One or two jams per how many rounds? Some of these pistols need a break in, like it or not, they are mass produced machines with parts that don't always work together right out of the box. I would lose the Frog Lube and lubricate the pistol heavily with 20w synthetic motor oil and blast away. 500 to a thousand rounds is not an uncommonly long break in.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
My brand new shiny shiny M&P .45 and my disappointment - another update post 75
- Thread starter ThePreBanMan
- Start date
One or two jams per how many rounds? Some of these pistols need a break in, like it or not, they are mass produced machines with parts that don't always work together right out of the box. I would lose the Frog Lube and lubricate the pistol heavily with 20w synthetic motor oil and blast away. 500 to a thousand rounds is not an uncommonly long break in.
To this day 10-12 jams out of 500 rounds. I haven't lost faith in the M&P series (just picked up a new M&P 9c) and I still love the feel of the gun but I just didn't expect it to jam as frequent right out of the box. I'll continue to break it in and polish the ramp but if I still have jams afterwards I'll switch the lube. In comparison, a friend didn't clean his Glock 17 for nearly 6 months after hitting the range however we picked it up and it chewed through 200 rounds easy with no problems and trust me, I didn't see a spot that wasn't caked in carbon before we shot but it still shot flawless. Guess that's why Glocks have remained so popular - reliability.
Last edited:
Glocks are a bit different. They don't have frame rails to carry the slide, just small tabs molded into the frame. This gives you a loose slide to frame fit that is very forgiving, i.e. reliable. The M&P has a "chassis" that fits into the frame and is locked in place with a pin or pins. This "chassis" is a set of steel rails that resemble the rails in a 1911. This gives a tighter slide to frame fit which produces better accuracy, but demands more frequent attention (cleaning).
10 to 12 failures out of 500 is no big deal in a new pistol. I would continue the break in but keep track of the failures. Knowing the exact nature of each failure and the magazine involved will provide invaluable information to deal with these problems should they persist. When dealing with a gun with reliability problems I use a small notebook. I record all failures and store the notebook with the pistol.
One last time. Lose the Frog and generously lubricate with 20w50 synthetic motor oil.
What you do and what I do are a bit different. I don't ever take notes. I fix it - if its something I can correct. As for the issues I can't like a design flaw or out of tolerance parts then I sling the piece of shit and get something that goes bang when I pull the bang switch. I have no tolerance for unreliable firearms.
I am sorry for all your troubles. For 45acp, I'll never give up my P220. I have never had a FTF or FTE in hundreds of rounds of my reloads or factory ammo.
You are much more patient then I it would appear.
Sorry to get into this late. Never had a problem with my M&P 45. Had Greg Duerr do a trigger job and install XS sights. The reason the MSP dropped the Sig was they went over the DAK trigger system. The DAK System gave them problems. Your P226 is traditional double action. None of the traditional DA pistols the MSP used ever gave them trouble, but we are moving away from traditional DA to DAO in law enforcement. They did not want to go back to traditional DA semi-autos as striker fire or DAO is easier to train than trying to teach two trigger pulls (in other words the coppers want semi-autos that function like revolvers).
There is nothing wrong with the traditional DA/SA system IMO. I have a Sig P229 and numerous 1st, 2nd and 3rd Gen S&W semi-autos. If you liked the Sig P226, then stick with it. Just because the MSP changed weapons, is a dorky reason for you to change IMO. They are looking for a weapon for the masses, while an individual weapon should be one for the classes.
What I'm telling you about the MSP experience is not a war story or second hand information, I am very closely associated with that agency. Yes, Sig quality control is not what it was 15 years ago and S&W is slipping too, which it always does when it increases production (for the record I am also a S&W stockholder).
There is nothing wrong with the traditional DA/SA system IMO. I have a Sig P229 and numerous 1st, 2nd and 3rd Gen S&W semi-autos. If you liked the Sig P226, then stick with it. Just because the MSP changed weapons, is a dorky reason for you to change IMO. They are looking for a weapon for the masses, while an individual weapon should be one for the classes.
What I'm telling you about the MSP experience is not a war story or second hand information, I am very closely associated with that agency. Yes, Sig quality control is not what it was 15 years ago and S&W is slipping too, which it always does when it increases production (for the record I am also a S&W stockholder).
This isn't what I heard- What I heard was that MSP had significant QC issues with a lot of their newer DAK guns and Sig failed to ameliorate these issues to their satisfaction, so MSP got pissed off and dumped them like a bad penny. Even if S&Ws QC isn't wonderful, I would bet pretty much anything if they sent MSP bad guns they would probably go out of their way to make things right.... Sig, not so much, particularly these days.
-Mike
No offense Mike, but I think we are saying the same thing but in a different way.
So, it was a training problem, or a "DAK" problem?
If the old ones never gave them trouble, why change? Again, it worked up until when? Are the younger generation less able to learn this? Sounds more like they just want the latest trendy thing, or someone knows someone, who is making money off this.
Like Mike said and which I didn't elaborate the newer DAK pistols had QC problems which the MSP felt SIG didn't adequately address. They did not want to go back to the traditional DA/SA semi-auto because that no longer reflects current LE training doctrine which is a uniform trigger pull for every shot. Easier to train, so it claimed. Training is related to both time and funding and if a dept can reduce training time they save money, plus with re qualification they either have to pay OT or pull the officer off the street for the time that the officer is on the range, so the answer is to find a system that is easiest to train. DAO draw, aim pull trigger same consistency every time. Personally I have never had a problem with traditional DA /SA and think it has some advantages but I'm just giving you the rationale so please don't shoot the messenger. The US Military is satisfied with the traditional set-up on the M9 and M11.
D
Deleted member 12999
I know the FTU guys for the most part, love them.
I've got a love/hate with mine. Lol
Edit: Marks assessment is spot on.
I've got a love/hate with mine. Lol
Edit: Marks assessment is spot on.
Last edited by a moderator:
