I see a lot of people tend to favor the M&P, is there something they do better or lets say different than Glock and other manufacturer's for instance to have such a high recommendation? Thanks for the answers so far.
I see a lot of people tend to favor the M&P, is there something they do better or lets say different than Glock and other manufacturer's for instance to have such a high recommendation? Thanks for the answers so far.
In my opinion the M&P is a game changer when it comes to .40. Because of it's ergonomics and I think because of the steel chassis design it is the softest shooting .40 I have ever fired. .40 in the M&P feels about like a +P in 9mm to me.
There's a USP .40 in the house(my son's) and it's an extremely rugged and usable pistol. I'm not a huge .40 fan but if I were choosing a .40 for myself it would be one of these or an M&P,M&P due to ergos. Course the M&P will cost you less,too.
So are the the Glocks not designed and built as a .40? If not what kind of major issues can this cause? Also are the H&K's worth the extra money compared to Glock and the M&P? I am looking at getting a .40 and .45 along with a 9MM possibly and would like to keep them all on the same platform pretty much.
All arounds, I think the 226 and 229 handle .40 better than any other type of handgun out there, however they are made by SIG which doesnt exactly inspire confidence these days.
I've fired nearly all the .40 mainstays, and I personally prefer my good old Glock model G22.
Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
What Happened to the American dream? It came true. You're looking at it.
I have owned 4 Glocks in the .40 S&W, and had zero issues with them.
(2) G22, G23 and a G27.
Bookmarks