M&P 40 VS Glock 22

A

Airmiv

Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
3
Reaction score
1
Location
Phoenix, AZ
I want to purchase a .40 Cal and am considering the M&P and the Glock 22 or 23.

Thoughts? Preferences? Anyone own both? Looking for some input to help my decision.

I realize this is a S&W Forum but I'm sure you folks can be objective.

Thanks in advance!
 
Register to hide this ad
Your best bet is to try both of them in your hand.... shooting each would be even better. Either one would serve you well.

For what it's worth, I owned two Glocks in the past and currently own none while I currently do own two M&Ps. However, I came very close to buying a G26 so it's not like I'm against the idea of owning a Glock. M&Ps just feel better in my hand. The grip is more comfortable and they point better for me.
 
I loved my G-23. I got an M&P 40c mostly because it carried/concealed better. I sold the Glock because as it turned out, the M&P did everything better. IMHO.
 
Nephew has the G22, I have shot it a fair amount along with my M&P's. The 40 is a little snappy to be expected, the G22 was very accurate, because of the grip angle I always struggle to find find the front sight on the glock as I am primarily a 1911 and spend most of my competitive time with the M&P. The grip on the M&P IMHO, is much better regardless of the angle, but to be honest its a toss up get your hands on the G22 and the M&P, after that there is not much difference other than there is a pile of accessories for the glock but not so much that you can't find anything you need for the M&P. The glock just has a little head start.

Good luck
 
I have a G32 which is essentially the copy of a G23 but chambered in .357sig and I love the model.
In December I finally broke down and purchased an M&P .40 I absolutely love this gun, it shoots awesome, it feels awesome. As stated above rent both and find out for yourself.
 
I have the M&P40c like it a lot .I want the Glock 26 too
 
Last edited:
Interesting discussion for me. I have a G22, shoot it some, but not a great deal. Very accurate and easy to shoot. I have a G23 that I've carried daily for the last couple years. Not as easy to shoot, for me anyway, as the G22. The trade off is the size and is the reason I carry it. I like a little smaller carry gun.

That said, I acquired recently a S&W Shield. It's the first S&W auto I've owned in many years. Love that little gun! It works well, very well. The Shield is so nicely executed it really has got me thinking I might want another M&P for a daily carry gun. I'll be watching this discussion. :cool:
 
Last edited:
I shoot a M&P 40FS we also have a Glock 22. Both great guns. The Glock is a tool, a weapon. The M&P is a gun, it has shapes, lines and is a much better looking gun
 
Not to change the subject, but why do you want a .40 vs. a 9mm? Years ago I went from 9mm to .40. Over the past couple of years I've gone back to 9mm. The advances made in 9mm self defense ammo have made it's potency comparable to other popular pistol calibers (.40 and .45). Overall, 9mm is cheaper and easier to shoot, and pistols in 9mm typically have more capacity vs. .40. HOWEVER, it's your money and your choice, so if you want to go with .40, more power to you (no pun intended).

As for Glock vs. M&P, I suggest you go shoot both. Among some of the pistols I own are a Glock 27, 19, 17, and more recently a 43 (I used to own a Glock 22, but sold it to get the 17). I ALSO own an M&P 9c and a M&P 22 compact. I've shot the regular M&P 9, M&P 40, as well as the Shield 9mm, and Shield .40. FOR ME, I simply shoot Glock pistols better. The argument of grip angle might be valid for some, but everyone's hands are different. When I bring my Glock pistols up, the front sight is aligned dead on. When I shoot my M&P 9c, I shoot it low (until I consciously compensate). SO, once again my advice is to try shooting both before making your choice.
PS: I also have a Beretta 92FS that I shoot just fine, even though it's grip angle is different than a Glock.
 
Last edited:
Definitely try to shoot both before making a decision. Just because a Glock may not feel as good in your hand as the more ergonomic S&W, etc. doesn't mean it can't win you over at the range after firing them. I can group with a friend's Glock just as well as I can with my SW's.
 
