Randy Lee
Member
I've got some issues with this explanation. The locking block cam on my M&P9 shows wear patterns from lifting the the barrel. The cam on the bottom of the barrel shows matching wear patterns from engaging the frame block. My barrel hood and slide breech face also show wear patterns that indicate contact as appropriate.
OK, my particular example shoots well. I really can't buy the above explanation as a wholesale explanation of how S&W designed the pistol. No insult intended to Randy. I do accept that a barrel somewhat oversize in relation to factory barrels can reduce slide/barrel play and improve groups though.
IMHO the twist rate change is immaterial to accuracy. Possibly not if you're running heavy bullets at air rifle velocities, but not with industry standard ammunition. S&W used the 1-18.75 twist in their 9mm/.38/.357 guns (and a couple other calibers) for decades without apparent affect upon accuracy. I have a 5906 I shot with Federal 147 gr Hyda-Shoks (~900 fps) and it grouped them in one ragged hole at 25 yards.
I believe the markings that you see are from different phases of the gun cycling and not the static lockup. When the slide is cycling forwards, the feeding cartridge and then the hood extension force the barrel to move forward. It is the locking block surface that physically lifts the barrel vertically by contacting the angled surface of the barrel cam. The resistive force of the extractor bearing against the case is what holds the barrel low and results in the mating marks that you see on the horizontal surfaces of the locking block and barrel foot.
Also, when the cartridge is being fed into the chamber, the bullet nose contacts the upper surface of the barrel chamber. This lifts the barrel upward, and it is the top of the barrel hood rubbing against the inner surface of the slide that prevents the barrel from pitching too high, which would cause 3 point jams. I know this because the first iteration of Bar-Sto barrels didn't have enough material height and caused the gun to jam nearly every round.
You also have to take into account the rub on the barrel hood as the barrel is unlocking during the firing cycle. The brass still bears against the extractor causing resistance to the barrel as it tries to unlock- so the hood again rubs against the interior surface of the slide only in the opposite direction.
The barrel loses contact with the locking block once the ramped surface of the forward bottom lug contacts the takedown lever. Pulling back even as little as .001" on the slide will change the vertical force on the barrel. I will have a video out in a couple of weeks that demonstrates how unstable the barrel becomes due to the design and execution of the system.
Regarding twist rates, I agree the twist rate should not affect accuracy in an ideal world. But this assumes that the barrel has appropriate pre-tension and dwell time. Most of the factory guns do not have either component.
You are also comparing an all steel, hammer fired pistol to a striker fired, polmer framed pistol. They are entirely two differnt beasts when it comes to firing dynamics.
I will never know exactly why the factory went to a 1:10 twist (I don't think the Engineers want or are allowed to speak to me), but I can make a pretty good guess- torque stabilization of the barrel. It is the reason why the .40 and .45 M&Ps do not suffer from the same accuracy woes.