1985, Jeff Cooper Comments on the Beretta M9 Pistol

Kind of follow up to the 80's review of the Glock 17, we have Jeff Cooper's commentary on the then-new M9 pistol, the Beretta 92F in civilian nomenclature in the November/December 1985 issue of American Handgunner, starting on page 61.

Cooper and friends fired a few thousands rounds thought the new service pistol, attempting to wrap their brains around the new design.

The pistol mounts a curious two-sided hammer-dropper on the top rear of the slide.  When this switch is depressed it drops the cocked hammer safely on a live round.  Why it is desirable to be able to do this on both sides of the weapon is not clear.  Dropping the hammer on a live round is not the sort of act one needs to perform in a hurry, and might just as well be handled by a skate key.

The trigger pull in the cocked mode is best described as fair-to-poor, and in the unlocked mode as unsatisfactory.

A curious feature is the placement of the slide-stop so far to the rear that it is normally depressed by the firing thumb when shooting.  This, of course, prevents the slide from locking open on the last shot.  The slide-stop should properly be placed on the right side of the weapon, since her again is a device which is never needed in a hurry.

I often don't agree with Col. Cooper.  This is one of those occasions.  Clearing a double-feed pretty much requires locking the slide open, which would be pretty difficult if the slide-stop were on the right side, and the users hands were wet and/or bloody.  Even besides that, I'm one who charges and empty pistol by thumbing down the slide-stop.  I don't have any problem with the Beretta slide-stop.

There is also a paragraph or two about how the Berettas can be fired by pushing back the exposed trigger bar, which runs along the right side of the frame, but this is so much more difficult than pulling the trigger, that I believe that it's mostly an attempt at fear-mongering.

The unanimous and independently reached impression of those who shot the piece here at the ranch is that it was not designed by, or for, shooters.

Mmm.  Well, the Beretta 92 was an evolution of several older models of similar pistols.  I think it's fair to say that the 92/M9 pistols were designed by shooters who used pistols differently than Cooper, and therefor had different ideas on how pistols were used.

There is, of course discussion of how the 9mm is inferior to .45ACP for the purposes of the pistol's intended goal of self-defense, which is true, when we consider ball ammo, and 1980 defense ammo.  And. . . this also will come as no great surprise.

. . . the old 1911 Colt is the best thing in common use at this time.

And then Cooper closes with some very damning words.

In 1860 the Union Army was sent into combat with a 44-caliber cap-and-ball single-action revolver, a defensive sidearm far superior to that which we have adopted in 1985. . .  When we went to war in 1941 the United States headed its young men the best personal fighting tool the world has ever seen.  Times, however, have changed.

Glock 17 Review from 1985

Another find from the digital copies of vintage American Handgunner.  On page 40 of the September/October 1985 issue is a review of the Glock 17 by Anthony Carlyle.  Although the writer states a preference for blued steel and walnut, he was pretty open-minded about it, and praised most of the same aspects of the design that many have throughout the decades.

Rock Island 1911 FS GI 9mm Review

Rock Island 9mm with some minor modifications

I picked up a Rock Island Armory 1911A1 5" FS (full-size, i.e. 5" Government Model) GI 9mm pistol from Sarco for about $430 with tax and transfer.  It's basically a replica of a Post-1985 Colt Series 70 pistol, not really a replica of anything that was issued by the U.S. military, at least not in large numbers.  The ejection port is lowered an flared, and the the thumb safety has a little bit of a shelf, rather than the little bitty tab of the G.I. thumb safety.  I didn't want the Tactical model, because the grip safeties do not fit very well, the triggers are not adjustable for pre-travel, and I didn't want to use Novak-type sights.  The RIA GI model is more of a blank canvas.

Why 9mm?  Well, I already have a 1911 in .45ACP, and I shoot a lot more 9mm, like 12 times more.  I have buckets full of 9mm brass.

The pistol came in a plastic hard case with one Mec-Gar 10-round magazine, and a chamber flag.  That's all.  The recoil spring is about 12 pounds, and the bushing is loose in the slide, so you really don't even need a bushing wrench.  A G.I. style L-shaped tool (as shown in photos above, purchased separately) with a slotted screwdriver and pin punch would be a nice and inexpensive addition for detail stripping and tightening grip screws (more on that a bit later).

