M&P vs. Glock field striped

[Titegroups]

Field stripped my M&P next to Glock today and compared them side by side, pretty easy to see which had the superior build quality. I'm sure others have done the same, lets hear what you say.

 

[Shadow1006]

I'd be interested in what people say on this...I don't have an M&P yet but I can say that the Glock 29 is just a simplistic and reliably functioning platform in the potent 10mm cartridge. Changing to any of the conversion barrels for 40S&W/357Sig/9x25Dillon, adds to the flexability capabilities of this little power house.

Inexpensive spare or replacement parts and many aftermarket parts are a great plus as well!

Don't get me wrong I like all of my S&W guns, especially the 3rd gen series pistols.

 

[Titegroups]

What I'm asking is not about access to spare parts or ability to modify, but what are you getting for your money as far as mechanical robustness in a purely stock form, from the factory. Tear them down and what do you see. If you don't own both to tear down side by side I don't want to hear from you.

 

[redbos]

Well, all I can say is the only non S&W Auto pistol I own is a Glock 21 in .45.. I love my S&W revolvers, but did you ever see the torture test of the guy who put 250,000 thru a G21 and dropped it from a helicopter?

Enough said about Glocks, even though they are ugly. I have teared down a M&P, it is not as simple as a Glock and we all ready know which is better.

Showdow1006 was just trying to add insight to your thread, dont be so rough on folks who are trying to help your thred,"...... I dont want to hear from you." Not nice

 

[GKC]

Showdow1006 was just trying to add insight to your thread, dont be so rough on folks who are trying to help your thred,"...... I dont want to hear from you." Not nice

I agree...that was uncalled for.

What I'd like to see from the OP is his own impressions. He obviously has an opinion, and I don't know what he doesn't just state it. I doubt that others who read this thread will have their opinions completely changed on the basis of this one thread. It would be good, from a starting point, to have the initial opinion and then others can discuss that.

And, BTW, I do have and own both.

 

[Dragon88]

Field stripped my M&P next to Glock today and compared them side by side, pretty easy to see which had the superior build quality. I'm sure others have done the same, lets hear what you say.

I'm guessing you are trying to start some anti-Glock debate? If you are then you need to invest your energy elsewhere. Taking apart a Glock is taking apart a piece of mechanical genius. The same can be said for the M&P, because the design was obviously copied (or is the PC term "inspired") from the Glock.

Mechanical robustness? Go look at any of the Glock torture tests, both official and unofficial, and learn something about "mechanical robustness". I'm sure the M&Ps have passed some very brutal tests as well. Both guns are excellent firearms and your thread is still a waste of bandwith.

 

[Titegroups]

Not intending to start a debate at all. As a whole both firearms are well built as anyone who owns them can attest to. Just asking for people to strip them side by side and give their opinions on what they see which makes it pretty much impossible to do if you don't have both guns on hand. Can it be any simpler? If you walked into a gun shop with no prior knowledge of either firearm and had the opportunity to disassemble each and make your decision on which one to buy based only on what you could see mechanically, which one.

 

[redbos]

Well, you cant compare the two. Again, my one and only non S&W is a Glock 21. Glock is the standard for ugly, self defense guns, much easier to take apart, shoot. My G21, can you take an M&P and put a 10mm upper on it like I do? No. Can you get a AA kit and shoot .22 all day, No.

Also, once you beat the snot out of it, for $100 including shipping, Glock will send you an almost new Gun, new night sites, all new updates, springs, etc, refinsish the slide.... That does not happen in S&W land.

And before you say I hate S&W's, I have over 25 S&W revolvers, so far.....

 

[son-of-a-gun]

Field stripped my M&P next to Glock today and compared them side by side, pretty easy to see which had the superior build quality. I'm sure others have done the same, lets hear what you say.

I'm thinking a .40 cal semi-auto for my next purchase.

Which do you recommend based on your observations?

 

[Titegroups]

I spend most of my time shooting revolvers, bought a M&P9 back in 08 and never shot it much, started shooting some of my autoloaders here recently and decided to just compare my glock to the S&W and was surprised to see the S&W, IMO, is a much better built gun. If you look at all the individual parts, sears, extractors, frame rails the nicely machined slide, etc, clearly a improved much more robust design. If you tear them apart side by side it's hard to argue the other way around. Look for yourself. Not to say the glock doesn't function well or lacks durability.

