M10X should I buy?? Feedback from current owners please.
- Thread starter KanadianShooter
- Start date
A little late to the discussion but I can say my long handguard m10x is very reliable. Last trip to the range with 300 round or Chinese corrosive ammo without any issues. There is one mag that it does not like but I simply don't use it. Ringing steel at 200yards easy
Finally got around to firing mine (recent production rifle with the short handguard) the other day. Everything worked 100% (feeding from several different mags, extraction, ejection) EXCEPT for several light primer strikes, which is not a surprise given all of the reports of exactly that online. I have standard AK47 and AK74 hammer springs in the parts bin, so I'm going to swap one of them in and see if it fixes the issue. I got a good deal on the rifle, so I'm not particularly upset.
Will report back, eventually...
Will report back, eventually...
Last edited:
why helping the gun owners to have good rifles ... lol ... it was a great rifle for sure sad to not be able to use it... few guys i know went from sks to vz/cz now to the t81 but for how long. the folder with short ak mag is great on trap line. can t wait to check one with a nice scope on it.
Based on their customer service up to this point in response to a problem, I'd say absolutely do NOT buy one.
EDIT - ok, M+M seems to have a CGN presence right now, and appears to be more reasonable.... things may be looking up. Time will tell.
EDIT - ok, M+M seems to have a CGN presence right now, and appears to be more reasonable.... things may be looking up. Time will tell.
Last edited:
Well, the Gen 2 M10X that I bought unfired from a previous owner in the EE has arrived. I bought it just prior to the Barrel deflection issue coming to light, so was understandably nervous while awaiting its arrival! I immediately stripped the rifle to check for Barrel deviation and found that my barrel is slightly off-center .076" to the Right when measured at the Flash-Comp. As this is less than 1/10", I am not sure whether or not my optics will compensate. I did not attempt to "push" the Aluminum Rail to the Right in order to better align it with the Barrel before tightening the Grub Screw, as that is what is causing the sudden "jumps" in windage - people are stressing the Rail to the side, and then the Grub Screw lets go while firing and the Rail pops back into the un-stressed center position. I simply tightened the Grub Screw once I had the Pivot Screw re-installed. That way, the rail (with the optic mounted) does not move in relation to the Barrel when handling and firing the rifle. As others have pointed out, the smart thing for M+M to do would be to press-fit the Aluminum Rail to the Steel Receiver so that there is no more slop between the two. All removing the Rail does is provide improved access to the interior of the Receiver when cleaning. It is no big deal to service the M10X as a one-piece Receiver system. I will strongly consider JB-Welding my Rail and Receiver together once I first determine whether or not Warranty service is required to improve the rifle's accuracy or function. If warranty service is required, I obviously don't want to void the warranty before I receive that corrective service! As the M+M warranty is not transferrable (boo!), the original owner of the rifle has agreed to send it in on my behalf if required. I will know this coming Monday after my inaugural range trip with this particular rifle.
As I stripped the rifle down to check for Barrel Deviation, I could not help but be impressed with the M10X's fit and finish, as well as the elegant simpicity of the design. It really is quite clever how the designer was able to reduce the parts-count by half as compared to an AKM! The machining on the Gen 2 Bolt is impeccable, as it is on the Bolt Carrier and Gas Assembly parts. The OD Green CeraKote finish is smooth and blemish-free, very professionally-applied. Quite frankly, from a design and manufacturing perspective there is little or nothing to fault M+M on. Where this rifle falls down is in its pre-shipment Quality Control (eg. visually-identifiable Deviated Barrels) and its basic performance. If a firearm is not reliable out of the box, then all of the clever design and careful manufacturing is for naught! Sadly, this currently appears to be the case with the M10X, which to date has demonstrated very inconsistent performance and reliability across the 18.6"-barrelled Canadian fleet.
