S&W M&P vs Glock
- Thread starter WrongWay
- Start date
marshallartist
Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2005
- Messages
- 28
- Reaction score
- 4
My carry weapon is a M&P 40c but for years I carried the Glock 19 and 27. I never had any trouble from any of these. All have run 100%. The trigger is a little heavier and longer than the Glock with a longer and less noticeable reset (although after about 1200 rounds it becomes more positive). Most Glock fans complain about the M&P trigger so if you're coming from that camp you will probably not like it. I always keep my guns clean and avoid seriously abusing them so I can't tell you how they run dirty.
Those are your opions, and you are entitled to them. I discovered long ago, the Glock will run long after other guns quit, just by design.
I do clean them frequently when new and during break in, after that not as much.
I think I'll run a test with my G22, which hasn't been cleaned in probably a year and a half, and see how many rounds it takes before a stoppage. I shoot aluminum case Blazers thru my Glocks for practice and plinking, so I guess I'd better get a few more cases.
DustyDawg48
Member
I'm not trying to talk you into an M&P or out of a Glock; I own and shoot both. Only certain models of M&P have the magazine disconnect; all the M&Ps I own strip the same way as the Glock.
The rifling on the Smith gives the advantage of being able to shoot lead bullets...not an issue if you don't shoot lead bullets. I only reload and shoot jacketed so it wasn't a make or break issue for me either way. Accuracy from the Smiths was, for me, a bit better than with my Glocks despite having more rounds downrange with a Glock.
Again, I'm not trying to talk you out of one or into another but just wanted to clarify that only certain models of the M&P come with an internal lock (and I'd never buy a gun that had one) and the rifling is only a plus for M&P if you do decide to shoot lead bullets.
The rifling on the Smith gives the advantage of being able to shoot lead bullets...not an issue if you don't shoot lead bullets. I only reload and shoot jacketed so it wasn't a make or break issue for me either way. Accuracy from the Smiths was, for me, a bit better than with my Glocks despite having more rounds downrange with a Glock.
Again, I'm not trying to talk you out of one or into another but just wanted to clarify that only certain models of the M&P come with an internal lock (and I'd never buy a gun that had one) and the rifling is only a plus for M&P if you do decide to shoot lead bullets.
DustyDawg48,
I don't know where you got the idea that Glocks will not shoot lead, they will. My first Glock was a G21 when they were introduced in the early 1990's. I loaded the 200 gr swc, I believe it was a Hensley&Gibbs design. I was able to shoot 1.5" groups off hand at about 20-25 yds. I cannot shoot that well anymore because of an injury to my right wrist.
I've never loaded lead for any other caliber Glock, but I guess they would shoot lead just as well.
WrongWay
I don't know where you got the idea that Glocks will not shoot lead, they will. My first Glock was a G21 when they were introduced in the early 1990's. I loaded the 200 gr swc, I believe it was a Hensley&Gibbs design. I was able to shoot 1.5" groups off hand at about 20-25 yds. I cannot shoot that well anymore because of an injury to my right wrist.
I've never loaded lead for any other caliber Glock, but I guess they would shoot lead just as well.
WrongWay
DustyDawg48
Member
It's not that they cannot shoot lead, Glock themselves say the should not shoot lead. The polygon rifling in Glock are shallow and will allow lead to build up faster than in standard rifling. The G21 is different in that it has more standard rifling than the 9mm/40 caliber Glocks. Again, there is a 'cannot' and a 'should not'. A lot of the Glock kBoom! issues in 40 S&W stemmed from many shooters using lead bullets and it essentially clogged the barrels causing overpressure and it resulted in the famous Glock kBoom!
Again, it has nothing to do with how well somebody shoots the bullets, whether weapon or support hand, but that the 9mm and .40 cal polygon rifling is different and while arguably better than standard rifling its side effect is that it allows quicker/faster lead build up in the barrel.
Not an issue if you never shoot lead in the 9/40/357 Glocks or you opt to but purchase an aftermarket barrel like a KKM or Lone Wolf which has standard rifling.
Fastbolt
Member
Both the Glock and the S&W M&P are fine examples of the plastic-framed service pistol concept.
