View Full Version : Pistol Recommendation?
I've started looking into getting a new pistol for training/carry. and have settled on going polymer for this one. This means that I'm considering the following weapons. I'm leaning towards getting it chambered in .40S&W for both ammo availability, carry capacity, and stopping power.
Springfield Armory XD 4"
Smith & Wesson M&P Fullsize
Glock 22
Now, I know little about these pistols, so, I'm posing it to you guys what would work best.
I've also considered a Sig, or a CZ, but, I'm fairly ignorant on those systems as well.
CZ P-06, or SP-01
Sig P226
Any advice you could provide would be appreciated.
-Adam
dirksterg30
04-02-09, 11:54
I've started looking into getting a new pistol for training/carry. and have settled on going polymer for this one. This means that I'm considering the following weapons. I'm leaning towards getting it chambered in .40S&W for both ammo availability, carry capacity, and stopping power.
If you want something with "stopping power", I'd recommend a 40mm grenade launcher. :D Truth is, the 40S&W isn't any better than other service calibers (9mm/45ACP/.38/.357 etc.) for terminal ballistics. My preference is for the 9mm - good ballistic performance with hollowpoints, relatively inexpensive, easy to shoot, and easy to find (notwithstanding the recent ammo scarcity). If you like the 40, that's fine. Just don't think it will drop the bad guy every time like Thor's Hammer. Here's a good source for ballistics info: http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm
Springfield Armory XD 4"
Smith & Wesson M&P Fullsize
Glock 22
Now, I know little about these pistols, so, I'm posing it to you guys what would work best.
I've also considered a Sig, or a CZ, but, I'm fairly ignorant on those systems as well.
CZ P-06, or SP-01
Sig P226
Any advice you could provide would be appreciated.
-Adam
I have no experience with the P-06, but I did own the very similar P-01 in 9mm.
Here is my take on the P-06:
Trigger - You will have to learn 2 different trigger pulls - a long double-action trigger pull for the first shot, followed by a much shorter single-action trigger pull after that. Depending on your skill level, it may take you some time to master the 2 different triggers. For me, I found that I didn't shoot the DA trigger as well as I would have liked. I ended up selling it and switching it to an M&P 9 compact.
Grip/controls - I found the location of the mag release, slide lock and decocker to be ideal for me. The grip felt like it was made specifically for me.
Slide configuration - the slide rides inside the frame, which can make the slide harder to grab. I never had an issue with this, but other people have had problems with it.
Accessories - CZ's are not as popular as other brands in the US, so accessories (sights, holsters, etc.) are not as available. You may not be able to find a holster or night sights for a CZ at your local gun store. Having said that, you will be able to find most anything you need via the internet.
Fit & Finish - most CZ's come with a polycoat finish over parkerizing. It's not pretty, but it works. CZ's are also known for somewhat rough internals, but this does not affect function. Personally, I don't care about that - it's a tool, not a barbecue gun.
Littlelebowski
04-02-09, 11:58
M&P 40.
I don't think you can go wrong with any of the manufacturers you listed.
My advice would be to put in some time with all three and base your decision on what fits you best. If you can't rent them from your local range perhaps you could borrow from a friend.
The full size is not going to be as easy to conceal, but if I could only purchase one pistol I would go with fullsize.
The only thing I would question is the .40 caliber choice.
If I were you (and perhaps this is personel preference) I'd consider going to .45 or a 9mm. Again, if it's your only gun I'd choose the 9mm. Plenty of stoping power, ammo is relatively inexpensive, and it's fairly plentiful. All that boils down to is much more frequent and affordable practice and training.
If I could only have one pistol I'd get a full size M&P 9mm.
Business_Casual
04-02-09, 12:08
The Glock 22 is ubiquitous and spare parts, magazines and holsters are available everywhere.
The M&P 40 has the advantage of being a recent design and having a chassis in the polymer frame.
M_P
RogerinTPA
04-02-09, 12:12
M&P40 full sized. 40 cal ammo is way more available than 9, 38 or 45 in my area. If you decide to go 9mm, go with an M&P9 or G19.
Tough decision-the good news is, I don't think that there's a bad decision to be made in your matrix. Out of YOUR provided choices, I'd recommend the Glock 22 over the others-while it's not perfect, it has the advantage of being fielded for years, with most of the bugs worked out and Glock provides superlative after-market support. I'm impressed with the excellent "grippability" of the latest Glock iteration of the G22, the G22 with their Rough Textured Grip (RTF2).
I'd have to echo some of the previous comments about the viability of .40 when compared to contemporary 9mm choices. Unless your agency/organization mandates .40, and assuming that you do have accessability to some of the modern, good performing 9mm cartridges available, I just not sure that there's a good reason to choose .40 over 9mm. I'm not faulting the performance of good .40 cartridge choices, I'm simply suggesting that comperable performances can be achieved with a 9mm selection-and 9mm is usually significantly less expensive.
Given that, I'd suggest that a Glock 17 or Glock 19 be a first choice consideration.
