Accuracy is coming: Apex M&P Barrels

[Randy Lee]

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.

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.

 

[B585]

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.

 

[NoogMan]

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.

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.

 

[Holmes375]

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.

 

[Randy Lee]

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.

 

[jtcarm]

What a load of bunk.



I had 4 other people shoot my FS M&P9 including 3 military guys who were well qualified with a pistol. Every one of us was shooting low-left. Took a trip to S&W to make the gun reasonably accurate. Every other 9mm I own can still outshoot the M&P.

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

 

[TacticalReload]

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.

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.

 

[NoogMan]

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?

 

[18DAI]

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

 

[TacticalReload]

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.

 

[TacticalReload]

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

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.

 

[53herbie]

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.

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.

 

[TacticalReload]

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.

 

[53herbie]

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.

 

[TacticalReload]

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).

 

[53herbie]

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?

 

[TacticalReload]

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.

 

[rbox1064]

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!

 

[agksimon]

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.

 

[Srruger762]

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.