nick in the slide revealing the stainless underneath. That was actually 15 years ago, so maybe Smith's QC has been lacking all along.
I understand all pistols manufactures can and do have problems, but Smith & Wesson also appears to have them occur more frequently in my opinion, and worse, they seem to have a problem owning up to them. Unless Big Blue wants to end up like Remington or worse, they need to get their QC under control. I've also owned six Glocks but I only had one problem where an extractor was throwing brass in my face. They admitted it was a problem and replaced it. After that it was flawless like every other Glock I've owned. After thousands of rounds, I've never a Glock fail on me, nor have I ever experienced one with any visibly identifiable blemishes or mechanical problems (like a trigger causing front sight disrupt). My M&P pistols have obviously been far less consistent in their quality control with some issues never getting fully resolved, and if I can't get these issues resolved, I am going to sell them and be done with Smith & Wesson. I understand they are less expensive than Glocks, but I would rather pay another $50-$100 or so to get three magazines and know I wasn't going to get stuck with something subpar.
That said, Beretta may be even worse. My Beretta PX4 Storm Compact had an even more egregious quality control issue where I could see through the front sight channel. Beretta wouldn't own up to that either (saying it was acceptable being only cosmetic). When I tired installing night sights I bent the front sight using a sight pusher and being extremely careful. PX4 Storm sights are notoriously hard to remove, so I had no way of knowing if I was applying too much force. When I talked to Beretta and sent them the picture below, he said it might have had a bur causing more problems. The tech who worked on it after receiving the pistol brought it to his boss, however, who refused to take responsibility and wanted to charge me for both a new sight and install. I ended up challenging that and convincing Beretta to do both for free only to get a front sight with tritium so dim it must have been sitting on a shelf for years before making its way onto my pistol. They would not, however, replace the slide. At some point down the road when I have to replace the sight, am I going to run into another problem installing the new set? No wonder why Beretta lost the Army contract if they're going to be like this.
Mumford, beretta px4 storm milling issue.jpg
Okay, rant over.
Question about your M&P M2.0
Linear Mode
