G19 versus M&P 4"

In real world use, what are the pros and cons of each for self-defense, carry, and accessories? This would be the only one, so it'd have to work for everything and be easy to deal with, easy to fix, and easy to swap parts.

Does the Ruger SR9 belong in the conversation at all?

"G" comes before "M" in the alphabet.

G19 is lighter (if that matters to you).

The S&W has the better warranty.

The reality is that YOU have to like the weapon and COMMIT to proficiency with it. So subjectivity is important - how it feels, how it points, how the trigger feels, etc.

Cause if you don't like it, it will become a safe queen until you sell it.

The best thing you can do is find a range that rents guns to try out. Or find some buddies with an assortment of pistols.

None of the tier 1 manufacturers make "bad" pistols, and if they do then you'll read about it in the reviews.

IMO, 99% of "self defense" is what takes place between your ears and the particular weapon is a nit.

All three are good pistols. Good advise dla, try them if possible or at least handle them side by side at a shop. For me, the Ruger was the best handling and the SR9C was the most versatile. Everyone's different, the Glock and S&W certainly have the pedigree.

I am a Smith & Wesson and a Ruger Fan. I also like the idea of buying American. But the G19 is compact done right. Just me.............If full size, go with the Smith or the Ruger. If smaller is your idea, go Glock 19.

Texas Dept. of Public Saftey got a shipment of M&P's for their last State Trooper Academy. I heard that there was almost a 40 % failure rates on those issued.

Personally, I'll stick with my Glocks. They are the Energizer Bunny of Pistols.
They just seem to keep on going, going, going, no matter what you do to them.

I'm fairly open minded. I like Ruger and M&P.

I'd take the Ruger P-95 or the Ruger SR9 over the M&P. The Ruger will be cheaper and IMO, more reliable than the M&P

I love my S&W Revolvers. But the only S&W autoloader I would own would be a S&W 1006.

I didn't realize that the M&P were not reliable. That would be a big point in the discussion, as it would be the first criteria.

Our local city PD really wanted to buy the M&P to replace 20+ year old 5906's. Smith sent them several for evaluation. They had all kinds of failures, I have a friend on the evaluation team. They returned several and even the replacements gave problems. They eventually settled on the G-17.

Can't confirm this, just internet rumors so take it for what it is worth, but I've read the M&P's in 9mm are the ones with issues. the M&P's in 40 are rumored to be much better.

I find the triggers to have quite a different feel. I chose the S&W for that reason alone. Smith has improved the trigger since I got mine. Some guys think it's even better.

Early M&P's had a high "dead trigger" rate that has since been corrected. That could be what chlinstructor is referring to.

Had the S&W and the Glock (both in 45 acp). No problems with either, equally accurate. Preferred the S&W due mainly to ergonomics (has three backstraps to fit it to your hand, apparently the Glock does now too though), S&W's can be had with a manual safety if you like that... easily removable if you don't, the S&W has a more robust front sight mount (dovetailed), The S&W is blackened Stainless while the Glock is carbon steel... probably not an issue unless you're coastal, both are easy to work on (completely tear down), though there are aftermarket parts for the S&W... you can build a Glock from aftermarket parts only. Try both and see what works for you.

Jerry

Nothing against the trigger.

I was referring to the alarming failure rate of brand new batch of S&W M&P 9mm's issued to our largest State LEO Agency in a recent Trooper Academy. They all got returned to S&W.
Texas DPS went back to using their old worn out Sig Sauer Pistols.

S&W is not alone... Glock has had their share of problems also. If your Smith doesn't work they will make it right.

Jerry

I have both.

As some have said, you really need to shoot them as they feel different in the hand & the triggers also feel different..........neither is bad, they are just different.

Out of the box, I give the feel of the trigger edge to the M&P, but a little work on the Glock makes it just fine (to me) too, in fact, I think better.

I've never had a failure of any kind with either gun; overall, for my taste, feel & pointing, I prefer the G-19.

I've changed out the serrated trigger for a smooth one & tuned the connector & trigger spring, added straight 8 night sites........pretty sweet gun now.

MM

I'll try and come back later but I flat out don't believe the TXDPS line about their M&P failures. The whole story reeks of intra-department politics and dick measuring.

I have experience with three 9mm M&P's, a Compact, a Fullsize and a 5" Pro Series. Approximately 8K assorted rounds fired and not a single malfunction of any sort.

Disclaimer, I'm wholeheartedly in the M&P camp. That being said, this is really a Chevy vs. Ford argument. Definitely shoot them both as they'll fit you very differently. If you like the ergonomics of them both, flip a coin.

There are holsters, sights and accessories available out the wazoo for them both.

I've been around a buttload of M&Ps without issues. But some have had problems, just like the Gen4 Glocks had bugs to fix. Buy one, shoot it. If it's bad, they'll make it right.