As an owner, user and armorer for both model lines I have some experience, as well as some personal opinions, when it comes to advantages and disadvantages of both model lines.
First of all, if you've been shooting a Gen3 or earlier G22 without the recommended cleaning, lubrication and maintenance for "thousands of rounds", you're not caring for the gun as is recommended in the armorer classes.
You might consider that the .40 S&W is generally considered to be harder on guns than the 9/.45 cartridges.
One armorer instructor in one of my Glock recert armorer classes described routine maintenance considerations in an interesting way one time.
He told us that if we're seeing broken locking blocks, locking block pins & trigger pins ... we're not replacing the recoil spring assemblies often enough. The recommended replacement interval for Gen3 & older G22's? It can vary a bit, depending on who you ask at the company, but it's typically considered to be around 2,500 - 3,000 rounds.
There was a replacement schedule for "wearable parts" that Glock gave to armorers, back around '08, and it listed some parts that they recommended be replaced in the .40's being used by their LE/Gov customers at 5,000 round intervals. They included the firing pin spring, safety plunger & spring, slide lock, trigger spring & locking block pin.
The recoil springs for the G22/22RTF's were recommended for replacement at 2500 rounds, or sooner, if needed. It was recommended they were checked at each range session.
Since then, I've been told by the company that the latest trigger spring (coil, light gray finish) has been determined to be a lifetime part ... (unless they eventually decide otherwise, of course
).
I've seen some worn out recoil springs and really worn/peened locking block pins. I haven't seen any broken trigger pins or locking blocks, myself, but I've spoken to other armorers who have come across them. I spoke with one agency armorer who had some barrel lugs breaking off in their G23's, but he said they been in-service with their original recoil springs for 10 years.
If you'd like to experience optimal functioning & service life from your pistol, it would be prudent to maintain it accordingly ... not abuse it.
The M&P offers a more robust slide in the way of a thicker/longer guide ring, as well as the rails having more metal below them (you'd have to stand around the cleaning station at a LE range and see slides dropped onto hard surfaces to really appreciate this feature ).
The steel straps molded into the frames (a sub-chassis) receives the steel coil pins at the front and rear (locking block & sear housing), which helps create a rectangular steel "box" in the M&P frame. This reportedly helps mitigate recoil forces acting on the plastic frame. Very nice idea.
The sear housing being a steel part is a nice touch, too.
Having the robust "rocker rails" incorporated into the steel locking block and sear housing assemblies makes it a simple matter to replace any damaged rails. The rail design used is considered self-centering as wear occurs, with the idea that it contributes to inherent accuracy even as the gun experiences wear. (Yes, I've spoken to another Glock armorer who had a brand new F-series issued G22 start exhibiting erratic functioning issues on a qaul range when the L/R frame rail snapped off.)
The striker assembly uses the same sort of striker return spring inside the striker assembly as is found in the excellent Walther P99 series, and serves the same purpose (helping prevent excessive contact between the striker & safety plunger, mitigating excessive peening).
Being able to field-strip the guns without having to pull the trigger is a design feature which can aid in helping prevent unintentional discharges by owners/users. Like it or not, this sort of thing may be appreciated by agencies who have a large group of users who may not necessarily be considered "gun enthusiasts".
(Hey, I remember when the Ruger P-series incorporated the pivoting ejector plate that you had to reach into the ejection port and push forward in order to field strip the gun. It's not like it's a necessarily old idea.)
The visual load chamber inspection port is handy.
The captured stainless steel recoil spring assembly is something Glock owners have long desired.
The grip inserts adjust both for grip reach, as well as grip girth (thickness), and the grip angle is something a lot of users of the other major pistols might find similar.
The M&P comes with a lifetime (to original owner) warranty that includes free shipping.
I like both designs.
I just think the M&P incorporates some nice refinements and takes the concept of the plastic pistol a little further.
Suit yourself. I do.
I like and use good equipment that suits my needs and is made by reputable manufacturers. The Glock and M&P pistols meet those needs, but they do differ in some interesting ways.
I suspect we'll continue to see both designs continuing to do well in the field, too.
