Glock vs. M&P-yup. I'm askin' it.

[RussellD]

I own Glocks and carry an M&P at work. Four years later.. I think the M&P's are bit more fragile than the Glocks. I have seen slide releases break on several, slides rust, magazines rust, and the little lever you have to flip up and down to disassemble the gun drives me nuts.

Saw one over zealous new hire completely lock the gun up trying to reassemble it in record time. Slide jumped over the rails and required a trip back to the mothership to correct.

I love my Smith's and only wish the Glocks trigger could be tuned with an apex kit for the same result.

Both platforms have pros and cons. Just for today I own S&W revolvers and Glocks. While I have confidence in the M&P we are issued, I would prefer to have my Glock.

YMMV

 

[pvq]

I wrote this email to some friends that wanted my opinion on the Glock vs M&P. I thought I would post it for your thoughts as well.


This is nothing more than my opinion so take it for what it it worth. So you know where I am coming from, my focus with regard to all my guns is long term durability and ultra reliability. I want guns I can count in in a zombie apocalypse. I don't particularly care if they are pretty. I attended an M&P armorer's course primarily because I wanted to learn how to detail strip and repair (should the need arise) my newly acquired S&W Shield 9mm. I have been VERY taken with the Shield, and that hasn't changed. I don't think there is a better single stack 9mm on the market as of this writing, though there are STRONG rumors that a Glock will introduce a single stack 9mm at next years shot show. Many of us have been wishing for that for years, if not decades, but I hear that Glock has moved production to the US, which makes the appearance of a slim 9mm more likely since import restrictions would no longer be a barrier. A Glock equivalent of the Shield would most assuredly be a "must have" for me. So here are my thoughts:

The M&P is basically a Glock, with the internal parts moved around. One of the consequences of moving the parts around is that it is somewhat more difficult to detail strip, but it has some positive aspects as well.

One area where I think the M&P is clearly superior to the Glock design is in the frame. The M&P frame is constructed of a similar polymer, but has stainless steel inserts to stiffen/strengthen the frame in critical areas. I own a 24 year old (low round count) Glock 19 that suffered a cracked frame for reasons unknown. I have wondered ever since whether or not that was just a bad batch of polymer, or the frame was subject to some unknown trauma(I had bought the gun used), or if polymer just becomes brittle with age, and therefore has a service life? I have no answers to those questions, but the added steel in the M&P frame is comforting to me.

The M&P also has a grip angle and (low) bore axis which I find to be outstanding. I also like the Glock grip angle and bore axis, and frankly I see little difference between them, but it seems a great many people despise the Glock grip angle. To me, its a wash between the two pistols. The (full size and compact) M&P comes with three interchangeable back straps. I know the Glock Gen 4 has interchangeable back-straps as well, though I have never handled one. I never had any serious issues with the Gen three frames, and in the M&P I am satisfied with the "medium" back-strap, so I suppose I am as average as average can be and either/or will do just fine. If the back strap is important to you then you will have to judge for yourself.

Another area where the M&P excels is the trigger. This appears to be a positive consequence of moving the parts around as I mentioned earlier. It seems to me that, the interplay between the connector and trigger bar on the Glock is inherently less smooth than the M&P system. Again, I am not an expert...just my opinion. The M&P trigger by contrast is outstanding, very smooth with a strong reset. On the flip side, and again, just my opinion, I think the Glock trigger system is more robust, especially with the NY1 trigger which I prefer. The NY1 trigger is virtually unbreakable and offers the most positive reset available which is something that is most valuable to me.

The M&P is available with or without a magazine disconnect, external safety, and key lock. I wouldn't want any of those features, but they are an option for those that are so disposed so I thought I would throw it out there.

In terms of the ease with which each respective pistol can be be detail stripped and repaired, Glock wins hands down. An orangutan can detail strip a Glock pistol. It's that easy. The M&P is an order of magnitude more difficult. That is not to say that it is difficult per se, just more so than a Glock.

