Is the m&p as good as the glock?

[10mmfan]

So I recently started accepting glocks and even liking them and have pretty much retired most of my da/sa pistols. The glocks just kind of work for me. But I recently handled a 2.0 m&p and its a full size pistol not a compact but it feels significantly less bulky overall especially in the grip area and i like the way it ejects mags better than the glocks i have. And this one had an apex metal trigger unit that seems to be great. Is there anything to worry about with the m&p pistols? Are they as tough and durable as the glocks? Was there anything wrong with the original m&p pistols that needed corrected and thats why there is 2.0? It seems like the pretty perfect glocks may be getting overshadowed by the smith guns at least in the hands of people who biy the guns as opposed to being agency or department issued? I am sure i will get some good info on here.

 

[danielson]

I mean, most modern well known handguns are pretty good.
Glock isn't magic anymore.

Glock was awesome 30 years ago, but so many have copied and even improved on their "perfection".

I carry a glock most of the time so I am not being rude to Glock, they still deserve alot of credit for their history, but recently they have not innovated at all.

Go to a rental range and shoot as many as you can.

The ONLY reason I carry a glock is because I naturally shot it better than the others I tried.

I actually didnt want one because of the fanboi bs, but it pointed well FOR ME.

Find the carry gun that points and shoots well for you.

You will know it when you find one that doesn't require as much effort from you to shoot well.

 

[10mmfan]

I mean, most modern well known handguns are pretty good.
Glock isn't magic anymore.

Glock was awesome 30 years ago, but so many have copied and even improved on their "perfection".

I carry a glock most of the time so I am not being rude to Glock, they still deserve alot of credit for their history, but recently they have not innovated at all.

Go to a rental range and shoot as many as you can.

The ONLY reason I carry a glock is because I naturally shot it better than the others I tried.

I actually didnt want one because of the fanboi bs, but it pointed well FOR ME.

Find the carry gun that points and shoots well for you.

You will know it when you find one that doesn't require as much effort from you to shoot well.

Well my glocks are working and i have gotten sights that work better for me and vickers mag and slide release installed. And they shoot good for me i just think my hand might like the m&p better. I also like how well the steel m&p mags eject when you hit the mag release versus the glocks that i have learned to rotate approximately 70 degrees pretty harshly when ejecting the mag like the polymer frame and mag have an attraction to each other. But i carried sigs and 1911 for years before even buying a glock much less carrying one however dropping a mag in my pocket and gun in a low profile holster and heading out is better than with sigs or 1911 where i had holster and double mag pouch on other side constantly.

 

[jwamplerusa]

I like the M&P 2.0 platform. Have a 4" compact and 5" pro series. They simply feel better in my hand. Frankly I can shoot the Glock gen 3 about as well as the M&P but I enjoy shooting the Smith more.

My M&Ps have been just as reliable as the Glock, and have far more rounds through them.

If there is a downside to the Smith's, it is aftermarket support.

 

[gregr]

I mean, most modern well known handguns are pretty good.
Glock isn't magic anymore.

Glock was awesome 30 years ago, but so many have copied and even improved on their "perfection".

I carry a glock most of the time so I am not being rude to Glock, they still deserve alot of credit for their history, but recently they have not innovated at all.

Go to a rental range and shoot as many as you can.

The ONLY reason I carry a glock is because I naturally shot it better than the others I tried.

I actually didnt want one because of the fanboi bs, but it pointed well FOR ME.

Find the carry gun that points and shoots well for you.

You will know it when you find one that doesn't require as much effort from you to shoot well.

"They haven`t innovated at all"...

It`s just personal preference, but I love Glocks, and they`re almost all I ever carry. I don`t know what "innovation" could be expected, and in fact, I partially like the Glocks because basically, whichever generation I have, they shoot, feel and operate the same.

 

[Bigtanker]

The first gen M&P have really mushy triggers. The 2.0 are better by a good margin. Other than that, not a bunch has changed. They are workhorses.

