M&P9 series or a glock

[brucev]

"Smith&Wesson has never copied? I think not." Well... they first had to deal with the law suit... and then they had to wait for the patents to run out... and then... well... they do say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. JMHO. Sincerely. brucev.

 

[leejack]

To me, the M&P and Sigma have better ergonomics than the Glock. In my hand, the Smiths are natural pointers.

No doubt M&P's and Glocks are great guns. Having said that, it's just a matter of preference. Go for whatever you like best, and you won't go wrong.

Lee

 

[ab4ka]

I had Glocks and I liked them, however that was before owning a M&P. The M&P just feels much better in the hand for me. One advantage of the Glocks is the availability of holsters and aftermarket parts, but the M&P is catching up quickly as holster availability is no problem and more and more parts are becoming available. One advantage of the M&P is that you can shoot lead in it (i.e. reloads) whereas in the Glock you need an aftermarket barrel to do so.

In the end you really can't go wrong either way, but I prefer the Smith.

 

[WildCard ZX6R]

"Smith&Wesson has never copied? I think not." Well... they first had to deal with the law suit... and then they had to wait for the patents to run out... and then... well... they do say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. JMHO. Sincerely. brucev.

Still waiting for someone to provide a true source of the lawsuit details. People keep citing this as proof that SW "copied" glock but the only information i can find pertains to a slight internal modification of the slide.

"they do say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. "

Hmm... Browning style tilting barrel action. HK style polymer frame. Lugerish grip angle.

And where have i seen that striker fired system before ? Lets jump in the wayback machine and travel to 1907 shall we ?

 

[newguyhere]

Just went shooting with both my G26 and new M&Pc 9. Both a great guns. Bought the M&P as it just feels better in my hand. I have larger hands, and just don't like where the trigger guard hits my finger.

Both are more accurate than I am. I also like the extra 2 rounds in the M&P.

 

[Knightrider03m]

My vote is for the M&P. I just don't really care for the looks of a glock.

 

[Kanewpadle]

Glock offer unparalleled excellence to which other manufacturers only aspire. In one word, Glock is "Perfection." Choose Glock. Seriously... the M&P is S&W's version of what they consider to be a product improved Glock. Given their earlier efforts, the M&P is very much an improvement. But the M&P is no Glock. Glock offers proven excellence in manufacture and production, a level of functional reliability that is legendary and a extremely broad range of chamberings that will meet just about any need or interest. From aftermarket producers a broad range of barrels, parts and accessories are available that allow the user to customize the Glock to their own particular taste, usually requiring no tools beyond a simple punch and a little bit of common sense. Further given your location, it would be most likely that Glock would offer the broadest selection of models as well as access to parts, service and customer support. Sincerely. Brucev.

You've got to be kidding. Comments like this is one reason some people hate Glocks. Also comments like this is one primary reason first time gun buyers buy a Glock then decide that they don't like them. Fortunetly those that have been around guns for a while no better than to believe such things.

Glocks are NOT for everyone. Glock-snobbery must stop. Or should we call them Glocknazi's?

 

[jdh]

Smith&Wesson has never copied? I think not.

What I'm saying is if Glock is PERFECTION why did they feel the need to add (copy) the M&P's changeable back strap (yes I know the M&P was not the first pistol with a changeable back strap) and reversible mag catch?

 

[brucev]

With respect, Glock added a changeable back strap in response to consumer demand. That is the same reason they decided to offer chamberings in 9mm as well as .357 Sig., .40 S&W, 10mm and .45ACP. Again, that is the reason they offer adjustable sights, extended slide releases, compensated barrels, etc.

The development of the G-17 marked a sea change in handgun design and manufacturer as pivotal as Colt's development of the percussion revolver or Smith and Wessons first cartridge firing revolver. It combined a number of elements into a single remarkable design that immediately signaled a change as pivotal as when the Stg-44 was developed and produced.

