Looking At .40 M&Ps

[Screwball]

I've been looking for a new handgun, lately. I've gone through a few different companies, and either dropped them for cost or features I don't like. SIGs tend to be a little out of my price range, as well as H&K, which also have a horrible magazine release. The one I have pretty much into the "finals" is the Glock 35. There are a few 1911s I'm eyeing up on GunBroker, yet I don't know if I'll go that way. But lately, I've been looking into the M&P...

Anyways, I have a few other guns which fill a lot of roles. I have a Ruger LCP and S&W 642 for smaller roles. I have a Beretta 92 Brigadier with 96 Centurion slide, Beretta .45 PX4, and a S&W 1006 as my main automatics... and not to forget my S&W 629 for my large revolver. Really, this next gun is going to be one to shoot at the range with, for the most part. If I get other uses out of it, so be it.

The .40 M&P looks like a great gun, and I like the Compact since it can still take the full size magazines. But the problem is that I can't make up my mind on them yet. I'll be honest, I have not held either, which is something I plan on before putting any money down.

One of the pretty likely things I'm going to add is a CT grip (most of my guns have night sights, which I may add to this). I see they put one out for both models, so I just wanted to see if anyone noticed any issues, in either of the two. I think the rear activator will work out well, but not sure if a small frame will hinder it. If I run full size magazines with X-Grips, it should be very similar to the full size, correct?

I live in NJ, so magazine capacities will stop at 15 rounds (also why I looked at the Glock in that caliber). If I got the Compact, I would get some 10 rounders, but still would stock up on a few full size magazines. They would all have the X-Grip, if I go that route. Either way, the magazines, themselves, do lose out to Glock, in my eyes… All my pistols are either stainless or are/will be refinished to match. I'm unsure if I will do this with this next pistol, but if I did, I will likely plate the magazines, as well. With my PX4 and magazines, I found out that having a few magazines does add up costs.

The other question I want to ask is about accuracy. Since this will likely be used at the range, the full size gun seems to be a better choice. How does the Compact compare? The range I go to most of the time has a max range of 25 yards. I have gone to other outdoor ranges and shot at further ranges, and I liked the Glock 35 due to reviews of people getting shots on the paper at 100 yards. Not a necessity, but I rather have better accuracy within those 25 yards. I also have considered getting a .357 SIG barrel, for whichever choice I decide, mainly to give me more options. Personally, I've never liked the .357 SIG due to the price compared to .40 ammo. Others I've talked to about the extra barrel have said that they feel it is a waste of money, which it very well could be. If I do go that way, it will be some time after.

Any other info that will help me out, I'd appreciate it. Up until the Ruger, my pistols were tossed up between two companies; Beretta and S&W. I'm a die-hard fan of both, even though there are things I dislike with each company (mainly, the locks on the revolvers). If the M&P has a magazine disconnect, so be it. Not really a problem, but I rather it not be in the gun. If it has a lock, as long as it doesn't let the gun lock up when/if it fails, I don't care too much either.

 

[missiondude]

There is a guy in my pistol club selling a 40 compact with 50 down the pipe for $400. Not a good gun for IDPA or USPSA, but a good carry gun. PM if interested and I will put you in touch.

Dave

 

[Screwball]

There is a guy in my pistol club selling a 40 compact with 50 down the pipe for $400. Not a good gun for IDPA or USPSA, but a good carry gun. PM if interested and I will put you in touch.

Dave

Thanks for the info. With the reason he is selling it, it makes me lean more towards the full size. I guess that 0.75 inch of barrel makes some difference.

 

[JoeS]

I have a full size 9mm and compact 9mm both in addition to a full size .45.
I don't think there is any significant difference in mechanical accuracy between the full size and compact. Both are very good. The .45 outshoots both.
I love M&Ps, at worst you get the trigger done by Dan Burwell or the like and they are superb pistols.
If I wasn't a 1911 and HiPower guy from way back I'm not sure I'd look at any other semi-autos as defense pieces. I've owned most of what is currently available at one time or another and there may well be different from an M&P but I'm not at all convinced there is better.

 

[Screwball]

When I picked up my 642, I only got it since it did not have the lock.

Now, my reason for not going with the lock on revolvers is due to someone at my range having their pistol lock-up when firing. Even if it is a 0.001% chance of it happening, that is still too much for me with the role I use that for.

Anyways, I looked through this section, and I have not seen any M&P lock failures. Does this setup not have the same issues? If I get a gun with the lock, I really don't care, as long as it works.

 

[slammr]

You can buy the M&P without the interlock and without the mag disconnect. The compact is great for CC. Seems to be reasonably accurate at SD ranges (Why you'd would need to shoot at 100 yards is beyond my comprehension.)

 

[brucev]

After researching available pistols and calibers suited to my needs, I recently purchased a G-22. Since purchase it has been perfection personified in terms of feeding, firing, ejection and on target accuracy. This mirrors previous experience by myself and my brother with seven other Glock pistols. For the purposes you described, the G-35 will be an excellent choice. Sincerely. brucev.

 

[Screwball]

Seems to be reasonably accurate at SD ranges (Why you'd would need to shoot at 100 yards is beyond my comprehension.)

