View Full Version : Glock 17 Gen 4 and M&P .40 back to back shooting observations
So due to recent posts here talking about the Glock and M&P, I was inspired to bring my M&P .40 out to my last practice session to compare. I made some interesting observations. The biggest one was that the M&P .40 shooting Federal American Eagle 155 grain FMJ shot softer then the 4th Gen Glock 17 shooting Federal HST 9mm 124 +p. in fact the M&P felt relatively soft compared to the more comparably stout recoil of the Glock 17. A buddy was up at the range with me and he shot it as well and also commented that his Glock 21 also shot softer and he was surprised at the recoil. Granted the comparison is between a premium defensive round and a practice oriented round but this still surprised me. The other interesting thing to me was that I shot the M&P considerably better then the Glock 17 over multiple mags going back and forth.
The accuracy didn't surprise me in the M&P because that specific gun has always been laser accurate for me. What surprised me is how much better it was then the Glock in my hands. 9mm is always touted as being a better option because of capacity (that's true), reduced recoil (not true between these two), faster follow up shots (not true between these two), and of course cheaper cost (that's true).
I'm starting to think that the way an individual gun fits an individuals users hands is even more important then I previously thought. When I get right down to it and am honest with myself, I shoot that M&P .40 better then any other gun I've ever owned. That includes a WC CQB, which I'm sure is mechanically more accurate then the M&P. I still think the Glock is a great gun and mine have been mechanically prefect and relatively accurate but for some reason in my hands I have to accept that the M&P just flat out shoots better.
Anyone else ever been that surprised when comparing actual back to back performance between guns that contradicted what you thought they would do for you?
ramairthree
11-13-14, 15:48
So due to recent posts here talking about the Glock and M&P, I was inspired to bring my M&P .40 out to my last practice session to compare. I made some interesting observations. The biggest one was that the M&P .40 shooting Federal American Eagle 155 grain FMJ shot softer then the 4th Gen Glock 17 shooting Federal HST 9mm 124 +p. in fact the M&P felt relatively soft compared to the more comparably stout recoil of the Glock 17. A buddy was up at the range with me and he shot it as well and also commented that his Glock 21 also shot softer and he was surprised at the recoil. Granted the comparison is between a premium defensive round and a practice oriented round but this still surprised me. The other interesting thing to me was that I shot the M&P considerably better then the Glock 17 over multiple mags going back and forth.
The accuracy didn't surprise me in the M&P because that specific gun has always been laser accurate for me. What surprised me is how much better it was then the Glock in my hands. 9mm is always touted as being a better option because of capacity (that's true), reduced recoil (not true between these two), faster follow up shots (not true between these two), and of course cheaper cost (that's true).
I'm starting to think that the way an individual gun fits an individuals users hands is even more important then I previously thought. When I get right down to it and am honest with myself, I shoot that M&P .40 better then any other gun I've ever owned. That includes a WC CQB, which I'm sure is mechanically more accurate then the M&P. I still think the Glock is a great gun and mine have been mechanically prefect and relatively accurate but for some reason in my hands I have to accept that the M&P just flat out shoots better.
Anyone else ever been that surprised when comparing actual back to back performance between guns that contradicted what you thought they would do for you?
There are some that swear that a light 40/40 minor will shoot softer than 9mm. I personally can't find / make a load down around 130 PF that reliably works factory recoil springs- but it is a powder puff. I can get it good more around 150 PF but then that recoils harder to me than my 9mm loads.
Crow Hunter
11-13-14, 15:56
So due to recent posts here talking about the Glock and M&P, I was inspired to bring my M&P .40 out to my last practice session to compare. I made some interesting observations. The biggest one was that the M&P .40 shooting Federal American Eagle 155 grain FMJ shot softer then the 4th Gen Glock 17 shooting Federal HST 9mm 124 +p. in fact the M&P felt relatively soft compared to the more comparably stout recoil of the Glock 17. A buddy was up at the range with me and he shot it as well and also commented that his Glock 21 also shot softer and he was surprised at the recoil. Granted the comparison is between a premium defensive round and a practice oriented round but this still surprised me. The other interesting thing to me was that I shot the M&P considerably better then the Glock 17 over multiple mags going back and forth.
The accuracy didn't surprise me in the M&P because that specific gun has always been laser accurate for me. What surprised me is how much better it was then the Glock in my hands. 9mm is always touted as being a better option because of capacity (that's true), reduced recoil (not true between these two), faster follow up shots (not true between these two), and of course cheaper cost (that's true).