I own and shoot several of both. Both are fine weapons. I doubt you'd be disappointed in either but do generally prefer my M&Ps.

That said here are a couple things I'd point out.
First, I think the M&P (as will most you'll ask) excels in grip ergonomics. This can be more noteable depending on which Generation Glock you buy. Personally, I've owned them all and like only the gen 2 grips (with talon rubber wrap). The other Generations all have grip issues that irk me.
Second, I also feel that the trigger in the M&P is better out of the box AND will tune crisper. (I"ve never had a glock trigger that equaled the crispness of a tuned m&P trigger without hundreds in parts.)
 
I think a lot of it really depends on what you're used to as far as shooting goes. If you've been brought up on the 1911 then the grip angle on the M&P is the way to go.

Here's my synopsis on their similarities:

For a 40 they have remarkably manageable recoil and point well. They also come with the same capacities and you can get holsters for each of them easily. I put over 1,000 rounds through my Glock with all sorts of ammo and absolutely zero malfunctions. I'm approaching that number with my M&P and the same is holding true.

Here's my synopsis on their differences:

Glock - the grip angle is much more pronounced than other brands do this bothers some. I also felt like it would take me half a magazine to get zeroed in like I wanted to. Glocks also don't come with a beaver tail so if you've hit a naturally high grip (or fatter hands) I'd recommend putting on the back strap with the beaver tail. I learned this lesson after my hand was but several times.

Also I've noticed it's easier, and often, cheaper to find after market Glock products (magazines, conversion barrels, springs, etc.)

M&P - the first grouping I ever had with mine was about 2" with the 1st magazine. I'm not saying a Glock isn't as accurate I just had to work mine to get that kind of grouping. Some folks don't like the M&P trigger but it doesn't bother me at all. I think the reset is short and consistent.

I also have found it a little harder to find the after market stuff our it's a little more expensive. The overall price of initially purchasing an M&P is cheaper though.

I think either way you go is going to be fine just make sure you shoot, shoot, and shoot some more so that you get used to whatever platform you decide.
 
I've owned both and prefer the Glock. The Glock felt like it had less recoil and less snap. Overall I'm I like Glocks better than M&Ps. Not that the M&P were bad, I just prefer Glock
 
There are some very objective posts regarding the OP's inquiry, and they echo my reasons for switching to the M&P platform from Glocks. I had been a Glock shooter since buying my first one in 1987 when they were still pretty new. Glocks developed a well-deserved reputation for reliability, and I was surprised to learn that the Border Patrol at the time I joined, approved them as personally owned duty handguns. Even though certain "Old Patrol" members of the range staff hated them and tried to perpetuate all of the pre-Internet rumors about them, they performed quite well under the rough conditions they were subjected to. I rode ATVs for a while, and noted that agents who normally carries SIGs went back to carrying their revolvers while riding. I carried my Gen1 G17 and never had a problem.

I'm not a big .40 fan, but have a lot of experience with the Glock lineup in that caliber. The Glocks in .40, especially the Gen3s have been plagued with problems that have included broken locking blocks and trigger pins. I personally think it was the result of bad metallurgy or heat treatments, but whatever the case, caused Glock to release the Gen4 to increase durability. I have fired only on M&P 40, but that gun "converted" me to the M&P line due to its handling characteristics. As others have stated, they point better and the ergonomics seem to make them feel as they shoot a little softer and provide quicker follow-up.

Kyle Lamb has a YouTube video comparing Glocks to M&Ps which seems to mirror some of my own observations. Glocks are pretty easy to repair and maintain, but I say that based on being a Glock-certified armored, but never formally trained on the M&Ps. I can't say which one is more accurate. One thing that is for certain is that the M&P 40 doesn't seem to have generated as many complaints as the 9mm version.
 
okiegtrider said:
Interesting discussion for me. I have a G22, shoot it some, but not a great deal. Very accurate and easy to shoot. I have a G23 that I've carried daily for the last couple years. Not as easy to shoot, for me anyway, as the G22. The trade off is the size and is the reason I carry it. I like a little smaller carry gun.

