Glock vs. S&W

[Snake]

Ok, here's my problem.

I want to get a gun for home-defense, tactical classes and competition. 9mm is what I want to go with, so my choices boil down to these:

Glock 17 or 34, Scottsdale Gun Club and SportingArms has the 34 for $579, Sportingarms has the 17 for $487 (if I go with Glock, I'm gonna mod it, sights first, then send it to Bowie to have the grip stippled (i don't trust myself) and beveled)
S&W M&P9 Pro, Bud's has it for $579 (like above, I'm not gonna keep it stock, trigger job, change the funky looking sights and some other stuff)

What are you guys opinions and observations of these 3 guns? Also, They all fit my hand and point naturally, so I'm just looking for info.

[LOKNLOD]

If I needed to modify it that much, I wouldn't go with the Glock.

[Business_Casual]

I don't know you, so help me understand how can you know you want to modify a pistol so extensively when you don't even own it? Are you experienced with pistols enough to determine what changes will help you shoot? Have you had extensive training in using a handgun so that the changes can be of actual benefit?

If not, one supposes it might be best to get to that point before doing any modifications.

Doesn't really matter which one you pick, Glock or M&P. Both are fine handguns.

M_P

[Jack_Stroker]

The Glock has a longer track record. The Glock 17 has been on the US market for over 20 years and has proven itself. However, with all the changes you are planning, I can't say for sure which would be "better" or more reliable. If you really have equal feelings about each platform, you need to start nitpicking between the two of them to figure out which is going to be better for you. Personally, I prefer the Glock to the M&P. Hence why I own three Glocks and no M&P's. I've never even seriously entertained the idea of purchasing an M&P where as I've purchased three Glocks in the last week and a half and I'm planning on purchasing a Glock 20SF as soon as I can find one. After that I will probably grab a ported Glock 22.

Beyond that for all the intended uses, making changes that make the weapons better for compeition may not make them suitable for home defense or tactical training. Sometimes features that benefit one usage scenario are a detriment to the others.

[Snake]

I'm theoretically talking about customizing. I'm still in the decision mode and was just asking for info.

[Jack_Stroker]

I'm theoretically talking about customizing. I'm still in the decision mode and was just asking for info.

Well by nature niether gun lends itself that well to customization. Not when you compare them to the 1911 or something along those lines. However since the Glock has been around longer, you will probably have more options for customization that you would with the Smith & Wesson M&P.

[Snake]

John,

If I decide to get the Glock, I'm not gonna send it immediatly to Bowie, I'm gonna shoot it as much as I can in IDPA, USPSA and IPSC (if I can find one when I'm at) before sending it to Bowie.

[ToddG]

I'd definitely echo the comments that you need to get familiar with the guns before you start deciding to modify them. I suggest you throw the entire idea out the window and start from scratch with your thought process.

I can't sign on to the whole "the Glock has been around for 20 years" thing, sorry. I've worked for two other big gun companies and seen how their time-tested guns get modified without the consumer's knowledge year after year. Parts change, materials change, designs change. Yes, some of that is for the best -- bugs get worked out -- but some of it is cost savings or just plain mindless error.

Go to the range and rent both guns. Think about how you want to use it. Which one will better meet your needs?

[Jack_Stroker]

I'd definitely echo the comments that you need to get familiar with the guns before you start deciding to modify them. I suggest you throw the entire idea out the window and start from scratch with your thought process.

I can't sign on to the whole "the Glock has been around for 20 years" thing, sorry. I've worked for two other big gun companies and seen how their time-tested guns get modified without the consumer's knowledge year after year. Parts change, materials change, designs change. Yes, some of that is for the best -- bugs get worked out -- but some of it is cost savings or just plain mindless error.

Go to the range and rent both guns. Think about how you want to use it. Which one will better meet your needs?

Well the Glock has had a good track record overall. I realize things change, not always for the better and not always are the changes made public. Still, the weapon does have a good reputation and while the Smith & Wesson is gaining that, they still haven't been around as long.

I don't know. Maybe that doesn't matter to some people, but I think a given track record for a weapon is worth knowing and worth considering to some degree. I wouldn't base my whole decision on it. If I knew next to nothing about the weapons in question I'd give it some thought. For example, compare Highpoints reputation to say Glock's or CZ's, I'd be inclined to think that the Highpoint was more likely to be junk than the Glock or the CZ. I realize there are probably Highpoints out there that run fine and Glocks that run like crap. However those examples are probably few and far between compared to the norm. By that same token I wouldn't discount the Smith & Wesson because Glock's had a good reputation for so long.

Budget, ergonomics, aftermarket parts and accessories, factory offered options, features etc. all need to be considered and how that fits in with the intended role the weapon will be serving in.

[madisonsfinest]

I have no experience with the S&W so I will not comment on it. I do know that the PD I work for went away from S&W to Glock because Glock is easier to maintain (less moving parts) and rarely malfunction. I have shot thousands of rounds through the Glock 17 and never had a malfunction. I have a Glock 22 (40cal) which I've had for a couple years now and I haven't had a problem there either. I would consider a different calibre for home defense. The 9mm has a high velocity and can over penetrate. This would be bad if you have kids or family in another room. I think a .45 might be the way to go for home defense imho.

[Jack_Stroker]

I have no experience with the S&W so I will not comment on it. I do know that the PD I work for went away from S&W to Glock because Glock is easier to maintain (less moving parts) and rarely malfunction. I have shot thousands of rounds through the Glock 17 and never had a malfunction. I have a Glock 22 (40cal) which I've had for a couple years now and I haven't had a problem there either. I would consider a different calibre for home defense. The 9mm has a high velocity and can over penetrate. This would be bad if you have kids or family in another room. I think a .45 might be the way to go for home defense imho.

I've been using .45ACP for my defense caliber of choice for years now. Of course it has never been put to the test. In any case I recently picked up a Glock 21SF and I'm quite fond of it. Recoil is very managable and of course the weapon has proven to be as reliable as Glock's repuation made it out to be. Plus it holds 13+1 instead of my 1911's 10+1. (Using my Wilson 47T 10 round magazine.)

[IrishDevil]

The 9mm has a high velocity and can over penetrate. This would be bad if you have kids or family in another room. I think a .45 might be the way to go for home defense imho.

That's a new one, most defensive handgun calibers have very similar penetration.

[madisonsfinest]

That's a new one, most defensive handgun calibers have very similar penetration.

Well I'll see what I can do about digging up the pictures but when I was in the academy 10 years ago our training team did some tests shooting through numerous layers of drywall. The 9mm went through many more layers. Like I said I will try to get the photographic evidence to support what I'm saying

[BVickery]

Madisonfist,

You should dig up the information about modern 9mm loads as they have really changed from 10 yrs ago.

[30 cal slut]

i stopped torturing myself with this choice.

i have skads of BOTH.

i'm not trying to be silly here, but echoing other comments ... Glock 17 and 19 have proven track records for reliability. There are aspects of the S&W M&P/9 that are indeed improvements over the Glock.

it is interesting to note that some aftermarket acessories (crimson trace lasergrips for example) are just designed and made better for the M&P. and i'm sure there are instances of the opposite in favor of the Glock.

they're both worth having IMO.

[madisonsfinest]

I don't remember if it was practice ammo or hollow points. I thought if this last night but was too tired to turn my computer back on. I don't think civilians could by hollow point rounds in a lot of states back then but I could be mistaken. To the OP make sure you purchase hollow point rounds…

[Business_Casual]

The 9mm has a high velocity and can over penetrate. This would be bad if you have kids or family in another room. I think a .45 might be the way to go for home defense imho.

Since you are relatively new here I will do the research for you.

In the forum named "Terminal Ballistics Information" under the same sub-heading as this forum is a thread called "Service Pistol Duty and Self-Defense Loads" which shows testing by SME that debunks the pistol caliber debate.

Here is the link: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887

FYI - You would do well to not start debates about calibers on this site.