As an owner, user and armorer for both model lines I have some experience, as well as some personal opinions, when it comes to advantages and disadvantages of both model lines.
First of all, if you've been shooting a Gen3 or earlier G22 without the recommended cleaning, lubrication and maintenance for "thousands of rounds", you're not caring for the gun as is recommended in the armorer classes.
You might consider that the .40 S&W is generally considered to be harder on guns than the 9/.45 cartridges.
One armorer instructor in one of my Glock recert armorer classes described routine maintenance considerations in an interesting way one time.
He told us that if we're seeing broken locking blocks, locking block pins & trigger pins ... we're not replacing the recoil spring assemblies often enough. The recommended replacement interval for Gen3 & older G22's? It can vary a bit, depending on who you ask at the company, but it's typically considered to be around 2,500 - 3,000 rounds.
There was a replacement schedule for "wearable parts" that Glock gave to armorers, back around '08, and it listed some parts that they recommended be replaced in the .40's being used by their LE/Gov customers at 5,000 round intervals. They included the firing pin spring, safety plunger & spring, slide lock, trigger spring & locking block pin.
The recoil springs for the G22/22RTF's were recommended for replacement at 2500 rounds, or sooner, if needed. It was recommended they were checked at each range session.
Since then, I've been told by the company that the latest trigger spring (coil, light gray finish) has been determined to be a lifetime part ... (unless they eventually decide otherwise, of course
).I've seen some worn out recoil springs and really worn/peened locking block pins. I haven't seen any broken trigger pins or locking blocks, myself, but I've spoken to other armorers who have come across them. I spoke with one agency armorer who had some barrel lugs breaking off in their G23's, but he said they been in-service with their original recoil springs for 10 years.
If you'd like to experience optimal functioning & service life from your pistol, it would be prudent to maintain it accordingly ... not abuse it.
The M&P offers a more robust slide in the way of a thicker/longer guide ring, as well as the rails having more metal below them (you'd have to stand around the cleaning station at a LE range and see slides dropped onto hard surfaces to really appreciate this feature
).The steel straps molded into the frames (a sub-chassis) receives the steel coil pins at the front and rear (locking block & sear housing), which helps create a rectangular steel "box" in the M&P frame. This reportedly helps mitigate recoil forces acting on the plastic frame. Very nice idea.
The sear housing being a steel part is a nice touch, too.
Having the robust "rocker rails" incorporated into the steel locking block and sear housing assemblies makes it a simple matter to replace any damaged rails. The rail design used is considered self-centering as wear occurs, with the idea that it contributes to inherent accuracy even as the gun experiences wear. (Yes, I've spoken to another Glock armorer who had a brand new F-series issued G22 start exhibiting erratic functioning issues on a qaul range when the L/R frame rail snapped off.)
The striker assembly uses the same sort of striker return spring inside the striker assembly as is found in the excellent Walther P99 series, and serves the same purpose (helping prevent excessive contact between the striker & safety plunger, mitigating excessive peening).
Being able to field-strip the guns without having to pull the trigger is a design feature which can aid in helping prevent unintentional discharges by owners/users. Like it or not, this sort of thing may be appreciated by agencies who have a large group of users who may not necessarily be considered "gun enthusiasts".
(Hey, I remember when the Ruger P-series incorporated the pivoting ejector plate that you had to reach into the ejection port and push forward in order to field strip the gun. It's not like it's a necessarily old idea.)The visual load chamber inspection port is handy.
The captured stainless steel recoil spring assembly is something Glock owners have long desired.
The grip inserts adjust both for grip reach, as well as grip girth (thickness), and the grip angle is something a lot of users of the other major pistols might find similar.
The M&P comes with a lifetime (to original owner) warranty that includes free shipping.
I like both designs.
I just think the M&P incorporates some nice refinements and takes the concept of the plastic pistol a little further.
Suit yourself. I do.
I like and use good equipment that suits my needs and is made by reputable manufacturers. The Glock and M&P pistols meet those needs, but they do differ in some interesting ways.
I suspect we'll continue to see both designs continuing to do well in the field, too.
SW CQB 45
Member
Fastbolt, I appreciate you taking the time to put a detailed post.
