Sin-ster

Sights and optical devices provide precise visual input-- specifically, indicating the exact spot where the muzzle is oriented and (provided they are zero'd and the gun is accurate) where a projectile will strike downrange. Thus they serve as a speedometer for a shooter who is maintaining acceptable accuracy at speed. But they don't for a shooter who is not... Thus they prove the means through which shot calling is achieved for the shooter who is paying attention. But they don't for a shooter who is not... Thus they allow for precise accuracy for the shooter who is utilizing visual patience to let them align and settle. But they don't for a shooter who is not... ETA-- Sights are everything and nothing at the same time. You can call shots and return them to sufficient alignment at hyper-speed all day long, but if you're shooting "brown" or whacking away at the trigger... They won't do you much good. (Ask me how I know...)

I think that's the biggest issue, based on some of the talk of how certain slides, locking blocks and barrels mic out. No surprise then that a gunsmith fitted (read: oversized) barrel would improve accuracy in even problematic guns, and a redesigned locking block would do the same. (A la the stuff that APEX is working on.)

Why would vertical stringing be the symptom for premature unlocking? Could you elaborate on it a little, please? My question is why are the competing guns from other brands behaving just fine with any of the ammo? Thanks! As noted, the major movement during the first part of unlock is the barrel tipping down at the chamber end and up at the muzzle. Vertical stringing has been the symptom of early unlocking since JMB's days. (That's also what causes the primer wipes-- before the metal has actually cooled enough to re-solidify, it's moving against the firing pin/striker/hole and causing odd marks. NOTE-- the tear drop shape left in primers by the M&P is standard across the board, due to the relief cut in the breech face. You'd be looking for the dimple made by the striker to be elongated.) As to your other question... The newer production barrels (2012 IIRC) have a slower twist and overall better profile, much like the KKM drop-in. The previous batches (at 1:18.25") were not optimized for any projectile weight, and thus didn't shoot anything very well. The XDm is 1:16-- the "golden standard", and at 5.25" (still measured from chamber to crown, so the actual rifling is shorter) gives a bit more stabilization. Glock's polygonal rifling is a beast unto itself and produces solid accuracy coupled with LONG barrel life. CZ's have a twist of 1:9.7", incredibly tight, though they don't seem to struggle with the heavier stuff. Sig's come factory with a 1:10, so ditto the CZ-- and they are typically known as two of the most accurate platforms out there, right out of the box. Almost ALL after market drop in's are 1:16 for a 9mm platform. Now I'm no ballistic expert or engineer, but that's pretty telling-- and several gunsmiths and physic phreaks that I know seem to agree. You couple that with relatively shoddy lock-up in general and you'll get the propensity for a "picky" gun. All I know for sure is that my gun still outshoots me, and it's an M&P running the blasphemous 124 grain projectile. The back up with the same load and FACTORY (2012 Production) barrel is only a scant bit less accurate-- and that's still sub-3" @ 25 yards. Did I get that lucky twice, or is there something going on in other folk's testing that's missing from mine? Speaking with another shooter at Double Tap this year, and a couple of Super Squad guys who had tried the platform, only two of us reported such accuracy-- and we were using the exact same load in the exact same drop in barrel. A load that the other two had never tried. Go figure...

I don't get it. Reading glasses give perfect vision also if they are the right magnification for the distance. I also have better than 20/20 vision, outside of three feet. My reading glasses give me at least 20/20 up close. Weak argument. 20/20 ≠ perfect; it's the normal range, and acceptable. 20/10 would be twice as good-- and still not the best recorded (20/8, IIRC). And I find it hard to trust something that's "corrected" (and has to be re-corrected every few years as the vision continues to deteriorate) over something that's working optimally without any subjected-to-human-error device. Especially when it's conditional-- as per "inside 3 feet", etc. It gets more complicated when the poor guy doesn't put the glasses on to inspect... And the frustrating part is exemplified in what you posted. "I can see well enough, so now I'm sticking to my guns!" But most importantly of all... that instance was verified as an Alpha, by the RM (and about a dozen other people who looked at it). Chances are that you would have called it an A without the drama; the Rx may have needed adjusting. Back on topic-- Andy's 2 Alpha are WAY more obvious than that perf hit...

Indoors-- 40 minutes, typically twice a week, 300 round average session. Outdoors-- 1:15, once a week without fail, 600 round average session. I'd kill to be one of the guys who could step off his back porch or ride out a bit onto his property and shoot. And if I never pull the handle on a press again... my dreams would come true.

I should have added-- if you're shooting IDPA, or maybe just even combat/tactical oriented training, it may be something to look into. As I said previously, if you flag that thumb a bit more, it'll help to alleviate the problem-- with the added bonus of putting your support hand even higher on the gun. However... If you squeeze with that thumb after such an adjustment, you'll drag on the slide and could cause malfunctions... The real key is in not applying pressure there, and maintaining a relatively neutral grip. Unless you're shooting a Sig, in which case... You're SOL.