Among the guns NOT in your matrix, in .40 I'd suggest considering a SIG-Sauer P229, or one of the current HK family of .40 pistols.
In all fairness, a consideration FOR .40 might be ammunition availability, at least in the current/short run; in my neck of the Pacific Northwest neck of the woods, it's currently actually easier to find .40 than it is 9mm and .45 ACP...but I suspect that demand and availability will eventually level off for the better.
If you're in law enforcement, the military, or a first responder, Glock, SIG-Sauer, Smith & Wesson, and I believe Springfield (and I'm sure others) have some excellent individual officer discount programs in place, but you may have to buy from specific dealers to take advantage of them.
Best, Jon
Glock 22 is a superb choice
decodeddiesel
04-02-09, 13:08
If I were in the market for a weapon to fulfill the role which you have specified I would get a full size M&P 9mm.
I have both the Glock 17 & 22. 17 for teaching, classes and competition. 22 for what is left. No more 1911's, revolvers, subcompacts or extra large guns (G21 is on market). Decided to slim down and stick to what i shoot well and forget about having an armory. The fit in the hand and trigger arrangements work for me.
True the 9mm ammo is cheaper but oddly enouth the 40 is available now where 9mm is MIA (in my locality). So im glad i have both.
I would tend to believe what most people here say about terminal ballistics. However, i often wonder why the FBI, the "Unit" and so many, many others have chosen the 40 S&W/G22 over the 9mm and Glock 17. Until i fully understand this question and 9mm ammo comes back from captivity i am glad i have both.
BTW i held the M&P 40 the other day and could not stop thinking about how good it felt in the hand. The trigger system kept me from opening my wallet, but i came close.
Smith and Wesson M&P .40S&W. It manages recoil well, is a VERY robust design to handle the .40S&W cartridge, and it is more accurate than a lot of polymer alternatives out there.
ChristisKing
04-02-09, 15:23
I went through this searching process about 6 years ago and I found that the Glock 23 was the 40 taylored for me. I have shot competitively with one now for about that long and have loved every second of the gun. I clean it once a year and maybe relube it one other time during the year out of guilt.
I put about 1,500-3,500 rounds a year over the 6 years through my Glock without one hick up. If I had to guess I'm around the 12,000 mark with it.
Bonuses for this gun are abundant mags because you can use both the model 22 and 23 mags for it. They use to be pretty cheap brand new at a whopping 24 bucks retail now I think it's 29 even that's not horrible.
You can customize the gun for next to nothing by adding an extended mag and slide release and even a 3.5 lbs. trigger for around $50.
I would even suggest getting some Heine slot 8 night sights for it.
It is officially my favorite firearm.
Good luck with your decision I hope I have helped in some way.
Sir,
At this point in time, I would not choose the SA XD, especially in 40 cal. I would also strongly suggest you avoid the G22 or for that matter any Glock in calibers other than 9 mm. Because of the recent decline in Sig QC, I would also not go that route. CZ is a non-player.
Your best bet for a high quality, new out of the box pistol would be to choose:
-- a 9 mm Glock, as these are very well proven, reliable, durable pistols with world wide availability of parts.
-- any caliber S&W M&P, as these are proving to be extremely capable, soft shooting, accurate pistols and S&W offers the best customer support in the business.
-- an HK P30 or HK45, as these are seemingly working very well, although spotty parts availability can be a bit of a deterrent, as can HK's mercurial customer support history
-- a 9 mm Glock, as these are very well proven, reliable, durable pistols with world wide availability of parts.
-- any caliber S&W M&P, as these are proving to be extremely capable, soft shooting, accurate pistols and S&W offers the best customer support in the business.
-- an HK P30 or HK45, as these are seemingly working very well, although spotty parts availability can be a bit of a deterrent, as can HK's mercurial customer support history
I would like to echo the call for a Glock in 9mm. I'm partial to the 17, but the 19's are great too, especially if you will carry them.
The M&P's I've shot have been excellent, and would also be an excellent choice. They currently have their 2 free mag coupon in effect, so that makes them even more tempting. They were also designed with the .40 cal in mind, so they are built around that cartridges recoil energy.
As to HK, Doc's comments are spot on. Smith is a great source of parts for their guns, and you can get Glock parts just about every where. I will add that mags for the HKs are tough to come by. I finally found a couple of mags for my HK45, and I thought they were a bargain at $55 each. If you train hard, you'll need proably 5 or more mags. With Glock, you'll be out about $75-90. With the coupon, you'll only need to pay for one more mag, say $30-40. With an HK, you're out over $150. Now try to find holsters and sights. Everybody makes a Glock holster or sight, and the M&P is catching up. HK is way behind.
For .40 and .45, I think the M&Ps are the best thing going. For 9mm, I still like the Glocks, but the M&P's are good too. I would pass over the XD and any DA/SA gun. That's just me though. Try to find a place that has rental guns for you to try out.
I just picked up a M&P full size to compliment my 2 compacts. This one will be for keeping at my bedside with a light attached. I also expect it to be easier for my wife to shoot well. She has a bit of carpel tunnel syndrome.