Out of the box, I measured the trigger pull at 4 pounds, 10 ounces, which puts it about half way in the advertised range of 4-6 pounds.  A trigger job got it down to a crisp 3 pounds, 10 ounces (EDIT: trigger job settled in to about 3 pounds after a couple thousand rounds).  I couldn't get any lower without hammer follow or making the reset weaker than I would like.  The hammer and sear are cast or probably Metal-Injection-Molded (MIM).  The hooks on the hammer were not terribly long, but they were pretty rough, and hooked (not 90-degrees).  The sear had a smooth edge, but no break-away cut.  I'm not sure how long that trigger job will last.  Hammers and sears EDM cut from hardened steel will last much longer than cast or MIM parts.

Stocks are completely smooth, plain wood with a surprisingly low density.  They almost feel like balsa wood.  I think they are comfortably sized, but provide no traction.  I did have the grips screws (plain slotted) loosen frequently with the wood panels, and I believe this was due to the screws sinking into the soft wood over time.  I know these are only a cheap placeholder, so that's all I'll say about the grips.

The pistol passed safety checks - thumb safety blocks the sear, and grip safety blocks the trigger.  I have not had any trouble disengaging the grip safety.  Thumb safety is single-side Colt Series 70 style.  The thumb safety firmly snicks on and off.  Not sure if the firing pin spring is extra power or not, but the firing pin is steel.  I'm not sure that the firing pin would pass a drop safety test the way the Springfield 1911s with titanium firing pins will, although it seems that RIA .38 Super and .45ACP pistols pass the safety test for sale in California, so I could be wrong.

The GI grip safety is not terribly comfortable, even on a 9mm pistol.  The tail on the grip safety is narrow, and is not at all rounded.  I didn't know what was going on, at first.  It seemed like the pistol was kicking far more than a 9mm full-size all-steel 1911 should.  After several shooting sessions, I noticed a callus had developed on the web of my hand.  The hammer was biting me, but not drawing blood.  Bobbing and rounding the hammer and "melting" the underside of grip safety tail make it a much more comfortable pistol to shoot.  After this modification, I fired over 200 rounds in one session with no discomfort.  It's like a completely different experience.  Changing to a commander hammer, and notching the grip safety to clear is a common fix for the same problem.

Although the barrel seems to lock up pretty well, the bushing is quite loose in the slide.  The slide also rattles on the frame a bit.  Best groups were about 2" offhand groups at 50 feet, which is about on par with most service pistols, but not as good as a match pistol.  A bushing that fits tighter to the slide and barrel would likely tighten up groups significantly, and a rear sight with a smaller notch would also help.  There is a lot of light showing on either side of the skinny little front sight.

First groups were about 2 inches high, and an inch and half to the left.  It is my intention to take or send the slide to a gunsmith to have it milled for a Bo-Mar adjustable sight, and have it flat-topped and serrated.  I can drift the rear sight for windage, but have no way to fix the elevation other than filing down the rear sight.  I tried 115, 124, and 147 grain bullets, and it always shoots high.

Reliability with standard velocity round-nose ammo is 100%, apart from magazine-related issues.  147gr flat-points were jammed hard into the ramp at the bottom edge of the barrel.  I got a couple of the flat-points into the chamber to fire, but I gave up after about 6 3-point jams.  The barrel appeared to be throated, and thus you would think would feed flat-point bullets.  That ramp at the bottom edge of the barrel is nearly vertical and the flat points just run right into it and stop dead.  Apparently this is not uncommon, as the manual says to use FMJ only, and other users report that their RIA 9mm pistols won't feed flat-point or hollowpoint ammo.  This is not exclusive to RIA pistols, as there are others with 9mm 1911s with non-ramped barrels reporting the same problem.

I'm debating whether I'm really that interested in buying a ramped barrel.  A good semi-drop-in barrel, with bushing pre-fit (Bar-Sto, Kart, Nowlin. . .) runs more than 50% of the price of the pistol.  The tools to gunsmith-fit a match barrel and bushing alone would cost more than the initial price of the pistol.  Take these costs into consideration when you look at pricing of something like a Dan Wesson, Les Baer, or STI pistol which might set you back $1200 or more.