I'm starting to think that the way an individual gun fits an individuals users hands is even more important then I previously thought. When I get right down to it and am honest with myself, I shoot that M&P .40 better then any other gun I've ever owned. That includes a WC CQB, which I'm sure is mechanically more accurate then the M&P. I still think the Glock is a great gun and mine have been mechanically prefect and relatively accurate but for some reason in my hands I have to accept that the M&P just flat out shoots better.
Anyone else ever been that surprised when comparing actual back to back performance between guns that contradicted what you thought they would do for you?
Yes.
The M&P 9c fit my hand like a glove. I loved the way it felt and I actually liked the trigger. I did a "shoot off" between it and my G19.
The M&P was slightly more accurate in slow fire. I started to get excited until I tried shooting multiple targets at speed. That was when it all fell apart for me on the 9c. As good as is felt, I was incredibly inconsistent with it. My groups opened up into patterns. I tried it on 2 separate occasions with 2x different kinds of ammo just to make sure because it felt so good and I was getting it from brother for next to nothing. I couldn't make it work for me though.
This is actually why I am in the market for a Beretta 92 Compact. I used to shoot Beretta a lot and I always seemed to shoot them better than the Glock but I got rid of my 92 when I went "all Glock".
Sometimes guns just seem to "click" with certain people.
So due to recent posts here talking about the Glock and M&P, I was inspired to bring my M&P .40 out to my last practice session to compare. I made some interesting observations. The biggest one was that the M&P .40 shooting Federal American Eagle 155 grain FMJ shot softer then the 4th Gen Glock 17 shooting Federal HST 9mm 124 +p. in fact the M&P felt relatively soft compared to the more comparably stout recoil of the Glock 17. A buddy was up at the range with me and he shot it as well and also commented that his Glock 21 also shot softer and he was surprised at the recoil. Granted the comparison is between a premium defensive round and a practice oriented round but this still surprised me. The other interesting thing to me was that I shot the M&P considerably better then the Glock 17 over multiple mags going back and forth.
The accuracy didn't surprise me in the M&P because that specific gun has always been laser accurate for me. What surprised me is how much better it was then the Glock in my hands. 9mm is always touted as being a better option because of capacity (that's true), reduced recoil (not true between these two), faster follow up shots (not true between these two), and of course cheaper cost (that's true).
I'm starting to think that the way an individual gun fits an individuals users hands is even more important then I previously thought. When I get right down to it and am honest with myself, I shoot that M&P .40 better then any other gun I've ever owned. That includes a WC CQB, which I'm sure is mechanically more accurate then the M&P. I still think the Glock is a great gun and mine have been mechanically prefect and relatively accurate but for some reason in my hands I have to accept that the M&P just flat out shoots better.
Anyone else ever been that surprised when comparing actual back to back performance between guns that contradicted what you thought they would do for you?
What did you use to measure "shot...considerably better" and "faster follow up shots"?
What did you use to measure "shot...considerably better" and "faster follow up shots"?
For the shot considerably better part, I had two seperate targets set up next to each other. I shot differing ranges from 3 yards to 25 yards and after each stage compared the differences. The M&P target showed groups somewhere between 1/2 and 2/3 the size of the Glocks when all was said and done and this remained pretty consistent throughout each stage. The Glock also shot to the left. I thought it might be the sights but when I really slowed down I could correct it so I can't blame the gun or the sights.
As for time, my buddy who is a range master had me go through a standard qual with both. During the timed sequences I always had extra time on the M&P targets but was bumping up close to the time limit on then Glock. It was pretty clear that I was shooting the course faster with the M&P.
I don't want anyone to take away any shot at the Glock. As I said it's a great gun and when I did my part it did it's part and mine have been very reliable and accurate when I really slow down and concentrate. For some reason though I shoot more accurately and more quickly with the M&P .40. My guess is it's a function of my hand matching up to the trigger and controls of the M&P. I'm sure if I had an equally accurate M&P 9 I probably would have shot it quicker but for some reason the M&P .40 shoots faster, more accurately, and softer in my hand then the Glock 17 did with the above lists ammo. It actually surprised (and in a sense) disappointed me. I should also say that I wouldn't be surprised if someone with a different hand shape then mine told me they ran the same test and got a completely opposite result.
I also should note that the same 9mm round out of my new M9 shoots much softer and smoother for me. I didn't have the Beretta with me when I did the comparison shoot between the M&P and the G17 because I wanted to focus on those two guns but just going off my perception the Beretta was more accurate then the Glock but I don't know how it would do against the M&P in terms of specific accuracy and speed without actually doing the same comparison. I have noted that I traditionally also shoot the M9 very well and they have been, again along with my specific M&P and my old Sig P226 the most reliable handguns I've shot. I'm actually seriously debating between the M&P and the Beretta for duty gun status. I'll have to do another shoot off.
