M&P 9mm ejection issue...again.

[S. Kelly]

And here I thought the brass hitting people in the head, face, etc. was strictly a Glock 9mm problem.

 

[George9]

Have a good solid grip on the gun try shooting it again! if that doesn't work check you fitment of your extractor if that's fine just change the angle of the ejector with a file or stone by a very small amount in the direction you want the brass to go... This would be best done by your local gunsmith being S&W thinks this is normal from reading the last few posts.. Also S&W thinks dings in the brass is normal because they really don't want you to reload anyway.. your local gunsmith is your friend and may not even charge you for this small tune. George

 

[modraker]

Here's my two cents on the matter. I was wrestling with the weak ejection problem of the M&P 9mm FS before I found out that S&W uses the same 16lb recoil spring assembly for both their 9mm and 40SW. The quickest solution to improving the ejection of 115 gr 9mm is to switch to a 15lb recoil spring from ISMI. S&W can't do this for you because they are limited to their standard parts. If you use Walmart ammo, you may even want to install the 14lb recoil spring and guide rod from Wolff.

 

[bjb4242]

I am having an extraction problem with M&P9 full size as well. I typically shoot 115 gr federal and Winchester. The vast majority of spent cases hit me in the head and right shoulder.

I've sent it in once to S&W and they returned it without an explanation of what they did-and it still hits me in the head most of the time. I did notice that they ground the face of the ejector. I bet they are going to tell me that it works fine with 124 or 147 grain ammo. If that's the case I'm not going to be happy. With the ammo panic still in force, you have to take what you can get. Before I sent it in the first time, it even ejected the empties from Federal HST ammo back at me.

My M&P 45 never does this, and doesn't care what ammo it gets. I am not happy about this at all.

 

[agksimon]

I'm a lefty and have the mag release switched on all of my M&P's with no issues. I had an issue with my M&P9c extractor not getting a good hold on certain ammo like Winchester white box and not extract at all, or just barely make it out of the gun. Being the cheapskate that I am, instead of ordering an Apex extractor (which is an excellent item), I used gunsmith files under a lighted magnifier to put a more aggressive hook on the extractor and bought a heavier extractor spring from Speed Shooters Specialties. I have not had one issue in thousands of rounds, since making these changes. I understand that S&W now installs a slightly more aggressive extractor in their M&P's, but I can't confirm this.

 

[NJMark]

Thankfully, after some experimentation, my M&P 9mm FS is behaving more consistently. I have used both 115 and 124 grain American Eagle and ARMSCOR ammo and have twice locked the slide open 1 to 2 days before shooting with successful results. Next time I will not lock the slide before shooting and hope it remains consistent. The trigger is even feeling more smooth as time goes on. Some firearms have different break-in periods than others.

 

[plblou]

I had the same problem with the casing ejecting at my face, plus the follower jamming in the magazine. I filed the square edge of the follower with a metal file, just enough to make it rounded and the casings now eject correctly No more in my face!!!

 

[sportfit]

M&P 9 Ejection Issue

Just shot my new M&P 9 and of 100 rounds fired at least half the brass was ejected directly at my head, hitting between top of head and eyebrow. (One nice burn, too.)

The rental I used two weeks ago-- which prompted the purchase-- did not do this.

Used Federal 115gr and American Eagle 147gr., FMJRN and FN, respectively. Both function flawlessly on my Glock 26 and CZ-75B-- both of which could be considered "service weapons", right?

And yes, I cleaned the gun before firing.

(BTW-- accuracy of all three pistols is nearly identical-- Glock shoots to point of aim, CZ slightly to 10 o'clock and M&P slightly to 4:30.)

After looking through Pistol Forum and S&W Forum postings it seems this has been and continues to be an ongoing problem with the M&P 9.

Not sure whether to send to S&W or cut losses and simply sell.

 

[Rastoff]

Send it to S&W and get it fixed.

 

[modraker]

Just shot my new M&P 9 and of 100 rounds fired at least half the brass was ejected directly at my head, hitting between top of head and eyebrow. (One nice burn, too.)

Used Federal 115gr and American Eagle 147gr., FMJRN and FN, respectively.

Did you notice if the 147 gr ejected better than the 115 gr? There is a video on YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2uVciX1neY, regarding a similar problem with the 9c.