Issues to date appear to be centered around:
a. Deviated Barrels (manufacturer must replace affected Receivers)
b. Light primer strikes (resolve by cutting coils off of Firing Pin Spring, or by installing a stronger Hammer Spring for hard mil-spec primers)
c. Feeding issues (resolve by testing and removing troublesome mags. Use PMags vice steel. Do not "ride" the Charging Handle)
d. Extraction issues with Steel-cased Norinco ammo (resolve by switching to Brass-cased ammo or Barnaul Steel-cased)
e. Ejection Issues - Stovepipes (possibly due to overgassing and high Bolt Carrier velocity. Resolve with stronger Ejector Spring and/or Hammer Spring)
Consistent with the opinions of many on CGN, a rifle is nothing if not reliable and therefore trustworthy. It has to work when needed, and right now there is no guarantee out of the box that an M10X will do so. As things currenty stand, each rifle must be individually test-fired and then carefully "tweaked" with stronger springs, brass-cased ammo, polymer mags, and/or other adjustments in order to reach a level of acceptable reliabllity. Improved QC at the M+M factory would likely go a long ways towards improving immediate reliabiity, as would the installation of those stronger Trigger and Hammer Springs right from the get-go. That the rifle now ships with a PMag is a definite step in the right direction, but there is still much work to be done by M+M. This is needed both to improve the rifle's reliabiity, and then to rebuild consumer trust in the company and its platform.
Test-firing on Monday will tell the tale of my particular M10X. Assuming that the Barrel is not so deviated that my optics cannot compensate, I am confident in my ability to get the rifle up and running in the face of minor issues. We shall see. Watch and shoot.....
As I stripped the rifle down to check for Barrel Deviation, I could not help but be impressed with the M10X's fit and finish, as well as the elegant simpicity of the design. It really is quite clever how the designer was able to reduce the parts-count by half as compared to an AKM! The machining on the Gen 2 Bolt is impeccable, as it is on the Bolt Carrier and Gas Assembly parts. The OD Green CeraKote finish is smooth and blemish-free, very professionally-applied. Quite frankly, from a design and manufacturing perspective there is little or nothing to fault M+M on. Where this rifle falls down is in its pre-shipment Quality Control (eg. visually-identifiable Deviated Barrels) and its basic performance. If a firearm is not reliable out of the box, then all of the clever design and careful manufacturing is for naught! Sadly, this currently appears to be the case with the M10X, which to date has demonstrated very inconsistent performance and reliability across the 18.6"-barrelled Canadian fleet.
Issues to date appear to be centered around:
a. Deviated Barrels (manufacturer must replace affected Receivers)
b. Light primer strikes (resolve by cutting coils off of Firing Pin Spring, or by installing a stronger Hammer Spring for hard mil-spec primers)
c. Feeding issues (resolve by testing and removing troublesome mags. Use PMags vice steel. Do not "ride" the Charging Handle)
d. Extraction issues with Steel-cased Norinco ammo (resolve by switching to Brass-cased ammo or Barnaul Steel-cased)
e. Ejection Issues - Stovepipes (possibly due to overgassing and high Bolt Carrier velocity. Resolve with stronger Ejector Spring and/or Hammer Spring)
Consistent with the opinions of many on CGN, a rifle is nothing if not reliable and therefore trustworthy. It has to work when needed, and right now there is no guarantee out of the box that an M10X will do so. As things currenty stand, each rifle must be individually test-fired and then carefully "tweaked" with stronger springs, brass-cased ammo, polymer mags, and/or other adjustments in order to reach a level of acceptable reliabllity. Improved QC at the M+M factory would likely go a long ways towards improving immediate reliabiity, as would the installation of those stronger Trigger and Hammer Springs right from the get-go. That the rifle now ships with a PMag is a definite step in the right direction, but there is still much work to be done by M+M. This is needed both to improve the rifle's reliabiity, and then to rebuild consumer trust in the company and its platform.
Test-firing on Monday will tell the tale of my particular M10X. Assuming that the Barrel is not so deviated that my optics cannot compensate, I am confident in my ability to get the rifle up and running in the face of minor issues. We shall see. Watch and shoot.....
Last edited:
Excellent review, Lucas Precision Riflecraft (LPR) - thanks very much for the time, effort and evident patience that went into crafting that outstanding video production! If only the M10X and/or the combined Customer Service from M+M or North Sylva were even remotely as good as the video. Alas, that was clearly not the case....
After watching the LPR video I believe that we have to add "Feed Geometry" to the llist of common shortcomings with the M10X. There is really no other way to explain the repeated double-feeds and (in particlular) the stoppages where the bullet tip was mis-aligned with the Chamber. This strongly suggests to me that the angle of the feed ramp and/or the magazine presentation in the rifle is manufactured out of specification. That being the case, no matter how many differnt bolts you try you will not fully eliminate the feeding issues. At that is where we ultimately end up at the end of the LPR Video Review - with the rifle performing marginally better than it first did (now 15 rounds between failure), but far from "perfect" as M+M claims in their promotional liiterature.