 

[southchatham]

I have both a Glock & M&P. I like both. They both break down easy, but the Glock is faster. They both seem well built to me. My M&P is only 15 months old and my Glock is 12 years old and neither has ever failed where it counts, shooting. The engineers can build it the way they want as long as it works.

 

[Shadow1006]

The Shadow is not really offened by the OP's phrase that he didn't want to hear form me...I said what I knew to be facts about the only Glock I own and use with confidence. Thanks to those who took a stand to show the undeserving statement was uncalled for!

I enlisted to watch this thread to see if I could learn more about the S&W M&P pistols and what others actually thought about them in the comparison! I have wished and even contacted S&W to produce an M&P in 10mm for it only to fall on deaf ears!

However I am working with a fellow forum member who may actually make the 10mm conversion of an M&P 45 possible...seeing how S&W has put no such effort into the M&P for a ballisticly superior cartridge like the 10mm!

My love for S&W is still true, although I was disappointed by the stupid locks being part of their production on some models!

 

[robotoid]

I've been all the way inside both M&P's and Glocks. I now own no M&P's, and 3 Glocks.

 

[Titegroups]

I've been all the way inside both M&P's and Glocks. I now own no M&P's, and 3 Glocks.

Any specific reasons?

 

[TxM&P9]

I really can't tell the difference honestly when it comes to durability of both pistols. Only thing that ever stood out to me was the slide to frame fit. The M&P has very slight play while the glock (gen4 19) is tight.

The Shadow is not really offened by the OP's phrase that he didn't want to hear form me...I said what I knew to be facts about the only Glock I own and use with confidence. Thanks to those who took a stand to show the undeserving statement was uncalled for!

Seriously? rofl...

 

[Helderberg]

The best I can add would be that I did field strip both the Glock and the S&W when I was looking to buy one. I did see more steel in the body of the S&W but it may be just that on the Glock it may be buried in the glass. The only real reason I chose the S&W was the size and the "custom made just for me" feel of the grip. Both guns looked well made and the Glock has an unquestionable history of reliability. I just liked the S&W better and after a few hundred rounds believe I made the right choice for me. I could not be happier about my choice and have not had one malfunction of any kind with all kinds of ammo.
Best, Frank.

 

[robotoid]

Any specific reasons?

M&P was developing rust on serial number plate and takedown lever from just being handled, never carried. Glock is easier to disassemble and work on (no hammers needed) and get parts for. I spent a bunch of money on aftermarket parts for the M&P and could never get a trigger pull or reset to my liking.

 

[OKFC05]

make your decision on which one to buy based only on what you could see mechanically

Anyone who would select something as personal as a handgun based solely on looking at the internals is seriously mentally deficient.
The greatest difference between a Glock and an M&P is ergonomics, especially grip design. Do you just look under the hood of a car to buy it, or do you take it for a test drive?
And yes, I have field stripped a dozen different Glock models, and all the M&Ps except the .45. And also a wheelbarrow load of other designs for people at the range who had never stripped or cleaned their pistols. So I guess it is OK for me to post?

Added: By the way, the M&Ps are proving as reliable as Glocks in competition, and many people are switching from Glocks to M&Ps. Guess the proof is in the shooting: pick your favorite and go to a match.

 

[clcdawg]

To me my M&P is easier to disassemble than my glock but I am only talking about for cleaning. I have never broken either gun down past that. I just alwasy have trouble getting both the break down tabs down on my glock and it drives me crazy. Both are great guns I trust my life with either one.

 

[OKFC05]

To me my M&P is easier to disassemble than my glock but I am only talking about for cleaning. I have never broken either gun down past that. I just alwasy have trouble getting both the break down tabs down on my glock and it drives me crazy.

After being sure the mag is out and all the ammunition is out of the room, close the slide on the Glock, dryfire into your sand bucket, and turn it sideways so the grip is down and the rear of the gun is toward your weak hand. grip your weak hand around the slide behind the grip with your fingers over the rear sight, and squeeze until the slide moves back correctly for disassembly. With your strong hand, pull down both tabs from under the slide and relax your weak hand so the slide goes forward past where the tabs catch, and remove the slide. Easiest way I've found.

