Hi all,
So, in a recent thread I talked about some issues I had with a new M&P 9c. Well I like the gun so much, and my wife does too, that I made a trade and got another one to use when the malfunctioning one goes back to S&W . This one runs like a top without a single brass case to the face. So I started wondering why.
Both extracted fine, so I looked at the ejectors, and boy oh boy are they different. See the attached picture. The one in the front is the malfunctioning M&P with the one in the back being the functioning one. It seems pretty obvious why. The one in the front looks like it was designed by a high school shop student. The one in the back looks like it was designed by an actual engineer. As a note the malfunctioning M&P has a date of December 2011 with the functioning M&P having a date of March 2013 (fresh out of the oven).
Is this simply a difference between ejector designs that evolved over time? Or is it possible the malfunctioning ejector somehow didn't make it through some finishing stages? At least I think I have some direction to give the smiths at S&W when I send the malfunctioning one back.
Thanks,
-TR
So, in a recent thread I talked about some issues I had with a new M&P 9c. Well I like the gun so much, and my wife does too, that I made a trade and got another one to use when the malfunctioning one goes back to S&W . This one runs like a top without a single brass case to the face. So I started wondering why.
Both extracted fine, so I looked at the ejectors, and boy oh boy are they different. See the attached picture. The one in the front is the malfunctioning M&P with the one in the back being the functioning one. It seems pretty obvious why. The one in the front looks like it was designed by a high school shop student. The one in the back looks like it was designed by an actual engineer. As a note the malfunctioning M&P has a date of December 2011 with the functioning M&P having a date of March 2013 (fresh out of the oven).
Is this simply a difference between ejector designs that evolved over time? Or is it possible the malfunctioning ejector somehow didn't make it through some finishing stages? At least I think I have some direction to give the smiths at S&W when I send the malfunctioning one back.
Thanks,
-TR