Seems S&W has re-designed the M&P Compact and sized it to compare to the G19... 'bout time!
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...eaked-smith-wesson-taking-glock-19-head/


I'll say this...it looks like a nice pistol.

You know, when I first saw the G19, I was impressed. I always thought Glock got that one oh-so right. And when other companies kept making 3.5" barreled compact autos, I just always thought they just missed the boat.

Sig was the first to recognize the brilliance of the G19, and brought out the 229 to compete with the Glock 19. Yeah, they had the 225 before, and the 228, but the 229 was their specific answer to the G19...and they were right, the Sig 229 did very well sales wise.

CZ finally came out with the P07, then the P10; and now S&W is bring out their Glock 19 analogue.

Umm, the 229 was Sig's platform for the 40 cal. Then the 357 Sig and lastly the 9mm. The 228 was around before the G19 best I remember so I'm not sure I'm following you.

You know...I do believe you're right... I guess I mis-remembered.

Why wouldn't I just buy the standard of excellence to which it is compared?

Glock still needs to make a single-stack 19.


Okie John

Not everyone will say it's the standard of excellence, most will say it works but almost anything will work these days.

I have had a few Glocks, a few Sigs and a few M&P's. I find the Sig 228 the easiest to shoot with the M&P next on the list. I see the new 2.0 M&P as a good thing just as I do the Gen 5 Glock, which I may try. Perfection is not a stopping point, it is merely a goal.

Glock 19 is not a bad gun by any measure, but I still vastly prefer my CZ 75D compact. Shoots better, holds 15 rounds, is more reliable and conceals better.

This. Also, for me, the G17 is the standard. I find the 19 doesn't provide enough grip length. I shoot my 17 noticeably better than my 19, and that half inch of extra grip length doesn't significantly alter its concealment potential, either.

Yep. Just lengthen the slide and grip of the 43. I imagine a lot of folks would find that just about ideal. I'd get one. It would have the concealment and carry-comfort characteristics of a super lightweight commander.

Not sure I agree with all that, but I love my CZ 75D Compact, too. I shoot the Glock just a bit better, though, so that's what I carry. Also, there's something about the CZ that causes the trigger to punch my trigger finger pad hard enough under recoil that after a hundred rounds or so, it gets a bit painful. One of my favorite carry handguns, though, still the same. Glock is still better, though.

I think the VP9 series isn't too shabby but I have not shot one yet. I don't understand why the VP9 SK doesn't hold a little more ammo it has a little longer grip. I guess its just not enough length though to add those 2 extra rounds.

Does the original and now 2.0 versions accept the same magazines?

\

My sentiments exactly. There are some guns that just shoot and handle perfectly to me (4 5/8" New Vaquero and Colt 1911) and I'll look no further than those. I really like the original M&P 40 Compact except its abbreviated grip; the 2.0 appears to have corrected that. I definitely like the MP's grip angle better.

I'm in the process of establishing the 'perfect for me' plastic pistol and right now a Gen 2 G22 is a strong contender. With the trigger guard rounded up they IWB every bit as well as an unmodified, railed G23 and the Gen 2 grip texture is smooth enough to carry under a T shirt. There's also plenty of grip to grab for a hurried shot from concealment and it still is a usable farm/woods sidearm, carried holstered on the belt.

After ccw'ng a XD 40 service for years I find the G19 a blessing. It will be awhile before I get curious and look for something else. But when I really need concealed I pack the g 43.

Yep. Normally, it's the G17, but when concealment is the highest priority, the G43 gets my nod, too.

Isn't that a double-single trigger on the CZ? If so I just prefer a striker,or a very light DAO. I would like to ask though why you would say the CZ is more reliable.

A mystery, indeed.

In out of about 30 or more glocks 9's, 40's, 45's 10's I had one I bought used from my local gun store a G30 that failed to go into full battery about once every magazine. They swapped me out for another used one which was fine. I had a 228 and two 220's at one time but found I hated the double-single trigger action. Plastic striker fired guns are here to stay. Glocks based on my experience are reliable guns. I wish I had not sold my two Gen 2 model 23's now. As back before I knew any better I used to shoot lead gun show reloads through them, 180 grain lead round nose bullets...

on the other hand I find the MP intriguing as they seem to have fixed the trigger and SW was always a great company to do business with. This new model looks like a winner for them.

