S&W vs Glock

I have several Glock pistols, including the documented 137th gun to be imported into the country in 1986. They have all sevred me well over the years, and are great pistols.

That being said, in 2005, I got my first S&W M&P, it now has almost 8,000 rounds through it. I have yet to have a single malfunction with it, or the other five M&Ps I own.

The ergonomics of the M&P are head and shoulders above the Glocks. If I were told I'm going to a bad place, and can only take one pistol, it would be an M&P!!
 
I have a ton of different guns in many calibers, and many platforms... my edc, G17 gen 4. finger grooves ground off, beavertail back strap installed, frame stippled. love my k frames, love my 1911s, love my lcp and Js... the Glock goes bang. it goes bang again and again. I am NOT a Glock guy. had some M&Ps, don't care for them... except for my 9mm Shield. had to do the Apex kit in it. the glock got the ghost sear. the glock is a gun for the masses. it was made to be as safe as the shooter. all guns are inherently dangerous. the owner is the safety, period.
 
I love my G17, but hated my G27. The G27 was the worst felt recoil I have come across on a handgun. I have the Shield which is my EDC, and is a great gun. I don't buy brands, just what works, and is reliable. I really think Glock are losing out by not introducing a single stack 9mm/40 S&W.
 
As much as I like the my M&P and want to like Glocks, there is one striker fired pistol I prefer over both of them. Hands down my money goes on the FN Herstal FNS-9/40 over a full size M&P9/40 or a Glock 17/22. Ergonomics are far superior to the Glock and in some ways better than the M&P. With a 4" barrel it's over all length of 7.25" is closer to the G19 with the same 5.5" height as an M&P9/40 and a 17+1 capacity in 9mm and a 14+1 capacity in 40S&W. The sights are IMHO better than both. and with very smooth pull, crisp 5.5lbs trigger break and reset similar to a Glock you can't go wrong.

img_5528.jpg
 
As much as I like the my M&P and want to like Glocks, there is one striker fired pistol I prefer over both of them. Hands down my money goes on the FN Herstal FNS-9/40 over a full size M&P9/40 or a Glock 17/22. Ergonomics are far superior to the Glock and in some ways better than the M&P. With a 4" barrel it's over all length of 7.25" is closer to the G19 with the same 5.5" height as an M&P9/40 and a 17+1 capacity in 9mm and a 14+1 capacity in 40S&W. The sights are IMHO better than both. and with very smooth pull, crisp 5.5lbs trigger break and reset similar to a Glock you can't go wrong.

img_5528.jpg

I prefer the FNS trigger over the Glock's. I think the FNS has a better reset and lighter trigger pull than a factory Glock.
 
I don't see the trigger issue as being a major factor versus the Glock in 5 minutes. I can put in a 3.5 lb comp trigger in a Glock for $25. If you are talking M&P and spending $100 on Apex, there's a serious argument for the FN vs M&P.
 
Now don't get me wrong, I love my M&P's but I have to say my first ever Glock just purchased shoots better than my M&P 9c or I should say I shoot better with it. The crown on my 9c looks like a 2nd grader with a can opener did the machining, the crown on my new Glock 17 Gen 3 is a thing of beauty in comparison. The trigger on my Glock is very smooth, my 9c is not bad but has a notchy feeling to it so by the time I add a $90.00 Apex trigger to it the scale starts tipping towards Glock. I've only had the Glock for a couple of weeks but have already learned how to remove the firing pin, the extractor plunger the extractor and firing pin block without having to remove any roll pins or sights as you do with the M&P. With that said I still love them both.
 
Glocks are great but if your talking about personal protection and not duty carry, I lean toward having a J-Frame nearby. I've seen Glocks fail many times over the years due to operator error or hardware breakage. You wont limp wrist a J-Frame while some BG is choking the snot out of you, the springs last way past 5000 rounds, and you can leave them loaded forever and they still fire reliably.
 
I'm surprised at how many people bash Glocks but really have no clue in the story behind this game changing gun. For those interested, read on...

- The Glock was designed mostly by the Austrian Military, specifically two officers. They contracted out Gaston Glock who at the time was just a contractor that made plastic handles for the military knives. Austria did not want to buy the military guns outside their own country. So they gave Gaston a chance.