PatrioticDisorder
11-13-14, 17:42
I honestly can't say I shoot my M&Ps better than Glocks per se, I shoot them both well but prefer the M&Ps without a doubt. G19 & G21 will always hold a sentimental place in my mind but outside of that, it's M&P & VP for me all the way... OP, perhaps you should try a M&P FS 9, you may fall in love all over again.
Father of 3
11-13-14, 22:43
I had the exact same experience with my Gen3 G17 and Gen4 G19 and a friends M&P 40
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?142812-APEX-d-M-amp-P-40-VTAC-WOW!
Still have the G17...saving for an M&P :)
I can shoot an M&P faster than most other pistols but until they fix the accuracy issue with 9mms completely, there are better alternatives in my opinion. I have no interest in 40 S&W any longer although the M&P was the softest shooting 40 I've ever fired.
Hand fitment of a pistol especially under live fire is something that is highly overlooked by a great deal of shooters. The Glock in particular presents quite a few issues with shooters who primarily have formal experience with an American standard grip angle (ex. 1911) and flat backstrap grip type. Which is why as an example smaller handed shooters generally prefer a flat mainspring housing as opposed to a rounded one on a 1911.
Going to a Euro angle with the addition of a more pronounced hump on the backstrap of the Glock and more shooters familiar with the American standard can very easily run into issues with the Glock, especially if they have smaller hands, but not always restricted to small hands. The hump on the Glock is higher up as an example than the 1911 and quite frankly is a cause for many issues in shooters. I personally wish that the Glock did not have such a pronounced hump and I tend to lessen that with my own modifications, but I very much like the steeper grip angle as it provides more leverage on the pistol and I am an old school 1911 guy.
Again, shooters with a standard American style grip angle will generally find the M&P more to their liking with just placing the pistols in their hands. I know I did when I got 2 of the very first M&P's that were pre general release. The M&P felt just about perfect and I wasn't that big of a fan of the Glock back then. The M&P 9 that I was sent had the infamous accuracy issues and could not hold a group for shit and the .40 had the incorrect spring issue and lock back was present every other round but it was accurate. I personally do not see the utility for the .40 S&W in a standard defensive load, (not handloads) but will not get into a caliber debate.
I was involved in an in depth, 30 person T&E that lasted just over one month. Test pistols were the Gen4 G17 and M&P 9. At the start of the evaluation from just handling the weapons without shooting them, the test group was nearly 100% in favor of the M&P9. These were individuals with formal training and who carried a standard American style grip angle pistol. 15 individuals were given the M&P 9 and 15 were given the Gen4 G17 and put through a 3 day shooting course. They then field tested for 2 weeks. After that period all 30 returned and pistols were swapped and another 3 day shooting course was conducted followed by another 2 week field test. At the end of that time all 30 came together and gave independent written evaluations followed by a group Q&A session / debrief. During the 3 day shooting sessions I did note that the standard left or low and left for the righties and opposite for lefties existed for about 50% of the shooters with the Glock. This is about the norm, however it was quickly corrected with proper training and instruction. After the 30 plus days, the result was 100 of the test group picked the Glock purely on their own merit and experiences with the pistols. As a side note there are not an over abundance of very good instructors who can correctly evaluate why a shooter is having a left or low left or opposite for lefties and can provide the correct fix of the shooter. A shooter who does not understand what is causing the issue with the Glock will almost never be able to fix the problem on their own before either pushing the sights or abandoning the weapon.
Another thing that I have noted over time is that if I take a brand new shooter with very little to no experience with various grip angles, you will see almost zero side or low pushing on the Glock pistol with initial training. Why is that? They have no formal experience or ingrained shooting habit on any pistol, so what you instill in them is what is normal to them. I see that it is easier for someone first trained on a Glock to go to a standard grip angle with no hump, then to go from a typical flat American style grip angle to a Glock.
In any case, not everyone is the same and not every pistol fits every shooter and not enough people put enough emphasis on correct fitment especially when it comes to trigger reach and trigger manipulation.
Hand fitment of a pistol especially under live fire is something that is highly overlooked by a great deal of shooters. The Glock in particular presents quite a few issues with shooters who primarily have formal experience with an American standard grip angle (ex. 1911) and flat backstrap grip type. Which is why as an example smaller handed shooters generally prefer a flat mainspring housing as opposed to a rounded one on a 1911.
Going to a Euro angle with the addition of a more pronounced hump on the backstrap of the Glock and more shooters familiar with the American standard can very easily run into issues with the Glock, especially if they have smaller hands, but not always restricted to small hands. The hump on the Glock is higher up as an example than the 1911 and quite frankly is a cause for many issues in shooters. I personally wish that the Glock did not have such a pronounced hump and I tend to lessen that with my own modifications, but I very much like the steeper grip angle as it provides more leverage on the pistol and I am an old school 1911 guy.
