Yup, I'm asking it--BUT--it's not the kind of thread you may think it is...

I like Glocks. Good guns. Simple, reliable, accurate. I've owned a fair number of them and have to admit the G17L I owned for a while was a helluva gun. Made me look like a better shooter than I really am, and honestly, I'm not all that terrible.

Their grip doesnt suit me-I like the angle, but it feels like a two by four.

I. LOVE. THE. TRIGGER. RESET. OF. GLOCKS.

Period.

Short and very positive. Good stuff.

For those who have owned Glocks and switched to M&Ps-why the switch?

Does the steel sub-assembly of the M&P feel more robust? Do the controls feel a little more substantial?

I have to admit, Glocks feel a little cheap when I disassemble them for cleaning. One of the best feeling polymer guns in terms of build quality (is that an oxymoron?) Was a Steyr. Horrible trigger, weird sights, poor reliability. Felt like a polymer Rolls Royce otherwise.

I have an irrational desire to own a poly gun again. I'm a steel kind of guy, so this makes no sense to me.

I'm a member of this forum for a reason-I like S&W.

Tell me why you prefer the M&P over Glock or others. I'd like to hear your opinions and experiences.

Best,

Heekma