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!

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.

__________________
- The Federalist #46 -

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

__________________
Shoot Straight and Shoot often

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

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.

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.

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.)

__________________
Dave

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.

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.

__________________
Former USN, Retired US Army

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.

__________________
Jim - M&P Pro 40L/Shield 40

simply put - the m&p is everything the glock should have been. its evolution at its best.

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.

__________________
Art Y.
Never forget 9/11

I have one of each. Got the Glock first and only change was the lighter trigger kit. The rigger was better than I thought it would be and I found the pistol 100% reliable and very accurate.

Then I ordered a M&P 40 and ordered the Apex competition trigger kit at the same time. When the pistol arrived I was surprised that the trigger already felt quite good. At least as good as the Glock.

But I changed to the Apex and trigger was much better. Almost like a 1911.

I shoot CQB matches, and found the M&P shot very quickly to where I wanted - faster than any other pistol I tried (about 30 of them).

Since Power factor is not an issue, I load the 155 gr LSWC over 3.5 gr of TiteGroup. Very soft and very accurate.

I would say both are excellent pistols, but for me the M&P handles better.

To me, that question is all about two things: the trigger and the grip.

I like both Glock and M&P triggers, but you may feel differently. I used to HATE M&P triggers, but have come around to them and really enjoy shooting them now. Some folks loathe the Glock trigger for its spongy feel.

The midsize Glock frames don't have finger cuts large enough to be comfortable for my larger-than-average fingers and many people complain about the Glock grips in general. I find the M&P grip frame to be comfortable in any guise, and the replaceable backstraps help!

Go fondle the two and make your decision based on those factors, and I promise you won't be disappointed!

Personally, after 50 years of shooting, competing and police academy instructing, my choices are:
1. Springfield XD
2. S&W M&P
3. Glock

Both 1 & 2 have the Glock beat all to hell.

From my experience the top 3 pistols in 40 cal would be the Sig P320, Smith M+P n the Glock 22 in that order.. I love all three.
But as time goes on I think you will see a continued rise in popularity by knowledgable gun owners for the Sig. The design, accuracy, ergonomics and modularity of that gun also will have it as the leader to replace military M9.

The Glock 23 will not let you down. Good size, concealable, 13 round mags+1. M&P have not tested. Try both and see which one fits your needs better. I also have an M&P shiel 9 mm. There is a .40 version. Smaller and less capacity. Good anyways. My daily carry weapon. Cheers!

Sir-

I had the same decision about 6 months ago. I was lucky enough to find a range with rental guns, and tried the Glock 22, confident that this would be my buy. It was OK, but it didn't seem to fit well in my hand (GEN4). They didn't have an M&P 40 to rent, so I had to base my decision on a new M&P 40, and loved the way it felt! The hinged trigger was my only negative. The Salesman said they sold an after-market trigger, but that would add to the cost of the gun. There was a (3) free magazine offer from S&W at the time, so I ended-up with 6 full capacity magazines with the purchase- so I went with the M&P. I later had an APEX trigger put in (about $90.00), and NOW this is my favorite gun!

Over the holidays I went to the range with a GLOCK-MAN friend of mine, and we shot the two pistols side by side, and now the M&P 40 is on his list for HIS next purchase. I am going to put an Apex action enhancement kit into it next, to reduce pull/reset...can't wait.

I own (3) 9mm Glocks ,prior to this purchase, and have since purchased a S&W Shield 9mm as my EVC.

BUY the M&P, and NEVER look back, that's my advice!

Nice looking gun. Too bad it is not on the Peoples Republic of California's approved list. The only M&P listed are the old model Shield in 9 & 40.
Mike

Like the others have said, try them both. buy the one that fits your hand best. I bought my M&P's that way. Tried the Glock, Springfield and Ruger. Smith worked best for me.

For what it is worth I own both M&P and Glocks.
In each caliber. Other than M&P's have more parts I look at them the same.
I have a very old M&P 9 Pro that has at least 20,000 rounds through it. It functions great. Dont tell S&W but I have even torture tested it. Bad ammo, let it get really dirty (say 6000 rounds), and everytime it works great. Yes I change springs on a regular basis. But I had read comments saying you had to baby it or clean it all the time. Not so. It is a work horse. I will say the same about my M&P 40's and 45's.