The Glock design has proven itself to be well suited to a broad spectrum of the handgun buying public. For those who have always loved the 1911, the grip angle requires some adjustment. But then the 1911 grip has been modified with various main spring housings, grip safeties, extended magazine and slide releases, enhanced sights, etc. Yet a straight plain as issued Jane 1911 has in the hands of many proved to be a very excellent design that needs no real improvements to be imminently usable. The exact same can be said of the S&W K,N and later L frame revolvers. No one is thought to be extreme in stating that the 1911 pistol or the S&W K,L,N revolver design are anything less than a superior developments that eclipse prior efforts. In exactly the same way it is not extreme to say that the Glock pistol is a superior development. Not all Glocks are for everyone. But within the broad range of Glock pistols available just about anyone can find a Glock pistol that is very well suited to their needs and with which they will be very well satisfied.

The foregoing is not intended to disparage the M&P series. It may be that the M&P series may ultimately figure as significantly in S&W history as their various revolver designs or their development of the .38 Special or their development of the .357, .41 and .44 S&W Magnums. I hope that is the case. It has been most disappointing to see a once fine American firearms manufacturer floundering. Hopefully S&W will again move to the forefront of handgun design and manufacturer. I for one would be glad to see the Glocks, Sigs, HK's, FN's and Beretta's, etc. of this world put in a position of having to keep up with an American firearm manufacturer whose designs and production exceeded expectation to the point that the only fitting word by which to described the result would be "Perfection."

I regret that some took umbrage with my earlier comments. I personally am very impressed with the Glock design. I am very pleased with my results using Glocks in 9mm, .45ACP and now .40 S&W. The manner in which I wrote served to express my own views. What I wrote was informed by the tone of earlier comments regarding the Glock design. What I wrote was not intended to be unkind. Sincerely. brucev.

 

[WildCard ZX6R]

Someone call glock talk. Tell them we found their missing fanboy.

 

[Kanewpadle]

With respect, Glock added a changeable back strap in response to consumer demand. That is the same reason they decided to offer chamberings in 9mm as well as .357 Sig., .40 S&W, 10mm and .45ACP. Again, that is the reason they offer adjustable sights, extended slide releases, compensated barrels, etc.

The development of the G-17 marked a sea change in handgun design and manufacturer as pivotal as Colt's development of the percussion revolver or Smith and Wessons first cartridge firing revolver. It combined a number of elements into a single remarkable design that immediately signaled a change as pivotal as when the Stg-44 was developed and produced.

The Glock design has proven itself to be well suited to a broad spectrum of the handgun buying public. For those who have always loved the 1911, the grip angle requires some adjustment. But then the 1911 grip has been modified with various main spring housings, grip safeties, extended magazine and slide releases, enhanced sights, etc. Yet a straight plain as issued Jane 1911 has in the hands of many proved to be a very excellent design that needs no real improvements to be imminently usable. The exact same can be said of the S&W K,N and later L frame revolvers. No one is thought to be extreme in stating that the 1911 pistol or the S&W K,L,N revolver design are anything less than a superior developments that eclipse prior efforts. In exactly the same way it is not extreme to say that the Glock pistol is a superior development. Not all Glocks are for everyone. But within the broad range of Glock pistols available just about anyone can find a Glock pistol that is very well suited to their needs and with which they will be very well satisfied.

The foregoing is not intended to disparage the M&P series. It may be that the M&P series may ultimately figure as significantly in S&W history as their various revolver designs or their development of the .38 Special or their development of the .357, .41 and .44 S&W Magnums. I hope that is the case. It has been most disappointing to see a once fine American firearms manufacturer floundering. Hopefully S&W will again move to the forefront of handgun design and manufacturer. I for one would be glad to see the Glocks, Sigs, HK's, FN's and Beretta's, etc. of this world put in a position of having to keep up with an American firearm manufacturer whose designs and production exceeded expectation to the point that the only fitting word by which to described the result would be "Perfection."

I regret that some took umbrage with my earlier comments. I personally am very impressed with the Glock design. I am very pleased with my results using Glocks in 9mm, .45ACP and now .40 S&W. The manner in which I wrote served to express my own views. What I wrote was informed by the tone of earlier comments regarding the Glock design. What I wrote was not intended to be unkind. Sincerely. brucev.