All thinks considered, If I were looking for a full size or compact double stack pistol, I would stick with the Glock. All of the aforementioned in addition to parts availability makes it a winner. I never much cared for the stubby feel of the baby Glock which is why, for concealed carry, the slim 9mm Shield can't be beat. If Glock introduces a single stack 9mm...that may be a game changer (in my opinion.)

 

[BigCityChief]

I wrote this email to some friends that wanted my opinion on the Glock vs M&P. I thought I would post it for your thoughts as well.


This is nothing more than my opinion so take it for what it it worth. So you know where I am coming from, my focus with regard to all my guns is long term durability and ultra reliability. I want guns I can count in in a zombie apocalypse. I don't particularly care if they are pretty. I attended an M&P armorer's course primarily because I wanted to learn how to detail strip and repair (should the need arise) my newly acquired S&W Shield 9mm. I have been VERY taken with the Shield, and that hasn't changed. I don't think there is a better single stack 9mm on the market as of this writing, though there are STRONG rumors that a Glock will introduce a single stack 9mm at next years shot show. Many of us have been wishing for that for years, if not decades, but I hear that Glock has moved production to the US, which makes the appearance of a slim 9mm more likely since import restrictions would no longer be a barrier. A Glock equivalent of the Shield would most assuredly be a "must have" for me. So here are my thoughts:

The M&P is basically a Glock, with the internal parts moved around. One of the consequences of moving the parts around is that it is somewhat more difficult to detail strip, but it has some positive aspects as well.

One area where I think the M&P is clearly superior to the Glock design is in the frame. The M&P frame is constructed of a similar polymer, but has stainless steel inserts to stiffen/strengthen the frame in critical areas. I own a 24 year old (low round count) Glock 19 that suffered a cracked frame for reasons unknown. I have wondered ever since whether or not that was just a bad batch of polymer, or the frame was subject to some unknown trauma(I had bought the gun used), or if polymer just becomes brittle with age, and therefore has a service life? I have no answers to those questions, but the added steel in the M&P frame is comforting to me.

The M&P also has a grip angle and (low) bore axis which I find to be outstanding. I also like the Glock grip angle and bore axis, and frankly I see little difference between them, but it seems a great many people despise the Glock grip angle. To me, its a wash between the two pistols. The (full size and compact) M&P comes with three interchangeable back straps. I know the Glock Gen 4 has interchangeable back-straps as well, though I have never handled one. I never had any serious issues with the Gen three frames, and in the M&P I am satisfied with the "medium" back-strap, so I suppose I am as average as average can be and either/or will do just fine. If the back strap is important to you then you will have to judge for yourself.

Another area where the M&P excels is the trigger. This appears to be a positive consequence of moving the parts around as I mentioned earlier. It seems to me that, the interplay between the connector and trigger bar on the Glock is inherently less smooth than the M&P system. Again, I am not an expert...just my opinion. The M&P trigger by contrast is outstanding, very smooth with a strong reset. On the flip side, and again, just my opinion, I think the Glock trigger system is more robust, especially with the NY1 trigger which I prefer. The NY1 trigger is virtually unbreakable and offers the most positive reset available which is something that is most valuable to me.

The M&P is available with or without a magazine disconnect, external safety, and key lock. I wouldn't want any of those features, but they are an option for those that are so disposed so I thought I would throw it out there.

In terms of the ease with which each respective pistol can be be detail stripped and repaired, Glock wins hands down. An orangutan can detail strip a Glock pistol. It's that easy. The M&P is an order of magnitude more difficult. That is not to say that it is difficult per se, just more so than a Glock.

All thinks considered, If I were looking for a full size or compact double stack pistol, I would stick with the Glock. All of the aforementioned in addition to parts availability makes it a winner. I never much cared for the stubby feel of the baby Glock which is why, for concealed carry, the slim 9mm Shield can't be beat. If Glock introduces a single stack 9mm...that may be a game changer (in my opinion.)