My own experience was with a 9 Pro that was ejecting toward my right cheek. I replaced the 16 lb recoil spring with an ISMI 15 lb recoil spring that I bought from Brownells. Problem solved.

 

[allenff1]

well for what it is worth i am going to briefly add my two cents worth of info. i bought a fullsize m&p 9 back in december and have only gotten outside for the second time today to do some shooting. i am also having the issue of getting hit in the head, arm, and shoulder. i am shooting 115gr.fmj and have shot only 300 rounds through it. i will be emailing s&w to arrange for repairs. why, you may ask? because i don't know how many pounds the m&p 9 shield's spring has, but it has a heck of alot more snot than the full size, i brought the 9 shield home last week and it ejects flawlessly. in my opinion then, the spring, ammo, and user are out of the equation. no?
yes i know that the shield's spring is dual acting, that shouldn't matter though if the snot is there. correct?

 

[Rastoff]

allenff1,
The smaller the slide, the stiffer the spring. So, the Shield will always be more stout than a full size.

 

[allenff1]

allenff1,
The smaller the slide, the stiffer the spring. So, the Shield will always be more stout than a full size.

That's pretty much what i was getting at, what I am trying to work with. The different stock spring specs lead me to conclude that replacing the full size's spring with a weaker one would not always be the correct solution. The stiffer spring of the shield would cause the slide to move rearward slower than a weaker, non-spec, spring in a full size.

What I am trying to say using the same ammo, the same platform, the same slide travel, and the same shooter:

The stock spring of a full size is weaker than that of a stock spring of the shield. The weaker spring allows a faster rearward slide speed. A faster rearward slide speed pulls the casing into the ejector faster allowing for a "snappier" ejection and not throwing the casing at my head and shoulders. My shield with a stiff spring and slower rearward slide speed ejects casings without issue to about 4:00. (don't hold me to that vector)

I had and have this problem, read about the problem and possible causes, but now that I have the shield my gears are turning.
Maybe my knowledge and physics isn't right on how the slide speed and spring stiffness play a role in this situation? Armorers?
I might just be throwing a wrench into the discussion too.

 

[Rastoff]

No, not throwing a wrench into it, but maybe not fully understanding it either. You are definitely on the right path, but may be wandering a bit. Let me offer up this and see if it helps any.

The goal of any semi-auto is to match the recoil spring with the load and the mass of the slide. Get all three matched up right and you have a sweet, smooth operating gun. Get one or more wrong and problems are inevitable.

It's not just the recoil spring that sets slide speed. It's a combination of slide mass, recoil spring weight and the cartridge load. S&W does their level best to match things together so, any of their guns can shoot a wide variety of loads. Alas, it's impossible to be perfect for every load. Also, you can't easily change the mass of the slide. So, you're left to experiment with the spring and load. The easiest to change is the load.

How many different loads have you tried? If it does this with every load, then there may be a problem with the ejector.

 

[allenff1]

Well due to an over abundance of ammo caliber and weight options around here i have only used 115 gr. fmj. The only thing I can use as a defense to only knowing the performance with one load is to say that I know of others here with the 9's that have had no issues. For S&W I think this is pretty shoddy. The M&P was recommended to me by a friend who is chief of our local police department and he is stunned by this. They haven't had any issues although they do only use the 40---I know where that is going now.
Thanks for the further explanation too.

 

[Rastoff]

Maybe I missed it, but have you called S&W on this issue?

 

[allenff1]

You did not.
I sent an email today. An automated response said that I should be contacted within 5 days.

 

[allenff1]

I had finally gotten the return label, shipped it out on March 5th, and got it back today. Not too shabby. But now I am restricted by weather and schedule to get outside and try it out.
The extractor was changed and they polished the chamber. I'll see if that fixed the problem. Any input?

I didn't realize one would need a polished chamber but "polishing the inside" of artillery shells saved the boy working in schindler's factory, according to the movie.

 

[DocSunShine]

And here I thought the brass hitting people in the head, face, etc. was strictly a Glock 9mm problem.

M&P's had bad extraction issues before Glock ever did, now a days it's certainly more common with Glocks as previously mentioned, S&W tweaked extractor design. The fact Apex makes extractors for both is a clue both companies have had issues at one time or another.

 

[Bearstopper]

Mine has been flawless. DOM 3/13.