Glocks vs. M&P

My first competition gun was a full-sized M&P 1.0. I love it and praised its virtues, especially after I installed an Apex sear to clean up the reset.

Then I started shooting Glocks -- first a 17 and then various others, until I settled on a 19X shortly after they came out. I ended up selling my M&P, not because it's a bad gun, but because the Glock fits my body geometry better.

When asked, I tell people that the two guns I'd take into battle are a Glock and an M&P, and it would really come down to which fit the shooter's body geometry better.

I do appreciate the mechanical simplicity of the Glock, and I'm always surprised that this doesn't get talked about more. It's why I'm not fond of the Sig P320 ... it's a fine gun that shoots well, but it's also a lot more complicated inside, which for me means that there's a greater chance of mechanical failure.

Mike

In my humble opinion, the M&P is what the Glock should have been all along.

Ah, the topic that just keeps on going and going and......

The California market is a bit skewed in that I can only buy Gen3s (or earlier from dealer inventory. Since Gen 4s and later are "off roster" they command a hefty premium on the private sales market some as much as 100%.

Since the market is skewed, so too may be my experience. Having said that I never shot a Glock I had to have. I find the grip angle odd, don't like the "square-ish" grip and a few other quirks. I realize if I shot one more, I'd likely adjust to it. However, why bother when others "fit" better out of the box.

So to each their own. That's why we have so many choices.

Saudade said:

Having said that I never shot a Glock I had to have. I find the grip angle odd, don't like the "square-ish" grip and a few other quirks. I realize if I shot one more, I'd likely adjust to it. However, why bother when others "fit" better out of the box.

Click to expand...

Exactly my point. The Glock fits my hands very naturally, but that's a function of my unique physiology. For others it feels like a lopsided brick.

The M&P and Glock are both battle-proven weapons that will go bang every time ... which is why I don't care much about "which gun is better" arguments. In this case, I think it comes down to ergonomics.

Mike

Honestly, all things being equal, I'd probably be happy with either. I do like the more simple design of the Glock internals. In my experience, Glocks (including the 42 and 43 - but have never owned a 36) just work, and work, and work. The M&Ps may, too; I haven't had an opportunity to try them as many years.

I have 2x Shield 1.0 9x19s and 2x Shield .45s, one of each with the full Apex duty/carry kit. That (with/without Apex parts) is another case of "I'd be happy either way." And compared to the 43, the Shield is mostly a toss-up. My 43 gets far more carry time because it's a little easier to conceal than the Shield 9mm, but once the gun is in my hand it's a toss-up.

A couple of months ago I was looking to trade a VP9 (a pistol that was better in theory than in the hand, in my opinion) and the LGS had an unfired 2.0 4" that the dealer was willing to trade even, so I took it home. It's a natural comparison to a 19, in my case a Gen 3 so the grip panels aren't user-configurable. I've got maybe 500-600 rounds through the M&P and it's been 100% dependable. So here we are again - all things being equal, it's a toss-up for me.

Living in Massachusetts, all things aren't equal, though. Due to some convoluted laws, regulations and AG orders I can get "pre-ban" standard capacity magazines for the Glocks. Not so for the M&Ps, so for anything with a capacity >10 the Glock is the preferred choice for me.

I can't end without a nod to the Gen 3 S&W autos. Great pistols, very well designed, well made and dependable. Mostly huge bargains today on the used market. But oh, try to completely strip one of those things. They had more parts than a Swiss watch. It's no wonder S&W had to move on from those pistols - the production costs must have been very high. When I see them in the used gun cases I keep thinking I should buy one for old times' sake - a different era in gun-making.

Both solid platforms. No right or wrong only what works best for you. These guys got it right

The M&P and the VP9 are Glocks for people who don't like Glocks.

For me the big advantage of the M&P is the ergonomics, much superior compared to a Glock. My M&P 9 first model has been 100% with over 3,000 rounds. My relatively new M&P 9 2 4" compact is fantastic, accurate and reliable.

sheppard said:

For me the big advantage of the M&P is the ergonomics, much superior compared to a Glock. My M&P 9 first model has been 100% with over 3,000 rounds. My relatively new M&P 9 2 4" compact is fantastic, accurate and reliable.

Click to expand...

Discussing, not arguing - what do you see as the superior ergonomics? I've shot Glocks forever and have shot Shields since the 9mm was introduced, and have a M&P 2.0. To me, they're really equivalent even though not identical. The only stand-out difference to me would be field stripping, where I'd say the M&P is inherently safer, although anyone who's had a Garand bolt close on a thumb or finger probably feels a little cautious pushing the sear disconnect lever down. I'd be interested in your thoughts.