Thoughtful post - I enjoyed reading it. Thank you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[g17]

What gun is it that S&W and all the others have tried to imitate since it came about?

 

[Coaltminer]

Both are good, but the shape of the trigger on the Glock is kinda like a stick, uncomfortable in long range sessions. M&P trigger shape is just more ergonomic for me. I have a 9c, but have owned Glock as well. Still prefer my 581 and 29.

 

[photoman]

I am a long term Glock shooter and just recently picked up a 9c so I don't count myself as one who has "switched sides" just yet.

In favor of the M&P: I prefer the S&W brand. The grip angle and shape is far superior to the Glock in my opinion. The slide finish is better than the current Glocks.

In favor of the Glock: Accessories and parts support. Holsters, magazines and parts are readily available. (The magazine situation with the 9mm M&P is shameful!)

At this point, while still early in the process of considering the M&P, I would say that the magazine situation is a deal breaker for me. If S&W doesn't correct that HUGE mistake, I will end up staying with Glock for all my plastic gun needs. A semi-automatic pistol is a single shot paperweight without magazines!

 

[Murdock]

Dr. Crusher or Counselor Troy?

 

[Don 73]

I'm ISSUED a G21 with a NY+ (>8lb) trigger and I carry an MP9c off duty.

I like the trigger on the S&W much better than the Glock, maybe it's the difference in trigger weights, maybe the tactile reset isn't as pronounced, but I'm not a shooter that relies on the reset to tell me when to fire, I make up my own mind.

The M&P is easier to break down due to the lever rather than trying to pull down on two nubs at the same time.

The grip? Let's just say 2x4 VS natural grip.

The Glock gets the nod on being a full-sized pistol (I like the full sized better, it just fits my hand better ... except for the 2x4 feeling) but the M&P conceals better with only 1 shot lost in translation (12+1 VS 13+1). Granted that's 13 rnds of 9mm VS 14 rnds of .45, but I'm a student of "It's more important WHERE you hit, rather than what you hit with."

My dad is a S&W guy and I grew up a S&W guy.

I like the few Glocks I've fired, but there's just something about them that makes me like the S&W better, maybe it's because the Glock has more plastic in areas that I think are better made of metal.

So here's a +1 for the M&P

 

[Don 73]

Dr. Crusher or Counselor Troy?

Kate or Ziva?

 

[UncaGrunny]

When I went out to buy my first bought-for-my-ownself (as opposed to handmedowns or issue) pistol last year, I shopped HARD. I rented & shot guns from several brands at local ranges, & spent more time in line at (jammed) gunshop counters than I care to recall.

One of the downsides of being a detail-freak engineer is that you sweat even small things that other people wouldn't consider. This can make shopping a nightmare for me and anyone who goes with me.

The upside is, when I buy, I have a very high probability of satisfaction.

I have a number of friends who have and like Glocks, & I've shot theirs before going back to the 90's.

The training facility I had to go to to get my CA handgun safety cert (& which I made the wife attend, too, under the same premise that it does ME no good to get CPR certified) used Glocks exclusively.

But when all was said and done, for my first home-defense & general target shooting pistol, I chose the M&P 9mm FS.

Main reasons why:
Grip angle. The M&P feels like an extention of my hand, as if I was pointing my finger. The Glock feels like something I have to actively point to get it where I want.

Feel. The M&P fits my hand beautifully. I'm a lefty, and I'm used to having to cope with products that feel "wrong" since childhood. The M&P felt like they actually had input from left-handed shooters in the design phase, where the Glock felt like it at-best tolerated the fact that left-handed people exist. Even without swapping the mag release button to the other side, I find the M&P a superior southpaw experience. Can't say why, but it's a definite feeling. When I shoot right-handed, I don't notice this difference nearly as much.

The Smith feels more robust to me when cycling, too.

