ck1

Again, having not seen a new style striker, do the old (lighter) springs fit on the new assembly? Regardless of whether it is a good idea, I have a couple laying around from the old assemblies I have broken that I could test out (provided they fit). Yes, the old spring fits, the newer one is just longer/stronger.

Seems you are correct sir. Just popped out my new striker spring to compare to the older one and it's indeed 2-3 coils longer than the one from the older striker assembly (interesting since I did feel my pull weight increased a bit with the new assembly, this confirms that I wasn't imagining it). Went back and forth between the two and feels as though while the older/shorter one is a tad lighter as far as pull weight, the newer/longer one has a tad more push in it's reset... Since I like the stronger reset and my sear has already been modded to bring the pull into the 4-5lb range think I'm cool with the newer one, but if anybody gets the new style assembly and feels their pull go up a half a pound or so that's most likely the culprit. Think S&W may have wanted to end any light strike problems that I've seen here and there, thus, more sproing...

That's the striker design I was referring to as the new one. I did not need to send in my gun, I was asked if I could handle switching it out myself and that was it. I tried a friends old style striker assembly in my gun yesterday and found that indeed I'm not crazy, the newer style has a lot more spring tension happening... Since do to the gun's design, more striker spring tension means a greater force trying to pull the gun out of battery... A 13lb recoil spring that used to feel and function about perfect is now a hair light when used with the newer striker assembly. The stock recoil spring (which I believe is 16lbs, please correct me if I'm mistaken) seems the slightest bit oversprung if you're splitting hairs... If you're a truly anal retentive gamer you might want to give a 14lb or 15lb a try... Pretty sure once I put 500 or so more rounds through mine the stocker will be broken in and feel just about perfect though, YMMV.

Do you shoot right-handed or left-handed? If you're a lefty it might just be you...

Yes, I was NOT using a snap cap when it broke... FYI, spoke to the contact at S&W about it at length, seems it doesn't matter whether one uses a snap cap or not, still could break while dry-firing and they've seen plenty examples of it occuring both with and without snap caps... The new striker is more robust and was overbuilt to not require snap caps to keep it safe while dry-firing (or so I was told, and so far, so good). FWIW, I came over from Glocks and I prefer to NOT have to use snap caps in order to dry-fire... Personally, when doing dry-fire exercises I want to be looking at an empty chamber and IMO I don't want to ever get used to seeing anything in the chamber and telling my brain it's ok to pull the trigger unless I'm shooting for real... That's just me. If the guy I spoke to at S&W had said I would have to use snap caps to dry-fire I would sell or trade the gun and go back to a Glock, I feel that strongly about it. YMMV.

So, broke a striker while dry-firing my M&P9 and after a bit I was sent the newly redesigned version of the striker assembly. The newer design is easily identified by it's silver color rather than blackened as well as it using only 1 spring cup/keeper as opposed to 2 in the older design to accomodate it's "spine"... The new part seems easily 5 times stronger to me, doubt I'll be breaking this one. Also of note, the striker's tang is now more J-shaped and in general the new assembly seems to produce much more force (stronger primer hit) upon release. In fact, I was running a 13lb ISMI recoil spring that's only seen about 1000rds but have gone back to the stronger stock recoil spring since the extra striker spring tension seems to be affecting how the gun locks up in battery (doing the recoil spring test where you dry fire it, point the gun straight up, hold back the trigger, than hold back the slide and slowly let it release back into battery I noticed it ever so slightly wasn't quite locking up fully...), figured since the stocker isn't really that oversprung that I'd rather not possibly blow up my gun... I've got 600rds and approx. maybe 1000 or so dry-fires with the new striker assembly and it seems just perfect, just much more robust than the older design. Figured I'd post to see if anyone is seeing the same things I am with the newer striker... And please post if you notice anything else of note. Aloha.

Good for you, with a trigger job the M&Ps really come alive... Thing is you could've saved yourself $157 by just doing the Burwell DIY trigger job, I did mine in like 20 minutes and a friend of mine sent his in like you for the PC sear and their work, we shot them back to back the other day and mine is twice as good and cost $0 (besides taking the risk of ruining my sear that is... but turned out it was really easy). Info for the future...

Thanks for the input guys. Pretty sure it's just me not beingvused to the M&P yet and changing too many variables all at the same time (went to the M&P from Glocks then changed the rear sight when I changed the spring, many changes in a matter of weeks). Don't mean to thread drift, sorry.