I was on the fence for a new plastic gun. I have a G35 that has not been shot for years and a complete G34 factory upper to have a switch top gun. I just switch the ejector housing along with the upper.
I have Shield on my shopping list when they become available (reportedly in July) not holding my breath.
The academy I teach uses G19 and of course we issue G21SF and I being an odd ball carry 1911 style.
I was following this post in hopes to make a decision in getting an MP full size or a G17.
I like the idea of the MP being a stronger unit, lifetime warranty and American made.
While the G17 has a long history and 3rd gen G17 is reportedly the best of the bunch....I may buy both in Nina and run a test myself.
Since I keep the PD and Academy guns running, I push maintenance however if someone wants to do a test and as long as its not used for duty use or CC....more power to ya. From the police side, I have seen many glocks fail (mainly 21) in the area of poor maintenance. application of lube brings them back to service. Another area of concern is the dry fired residue acts as an abrasive and will wear parts quicker than one that is properly lubricated.
so its a done deal for me......Shield, G17 (3rd Gen) and MP9 4.25 when money comes available.
I was on the fence for a new plastic gun. I have a G35 that has not been shot for years and a complete G34 factory upper to have a switch top gun. I just switch the ejector housing along with the upper.
I have Shield on my shopping list when they become available (reportedly in July) not holding my breath.
The academy I teach uses G19 and of course we issue G21SF and I being an odd ball carry 1911 style.
I was following this post in hopes to make a decision in getting an MP full size or a G17.
I like the idea of the MP being a stronger unit, lifetime warranty and American made.
While the G17 has a long history and 3rd gen G17 is reportedly the best of the bunch....I may buy both in Nina and run a test myself.
Since I keep the PD and Academy guns running, I push maintenance however if someone wants to do a test and as long as its not used for duty use or CC....more power to ya. From the police side, I have seen many glocks fail (mainly 21) in the area of poor maintenance. application of lube brings them back to service. Another area of concern is the dry fired residue acts as an abrasive and will wear parts quicker than one that is properly lubricated.
so its a done deal for me......Shield, G17 (3rd Gen) and MP9 4.25 when money comes available.
Fastbolt,
Thanks for your indepth post concerning the pros and cons of both platforms.
I did not know Glock recommends replacing the recoil spring after the specified number of rounds. I will contact them and get some spares. I will also clean and lube my Glocks when needed.
I do believe Glock has a lifetime service policy, it's just not promoted in their packaging. I had a G23 I bought used years ago, and the locking block broke. I contacted Glock and informed them I had completely disassembled the pistol and what the problem was. Glocks policy at the time was to void any warranty if the owner did anything more than field strip the pistol. I informed them I had taken it apart and would gladly pay for any repairs. I did ask them to expidite it as I going to use it in a defensive handgun course in a couple of weeks. They repaired the gun and it was back to me in one week, no charge.
You being an armorer did mention a few of the strengths of the M&P line not discussed before. How do they handle aluminum cased Blazer? If they can eat Blazers like my Glocks do then I will get one in 40S&W
Thanks again for your informative post,
WrongWay
Thanks for your indepth post concerning the pros and cons of both platforms.
I did not know Glock recommends replacing the recoil spring after the specified number of rounds. I will contact them and get some spares. I will also clean and lube my Glocks when needed.
I do believe Glock has a lifetime service policy, it's just not promoted in their packaging. I had a G23 I bought used years ago, and the locking block broke. I contacted Glock and informed them I had completely disassembled the pistol and what the problem was. Glocks policy at the time was to void any warranty if the owner did anything more than field strip the pistol. I informed them I had taken it apart and would gladly pay for any repairs. I did ask them to expidite it as I going to use it in a defensive handgun course in a couple of weeks. They repaired the gun and it was back to me in one week, no charge.
You being an armorer did mention a few of the strengths of the M&P line not discussed before. How do they handle aluminum cased Blazer? If they can eat Blazers like my Glocks do then I will get one in 40S&W
Thanks again for your informative post,
WrongWay
Fastbolt
Member
Glock is pretty good about supporting their pistols. Maybe not to the point that some "enthusiastic owners" might wish, if you look at a couple of the other gun forums, but then not all owners are necessarily always realistic about such things, are they?