Beavertail. Glocks bite my meaty mits unless I'm very careful about my grip. I shouldn't have to be thinking about that when I'm trying to shoot something, especially in a home-defense situation. Only thing I should have to think about at that point is whether or not to shoot.

Replaceable grips. Medium fits me like it was custom-made. Small fits the wife. Simplifies things if there's ever a for-her purchase in future, mainly.

Stovepipes. Seems like every time I shoot a Glock, I get one or more stovepiped casings, even when I'm being carefully assertive with my grip. Has never happened to me using the M&P. Probably an issue of balance, grip angle, and comfort, but it's real for me.

Field-strip. I hate disassembling the Glock, but the M&P is brainless to field-strip, even with the seer disconnect to cope with.

Manufacturer's history. 'Nuff said.

Point of origin / corporate ownership. US owned and made is still a preference for me, even if all other things are equal. As is openly admitted ownership. I'm weird that way.

Example: I've owned domestic and foreign cars, & I currently drive a Japanese car because "!4$" (bang for bucks) they are strongly a better deal, especially in my market segment (performance coupe). If a US maker could come even close to the value proposition I've gotten out of my '03 350Z (or my 33-year-old RX-7) I'd buy one in a heartbeat, but there was simply nothing out there that can touch it for less than twice the money. Smith&Wesson > Glock if all things were equal, but the Smith had the advantage technically going in.

Aesthetics. The M&P is just flat-out a better looking weapon. Not a big part of the decision, but still in the mix.

Finally and least importantly, the verse from "Headknocker" would sound damn silly written "...If that don't show you a lesson, he might show you his Glock."

 

[fxdc]

I got a new g34 gen 4 and was about to order parts to make a open major 9 gun... Then I found a 5" core model.... Sold the glock and ordered parts for the core instead!

ENUFF SAID
A12243

 

[tat2dchad]

This thread has some great discussion going
If ya want a sexy and comfortable gun s&w....if ya want the ugly uncomfortable gun with available parts glock wins

 

[jrs70]

I have both and like both. I do like the size of the 40c better than the 27 or 23. Just my 2 cent.

 

[Don 73]

If you could pick one 9mm handgun that IS NOT A S&W that is fun to shoot and could be a CC gun...what would it be?

If I had to chose a new 9mm and S&W was out of the picture, it would most likely be a Glock, primarily due to the aftermarket support (as long as I could have a standard trigger, the G21 I carry at work has the NY+ trigger and it really SUCKS).

 

[tactical404]

For me, when it comes to my CCW the trigger is probably my biggest deal. Don't like changing it from stock and things like grips can easily be swapped out. That said, for me it'd probably go something like Walther PPQ, Walther PPS, Glock 26 Gen 4, XDS 3.3 & Shield..in that order. That of course is just the guns i've actually used.

 

[sarge1967]

The reasons I went with M&P
1. Ergonomics
2. Accurate
3. Reliable
I realize the triggers are not the best out of the box. I got a Pro Series 4.25 inch and the trigger is better than stock and it comes with night sights. I am still going to put an Apex FSS kit in and put the Pro parts in the 9c we just got.

 

[steve462x0]

I love both M&P's and GLOCK'S. The only difference I see in mine is that the grip feels a little more comfortable on the M&P's. I own 2 M&P's and three GLOCK'S and have made changes to all of them to do with the triggers, but they all shoot very well and they are all fun to shoot.

 

[Dave329]

I have a glock 30 that I have carried and shot for a couple years now. Never the first problem with the glock in any way. Recently bought an M&P VTAC and have only shot it about 50 times up to this point. All being said the glock is a bit thick and a little big for my hand. But very reliable and trust worthy!
The M&P fits my hand much better with the slimmer frame. However as many have mentioned the trigger on the M&P is not as good feeling to me as the glock in several ways, pull isn't as crisp,resset is not nearly as good, and to me the trigger has a lil creep in it. I personally feel that if I pay out 700 for a gun made by such a company as Smith and Weason. I should never have to even think about upgrading the trigger to make it just as well as other cheaper production guns.. Period. Smith kinda let's me down on that one.
All said both guns shoot great I probably shoot a little better with the Smith but it's a 9mm and the glock is a .45 in a compact package. So not surprising there. The Smith feels better in my hand and as many have said it's just a personal preference. Perfectly honest if I knew my life would be on the line and both pistols available, the one in my hand would be the glock. It's just proven.