Mine failed to do it for the first time ever at the TN Sectional this weekend--and we're talking probably a thousand slide lock reloads. Based on suggestions/fears on these boards, I also ride my thumb near the slide stop in these instances "just in case", and have practiced dropping it that way in the event that it didn't lock. 'lo and behold, for the first time ever... it was stuck/sticky and wouldn't drop. I'm guessing the two instances are related; it may have gotten bumped in a funky way and locked in a different spot than usual. The stuck/sticky release is also reasonably common, from what I've heard from others and read here on the Interwebz; use and even some attention with a file/stone has solved that in most cases.

Google "premature unlocking M&P 9" and you will see them all. I am curious what you think is the cause of the accuracy? Slow barrel twist, projectiles with little bearing surface, loose and long chambers in the factory barrels, and perhaps most likely of all... the shooters themselves. S&W found the early unlocking occurred in less than 1% of the guns they tested-- and there were several hundred in the data pool. (No link for that-- it was a personal conversation, with several different folks.) These tests really need to be performed in a controlled environment with a Ransom Rest. Not to question anyone's prowess here, but I've seen guys who can punch 1" groups at 25 yards with their 1911's off hand lob 6" groups from a bench with a variety of stirker fired guns that were all verified at sub-3" and better. If your gun is unlocking early, you'll see vertical stringing more than anything else-- and there should be evidence in your primers as well (i.e. smears). If it's a buckshot pattern, there's something else going on.

I have a 9 Pro that's eaten about 65k rounds that would argue with you on that point, and a 45 FS that's had at least 1/3 of that diet that would do the same. The former gun never digests fewer than 300 rounds, was eating 1k at a time for many months, and gets cleaned about every 2k rounds-- and detail stripped about every 15k. Next year, it'll be another 9 Pro in the same boat-- and I'll bet it tells the same tale. ETA-- no breakage at all, and I've only swapped the 13# ISMI recoil springs I run in it. They however go out about every 7k rounds, and get replaced at 5k.

Sper, It's not coming across the wrong way, I understand where you're coming from. Once the RM got called, I figured it'd be properly called. I thought, "He's the RM. He'll see the second radius." I've RO'ed three Lvl 2's and a Lvl 3, I know when a hole ain't right. Look at the first picture in that set of four I posted last night. They were centering it on the hole, ignoring the grease rings. Their approach was that the entire hole fit within the circle of one overlay, so it must be an A-M. It was so obvious to me what it was and I was so confused by their misuse of the overlay(s) that I couldn't effectively communicate, "Look at the grease rings." After 2 or 3 minutes I'd had enough of trying to explain it that I said, "Fine, Alpha-Mike," just so I could touch the target in an attempt to explain what I was seeing. He still didn't get it. Could I have argued about it until the cows came home? Yep. Should I have? Maybe. But I figured by that point my match was toast anyway as I'd had more than a couple of mikes. EXACTLY what I was referring to earlier-- ignoring the grease rings and using the hole for the Overlay. Yeah, Flex-- write that article!

In my experience, yes. I've shot someone's Minor load next to their Steel Load and could easily tell the difference-- the sights seemed to move straight back and straight forward, with almost no muzzle flip with the lighter charge. The PF's were 130 and 120, respectively-- and the difference was dramatic enough for me to think that even 5 PF would make a difference, at least in that particular gun and load combination. Especially if you went with a spring set up specifically designed for the softer load... That said... I'm pretty in tune with how the gun feels during recoil, and notice differences (i.e. TightGroup vs N320 using the same bullet and making the same velocity) that many do not. So I suppose it's partly shooter dependent, as well as relative to the gun and load itself.

Ignore it. If that thumb is not preventing the sights from returning to alignment quickly and consistently, don't worry about it. Lots of folks suffer from that problem on several platforms. I used to be one of them, but I found that my grip was not as effective in the areas where it matters (i.e. recoil management) and now it's a non-issue unless I'm shooting strong hand or weak hand only. (No support hand for said thumb to rest on, so it floats over the slide stop.) In USPSA, you should not be conducting slide lock reloads unless you have screwed the pooch on an array, or in super-rare instances where you plan for one. If you're running into slide lock issues several times in a match, you need to work on avoiding that more than you'd ever need to worry about the gun not locking open. If your stage plans consistently send you to 11 rounds on an array, you probably need to rethink them. If it really bugs you that much, you can focus on fixing it; flag your thumb more and make sure not to squeeze the pistol with it, applying only front-to-back pressure with your weapon hand. If you ignore it, you may find like I did that over time, the issue goes away.

I've never been questioned or accused, but I've drawn a "crowd" around the chrono when my loads are about to go over the sensors. Subtle, but obvious. They never SEEM disappointed when it's 130-131, every time. But I get a chuckle out of it just the same. I shoot the same load, all year, for everything-- practice, steel, matches... It even goes through my other 9mm's, including the little M&P Shield. I typically take 3-4 of the mags I just used on a stage and pull 8 rounds out of them, just because it's easier. At the Gator last year, I had just finished the stage when Mr. Gary came to grab a random mag off of everyone's belt. He pulled two empties before he found one with ammo in it.