S&W's free shipping both ways can be handy, compared to usually having to pay to ship it back to Glock. Just depends, though.
In my last Glock armorer recert the instructor told us that Glock basically considers their limited lifetime warranty to mean they feel their guns will run about 40K rounds. That's a lot of rounds, though.
Glock apparently feels that their regular private owners aren't going to be shooting as much as LE/Gov might shoot (except for the competitive folks, of course), so they don't go out of their way to talk about parts replacement intervals outside of the their armorer classes and armorer materials. Then again, neither does S&W, Sig or Colt when it comes to regular commercial sales.
Unless someone's involved in one of the competitive shooting venues, I doubt most owners/shooters would have the time, interest or money to ever be able to shoot that much. I've run several thousand rounds through a number of guns (issued & personally-owned), but I tend to spread the use around both types of guns. I've got a a couple of Glocks that have seen 12K rounds fired, and a Ruger P90 & Commander that were both run hard for many years (with an embarrassing number of rounds through them, although I stopped any pretense or trying to keep track back then), but I've only run upwards of 45K rounds through a single 6906 (frame).
I have a friend who shoots almost every day on his own range (rural property) and he's got a couple of SW99's that have seen at least 60K+ rounds each, and a Colt OM that saw over 20K rounds (before he retired it for a 3913TSW and the 99's), and a L-frame revolver that he's really tried to wear out ... but he shoots more than most other LE instructors I know.
Dunno how the aluminum Blazers run in them. Haven't shot them in years.
I'm told the factory typically runs different samplings of the offerings from the major American ammo companies through the guns. Ammo they think their intended market might use (such as the various duty ammo that LE/Gov users might typically shoot). I've been told it varies.
De nada. I didn't take the time to run on about the various things I heard in the armorer class, or other things I've been told since the line was introduced and has been benefiting from revisions and refinements. I've done that elsewhere, in other posts. I just had the time to hit some of the highlights that came to me as I was reading this thread.
I've actually written some thoughts comparing the Glock/M&P to the Walther P99 (and S&W's SW99/990L's) somewhere along the line, too.
I have a strong preference for the Walther 99 series, especially the model that comes closest to a 'traditional double action' (meaning DA/SA) pistol, what Walther presently calls their Anti-Stress (AS) models. They have their own advantages & disadvantages, of course, but over the course of having gone through the 99 armorer class 3 times and having owned a couple of them, as well as having carried an issued one for a few years, I've developed a lot of respect for them.
Last edited:
Nor is it on the M&P, if you are willing to pull the trigger...just like you have to do on a Glock. (Not a knock, but an explanation.)
S&W incorporated the sear disconnect lever as an additional safety feature...and a lot of people are uncomfortable pulling the trigger to disassemble. Since you have to lock the slide open and reach in (with a tool of some sort, my fingers are too fat) to push down the lever, you can (and hopefully will) make certain there is no round in the chamber. However, you can, if preferred, simply release the slide once you turn down the tab and pull the trigger, and the slide will come off. I have done that several times when I didn't have a pen or screwdriver handy, since I don't like to take out the frame tool. (I don't want to take the chance of it loosening up with repeated removal and reinsertion.)
Personally, I have tried several Glocks, and other than the 36, they all were too big (grip) for my comfort. M&Ps fit me much better...and the Shield is perfect for me. Glocks are good guns, and while the Gen4 guns are having some problems, I'm sure they will get them sorted out...but M&Ps work much better for me.
kris7047th
Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2010
- Messages
- 520
- Reaction score
- 103
I started with Glocks and still have my 3rd gen G19. My issue is with the too fat grip making it difficult to hold the gun correctly and still shoot it accurately, also reach the mag release. Some day I will get an extreme grip reduction on my G19. I am a huge fan of M&Ps and have been very happy with S&W CS. I am fortunate that residing in SE Michigan I am fairly close to a couple guys who do phenomenal gun modifications .. the grip reductions, stippling and sear and trigger work that I can drive to get the work done & avoid the hassle of shipping. It's a joy to know these guys too.