__________________
bronzojo

I own M&P's and Glock's and just recently purchased a Sig Sauer 320 and I have come to the conclusion that each one has its own strengths and weaknesses. Your job is to find out what works best for you. Just don't short yourself with two options. Look at them all, and if you can shoot them , even better.if not at least hold them and you will be able to tell which one feels right,

I shoot both the M&P and the Glock the big thing for me was price I pick up a new M&P40C on GunBroker for $310.00 + $25.00 Shipping you can't get a Glock for that all so pick up a new M&P 9C a year later for $325.00 +$20.00 shipping all so on GB if you buy a Glock you pay for the name

hey , iam going to take a min. and reply because i read these also. I looked at many and bought a 9 shield & a 9 M&P Pro. The pro came with 3 sizes for grips i think , its very balanced and iam so glad i made the purchase , i put a vir.green lazer and its real smooth.... happy Customer.... hope this helps / jack in SC

I have both the M&P 40 and the Glock 22 Gen4. Also the M&P 45. For tactical shooting I still go for my M&P each time... it just seems to fit right in the hand and target acquisition is good. Having said that the Glock 22 with adjustable sights is just as good if not a bit better on target acquisition. It's just the M&P suits my hands, and I mean both left and right, better. I do have large hands, being 6'5".
Try both if you can and put alot of rounds through them both. I am lucky to have more than a dozen shooting buddies that were willing to let me play with each and both before I had to choose.... then I bought both!

I have both and both are very nice , you will need to do a trigger job to both to have it to your comfort , I put a apex trigger along with changing my sear , weight of springs were fine on the M&P , for a few dollars invested in it was like running it through the custom shop , now the Glock 22 , I done a trigger job just polishing along with changing out the connector , other than the little bit of pre-travel it is a great hand gun , easy to control , I have a lot of the Glock sub-compact up to the long slide and I love them all , but all and all you can't go wrong with either one or both

I belonged to a 210 member LE dept. I have only seen one round not chamber in the M&P in the past two years during qualifications. We shot the normal 60 round qualification along 200 rounds for various drills. The M&P and the Glock are both dependable. I own 5 Glocks and 11 different configurations of S&W M&P's. I prefer the S&W but as you can tell I am a gun nut. Remember you can never have enough guns or tools

I traded my Glock for an M&P 40. Best trade I ever made. Glocks are for kids or adults with small hands.

I have owned both pistols and they are just plain different. Once I moved to 9mm, I own their equivalents and find more slop in the slide of the M&P but both the Glock and M&P Pro are equally accurate and seemingly dependable, I LOVE LOVE LOVE the feel of the grip on the M&P plus I have the CORE and added a Trijicon rmr optical sight due to aging eyes.

While this was not one of your choices, IMHO, you owe it to yourself to at least look at and dry fire a Walther PPQ M2 -- that trigger is 10X better than either the M&P or the Glock other than too much take-up before hitting the wall. The reset is ultra fast too.

I "HAD" a G22 which I liked just fine though I like the feel of my MP45 much better. Both are accurate and reliable but both were eclipsed by my Sig SP2022 40S&W in the accuracy department. That being said I find that I carry my G27 the most. You can't go wrong with either one. The G23 would have the edge with concealment.

__________________
Aim small Miss small.

Hi,

This is my first post here, but I also consider it to be very important.

The best way I can tell you about Glocks is read all of the posts, and one person who responded states that he could finally afford an M&P. This tells me that their is truth to the old saying "that you get what you pay for."

Let's face it. Most people buy Glocks because they are cheaper than the quality handguns like S&W, Colt, Sig, Walther, and so on.

Also, if you know any PA State Police Officers ask them why they are no longer carrying Glocks. Ask them to tell you the true story.

N-Frame

The prices of Glocks are about the same as M&P. $550 +/-.

-Walther PPQ about the same price
-Walther PPS just dropped from $500 to about $350
-Colt doesn't make anything that competes with Glock. Not a fair assessment.
-Sig P320 is actually cheaper than Glock and S&W. Can't compare the old P series, it's not in the same category.

If you want to compare the old Sig P series then that's to Beretta 92, S&W 59XX.
Compare Colt to S&W 1911 cause that's the only thing they share in common.