Bruvec, your words were not unkind at all. I admire your dedication to a fine pistol.

I have no problem with Glock pistols other than the grip angle and they feel like a 2x4 in my hands.

I have bought and sold four Glocks. I tried to like them and still hold a high degree of respect for them. I do not oppose Glock pistols, only those that claim that they are perfect.. Because they are not.

There are several arguable reasons why Glock pistols are not perfect that can be said of any handgun ever made. The perfect gun will never malfunction or break. It's grip angle and feel will please all. It the perfect gun existed, other guns would cease to exist. Thankfully we have many fine guns to choose from.

I moonlighted at a friends gunshop a few years ago. I sold many guns to many people. Some chose Glock and some chose the M&P or XD. I always helped the customer to make an intelligent buy and compare different guns. Then I sent them out to the range to shoot the guns they were interested in. Again, some chose Glocks or M&P's or neither.

On the indoor range we had rental guns in Glock, M&P, XD, Sig, FN, several different 1911's, H&K, Ruger, S&W, Walther and a few other brands that I can't think of. They ALL broke. A rental range is the perfect torture test. They get abused. Don't get cleaned often enough. And they get the crap shot out of them. Consequently the guns that didn't break as much were the all steel 1911's.

Truth be told, everytime handle a Glock 19 I want one. But after I hold it a little longer and dry fire it, I put it back in the case.

 

[Dragonfly]

I owned a second-gen Glock 17 for fifteen years and a third-gen Glock 34 for four years, whereas I've only owned my M&P40 for a couple of months so I've got a lot more experience with Glocks than M&P's--here's a summary of my thoughts so far on the two designs.

In favour of the Glock:

• Disassembly is easier on the Glock without the sear deactivation lever of the M&P
• Neither of my Glocks had a malfunction or broken part while I owned them. The M&P has a ways to go to achieve the same reputation.
• No magazine safety on the Glock--I understand why it's there but for me they're an annoyance.
• Some of the earlier M&P's had problems with magazines dropping out when firing or having extraction problems due to rough chambers--these seem to be fixed on newer ones. Glock also had problems, though, with their early models--there was a significant "upgrade" in the early 1990's affecting hundreds of thousands of pistols.

In favour of the M&P:

• The M&P has a grip angle that points more naturally for most people. The Glock grip angle can be learned, of course, but I think most people, especially if they're used to other semi-autos, will find it easier to adapt to the M&P.
• The shape of the grip plus the interchangeable backstraps on the M&P make it much more comfortable to shoot. I know that it's more important that a handgun shoots well than feels good but most people will find a handgun that fits their hand easier to shoot.
• No finger-grooves. I found the finger grooves on third-gen Glocks not bad but I prefer a grip without them.
• The sights are better on the M&P (although I found the rear dots too distracting and blacked them out). The design of the Novak sights gives a sight radius equal to the Glock 17's with a barrel that's about a quarter of an incher shorter.
• The trigger pull on my M&P is crisper (although a bit heavier) after two months than on my Glock 17 after 15 years.
• I find the slide release and magazine release easier to reach on the M&P than on a standard Glock--to me they're about the same as the extended controls on the Glock 34
• The M&P40's recoil with 180 grain Remington is less "snappy" than Glock 17 firing 147 grain Winchester. I'm not sure if this is due to the design of the M&P or due to the nature of the .40 S&W round--I've never fired another .40 pistol.
• The trigger is more comfortable for extended shooting sessions on the M&P--the little trigger safety dealy on the Glock always bugged a little.
• There might be a slight accuracy edge with the M&P compared with the Glock--too early for me to say for sure, though.

Smith and Wesson has finally produced a good centrefire semi-auto that I like--I owned a 5906 9mm and really didn't like it at all (actually I sold it to get my first Glock). It really looks like they looked at a Glock and made improvements in the things people don't like about them.

 

[Kanewpadle]

I owned a second-gen Glock 17 for fifteen years and a third-gen Glock 34 for four years, whereas I've only owned my M&P40 for a couple of months so I've got a lot more experience with Glocks than M&P's--here's a summary of my thoughts so far on the two designs.