Buckaroo
Smith & Wesson M&P Fullsize
Glock 22
Springfield Armory XD 4"
All normal advice to newbies applies: Try them yourself, assess your specific needs, get a 9mm instead of a .40, yadda yadda yadda.
The xd is a little bulky and heavy for CCW, think of trying to conceal a small brick:D trust me, I picked up the 4" thinking it would conceal well, picked up a new ccw and probably gonna sell my 4" for the 5". For concealing I think the 239 or atleast the 229 would be the better choice in that platform
From my experience I would recommend a Glock in 9mm VS .40. Both my G19 & G23 have performed very well in the past several years that I've owned them. Personally I wouldn't purchase the G23 again and would stick with either 9mm or .45 and would recommend you do the same.
That being said I'm taking a hard look at the M&P line in either 9mm or .45 with the thumb safety. I've been shooting my 1911 alot this past year and have really gotten used to a thumb safety and think it has some definite benefits to it. Does anyone have any experience with the thumb safety on the M&Ps either positive or negative or reasons not to have one?
Marcus, thanks for taking the time to post the detailed test results. Looking at the data, it strikes me (no particular pun intended) that while you get greater expansion with the 180 gr .40 round, you concurrently get greater penetration. Without knowing what the ideal benchmarks are (i.e., what is the ideal penetration depth, and at what measurement does overpenetration become a concern) it's difficult for me to comment on the results.
You also extensively quote Urey Patrick (or is it Patrick Urey?) and his "10mm Notes." I appreciate the partial cites, and the information, but what is the date of the comments? If it's back in the 1980s or 1990s, I think much water (and subsequent cartridge/bullet development) has passed under the bridge. Nor do I hear of much individual or institutional/organizational clamoring for any reinstitution of the 10mm, either cartridge- or platform-wise, other than for hunting/wilderness use (despite the probability of it penetrating vehicles better than 9mm or .40).
Unfortunately, I think that your first quote about the 9mm being "generally as good as the .38 special" does little but cast credibility questions on the remainder of his quotes. Are you indeed asserting that this is still the case?
The next question that I would have is that given the expansion numbers, what is the ideal/benchmark for ideal incapacitation? At first blush the assumed answer is that the greater the expansion, the greater/quicker the incapacitation, but is this actually the case-and, if so, given that in most cases cited in the test results that we're only seeing about .1" difference, is there an actual, empirical real-world difference in incapacitation rates between 9mm and .40 in the rounds tested (or otherwise)?
Best, Jon
Recoil among the common service calibers is negligable given the skill and technique of the shooter.
I'd have to disagree with that, and it is in fact rather demonstrably untrue. With the exception of poor shooters (who basically suck equally with any caliber), the difference between a 9mm and a full power .40 is far from negligible. I've watched agencies switch from 9mm to .40 and watched them struggle to get previous low-but-passing officers to qualify. And I don't think you'd find a serious competitive shooter who'd tell you he shoots full power .40 ammo as well as he shoots 9mm (or .40 Minor, etc.).
I can shoot a 9mm measurably better than the other popular LE calibers. I can shoot the 357 SIG and 45 Auto about equally to one another, and all of them better than a full power .40 S&W. I honestly believe .45 GAP exists for no other purpose than to make the .40 seem easy to shoot. :cool:
Of course, the differences -- especially under practical circumstances -- are small, just like the terminal performance differences are small. All else being equal, I'd rather the choice that maximizes my skill.
At first blush the assumed answer is that the greater the expansion, the greater/quicker the incapacitation, but is this actually the case-and, if so, given that in most cases cited in the test results that we're only seeing about .1" difference, is there an actual, empirical real-world difference in incapacitation rates between 9mm and .40 in the rounds tested (or otherwise)?
http://williamthecoroner.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/istock_can-of-worms.jpg
LOL-But you pretty much answered my pointed little query with the last sentence in your posting previous to the can of worms one....which was pretty much my inference.
Best, Jon
Beat Trash
04-02-09, 19:34
Of the guns listed by the OP, I'd strongly suggest the M&P.
If you are willing to remain open minded, I'd suggest considering the 9mm vs. the 40 cal. Ammunition is cheaper, therefor more practice ammo for the same money. It's easier to put rounds on target due to less recoil with the 9mm. With appropriate ammunition, the 9mm will work. Provided you do your part as it relates to shot placement.
At the end of the day, it's all about shot placement.
If you are willing to consider a 9mm gun, then I'd recommend the M&P's, along with the Glock 17 & Glock 19.
Through into the mix what happens when you live in a jurisdiction that outlaws the use of hollow point ammo as i do. I would think the bigger hole of a 40 S&W to be of importance in the choice of caliber. Might be one of the reasons why Delta has chosen the Glock 22.
Among those of you who promote the M&P, can we agree that the trigger is problematic in its stock configuration?
Marcus, awesome post.
Another thing that I would add is this:
Even though the most modern and most capable 9mm rounds are seemingly well conceived and constructed rounds that seem to be significantly superior to the old 9mm rounds of the 80s, and 90's in the area of penetration and controlled expansion, the assumption is made that one will always be graced with the ability of acquiring this wunder9mm ammo.