45 Auto has always been my favorite caliber.
I'd always shot 1911s and competed with them in the Army.
Purchased a Glock 30 when they were first introduced in 1997.
In my hands, this gun shot as well as could ever be expected from a "service" pistol. Still does.
Moving ahead in time, bought a new M&P .45 when they first came out.
Nicely made, felt great in my hands. Great sights, too.
Unfortunately, I was never able to shoot that M&P well as the Glock, or my Remington 1911R1 no matter which ammunition I chose.
When the opportunity presented itself, I traded it straight across for a mint 681-0.
I'd always shot 1911s and competed with them in the Army.
Purchased a Glock 30 when they were first introduced in 1997.
In my hands, this gun shot as well as could ever be expected from a "service" pistol. Still does.
Moving ahead in time, bought a new M&P .45 when they first came out.
Nicely made, felt great in my hands. Great sights, too.
Unfortunately, I was never able to shoot that M&P well as the Glock, or my Remington 1911R1 no matter which ammunition I chose.
When the opportunity presented itself, I traded it straight across for a mint 681-0.
BuckeyeChuck
Member
This is good feedback and I appreciate the time for you to write your thoughts.
Are you aware that M&P's are available without locks? Mine doesn't even have a magazine disconnect. If it's loaded and cocked, it's going boom when the trigger is pulled.
Two points:
(1) The disconnector to which you refer is called the "sear deactivation lever" and it does what its name implies.
(2) You are correct that it is not needed. You can field strip the M&P by pulling the trigger after locking the slide and rotating the takedown lever, just like a Glock. Many of us no longer use the sear deactivation lever because it's easier to pull the trigger.
Your complaint about the sear deactivation lever is ironic. You may not be aware, but there are many people who criticize Glocks because you must pull the trigger to field strip the gun. The sear deactivation lever appeals to those people, who think it is inherently unsafe to field strip a gun by pulling the trigger. Personally, I think this argument has a tinge of hysteria, since it is my responsibility to ensure the gun is cleared before disassembling it. But not everybody thinks the way I do.
Beyond obvious defects in the application of the finish, I doubt anybody's ability to judge the durability of either finish unless they are familiar with the chemistry of the finishes, the manner in which they are applied, and the typical failure modes for that type of finish.
Actual in-service data is far preferable to guessing about the finish on an unfired gun. There have been complaints of M&P slides with corrosion. In some cases the finish has not been properly applied. In some, it seems that holster contact has removed the finish. Many others report no problems whatsoever.
This is a curious criticism. Pins are fasteners tha provide no clamping force and are useful only to hold two parts relative to each other. Solid pins are only superior to roll pins if the forces transmitted through the pins during operation of the pinned parts would produce damage or inordinate wear on the pins. I don't know if the Glock is designed such that roll pins would be insufficient, but there is no evidence that roll pins are insufficient for the M&P. There are tales of the pins coming out (and I'll bet there are similar tales for Glocks, too) but there is no evidence that this is because the pins are roll pins.
By this line of reasoning, screws would be far superior to solid pins. Of course, they aren't superior for applications that don't require the clamping force of a screw, and solid pins aren't superior to roll pins for designs where roll pins are sufficient.
Like the slide finish, such judgements should be based in the detailed thought of engineering, not in the vagaries of perception that may be skewed by that to which we are accustomed.
Nearly everybody loves the grip!
I challenge the assertion that the M&P was supposed to be a major improvement over the Glock. The gen 3 Glock, which was in production whent the M&P debuted, reflected three decades of development and production and was already an excellent service grade semiauto. Aside from personal preference, I can see no reason why either platform enjoys clear superiority over the other. S&W needed a gun to get them parity in the market, and they did that with the M&P.
This is not a valid criticism. To believe that innovation in rifling is required to provide superiority is to misunderstand rifling, and perhaps superiority.
Because such discussions are enjoyable!
And it seems that THIS is the reason that trumps any of the others. As another poster said, "Suit yourself. I do." That's good advice.
Are you aware that M&P's are available without locks? Mine doesn't even have a magazine disconnect. If it's loaded and cocked, it's going boom when the trigger is pulled.