My 7 magazines drop free.  Getting the slide to lock back with the three Metalform magazines required bending the tab on the follower out to the left side.  The steel follower of the Mec-Gar has the same problem, but can not be adjusted.  I may try to get Mec-Gar to send me one of the newer plastic followers, and see if that works better.  My 3 Chip McCormick 10-round magazines have been working well, so far.

Modest bevel on the bottom edges of the slide, except for the slide catch notch, which is left square.

The magazine well is modestly beveled.  The bottom edges of the slide also have a small bevel - a nice touch.  Ejector is extended, but I believe that all 9mm ejectors are extended.  The pistol comes with a flat steel (not plastic) mainspring housing without any silly lock, although I changed it out for an arched Colt mainspring housing, because I'm used to the hump on a Glock grip.

Finish is a decent-looking and even dark-grey phosphate (Parkerized), at least it was before I clamped the slide in a vise and had to wail on the rear sight for 25 minutes to get it to move just a little to the right.  The matte black, "murdered out" look is kinda growing on me.  I added an extended Wilson slide-stop which is a matte blue, and it's a little darker in color, but you'd have to look pretty close to notice.  When I bobbed the hammer and "melted" the tail on the grip safety, I refinished with cold blue, and again, it's not something most people would notice without looking closely.

The bore was also phosphated, which I wasn't crazy about.  After 2000 rounds, I thoroughly cleaned the barrel, including running the Lewis lead remover through a bunch of times and using aggressive solvent.  The barrel now has a dull shine, and the phosphate finish has worn away.  The rifling is sharp and well-defined.  It's not up to the level of an old Colt or Smith & Wesson, or a match barrel, but let's remember that I bought the pistol new for less than $430 out-the-door.  EDIT: After a couple thousand rounds the Park has worn away, but still doesn't have the polished bore of a really good barrel.

Fortunately, RIA no longer puts a giant Rock Island billboard on the left side of the slide.  There is only a small white logo on the left side behind the cocking serrations.  This I will polish out eventually, before I get the slide blued.

As the base for a hobby gunsmithing project, it's a pretty good place to start - that's really why I bought it.  For a range pistol, it's okay, but you're probably never going to draw a crowd unless you paint is pink or zombie green.  For action matches, it will probably do well-enough with an adjustable sight, as bullseye accuracy isn't usually necessary.  The stock sights being actual G.I. style, are notorious for being hard to find.  Because of the feeding problem with non-round bullets, I don't recommend taking it out of the box, and using it as a defense pistol.  Keeping the bargain-basement price in mind, I guess it's not a bad deal.  It's only about 60% the price of a Springfield Range Officer, so you have some money to buy grips, a larger thumb safety, maybe a magazine well and beavertail grip safety and jig, and fit a tighter bushing, if that's what you want.  The Range Officer does come with an adjustable rear sight, fiber-optic front sight, and a ramped barrel, however.

Modifications as pictured - Wilson Combat extended slide stop lever and magazine catch.  Wolff 17 pound mainspring*.  Wolff sear spring.  Colt arched mainspring housing.  Ed brown reduced power mag catch spring.  Nowlin long match trigger.  Fusion small-radius stainless firing pin stop.  ProMag Tough Grips.  EDIT: Added EGW National Match bushing, which installed in about 10 minutes using a Dremel with a cratex cylinder, and a few file strokes on the lug.  The barrel now locks up TIGHT.

I'm not even close to being done with this pistol yet.  My intention is to build an 80's style custom pistol, complete with period holster rig.  Think along the lines of Pachmayr custom shop, Jim Hoag, and Richard Heinie.  Something that would've made Magnum P.I. drool, and considering trading in his Ferrari to free up some cash to get work done on his plain vanilla Mk.IV.  Maybe one of the dumbest ideas I've ever had, because I'll probably never be able to sell it, much less get out of it what I put into it in the 21st century.

Related Links:
Building a Low-Buck Shooter
Brownells Gun Tech - Jack Weigand 2 1/2 pound trigger pull instructions
Armscor/Rock Island Armory Home Page

* - Discovered that the Rock Island 9mm mainspring is 18 pound.  Didn't really need to change it, but I already had a 17 pound spring, and I didn't have to disassemble the RIA mainspring housing, which is a little tricky.