The LPR Video Review reinforces my belief that both M10X production and QC are wildly inconsistent, resulting in shipped rifles with fundamental problems like the example featured in the video. In my view it is highly unlikely that further "tinkering" and parts replacement will result in reliable function with that particular firearm. Nothing short of a full rebuild with extensive QC testing will resolve the feeding problems plaguing the rifle in the video. M+M Industries really needs to step up its Customer Service and embrace responsibility for malfunctioning M10X rifles. They must be prepared to write-off complete rifles as unworkable, scrapping the Receivers as necessary. Inadequatedx Fixtures and Jigs used in the manufacturing process may be responsible for inconsistent Feed Ramp Angles, much the same way that different rifles have recently been found to exhibit varying degrees of Barrel misalignment due to off-true drilling of the Trunnions. This can only result from Receivers being improperly mounted or secured in the drilling jig, or problems with the accuracy of the jig itself. Either way, Barrels are being mounted off-center on production rifles approved for factory release by the M+M QC "process" - whatever that consists of. It therefore stands to reason that far more subtle Feed Ramp geometry issues may also entirely escape the final QC process.
It seems to me that M+M must fundamentaly revisit their approach to Customer Support, while at the same time adopting and living the motto that "the customer is always right". Instead of frequently blaming the owner/operator for M10X failures (eg. incorrect gas setting), the company must accept that it is the rifles and not the end-user who is at fault for persistent failures to feed or function. Therer are clearly a host of manufacturing problems leading to inconsistent interoperability of parts on the M10X rifles. M+M Industries needs to "own" the M10X problems by completely revisiting its manufacturing and assembly processes. Ditch the Grub Screw and tighten the tolerances between the steel Receiver and the aluminum Monolithic Rail such that there is zero/minimal slop. Ensure that the Barrels themselves are mounted True in the Trunnion of each Receiver, so that a consistent feed angle is achieved in each rifle that passes final QC. And so on, and so forth. If M+M Industries revisits and tightens up its manufacturing processes and the fixtures/jigs that it is using to manufacture the rifles many of the issues may just resolve themselves. It is certanly worth a try, as the current inconsistency in rifle manufacture and resultant performance is completely unacceptable. Indeed, much damage has already been done to the M+M Industries brand as a function of the rifle's inconsistent performance and poor accuracy, as well as the company's indifferent Customer Service. It may very well be too late to salvage the firm's reputation at this point. Only time will tell...
Thanks (and congratulations) once again to LPR for producing such a comprehensive overview of the various problems plaguing the M10X platform. Hopefully M+M Industries is paying close attention to the Video and this discussion Thread (among the many others). Notwithstanding end-user efforts to resolve the particular problems plaguing their individual rifles, responsibility for addressing and resolving the consistency problems plaguing the M10X platform belongs entirely to M+M Industries. It remains to be seen whether the company will rise to the occasion or fade into obscurity as a failure footnote in firearms design history.
I will report my findings after I put first rounds downrange with my own shiny new M10X tomorrow. I am not anticipating perfection. Watch and shoot...
After watching the LPR video I believe that we have to add "Feed Geometry" to the llist of common shortcomings with the M10X. There is really no other way to explain the repeated double-feeds and (in particlular) the stoppages where the bullet tip was mis-aligned with the Chamber. This strongly suggests to me that the angle of the feed ramp and/or the magazine presentation in the rifle is manufactured out of specification. That being the case, no matter how many differnt bolts you try you will not fully eliminate the feeding issues. At that is where we ultimately end up at the end of the LPR Video Review - with the rifle performing marginally better than it first did (now 15 rounds between failure), but far from "perfect" as M+M claims in their promotional liiterature.