So, does the full size M&P FS still have the 4.25" barrel? Maybe that should extend to 4.5" now? With the longer barrel and frame the Compact has to be running really close to the regular FS model size.

What is the weight? And don't gen 3 glocks still come with 3 magazines?

So what is the attraction of the S&W (other than their service policy)?

M&P has a thinner grip, easier trigger reach, more natural pointing grip angle for me and steel sights as standard. I can shoot Glocks just fine, but the M&P just naturally feels better in my hand and points better. I don't want a thumb safety but many folks do and you can get that on the M&P.

They supposedly have nicer trigger pulls and more ergonomic feel in the hand. They are also more stylish in appearance. Some prefer the Spartan appearance of the Glock, however, and don't mind the feel or the trigger, which is more than adequate right out of the box for anything but competitive sport applications, once learned.

Coming with steel sights is both a pro and a con. Most people who shoot a lot have very specific preferences when it comes to sights, so paying for high quality steel sights on the gun form the factory doesn't make sense for them, since they are just going to be replaced. Everyone knows that when they buy a Glock with the plastic sights, they are buying what amount to place holders (that will actually work in a pinch) till you put what you want on there. If all you want are some sort of steel sights, however, and you don't particularly care about their characteristics, Glock will provide them at extra cost.

At extra cost... that's the thing. The Gock and M&P cost about the same around here except the Glock has plastic slot fillers for sights which are going to need replacing - at extra cost. The M&P steel sights are at least serviceable from the get go. I have replaced all the factory sights on my Glocks. I've replaced the sights on a couple M&P's but a couple of them still wear the factory steel sights and I'm fine with that.

That's because part of the price of a Glock is the name, and the rep that goes with it. S&W is a great name, too, but for striker fired police and military sidearms, Glock has the better name, so you pay a bit more.

I've shot a G19 since 1995 and I never wanted to alter the rear sight. Steel sights on a Glock are meaningless.

Looks like the only thing the M&P has going for it is a slightly better trigger.

Just picked up a gen 5 glock 19, the trigger is quite nice compared to the gen 4 it replaced.

I went to the local shop and compared the triggers between a Gen 5 and 4 19, and noticed a slight difference. Not sure why the 5 is deemed better. Just different. I guess I'd have to actually shoot them side by side to tell for sure.

Yep, It really didn't jump out at me either until put some rounds through it. Definitely the best stock glock trigger I've owned (this is number 5)

If true, at this point in the striker fired plastic pistol game you're simply paying extra for marketing hype.

Fixed it for you...

The "to me" runs both ways. There is nothing about stock Glock sights that aren't at least serviceable. Nothing wrong with whatever you like, but also nothing wrong with the plastic stock sights. Shoot a M&P or a CZ or whatever you want,but you can't say, except in opinion only, that any of them are better than the Glock in any way.

Until you have to charge the gun by placing the sights on something like a 2x4. Maybe the plastic ones will hold up, maybe not.

Write your own stuff feucktard - you didn't fix anything.

Tell me when they have failed. Tell me why you have to charge on a 2×4. Stupid bit of make-believe.

Yep.
My gun is pre charged.

You only need them on a 1911,and only then to clear the jam.

Actually I unloaded it twice with the sight on a 2x4 Saturday when I had 2 rounds get stuck partially in the chamber. Couldn't pull the slide back so I remembered the Trijicon HD's were setup for something like this and it worked.

RH Clark,
You're right of course but I don't know many people given their "druthers" that would choose the plastic sights over a set of steel sights. All things equal.

You are likely correct in that assessment. I'll change mine to Big Dots but not because I don't want the Glock plastic but because I find the BD's faster. There are some others I like too as long as they aren't 3 dots. I can't deal with lining up dots in a hurry with my older eyes. They tend to try to blur on me. One dot on the front and blacked out rear is fine though.

on the plastic rear sight, I take a razor knife and enlarge the rear slot until you can see the white insert in the channel. I like to see more light around the front sight for some reason. Guess I will file a metal glock sight when I get one. I cannot remember how many glocks I have had...more than 20 for sure, most have had plastic sights. I live in fear and trepidation that my next shot will throw the plastic sights off into never never land.