When times are tough we might be stuck with all sorts of non bonded and poorly designed JHPs, and even just with FMJ ammo, especially us civilians. Across the complete spectrum of potentially available ammunition then, I think that the .40 S&W does have noticable advantages. Even with FMJ ammo, I'd rather choose a .40 TMJ bullet than round nosed 9 mm ball.
So yes, the best loads 9mm are probably quite close to the .40 and the .45, but those best loads might not be available, especially in times to come, if not currently.
Of course an inability to shoot fast enough for effective self defense trumps caliber and one needs to down grade to a smaller, easier to shoot caliber.
But I'm not sure that the amount of training that a typical law enforcement trainee gets should be used as an indication of the ability of a dedicated shooter to master slightly harder recoiling handguns. And to be honest, the .40 can hardly be considered a hard recoiling round, unless the only time one shoots is twice a year for qualification :(
Might be one of the reasons why Delta has chosen the Glock 22
Are they truly issuing the G22? What kind of ammo do they use, do you know? Are they compelled to use FMJ ammo?
Among those of you who promote the M&P, can we agree that the trigger is problematic in its stock configuration?
They vary quite a bit from gun to gun. Newer guns are definitely better. Even the original guns seem to be satisfying LE customers. Hobbyists tinker with everything.
NO striker fired gun has what I would consider a truly excellent trigger out of the box. Even with work, it can't really do what a well tuned single action delivers. The question, like so many other things in this thread, is "are you wasting your time looking for the best when perfectly good enough is staring you in the face?"
Across the complete spectrum of potentially available ammunition then, I think that the .40 S&W does have noticable advantages.
The same 0.05" difference you see in expanded diameter will be there if you have non-expanding ammo.
So yes, the best loads 9mm are probably quite close to the .40 and the .45, but those best loads might not be available, especially in times to come, if not currently.
Then spend a couple hundred bucks and buy a case of your favorite 9mm JHP. There, you're set for life.
Of course an inability to shoot fast enough for effective self defense trumps caliber and one needs to down grade to a smaller, easier to shoot caliber.
How fast will you need to be able to shoot the next time you're in a gunfight?
And if you can answer that, I'd also really appreciate Saturday's Powerball winning number ...
But I'm not sure that the amount of training that a typical law enforcement trainee gets should be used as an indication of the ability of a dedicated shooter to master slightly harder recoiling handguns. And to be honest, the .40 can hardly be considered a hard recoiling round, unless the only time one shoots is twice a year for qualification :(
The typical law enforcement trainee gets substantially more training, as well as regular qualification testing, than the typical private citizen gun owner. I'm not sure what you think a "dedicated shooter" is, but I've met a lot of folks who thought they were "dedicated shooters" who couldn't shoot worth a damn.
I shoot a lot more than twice a year, and I think the .40 is harder to control than the 9mm. If you can teach me how to fix that, I am all ears.
the1911fan
04-02-09, 21:51
NO striker fired gun has what I would consider a truly excellent trigger out of the box.
Maybe it's me but I considered the H&K PM series to have excellent triggers and they are striker fired. Very light crisp 1911 like trigger is what I remember.
I really want to love the M&P's like the rest of you do. I really do. Its American. It feels great in my hands. Reliable. Great QC and Customer Service. Price is right (atleast until recently). But come on-the trigger does not compare to a Glock. Compared to a 1911, Glock triggers are bad. But from 1911 to M&P-really terrible. In fact if any of you teach-most here do to some extent-how do you explain trigger control and reset using an M&P?
Wow! I didn't realize that I would start a whole merry storm over what I thought might be a simple question...lol
Can we though, talk more about the pistols? Caliber, while intrinsically tied to the weapon system, is secondary at the moment for me, while I attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.
I have a lot of good reading material for in the morning, that's for certain. Keep the good thoughts coming though guys. I'll try and go back and answer any questions directed at me then.
...the difference between a 9mm and a full power .40 is far from negligible.
...And I don't think you'd find a serious competitive shooter who'd tell you he shoots full power .40 ammo as well as he shoots 9mm (or .40 Minor, etc.)
...I shoot a lot more than twice a year, and I think the .40 is harder to control than the 9mm.
I'm with Todd on this one. 9mm, and even .45 ACP, are noticeably easier to control than .40 S&W.
And to be honest, the .40 can hardly be considered a hard recoiling round, unless the only time one shoots is twice a year for qualification
.40 S&W most certainly is to be considered a hard-recoiling cartridge, especially in the <180-gr loads. Ask Bill Rogers about the fact that the vast majority of students who attend his course shooting .40 S&W's either switch guns (most often to one chambered in 9mm) or don't pass the qual.
In fact if any of you teach-most here do to some extent-how do you explain trigger control and reset using an M&P?
Identically to any other gun. The principles are the same.
I've met many people who prefer the Glock stock trigger over the M&P stock trigger, and I've met many people who prefer the M&P stock trigger over the Glock stock trigger. So it's hard to say that one is universally better than the other. The M&P tends to be smoother while the Glock has a stronger and more "clicky" reset. Both can easily be modified to compensate for the factory trigger's failings.