Don't discount the fact that the most commonly viewed Super Stars have a really cool ULSC procedure on their videos-- and almost all of them include a nifty way of holding the slide open for the RO to inspect.

2 A. Fo' sho. I think a huge problem is that some folks are actually ignoring the grease ring when they overlay and only looking at the hole. (In this case... Even the HOLE tells the tale...) Lemme tell ya that the 124 MG JHP's I shoot do NOT leave a .355" hole in the target; the grease ring, however, is definitely the right size. Side note-- define frustration. Someone with (verified) 20/10 vision arguing a perf hit with someone that has to break out their reading glasses just to read the timer... "Trust me-- that's an Alpha."

That's my question as well, for future reference. Perhaps we're just not understanding the situation... If 4 squads rolled through on Friday, and no one chose to shoot it that way (before the WSB was changed/FA declared), is the onus of not seeing that "advantage" not placed on those shooters? I dunno, I guess I'm too much of a gamer. I honestly feel that if the last shooter on the last day of the match finds a loophole somewhere that everyone else missed... More power to him for having the good eyes.

It ain't pretty, but... Great match, had a blast-- thanks for everyone who helped to make it happen.

Not in the least-- it was actually a really cool idea for an array. (One of several at this match, which we can't name.) Honestly, when I first saw it in the stage diagram, I thought the intention was to allow folks to shoot said mover while stationary, from notably further away and before activating the stomp box. OR skip it entirely, as it was a disappearing target. Offering options for freestyle, IOW. I'm guessing NROI felt the same way about it when they gave the nod-- and in reality, I think that's an even more genius design. Needless to say, I was surprised by the FA in light of that first interpretation (and after my initial walk through the day before I shot said array).

I picked up a big lot from a buddy who had slowly pulled it off of his police range (duty stuff) over time, just because it was priced well and my MG projectiles look really sexy atop that shiny case. When you don't hit them thoroughly with One Shot, they definitely seemed harder to run through the press. I also had to adjust my seating depth as they were consistently coming out longer than the brass-- probably due to the extra effort I had to put on the ram from time to time, and the fact that I minimized crimp as much as possible to preserve the case necks. I have cycled them 3 times now and have yet to discover a cracked case or see any serious flaking of the nickel. I've seen other folks who have run theirs so often that the brass is starting to show through clearly, but they keep on tickin'. I wouldn't go out of my way (read: pay more) for them, and I'd be sure to generously apply lube, but they're very much viable. Like Bill, I know some people who run them exclusively in their Open guns (38 SC and 9 Major), for ease of identification and because they're supposed to extract a little easier than naked brass. Plus... they're pretty!

Huh. Interesting. And here I thought that rifle primers gave a faster, more "thorough" burn in order to ignite the longer column of powder they typically deal with. I RO and shoot with several folks regularly who run 3N38 in 38 SC, but I've never seen a fireball. Maybe I'm too distracted by the fact that it sounds like a damn .308 going off...

There's a lot more to the equation than just "soft vs snappy", and as noted earlier, you really need to run some tests to figure out what you prefer. (Also note that it may change over time...) I prefer 124's for two specific reasons: 1) 147's feel laggy to me, as if I'm waiting on slide to cycle. In reality, I'm just waiting on the sights to settle down. 2) I can call my shots notably better with 124's, as my eyes perceive the "vanishing" front sight (occurs earlier in the recoil) than the "dwelling" one of the 147's. Also consider what your PISTOL will prefer, accuracy wise. In my case, the 124 grain Montana Gold JHP's are by far the most accurate projectile of the half dozen I've tried. Couple that with the fact that in my testing, all loads using N320 become more accurate with greater velocities and it's a no-brainer for me all the way around.

I run 4.3 in my 9 Pro as well for about 131 PF (KKM barrel), using the MG 124 JHP. I load to 1.125. I've put 4.2 grains in the same combination, at the same length, through my G17 and get almost identical velocities despite the shorter barrel length. 130-131 PF. Just a tip when you go to chrony-- I've discovered that the jackets on the Montana Golds play all sorts of tricks on my CED. If I use Sharpie to black out the bullet (after loading, just what's visible), my ES will be cut in half and subsequently drop the SD as well. I typically pick up an average of 10 FPS per shot as well. Something to consider if you're not getting the velocities you expected.

Starting Position: Standing on Area A ,feet on marks, Holding Parrot on top of weak side shoulder with strong hand, Gun loaded in holster, Extra ammo on belt. Parrot does not have to be retained Or did you mean your "chained to a prop" example?

I have never had to shoot around a barricade, right and left, and through a tiny slit window from a shooting area that's more narrow than my normal stance. While conducting standing (gag me) reloads t'boot... Except in a Classifier, of course... That's a skill test, for sure-- but when we ever use that skill is beyond me. (Evil stage designers-- go!) Some of the Classifiers are VERY good, however. On the Upper Pad II and Cash 'n Carry come to mind. I think the multi-box instances are also pretty pertinent as well. PS-- Whoever set the HHF on some of these things... You are Gods. Freakishly balanced, narrow bodied Gods.

Consistant focus on your target meaning awareness of your index upon it, I think is what you mean... That definitely makes sense.