I ordered a M&P9 and now I read about all the accuracy issues. Wonderful!

What are the different tolerances? Be specific, how to measure dimension, =- tolerance from Factory blueprint.

Post the blueprint and I'll show you. Basic engineering and manufacturing - there are tolerances. The ideal dimention may be 3.11" but with a plus or minus .01. So a part that is between 3.10 and 3.12 is considered acceptable. Dies/molds wear over time, drill bits wear, things get out of adjustment hence the tolerance allowance.


How does a smith "file things" into tolerance?
Most guns are 'fitted' as opposed to just assembled from parts. So 'filing' is done to make parts fit more precisely. Could be a real file, a stone, a powered wheel of some kind, or even a milling machine.

How does a dimension out of tolerance affect accuraccy?
What he explained to me was that the barrel locks into the slide on the top and sits flush when the gun is closed and ready to fire. The ejection port in the barrel has to line up, precisely, with the barrel every time exactly the same or the bullets won't all go the same place. As mentioned, tolerances are allowances for wear in the machinery that makes the parts. In theory, if everything was a tad large (or a tad small, tad short, tad to the left) the resulting assembly would be acceptably accurate and function just fine. Yep, engineers make mistakes. Machines go out of tolerance more than they should - maybe 10 barrels get made that are a tad long where that groove is that sits in the slide and 3 don't get remade, they slip into the bin that goes to assembly. It happens.
So then along comes a slide that's at the edge of it's tolerance and together these parts are out of the total allowable measurement. You have a gun that's gonna be less than it could be.

Why are after market barrels the most reliable fix? It is difficult to impossibel to objectively measure improvement with an after market barrel and that is how these companies make money.
In the case of the guy at the range he's a very good shooter and was doing 3" groups at 50 feet. gets a new gun and now it's doing 8" groups...***? Has friends try it and they get similar results. He gets a new barrel and the gun shoots 3" groups.
A friend has a SW M&P and the groove the front sight sits in was oversize and the site would move, even fell out a few times. He got new sights and the issue continued so he knew the slide slot was at issue. Returned it to smith who changed the slide. Gun went from 3" groups to 9" groups...so he took it to a gunsmith who did all the measuring and came up wtih the diagnosics that the barrel/slid fit was off. First guy took his gun there with original parts and got the same answer. again, an aftermarket barrel returned the gun to 3" groups, with the new slide still in use.

Most who install an aftermarket barrel percieve an improvement and perception is reality but have no way of objectively ascertaining an improvement.-Dick

They have just as much ability as we do to choose which ammo is most accurate or which grip is best.
 
Guess I got good one. 900 rounds and have all been fist size groups at 25m offhand with some days better or worse. Just like the rest of my pistols.
 
I agree. I also don't expose my guns to brand loyal plausible deniability. :D

What's to deny when my Shield has run flawlessly? I am very happy with it. My friends that have bought one are just as pleased with it as well. Do you have one?
 
My two girls shoot flawlessly, 2.5" at 15 yards and 3.5" at 25 (rest). The Full (HD)has some filing and heavy polishing on the back part of the sear and polishing on the trigger bar, Apex USB installed (4.2 lbs.) the compact (EDC) just the polishing and the Apex USB (5.4 lbs.)

IMG137.jpg
 
Last edited:
"what they told me the barrel locks up to the slide and there are tolerances of course."

Why should I supply the blue print? Since your friends told you about the tolerances, I assume that they have the prints otherwise they could not make that statement.
So far what you have Posted has NO objective information and is only hearsay and speculation.

"Most guns are 'fitted' as opposed to just assembled from parts. So 'filing' is done to make parts fit more precisely. Could be a real file, a stone, a powered wheel of some kind, or even a milling machine. "

With modern CAD/CAM manufacturing most guns are NOT fitted, the parts are simple 'drop in' which is why you can purchase drop in barrels without requiring a gun smith to fit the part. Modern double shotguns are the same, the barrels require no fitting.