 

[Titegroups]

"Anyone who would select something as personal as a handgun based solely on looking at the internals is seriously mentally deficient."

The ergo's are so obvious it's not worth mentioning. If you have no interest in the mechanics or the engineering outside of what the gun feels like in the hand I can understand why field stripping one would not be of much help. On the other hand there are those whom would like to dig a little deeper into the design elements and compare and contrast the differences but it looks like this isn't the place to do it. Sorry.

 

[Bicky Robby]

Just made some popcorn, this will be worth the watch.

 

[senecaap]

Come on guys......they are both inferior to the 1911

 

[OKFC05]

"Anyone who would select something as personal as a handgun based solely on looking at the internals is seriously mentally deficient."

The ergo's are so obvious it's not worth mentioning. If you have no interest in the mechanics or the engineering outside of what the gun feels like in the hand I can understand why field stripping one would not be of much help. On the other hand there are those whom would like to dig a little deeper into the design elements and compare and contrast the differences but it looks like this isn't the place to do it. Sorry.

Here's the rest of the actual post:
"Anyone who would select something as personal as a handgun based solely on looking at the internals is seriously mentally deficient.
The greatest difference between a Glock and an M&P is ergonomics, especially grip design. Do you just look under the hood of a car to buy it, or do you take it for a test drive?
And yes, I have field stripped a dozen different Glock models, and all the M&Ps except the .45. And also a wheelbarrow load of other designs for people at the range who had never stripped or cleaned their pistols. So I guess it is OK for me to post? "

So is any one who disagrees with your statement that only the internals matter is automatically wrong? You asked for opions and you got them. If you're waiting for people on this forum to join bashing one or another of the brands, it may be a long wiait!

 

[Shadow1006]

After the OP made his statement, I was hoping someone would post pictures of both side by side with some insight about differences or what they liked over what they didn't like comparing both.

This thread could have been educational but it turn into $h!t really quickly...That is sad and a waste of bandwidth and good well meaning peoples time! Moving on!

 

[Dragon88]

I made some popcorn and was hoping to watch a Glock vs. M&P debate kick off in this thread. But no one would take a solid stance and the whole thing just fizzled out, like watching two boy dogs try to hump each other. Then someone referred to themselves in the third person and I lost all focus on what happened after that....

 

[4506517]

My opinion is going to be worth what you paid for it....nothing.

I own a Glock 19, 23C, and a 31. I like all of them and shoot fairly well with them.

I am issued an M&P 45 full size by my agency. I shoot it decent. I hate it. I am petrified my life depends on it. This is my second one in about a year and a half. A couple guys have had them replaced four and five times. Ive seen rusted guns (apparently S&W owed up and admitted ours werent finished properly), front and rear sights fall off, mags rusted so bad they boardered on not functioning, FTF, FTE, Failures to feed, broken strikers, the pin that holds the backstrap on stripped out, mag baseplates that wouldnt stay on because the mag body was out of spec.....when we last qualified in March, several guns failed on the line and were immediately removed from service. None of that engenders trust in a duty weapon. What stinks is these replaced 4566s.

I think maybe the M&P should have spent more time testing and refining this design. Not saying it doesnt have potential, just saying it has a long way to go.

Still love my Glocks, they have never failed me. Then again, Ive never carried one on duty. If I had my choice it would be the 4566TSW or in a perfect world, a modernized 4506 with an integral rail, loaded chamber indicator, and checkered front strap.

Glock vs. M&P is going to boil down to preferences, which are deeply personal. Someone will rail me for what Ive said about the M&P, but thats my opinion based on my experience.

Its nice to have choices. It would be a boring life if there was only one type of everything.

 

[The Viking]

My opinion is going to be worth what you paid for it....nothing.

I own a Glock 19, 23C, and a 31. I like all of them and shoot fairly well with them.

I am issued an M&P 45 full size by my agency. I shoot it decent. I hate it. I am petrified my life depends on it. This is my second one in about a year and a half. A couple guys have had them replaced four and five times. Ive seen rusted guns (apparently S&W owed up and admitted ours werent finished properly), front and rear sights fall off, mags rusted so bad they boardered on not functioning, FTF, FTE, Failures to feed, broken strikers, the pin that holds the backstrap on stripped out, mag baseplates that wouldnt stay on because the mag body was out of spec.....when we last qualified in March, several guns failed on the line and were immediately removed from service. None of that engenders trust in a duty weapon. What stinks is these replaced 4566s.