Identically to any other gun. The principles are the same.
I've met many people who prefer the Glock stock trigger over the M&P stock trigger, and I've met many people who prefer the M&P stock trigger over the Glock stock trigger. So it's hard to say that one is universally better than the other. The M&P tends to be smoother while the Glock has a stronger and more "clicky" reset. Both can easily be modified to compensate for the factory trigger's failings.
Well the Glock can be modified (within five minutes)by pulling out the pins and inter-changing any one of the different variations of trigger springs and connectors-without a trip to Smyrna. If the same is true of the M&P-without a trip to Springfield then i need to get me one of those-quick.
Well the Glock can be modified (within five minutes)by pulling out the pins and inter-changing any one of the different variations of trigger springs and connectors-without a trip to Smyrna. If the same is true of the M&P-without a trip to Springfield then i need to get me one of those-quick.
Sure, you can do that with the Smith, too. It won't fix all the problems just like it can't fix all the Glock's problems. People who want a tuned trigger will tune their trigger. But the vast majority of people will keep the trigger exactly the way it was upon delivery ... and be perfectly satisfied.
PLCedeno--I actually prefer the M&P trigger to the Glock. The dropping in the S&W Performance Center Sear is an easy way to improve the M&P trigger.
The .40 S&W 180 gr loads have an advantage over 9 mm when shooting though intermediate barriers like auto windshields; if you have a high potential of engaging assailants around vehicles, the .40 S&W has an advantage over 9 mm. Note that I am perfectly comfortable using good loads in any of the common service pistol calibers--all will work. I am currently qualified on the .45 ACP M1911 and 9 mm G19; if we can ever get .40 M&P's w/ambi safeties, I'll likely switch to those.
theJanitor
04-03-09, 12:09
Wow! I didn't realize that I would start a whole merry storm over what I thought might be a simple question...lol
Can we though, talk more about the pistols? Caliber, while intrinsically tied to the weapon system, is secondary at the moment for me, while I attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.
I have a lot of good reading material for in the morning, that's for certain. Keep the good thoughts coming though guys. I'll try and go back and answer any questions directed at me then.
Was there a specific reason for selecting 40cal weapons? availability of ammo, issued caliber, etc?
while it would be desirable to separate the caliber discussion from the weapon selection, with regards to the Glocks, it is impossible.
Here's my take: If you're set on 40, then get the M&P. It's the softest shooting 40 i know of without the malfunction (with light) issues of the glock. If you can entertain the 9mm, then choose between the M&P and the G17/19 based on how well you shoot them.
get_the_roof
04-03-09, 12:29
Wow! I didn't realize that I would start a whole merry storm over what I thought might be a simple question...lol
Can we though, talk more about the pistols? Caliber, while intrinsically tied to the weapon system, is secondary at the moment for me, while I attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.
I have a lot of good reading material for in the morning, that's for certain. Keep the good thoughts coming though guys. I'll try and go back and answer any questions directed at me then.
I don't mean to be a wise-ass and please don't take this the wrong way anyone. I'm surprised with all the knowledge assembled here someone hasn't said this:
In the end it's what works for YOU not what works for anyone here. Go to a few gun shops. Stick with reputable, big name manufacturers (like the ones listed), grip a few, see what feels right for you. As for frame size, we don't know how big or small, tall or short, fat or skinny you are. That has a lot to do with how well you conceal a full size pistol.
Do you have any friends at the range? Ask them if you can try their weapons. You won't know if you like a particular model until you shoot it.
I'm not a pro, but I can tell you I've been carrying a concealed weapon for many years and have flushed a lot of money from buying and trading pistols and revolvers. I wish I knew then what I know now:D
You're doing the right thing though, read, ask questions, read some more but in the end find a pistol that's comfortable to hold, carry and shoot.
Also don't forget that holster selection has a lot to do with how comfortable a rig is to carry. Holsters, there's another source of wasted money:rolleyes:
OK, all that being said, I typically carry a Kimber Pro-Carry in .45. That's what I've found works for me. But what do I know, I'm just a dumb fireman:cool:
Unfortunately, gripping a pistol in a gunstore does not tell you anything about how the pistol will function during live fire. For example, the small grip inserts on M&P's feel great in my hand, however, I actually shoot better with the large M&P grip inserts; while the large girp inserts don't subjectively feel as good, I clearly have a more secure and complete grip on the pistol, as my par times are faster, I am more accurate in rapid fire, and the pistol is not moving as much during recoil. Comfort and function do not necessarily go together...
Likewise, other pistols that I once thought "felt good"; turned out to not function as well as I thought as my understanding of shooting increased and I actually started objectively analyzing my efforts.
get_the_roof
04-03-09, 12:57
Unfortunately, gripping a pistol in a gunstore does not tell you anything about how the pistol will function during live fire. For example, the small grip inserts on M&P's feel great in my hand, however, I actually shoot better with the large M&P grip inserts; while the large girp inserts don't subjectively feel as good, I clearly have a more secure and complete grip on the pistol, as my par times are faster, I am more accurate in rapid fire, and the pistol is not moving as much during recoil. Comfort and function do not necessarily go together...