"What he explained to me was that the barrel locks into the slide on the top and sits flush when the gun is closed and ready to fire. The ejection port in the barrel has to line up, precisely, with the barrel every time exactly the same or the bullets won't all go the same place. As mentioned, tolerances are allowances for wear in the machinery that makes the parts. In theory, if everything was a tad large (or a tad small, tad short, tad to the left) the resulting assembly would be acceptably accurate and function just fine. Yep, engineers make mistakes. Machines go out of tolerance more than they should - maybe 10 barrels get made that are a tad long where that groove is that sits in the slide and 3 don't get remade, they slip into the bin that goes to assembly. It happens."

The type of manufactruing supposition that you are describing is not the way modern manufacturing works, CAM is extremely accurate, machines monitor and diagnose when they are about to go out of tolerance and flag the need for changes and adjustment and nothing slips into the bin. QC/QA minotrs the whoel process. Unless you have insight into S&W manufacturing, you can't make the statements you make about the processes involved. I don't think you or your friends have any idea of how modern manufacturing works or how S&W manufactures barrels.
I don't work for S&W nor do I know S&W manufacturing control quality but I do know enough not to speculate or pass on speculation in an objective discussion on whether or not the there is a problem with S&W M&P 9mm barrels.
What I do know is Engineering and how CAD/CAM works and QC/QA.
That is why I asked for the blue prints and tolerances but what you supplied is rhetoric and not good rhetoric at that.
The burden is NOT on ME to prove your assertions but on YOU to prove your assertions.
So far you have provided nothing objective.-Dick
 
Last edited:
After reading this and some other like threads, took my FS back out yesterday. Baseball sized goups at 25yds, several in the X ring. If the FS has accuracy problems, mine must be one of the good ones. It's not a tack driver, but does get it done.
 
Absent testing that eliminates the 'human factor' variables, such as shooting from a Ransom Rest under controlled circumstances, most of what is being said here is little more than conjecture and heresay. That doesn't mean there isn't a problem (and I do believe there is one), but the degree of the problem cannot be truly understood until those external factors are eliminated from the equation.

Blueprints and tolerances do play a role here. Though I have to believe the actual execution of the machining process and holding parts to speced tolerances is not the problem, or that problem would likely be observable across the entire line of M&P pistols being produced. More than likey, it is overly broad and/or poorly engineered specs being called for, based on the original design and engineering work.

Contrast the FS45 with the FS9. My first hand experiences and observations of the FS45 versus every other M&P variant made, is that the FS45 is the accuracy champ by a fair margin. It has been suggested that this is so, because the engineering specs were held to much closer tolerances and tighter specs, as were called for as a function of the requirements of the US military contract they were persuing, which in turn shaped and guided the design and engineeering criteria of the FS45 pistol.

Barrels, no doubt, play a part in the FS9 problem. As pointed out previouisly, the slower than 'normal' rate of twist is a likely contributing factor. The widely differing group sizes between heavy and light bullets would seem to support the idea that rate of twist is not sufficient to stabalize a broad range of ammo. It might also be worth looking at the barrel crowning from the factory. Some of the factory crowns I've seen have ranged from marginal to just plain crappy.

Perhaps the most elusive part of solving the accuracy mystery is a geometry problem. I'm certainly not an expert on the subject, but my rudimentary understanding of 'timing' and how it relates to lock up and its effect on absolute accuracy, does seem to suggest the FS9 is unlocking too soon and very well may be the root cause of the reported accuracy problems.

To help further our collective understanding of the complexity of the problem and some of the nuances that come in to play here, I'm going to post below the thoughts of Mr. Paul Liebenberg, who is a bona fide expert on the subject.