Stupid. Very stupid.

I'm not seeing a tremendous (real world) difference between a 2x4 and the heel of a boot, a mag/pouch, etc. Certainly there are relative density/hardness issues, but not enough to matter.

I'm curious, then, as to the 'stupid' comment. Many run similar reload drills relatively frequently.

Because if you're serious about training to use your side arm in a "oh chit, I'mma gonna die if i don't get out of this" situation, you practice to be able to be combat effective without the use of both hands.

Racking the slide on a reload by using something other a leisurely pull with your weak hand is prudent IMO. Often that means using a 2x4, barrier, your heel, etc to effectively stay in the fight with a well fed weapon.

Are you the Cop business? If so, carry on. If not, then keep your mall-ninja fantasies to yourself. Nothing worse than mall-ninja tards creating specs for handguns.

I know you! Your the sock puppet of another imbecile that wastes time posting here! Then again you could just be drunk.

I always turn the stock rear sight around backwards till I put aftermarket sights on them. I don't like the white "bucket" in the rear.

A fine blade and the bucket pops out.

On this point we are in whole hearted agreement.

I'm in the "keep my butt alive because not only cops get shot at" business. And I HAVE been shot at.

It's not "creating a spec" for a handgun - it's realizing that if I carry for my own protection, I need to be able to use the damned thing for it to be of any use. And that means being able to use it for more than just it's initial capacity.

Lotsa people with torn rotator cuffs



Might want to be able to manipulate that pistol with one hand so you don't end up dead because you can't do what you need to do. Robust sights that allow one to recharge the slide by pushing it on some firm object aren't a bad thing.

I just cocked and loaded my plastic sighted G27 on the edge of my desk, using the front sight. I am overjoyed to report that the sight did not move or become inoperable in any way.

It might become necessary but it's just not something I worry about. I've fired thousands of rounds through my Glocks without a single jam. What's the odds that it will jam in the middle of a fight,after I've taken a round and am unable to manipulate the slide by any other means than using my sights. Honestly,if I was that worried, wouldn't it be better to just carry a second Glock rather than trying to un-jam my gun ,by beating the sights against something, during a firefight, while wounded?

I'm really not making fun of the scenario,which I know many adhere to. I am simply asking what I think are logical questions.

What happens when you fire until lock back due to adrenaline, etc.?

Probably a worthy eventuality to train for, but the odds of ever actually needing a reload in a gunfight (assuming you're starting with sixteen or eighteen rounds on board), let alone by use of this exotic method, is lightning strike slim. If training for a gun fight is your main hobby, or if you are a cop in an inner city, I can see the need for it. For regular folks who carry for self-defense, you can probably eliminate all fast reload training (let alone the exotic methods) and be just fine. Better to put your limited time and energy into being able to smoothly and quickly draw from concealment and put quick accurate shots, out to ten or fifteen yards, on multiple targets.

Heck, I don't even carry a spare mag on my person (have one in the nightstand drawer and in the glove compartment) unless I'm already alerted to a likely threat. Just one man's opinion.

I've never had a problem releasing the slide with the lock-release,even though the preferred method is to pull and release the slide.

I'm not saying it's totally stupid to have sights that will hook on something so you can manipulate the slide. I'm just saying it's something way down low on the list of things I worry about.

You can't be in the mall-ninja club with an attitude like that. All mall-ninjas must carry 6 extra 33 round magazines placed around their body and in cavities to cover all possible mall-ninja scenarios.

So you're late for today's lesson on clearing a jam one-handed using your butt cheeks.

I don't disagree with what TRH has said and, in fact, see your perspective as well.

Frankly, I'm no Pat McNamara, Kyle Lamb, etc. That said, I'd rather train for an eventuality that is HIGHLY unlikely and never experience it than not bother. I train with my weak hand (yes, I still use that term and always will........I'm not even close to "as good" with my left) and know that the slide release is on the left side of my Sig. I figure I ought to be proficient in reloading/manipulating the weapon from that position.

If we're training for "statistics", there's really no reason for folks to train to 15 yards, etc.