M&P 9 Pro Is Back From S&W

Aha!!  My M&P will now eject brass without pissing me off!  Similar to my 1911, except for the vigor of the throw, the brass is going out at around 4 to 5 o'clock, rather than 5 to 7 o'clock like it was doing before.

A note that followed the pistol home read:

REPAIRED: BARREL MODIFICATION

REPAIRED: REPLACE EXTRACTOR

REPAIRED: INSPECTED/TESTED & PASSED

I'm not sure what they did with the barrel.  It looks the same to me, with no obvious signs of modification.

I did have one rather odd malfunction while testing it after I got it back.  I pulled, and pulled, and pulled on the trigger, and it didn't fire.  The striker wasn't cocked?  I went to rack the slide and it was sticky, but with a sharp tug I got the round out of the chamber.  I loaded the round back into the mag, and continued shooting until the pistol was empty.  I didn't think to look at the round that it hung up on.  Hopefully there was just a burr on the brass casing that was holding the slide out of battery, keeping it from firing.  I dunno.  If it happens again, I'll note it.

Reading through the Pistol-Training.com blog's M&P torture test posts, it looks like Todd had a similar problem, with the trigger not resetting.  Weird.

I plan on taking a couple carbines out next time I go shooting, so it may be almost a month before I get to shoot the M&P again.  I have an LMT upper that didn't pass with a headspace GO gage, but seems to work with a carbine buffer, if not the "H" buffer.  The tech guy at LMT said the headspace is supposed to be tight, although it seems strange that it wouldn't pass with the GO gage.  I dunno, I'll have to see if it breaks in a bit or just functions anyway.

1911 Build Index

1911 Build Has Started, I Guess - First parts ordered. 1911 build intro.
Snag - Midway wanted $60 for shipping a frame.
Frame Ordered, Really This Time - Ordered Basic frame straight from Caspian
Picked Up The Caspian Frame - . . . after waiting two months. First set of pictures.
1911 Build Progress - Barrel lower lugs not hitting impact surface.
1911 Build Weekend Update - Cutting 1/4" radius on frame tangs, fitting the grip safety, slide is fitted.
1911 Build Weekend Update II - EGW parts order lost, barrel timing.
1911 Build This Week - Changed grips. Basic progress update.
1911 Build: Getting Close To Test Fire - Picture of semi-finished pistol, more barrel fitting.
1911 Build: EGW Order Came In - Last few parts arrive.
1911 Build: It Works!! - First outing with the assembled pistol.
1911 Build: Parts List
1911 Build: Adjustable Sight Installed

Bought a M&P 9 Pro

My original M&P review

Okay, I did get to try an M&P with a trigger job, a S&W Performance Center pistol. It was a lot better. 

I liked it enough that I decided to get my own M&P 9 Pro. The trigger pull is lighter, and the reset is shorter, and distinct enough to be noticeable.  There is still a lot of mushy take-up, and the reset is a little weak, but it's still a big improvement, and better than a lot of similar striker-fired pistols, although perhaps not at this price level.

I’ve also noticed that the handle of the tool housed in the grip of the M&P kinda guides the magazine into the pistol, about the same way the plugs that I use for Glocks do.

Also took a good look at a new M&P 9 Pro. The contact areas of the trigger bar and sear are nice and smooth. Glock trigger bars, all of them, come as-stamped with rough edges. The feel of the M&P Pro trigger is very Glock-like, with a short and distinct reset, two stages, and a crisp break. Much better than the first M&P that I test fired months ago, although the reset is softer than a Glock. My M&P Pro trigger breaks at 4 pounds, 14 ounces, which is almost exactly what my Glock does with a polished trigger bar and stock 5 pound connector.

The only thing that kind of bugs me is the slide to frame fit, which is pretty sloppy. Not a big deal with iron sights, as the barrel is locked up pretty solid in the slide, but I wouldn’t go making an Open-class race gun out of it.

Although it shoots pretty good, I went from the M&P back to my G17, and immediately noticed that I was shooting noticeably better, even though I was shooting full-power Gold Dot loads rather than the softer practice loads that I was shooting through the M&P.

The M&P was chucking the brass back at me most of the time, which is distracting at best. Not a big deal for me because I've got lots of Glock recoil springs that will probably fix this, but it might be an issue to someone who's not used to tinkering. The guide rod is captured steel unit, by the way, and can be disassembled (although the screw was really tight).