[quote name='G-ManBart' date='Jan 18 2010, 03:46 PM' post='1135906' Ack....saying double tap is like saying "shank" to a golfer...bad ju-ju If you're truly "double tapping" you're not really using the sights and the second round is going low....that's a really bad habit. If you're pressing the trigger when the sights are lined up for the second or subsequent shots the spring won't make a difference. Granted, it can save some time if the front sight isn't dipping below the POI for the second shot, but it's still a matter of pressing the trigger when the sights are lined up. If you're tuned in to the timing of the gun, even if it's sprung poorly, you can learn to shoot super-fast splits without throwing shots around. R, Forgive my vernacular, I'm pulling the trigger as fast as when the sights drop back on target, NOT aiming once and shooting 2 or 3 times... Seems pulling it at that instant has subsequent shots going low...

MM, noticed what you said about the difference between the Glock and tha M&P in the recoil spring department... I used to WAY prefer my G17's running a 13lb spring but think I'm finding it doesn't transmit the same in the M&P, I shoot off the shelf ammo that's 135-140pf and with the Glock it was great but with the M&P my double or triple taps tend to go low from the POI of first round fired... Think I'd get a tighter double tap going back to the stock 16lb recoil spring with this off the shelf ammo? Thinking I'm getting muzzle dip on subsequent shots but not sure if I'm maybe just muscleing it too much... Oh, this is w/ a full size M&P9, not L or Pro. Thanks.

Doesn't matter either way except that a captured recoil spring/guide rod is a hell of a lot easier to get back in after a field strip.

I used the stock steel M&P guiderod, so it doesn't have to be an aftermarket guiderod that is for sure. Bet a stock Glock recoil assembly might work, but kind of defeats the purpose since a stock Glock 17 recoil assembly has a 17lb spring on it, and the M&P's stock steel guiderod is better than the plastic Glock one anyway...

Well, after fighting a bit to get that end cap off the M&P's guiderod, put on the Glock 17-sized ISMI 13lb spring... Perfecto! Seems to be the right dimensions in every way, and the slide feels better already. Just say "No" to over-sprung 9mm's... Thanks guys.

Hey guys, just picked up an M&P9 full-size and I've heard that they take the exact same recoil springs as a full-size Glock... Can anyone confirm if this is correct? - I already have an extra 13lb ISMI spring for my Glock 17, just would like to know if it'll work in my M&P without having to go through the trial and error process... Thanks in advance.

It makes 2" groups at 25yrds off hand... Easily the most accurate gun I've ever shot, makes my 3k Wilson combat look like a waste of money... Honestly, has to be the most accurate $500 gun with the best trigger out there, everyone I let shoot it wants one.

No, no regrets, I'm actually switching back to the M9-A1 after a year shooting Glocks and Tanfoglios... They're a really great design, and while the aftermarket is small everything that's needed is out there, the aftermarkets the other guns have lured me away for a while... But the Steyr is just born better IMHO, coming back to them after shooting the others has me convinced.

Man... can someone learn to shoot shoot the glock? wondering the same thing lately. I practiced with my Glocks for a year straight, at least like a 10,000+ rounds, probably closer to 15,000, dry fire practice everyday or at least every other day for at least an hour or so. What happened was I got good, only good, not great. I got pretty fast, and got pretty accurate... however, my shots landing a little to left would always creep in if I ever wasn't really paying 100% attention to my technique... then I picked up a Witness Elite Match (single-action - great trigger) and immediately it was like I was transformed into a GM. Putting shots exactly where I wanted them to go suddenly became easy as pie, requiring little to no effort.... you name it, whether emptying a mag into the head only on an idpa target at 25yrds strong-hand only becoming a breeze, making 2" groups dead center all day long at 30yrds in, no problem, never shooting left, never trying too hard... What the hell???! - All this only after days with the new gun, not months, not years... and not a whole lot of rounds or dry-firing. Thing is, I totally miss the reliability, utility, and simplicity of the Glocks... The Tanfoglio is fun to shoot, no doubt, but I wouldn't carry it, and don't have a whole lot of faith in not getting bitten by a malfunction at some point in a match, and am already longing for the seemingly ability to get Glock parts and accessories on every street corner... What's up? Anyone know how I could learn to shoot as well as easily with the Glock (I really want to be able to)?

EAA's Catalog... ha ha ha, someone should send them a copy of Adobe's catalog! My 13yr old niece w/ Photoshop/Illustrator could make a better catalog in under an hour... Anyways, I talked to them a while back and I guess ALL the new Match's will now have the rail, same model number though... I was also a little confused which one I'd be getting when I bought mine online (Bud's), I just emailed them and told them that EAA hadn't changed the model number but the new one's had rails and asked them to verify that I would be indeed getting the newest model with the rail. Thanks for the heads up on Kirkpatrick's, I'll take a look.

Hey Joe4d, found a holster today that fits like a glove for the Match's w/ the rail (well almost...), just draw and re-holster about 100 times and the rail wears away what it needs to, otherwise perfect: Blackhawk CQC for Sig 228/229 model number C1214-M2 (the regular one w/ passive retention NOT the serpa). Hope this helps!