Paul Liebenberg said:
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Lock Time[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]In it's simplest terms 'Timing' in a locked breech pistol is the period during which the barrel and slide remain together after the ignition of the cartridge relative to the point at which the barrel starts to separate from the slide. At the instant of ignition, the slide and barrel will start rearward travel and cartridges with a lot of 'horsepower' and high impulse (such as the original Norma 10mm or real hot 45 ACP) can sometimes accelerate the slide so rapidly that the barrel will start to unlock before the bullet is in free flight. This is commonly referred to as 'opening early' and there are varying degrees and indicators of the malady depending on a wide variety of circumstances. The result in its lesser form is that the pistol or ammo is 'apparently' inaccurate and groups tend to 'string' (which was one of the early criticisms of the S&W pistol in 40-caliber.) As the problem escalates there's a potential that the cartridge case will bulge, and in extreme circumstances actually rupture, because of the residual pressure in the case that is no longer fully contained by the chamber.[/FONT]​


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]To help explain this further we'll use the S&W 5906 (original platform for the 4006) as an example. The 5906 is timed to react to the physics of the 9mm and introducing a cartridge into the chassis that has substantially greater bullet weight and larger piston diameter, with very similar velocity will tend to hyper accelerate the slide both from a standpoint of initial thrust and terminal impact velocity. In fact the slide velocity almost doubles - perhaps even higher at times. This is part of the reason why the Colt Delta Elite was less successful than anticipated. The original Norma 10mm cartridge overpowered the pistols geometry and ability to contain the energy. Engineers either ignored, or were oblivious to geometric lock time and attempted to control the increased energy with recoil springs alone. This did little to retard the timing and nothing to decrease load on the frame and slide.[/FONT]​


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Part of the solution in situations such as this is to extend the amount of time the barrel and slide remain together which aids in absorbing the increased energy generated by cartridges of high impulse. A proportionally heavier recoil spring is required to dampen the increase in free slide velocity but can't be relied upon exclusively to retard timing. The effect of the two modifications limits the tendency of the gun to open early and brings the free slide velocity down to a manageable level while offsetting the potential of damaging impact of the slide against the frame. It also reduces the amount of effective recoil the shooter has to absorb, which is the energy that is so uncomfortable to many shooters.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Unlike the S&W 5906, the Colt 1911 was designed and timed for 45 military ball and any caliber short of that (with the exception of the original Norma 10mm and to a lesser degree the 40 S&W) will tend to retard the timing of the pistol making it necessary to deal with the lack of operating energy generated by the cartridge. The effects of this are well illustrated in the fact that in order to make a 1911 work with 'sub calibers' engineers sometimes reduced slide and barrel mass, reduced recoil spring rate and increased ejector lengths to compensate for short cycling. This is the least effective method of designing around the situation. What is required is a fine balance of the above and to mechanically advance the timing so that the slide stop dwell time is matched to the peak energy of the cartridge.[/FONT]​


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]While some mistakenly discount, or even refute the fact that 'timing' is an issue in the 1911 pistol, there is some validity to the statement that "A properly built 1911 is automatically timed if it is built right". As confusing as that quote may be at first glance, the point is made and well taken, but it only holds true if the gun is intended to perform within the confines of traditional 45 ACP ball, a caliber that emulates those levels, or is "built right" with due deference to a lesser caliber because one may have to build it differently to "build it right". Considering that nowadays there are a large number of 1911's being manufactured and modified in calibers other than 45 ACP and that the range of available 45 caliber ammo in itself is endless, timing has become a HUGE issue.[/FONT]​


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]At Pistol Dynamics we are extremely conscious of barrel lock time because it relates to ultimate performance and accuracy. During my Bianchi days I spent a lot of time and energy developing what are arguably the most accurate 1911 based pistols ever built. They were remote bushing modular guns that had the barrel supported by the frame through spherical bushings and wide links. The slide had nothing to do with the accuracy or timing of the pistol; its sole purpose was to facilitate the feed and ejection cycle. There was little retard effect through mass because the slide was independent of the barrel and sight plane. The only way to the keep the gun closed was to retard the lock time.[/FONT]​