I'm wondering if I shouldn't have bought this one. I'll give it some more time, but it may get traded for something else.

EDIT, 11/22/09: Still have it. It's still hitting me with about 80% of the brass, despite everything I've tried to do with it. I've tried filing the ejector at an angle. I've tried several different recoil springs. I've tried stretching and shortening the ejector. I inspected the extractor, but haven't removed it yet, because it's pinned in place. I'm about ready to give up and send it back to S&W.

UPDATE, 12/11/09: I gave up trying to fix the M&P, and had the shop send it back to S&W for warranty work. It seems to be an extractor problem, and the extractor isn't meant to be worked on (or cleaned for that matter, apparently) by the end user.

UPDATE, 1/10/10: The 9 Pro is back from S&W, and ejection is much better.  Details can be found here.  I'm looking forward to doing some serious testing with this thing.

UPDATE, 2/10/10:  I've put enough rounds through it now, that I'm confident that the ejection problem has been fixed.  It shoots a little bit low, but has been 100% reliable, and is now running like it should.

1911 Build This Week

1911 Build Index

I haven't posted any updates on the build recently, because I was practicing for the championship match at a local club. Turned out to be a bit of a disaster for me, because I hadn't anticipated a bullseye stage. But I digress. . .

Picture's not great, but there will be more to follow in the future.

I dumped the Falcon Ergo grips. The grip texture is nice, but the panels don’t come far enough forward for my taste. I picked up a set of Pachmayer Signature GM-45 grips. I wasn’t thrilled about the idea of rubber grips, but they feel right and aren’t as tacky (as in sticky, not unfashionable) as the Hogue rubber grips, allowing some grip readjustment. The only small issue with the Signature grips is that they really aren’t made for pistols with magwells, as the bottom of the grip panels are tapered. I will probably cut off the lip at the bottom of the frontstrap too, because it doesn’t allow you to get a grip on the magazine basepad or baseplate if there’s a double feed and you need to rip out the magazine.

The grip safety is 100% finished now, I think. The left side of the thumb safety has been cut to match the curve of the grip safety.

EGW is going to resend my order on Monday. USPS put up a fight on the lost package claim.

I did get the dovetail file from Midway, so I got the Wilson Bo-Mar type sight installed on the slide the day after I took the picture. Either the sight's dovetail was too large, or the cut in the slide was too shallow. Either way it took quite a while to get it to fit. I'm pretty sure the Wilson sight is hardened steel, as it put up a fight. The Yost Bonitz front sight that was supposed to fit according to Midway, had a dovetail that was way too large to fit the cut in the STI slide, so I spent a couple hours filing it to fit the slide. I still have to shape it, and then file it to the right height eventually.

Got some Dykem for fitting the barrel in the same order as the dovetail file, so I can get working on that too.

Ruger LCP Safety Recall

Link to recall information on Ruger Web Site

Once again, a new Ruger pistol being recalled for not being [totally] drop safe.

"Ruger has recently received a small number of reports from the field indicating that LCP pistols can discharge when dropped onto a hard surface with a round in the chamber. We are firmly committed to safety and would like to retrofit all older LCP Pistols.

"All LCP pistols bearing prefix “370” (that is, serial number 370-xxxxx) may be affected.

"We will install the new hammer mechanism, plus some other functional upgrades that we added since the LCP’s introduction, and return your LCP to you, all FREE of charge. When we do, we also will send you a FREE magazine with the new finger grip extension as a “thank you” for your patience and cooperation. We will make every effort to return your pistol within one week of receipt."

Lone Wolf To Produce Aftermarket Glock Frames

Link to Thread at GlockTalk

Lone Wolf has prototyped their own frame to take Glock parts. Their frame will have interchangable grips, a provision for an internal laser, a rounded trigger guard, and an extended beavertail.

JR, the owner, says that he's shooting for a price under $200, which sounds reasonable to me, considering that Glock frames are really not available a la carte at any price.

I really have no use for such a creature, but it may be an interesting option to some, providing that it works better than the metal aftermarket frames, which seem to need gunsmithing to work properly.

I suspect that it will probably be a year or more before one is available for sale. The flyer says "Available February 2009, but I've been waiting for them to release the G34/G35 length 10mm slides for something like 10 months now. Unless they've been secretly working on these frame for quite a while, I wouldn't bet on them being for sale as soon as February.