Some people really take to the Glock's Luger-like grip angle, others do not and for them, the M&P feels more natural.

I have a Glock 22 w/ 9mm conversion and it shoots both .40 S&W and 9mm with equal reliability.
I did do some minor grip modifications such as sand ( very carefully) both the hump and finger groves to fit my hand. I have looked at the M&P several times, but there is so much Glock aftermarket stuff out there plus mags are about half, I decided to stay with the Glock.

Well here it is, the blow your mind post. I have three 2.0 pistols - the compacts in both 9 and .40, and the five inch .40. I also have two FNS .40 cal long slides. Annnd, I have a Gen 3 Glock 19, and a Gen 4 Glock 23. I have cut the OEM beaver tail in half on the 23, and put the sandpaper Talon grips on it. It actually feels better in my hand than the 2.0 compact. BUT - Here's the kicker - whoda' thunk it - The 2.0 .40 cal compact is more reliable than my stock Gen 4 Glock 23. The 23 will occasionally fail to feed - usually during rapid fire. Yes I know about the limp wristing thing. But if I'm limp wristing during rapid fire, by golly it can't be much. The pistol fits me like a glove. So if that's the issue, I'd say that is too finicky for me. I carry the 2.0 .40 compact for my EDC. I have read others post the same results as mine with the Gen 4 Glock 23. It's my opinion, the light weight slide of the 23 moves too fast, and the mag springs have a hard time pushing up the next round in time. It's very rare it does it, like once every thousand rounds - but it does it. Also, I forgot - not entirely stock - I put a steel guide rod in it. Before that, using the OEM plastic one, it would fail to feed about once every 200 rounds.The slide is much harder to pull back on my 2.0 than my Glock, which makes me assume the slide velocity is a little slower - allowing the round to be pushed up in the magazine in plenty of time for the slide during it's cycle. So the Glock feels better in my hands, but it's not as reliable as the 2.0...Exactly opposite of what most people report lol. The 9 mm pistols work equally as well, and my long slide .40 works well too. But there is absolutely a reliability difference between the G23 and the 2.0 compact in .40 cal. I should also mention, without the Talon grips, the 23 isn't as pleasant to shoot as the 2.0. The Talon grips make the 23 much more shootable in my opinion. I might add, the FNS .40 cal long slide is the softest recoiling .40 I've ever shot. The grip is a bit small for my hands, but it's perfect if I'm wearing gloves. Since I rarely wear gloves, I keep a rubber pachmyr wrap around finger grooved grip on it, and it fits me perfectly. I also had to put an Apex heavy duty striker in it, as there have been many reports of strikers breaking in the FN striker fired pistols. Out of the box, the 2.0 with it's aggressive grip texture is my fav, but with the rubber grips on the FNS, it feels better and is well suited for home defense. Using 115 grain Lehigh Defense bullets, at 1350 fps, and 465 ft lbs of energy, the FNS long slide recoils like a 9mm. It's a great shooter. The 5 inch 2.0 pistol is real close to it, but I have to say, the FNS is one fast shooting machine. It's splitting hairs between the three brands, but when it comes to the compacts, the 2.0 is king of the hill in .40 cal. 100% reliability.

CB3 said:

So, my last three range trips involved shooting the two Glocks. I replaced all the trigger components in the G19 with standard stuff and tested it. Worked fine.

Then I shot my full size RMR M&P 9mm for the first time in a few weeks--having only shot the Glocks for the last 500 or so rounds.

What a PLEASURE! I noticed a significant difference in the feel of the gun, the trigger, recoil and accuracy.

Click to expand...

Don't think you'd be saying that if you had a stock M&P trigger...just sayin'

The first Glock I ever shot was a gen1 and I have owned at least one of each generation since.

At one time, around eight years ago, I got my first M&P. After that I didn't care much for the Glocks but once in a while I would try another one out.

A few years back I thought that I was completely done with the Glocks but a little over a year ago I was working in a shop where I handled a lot of pistols and every time I held the gen5 Glocks they really seemed to fit my hand well so I looked for a deal on one and got a 19.5.

I am very happy with it and I shoot it well although I have found that the longer grip on the 17 or 45 fit my hand a little better.

So now I am back to liking both the Glocks and M&Ps.

I haven't owned a 2.0 M&P yet but I'm always on the lookout for a steal on one.

dwcopple said:

Don't think you'd be saying that if you had a stock M&P trigger...just sayin'

Click to expand...

If you want to compare the average stock Glock trigger to the average stock M&P 1.0 trigger, they are both usually just as horrible in my experience.