I recently purchased a 2.0 Pro Series CORE 4.5" 9mm. I haven't had a whole lot of time to shoot it yet. I'll be putting it through it's paces and then adding a red dot eventually.

They also have the "standard" grip angle vs. the more upright angle of the G**** that some folks don't like.

 

[Ballstater98]

I really can't like the M&P triggers and grip. I've tried many times picking one up wanting to like it, even when they were uber cheap. Just not for me. I have many pistols, just not in that line.

Now, do they fit the needs of many, yes. Can't go wrong either way, but it's a preference thing IMHO.

 

[Chewie]

I have the gen 1 m&p's and yes the trigger sucked. I have put the Apex duty/carry triggers on all 3 without the lighter spring and I am very happy with them now. For me the grip is very 1911ish and points naturally (I carry both and all have the manual safety). Never had an issue with any of them of any kind.
Get what feels the best in your hand and you can shoot well.

 

[danielson]

"They haven`t innovated at all"...

It`s just personal preference, but I love Glocks, and they`re almost all I ever carry. I don`t know what "innovation" could be expected, and in fact, I partially like the Glocks because basically, whichever generation I have, they shoot, feel and operate the same.

Curious that you chose to not include "recently" in your quote of my text.

They innovated and changed the world several times, and as I said, they deserve more credit than most manufacturers for that.

But they have not innovated in decades.
They make the same stuff over and over, and that's fine, because it's good, but they are clearly just banking on their past innovation.

They are LITERALLY the opposite of KelTec.

KelTec innovates to the point of giving themselves a bad reputation, even though they have created alot of products copied by others who get the credit for that innovation (Best example lately the P365).

Glock doesn't innovate at all, but because of that, we know their products are good.

Why does it bother you?
I didn't say they should stop making their flagship guns, I own most of them... I carry Glocks almost every day.

Imagine if Glock would have put their minds to a PCC.
Or a battle rifle.

They are the base model Toyota Corolla of the firearms world, and bless them for that.
But even Toyota knows they need to innovate.

 

[Route 45]

Was there anything wrong with the original m&p pistols that needed corrected and thats why there is 2.0?

Well, there are 5 generations of Glocks, so...

They'll get it right one of these days.

Seriously, though...most modern striker fired pistols from the major brands are not only just as good as Glocks, but better in many ways. If you have carried Sigs and 1911s for years, the grip angle and feel of an M&P will likley feel a lot more natural to you than a Glock.

Personally, I think the M&P 2.0 triggers are better than the Gen 5 Glock triggers, and that especially goes for the new Shield Plus. But I say that while owning both M&Ps and Glocks, so I don't consider the difference in triggers to be life-changing or profound or anything. Just a crisper, less mushy feel. I also like the curved, hinged trigger on the M&P better than the Glock trigger with a safety dingus. Both will certainly get the job done, though, and aftermarket triggers are available for both if one wants some improvement over stock.
I do enjoy shooting my M&Ps more than my Glocks, because of the natural pointability of the M&P's grip angle and feel. For me, recoil mitigation is also better in the M&P, likely because of the more natural ergonomics. As you noted, the M&P mags drop free more readily. And while no one can rival Glock for aftermarket support, most common accessories like holsters, night sights, etc. are pretty much the same availability between the 2 platforms.

 

[tmcindy]

Ever since their patent ran out, everyone has been copying Glock.

 

[Route 45]

Imagine if Glock would have put their minds to a PCC.
Or a battle rifle.

I'm not sure how a PCC or battle rifle that says "Glock" on it would be any better than what's currently available.

Their latest minds came up with a .22 pistol that is widely considered to be inferior to the Taurus TX22.

A Taurus!

I don't ever expect anything from Glock except another Glock. Which means it's time to get the bandsaw out and create their latest "new" model.

 

[Route 45]

Ever since their patent ran out, everyone has been copying Glock.

Aside from PSA with their Dagger, there are a handful of companies whose sole business is Glock Gen 3 knock-offs.
But no, "everyone," including every major pistol manufacturer, is definitely not "copying Glock."