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Our method of adjusting lock time is different to most traditional methods. While we use John Browning's original geometry as the benchmark and the basis to our practical guns, most other calibers and applications of the handgun is controlled by our wide link system. If we build a dedicated IDPA gun for a serious competitor for instance, it will be timed for a somewhat reduced load to optimize accuracy and performance. Our Wide-Link operates on a constant arc as opposed to mechanical dwell on the slide stop pin. The system relies on resistance generated by the link being set 'past dead center' of the barrel in battery relative to the link pin and bore axis angle. There's no effect on function and reliability if the parameters of the intended use is exceeded within reason. But like many other things there's a sweet spot and all we've done is develop a method of controlling and adjusting that sweet spot.[/FONT]​


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Will a 1911 work perfectly if it's not timed correctly? Probably, and maybe most of the time. It's that gray. All you have to do is go to your local club and watch the frequency of poor handgun performance on the line. Even if only one third of those glitches are timing related there's a lot to be said for taking heed of it. Most of the cynicism, skepticism and rejection of this concept is generated by those who work on 'tactical' or 'fighting' 1911's exclusively chambered for 45 ACP. These individuals are operating within the confines of the original design intent and are therefore exempt from having to deal with it. They're not looking for accuracy that rivals cartridge capability in calibers that were never intended to operate in the pistol (most of which didn't even exist back in 1911). Quite frankly there is no voodoo in making a 1911 work with factory equivalent 45 ammo, literally anybody can do it. The real challenge is similar to that faced by race car engineers; squeezing out every ounce of performance potential through reduction in tolerance and an increase in efficiency and still have it work within the confines of the ultimate intended use and ammunition compatibility.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]PSL[/FONT]



[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Quoted text borrowed from Paul Liebenberg's PistolDynamics web site: Welcome to Pistol Dynamics [/FONT]​
 
What's to deny when my Shield has run flawlessly? I am very happy with it. My friends that have bought one are just as pleased with it as well. Do you have one?

Yes, my Shield runs perfect and is much more accurate than my FS M&P. The deniability is about the fact that some people are constantly trying to blame the users of the guns with accuracy issues rather than something with the guns themselves. It's almost above the deniability of Glock owners when the Gen 4s were first having issues.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for that. Interesting material, especially with regard to other calibers in the 1911.

I am not sure that what we are talking about is a timing problem at all, but it could be. There are lots of variables here - lots of guns strung out over a considerable production period, who knows about the possible small, or even major, process changes that may have come along the way, ammunition of all types from who knows where and all levels of quality, shooters with different competence and expectations, etc., etc.

I sure wouldn't confine the possibilities to just the barrel. :D Unfortunately, I have seen some really atrocious barrels from S&W lately. I have one or two within easy reach right now.

Without some input from S&W on this matter, we'll never really know what is going on. (And you know that isn't going to be forthcoming.) Even an expert shot may only own two or three examples. Makes for a pretty small sample to try to draw conclusions from, but every shooter knows whether his gun is performing to his expectations. Unfortunately, those expectations are often blurred by his perception of his own ability, among other things. :)
 
I have a very early production M&P FS 9. I got it in 2006, and it has produced very good accuracy for a defensive handgun. Is it a bullseye match grade pistol? NO.

However it still produces two inch or less groups at 15 yards, if I do my part. And even more important than it's accuracy, is the fact that even after nearly 10,000 rounds fired, it still goes bang when I need it to!

I have two FS 9mm, an 9c, and a Shield, htye all perform flawlessly.
 
Thanks for that. Interesting material, especially with regard to other calibers in the 1911.

Glad you enjoyed the read.

I am not sure that what we are talking about is a timing problem at all, but it could be.

Dwell time is a 'window for error'. That window decreases as the barrel length shortens, which may point toward helping to explain why the shorter barreled models don't exhibit the same accuracy problem. It does, at the very least, seem like a variable worth considering.