I think training to shoot weak handed is highly advisable for anyone who carries for self-defense. I do each and every time I shoot. At least a third of my handgun shooting is weak-hand-only. The probability of being shot in one hand/arm in a gun fight is high enough to (almost) necessitate it, if you're serious about self-defense carry.

Again, just one man's opinion.

I chose the CZ P-07 over the G19 because I like it better. And I very much like the CZ compacts (PCR, P01)...but it still remains the G19 got a LOT right the first time.

The odds are a lot higher than you think, especially if it's a close and dirty hands-on fight, which has a high probability itself. That's a whole lot different than shooting on a square range or even hunting; your pistol can get fouled by clothing, body parts, the other guy's hands tend to go for it if he notices, etc. That's also a situation where you're likely to only have one hand to operate the pistol, even without being injured. I'm not mil or leo, but train with a group of other guys who also take this stuff seriously so that includes a lot of hands-on sparring. What I've said above becomes evident very quickly in that kind of training.

I might be surprised and wrong but I still think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who has actually had to rack their slide on their belt during an real life and death situation.

When we decide to carry (or not carry) each person “should” do a personal threat analysis to match their equipment and training to what they perceive as a likely threat. When it comes to personal security, everything is a compromise. Some feel they have to train weekly, constantly be loaded for bear, carry a primary and a secondary weapon. Others feel a J frame in the front pocket is more than enough. Most are probably somewhere in-between.

I just find it a bit funny when someone on the other side of the country is telling everyone that their particular equipment and training is the ONLY way to be sufficiently armed regardless of where you go.

I know one personally.

People been known to drop mags too, on accident, in the middle of a high stress situation. It's not about having to reload but to be 3 rounds in, slide locked back and mag at your feet. While a person could slap it back in and hit the slide release - I tend to slingshot the slide as it's much larger and easier to do (less of a fine motor skill) than hitting the slide release.

I'm not saying a person MUST carry anything anyway - I'm just saying, for me and how I prefer to carry - I want very robust sights should I ever need to use them as described - a way to recharge my pistol. I don't believe I'll fight a house fire with the 5lb extinguisher under the sink, but I have it anyway. Sorta thing.

Do what you want - I'll do what I want but I don't know of anyone who's ever pulled a good set of steel sights off a Glock (or anything) and replaced them with OEM plastic as a preference due to the material they're made from.

Aren't you in law enforcement though? To me that's kind of apples and oranges compared to an average citizen. A bullet proof vest might possibly save my life, but i'm not going to wear one every day. If however I was in Iraq,or possibly Detroit,it might be a different story.

Seriously,I would like to hear the details of the guy you know who had to use his belt to clear his weapon,if you can share it.

Detroit...that's funny.

Yeah, thought this would be a fun thread based on title, but nooo, went down the crapper.

What on earth for unless you live in the PRK..............a single stack would nullify a huge amount of the attraction of the G-19/23 & really gain nothing significant for concealment & the grip is just fine as it is.

The gun is almost perfect as it for it's intended purpose.

MM

Isn't it a good idea to carry a spare mag in case a bad magazine causes the pistol to malfunction? It seems that the cause of many failures to feed or eject actually result from a magazine problem more so than with the pistol itself. A spare mag might be just what's needed to get you back in the fight.

Good, proven magazines are reliable...until they're not.

I NEVER go anywhere without at least one spare magazine, and 95% of the time I'm carrying at least two spares.

For the slimness Such a gun would be about ideal to many people.

Not w/o slimming up the slide as well.

Not many would want to give up the mag capacity for the slimmer grip on a gun that is not out of proportion now.....................I surely would not.

Dumb idea & likely why it hasn't been done yet.

MM

Are you sure you're thinking of the Glock 43? The slide is quite slim.

We are talking about the G19.

The guy's suggestion was to make it a single stack........................that would be like making your G17 into a single stack.

MM

I'm not going to go back and look, but as I recall it, he said he'd like to see the Glock 43 lengthened in slide and grip length to match that of the Model 19, i.e., a stretched out Model 43, resulting in a sort of single stack Model 19 (with a narrow slide and frame like the 43).

"Why would anyone want something other than a "perfect" G19 - but plastic vs steel sights are a personal preference and extra $ for the name is worth it."

You glockfanboys are funny.

So do I...