Weighed it... not sure if it was the most precise scale... about 42oz w/ an empty mag, IDPA ESP legal (just barely... 43oz is max)! Leo is correct... shot mine with a rail today back to back against a buddies model w/o the rail, both 9mm's w/ 8lb recoil springs... mine was noticeably better on double taps and had less muzzle flip, the slight extra weight of the rail up front is a good thing.

I called them two weeks ago about the same exact thing: what's up with the new "improved" mags with the spacer in the rear of the mag that Henning saw at shot show '08? Their answer: what new mags? the ones you have are supposed to work just great, send them back to us if you want.... whatever. They didn't even say they would contact Tanfoglio and look into it... IMHO, they are playing dumb. They know there is a problem with the 9mm mags they offer for the large frame guns, it's just that they also know the older ones without the spacer in the front were worse, and makeing their customers happy after the initial sale is just not important to them. This is pure speculation on my part here, but why would a company with their history of customer service act like this? Probably 'cause they're sitting on a supply of 9mm mags with the spacer in the front that have nose-dive issues, and since they're worthless to the european market, my guess is that they just don't give a shit about getting the improved mags, and won't, ...UNTIL their supply of bum mags dries up. Hate to say it, but NO small business is so oblivious, or has such poor communication among their employees for them to not know the mags stink and that people are looking for better ones... like I said, I just called a couple weeks ago...

Particulars, could you please post some pics of the "good" mag that came with your gun? Wondering what it looks like... I also have a 9mm large frame, and while my investment isn't as great as yours since mine is a Match, I'm also pretty pissed that I bought a gun that it seems I'll have to monkey around with mags from now on to make it work right... I bought mine in 9mm since I don't reload yet, and it's easy ammo for me to find, not aware of how problematic the 9mm large frames can be... thought I got a bargain in that the Match was half the price of an STI Trojan, which was my next choice for ESP division in IDPA, but with these mag issues seems I would have been better off spending more for a gun that would run reliably... If contacting the BBB, or reaching out to Tanfoglio will get me mags that'll work, or get them to possibly buy back the pistol or accommodate us in some way, I'm on board...

Something to take into account is that different length guns need different sight specs to arrive at the same front blade-to-light bar ratio... A front sight will seem thinner the further away it is from your eye, so a .125 front on a 5" gun is a lot different than a .125 on 4" gun... And playing with rear notch width, the same thing applies, a longer gun can wear a tighter rear notch and seem as "open" as a shorter gun with a wide rear notch... Just thought I'd mention this since these different sight numbers being thrown around all are tied to the length of gun and length of sight radius they're being used on. For example, the same sights that kick ass on a longer pistol like a G34 or a 1911 may feel "closed in" on a G17 or a Commander...

Good for you man! While I also can't stand what EAA calls customer service, I'm up to about 1000rds through my Match 9mm without a single gun-related issue (more than 10-12rds in the mag is a different story though...), and think it's the best 9mm I've ever had, easily the most accurate. I don't think there's a $500 pistol on the planet with a better trigger.

Ok, so I've read that there possibly/maybe could be an "improved" magazine being imported soon for the 9mm in the large framed guns... but seems neither Henning nor EAA have them yet or are sure when/if they'll get them. These "improved" mags supposedly have the spacer at the rear of the mag body (interestingly just like STI/SV have been doing for years), but who knows... That said, my question is: has anyone tried an Arredondo plastic 9mm spacer in the back of an EAA .38super mag with EAA's/Tanfoglio's old "small frame" 9mm follower? (I'm thinking the feeding will be better with the rounds and follower pressed up against the front of the mag body versus having dead space for the follower/rounds to nose-dive into...) AND, if no one has... do you guys see anything else I might be missing in trying this set-up? thinking of trying it out... Seems most guys with my gun (Elite Match 9mm) are running the newer EAA/Tanfoglio 18rd mags with the spacer in the front and watching that the feed lips are bent to .335, and for now, so am I... However, I'd hardly call mine reliable, in fact loading more than 10rds into a mag is practically asking for nose-dives, and while I really only need 10 in a mag since I mostly shoot IDPA, I'm not real confident I won't be practicing tap-rack-bang drills or worse if I were to run these mags in a match, so I'm trying to find something that will work better... I do not reload as of yet, so loading to a longer OAL is not an option for me, I want to get the mags to function 100% with factory ammo. A couple other things I'm considering trying on these newer/current mags with the spacer in the front are: (1) just a stronger mag spring, and (2) maybe fabricating a bit of metal for the front of the mag body at the top near where it would land near the feed ramp, forming the same "ramp" you'll find on Metalform/Springfield 9mm 1911 mags, probably won't be easy.... Thoughts? Thanks.