Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Yet another: Glock vs. M&P--what's the pros and cons?

M&Ps are utterly reliable, that "I heard" schit is the same schit you hear at gun stores and shows. 99% is bullschit.

I have heard the same thing and have yet to see any evidence that it's true, typical glock worshipers

With some guns, I might agree on the shooters being a problem, but I've recently trained a couple of women on the M&P, one being a complete novice shooter moving up from a 22, & neither of them experienced any kind of malfunctions at all; small sample, but likely worse case than the cadets.

It's generally been my experience with Glocks as well, that these type guns are far, far, less sensitive to shooter's grips & limp wristing compared to, say a 1911.......I also think it's somewhat over-rated there as well, assuming the gun is set up right in the 1st place (which many are not).

JMHO.

MM

Find a coin. Then flip it.



Travis

�..last question first�.yes the SR9 belongs in the conversation particularly if you have small hands or are getting the gun for your wife/daughter/son/etc. I personally don't like anything made by Ruger, but it's just a mindless prejudice on my part BUT the SR9 has proven to be more comfortable and shootable in woman's classes that I've taught than either M&P's or Glocks (9mm). The only unforgivable feature is a magazine safety.

I had (past tense) an early M&P 9mm that I sent to Bowie Tactical along with a .45 M&P (which I still have) to be "tuned" (trigger job, polished feed ramp, stipple, new sights, etc/etc.). They are both wonderfully reliable guns that feel great ergonomically. The 9 however wouldn't shoot into Minute-of-Buick beyond 20 yards----I had the barrel recrowned which shrunk the group down to Minute-of-Vokswagon, but still didn't group worth a darn----the .45 was better; not great but better. I sent the 9 down the road and have stayed with Glocks in 9mm. I'm not a raving lunatic, at least not about Glocks, but they're equally reliable and the ones that I have have been much more accurate than either of the M&P's that I have (or had). My guess is that the Performance Center and/or Pro-Series M&P's would be fantastic. Quite honestly, my M&P may have been an anomaly.

The striker-fired 9mm that has me intrigued is the Sig 320---the word I've gotten from two people that own them is that they're spooky-accurate right out of the box. These are guys that are/were street cops, firearms trainers and competitive shooters---not tyros.

Does anyone here have experience with the 320??

��observed an interesting phenomena at this years "Zombies in the Heartland" shoot that Hornady runs��a young lady/firearms instructor that I know (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxofTuV-JTATYj8zlcabx3w) was shooting her uber-reliable Glock 34. One stage required shooting over a wall that was about 4 1/2 feet tall. Without noticeably altering her grip, she rested her hands/butt of the gun on the top of the wall to shoot----every single shot short-stroked the slide--she lifted her hands off the wall, the gun worked great; moved to another position, put her hands on the wall and the gun short-stroked again. After about 7 or 8 tap-rack-bangs, she caught on and didn't use the wall for a rest. The gun didn't hiccup at all, before or after. I would have never thought that a Glock would be that sensitive, but in this case the attenuated recoil (or whatever it was) REALLY caused a problem.

The possum cops here in Kentucky tried the .40 M&Ps, but they had a lot of issues, too, and went to Glocks in the same chambering, after fighting with S&W about the problems had. The possum cops I overheard talking about them didn't like them even a little bit, and would have preferred keeping their 4566s, but that wasn't an option.

They never told me exactly what the issues with with .40 M&Ps were, but only that they'd had a lot of trouble with them.

This Post adds nothing aside the Artistic Value Factor...

Those are the reports that should be taken with a grain of salt.

"I don't wanna switch guns. My new gun you're trying to force on me doesn't work. I'm angry!" They may have had trouble, but reports of unidentified "problems" with guns that the guys admittedly didn't want to like anyway are hardly fair and balanced reports.

Any good police administrator would make sure the gun he wanted to switch to was the second choice. Then all the whining cops would feel like they had won a battle when he conceded to Gun#2.

Blue, aint that the truth!

I miss my Caprice, these Crown Vics suck!
I hate these new Tauruses, I wish we still had Crown Vics!

Tahoes beat them all

I like my Charger...

I've had a M&P9 for a few years now, switched from a Glock 32. I like Glocks but the 19/32 size doesn't fit my fat fingers. A little sanding and that fixes that though.

As to reliability, I got my M&P used, the original owner said it needed "broken in", I've never had a problem with it in 3000+ rounds. My first a Shield however was a POS and went back to Smith 3 times before I sold it. So I know they are not infallible. My second one and two others I have kept tabs on are perfect.

So basically just grab the one that fits you the best.

I had an M&P 45 from the time they came out. I carried it on duty, shot matches with it, and basically shot the piss out of it. I began to have malfunctions at around the 10,000rd mark. I out a recoil spring in it, and we are off again with no issues. It doesnt get shot much any more, but thats simply because I dont shoot much 45 any more.

From the 45, I went to a Pro Series 5" 9mm, which I am still carrying for going on five years now. This gun has been shot far more than my 45 ever did, and I have yet to have an issue. For me, this gun is perfection. The only problem I have had was that I lost the fiber optic tube from the front sight the third or fourth time I carried it. I switched it out for a standard black front sight, and have done nothing else.

I also have a 9c, but it doesnt have more than a couple of thousand round through it. So far so good. I had a Shield, but found that the 9c isnt any harder to conceal, shoots better, and hold twice the rounds.

I am an M&P armorer, and one thing I like about the guns is the constant improvements the line goes through. S&W really does listen to the end user, and incorporates changes in production, instead of relying on "Generations," with complicated compatibility issues.

That being said, do I think the M&P is a better gun than the Glock? Absolutely not. I do think its better for me, but I sure wouldnt throw a screaming hissy if the chief told me I had to start carrying a Glock tomorrow. I might, however, if I was told I had to carry a .40.

I've never seen a group of more ungrateful, complaining, dysfunctional people in all my days.

Try getting elected as President of an officers association and told to fire the Chief, then actually getting the Chief demoted but not fired (stupid civil service), then getting asked by the City Manager to sit on the boards to hire the next Chief, who then fires the old Chief. You'll go from the most popular- to the least popular-to the hated-to the most popular-to a living legend in just a few months. And when it's done you'll hate everyone you work with. And they'll all wonder what you're gonna do for them tomorrow.

Been there done that, brother. FOP President for a newly formed union in a city where there never was one, and then four years President at another...Never again will I travel that path.

well, there is always...