In favour of the Glock:

• Disassembly is easier on the Glock without the sear deactivation lever of the M&P
• Neither of my Glocks had a malfunction or broken part while I owned them. The M&P has a ways to go to achieve the same reputation.
• No magazine safety on the Glock--I understand why it's there but for me they're an annoyance.
• Some of the earlier M&P's had problems with magazines dropping out when firing or having extraction problems due to rough chambers--these seem to be fixed on newer ones. Glock also had problems, though, with their early models--there was a significant "upgrade" in the early 1990's affecting hundreds of thousands of pistols.

In favour of the M&P:

• The M&P has a grip angle that points more naturally for most people. The Glock grip angle can be learned, of course, but I think most people, especially if they're used to other semi-autos, will find it easier to adapt to the M&P.
• The shape of the grip plus the interchangeable backstraps on the M&P make it much more comfortable to shoot. I know that it's more important that a handgun shoots well than feels good but most people will find a handgun that fits their hand easier to shoot.
• No finger-grooves. I found the finger grooves on third-gen Glocks not bad but I prefer a grip without them.
• The sights are better on the M&P (although I found the rear dots too distracting and blacked them out). The design of the Novak sights gives a sight radius equal to the Glock 17's with a barrel that's about a quarter of an incher shorter.
• The trigger pull on my M&P is crisper (although a bit heavier) after two months than on my Glock 17 after 15 years.
• I find the slide release and magazine release easier to reach on the M&P than on a standard Glock--to me they're about the same as the extended controls on the Glock 34
• The M&P40's recoil with 180 grain Remington is less "snappy" than Glock 17 firing 147 grain Winchester. I'm not sure if this is due to the design of the M&P or due to the nature of the .40 S&W round--I've never fired another .40 pistol.
• The trigger is more comfortable for extended shooting sessions on the M&P--the little trigger safety dealy on the Glock always bugged a little.
• There might be a slight accuracy edge with the M&P compared with the Glock--too early for me to say for sure, though.

Smith and Wesson has finally produced a good centrefire semi-auto that I like--I owned a 5906 9mm and really didn't like it at all (actually I sold it to get my first Glock). It really looks like they looked at a Glock and made improvements in the things people don't like about them.

I disagree on one point. Not all M&P pistols have a magazine disconnect. Therefore disassembly is just as easy if not easier than Glock.

The only advantage that Glock has is longevity. In time the M&P will be considered equal to or better than the Glock. Depending on who you ask of course.

 

[brucev]

The advent of the 1911 must have been jarring to those who had loved and trusted the legendary Peacemaker or the S&W No. 3. But 99 years later, the 1911 holds that same well-deserved legendary status. The M-1 Garand left old school Marines less than impressed until Guadalcanal showed them the need for firepower. Veterans who used it in the ETO and PTO and later in Korea rightly hold it in reverence. In a later and different era veterans came to have mixed feelings about the M-16/A-4 rifle and the curious little round for which it remains chambered. And despite 20 years of service, the M-9 has yet to escape the pail of political manipulation that many consider drove the decision making process when the 1911 in .45ACP was retired as the Beretta 92 (aka M-9) in 9mm NATO was fielded by the U.S. Armed Services. Perhaps the reason the new M&P is not as breathtaking a development is simply because the market place is already occupied by so many excellent pistol designs. Apart from pretenders (Taurus, Rossi, etc.) and marginal producers, there are simply a plethora of excellent full-featured user-friendly high capacity pistols offered in a variety of calibers by major manufacturers capable of offering a broad range of options as well as extensive customer support. It may be that the M&P will eclipse other current designs and achieve a status as legendary as that of S&W much fabled M-10 series. I sincerely hope that will be the case. It has been heart breaking to see what has happened to the storied old line firearms manufacturers of my youth. I do not want to see S&W get flushed down the drain as has been the case with Winchester, Colt, H&R, Marlin, High Standard, etc. Sincerely. brucev.