Again, shooters with a standard American style grip angle will generally find the M&P more to their liking with just placing the pistols in their hands. I know I did when I got 2 of the very first M&P's that were pre general release. The M&P felt just about perfect and I wasn't that big of a fan of the Glock back then. The M&P 9 that I was sent had the infamous accuracy issues and could not hold a group for shit and the .40 had the incorrect spring issue and lock back was present every other round but it was accurate. I personally do not see the utility for the .40 S&W in a standard defensive load, (not handloads) but will not get into a caliber debate.
I was involved in an in depth, 30 person T&E that lasted just over one month. Test pistols were the Gen4 G17 and M&P 9. At the start of the evaluation from just handling the weapons without shooting them, the test group was nearly 100% in favor of the M&P9. These were individuals with formal training and who carried a standard American style grip angle pistol. 15 individuals were given the M&P 9 and 15 were given the Gen4 G17 and put through a 3 day shooting course. They then field tested for 2 weeks. After that period all 30 returned and pistols were swapped and another 3 day shooting course was conducted followed by another 2 week field test. At the end of that time all 30 came together and gave independent written evaluations followed by a group Q&A session / debrief. During the 3 day shooting sessions I did note that the standard left or low and left for the righties and opposite for lefties existed for about 50% of the shooters with the Glock. This is about the norm, however it was quickly corrected with proper training and instruction. After the 30 plus days, the result was 100 of the test group picked the Glock purely on their own merit and experiences with the pistols. As a side note there are not an over abundance of very good instructors who can correctly evaluate why a shooter is having a left or low left or opposite for lefties and can provide the correct fix of the shooter. A shooter who does not understand what is causing the issue with the Glock will almost never be able to fix the problem on their own before either pushing the sights or abandoning the weapon.
Another thing that I have noted over time is that if I take a brand new shooter with very little to no experience with various grip angles, you will see almost zero side or low pushing on the Glock pistol with initial training. Why is that? They have no formal experience or ingrained shooting habit on any pistol, so what you instill in them is what is normal to them. I see that it is easier for someone first trained on a Glock to go to a standard grip angle with no hump, then to go from a typical flat American style grip angle to a Glock.
In any case, not everyone is the same and not every pistol fits every shooter and not enough people put enough emphasis on correct fitment especially when it comes to trigger reach and trigger manipulation.
That makes sense, so I suppose the question then is if you already are years if not decades into your shooting development does it make sense to go back and relearn something on a new system rather then just continuing to improve on one you already operate well. That and has S&W solved the 9mm accuracy issue. I keep hearing they have but I would really like it if someone could test some random samples and give us group sizes from the new ones. That or I guess I'll just use an M9 if I'm going 9mm.
Crow Hunter
11-14-14, 19:53
Another thing that I have noted over time is that if I take a brand new shooter with very little to no experience with various grip angles, you will see almost zero side or low pushing on the Glock pistol with initial training. Why is that? They have no formal experience or ingrained shooting habit on any pistol, so what you instill in them is what is normal to them. I see that it is easier for someone first trained on a Glock to go to a standard grip angle with no hump, then to go from a typical flat American style grip angle to a Glock.
I noted this in my "sample of one" with my wife. She had never fired a pistol before we met. She immediately took up with Glock even though I had lots of other guns available. She shoots Glocks quite well. She has never pushed the the left. (Like I do sometimes)
The few times I have ever gotten her to try anything else, she was quite accurate. Her first shot from a S&W 642 was dead on a 2" bullseye from 10 yards.:cool:
But she handed it back to me and said "Give me back my Glock". Which is what she says every time I let her shoot anything else.:o
Howdy,
Hand fitment of a pistol especially under live fire is something that is highly overlooked by a great deal of shooters. The Glock in particular presents quite a few issues with shooters who primarily have formal experience with an American standard grip angle (ex. 1911) and flat backstrap grip type. Which is why as an example smaller handed shooters generally prefer a flat mainspring housing as opposed to a rounded one on a 1911.
Going to a Euro angle with the addition of a more pronounced hump on the backstrap of the Glock and more shooters familiar with the American standard can very easily run into issues with the Glock, especially if they have smaller hands, but not always restricted to small hands. The hump on the Glock is higher up as an example than the 1911 and quite frankly is a cause for many issues in shooters. I personally wish that the Glock did not have such a pronounced hump and I tend to lessen that with my own modifications, but I very much like the steeper grip angle as it provides more leverage on the pistol and I am an old school 1911 guy.