Springfield Armory XD M-Factor

Springfield Armory "The M-Factor" Home Page

First Impressions Thread on PAFOA Website

First Impressions Thread on Brian Enos Website


The new model is cosmetically redesigned, has interchangable backstraps (grip safety remains, so length of pull is not changed when swapping inserts), the magazine release button has been redesigned to make it easier to activate, there is a second slot on the dustcover rail, and a "match-grade" barrel. The .40S&W pistol can hold 16 rounds in the magazine. The 9mm version holds 19 in the mag, IIRC.

From the thread on the Enos website, it sounds like the trigger has been improved some also. Springfield claims, "The new XD(M)™ trigger has the shortest travel than any currently available polymer pistol along with a similarly short reset which keeps you on target with greater ease for faster, more accurate follow-up shots."

A Short Kahr PM9 Review

Every now and then, someone asks about pocket pistols, or the Kahr PM9 specifically. This is what I have to say on the subject:

I've had one [Kahr PM9, 9mm, with DLC finish - Kahr model PM9094] for a couple years. I've been carrying it pretty much every day, even if I've got something bigger on my right hip. I carry it in my front pockets pretty much exclusively, even in some places where I'm not supposed to carry (by rules, not by law).

I've got about a thousand rounds through mine, though I haven't checked the official count in a while. The only stoppages were user induced; you need to keep your thumbs clear of that huge slide stop lever. 9mm is a fairly potent round for such a small and light pistol, and it's not a lot of fun to shoot. I find that fatigue starts to set in after about 50 rounds.

I haven't seen any signs of excessive wear or peening on mine.

It is minute of index card accurate out to at least 10 yards. Trigger is smooth, though you need to completely release the trigger before it resets. It has real, windage adjustable sights, unlike some pocket pistols that have only a groove or tiny sights that are cast/forged into the slide.

I get a kick out of shooting the Kahr after a couple months of pocket carry.  The first few rounds send pocket lint and fluff flying off the slide.

I dumped the Kel-Tec P-3AT, after it puked a third time, and I could not be happier with the little Kahr, even if it does cost a few hundred more then the KT.

UPDATE 8/2/2010: I put Heinie night sights on the PM9.  Round count is up to 1750.

First Ruger LCP Review is out at GunBlast

Ruger LCP .380 Pocket Pistol Review at GunBlast

Although I can't recommend one myself, because it's practically a carbon copy of the Kel-Tec P-3AT that I had trouble with, the review is favorable.

1911s for Duty. Eeek!

I happened to come upon this article on the 10-8 Performance website: 'Choosing a 1911 for Duty Use'

My experience with 1911 type pistols is pretty limited. I owned an STI 2011, a double-stack pistol, for a few months. It ran okay for a while, and then I started to have feed failures. I didn't like the way the grip felt anyway, so I sold it off (at a substantial loss).

Dad's Colt Defender ran okay for a little while, and then started to choke about once per magazine. Several different recoil springs and magazines were tried, but it still continued to puke. It was traded for a Kimber, which I can't vouch for one way or the other.

After reading this article, I think I am now completely scared of trying to keep a 1911-pattern pistol running, and I'll probably just stick to more modern designs.

Be sure to check it out. I had no idea that there was so much involved in keeping a 1911 running properly.

Kel-Tec P-3AT Pistol Review

I bought a P3AT shortly after they started selling hard chrome models. My experience was a bit of a disaster.

The Good:
The little Kel-Tecs are very easy to conceal, with very little weight or bulk. They are also very inexpensive.

The Bad and Ugly:
On the 2nd or 3rd round fired, the little bracket that the guide rod slides through fell out and disappeared. I’m told that Kel-Tec now makes slides without this piece, the bracket is a part of the slide, rather than a separate part.

I called Kel-Tec and explained the failure, and they sent me 3 of the brackets. The response I got was, “that doesn’t happen too often.” I superglued one of them into the niche on the slide, and it never happened again.

Within 250 rounds, I had two failures to feed. It’s been a while now, I don’t remember exactly what happened, but it wasn’t simply a matter of pushing the rear of the slide a bit.