I think maybe the M&P should have spent more time testing and refining this design. Not saying it doesnt have potential, just saying it has a long way to go.

Still love my Glocks, they have never failed me. Then again, Ive never carried one on duty. If I had my choice it would be the 4566TSW or in a perfect world, a modernized 4506 with an integral rail, loaded chamber indicator, and checkered front strap.

Glock vs. M&P is going to boil down to preferences, which are deeply personal. Someone will rail me for what Ive said about the M&P, but thats my opinion based on my experience.

Its nice to have choices. It would be a boring life if there was only one type of everything.

That is a very good post. I am really sorry you feel that way about the S&W 45 and it is having so many problems. Some of them are minor however. I just finished an article by another LEO who said he has shot 5,000 rounds through his without cleaning it. He also did some minor torturing testing to see how it stood up. I have been following the Smith and Wesson M&P for some time now. Although I am a big fan of the 1911, I have owned and shot a fair number of Glocks for some time and have a healthy respect for them. They are phenomenal for their durability, toughness and reliability. That being said - they are ergonomic disasters. Ergonomically the Smiths have them beat across the board. Not to mention the Generation 4s are having a lot of problems ( Glock should not try to fix what is not broken - they listened to their engineers rather than shooters). Try the Glock forum.
I have had the recoil spring of a Glock 40 break and come apart in my hand after I field stripped it. It was now worthless as a pistol. So they are not infallible.
Anyway, I just put 1,000 rounds through my Gen 3, Glock 17 without cleaning it and without one malfunction. I am going to see if my 9mm S&W M&P will do the same thing.
I did have a 40 cal S&W M&P give me a dead trigger ( gun failed to cock). However, I have seen a 40 caliber Glock blow and become unusable in a ccw class because the case head was unsupported. Nothing is perfect.
I really like the S&W M&P and hope it will develop the same rep as the Glock.
I have a friend who is an engineer and will not consider anything but a 1911. I am going to get him to look at both the Glock and the S&W M&P and give me an opinion as to which he thinks is the stronger of the two. I figure that will give me an unvarnished opinion.
I see nothing wrong with making many comparisons and getting opinions on the two pistols ( Glock and S&W M&P). After all, Glock is pretty much the standard by which polymer pistols are measured. Just like the old 1911 is a standard ( no one has ever beaten its trigger either).
I am of the opinion that Glock is failing to make the ergonomic changes it should until pushed to do so by other makers ( ie Smith with the replaceable backstrap - now a feature on the Gen 4 Glock). Seems to me they are where Colt used to be when they started losing their market for the 1911 to Kimber etc.

 

[4506517]

I guess more along the lines of what the OP was asking, I actually find the Glock easier to field strip. The polymer on the Glock seems a bit more flexible than the M&P, but conversely, the M&P magazines are MUCH easier to disassemble. The Glock mags are a nightmare in my opinion.

Now, for a duty weapon I am glad the M&P has a magazine disconnect. It makes me feel safer that if, God forbid, my weapon gets taken, I can punch the release and disable it. I think the M&P does have some good points......for some reason I really like the sights. Our issued weapon has night sights, and I really like them.

 

[ET.]

I own a Glock 21sf & a 27. I looked at a Glock 35, but bought an M&P 40 Pro with a long slide & 5" barrel. It is a fine target/competition gun, but I trust my life to the Glock 27 for my CC gun & the 21sf for my HD gun (along with the Rem 870 in the corner of course). I'm sure that the M&P would be just as effective as an HD gun except that mine has the hi-vis competition sights that are not good in dark HD situations.

Oh, as to the premise that the M&P is a better built gun...well maybe it is but I just don't see it. I really like my M&P, but my glocks are very reliable as well. I see no cheap parts that would break on my Glocks or my M&P. I have too many rounds through all of these guns, with no problems, for any of them to be considered cheaply/cheaper built. We tend to see what we want to see when we look at objects with shaded lenses. They both seem to be well built. Just saying...