Glock 23 to Smith & Wesson M&P

[swsig]

Here we go...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

That's very good shooting from 15 yards with a new gun. I've attached a photo of my best recent target at 15 yards with my M&P 40 compact (version 1.0). I got four in the bullseye, too, except that it took me 30 rounds to do it .

 

[SATX]

I am of the opinion that the M&P handles the 40 better than Glock. Probably because it was designed for the forty, whereas the Glock was designed for the nine.

 

[bub075]

I am of the opinion that the M&P handles the 40 better than Glock. Probably because it was designed for the forty, whereas the Glock was designed for the nine.

Not necessarily true anymore. Glock has been doing running updates for years. Later 3rd Gen guns handle .40 much better than they used to and, when the Gen4 guns were released, they were pretty much designed for .40 first. That explains why the Gen4 guns had issues in 9mm and Glock had to redesign the recoil spring assemblies for the 9mm guns. Now,I will agree completely that .40 Glocks are much "snappier" and .40 M&Ps, but as far as longevity, when talking about Gen4 guns, there really isn't much difference anymore.

 

[SATX]

That's what I was referring to, the recoil impulse. The M&P handles it better than the G22 Gen 4.

 

[Canyon Man]

I own the Gen 4 Glock 23, and the 2.0 compact in .40. I love both, but the reason I got the Smith &Wesson 2.0 in .40 is because I am having misfeed issues in my Glock 23. My next step for the 23 is 10 coil springs for the mags, hoping that stops the misfeeds completely. The stock guide rod assembly gave me 3 misfeeds out of 300 rounds. After replacing with a steel guide rod I've had only one in a thousand. Yes good factory brass cased ammo. My 2.0 .40 cal has only 550 rounds thru it, but not a single hiccup so far...with no aftermarket parts. The 2.0 absorbs the recoil the little better, but both are quite shootable. I now own the 2.0 compacts in both 9mm and ...40 cal. I also own the five inch barreled 2.0 in .40. The 5 incher shoots great, but that darned loaded chamber indicator on the top makes for a little bit of erratic ejection. And yes it looks like I'm gonna ruin my lifetime warranty by milling it down to eliminate the erratic ejection. I think the 2.0 is best in the .40 cal compact. I have to say it...I believe it's more reliable than the Glock 23. Another reason I give the nod to the M&P is because I have no concerns about mounting a light on it. If my Glock 23 is struggling now not to misfeed, I worry what will happen after I mount a light on it. I know everyone likes 9mm, and I'm not gonna bash it. However, I'm only comfortable when carrying 124 grain plus p Gold Dots or HST's. I've been a .40 guy for about 15 or 20 years now. I have no problem with what others call snappy recoil. The amazing part is, the Glock 23 has a very smooth feed. It just seems to be a slide speed to the magazines ability to keep up with the slide type thing to me. In .40 cal., I give the edge to Smith over all.

 

[ctr1970]

I made the switch from Glock 23 to my MP 2.0 Compact 40

Making the switch was easy..

Sold my Glock 23 Gen 4 for $475.00

Bought Mp 2.0 compact from buds for $383.00 shipped.
Added Trijicon HD night sights with the extra dough.

My MP came with thumb safety, 3 mags, standard 3 dot sights.

Never regretted the switch..

Shooting ergos are perfect. The steel chassis in frame helps with recoil.

Great trigger right out the box and very accurate and reliable.

Morning/Afternoon all,

I currently have a Glock 23, .40 cal. Prior to that, I had an M&P Sheild, 9MM, but my hand always seem to hurt with it.

Off to the range later, and was thinking of buying an equivalent of the Glock 23 .40 cal, in a Smith & Wesson M&P.

Best equivalent model to choose?
Also, is there newer M&P due out, like very soon? Curious if I should thus wait, or...

Thanks in advance
Ivan

 

[Doug M.]

I own the Gen 4 Glock 23, and the 2.0 compact in .40. I love both, but the reason I got the Smith &Wesson 2.0 in .40 is because I am having misfeed issues in my Glock 23. ...I believe it's more reliable than the Glock 23. Another reason I give the nod to the M&P is because I have no concerns about mounting a light on it. If my Glock 23 is struggling now not to misfeed, I worry what will happen after I mount a light on it. ... In .40 cal., I give the edge to Smith over all.

*
What you are describing is consistent with long known problems with the 23 (and 22), and you are correct - mounting a light will almost guarantee that your malfunction problem will get worse.

For good measure, what Glock did in a (partially successful) attempt to get the 22/23 to function screwed up the 17/19. I have a pair of chopped 17s and 33, and plan to get a 42 for my wife, with a G5 19 in the longer term plans, so I am not a Glock basher. However, if for some reason I was to get into the .40 caliber, the Glock 22/23 are about the last choices out there. In fact, I probably would not ever have or carry one. I'd probably go with the M&P as a first choice because accessories are easier to get.

 

[Mahalo_.32]

You cannot go wrong with a GLOCK or an M&P both are great handguns IMO. I use both and can shoot both equally well.
With that said once I became open minded I purchased my first M&P and fell in love with the feel....... I feel more relaxed shooting the M&P. the ergonomics of the M&P are much better.
As far as caliber, these days ballistics show strong similarities so which ever caliber you shoot best with is going to be what you should choose. I love 357sig first and foremost then 9mm, 45 then 40
My handguns all have capabilities of using 357, 40 and 9 so I am set...