Again, shooters with a standard American style grip angle will generally find the M&P more to their liking with just placing the pistols in their hands. I know I did when I got 2 of the very first M&P's that were pre general release. The M&P felt just about perfect and I wasn't that big of a fan of the Glock back then. The M&P 9 that I was sent had the infamous accuracy issues and could not hold a group for shit and the .40 had the incorrect spring issue and lock back was present every other round but it was accurate. I personally do not see the utility for the .40 S&W in a standard defensive load, (not handloads) but will not get into a caliber debate.
I was involved in an in depth, 30 person T&E that lasted just over one month. Test pistols were the Gen4 G17 and M&P 9. At the start of the evaluation from just handling the weapons without shooting them, the test group was nearly 100% in favor of the M&P9. These were individuals with formal training and who carried a standard American style grip angle pistol. 15 individuals were given the M&P 9 and 15 were given the Gen4 G17 and put through a 3 day shooting course. They then field tested for 2 weeks. After that period all 30 returned and pistols were swapped and another 3 day shooting course was conducted followed by another 2 week field test. At the end of that time all 30 came together and gave independent written evaluations followed by a group Q&A session / debrief. During the 3 day shooting sessions I did note that the standard left or low and left for the righties and opposite for lefties existed for about 50% of the shooters with the Glock. This is about the norm, however it was quickly corrected with proper training and instruction. After the 30 plus days, the result was 100 of the test group picked the Glock purely on their own merit and experiences with the pistols. As a side note there are not an over abundance of very good instructors who can correctly evaluate why a shooter is having a left or low left or opposite for lefties and can provide the correct fix of the shooter. A shooter who does not understand what is causing the issue with the Glock will almost never be able to fix the problem on their own before either pushing the sights or abandoning the weapon.
Another thing that I have noted over time is that if I take a brand new shooter with very little to no experience with various grip angles, you will see almost zero side or low pushing on the Glock pistol with initial training. Why is that? They have no formal experience or ingrained shooting habit on any pistol, so what you instill in them is what is normal to them. I see that it is easier for someone first trained on a Glock to go to a standard grip angle with no hump, then to go from a typical flat American style grip angle to a Glock.
In any case, not everyone is the same and not every pistol fits every shooter and not enough people put enough emphasis on correct fitment especially when it comes to trigger reach and trigger manipulation.
Great post!!
As a Glocker and someone that grew up shooting a 1911A1 with an arched mainspring housing ( and will only own a 1911 w/ an arched mainspring housing........the flat ones cause me to shoot low when point shooting ) I find the Glock naturally shoots where I look.
This comes in handy for SD situations and IDPA matches on the targets inside 5 yards. They just naturally hit were I look. Guns with a flatter backstrap always shoot low.
Yes, it is easier to teach a person who has never shot a gun before, especially a handgun how to shoot properly and accurately over someone with years of bad habits.
Paul
That makes sense, so I suppose the question then is if you already are years if not decades into your shooting development does it make sense to go back and relearn something on a new system rather then just continuing to improve on one you already operate well. That and has S&W solved the 9mm accuracy issue. I keep hearing they have but I would really like it if someone could test some random samples and give us group sizes from the new ones. That or I guess I'll just use an M9 if I'm going 9mm.It depends. Think of this. I just trained a total of 700 people in the past 8 months on Glocks. 650 Gen4 G17's and 50 Gen4 G21's. They were all experienced shooters. The 50 with the Gen4 G21's were very experienced shooters and had just come from Sig Sauer P226 which was the primary pistol for many years. They shot similar drills and quals that they were quite familiar with from the past. Some initially showed the typical Glock pushing, but they were quickly corrected. After 3 days all of these guys could out shoot their old self with only a short time on the Glock. Training is hugely important here, but again after just 3 days their scores shot way up. Speed with accuracy and overall performance for them cannot be argued. They are all believers now. Even the hard core P226 guys. I know I used to be a hard core 1911 and P226 type also.
So if the end benefit may take someone to a better level of shooting, I would say it is worth it. Again if someone has an issue shooting the Glock the knowledge of the instructor in relation to the Glock and the overall quality of instruction really is the key to success.
I noted this in my "sample of one" with my wife. She had never fired a pistol before we met. She immediately took up with Glock even though I had lots of other guns available. She shoots Glocks quite well. She has never pushed the the left. (Like I do sometimes)
The few times I have ever gotten her to try anything else, she was quite accurate. Her first shot from a S&W 642 was dead on a 2" bullseye from 10 yards.:cool:
But she handed it back to me and said "Give me back my Glock". Which is what she says every time I let her shoot anything else.:oIt is all in what someone is trained and familiar with. They can adapt more easily to other weapons with similar design and ergonomics. Switching to something with a different design can be hard. Quite honestly, those with far more skill and understanding will adapt easier, no matter how many years of prior shooting with another weapon.