There are lots of variables here - lots of guns strung out over a considerable production period, who knows about the possible small, or even major, process changes that may have come along the way, ammunition of all types from who knows where and all levels of quality, shooters with different competence and expectations, etc., etc.

That's why I think controlled Ransom Rest testing would be a useful tool to help diagnose the problem. I'm not sure process changes over various production periods is the answer either, as it still doesn't explain why no other pistol configuration in the product line has exhibited such problems -- over the entire M&P production run.

Perhaps there is some engineering challenge in finding the 'sweet spot' for the FS gun in a 9mm chambering that is causing some sort of accuracy anomaly with only this one specific configuration? How does this happen, when they are using the exact same design and engineering criteria that created all of the other problem-free 9/357/40 pistols? Why is the FS9 the lone M&P problem child? Even if the problem is limited to just FS9, there still seems to be a randomness about which guns are effected that is hard to explain.

Without some input from S&W on this matter, we'll never really know what is going on. (And you know that isn't going to be forthcoming.)

Yes indeed, we'll see pigs growing wings and flying first.

<snip> but every shooter knows whether his gun is performing to his expectations.

Actually, I think Smith is counting on the *average* shooter not having a clue as to whether it's their pistol or their limited marksmanship skills making their groups so large. Outside of forums such as this one, I've heard almost no mention of an accuracy problem, excepting a few experienced shooters discussing it at the range.

Exactly how widespread is the problem? Within this thread, we read both good and bad reports on FS9 accuracy. Reading threads on certain forum, like M4carbine, you might be tempted to think the problem is across the board. But the reality is, this is still a small minority of FS9 owners reporting on a problem. Which is not say it isn't worth discussing, but rather, that there seems to be a randomness about this that makes is puzzling. Could it be as simple as an OEM supplier providing out of spec 4.25" 9mm barrels? The Storm Lake and BarSto/Apex replacement barrel releases will provide more data for shooters to draw from.

I don't expect Smith to address the problem in any sort of broad and public way. Were Smith to ever admit there was a problem, they would be spending a whole bunch of money on a recall they likely want to avoid, for a group of shooters they probably figure would otherwise be unaware of any problem.
 
Yes, my Shield runs perfect and is much more accurate than my FS M&P. The deniability is about the fact that some people are constantly trying to blame the users of the guns with accuracy issues rather than something with the guns themselves. It's almost above the deniability of Glock owners when the Gen 4s were first having issues.
Most of the time it is the fault of the shooter and not the gun. How many people actually get formal training to learn the fundamentals correctly? I would wager ... verrry few .. thus too many will blame the gun and mess with the sights. I have been lucky that a top firearms intsructor has worked with me in the past .. and when I revert back to my old habit of mashing the trigger .. I shoot low and left and groups grow.
 
Most of the time it is the fault of the shooter and not the gun. How many people actually get formal training to learn the fundamentals correctly? I would wager ... verrry few .. thus too many will blame the gun and mess with the sights. I have been lucky that a top firearms intsructor has worked with me in the past .. and when I revert back to my old habit of mashing the trigger .. I shoot low and left and groups grow.

I understand completely, but I've had more than one S&W fan tell me it's me and that the M&Ps have this mystical unique trigger that takes thousands of rounds to get good with. I then tell them how easy it is to shoot a wide range of handguns, big and small in different configurations and again, it's me getting used to the gun or I need to run another crate of ammo through it beyond the 3 weights and 7 different brands I've already tried. I put out the 80+ handguns because I was/am able to shoot them all ten times more accurately after no more than a box of ammo.
 
I think alot of the reason many people assume it's shooter related is I've noticed alot of people comment on how important fundamentals are with this pistol. I noticed this seemed true for me aswell when first started shooting it. It exposed a few things I was able to get away with on other handguns with the trigger. After shooting alittle bit it has all cleared up. You probably do have legitimate problems but I bet what I mentioned above has fixed similar problems for other people and they are just trying to help. I would not take offence to it.
 