The difference is that the M&P with some judicious polishing can be made to be very good. The Glock may get smoother, but the mechanical action of the Glock bothers a lot of people, including me.

So I would still take an M&P trigger over the Glock. I have a 1.0 full size that has a wonderful, polished trigger that beats either of my two Glocks that had aftermarket triggers until I gave up on the one described above and went back to polished stock Glock. I have not tried an Apex Glock trigger, but the Apex S&W triggers cannot be beat. A lot has to do with the actual mechanical design differences between the two.

You are correct that comparing an Apex S&W 1.0 trigger to any Glock trigger is not a fair comparison. I am not talking about what's fair; I'm talking about what works best for me. Trying to get a Glock to shoot like my M&P (I've tried) doesn't seem possible for a variety of reasons, the trigger being just one of them.

However, I admit I can shoot Glocks just fine. They are good, reliable, sufficiently accurate pistols. I just like and do best with my FS M&P Apex'd 1.0 9mm.

Canyon Man said:

Well here it is, the blow your mind post. I have three 2.0 pistols - the compacts in both 9 and .40, and the five inch .40. I also have two FNS .40 cal long slides. Annnd, I have a Gen 3 Glock 19, and a Gen 4 Glock 23. I have cut the OEM beaver tail in half on the 23, and put the sandpaper Talon grips on it. It actually feels better in my hand than the 2.0 compact. BUT - Here's the kicker - whoda' thunk it - The 2.0 .40 cal compact is more reliable than my stock Gen 4 Glock 23. The 23 will occasionally fail to feed - usually during rapid fire. Yes I know about the limp wristing thing. But if I'm limp wristing during rapid fire, by golly it can't be much. The pistol fits me like a glove. So if that's the issue, I'd say that is too finicky for me. I carry the 2.0 .40 compact for my EDC. I have read others post the same results as mine with the Gen 4 Glock 23. It's my opinion, the light weight slide of the 23 moves too fast, and the mag springs have a hard time pushing up the next round in time. It's very rare it does it, like once every thousand rounds - but it does it. Also, I forgot - not entirely stock - I put a steel guide rod in it. Before that, using the OEM plastic one, it would fail to feed about once every 200 rounds.The slide is much harder to pull back on my 2.0 than my Glock, which makes me assume the slide velocity is a little slower - allowing the round to be pushed up in the magazine in plenty of time for the slide during it's cycle. So the Glock feels better in my hands, but it's not as reliable as the 2.0...Exactly opposite of what most people report lol. The 9 mm pistols work equally as well, and my long slide .40 works well too. But there is absolutely a reliability difference between the G23 and the 2.0 compact in .40 cal. I should also mention, without the Talon grips, the 23 isn't as pleasant to shoot as the 2.0. The Talon grips make the 23 much more shootable in my opinion. I might add, the FNS .40 cal long slide is the softest recoiling .40 I've ever shot. The grip is a bit small for my hands, but it's perfect if I'm wearing gloves. Since I rarely wear gloves, I keep a rubber pachmyr wrap around finger grooved grip on it, and it fits me perfectly. I also had to put an Apex heavy duty striker in it, as there have been many reports of strikers breaking in the FN striker fired pistols. Out of the box, the 2.0 with it's aggressive grip texture is my fav, but with the rubber grips on the FNS, it feels better and is well suited for home defense. Using 115 grain Lehigh Defense bullets, at 1350 fps, and 465 ft lbs of energy, the FNS long slide recoils like a 9mm. It's a great shooter. The 5 inch 2.0 pistol is real close to it, but I have to say, the FNS is one fast shooting machine. It's splitting hairs between the three brands, but when it comes to the compacts, the 2.0 is king of the hill in .40 cal. 100% reliability.

Click to expand...

PLEASE!
Para
a
graphs

Very hard to read/follow. Sorry but true...

Regarding Glock grip.
My first Glock after many years of not even considering them. Is a G26 gen 3. The grip angle and the backstrap hump with G19 mag and xgrip sleeve fit my had very similar to a K frame square butt revolver.
The way I hold the Glock had natural pointing similar to the K frame.
The G 19 gen 3 doesn't have that hump so not as readily aligned.
The M&P was more familiar more like a " fat " grip 1911.

Random observation on the post above. I have a Gen 2.5 26 and a Gen 3 19 and the grip angles do not work out the same at all, as he says for a Gen 3 26 vs. a Gen 3 19. There's a prominent heel bulge on the 26 that changes the effective grip angle compared to many other Glocks. Never understood that at all - they should have been exactly the same since for many officers they were the on/off duty pair.