Because one day, I may want to do it... I've read plenty of reviews of the Glock 35 where shots like that are possible, and being I want to get a dedicated range gun, which I do not have at the moment, I would like that option.

After researching available pistols and calibers suited to my needs, I recently purchased a G-22. Since purchase it has been perfection personified in terms of feeding, firing, ejection and on target accuracy. This mirrors previous experience by myself and my brother with seven other Glock pistols. For the purposes you described, the G-35 will be an excellent choice. Sincerely. brucev.

Thanks. I have a few friends in various departments in my area, and the ones that have .40 Glocks love them (mostly 23s, but a few 22s). Personally, I never liked the .40 Glock, since it seemed to be the one you usually see blowing up... but like mentioned, I live in a state where the magazines cannot top 15 rounds. So, unless my office decides to go with the Glock 17 or 34, I'm s*** out of luck with 9mm magazines. Don't want 10 rounders, and not too big on cutting a 34's frame down to take 19 magazines (actually, I may look at that). Those are the only two calibers they put out the Tactical model in. I have a 10mm and .45, so paying the money to build a long slide 20/21 doesn't seem worth it, to me.

I was issued a Glock in my previous job, which I never liked. Had a misfire once (which I chambered and fired the second time around), and I realized how nice having a second strike is. Since this is a range application, I figured that going striker-fired isn't that bad. The main reason for looking at the M&P is due to my past experience with S&W pistols... but the aftermarket for the Glock does weigh it more to that side.

 

[growr]

I use the full size M&P .40 in USPSA/IDPA matches here in Montana/Idaho and have over 15,000 rounds downrange without a malfunction of any kind with a wide variety of ammo. It just keeps on getting better and better. No need for an action/trigger job....just shoot it! All the extra practice will make you a better marksman as well.....No regrets on this one!! Plus has a life time warranty, made in USA, is reliable and very accurate...how can you ask for more?
Randy

 

[Screwball]

I use the full size M&P .40 in USPSA/IDPA matches here in Montana/Idaho and have over 15,000 rounds downrange without a malfunction of any kind with a wide variety of ammo.

That is great to hear.

May I ask you what sights you are using, or if you recommend anything? CT grip?

 

[growr]

I use the stock sights.....am interested in a set of hi viz sights however.
Will continue with stock for now.
Randy

 

[SPEEDGUNNER]

Buy one, you will never look back. My M&P .40 has come to fit every need I could think of, all my other guns now sit in the safe, lonely and forlorn.

 

[MarshallDodge]

The only issue mine had out of the box was an unpleasant trigger. I am 1911 guy so I am pretty spoiled. It took about 200 rounds for the trigger to break in, and then I put some Slipstream oil on all the trigger assy. contact points. It's still a little mushy but very smooth.

The thing that really amazed me was the accuracy out of the box. Sure, it's not a target grade 1911 but it makes some fine groups for a $500 gun. Lately I have been using it for pin shooting and the recoil is so soft that my speed has improved.

 

[M29since14]

If you are going to shoot much at extended ranges, I would want something other than a Glock or an M&P. They're good guns, but the trigger action does not lend itself to precision shooting. If you don't want to spend a lot, you might be happier looking for a good, lightly used SIG 226, since they can be fired single action. (Similar price range. A new one will cost more than an M&P.)

As to the M&P itself, I have never seen one with a lock, but it is listed in the catalog. I do notice the ones without the magazine safety seem to have slightly better trigger action.

They are nice pistols for the money and, in my hands anyway, much more comfortable than the competitor. The magazines are nicely made, and the sights are much better, too. The M&P has a lot of good points, if you fancy this type of pistol.

 

[magnum12pm]

I use the full size M&P .40 in USPSA/IDPA matches here in Montana/Idaho and have over 15,000 rounds downrange without a malfunction of any kind with a wide variety of ammo. It just keeps on getting better and better. No need for an action/trigger job....just shoot it! All the extra practice will make you a better marksman as well.....No regrets on this one!! Plus has a life time warranty, made in USA, is reliable and very accurate...how can you ask for more?
Randy

You are correct all the way around. One would think America can't even build a quality handgun. If we don't stop buying every product imported from other country's we will all be living on dirt floored shacks. I wonder if anyone has ever sent a glock pistol back for service and got it back in 6 days, no charge. Oh! I forgot the glock never needs service

 

[M29since14]

If we don't stop buying every product imported from other country's we will all be living on dirt floored shacks.

Hard to argue with that!

I wish someone would tell the various U.S./state/local procurement agents and departments who purchase the Austrian wonder by the tens of thousands - with the taxpayer's dime! And then, to add to the annoyance even more, when questioned about it, as they sometimes are, they splutter out the same old tired, new-age, quasi-legal competitive bid nonsense to attempt to justify their actions. Here in Indiana, the Indiana State Police, after having more than a few problems implementing their patriotic decision in .40-caliber, redoubled their efforts and converted themselves to 9mm-caliber. What a disgrace.

M&Ps are very nice pistols. If I did plan on doing much 100-yard shooting with a handgun, the SIG 226 would not be my first choice. That honor would always go to a Model 29/Model 57. Sorry if I appeared to temporarily fall off the U.S.-made bandwagon.

(Rant mode switched to "off." )