I believe the purported accuracy issues are bogus. I have three M&P and they all are more than sufficiently accurate. My M&P45 full size is remakably accurate 1 1/2 to 2 inch 10 shot groups at 50 ft and reliable with everyuthing from LSWC to JHP & FMJ ammo. They are not bullseye guns designed for 2 inch groups at 50 yards but are great guns for defensive purposes as well as all the pistolo games - USPSA, IDPA, Steel Challenge, etc..

Not bogus in the least.

The definition of "sufficient" accuracy will be different from person to person, but the general accepted group size at 25yds (for a combat pistol) is 4 inches or better.

Recent manufacture M&P 9 accuracy - M4Carbine.net Forums



C4
 
looks like someone here has called in the cavalry ...:)

Hmmmmm... don't think too many here are going to combat with their guns... but we still need to protect ourselves from up close and personal.. this is the hobby board not M4C.. ;)
 
looks like someone here has called in the cavalry ...:)

Hmmmmm... don't think too many here are going to combat with their guns... but we still need to protect ourselves from up close and personal.. this is the hobby board not M4C.. ;)

Don't know about the cavalry, but as someone that is a factory certified armorer, fixes M&P's, fits barrels to M&P's, has been shooting them since day 1 and speaks DIRECTLY to S&W Engineers about issues with the gun, trust me when I say that there are accuracy issues with SOME 9mm M&P's.

For the record, my personal M&P FS 9mm shoots 7-8" groups (from a Ransom Rest) @ 25yds.

As far as this forum being a "hobby" forum, I don't know what that means. I assume that everyone that owns a gun, does so for their own safety. This means that you want something that is reliable AND can hit what you are aiming at. If these things do not interest you, that is on you, but I would not lump other forum members into this category.



C4
 
very good response Grant, thanks...... is the new barrel you are working on ready yet? ... what's the percentage of these issues Grant? Can you fill us in with some real bonified numbers, like official type numbers since you are so close to S&W engineers. All I ever hear is the few that are sent back by M4C members tend to come back with a factory "in spec" no repair needed.. but that's just what I read... and you know how believable internet stuff is.. oh ya, I think you are a little over the top on your spanking of me.... :)


Don't know about the cavalry, but as someone that is a factory certified armorer, fixes M&P's, fits barrels to M&P's, has been shooting them since day 1 and speaks DIRECTLY to S&W Engineers about issues with the gun, trust me when I say that there are accuracy issues with SOME 9mm M&P's.

For the record, my personal M&P FS 9mm shoots 7-8" groups (from a Ransom Rest) @ 25yds.

As far as this forum being a "hobby" forum, I don't know what that means. I assume that everyone that owns a gun, does so for their own safety. This means that you want something that is reliable AND can hit what you are aiming at. If these things do not interest you, that is on you, but I would not lump other forum members into this category.



C4
 
...the general accepted group size at 25yds (for a combat pistol) is 4 inches or better.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I am assuming that would be firing from a rest - or do you mean a machine-rest? Either way, it seems like a fair standard for a full-size, service-grade pistol.

I have an M&P9L. I am not sure how old it is, maybe 2 years or so. Just as a matter of curiosity, I took it along last evening on my weekly trip to the indoor range. I took three types of 9mm ammunition - a 124 FMJ (Winchester), a 124 JHP (Remington), and a 147 FMJ (Federal). In the case of my pistol, it would barely meet that standard at 50-feet for 5-rounds.

Before I bought the 9L I had a full-size M&P9. It was older, and it was even less accurate than the 9L.

I agree with what the writer above says about the M&P45. My FS M&P45 will shoot rings around any small-caliber M&P I have ever seen. It is a bit picky about ammunition owing to a tight chamber and short throat, but the gun DOES shoot. My M&P .357SIG is not a bad shooter, but nothing to crow about. The .45 is way out in front of it.

I like the M&P pistols in general, for what they are, but I cannot say I am happy with the 9mm and .40 caliber versions I have been around. JMHO, of course.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top