I have always loved Glocks. It wasn't until the 2.0 came out that I took interest in the M&P. I own 4 M&Ps now. I like them just as much as I do my Glocks. Having said that, as far as maintenace, goes, Glock is simplicity itself.

Well, this is likely to be a novel, but here goes.

Very shortly after entering LE in 1991, I started carrying a very early Glock 21. At the time, hollow points weren't very good, so .45 made some sense and a high capacity .45 was even better. At the time, the ONLY options for a hi cap .45 were the G21 and the Para Ordnance 1911. SAO was strictly forbidden at the PD, so Glock it was. I carried it for 19 years. I have over 50,000 rds through this gun and, aside from some of my reloads that I didn't size properly when I started reloading, never a malfunction.

A few years after, when most of the guys at the PD were switching to .40, I bought a 2nd Gen G23 from one of the guys. He was going from the G23 to a G22. My thoughts were to reduce the weight on my belt and gain ammo and mag compatibility with almost everyone else. I also liked the lack of finger grooves on the older G23, which is why I bought one from one of the guys instead of a brand new G23. On the initial qualification day, towards the end of the day, the G23 suffered a catactrophic case head separation with a factory 180gr hollow point. The magazine and extractor blew out of the gun. The cause? The excessive amount of material that had to be hogged out at the feed ramp to assure reliable feeding when Glock tried to shoehorn a larger diameter .40 into a gun designed and meant to use 9mm. The case head support at the feed ramp was criminally awful and, after actually comparing it to some others, I'm surprised I shot it as much as I did before it let go. I swapped back to my G21.

Several years ago, a new Chief mandated that you would carry a Dept issued gun instead of being allowed to carry personally owned guns The issued gun wold be the Gen4 G22. I carried it for a couple of years, till we got another new Chief, who allowed us to carry personally owned guns again if we wanted. I will say, that G22 was one of the most accurate guns I have ever shot. It seemed that all I had to do was look at my target, point the gun in the general direction and BAM!, a hit exactly where I was looking.

When we were allowed to carry personally owned guns again, I bought a 3rd Gen G19. MASSIVE "Brass To Face" issues, even with +P hollow points. A new ejector solved that and I carried it for a couple of years with no issues.

Even with all of the above, I still thought that there had to be something better. I tried several other makes and models of guns and really couldn't find anything I liked enough better to justify having to buy new holsters, new magazines (and I have a BUNCH of Glock magazines!) and training. I also had some run ins with Glocks version of Customer Service and hated it. If I could find something else, I would have switched just based on my experiences with Glock's extremely poor CS.

One of the guns I had tried was the older versions of the 1.0 M&P, in both 9mm and .40. I LOVED the ergonomics but hated the triggers, Mushy, gritty, creepy and no discernible reset (coming from Glocks, I learned a LONG time ago to shoot multiple rounds from reset).

In the meantime. I wanted a smaller, slimmer gun for off duty use than my Glock 26. When S&W came out with the Shield, a friend bought one and let me borrow it for a couple of weeks to try out. I LOVED it. I went out and bought the first 9mm Shield I could find, which took a few weeks (this was when they first came out and were so popular that they were HARD to find). I have been carrying it for several years and still love it.

When S&W announced the M&P 2.0, I waited till I found one to try. I fell in love. The butt fit my hand like a glove and the grip angle was better for me than the Glocks. The trigger was wonderful compared to factory Glocks and, even better, it has audible and tactile reset. Not as audible and tactile as the Glock, but worlds better than the 1.0 and more than good enough. I also shoot the 2.0 better than my Glocks. I bought a full sized 9mm and, as soon as I could arrange to qualify with it, it became my new duty gun. I loved it enough that I willingly shelled out hard earned money to replace holsters (not a small consideration, Safariland duty holsters are about $100.00 each, not even counting off duty holsters) and magazines. I have let a lot of the guys at the PD shoot it and, to a person, all liked it. Most carry Dept issued guns and aren't really shooters, so they are staying with Glocks, but all acknowledged that if they had to carry a personally owned gun, they would get the M&P 2.0 over a Glock.

The only Glock I still carry is a G42 for those occasions when I really need a small gun and for occasional pocket carry. I really wish S&W would redesign the Bodyguard to, at the very least, have a better trigger pull. I have shot a few and all have had an absolutely bad trigger. If they redesigned it to be striker fired and be similar to the 2.0, I would immediately run out and buy the first one I could find.

Bottom line for the TL;DR crowd, I absolutely love my M&P 2.0 and find it to be a MUCH better gun than the various Glocks. The Glocks are good guns, the M&P 2.0 is just better. S&W hit a home run with the 2.0 and I'm VERY glad they did.