M_P

[madisonsfinest]

That's all well and good if you hit your target center mass but under conditions in a firefight your accuracy is not quite the same. I am speaking to the misses and how far the rounds will continue to travel through walls for example

[Jack_Stroker]

I have no experience with the S&W so I will not comment on it. I do know that the PD I work for went away from S&W to Glock because Glock is easier to maintain (less moving parts) and rarely malfunction. I have shot thousands of rounds through the Glock 17 and never had a malfunction. I have a Glock 22 (40cal) which I've had for a couple years now and I haven't had a problem there either. I would consider a different calibre for home defense. The 9mm has a high velocity and can over penetrate. This would be bad if you have kids or family in another room. I think a .45 might be the way to go for home defense imho.



That's a new one, most defensive handgun calibers have very similar penetration.

I've heard this as well. Not saying that it is correct, but that information does make the rounds out there on various forums.

[John_Wayne777]

As Modern_Pirate pointed out, handgun terminal ballistics is a fairly established discipline. For those who won't follow the link he provided, here's the picture DocGKR uses in that thread:

http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq319/DocGKR/Handgun_gel_comparison.jpg

That is with hollowpoint ammo.

FMJ ammo does not expand and tends to penetrate more deeply than expanding ammunition. Higher velocity 9mm ammo may well penetrate various mediums more than bigger and slower .45 FMJ ammo.

...still, as DocGKR points out, concerns about overpenetration should be secondary to concerns about missing the intended target, which LE shootings demonstrate to be much more of a probability than overpenetration.

[givo08]

Here's another link showing some testing done on dry wall:

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot1.htm

Conclusion: Any self defense caliber round you are going to fire is going to go through every wall in your house.

[Business_Casual]

As much as I love the B o' T, and I happen to be the guy in the white shirt shooting the windshield of the Buick, as well as the guy who sent him 45 ACP EFMJ ammo; don't take the results in his tests as gospel.

That is too small of a sample, in too small a medium in an uncontrolled non-labratory.

Just know that when you shoot, you need to be aware of your backstop and what is beyond it. As LAV says, the best backstop is the upper torso of the person at whom you are shooting. If you are planning on using a gun in a non-military environment you owe it to yourself to train for marksmanship. As LAV also says, "every bullet has a lawyer attached to it."

M_P

[C4IGrant]

Ok, here's my problem.

I want to get a gun for home-defense, tactical classes and competition. 9mm is what I want to go with, so my choices boil down to these:

Glock 17 or 34, Scottsdale Gun Club and SportingArms has the 34 for $579, Sportingarms has the 17 for $487 (if I go with Glock, I'm gonna mod it, sights first, then send it to Bowie to have the grip stippled (i don't trust myself) and beveled)
S&W M&P9 Pro, Bud's has it for $579 (like above, I'm not gonna keep it stock, trigger job, change the funky looking sights and some other stuff)

What are you guys opinions and observations of these 3 guns? Also, They all fit my hand and point naturally, so I'm just looking for info.

I would go with the pro (which we sell for $550 FYI).


C4

[gtmtnbiker98]

I own all the guns that you are considering and ran just shy of 15,000 rounds through my Glock 34 during last year's IDPA season. I shoot on average, one match a week and practice two additional days during the week on my department's range. The only thing that I had to do to the Glock is replace the recoil spring assembly after 5,000 rounds and that's it. My Glock 34 is two years old and has approximately 23,000 total rounds and no failures of any kind. I run my guns pretty hard during my practice sessions with little cleaning between range visits. The 9mm Glocks are a proven work horse.

With all the above noted, I have recently transitioned to an M&P 9 Pro Series and to date, have shot two local matches with it and will continue to evaluate the pistol throughout the off months and will "hopefully" use it for the upcoming IDPA season. If I can get through the first 2,000 rounds without any non-user induced stoppages then it will be my primary game gun.

I am with Grant on this one, if you are hinging between the MP Pro and the Glock 34 then I would go with the Pro. It offers more out of the box than the Glock. The Novak target and front FO sights aren't that bad, but Warren's wouldn't be too bad either. So far, I'm pretty content on the Novaks.

Best of luck on your search for the better weapon - bearing in mind that both are reliable at least for me.

[mrosamilia]

I've never handled the 34, but I do have the 9Pro and have become very fond of it. The trigger did take a little longer to smooth out than I thought maybe about 300 rounds, but it is very very good for me now.