Likewise, other pistols that I once thought "felt good"; turned out to not function as well as I thought as my understanding of shooting increased and I actually started objectively analyzing my efforts.
Exactly, which is why I also recommended he shoot as many as he can too.;)
Ditto on the previous posts suggesting you try before you buy. Whenever I'm shopping for something new, I call the local ranges to see who has one to rent and put at least a full box through it. I recently considered buying an M&P 9. I really liked the way the it felt, but wasn't so pleased when I finally shot one. That could have been a $500 mistake.
I carry a 2nd gen Glock 19 daily and have zero complaints about it. I have heard plenty of positives on any of your choices, so to again mimic other posts - buy what feels best to you.
theJanitor
04-03-09, 13:48
so to again mimic other posts - buy what WORKS best for you.
fixed it for you
fixed it for you
In this context, yes, much better.
the1911fan
04-03-09, 14:03
Ditto on the previous posts suggesting you try before you buy. Whenever I'm shopping for something new, I call the local ranges to see who has one to rent and put at least a full box through it. I recently considered buying an M&P 9. I really liked the way the it felt, but wasn't so pleased when I finally shot one. That could have been a $500 mistake.
.
I did'nt like the M&P 9 that I had when compared to the M&P 45. I find that I lose a couple hundreths of a second in speed and have gained accuracy with the M&P 45 over the M&P 9.
I do find the M&P trigger to be OK but not as good as 1911's and Glocks. I tried to like the M&P and am keeping the M&P 45 for now but I put an order in for a G21 SF w/ trijicons getting it for $560 tax included
PLCedeno--I actually prefer the M&P trigger to the Glock. The dropping in the S&W Performance Center Sear is an easy way to improve the M&P trigger.
The .40 S&W 180 gr loads have an advantage over 9 mm when shooting though intermediate barriers like auto windshields; if you have a high potential of engaging assailants around vehicles, the .40 S&W has an advantage over 9 mm. Note that I am perfectly comfortable using good loads in any of the common service pistol calibers--all will work. I am currently qualified on the .45 ACP M1911 and 9 mm G19; if we can ever get .40 M&P's w/ambi safeties, I'll likely switch to those.
The day after i put my hands on the M&P 40 and fell in love with the feel of the gun (but not the trigger) i called S&W. I was told the PC Sear was part of a $125.00 action job that would require a trip to Springfield lasting at least a week. No problem there-i thought until i was also told the aforementioned sear would lighten the trigger but not give any improvement on the reset. I will admit however, that trigger feel can be a subjective thing. My comments only apply to my personal preference.
Beat Trash
04-03-09, 18:48
My Department has had around 1,200 of the M&P 9mm's in the filed for a bit over 3 years now.
One thing discovered is that the trigger will smooth out a bit, and lighten .25-.5 lb after around 5K round count. Once there, the trigger pull remains consistent.
We received some of the first 9mm M&P's made. Current guns seem to have a nicer trigger out of the box.
Guess what I am saying is that one way to smooth the trigger pull is to shoot the piss out of the gun!
The day after i put my hands on the M&P 40 and fell in love with the feel of the gun (but not the trigger) i called S&W. I was told the PC Sear was part of a $125.00 action job that would require a trip to Springfield lasting at least a week. No problem there-i thought until i was also told the aforementioned sear would lighten the trigger but not give any improvement on the reset. I will admit however, that trigger feel can be a subjective thing. My comments only apply to my personal preference.
You can have a trigger job done for $70-$85 by one of several M&P smiths that will put the Performance Shop's trigger job to shame.IMHO
i didnt completely read the hole thread and you probably bought one by now:o buttttt, i tell you this, you can put that glock through things those others even the springfield would cringe at and it will still function flawlessly. Like the Austrian handgun equivilent of the AK only alottttt more accurate! If your just CCW'in it id pick any, but in any case id go with a glock cause of shear reliability, and accuracy aint bad. I dont know ive handled the SIG but not a lot of experience and owned a 1rst gen. XD and a Glock and the XD has a bit better ergonomix but i prefer that GLOCK feel:D
No problem there-i thought until i was also told the aforementioned sear would lighten the trigger but not give any improvement on the reset.
I'm surprised they'd say that. As I understand it, the PC trigger job includes making the standard gunsmith tune-up to the firing pin block, etc., to reduce and "crisp" the reset. If you want a more forceful reset, the Performance Center will -- after you bug them enough -- install the Massachusetts trigger bar and spring which will give you about a 6.5# trigger pull but much stronger reset. It works out to be almost identical to a Glock when combining the 3.5# connector and NY1 trigger spring.
you can put that glock through things those others even the springfield would cringe at and it will still function flawlessly.
Can you provide us with a list of some of those "things?"
Beat Trash
04-04-09, 08:11
i tell you this, you can put that glock through things those others even the springfield would cringe at and it will still function flawlessly. :D
I'm not trying to be a prick, but this statement makes me go "Hmmmm".