Two points:
(1) The disconnector to which you refer is called the "sear deactivation lever" and it does what its name implies.
(2) You are correct that it is not needed. You can field strip the M&P by pulling the trigger after locking the slide and rotating the takedown lever, just like a Glock. Many of us no longer use the sear deactivation lever because it's easier to pull the trigger.
Your complaint about the sear deactivation lever is ironic. You may not be aware, but there are many people who criticize Glocks because you must pull the trigger to field strip the gun. The sear deactivation lever appeals to those people, who think it is inherently unsafe to field strip a gun by pulling the trigger. Personally, I think this argument has a tinge of hysteria, since it is my responsibility to ensure the gun is cleared before disassembling it. But not everybody thinks the way I do.
Beyond obvious defects in the application of the finish, I doubt anybody's ability to judge the durability of either finish unless they are familiar with the chemistry of the finishes, the manner in which they are applied, and the typical failure modes for that type of finish.
Actual in-service data is far preferable to guessing about the finish on an unfired gun. There have been complaints of M&P slides with corrosion. In some cases the finish has not been properly applied. In some, it seems that holster contact has removed the finish. Many others report no problems whatsoever.
This is a curious criticism. Pins are fasteners tha provide no clamping force and are useful only to hold two parts relative to each other. Solid pins are only superior to roll pins if the forces transmitted through the pins during operation of the pinned parts would produce damage or inordinate wear on the pins. I don't know if the Glock is designed such that roll pins would be insufficient, but there is no evidence that roll pins are insufficient for the M&P. There are tales of the pins coming out (and I'll bet there are similar tales for Glocks, too) but there is no evidence that this is because the pins are roll pins.
By this line of reasoning, screws would be far superior to solid pins. Of course, they aren't superior for applications that don't require the clamping force of a screw, and solid pins aren't superior to roll pins for designs where roll pins are sufficient.
Like the slide finish, such judgements should be based in the detailed thought of engineering, not in the vagaries of perception that may be skewed by that to which we are accustomed.
Nearly everybody loves the grip!
I challenge the assertion that the M&P was supposed to be a major improvement over the Glock. The gen 3 Glock, which was in production whent the M&P debuted, reflected three decades of development and production and was already an excellent service grade semiauto. Aside from personal preference, I can see no reason why either platform enjoys clear superiority over the other. S&W needed a gun to get them parity in the market, and they did that with the M&P.
This is not a valid criticism. To believe that innovation in rifling is required to provide superiority is to misunderstand rifling, and perhaps superiority.
Because such discussions are enjoyable!
And it seems that THIS is the reason that trumps any of the others. As another poster said, "Suit yourself. I do." That's good advice.
Well, you guys convinced me. Just returned from the LGD and ordered a M&P 40 w/no lock, or magazine safety or whatever it's called, the thing that will not let the pistol fire if there is no magazine inserted.
I feel like I'm going to the Dark Side after shooting Glocks for over 20 years. I can see it now, 6-8 months from now - Glocks gone - replaced with M&P's. Sniff, a tear rolls down my cheek.
I feel like I'm going to the Dark Side after shooting Glocks for over 20 years. I can see it now, 6-8 months from now - Glocks gone - replaced with M&P's. Sniff, a tear rolls down my cheek.
No, you are coming into the light....
J/K. As I said, Glocks are good pistols, and work well for many people. For me, my preference is the M&P. I hope you enjoy your new pistol...I just bought a VTAC in .40, which will be my first M&P in that caliber. I can't wait to shoot it and see how it compares.
I want to love my 40c but it was just a fling for 1 day, s&w has had it longer then I owned it 2 weeks now still being diagnosed. My fs 9 has been great. I was looking at 40c and g27 for ccw, I liked m&p after having my fs, but this is a bummer. Might just have to add g27 to stable
Last edited:
Never owned a Glock so I can't A-B them with my M&P's and I'd never bad-mouth them, they're fine guns. All I can say is my M&P's have never let me down. I've got a full sized 9mm, a Compact 9 and just picked up a Shield 9mm yesterday. Shredded the X ring using UMC yellow box at 15-20 feet first time out with the Shield. Just as accurate as it's big brothers.