That said, I acquired recently a S&W Shield. It's the first S&W auto I've owned in many years. Love that little gun! It works well, very well. The Shield is so nicely executed it really has got me thinking I might want another M&P for a daily carry gun. I'll be watching this discussion. :cool:
Click to expand...
If you can get your hands on a 40c to try, do it. It really does handle recoil better than the G-23. And you don't have to give up as much capacity as with the Shield.
 
I owned a G23 & G21 & carried a G22 on duty. All were fine pistols. My son now has my G23 & G21. I gave them to him when I retired & before we had a concealed carry law. He uses them as off duty firearms & loves them but he recommended the M&Ps when our CC law came into effect. He carries an M&P40 on duty. I have to admit they're nicer to handle & the grip is better. I don't shoot any better or any worse with them. I got a better deal on my 40C than I could have with Glocks & that combined with S&W's Nation's Finest $50 rebate I was sold. I started with a Police trade-in full size 40 which was the deal sealer. It was carried by a LEO friend who treated it very good.

As has been suggested try both before buying if you can. You can't go wrong with either.
 
I bought my first Glock, a Gen 1 G22, circa 1990 and I've shot it a lot, though I've no idea of round count. Never a problem with it. Shortly thereafter I bought a G23 to carry. However, living in Florida I don't have many days when I wear clothes heavy enough to conceal the G23 to my satisfaction so it lived in my safe most of the time and I carried a J-frame. Along the way I picked up a G21 that replaced the G22 as my bedroom gun, though I was never happy with the 2x4 size grip.

Fast forward to about 2 years ago: I was reading about the newly released G42 which I was very disappointed to see only came in .380. But what got my attention were all the comments contrasting the Glock unfavorably to the M&P Shield which hadn't come on my radar screen up to that point.

Long story short, I bought my Shield, ran my benchmark 500 rounds though it without a hiccup, and was absolutely in love. I was now also keenly aware of the M&P line, so it wasn't long before I was back for a full size, my 5" Pro Series which I traded in both my G21, that I never loved, and the G23 that I had no further use for. I'm extremely pleased with the Pro Series too.

I prefer the M&P line to Glock these days. As many have said already, for me it seems to point more naturally and the full size M&Ps are way more comfortable in the hand. They also just look better to me. I know, that shouldn't be a criteria for a self defense gun, but looks do matter for some of us.

Try to handle both. Facing in a safe direction, pick a spot on a wall, close your eyes then raise the pistol and point it at that spot before you open your eyes back up. You're looking for how close the front and back sights are with your sight plane. i.e. do you have to bend your wrist more with one than the other to get the sights on the same plane? The winner is the one that points best for you, and the one you'll probably shoot best in a tense situation. For me, the M&P with its 1911 grip angle wins hands down.
 
WGSNewnan19 said:
simply put - the m&p is everything the glock should have been. its evolution at its best.
Click to expand...
One of the reasons I got rid of my M&Ps. Nothing was right about them. The compacts were to short and the grip panels on all of them were just wrong. To be fair I don't like the sub compact Glocks either for the same reason and I don't own any Gen4 with the grip panels
 
Everyone who likes M&P focuses on the grip.
Everyone who likes Glocks focuses on the accuracy.
So, there you have it ... you pick ... depending what you like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
M&P 5.7 can size
Replies
1
Views
365
Tom S.
Tom S.
L
Does Anyone have experience shooting .40 out of 10mm
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
rosewood
rosewood
R
M&P 22 magnum slide
Replies
3
Views
535
Gutshot1
G
S
M&P 2.0 45 for duty/trigger pull
2
Replies
21
Views
509
WR Moore
W
J
M&P .45 ACP "Generations" ?
Replies
1
Views
545
Hawg Rider
H

Latest posts

Back
Top