I'm a huge Glock 9mm fan. That they are extremely durable, I'll agree. I'd even go so far as to say the Glock 9mm raised the bar as far as durability, that newer designs aspire to achieve.
I have no experience with the Springfield XD series pistols, so I will not offer comment. Yes, I have read alot of comments about then on the internet. But as I have not had personal experience, I have nothing to add. I refuse to use stories and unsupported statements by strangers in a magazine or on a web site, to support what I would have others to believe as a factual statement.
I do have alot of experience with the S&W M&P 9mm's. My department received the first three 9mm M&P's on planet earth as T&E guns about four years ago. We since adopted them, fielding around 1,200 guns. The amount of torture the T&E guns received was mind boggling. The guys were trying everything they could think of to abuse these guns, in the attempt to make them fail. The design staff at S&W were supportive, saying, "Go for it, let us know what happens".
I only put about 2,500 rounds through the T&E guns personally. I have around 9K through my personally issued gun. Department wide, there has yet to be any issues arise with the design.
While I originally stated I'm a huge Glock 9mm fan (especially the G-19), the more time I spend using the M&P, the more I feel safe in saying I feel the M&P is the equal of the Glock 9mm in durability.
Agree or disagree with me, you won't offend me. But please back up your statements with actual facts that you can personally attest to. That is what separates this site from Glock Talk or ARFCOM.
decodeddiesel
04-04-09, 09:09
Get the Smith.
+1000. I just picked up an M&P9C last night. I can't believe I waited this long to get into these pistols, they are simply outstanding.
I'm surprised they'd say that. As I understand it, the PC trigger job includes making the standard gunsmith tune-up to the firing pin block, etc., to reduce and "crisp" the reset. If you want a more forceful reset, the Performance Center will -- after you bug them enough -- install the Massachusetts trigger bar and spring which will give you about a 6.5# trigger pull but much stronger reset. It works out to be almost identical to a Glock when combining the 3.5# connector and NY1 trigger spring.
Can you provide us with a list of some of those "things?"
I'm away from a computer at the time but I'll have to post a link to a interesting article on a G21 test, while it's just an Internet article and there's no way to actually know if it's true, I will attest to my glocks durability over my Springfields and the SIG, however I should have excluded the CZ cause I have 0 experience with them. What I find happens with the Sig 226 however, is when you get down in the mud, grime, and sand the thing will sometimes fire the chambered round and then it'll have a FTF and will get crap stuck in under the trigger and it's all I can do to pull the trigger with the crap up in there. I personally dont own a SIG but I have a friend who has one, who thinking because he paid 300$ more than my glock for it had a better gun, so he and I agreed to make a torture test similar to the the one found in the article I'll post a link to later. I independently tested my XD and for what ever reason, it jams ALOT more than my glock when it's covered in mud etc. And as far as the M&P goes, I've never actually tested one, but I know a few people who's department fields them, and while they say they're great feeling and accurate, after a few thousand rounds without cleaning they begin to not feed. So three of the guns I have firsthand experience with, and the M&P I can only offer the testimony of a friend, I guess I'm just biased towards my G21 cause I've seen Mk. 23's go through less torture before failing. And while I hope it never comes to it, if my life depends on a handgun, I have to know that gun is the toughest most rugged out. IMHO this is my experience, and if you'd like to look for that article, I think it was on a site named "theprepared.com" if I'm not mistaken. Oh and one thing I will add is that the tennifer finish on the glocks is actually tuffer than any duracoat or ceracoat you'll find so I'm told, the only problem is is that the EPA won't let gun manufacters do it in the U.S. It's quite an interesting process how they do it, im into weird things like that :D. PS, if there's any mispels in this it cause I'm typin all this on a friends phone! My thumbs is numb!:D
I'm away from a computer at the time but I'll have to post a link to a interesting article on a G21 test, while it's just an Internet article and there's no way to actually know if it's true, I will attest to my glocks durability over my Springfields and the SIG, however I should have excluded the CZ cause I have 0 experience with them. What I find happens with the Sig 226 however, is when you get down in the mud, grime, and sand the thing will sometimes fire the chambered round and then it'll have a FTF and will get crap stuck in under the trigger and it's all I can do to pull the trigger with the crap up in there. I personally dont own a SIG but I have a friend who has one, who thinking because he paid 300$ more than my glock for it had a better gun, so he and I agreed to make a torture test similar to the the one found in the article I'll post a link to later. I independently tested my XD and for what ever reason, it jams ALOT more than my glock when it's covered in mud etc. And as far as the M&P goes, I've never actually tested one, but I know a few people who's department fields them, and while they say they're great feeling and accurate, after a few thousand rounds without cleaning they begin to not feed. So three of the guns I have firsthand experience with, and the M&P I can only offer the testimony of a friend, I guess I'm just biased towards my G21 cause I've seen Mk. 23's go through less torture before failing. And while I hope it never comes to it, if my life depends on a handgun, I have to know that gun is the toughest most rugged out. IMHO this is my experience, and if you'd like to look for that article, I think it was on a site named "theprepared.com" if I'm not mistaken. Oh and one thing I will add is that the tennifer finish on the glocks is actually tuffer than any duracoat or ceracoat you'll find, the only problem is is that the EPA won't let gun manufacters do it in the U.S. It's quite an interesting process how they do it, im into weird things like that :D. PS, if there's any mispels in this it cause I'm typin all this on a friends phone! My thumbs is numb!:D
It's hard to get a conclusive opinion on a pistol in most durability tests because you can't make each condition similar enough. Sure you can open up the action, toss some sand in, close the action and try to fire........but how much sand actually went inside the chamber, how much leaked out, how much encased the internals, did some get around the trigger springs? Every time I see a torture test on pistols the results are ALWAYS different. Even when the big boys like DOD or DHS do them they get different results each time. One year Glock wins, the next year Glock fails and Sig and H&K win such as in the case of the 2004 DHS testing.