 

[BehindBlueI's]

M&P is fine, with one exception. 1st gen 9mm often had issues that resulted in horrendous accuracy. The 1st gen .40 and .45 was fine, and not every 9mm sucked but you're rolling the dice to get a good one. The Shield is an excellent gun, arguably one of the best value propositions on the market and an ideal compromise size of small enough to conceal easily but big enough to shoot competently. Just avoid the manual safety version, the ergonomics are subpar. Full size M&Ps get a proper thumb safety if you want that for some reason, the Shield's little tab is to be avoided.

The 2.0 is a significant upgrade, IMO, but if one is already invested in Glock there's no real benefit to swapping. Or vice versa.

 

[Squid556]

I’ve owned both. While marginally the smith is better built, I prefer the Glock for the affordable mags and aftermarket support. The 2.0 is quite an improvement over gen 1. Only thing I did not like was the overly aggressive grip texture. Other than that I love that series. Would not hesitate to buy another, probably a 4 inch compact if I had to do it again. They work in the mud i found out

I got over the Glock grip angle by using it a lot. Now it’s natural for me and I have lots of mags stashed here and there.

 

[NyleRN]

M&Ps are just fine. I wouldn't have any qualms if I couldn't have any Glocks and my next choice was M&P. I have many glocks and I shoot them with combat effectiveness. I always state my daily carry is my P365X but realistically it would technically be my gen 1 Shield in 9mm. I work 4 days a week and carry it those days and off 3 days and carry the Sig on those days. I have around 1K rounds through the Shield. Bought it in 2015. Never had a malfunction. It's certainly a trustworthy pistol for defensive purposes. But I still like glocks for the common usage among the people and inexpensive mags/parts

 

[Jaybird1980]

The M&P pistols are fine pistols.
I do like the ergonomics better than my Glocks. If I wasn't already invested in the Glocks I would probably have M&Ps.

If I could trade my Glocks and mags straight up for M&P 2.0s and mags I would probably do it.

 

[NHT3]

If I have my pants on I'm carrying a Glock. That has been the case for years but they do refuse to innovate. Take a good look at the Shadow systems guns, they demonstrate some of the simple innovations that Glock could have come up with and IMHO they may have out Glocked Glock.
As others mentioned, a glaring example is the Taurus TX22 has a reliable 16 round mag and the Sig P 322 has a reliable 20 round mag. I have one of each so I'm comfortable saying that.
I find the grip very blocky on a Glock but it can be greatly improved ergonomically with contouring and stippling. They could do better (Shadow systems did) but they seem to have their heads where the sun doesn't shine most of the time.

To answer the original question the M&P is first rate equipment that in every respect is as reliable as a Glock.
I was impressed when I completely disassembled a couple of Coach's M&Ps several years ago. I have no idea how many thousand rounds down range but there was something akin to STP in the frame around the trigger but he wasn't having any mechanical issues with either. M&Ps are good to go and if it fits you hand better and points naturally for you that would be my suggested direction.
As a side note, as dismal as the original Shield was the Shield plus is light years ahead and an example of what innovation through generations should look like. Again just my

 

[Kirk Freeman]

*shrug* It's a COTS gun, it failed miserably in the MHS, but, as the lawyers say, it is usually a distinction without difference for most owners, who shoot it a couple of times a year.

Glock 19/17/45 are solid guns, tough, reliable, easy to work on, mags everywhere, but this is America and America is about choices.

 

[NyleRN]

*shrug* It's a COTS gun, it failed miserably in the MHS, but, as the lawyers say, it is usually a distinction without difference for most owners, who shoot it a couple of times a year.

Glock 19/17/45 are solid guns, tough, reliable, easy to work on, mags everywhere, but this is America and America is about choices.

Meh, glocks failed quite a bit too during the FBI trials in the '90s when the LEO departments asked them to review side arms so they could make the best choice for their departments. But I'm pretty these 5 guys had something to do with it
Man
Nip
You
Lay
Shun
FBI already knew what they wanted to convey to LEO as their choice before the testing began