Both are great guns and you cannot go wrong with either!

I will add that my hot weather carry gun is now a Springfield XDS 9mm. Yet another great gun in a smaller package. ...... The debate goes on n on. Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ivanwi11iams]

I'm new to the M&P Shield, coming from a Glock 19, 4th Gen. I'm really happy with the size of the Shield and being able to carry truly concealed.

Currently I'm still testing shooting the Shield. I guess time will tell which I prefer the most, the M&P Shield vs. the Glock 19.

 

[Fastbolt]

I'm always amazed when gun enthusiasts start to promote their gun makes/models the same way they promote sports teams ... and seemingly for the same subjective personal (and biased) reasons.

To be fair, though, I suppose if I hadn't been a firearms instructor and armorer for different makes/models for some years, I'd probably be heavily influenced by small samplings & data-sets of personal experience, what I heard at gun stores, 1 or 2 LE agency second-hand tales, etc.

Having worked as an armorer for different makes and models, though, and having seen a pretty wide representation of those and other makes of guns come through years of qual/training ranges ... I'm don't wave flags with the same ardent, unwavering loyalty as some other folks.

As an armorer for both Glock and the M&P pistol series, and as an owner of a few of both lines, I have some likes & dislikes for both. Who wouldn't?

Glock has been working hard to continue to revise their design since they managed to get their toehold in the LE market in the late 80's. The newest Gen4 guns have certainly benefited from continuing revisions, tweaks and improvements.

The M&P, since it's official release at the beginning of '06, and rapidly growing adoption by LE agencies, has also continued to benefited from continual revisions, improvements, parts changes, and so forth. Actually, it's pretty amazing how quickly the engineers have responded to a lot of user feedback in so short a time.

I don't sweat the differences in brands, manufacturing and features as much as some other guys & gals, it seems. I just want the guns to work in the greatest variety of user hands as possible, and have the owners/issued users learn to have the least amount of adverse influence on their weapons as possible (being able to maintain a firearm isn't genetic, it's a learned skill, despite what some folks might wish to believe).

Glock has developed a lot of established marketing since their introduction.

S&W has had to work through the Sigma years, and then look like they weren't "riding the coat-tails" of Walther during the years of their licensed production of the SW99/990L series. (Did you know that there are still at least a small number of LE agencies who haven't transitioned away from the SW99's? I heard they're still maintaining the armorer class for those remaining agencies ... and I rather suspect they've offered to replace any remaining 99's with new M&P's. )

As an armorer for both gun lines I maintain a fair stock of service/repair parts, and I've used them for both. (Ditto for the 99 series, too.)

If they ever make a duty gun that will never require replacement, maintenance or repair parts ... sign me up.

In the meantime? I'll continue to place periodic orders for armorer parts, "raid" factory rep & armorer instructor parts boxes and make calls for unexpected repair parts that aren't frequently needed, but happen when least expected.

Pick what you like, for the reasons you like. Hopefully they're based in some practicality and have been made as the result of an informed choice ... but people can be unpredictable and interesting, to say the least.

If someone feels they really require some degree of external validation about their choice of gun (getting the agreement of other owners, or deliberately denigrating the dissimilar choices of other owners/users) ... maybe they aren't spending enough time on some training/practice range, and working to develop and maintain their mindset, knowledge of the laws, etc.

I have both Glocks and M&P's, as I've said. I've had to service, repair and replace parts in both. Go figure.

I shoot both well, too. It's a training thing.

Suit yourselves.