In my opinion, the best tests are endurance testing by just firing the pistol and day to day use. Those tests seem to have the best overall reliability to the results. In a 20k-40k round test on an open range, there will be sand, sweat, and grime in the pistols which will help with determine their reliability.
I'm away from a computer at the time but I'll have to post a link to a interesting article on a G21 test, while it's just an Internet article and there's no way to actually know if it's true, I will attest to my glocks durability over my Springfields and the SIG, however I should have excluded the CZ cause I have 0 experience with them.
So you've read an internet report about a test done to the G21. Was that test also performed on other guns and they failed?
What I find happens with the Sig 226 however, is when you get down in the mud, grime, and sand the thing will sometimes fire the chambered round and then it'll have a FTF and will get crap stuck in under the trigger and it's all I can do to pull the trigger with the crap up in there.
Again, unless you're putting two guns through the same exact environment, you're just speculating. The SIG P226 has successfully won any number of procurements that involved various hostile environment tests like mud, sand, heat, cold, etc.
I independently tested my XD and for what ever reason, it jams ALOT more than my glock when it's covered in mud etc.
I'd need to hear more about your test methodology.
And as far as the M&P goes, I've never actually tested one,
... again, apples & oranges ...
but I know a few people who's department fields them, and while they say they're great feeling and accurate, after a few thousand rounds without cleaning they begin to not feed.
How were they maintained? What lube was used? How many rounds does your Glock go under those same circumstances? Apples & oranges ...
BTW, I know a thing or two about how M&Ps work when they're not cleaned. You're not going to convince me they're more maintenance intensive than a Glock, sorry.
So three of the guns I have firsthand experience with, and the M&P I can only offer the testimony of a friend, I guess I'm just biased towards my G21 cause I've seen Mk. 23's go through less torture before failing.
Again, source of some comparison of torture testing between the Mk23 and the G21, please. I'd have to see that to believe it.
And while I hope it never comes to it, if my life depends on a handgun, I have to know that gun is the toughest most rugged out.
Because? Your profile says you're 15 years old. Based on that experience, how have you come to the conclusion that a pistol's ability to function after it's been buried in mud is the most important aspect in weapon selection?
Oh and one thing I will add is that the tennifer finish on the glocks is actually tuffer than any duracoat or ceracoat you'll find, the only problem is is that the EPA won't let gun manufacters do it in the U.S. It's quite an interesting process how they do it, im into weird things like that :D.
It's a process very similar to the Melonite used on the M&P and many other guns. But I'll certainly grant that the Glock tends to have the most durable finish around. Again, while that is certainly an advantage, I'm not sure how it pertains to the gun's ability to perform -- or one's ability to perform with the gun -- in a fight.
I don't really care whether my pistol will work if I bury it in hot magma or whether it will show signs of corrosion after being submerged at the bottom of the Mariana Trench for three weeks. Uncool as it sounds, my gun doesn't even need to work after I've been standing in an Afghanistan dust storm for an hour ... because I'm not in Afghanistan.
My car can't take a direct hit from an RPG, but somehow I still manage to get where I need to go.
Choosing equipment based on someone else's requirements or environment doesn't get you the best gun. It gets you someone else's best gun.
edited to add: Remember, this side discussion began because you said the Glock could handle things other guns cannot. I've yet to see you offer evidence of such a thing. As Marcus pointed out, there seems to be a lot of "any given Sunday" involved in most of the harsh environment testing I've been party to.
Wow. A lot of great information in this thread. You will have to shoot, carry the three to really see what works best for you. If you are thinking about the G22, give the G23 a look too, as much as I've tried, it seems to always wind up being my CCW. I bought a used G23 in 1994 and every time I try and replace it, I fail. I have tried to replace it with a G30- too bulky, G27- I shoot the G30 and G23 much better, Ruger sp101- again, I shot the G30 and G23 better. So every contender has gotten carry time, but I always come back to the G23, it has a 2nd gen frame so there are no finger grooves like on the newer models and I prefer the smoother grip to the finger grooves. It just boils down to what you shoot the best and is the easiest to carry. For me it's the G23.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.