When it was working, it was rather unpleasant to shoot. The trigger pull is long and heavy. The recoil of even the relatively mild .380 ammunition in a pistol so small and light is similar to shooting .357Mag ammo from a lightweight snubnose revolver. About the best accuracy I was able to get out of it was 5 or 6” groups at 7 yards, while I can shoot 3" offhand groups with a Glock 26 all day at 10 yards shooting controlled pairs.

At around the 250 round mark, the mainspring broke. This was the straw that broke the camel's back. The mainspring is made of very thin wire, and is constantly under tension. I felt that this was the Achilles heel of the pistol, and I’m not sure that there is any way to fix it without a major redesign.

I replaced the spring, and fired maybe 20 more rounds through it to make sure I had reassembled it properly (cough), and then I sold it to a moderator at the KTOG forums.

Besides all this, the metal frame inside the grip was getting peened at the assembly pin holes, and where the recoil spring guide rod seated. The barrel was peened where the assembly pin passed through it. I never even fired any +P ammunition through the pistol.

I put the little bit that I got from selling the Kel-Tec toward a Kahr PM9. Although some report having reliability problems with the PM9 and PM40s, I got a “good one.” The trigger pull is much better. It’s not hard to get 3” groups out at 10 yards and beyond. When stoked with 147 grain Winchester Ranger ammunition, it is quite potent, while still being very controllable. It is larger than the small Kel-Tec pistols, but I still pocket carry the PM9 all the time, and I trust the Kahr.

Smith & Wesson M&P Review

Okay, I finally got around to trying out a Smith and Wesson M&P at Targetmaster. I brought along my Glock 17 for a side-by-side comparison.

The M&P was a 9mm with the 4” barrel, I’m not sure if the 5” model is available yet. I polished up the trigger bar of my G17, plastic guide rod replaced with stainless steel, and I put on a set of Heinie Straight Eight sights with the race cut from Custom Glock Racing.

I’ll start with what I though stood out the most, that being the trigger. I think, maybe, the M&P had a trigger that was a little lighter than the polished, but stock, trigger in my G17. Don’t get too excited yet though, I found the M&P trigger to be really vague. The M&P trigger pull is a little like a double action revolver trigger pull, but lighter. By comparison, the Glock triggers have two distinct stages; there’s the slack, and then the trigger bar hits the connector, and the pull weight increases noticeably. The second stage of a Glock trigger, even with the 3.5 pound connector is quite short. I couldn’t really make out any stages with the M&P, it was just one long mushy stage. To make things worse, the trigger reset on the M&P was very indistinct, which will wreak havoc with anyone used to “riding the reset.”

While messing with the trigger, I came to the realization that I shouldn’t buy any pistols with magazine disconnects, if only because you need to have a magazine inserted to dry-fire, which makes me nervous. It’s not so bad with a Glock and the yellow plastic dry-fire barrel from Blade-Tech, but without a plastic barrel, I’d be constantly checking the magazine and chamber.

I had a hard time shooting groups with the M&P, although, to be fair, I’m intimately firmiliar with the Glock trigger, and the M&P was a rental gun that has been rode hard and put away wet, and might have been really dirty when I started the test.

I have heard from some that the grip of the M&P feels far better than that of the Glocks. This was not my experience. Although I think that Glock would sell more pistols if they started making frame with interchangeable backstraps, the G17 fits me about perfectly. I did not feel that the M&P grip was better, it’s just different. The big beavertail at the back of the gripframe, by the way, seems to be mostly superfluous. I’ve seen a couple pictures of M&Ps with the beavertail trimmed, and that’s what I’d do too.

I have also heard that the M&P transmits less felt recoil than Glocks. Again, I have to disagree. I loaded up both pistols to full capacity, and fired 5 shot strings, switching back and forth until both pistols were empty. I couldn’t really detect any difference in felt recoil or muzzle flip between the two.

M&P Pros:
Looks a little less menacing than the ugly black Glocks. . . unless you’re looking down the end that the bullets come out.
It will probably fit more shooters due to interchangeable backstraps.
Less aftermarket parts, trigger kits, etc., which means there’s less chance of junk making your defense pistol not work properly.
The stock sight set has a better sight picture than Glock plastic sights, and the front sight is probably not gonna get knocked off as easy as the plastic Glock front sight. I’d probably be happy with a tritium front sight and the dots on the rear sight blacked out.
Stock recoil spring guide is metal, not plastic. Although it’s rare, the Glock plastic guide rods can break.
If your experimentation with grip stippling goes bad, you can just chuck the grip insert and order another.
Ambi controls are a good thing, usually.