Howdy,
Great post!!
As a Glocker and someone that grew up shooting a 1911A1 with an arched mainspring housing ( and will only own a 1911 w/ an arched mainspring housing........the flat ones cause me to shoot low when point shooting ) I find the Glock naturally shoots where I look.
This comes in handy for SD situations and IDPA matches on the targets inside 5 yards. They just naturally hit were I look. Guns with a flatter backstrap always shoot low.
Yes, it is easier to teach a person who has never shot a gun before, especially a handgun how to shoot properly and accurately over someone with years of bad habits.
PaulI don't generally prefer teaching family but my son was different. He had a clean slate and I taught him starting at 3 years old. Very much a sponge or a blank slate that could be taught correct from the get go. He had no other frame of reference or bad habits. Whatever I instilled in him became his normal. He is 10 now and will out shoot his dad some day. :)
It depends. Think of this. I just trained a total of 700 people in the past 8 months on Glocks. 650 Gen4 G17's and 50 Gen4 G21's. They were all experienced shooters. The 50 with the Gen4 G21's were very experienced shooters and had just come from Sig Sauer P226 which was the primary pistol for many years. They shot similar drills and quals that they were quite familiar with from the past. Some initially showed the typical Glock pushing, but they were quickly corrected. After 3 days all of these guys could out shoot their old self with only a short time on the Glock. Training is hugely important here, but again after just 3 days their scores shot way up. Speed with accuracy and overall performance for them cannot be argued. They are all believers now. Even the hard core P226 guys. I know I used to be a hard core 1911 and P226 type also.
So if the end benefit may take someone to a better level of shooting, I would say it is worth it. Again if someone has an issue shooting the Glock the knowledge of the instructor in relation to the Glock and the overall quality of instruction really is the key to success.
Is there evidence that these shooters would not have shown such drastic improvement with your training had they used their sigs? Additionally, are we comparing apples to apples, DAK vs striker fire, or are we looking at DA/SA to striker fired?
I'm not trying to be argumentative, I think this has the potential for being a very good discussion, but I personally feel that your implied conclusion that the glock is a superior weapon is incomplete and deserves a more in depth analysis.
(for full disclosure, I recently switched from a glock 19 duty weapon to an M&P9, I fully admit that I currently shoot tighter groups with my glock, but I chalk it up to thousands more rounds down range from a glock than an M&P and plan on giving the M&P some more trigger time before declaring a winner)
Is there evidence that these shooters would not have shown such drastic improvement with your training had they used their sigs? Additionally, are we comparing apples to apples, DAK vs striker fire, or are we looking at DA/SA to striker fired?
I'm not trying to be argumentative, I think this has the potential for being a very good discussion, but I personally feel that your implied conclusion that the glock is a superior weapon is incomplete and deserves a more in depth analysis.
(for full disclosure, I recently switched from a glock 19 duty weapon to an M&P9, I fully admit that I currently shoot tighter groups with my glock, but I chalk it up to thousands more rounds down range from a glock than an M&P and plan on giving the M&P some more trigger time before declaring a winner)
I have trained all 50 guys and spent many years working with them on a full time basis. I know them like brothers. When switching from the P226 to the Gen4 G21 it was really only a familiarization opportunity for the pistol and the new holsters. They did not do any drills or qualifications that they have not done hundreds if not thousands of times primarily under my training supervision. The 50 were broken down into three groups on different 3 day familiarization sessions. All 3 groups results mirrored one another to the T. Their shooting results are like night and day. It is that obvious, not just to me but to all who made the switch and these are highly skilled, full time, not part time, tacticians and shooters who shoot on a regular basis. Not recreational regular basis but on a professional regular basis.
As a shooter and from an instructor standpoint / experience, I have a very firm belief that a well executed pistol with a steeper grip angle and a higher hand placement in relation the the bore can easily allow a shooter better management over the pistol, resulting in better speed and accuracy especially under rapid strings of fire.
I have trained all 50 guys and spent many years working with them on a full time basis. I know them like brothers. When switching from the P226 to the Gen4 G21 it was really only a familiarization opportunity for the pistol and the new holsters. They did not do any drills or qualifications that they have not done hundreds if not thousands of times primarily under my training supervision. The 50 were broken down into three groups on different 3 day familiarization sessions. All 3 groups results mirrored one another to the T. Their shooting results are like night and day. It is that obvious, not just to me but to all who made the switch and these are highly skilled, full time, not part time, tacticians and shooters who shoot on a regular basis. Not recreational regular basis but on a professional regular basis.