- The Glock's grip angle was designed so that a soldier could point the weapon in dark or if his eyesight was damaged and still fire with some accuracy. This was a requirement by the military. The angle mimics pointing your index finger. Try it sometime…

- The Glock is first and foremost a firearm specifically designed for the military as a combat weapon. Law enforcement and civilians had nothing to do with it.

- The rise of Glock in the US had more to do with an American that brought the gun here and sold it to Law enforcement. Gaston had very little to do with it.

- As a side note, when Glock started eating everyone's lunch when the G17 hit… the CEO of S&W had everyone his conference table and was trying to get ideas on what to do. No one had any ideas so finally he is quoted as saying "Just COPY THE MOTHER F@##@@ !!!" They did actually, which resulted in a lawsuit.

Glock or M&P ? Both are great guns. Get the one you shoot best.
 
Hmmm....I'm still reading comments about brass to face. Maybe those are with older guns, I don't know. I haven't really been following the issue, since I've come to accept that Glocks (other than the 36) just don't feel good in my hand...not even the Gen4 models.

I'd rather have the M&P45c than the Glock 36, since it feels more comfortable and carries two more rounds. I'm patiently waiting for the Shield .45!

Shield .45 - What about the XDs .45?
 
Let's be perfectly blunt & honest here: all modern polymer-framed autos are copies of Glocks. Period.
I'm a confirmed Glock guy. I think the design, manufacturing techniques, materials, quality control, simplicity, reliability and durability of Glocks completely changed the game.
But some companies have caught up and, yes, perhaps surpassed the Austrian design.
The Shield, IMHO, is one such example. In fact the entire M&P line may also now supersede the original. I don't have enough experience with them to judge. But I am impressed with the Shield.
 
Quote from another forum:

Many of the Glock "firsts" were based on other earlier models by other companies.

The Remington Nylon 66 was the first polymer firearm, long before Glocks were introduced.

Heckler and Koch VP70 made the first striker fired polymer firearm in 1970, a full 10 years before Glock produced one.

The trigger safety on the Glocks was first found on the Iver Johnson's Arms and Cycle Works revolvers in the early 1900's.

There really are very few truly new things under the sun in the firearms industry.

Of course John Browning's design is the basis of our modern semi auto's.
 
Quote from another forum:

Many of the Glock "firsts" were based on other earlier models by other companies.

The Remington Nylon 66 was the first polymer firearm, long before Glocks were introduced.

Heckler and Koch VP70 made the first striker fired polymer firearm in 1970, a full 10 years before Glock produced one.

The trigger safety on the Glocks was first found on the Iver Johnson's Arms and Cycle Works revolvers in the early 1900's.

There really are very few truly new things under the sun in the firearms industry.

Of course John Browning's design is the basis of our modern semi auto's.
All of the above is true. But Glock was the first to marry all those disparate items into one comprehensive, simple and robust design.
It was sheer genius. I was around when the G17 was first introduced and, believe me, it sparked a revolution.
 
Quote from another forum:

Many of the Glock "firsts" were based on other earlier models by other companies.

The Remington Nylon 66 was the first polymer firearm, long before Glocks were introduced.

Heckler and Koch VP70 made the first striker fired polymer firearm in 1970, a full 10 years before Glock produced one.

The trigger safety on the Glocks was first found on the Iver Johnson's Arms and Cycle Works revolvers in the early 1900's.

There really are very few truly new things under the sun in the firearms industry.

Of course John Browning's design is the basis of our modern semi auto's.

True but Glock pistols ride in majority of LEO holsters in the USA not to mention several military units around the world. Lockback's statement is accurate in that Glock perfected MODERN day "Combat Tupperware"...
 
They ride in our holsters because of nothing more than contracts giving to our departments offering deep discounts. If popularity or numbers alone meant anything the Beretta 92 would easily beat those numbers in government contracts. While both are good pieces of hardware one is not inherently better than the other. I like all guns that work and have a nice collection including all major manufacturers. I also have two Taurus pistols which just work all the time. My G27 is a beast to shoot but fun.
 
To the original post..
I own a G35/trl1 added(hd) and G27(edc). I have owned in the the past a g21(grip to big) and g23(no need for it due to g27). I just bought a Pro CORE 40L and a 40c. I find both are equal as far as accuracy and trigger for what they are. The M&P has a better grip and points better and easier to get on target as for 40sw goes and will start carrying the 40c. Buy what fits your hand and is comfortable to shoot.
 
Back
Top