The LPR Video Review reinforces my belief that both M10X production and QC are wildly inconsistent, resulting in shipped rifles with fundamental problems like the example featured in the video. In my view it is highly unlikely that further "tinkering" and parts replacement will result in reliable function with that particular firearm. Nothing short of a full rebuild with extensive QC testing will resolve the feeding problems plaguing the rifle in the video. M+M Industries really needs to step up its Customer Service and embrace responsibility for malfunctioning M10X rifles. They must be prepared to write-off complete rifles as unworkable, scrapping the Receivers as necessary. Inadequatedx Fixtures and Jigs used in the manufacturing process may be responsible for inconsistent Feed Ramp Angles, much the same way that different rifles have recently been found to exhibit varying degrees of Barrel misalignment due to off-true drilling of the Trunnions. This can only result from Receivers being improperly mounted or secured in the drilling jig, or problems with the accuracy of the jig itself. Either way, Barrels are being mounted off-center on production rifles approved for factory release by the M+M QC "process" - whatever that consists of. It therefore stands to reason that far more subtle Feed Ramp geometry issues may also entirely escape the final QC process.
It seems to me that M+M must fundamentaly revisit their approach to Customer Support, while at the same time adopting and living the motto that "the customer is always right". Instead of frequently blaming the owner/operator for M10X failures (eg. incorrect gas setting), the company must accept that it is the rifles and not the end-user who is at fault for persistent failures to feed or function. Therer are clearly a host of manufacturing problems leading to inconsistent interoperability of parts on the M10X rifles. M+M Industries needs to "own" the M10X problems by completely revisiting its manufacturing and assembly processes. Ditch the Grub Screw and tighten the tolerances between the steel Receiver and the aluminum Monolithic Rail such that there is zero/minimal slop. Ensure that the Barrels themselves are mounted True in the Trunnion of each Receiver, so that a consistent feed angle is achieved in each rifle that passes final QC. And so on, and so forth. If M+M Industries revisits and tightens up its manufacturing processes and the fixtures/jigs that it is using to manufacture the rifles many of the issues may just resolve themselves. It is certanly worth a try, as the current inconsistency in rifle manufacture and resultant performance is completely unacceptable. Indeed, much damage has already been done to the M+M Industries brand as a function of the rifle's inconsistent performance and poor accuracy, as well as the company's indifferent Customer Service. It may very well be too late to salvage the firm's reputation at this point. Only time will tell...
Thanks (and congratulations) once again to LPR for producing such a comprehensive overview of the various problems plaguing the M10X platform. Hopefully M+M Industries is paying close attention to the Video and this discussion Thread (among the many others). Notwithstanding end-user efforts to resolve the particular problems plaguing their individual rifles, responsibility for addressing and resolving the consistency problems plaguing the M10X platform belongs entirely to M+M Industries. It remains to be seen whether the company will rise to the occasion or fade into obscurity as a failure footnote in firearms design history.
I will report my findings after I put first rounds downrange with my own shiny new M10X tomorrow. I am not anticipating perfection. Watch and shoot...
Well, I had my (then) unfired M10X out today for the first time. I put 160 rounds through it, mostly Norinco Red Box copper-washed steel case, but also some bulk surplus copper-wash steel case and 20 rounds of brass case. My rifle started off strong, but after 25 flawless rounds it started having a stoppage emptying every other 5-round mag. The mags were a mix of 5/20 and 5/30 AK PMags which worked fine. The stoppages were mostly failures to eject or stove-pipes. I cranked the gas over to the Adverse setting and the stoppages went away except for the last round in about half of the mags that I fired. Those last rounds would either stove-pipe or hang-up inside the Receiver, which was very odd as the rifle fed and ejected perfectly for 4 out of every 5 rounds fired. It choked ejecting the last round when there was no ammo in the magazine. It was no big deal to clear the last round if it hung up, but it would seriously slow down a competition reload! Sorry, no photos - I was too busy shooting and clearing the last round!
Overall, I was reasonably satisfied with the rifle's reliabiity once I cranked up the gas setting. The occasional hang-up ejecting the last round is troublesome and worthy of further investigation, although I suspect that it would take a high-speed camera to get to the bottom of it. Perhaps I will try the slow-motion settings on my phone camera the next time I am out if I have an assistant to do the firing for me. I remain hopeful that as the rifle breaks in and the action smooths out it will perform as well on the Normal gas setting as it currently does on the Adverse setting. Time will tell. Ejection was pretty consistent at the 4:00 O'Clock position, so no issues with Bolt/Carrier velocity nor is the rifle apparently over-gassed - even on the Adverse setting. My rifle's chamber seems to be tight on the Norinco Red Box fodder, as evidenced by 2 hard-extractions, one of which had to be "mortared" to clear. The other was so stuck that the Extractor was tearing off the rim of the empty casing in the chamber. I tapped it out with a cleaning rod and inspected the casing for anything out of the ordinary, but nothing - no evidence of a burr or anything else that would cause the casing to stick to the Chamber walls. Cycling the Norinco ammo through a tight chamber might just be enough to cause those last-round ejection issues, a theory that the use of different ammo will either support or disprove the next time I get out. I have 200 rounds of Barnaul 7.62x39mm ammo inbound, which I will add to the experimentation mix.