Cons:
The vague trigger pull.
The indistinct and slightly longer trigger reset.
Less aftermarket parts, trigger kits, etc.
The grip may be a little too slippery when shooting hot 40 caliber loads, although the same is true of the Glock frame.
The magazines aren’t real cheap.

Well, that’s my story. Comparing a rental gun to my sort-of-racy and clean pistol may not be totally fair, but it’s the best I can do. Ultimately, there’s no way I’m gonna buy one until I can try one that’s had a trigger job, and even then, I’d have to be getting a deal. I’d probably be more likely to buy a Springfield XD.

EDIT: I ended up buying a M&P 9 Pro. The trigger was a lot better, although still not quite up there with a Glock that's had a trigger job.

XD40 Service Model Review

Here's a review I wrote a couple years ago I guess. I've bought a couple G17s and a G21, but still not an XD.

EDIT, 11/27/09: Added a G19 to the mix, and an M&P, but still no XD.

I've owned a Glock 26 for a couple years now, fired over 2,000 rounds though it, and I'm very satisfied, but I like to try new guns. I have also rented most other Glock pistols at least once. I've been reading a lot of good things about these Springfield XD pistols, but until recently I've not been able to actually shoot one.

EDIT, 11/27/09: Over 7000 rounds between the G17s, over 4000 through the G26, and almost 1500 through the G19.

I tried out the XD40 service model at Targetmaster as soon as I could. I suppose I may be spoiling the review by saying this so early, but I'm not horribly impressed, and will be sticking to Glocks.

Trigger
The trigger face does seem to be slightly closer to the backstrap. I have pretty large hands, but was able to make do, not a serious issue. The trigger pull is not noticably smoother or crisper than a standard Glock trigger. The pull weight is, however, heavier than the standard 5.5 pound Glock trigger. About half way though a box of UMC .40 S&W, I noticed that the trigger was heavy enough to cause some discomfort. I hear from others that they find XD triggers lighter than Glock triggers, but that was not my experience.

The Grip Safety
I've heard some moaning from Glockers about the grip safety. It didn't bother me at all. The spring is light; I didn't find it uncomfortable, and it slid into the grip as soon as I wrapped a hand around it. I do, however, find it somewhat unnecessary, and I suppose it could make the pistol useless should it become jammed or broken somehow.

Loaded Chamber/Cocked Indicators
The XD has a loaded chamber indicator that sticks up from just behind the barrel hood on the top of the slide, whereas the Glocks extractor serves as a loaded chamber indicator. The XDs have a little button that sticks out of the rear end of the slide when the pistol is ready to fire, or dry fire. What does all this mean? Not much. If you want to dry fire, you had better make sure the magazine is removed and/or a dummy magazine is in place, and that the chamber is definately empty. The XDs loaded chamber indicator is somewhat more convenient to check, big friggin' whoop.

I have read one report of a broken cocked pistol indicator, so you can't even trust that feature wholeheartidly.

Recoil
I didn't notice much of an increase in recoil over a Glock, but then I didn't have a G23 at hand to do a side-to-side comparison. I'm not very recoil sensitive anyway. Unless I stagger 115 gr. and 124 gr. +P ammo in the same magazine, I don't notice any difference in recoil.

Controls
Controls and placements are very similar to those on a Glock. I had no problem wiping the slide stop lever. The mag release on the XD is ambidextrous, and no more difficult to push than the Glock button: one bonus point to the XD design.

What Would I buy
4"+ barrel autopistol - Glock 17/22/31, Glock 21/20, or a Practical/Tactical Glock. I actually have 2 G17s, a G21, and I'd buy a 34 if I could justify it.
4" barrel autopistol - G19, G23, or G32. I prefer the lighter trigger, and more modularity. Some G19s have feeding problems with certain followers and Klinton mags in general, but a call to a Glock service tech will solve almost all of these problems.
3.5" barrel autopistol - I'm definately keeping my G26, for the same reasons.

Overall I feel that the XD is not a bad pistol, it's just not a stellar one.