Is the m&p as good as the glock?

[edporch]

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

I bought some Glocks over the years and though modestly priced, reliable, and utilitarian, I never took to them mostly because of ergonomics.

When I checked out S&W M&P pistols, I instantly liked them better because they fit my hand and had a better natural point of aim.
Over the years I've sold off most of my Glocks.

IN the early production M&P's if memory serves, there were reported issues with striker breakage and the the smaller sear spring (1/16"? later changed to 1/8"?).

Several years back I bought a couple of EARLY production M&P 40 full size police trade-ins for a cheap price.
They functioned fine and I personally had no trouble with them.

But when I read of the reported striker and sear spring issues, I replaced the Sear Housing Block in both of them with the larger 1/8" spring version, and replaced the Striker Assemblies.

BUT, when I replaced the .40SW barrels with OEM .357 Sig barrels, I suddenly had problems with the extractors on both of them.
They would often not grab the empty brass, and the pistol jammed.

I did some research and found that some police departments who had been issued the .357 Sig versions reported this same problem.
So I replaced the extractors in both pistols with Apex Tactical Failure Resistant Extractors.

I STILL ended up money ahead though because I got the pistols so cheap in the first place.
And I now have two reliable sweet shooting M&P .357 Sigs that I don't have a ton of money invested in.

 

[Steve]

Never owned a Glock, so I don't have a dog in this fight. Every time I would look at one and pick it up, I knew instantly that it did not fit my hand and the trigger safety bar was a deal breaker as well. But that is just me. Friends who carry Glocks swear by them. I discovered the M&P line years ago and feel in love. Good fit and super reliable. Now I own 4 of them, all gen 1, and carry a .45 Shield daily. Yes, the 2.0 series has some nice upgraded features, but I don't care for the newer aggressive grip design. But to each their own. So far as the trigger difference goes, if you are looking for a target gun, the 2.0 series is certainly better than the gen 1 series. But for a day to day CC self defense gun, I would not be concerned about it. In a critical situation, you won't notice the difference.

The best recommendation I can give the M&P series is that I trust my life to mine. But you should shoot both a Glock and an M&P and then decide which fits you best. You can't go wrong either way.

 

[amjindiana]

My brother is in law enforcement, and has carried the M&P off-duty while obviously carrying the Glock on-duty. He keeps telling me Glock is where it's at, because in his words "they always work." I have no opinion either way.

 

[Drail]

Oh yeah - GLOCK - the reference standard to which all handguns must be compared. Yawn......

 

[DadSmith]

*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.

That's why if I decided to buy something like a Glock 17 or 19 I'd go with Bul Armory Axe offerings.

 

[snapping turtle]

For ugly striker fired pistols either should do well. Glocks grip angle is wrong for me. I grew up on revolvers and 1911’s. I have a Glock 17L and I can shoot it but it just does not point real well for me. Since the majority of my MAG shoots Glocks I keep it.

Do yourself a favor and try a da/sa auto. If you can master the double action first shot then I think personally they are better pistols.

My take save your cash and buy a P226 or P229.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

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

In the 90s when shooting .40SW in 9mm pistols.

The Glock 17M is for the FBI, FBI has been with Glock for many years.

I really don't care what FBI does, just wanted to point out how hard M&P failed in MHS compared to the Glock.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

That's why if I decided to buy something like a Glock 17 or 19 I'd go with Bul Armory Axe offerings.

Sure, sure, I understand. Like I said snowflake COTS are perfectly fine for a vast majority of civilian uses who choose their own.

And America is about choices.

 

[G192127]

Own alot of Glocks and shoot them well. Just bought a S&W 30 super carry because we need to support all "good" gun mfgs. Plus I applaud their move to Tennessee!

 

[DadSmith]

Sure, sure, I understand. Like I said snowflake COTS are perfectly fine for a vast majority of civilian uses who choose their own.

And America is about choices.

I just like companies that perfect Glocks.
I also like companies that perfect Colt

 

[Peacekeeper3073]

I own, shoot, and carry both. It's all good.

 

[NyleRN]

In the 90s when shooting .40SW in 9mm pistols.

The Glock 17M is for the FBI, FBI has been with Glock for many years.

I really don't care what FBI does, just wanted to point out how hard M&P failed in MHS compared to the Glock.

I have no idea what shooting 40SW in 9mm pistols has to do with what I stated. There was a time when the FBI didn't carry glocks. They had their beloved 3rd gen Smiths in 45 AARP and grandpappy's 1911. I think you missed the point of my post. I'm simply stating guns can fail and tests can be manipulated.

 

[Peacekeeper3073]

I have no idea what shooting 40SW in 9mm pistols has to do with what I stated. There was a time when the FBI didn't carry glocks. They had their beloved 3rd gen Smiths in 45 AARP and grandpappy's 1911. I think you missed the point of my post. I'm simply stating guns can fail and tests can be manipulated.

3in S&W 357's and Sig 226 pistols as well.

 

[knutty]

I started on Glocks and the grip never did feel quite right, trigger not so great, etc. But I shoot them lights out, so much better than any other pistol I've ever fired except for the HK P7.

 

[snapping turtle]

Glock Best trigger SpongeBob SquarePants every invented.

I (like others) rag on Glocks but in reality they swing above their weight class.

Sure the grip angle is more euro, the trigger is a bit sponge like, but if you wanted 4 guns total and the Toyota quality (reliability over looks) for those guns I think a Glock 19, wasr AK, maverick 88 and a 10-22 would be a nice basic 4 that could do it all under 300 meters (I am attempting to be euro here)

 

[Refrigerator27]

I used to have an M&P 9c. Good little gun. S&W has a lifetime warranty which is nice knowing that if anything breaks you can just send it back to them.

Imo it’s just nicer to have a Glock because everyone has Glock mags and that’s become the universal item. I enjoy going to the range and sharing mags with my buddies.

There are also much better striker fired guns out there like the p10c/f series, FN 509, Walther ppq, etc but of course they will cost you. it’s a preference thing so find your preference.

 

[venenoindy]

I had several M&P's and to this day I had more issues with Glock than with M&P's, it's somewhat more complicated design but a good design.

 

[OakRiver]

I have no idea what shooting 40SW in 9mm pistols has to do with what I stated. There was a time when the FBI didn't carry glocks. They had their beloved 3rd gen Smiths in 45 AARP and grandpappy's 1911. I think you missed the point of my post. I'm simply stating guns can fail and tests can be manipulated.

I think TFB TV on the FBI tests of that era, and the Glock's reliability issues were from the slide not locking to the rear on an empty mag. That could have been user error, but it was counted as a failure point.

 

[edporch]

Yes, Glocks are pretty reliable, but they're far from perfect.

I've owned several through the years and had more than one that had some FTF issues.
I even one so bad I had to send a Glock 21 back to Glock because it couldn't even feed one full magazine without jamming.
And that was with EVERY magazine I had.

When I got it back, it was improved but still had problems.
I ended up selling it to a friend and told him the problems I'd had with it.
He ended up having to take it to a gunsmith to get it working properly, as Glock showed they weren't able to fix it.

 

[Route 45]

I really don't care what FBI does, just wanted to point out how hard M&P failed in MHS compared to the Glock.

I cannot find the actual results of any testing during the MHS selection process for the M&P or the Glock. The only information I have been able to come up with is that the M&P did not meet the modularity requirements, which were obviously written for the P320. Do you have a link to test data for the MHS entrants?