Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Glock 19 Gen 4/5 vs. Sig 320 Compact vs. S&W M&P 2.0 Compact

For those of you who have trigger time with all three of these fine pistols, which would you buy and carry if you were starting from a clean slate (i.e. didn't already have 20 Glock mags or four Sig holsters, etc.).

Thanks, RS

I’m a Glock guy, always have been. They have always been reliable for me and very accurate. But the same can be said for the other 2. Best advice is to hold, handle and shoot all three.

S&W M&P9 Compact 2.0. Best fit for me anyway. I’ve had a Glock 19 and fondled the Sig 320. If you lay all three on the counter side by side, handle all three..............

None. If I was starting from scratch, I would buy the Ruger Security 9 and a Kel-Tec PF 9 for the price of a Glock. And then I'd have a shooter and a serious concealed weapon.

^^^This^^^

Glock. Time proven design. I also don't like the high bore axis on the Sig. M&P would be a close second.

M&P 2.0 Compact for me. The 2.0 Compact has knocked my G19 to the back of the safe. I have no experience with the Sig.

You can't lose with any of them...just buy the one that fits your hand well, and whichever one makes you want to go out and shoot.

Always liked and shot Sigs, never cared for the Glock ergos. Recently bought an M&P 2.0 and it is my new favorite. Fits my hand even better than the Sigs and seems to be as accurate.

M&P 2.0..............and I've been high on Glocks for a long time, but the new 2.0 will be replacing my G-19 as I think the ergos are just better.

MM

M&P 2.0

I have not shot the 320 yet but one of my sons has and thinks highly of it. I resisted Glocks until 2008 when I accepted a staff FTO position with an outfit that issued them. Figured if I was going to teach them, I better start carrying one. They're good, reliable pistols and more mechanically accurate than they're given credit for; but I wouldn't call them 'designed to fit the human hand'.

I'd shot a few M&P's and the wife and I eventually ended up with a couple of 40C's. I'm on my third one now, and M&P45 with the 4" barrel. It has a clean 5# trigger with no creep and the ergos are far more natural for an old Colt SA/1911 guy and I shoot it about as well with one hand as I can shoot a Glock with two. The only thing I hated about it was that damn beavertail and it took me about 30 minutes to correct that,

If I was looking at a new 9mm/40 I would give the M&P 2.0 a hard look. I think it's about a well thought-out overall a plastic, striker service pistol as you're going to find this side of a PPQ.

I’ve shot them all, carried the G19 and M&P 2.0. The 2.0 can be a bit rough against your skin out of the box. If you always wear an undershirt, like I do, its not a big deal. To me, the 2.0 is a little over done when it comes to asthetics. Glock, to me, is more about function and I respect that. No snaggy edges or anything. They are also slim and fit easy IWB. G19 for me.

Very good point JWD. In warm weather I carry iwb under a tail out t-shirt with no inner shirt IE the gun is next to my skin. I found out right quick I didn't like the rough textured Glock models and if the M&P 2.0 is significantly rougher than the original model, it wouldn't suit me either.

A little sandpaper takes care of that issue on the offending side of the grip. It doesn’t take much to break the top of the stipling, and only necessary on a small portion of one side. I have owned two G19’s and never had any issues with function. I just like the feel and looks of the M&P more and I have found the M&P9 2.0 Compact to be totally reliable.

If I could only have one hand gun it would be the G19

Although there are other guns that feel better than the Glock 19, I think a Glock 19 is a basic firearm--like the AR-15--that a well rounded shooter should be familiar with and likely should own. They are the 4" 38spl of the 21st Century.

I'm a G-19 fan.

I was a solid Glock guy 25 years ago. But times have changed. Now there are lots of "Glock 19" equivalents. So I don't gey hung up on having to own a Glock.
Besides, I would rather have a Gen 2 G19 anyways - lighter, better grip, and Tennifer.

….well sort of….my M&P Compact was a pre-2.0.

The Glock is the 800 lb Gorilla in the marketplace. Out of the box it needs new sights and a trigger alteration but then it's a great gun.
The Sig and M&P are good to go from the box. With the exception noted above regarding the Glock, the differences between the three are irrelevant and almost completely subjective. People with a long history with the 1911 frequently dislike the Glock's grip angle, but in my mind that's a training issue. All of the rest is personal preference. The M&P has the most ergonomic (or rather comfortable) feel to me and I understand that the 2.0's trigger is much improved, although the ones that I've dry-fired in stores didn't seem significantly better. The M&P is gaining ground on the Glock---the Sig's future remains to be seen with the military acquisition, as you know, it's off to a rocky start.

Not to muddy the water, but two alternatives I'd recommend that you look at are the Walther PPQ and the CZ P-10C. The PPQ has the very best out-of-the-box trigger of any striker fired handgun that I've seen. The CZ is pretty much a G-19 clone EXCEPT it has more of a beavertail than the Glock, good sights and a great trigger re-set (although not as smooth on take up as the Walther). It's big advantage is that it's affordable--MSRP = $499 with street prices somewhat lower.

It's pretty much all opinion and subjective so YMMV.
Greg