All this is like saying I don't like Colt AR cause my Taurus revolver broke

Let's not get into the Pa State police issue. They had several problems that may or may not have been related to an officer's accidentally/on purpose shooting his pregnant wife in the head from across the room while cleaning his gun. And if you want to talk about Glock not having safety as a reason let's not forget that when they switched to the ultra supper safe Sig the instructor of the class accidentally shot and killed an officer while showing how safe the pistol was!

Nothing has been put through the testing than the Glock. It is the most reliable automatic on the market. That is why so many agencies and police departments use them. That said, all that followed had a great model to base their weapons on. In the real world (not like TV or movies) we are not going to be in extended gun battles with drug lords or mercenaries, and any of the firearms mentioned, Glock, Springfield, S&W, Ruger, etc., etc., etc. will do the job required.

I've carried a G21 since they first came out, and the Glock was the only polymer, striker fired pistol on the market. It's a terrific gun. I've never fired, or even held the M&P, so I can't judge between them. However, if you want a handgun that is incredibly accurate, has terrific ergonomics, and achieves the greatest results, get a S&W K or L frame in .357! I've got a 65, 66, & 19 that will outshoot any of 'em. Us old farts like our wheelguns. Someday you young whippersnappers will see the light and discover why they just won't die.

As Arik pointed out, your comparison makes little sense. M&Ps are cheaper than Glocks in my area. To answer the original question, it all comes down to personal preference and the truth is both are good guns and both will get the job done. Try both, pick the one you like and encourage others to do the same.

__________________
Forged From Freedom

Nothing has been put through the testing than the Glock. It is the most reliable automatic on the market. That is why so many agencies and police departments use them. That said, all that followed had a great model to base their weapons on. In the real world (not like TV or movies) we are not going to be in extended gun battles with drug lords or mercenaries, and any of the firearms mentioned, Glock, Springfield, S&W, Ruger, etc., etc., etc. will do the job required. You just have to shoot 'em and pick the one you shoot the best with. It's your hand, grip, eye, and trigger pull. We can only tell you what WE like.

I've carried a G21 since they first came out, and the Glock was the only polymer, striker fired pistol on the market. It's a terrific gun. I've never fired, or even held the M&P, so I can't judge between them. However, if you want a handgun that is incredibly accurate, has terrific ergonomics, and achieves the greatest results, get a S&W K or L frame in .357! I've got a 65, 66, & 19 that will outshoot any automatic. Us old farts like our wheelguns. Someday you young whippersnappers will see the light and discover why they just won't die.

I've own/ed Glocks and M&Ps and Sigs. I am trading-in my Sig p220 for a Walther PPQ very soon.

I carried a glock 22 for many yrs on patrol. it is a workhorse. but I found the m&p to fit better in my hand and the trigger feels less scrunchy. either pistol is great you just have to shoot both to see what you prefer

Never fired the M&P, although I suspect it's a well made firearm.

I've had this ol workhorse since '92.
It does what it's supposed to...and does it very well.

I plan to do just that.

I have an M&P full size .40. It shoots great. I bought a (9MM and .357 Sig Barrel for it. It takes five minutes or less to swap out the barrels. I have large hands and it is more comfortable then the compact .40. A friend of mine is a Glock enthusiast and he really enjoyed shooting my M&P .40. The big problem was trying to pull the 9MM Shield I own out of his hands after he shot that pistol. He was hitting a 1" stick that we stuck in the ground at 50'. He is an excellent shot with anything. Except for cartridge capacity, I couldn't choose between these two pistols. I like to have an external safety on my guns. I think both companies make great guns.

I have owned both an M&P full size .40, as well as a G22 RTF2. They are both good solid pistols. I haven't shot a G23, but carried a G27 for quite a while, which is smaller than the 23, but is also a great pistol.

Both my G22 and M&P FS were comfortable to shoot and pretty reliable. The Glock's grip is a bit more square compared to the M&P. I liked the interchangeable back-straps on my M&P. It was interesting to see that while the medium felt better in hand, I shot it better with the large grip. The Gen 4 Glocks now have something similar, so you can experiment with them as well.

They do point a bit differently, and one may feel and point better for you. For me it was the M&P. The best thing would be to try out each and see for yourself.

I have a g23 very nice gun, I also have a m&p 40c, the m&p feels better to me in my hand, I shoot it better it's my ever day carry so I handle it more than the g23. Think I will sell the g23 and use the cash for my next buy what ever that might be.