 

[Kanewpadle]

The advent of the 1911 must have been jarring to those who had loved and trusted the legendary Peacemaker or the S&W No. 3. But 99 years later, the 1911 holds that same well-deserved legendary status. The M-1 Garand left old school Marines less than impressed until Guadalcanal showed them the need for firepower. Veterans who used it in the ETO and PTO and later in Korea rightly hold it in reverence. In a later and different era veterans came to have mixed feelings about the M-16/A-4 rifle and the curious little round for which it remains chambered. And despite 20 years of service, the M-9 has yet to escape the pail of political manipulation that many consider drove the decision making process when the 1911 in .45ACP was retired as the Beretta 92 (aka M-9) in 9mm NATO was fielded by the U.S. Armed Services. Perhaps the reason the new M&P is not as breathtaking a development is simply because the market place is already occupied by so many excellent pistol designs. Apart from pretenders (Taurus, Rossi, etc.) and marginal producers, there are simply a plethora of excellent full-featured user-friendly high capacity pistols offered in a variety of calibers by major manufacturers capable of offering a broad range of options as well as extensive customer support. It may be that the M&P will eclipse other current designs and achieve a status as legendary as that of S&W much fabled M-10 series. I sincerely hope that will be the case. It has been heart breaking to see what has happened to the storied old line firearms manufacturers of my youth. I do not want to see S&W get flushed down the drain as has been the case with Winchester, Colt, H&R, Marlin, High Standard, etc. Sincerely. brucev.

I agree Brucev. I have disliked S&W semi autos for a long time. This time I think they got it right.

Been shooting S&W guns for over 30 years. I too hope they stick around for a while.

 

[mtnsmithguy]

I find it a hard choise. People please enlighten me why I should choose one or an other?

I own an M&P .45 full size and five Glocks: 17, 23, 27, 36, and 21. I had to send the M&P back for an extractor adjustment after it failed to feed the last round in the mag, frequently. I never had to have a Glock repaired, nor had one malfunction in thousands of rounds.

Whichever one feels the best for you, and you are most accurate with. Personally, I carry a G27 every day, unless my situation, dress, etc dictate a pocket Kel Tec .380.

 

[Dirtman]

I own an M&P .45 full size and five Glocks: 17, 23, 27, 36, and 21. I had to send the M&P back for an extractor adjustment after it failed to feed the last round in the mag, frequently. I never had to have a Glock repaired, nor had one malfunction in thousands of rounds.

Whichever one feels the best for you, and you are most accurate with. Personally, I carry a G27 every day, unless my situation, dress, etc dictate a pocket Kel Tec .380.

On the other hand a friend of mine bought a NIB Glock 17, which has been around since the beginning, that has had nothing but problems. She sent it back to Glock and when they realized she was a woman shooter they told her she was using the wrong kind of ammo and sent it back. She was using WWB that none of my pistols have ever had a problem shooting. She hasn't gotten back to the range yet but I suspect she will have the same problems.
Oh yeah, by the way, she was not limp wristing. Any mechanical devise can have problems, even a seasoned one like Glock. Comes under the "Sh*t Happens" category.

 

[Dirtman]

I own an M&P .45 full size and five Glocks: 17, 23, 27, 36, and 21. I had to send the M&P back for an extractor adjustment after it failed to feed the last round in the mag, frequently. I never had to have a Glock repaired, nor had one malfunction in thousands of rounds.

I forgot to ad in my last post that I had the same problem with my MP 9c. I had to send it back to S & W twice for the same problem. They fixed the problem the 2nd time (probably over 1000 rounds since) and it has functioned fine without any kind of failure. They sent me a free magazine for my inconvience. Great service!
I think they actually lightened the trigger on my compact since it is now almost as smooth and light as my MP 9 Pro.
My other two MP's have never had any kind of failure with plenty of range time.

 

[davidwilp]

You may be on the wrong board for an unbiased opinion. I vote M&P

 

[mtnsmithguy]

Yes S&W via LSG does have great service. My M&P came back quickly and was fixed. I've always been a Smith guy and carried them exclusively as a LEO for 28 years. Whichever one fits the shooter best, is reliable, and he/she is most comfortable with is the one to go with IMO. You can't go wrong with either S&W or Glock.