A detailed inspection of the rifle post-shoot indicated no areas nor points of accelerated wear. Everything appeared to be normal for a mere 160 rounds down the pipe. Accuracy was disappointing, but no worse than the first M10X I owned a few years ago when they first came out. The groups looked great at 25m as I zeroed my 1-8x Vortex Strike Eagle LPVO, with rounds frequently stacking on top of each other. However, when we moved over to 100m those groupings expanded from 1" to 4" and sometimes 5" on average (with declared flyers). So, typical performance in my experience for an M10X firing Norinco copper-washed steel-case ammo. I'd have liked tighter groups, but am not keen to pay for premium ammo just to find out if the M10X is capable of better than 4" groups at 100m. That is acceptable to me for plinking steel out to 200 and maybe even 300m, which is all I wanted the M10X for. I have other rifles that reach out and touch things far away. The M10X is a plinker, notwithstanding its ludicrous "Designated Marksman Rifle" moniker assigned by the manufacturer. Wishful thinking, LOL!!
Well, that's it for now. I will have more to say when I get out with the M10X again using Barnaul ammo and a mix of Steel magazines just to keep things interesting....
Overall, I was reasonably satisfied with the rifle's reliabiity once I cranked up the gas setting. The occasional hang-up ejecting the last round is troublesome and worthy of further investigation, although I suspect that it would take a high-speed camera to get to the bottom of it. Perhaps I will try the slow-motion settings on my phone camera the next time I am out if I have an assistant to do the firing for me. I remain hopeful that as the rifle breaks in and the action smooths out it will perform as well on the Normal gas setting as it currently does on the Adverse setting. Time will tell. Ejection was pretty consistent at the 4:00 O'Clock position, so no issues with Bolt/Carrier velocity nor is the rifle apparently over-gassed - even on the Adverse setting. My rifle's chamber seems to be tight on the Norinco Red Box fodder, as evidenced by 2 hard-extractions, one of which had to be "mortared" to clear. The other was so stuck that the Extractor was tearing off the rim of the empty casing in the chamber. I tapped it out with a cleaning rod and inspected the casing for anything out of the ordinary, but nothing - no evidence of a burr or anything else that would cause the casing to stick to the Chamber walls. Cycling the Norinco ammo through a tight chamber might just be enough to cause those last-round ejection issues, a theory that the use of different ammo will either support or disprove the next time I get out. I have 200 rounds of Barnaul 7.62x39mm ammo inbound, which I will add to the experimentation mix.
A detailed inspection of the rifle post-shoot indicated no areas nor points of accelerated wear. Everything appeared to be normal for a mere 160 rounds down the pipe. Accuracy was disappointing, but no worse than the first M10X I owned a few years ago when they first came out. The groups looked great at 25m as I zeroed my 1-8x Vortex Strike Eagle LPVO, with rounds frequently stacking on top of each other. However, when we moved over to 100m those groupings expanded from 1" to 4" and sometimes 5" on average (with declared flyers). So, typical performance in my experience for an M10X firing Norinco copper-washed steel-case ammo. I'd have liked tighter groups, but am not keen to pay for premium ammo just to find out if the M10X is capable of better than 4" groups at 100m. That is acceptable to me for plinking steel out to 200 and maybe even 300m, which is all I wanted the M10X for. I have other rifles that reach out and touch things far away. The M10X is a plinker, notwithstanding its ludicrous "Designated Marksman Rifle" moniker assigned by the manufacturer. Wishful thinking, LOL!!
Well, that's it for now. I will have more to say when I get out with the M10X again using Barnaul ammo and a mix of Steel magazines just to keep things interesting....
- Location
- Steel Town
Owned one for 3 weeks. Honestly, I would rather own a dried piece of poo. Sold it for 1/2 what I paid to some dumb enthusiastic kid.
Ammo picky, feeding issues and less accurate than my best SKS.
Ammo picky, feeding issues and less accurate than my best SKS.
