M2.0 Really Challenging Glock?

My only Glock is a 30S. Why S&W can't make a 45 with those dimensions and a 10+1 capacity is beyond me, its is a great carry gun. If only S&W could figure it out :(
 
Simple marketing: Glock owns the term "semi-auto pistol", just like Apple owns "smartphone", or in the South, any soft drink is a "Coke". It's more important to be #1 in the minds of consumers rather than absolute #1 in performance.
And what is "performance" to you?

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
 
What does Glock have over other manufactures

Very Smart Marketing.

They undercut everybody else in bidding to Police contracts. Once everyone sees cops using the product then they want what the cops use. They do the same thing Apple does. Apple gives products at cut rate pricing to schools to condition youth to buy Apple.
 
ARIK very simple
A ransom rest is a device that test a guns actual accuracy, This would show you how accurate your glock is compared to say an m&p.
As for flexing the ransom rest holds a gun using pads that squeeze the gun like a hand to hold it while firing.
Glocks are by far the most sensitive (thinnest plastic) when it comes to pressure a little too much and no trigger reset, that is if it fires..
So what we can take away from this is that glock uses the thinnest/cheapest materials possible- just look at their sights. I own a lone wolf custom glock 41. It's my only glock left and it's a fun gun. But it's no m&p 45.
Not nearly as accurate.
Funny grip angle
Feels like a 2x4
But it's fun to shoot.
 
So.. I don't stick my guns in rests. I don't bench them either. If I can't shoot it well, be it me or the gun, then I don't need it. It gets sold/traded.

Can't speak for whatever that side pressure is but don't put vises around mine. I just shoot the snot out of them. When one actually breaks then I'll be concerned about material thickness. Until then it can be paper thin as long as it shoots in my HAND and continues to be reliable. If militaries around the world don't seem to have a problem using them as hammers then the thickness must not play a big role

Grips? That's subjective and has no place in discussion about function. I personally LOVE them. They fill my hand and they point naturally

You're right, definitely no M&P45. I sold all those off long ago

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Glocks are by far the most sensitive (thinnest plastic) when it comes to pressure a little too much and no trigger reset, that is if it fires..
So what we can take away from this is that glock uses the thinnest/cheapest materials possible- just look at their sights.

So, if I'm following along correctly here, your sole evaluation of a Glock's performance/durability/viability is that, having no idea of the differences/similarities between the different "plastic" materials, that Glock's is thinner, and therefore inferior.

My titanium camping coffee mug takes umbrage at that comment . . .
 
Arik. Very simple the packaging shows the extent glock will go to to save a penny. As for a ransom rest also very simple. It showed my m&p's were more accurate than my glocks.
As for flexing a ransom rest simulates a hand gripping the pistol. To hold it during firing. Glocks are so ultra thin they are by far the most sensitive to pressure in the ransom. barely any pressure and the pistol a . Won't fire or b. Won't reset. What this tells us is that glock uses the ultra thinnest plastic possible to save a penny. Just look at their sights. If you like glocks by all means shoot them. I still have a lone wolf custom g41 it's fun to shoot . But I like my m&p 45 better
 
The point is, the Glock frame is engineered to bare minimums, yet it maintains structural integrity in actual use. Some of us like our guns “built like a tank”, even if it’s not really necessary.
 
The point is, the Glock frame is engineered to bare minimums, yet it maintains structural integrity in actual use. Some of us like our guns “built like a tank”, even if it’s not really necessary.

I teach welding and airframe construction to amateur airplane builders. I have two sayings for them.

"If it's right, it's scary light"
"Anything eyeballed engineered is 10 times too strong (= heavy)"

I don't want to carry weight for no good reason. If the polymer frame can flex to absorb recoil and reduce weight besides I consider that a win-win.
 
Arik. Very simple the packaging shows the extent glock will go to to save a penny. As for a ransom rest also very simple. It showed my m&p's were more accurate than my glocks.
As for flexing a ransom rest simulates a hand gripping the pistol. To hold it during firing. Glocks are so ultra thin they are by far the most sensitive to pressure in the ransom. barely any pressure and the pistol a . Won't fire or b. Won't reset. What this tells us is that glock uses the ultra thinnest plastic possible to save a penny. Just look at their sights. If you like glocks by all means shoot them. I still have a lone wolf custom g41 it's fun to shoot . But I like my m&p 45 better

Do you buy TV's that come in wooden crates or ones that come in cardboard boxes? What do you do with those cardboard boxes afterwards? What the box tells me is it's a mode of transportation. If I can save and $25 I'd gladly take my gun in a brown bag. It's going to go into the trash within 10 minutes of buying. At best it'll get lost somewhere in the basement for ever and ever. I don't understand why I should pay more money than necessary on a transport box.

If ransom simulates hand gripping than the guns shouldn't function at all. It's amazing that despite being ultra thin they still work after being thrown out of helicopters, frozen, shot at, ran over, blown up, set on fire. Why is it still working after having ran 1000 rounds of continuous full auto fire? The ultra thin frame should have warped and or melted.

I simply look at history of performance. Despite whatever it looks like in a rest it still works
 
Last edited:
My last two s&w wheelguns came in cardboard boxes. I guess that means they are cheap junk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vba
The Glock 19 is the perfect compromise between small size for concealed carry and large enough to be comfortable and easy to shoot/manipulate. The original M&P fell on either side of that. The full size was/is a great gun, but many found it larger than they wanted when carrying. The compact was/is an easy gun to conceal, but not as easy to manipulate for regular shooting.

S&W made a smart move when they came out with the M&P Compact 2.0. It is almost exactly the same size as the G19. I also see it as a superior design. Of course that is open to debate if you want to start another thread.