As a shooter and from an instructor standpoint / experience, I have a very firm belief that a well executed pistol with a steeper grip angle and a higher hand placement in relation the the bore can easily allow a shooter better management over the pistol, resulting in better speed and accuracy especially under rapid strings of fire.
Fair enough, is there any evidence that a similar improvement would be appreciated in going from sig to M&P or sig to VP9 or sig to (insert popular striker here)...
I did read your previous post and understand that shooters ultimately preferred the glock over the M&P..
Fair enough, is there any evidence that a similar improvement would be appreciated in going from sig to M&P or sig to VP9 or sig to (insert popular striker here)...
I did read your previous post and understand that shooters ultimately preferred the glock over the M&P..I don't have that information as I have not witnessed exactly what you are specifying.
I will note that of the 700 individuals that I personally signed off on over the last 8 months, going to the new pistol showed a very noticeable increase in shooter performance. I will admit that 650 of those individuals received 3 days of training that was much more comprehensive and of higher quality content with more knowledgeable instructors and personal attention than they had received at any time in the past. I will also state that all 700 shooters went from a DA/SA set up to a striker fired and a notable difference in first shot, or first to second shot performance was pretty darn clear.
I don't have that information as I have not witnessed exactly what you are specifying.
I will note that of the 700 individuals that I personally signed off on over the last 8 months, going to the new pistol showed a very noticeable increase in shooter performance. I will admit that 650 of those individuals received 3 days of training that was much more comprehensive and of higher quality content with more knowledgeable instructors and personal attention than they had received at any time in the past. I will also state that all 700 shooters went from a DA/SA set up to a striker fired and a notable difference in first shot, or first to second shot performance was pretty darn clear.
I can imagine!
Again, I hope you don't take my questions as aggressive, just trying to investigate this issue further..
By the way, you hiring? :)
My personal "glock vs M&P" experience has essentially boiled down to me. When I do my part, proper alignment, proper grip, isolation of trigger muscles, the M&P is dead nuts accurate. When I start to speed it up, the difference in trigger pull/break becomes an issue for me and I start pulling shots (mostly left).
This is why my plan is to put a thousand more rounds through my M&P, focusing on my fundamentals, before I call it a day and go back to glock.
I don't have that information as I have not witnessed exactly what you are specifying.
I will note that of the 700 individuals that I personally signed off on over the last 8 months, going to the new pistol showed a very noticeable increase in shooter performance. I will admit that 650 of those individuals received 3 days of training that was much more comprehensive and of higher quality content with more knowledgeable instructors and personal attention than they had received at any time in the past. I will also state that all 700 shooters went from a DA/SA set up to a striker fired and a notable difference in first shot, or first to second shot performance was pretty darn clear.
When we transitioned (back in 2007 or so) to the M&P, the same thing happened. The majority of our guys went from DA/SA (Sig P220 series/HK USP series) guns with some guys running Glocks. The department required that everyone go through the transition course to the M&P but they could of course keep carrying their own gun after if they so chose. A couple of things happened, first like in your situation the vast majority of people saw increased scores and many people who never thought they'd give up their (Sig/HK/even Glock) did. Now not everyone did but the majority did. I believe part of that is that striker fired guns are just easier to shoot well in many cases. What I noted was that that was the most training they'd had in such a short time and I believe that was a factor. The other thing I noticed over time is that more female officers appear to favor the Glock over basically all the other choices and did indeed seem to shoot them better. With male officers this was much less pronounced. I also read from a SME but I can't remember who so now I'll have to see if I can find it, that the grip angle of the traditional 1911/Sig/HK/Beretta/basically almost every other common service weapon are as much similar to each other as they are different from the Glock angle. They also said that they found that people who are typically more muscular tend to be better adapted to the traditional angle and people less so to the Glock angle. This isn't meant as a fit vs not fit but just a body type thing. To test this I had my wife hold the M&P and the Glock and she chose the Glock (she's a healthy 108lbs) I then had my bro-in-law (never shot a handgun) do the same and he chose the M&P. He's similar in size to me at 6'2" 220lbs and puts up a respectable bench press. I can't recall the exact reason but something about tendons and muscle mass. Now it certainly isn't scientific but anecdotally it does seem to be the case from what I've seen. All that to say I think hand shape and angle does play a significant role in all this and basically there is no one gun that is the best for every fit. For me it appears that the M&P just naturally fits better and allows me to control recoil better. It certainly would explain how the .40 M&P recoils softer for me then the Glock 17. In short I'm glad both options are available and I think they both have a definite place and advantage over each other in different areas and specifically for different people.