Reference the TXDPS issue:
First of all, DPS hasn't "dropped" the M&P. They're simply issuing Sigs they had in stock while they work out the issue with S&W. Which makes sense, it'd be absurd to postpone and backlog cadet training while waiting on S&W to troubleshoot the problem.


DPS claims that they experienced "malfunctions" and "movement". Let's talk about each of those.

1-Malfunctions
What's the cause of the VAST majority of malfunctions in auto pistols? Magazines. And behind that, ammo.

When DPS experienced their malfunctions there were other reports coming out about bad magazines from S&W, who had added a second supplier of followers. Those followers were later found to be a cause of malfunctions.

I've also heard that ammo may be a contributing factor, from someone that I'd expect to know. The story is that when DPS did their initial T&E of the M&P they used standard 9mm ammo. Then when they decided to proceed with the transition they ordered some really hot loaded 9mm, in an effort to mimic the performance of their old .357Sig load. The guns weren't sprung for the hotter ammo and malfunctions followed.

And all of the malfunctions occurred with cadets (new shooters). It's not uncommon for shooters to induce malfunctions through a weak or improper grip.

I don't doubt they had malfunctions. But when I see someone have a malfunction with an autoloader I look at the magazines, the ammo, the shooter and in a distant last place...the gun.

2-Movement
DPS said that they experienced "movement of less than 10 microns" in the pistols. This is what I simply call BS on.

A piece of copy paper is roughly 100 microns thick. So take a sheet of paper, slice into TEN equally thick pieces of paper. LESS than one of those new pieces of paper is how much "movement" DPS claims they found.

GIMME. A. BREAK.

One-I don't thick the guys running the range in Florence, Texas have the capability to measure less than 10 microns of movement.

Two-In order for them to know that there was less than 10 micros of movement, they'd've had to actually measure and document the dimensions of each of the 114 pistols issued in the class. And how would they have known to measure the precise part that "moved" to a level of less than 10 microns of accuracy before issuing the pistol and then known to measure that particular part afterwards?

Three-The M&Ps aren't super tight 1911 bullseye guns. I've completely stripped and done trigger work on two M&Ps this week. A punch and hammer on my kitchen table broke them down. For crying out loud....THEY RATTLE WHEN YOU SHAKE THEM. A pistol that has daylight shining through it between the slide and frame, that rattles when it shakes, suddenly had catastrophic failures when some part moved LESS THAN THE THICKNESS OF 1/10th OF A SHEET OF COPY PAPER.



Lastly--From someone who's been involved in a lot of police politics, the whole thing stinks. The guys at the range weren't the same guys who decided to switch guns or who decided to go with the M&P. The whole fiasco sounds to me like a pissing contest between the range guys who measured "movement of less than ten microns" and the administrators who made the decisions.

"But when I see someone have a malfunction with an autoloader I look at the magazines, the ammo, the shooter and in a distant last place...the gun."

This, but I usually put shooters first, particularly when talking about folks new to guns or poly guns.

"2-Movement
DPS said that they experienced "movement of less than 10 microns" in the pistols. This is what I simply call BS on."

10 microns is 0.000394 inches, lets just round it up to 4 ten thousandths (0.0004"), so less than 0.0004", where was this "movement", I am curious?

Disclaimer Here===> Like many of you here... I'm a churner... I buy and try and most often turn it and try something else. Not always but most often I play with Ruger's and Smith's, but from what i hear it is no diff. with whatever Brand you prefer. In my very limited sample I am amazed that the manufacturer's do not run a couple of mag's/cylinders thru every gun and do a thorough inspection prior to shipping, Because of costs I am told; overnight return shipping both ways (on their dime) for Ruger to replace my SP-101 22 LR, again overnight return shipping both ways for S&W to replace a very obviously improperly installed front sight on a Model 69 revolver (I had them ship me a sight {an upgrade} and installed it myself instead), ditto on the shipping both ways for Ruger and a Bearcat with a canted front sight, ditto for S&W and the (IIRC) approx. 9 pound trigger on a M&P 45, etc.. So would i be surprised if S&W or any other manufacturer had issues with their guns, Not at all! unfortunately it seems the way they do business==> just ship it... most folks will not shoot it enough to notice the problem, most of those that do will not bother to return it, but will pass it on or safe it.

Sorry about the rant... But

jerry

Question,

What was wrong with the Sig that it needed to be replaced.

Why purchase S&W when the Sig was working.

New Troopers that suposedly couldn't handle the recoil of the .357 sig round. I would imagine that translates to "women folk". Anyhow, that's the rumor I heard.

Same stupid ass excuse the FBI used to do away with their duty weapons in 10mm, and switched to the .40 cal light in the pants cartridge.

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...