TacticalReload
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Messages
- 287
- Reaction score
- 175
I think you assessment of the situation is as accurate as your barrels. ;-)
Accuracy is coming: Apex M&P Barrels
- Thread starter Llando88
- Start date
NJM15
Member
Not a .9
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
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
Randy Lee
Member
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...
Philadelphia Patriot
Member
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.
TacticalReload
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Messages
- 287
- Reaction score
- 175
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.
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.
agksimon
Member
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.
TacticalReload
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Messages
- 287
- Reaction score
- 175
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.
agksimon
Member
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.
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?
Randy Lee
Member
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
Last edited:
Bkreutz
US Veteran
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 !!!
Randy Lee
Member
Hi Ron,
Unfortunately we won't have a .40 barrel planned until after we relocate to a less restrictive state.
Randy Lee
Member
I'm working on it...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
NoogMan
Member
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.
Philadelphia Patriot
Member
That's a good question. I never thought of that. ...however I also never owned a M&P 9C.
Randy Lee
Member
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.
***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.
Last edited:
NoogMan
Member
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.
Last edited:
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 very happy with the 9c and and feel rather lucky to have made that decision now reading about the full size guns.
Randy Lee
Member
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.
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
Member
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2011
- Messages
- 4,422
- Reaction score
- 4,317
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
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Messages
- 287
- Reaction score
- 175
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
Member
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?
TacticalReload
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Messages
- 287
- Reaction score
- 175
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.
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.