However, what's really challenging Glock is not the 2.0, but the Shield. The Shield has taken the handgun world by storm. I don't know of any small/tiny gun that is a direct competitor. All the others on the market either have terrible triggers or serious reliability problems.

Glock still commands a large part of the market and has a serious cult following. That cult following can't sustain them alone. They have recently bowed to the market by offering interchangeable back straps and the MOS. If they don't continue to innovate, they will fall behind. I don't think they're stupid. They will innovate, but so far, what they've put out is lack luster.
 
Mister x glock makes their pistols out of the same thin plastic as their boxes. Hell glock doesn't even bother with a cutout in the box . A flap of foam with all the junk rammed in their. Not very impressive. As for your wheelguns . I would hope s&w would at least put revolvers in a padded case and then in the box. Like ruger does with their lcr's. However we are talking glock /mp. here. Bottom line shoot what you like. They will all get the job done defensively.
 
However, what's really challenging Glock is not the 2.0, but the Shield. The Shield has taken the handgun world by storm.

I wouldn't say the World. Outside of the U.S., how many Shields are being sold? And here it seems to be popular primarily with novices. And consider military & police use worldwide of Glock vs S&W M&P. There's simply no comparison.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vba
The Glock 19 is the perfect compromise between small size for concealed carry and large enough to be comfortable and easy to shoot/manipulate. The original M&P fell on either side of that. The full size was/is a great gun, but many found it larger than they wanted when carrying. The compact was/is an easy gun to conceal, but not as easy to manipulate for regular shooting.

S&W made a smart move when they came out with the M&P Compact 2.0. It is almost exactly the same size as the G19. I also see it as a superior design. Of course that is open to debate if you want to start another thread.

However, what's really challenging Glock is not the 2.0, but the Shield. The Shield has taken the handgun world by storm. I don't know of any small/tiny gun that is a direct competitor. All the others on the market either have terrible triggers or serious reliability problems.

Glock still commands a large part of the market and has a serious cult following. That cult following can't sustain them alone. They have recently bowed to the market by offering interchangeable back straps and the MOS. If they don't continue to innovate, they will fall behind. I don't think they're stupid. They will innovate, but so far, what they've put out is lack luster.
Agreed on all except the last point...well mostly.

I dislike "innovation" or rather add ons. It's one thing to come up with a completely different design. Like let's say the new Hudson H9. It's definitely innovative whether you actually like it or not. However, good gun companies are usually good when they make one or two things. When they start changing things up is when you get issues. Sig was great when they only made 226/220. Then they branched out to a hundred different options in 59 different finishes and their quality started to suffer. At one point they had almost 30 versions of 226 in 9mm. Glock was great when all they made were their base models. Once they got into changing things that's when problems started. The extractor problem of 2010, the MOS problem with screws walking out, now the problem with gen5 finish flaking off the internals and causing triggers to bind, rear sights being way off. Now they're coming out with a X version which is a 19 slide and a 17 frame. Why? It does nothing a +2 mag adaptor doesn't do to a 19. And most people who conceal carry that style of gun would rather have a longer slide and a shorter frame.

If you have a design that works leave it alone. If you want to add a different model fine but leave well enough alone.

Now when I look at guns such as Glock or Sig I only buy the old ones.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
 
Now they're coming out with a X version which is a 19 slide and a 17 frame. Why? It does nothing a +2 mag adaptor doesn't do to a 19. And most people who conceal carry that style of gun would rather have a longer slide and a shorter frame.

I thought the same thing when Sig came out with the 320 "Carry" which also has a 4 inch barrel slide with a 17 round grip. Apparently this size gun is popular with police that spend a lot of time riding in cars. The shorter barrel makes it more comfortable while driving and concealment is not an issue. Glock probably wants to make sure they have all the bases covered when it comes to law enforcement sales.

As a civilian I agree that a Glock 19 size gun makes more sense.
 
I dislike "innovation" or rather add ons.
Well, I think you're using "innovation" differently than I am. "Add ons" are not innovation. That's just lipstick on a pig if you ask me. No, being innovative is what S&W did with the 2.0 trigger. They took an OK trigger and completely changed the trigger bar to sear connection and made it better. With the M&P in general, they took a polymer frame and embedded a steel sub frame, that's innovative.

The original Glock was innovative. Until the G43, they didn't do anything innovative and even the G43 is just a variation on the same old design.

So, what I meant was that Glock needs to be innovative to continue in their dominance. Like Harley Davidson, they sat on their laurels for a long time and their cult following won't carry them forever.

In truth though, the M&P 2.0 Compact is the first direct competitor to the G19. I'm curious to see if it will really give the G19 a run for its money.


I also agree that changing the flagship is not the right idea. When Gibson released the Les Paul guitar, it quickly became their best seller. When they said they were going to "improve" the design, Les Paul said, "If you open a hot dog stand and it does well, you don't change it to a hamburger stand. You open another stand down the street and change that one." Don't mess with success.
 
I thought the same thing when Sig came out with the 320 "Carry" which also has a 4 inch barrel slide with a 17 round grip. Apparently this size gun is popular with police that spend a lot of time riding in cars. The shorter barrel makes it more comfortable while driving and concealment is not an issue. Glock probably wants to make sure they have all the bases covered when it comes to law enforcement sales.

As a civilian I agree that a Glock 19 size gun makes more sense.

The full size Glocks(primarily the 17 and 22) have been the choice for a very large number of police departments for a long time. If there has been frequent ongoing complaints about the length, it's news to me. The Glock 19's slide is only .47" shorter than the Glock 17's.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top