Now S&W just needs to demonstrate that they have solved the 9mm accuracy issue. I'm stil not convinced until I see some actual measured groups from a bunch of random guns. Here's hoping DocGKR gets some new ones and posts some groups.
....I believe part of that is that striker fired guns are just easier to shoot well in many cases. What I noted was that that was the most training they'd had in such a short time and I believe that was a factor.... Striker fired pistols have the advantage of a single trigger pull which in a DA/SA weapon is what will generally cause issues especially if the DA is a long and heavy pull and the SA is a short reset and light break. Consistency of the trigger pull across the board generally lends to more consistent and better results. Of course this is not always the case for every individual. I carried the DA/SA P226 for 15 years and I shoot it extremely well. Head to head on drills and it cannot keep up with the Glock, at least for me.
I also read from a SME but I can't remember who so now I'll have to see if I can find it, that the grip angle of the traditional 1911/Sig/HK/Beretta/basically almost every other common service weapon are as much similar to each other as they are different from the Glock angle. They also said that they found that people who are typically more muscular tend to be better adapted to the traditional angle and people less so to the Glock angle. You don't need some SME to explain this, it is true and the same thing I stated earlier. Most Americans are used to an 11 degree grip angle and the Glock has more of a Euro based grip angle at 17 degrees, more along the lines of a Luger.
This isn't meant as a fit vs not fit but just a body type thing. To test this I had my wife hold the M&P and the Glock and she chose the Glock (she's a healthy 108lbs) I then had my bro-in-law (never shot a handgun) do the same and he chose the M&P. He's similar in size to me at 6'2" 220lbs and puts up a respectable bench press. I can't recall the exact reason but something about tendons and muscle mass. Now it certainly isn't scientific but anecdotally it does seem to be the case from what I've seen. All that to say I think hand shape and angle does play a significant role in all this and basically there is no one gun that is the best for every fit. For me it appears that the M&P just naturally fits better and allows me to control recoil better. It certainly would explain how the .40 M&P recoils softer for me then the Glock 17.
IMO you're going down the wrong path of thinking here. Most men who are into guns were into guns from when they were kids playing cops and robbers. The American male is extremely ingrained with the American style grip angle from toys as a kid though adulthood. Most girls don't grow up playing with toy guns and shooting. So if we look at them as a general group and not individually, it would only stand to reason that women would have less of an opinion from prior familiarity be it toys or real weapons. Women also tend to be far more open minded when it comes to learning about firearms. Men think they know it all because they have been shooting rabbits since they were 8 years old and we cannot teach them anything about firearms. Women don't have that machismo thing to deal with and they are easily waaaay better students from scratch as a whole. It also stands to reason that if a shooter with lesser strength can gain an advantage on a pistol, then a stronger individual should also be able to benefit from the same effect also. I never heard anyone complain about having too much control over recoil. Also your assessment of the .40 caliber may be a bit off also. The M&P is a heavier weapon and for some people they may feel less felt or perceived recoil as the weapon soaks much of it up.
Now S&W just needs to demonstrate that they have solved the 9mm accuracy issue. I'm stil not convinced until I see some actual measured groups from a bunch of random guns. Here's hoping DocGKR gets some new ones and posts some groups.Again IMO, having dealt with S&W for almost 25 years, I will say that they needed to pull their heads out a long long time ago.
Understanding that it's the internet and hard to communicate training tips, if you (Surf) were to give verbal advice on the main things you see as helping people overcome the issue of pushing shots out of a Glock to the left what would it be?
Understanding that it's the internet and hard to communicate training tips, if you (Surf) were to give verbal advice on the main things you see as helping people overcome the issue of pushing shots out of a Glock to the left what would it be?
This topic is common and is running concurrently on another forum. Without re-typing everything I will give some links.
This link is found in the Resource Section of the site linked. Talks about the grip, setting it up, neutrality and the type of pressure that is desirable. I also suggest reading the original thread that my post originated from. It is referenced by the Staff member in the same link.
http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?13673-Thoughts-on-the-grip
I was also asked to comment in this below linked thread that is current discussion. It mirrors some of your questions. I used to have an extensive youtube channel with a lot of technical information. It no longer exists, but I just found out from that thread that someone had copied one of the video's on trigger, especially in regards to the Glock and they have it hosted on their channel. No big deal, but that is the only video of mine that I know still exists publicly online. The video is long, but there is a lot of technical info that instructors who even understand that material will generally only share with paying students. Page 2 is where I comment.
http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?14022-How-Important-Is-The-Perfect-Grip
Sorry but this is the easiest way to communicate this information online.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.