View Full Version : What does a M&P9 do better then a 3rd Gen Glock 19?
Lucky Strike
11-30-10, 15:08
Getting a 9mm gun to put a MRDS on and trying to decide between these two. I'll be buying a used one so it seems like 3rd Gen glocks are cheaper/easier to find. Just trying to identify the differences between the two so I can decide if it's worth it for me personally to spend more on an M&P. I know the M&P should have an ergonomic edge. I've got pretty limited experience shooting either one (and both the M&P and Glocks i've shot were subcompacts) so I need to shoot ones with a full grip to see how they both feel for me.
Any other advancements/advantages the M&P would have over the Glock?
Business_Casual
11-30-10, 15:46
Ambi mag and slide release, ergo grip and CT laser mount is better, metal mags drop free better.
B_C
S&W is an american company, glock is austrian.
All things equal i try to buy USA
That said i own a glock because they offer a much better discount to firefighters.
Ambi mag and slide release, ergo grip and CT laser mount is better, metal mags drop free better.
B_C
These would be my observations as well.
Buckaroo
Bulldog1967
11-30-10, 15:59
IMO, has a better trigger than that suck-ass Glock trigger with the tongue.
TriumphRat675
11-30-10, 16:05
Not requiring you to pull the trigger to disassemble the M&P is a non-trivial safety feature.
M&P's also have the option for a 1911 style manual safety if that floats your boat.
New M&P's are generally cheaper by $50-100 in my neck of the woods.
In my experience, the M&P:
- Has noticeably less recoil
- Is slightly faster back on target
-Indexes with my hand better and allows me to find my grip, draw, and fire more quickly and confidently under pressure.
-Optional thumb safety is a big plus, and you can take it out and install factory plugs if you decide you don't like it.
-I prefer the DCAEK to a polished Glock trigger with (-) connector.
In comparing the M&P9 to the G17/19 and IMHO...
M&P pros:
1. American made.
2. S&W has fantastic customer service.
3. Ambidextrous controls, including an easier to reach mag release and a grippier slide release.
4. Adjustable grip fits more hands.
5. Better stock sights.
6. Handles recoil better than the Glock.
Glock pros:
1. Easy to support with a very simple design. Much easier to completely disassemble.
2. Parts available everywhere.
3. Slimmer design (M&Ps fit G20/21 sized holsters).
4. G19/23/32 is the ideal size for CCW.
5. Grip fits me fine and is preferred over the M&P.
6. More aggressive grip angle.
7. Tad lighter for carry.
8. MUCH better and more consistent stock trigger.
After owning an M&P9 for three years, I’m in the process of looking to replace it with a G17. I gave it plenty of time to convince me to sell off my G19 I’ve had for about five years and standardize on the M&P platform but was never totally sold.
Ambi mag and slide release, ergo grip and CT laser mount is better, metal mags drop free better.
B_C
This is pretty accurate without getting into other stuff.
For me (someone that does a lot of low light and CQB type training), CT laser grips are KING. The CT laser grips on the Glocks suck for me. So for no other reason, that seals the deal.
With that said, if you find a good deal on a used G19, buy it up! It is one of the best (all time) defensive HG's.
C4
Nothing.
I like both, but both have their advantages and detractions. The M&P offers two more rounds. From an armory stanpoint the Glock is a slightly simpler system and I would argue slightly more robust (especially with NY1 and OEM (-) connector) while the M&P offers more versatile ergonomics. I find both carry well, with a slight advantage to the Glock 19 in grip angle.
Business_Casual
11-30-10, 17:56
Technically I should have said reversible mag catch, not ambi.
B_C
Moose-Knuckle
11-30-10, 18:09
Outside the US it is a predominantly 9mm world and GLOCK as capitalized on the majority of it. With 2.5 million units sold in 100 countrys GLOCK must be doing something right.
So IMHO the only thing that the S&W M&P9 can do "better" than a G19 is to cater to more of the things that we here in America deam as "requirements" (i.e. ergo, ambi, etc.).
Other than ergonomics, the M&P has nothing on Glock. If you like Glocks, it makes no sense to buy anything else.
Six Feet Under
11-30-10, 18:14
I kinda prefer the grip, but otherwise...
Glock mags are significantly cheaper.
That said i own a glock because they offer a much better discount to firefighters.
30 bucks to me isnt a significant difference
398 vs 426
I've shot a Glock for 20 years, have owned every size Glocks but when I first tried the M&P, I knew that the only Glock I own will have to move to the back of the safe. The M&P grip is the single biggest reason for my preference. My girl friend also prefer the M&P grip over her Glock. The felt recoil is also less with the M&P.
Glock mags are significantly cheaper.
Dude find a new source for mags. One can pay $22 for brand new M&P mags from reputable companies. Glock mags are usually a few dollars more.
I had the same question almost 2 months ago. I was between g19 and M&P9. I did a lot of research, a tested both guns(and other brands too) but my final options were mp and g19.
I feel less recoil and less muzzle flip with the mp9. more comfortable to me, aim naturally, shoot and then aim naturally to the next shoot, smooth, and the grip is so comfortable for me and finally the looks. the mp is not sooo much bigger than g19. and it is american..
I asked some people before buying mine and many people told me "get a glock because everybody have one". and I didnt want to buy a gun because many people have this.. I decided to try many guns and see which one I like more.. and I did.
after having almost 2000 rounds in my mp9 I when to the range and rented a g19. good pistol but again I feel less muzzle flip with the mp9 so the follow through was better, for me.
g19 are good guns, and nowdays there are many brands of polymer pistol at the market equal to glock, if you like this, then go ahead, if you like mp go ahead, if you like XD go ahead...
I use my mp9 for IDPA, my first match I got 5th place, the 2nd match 3 place and the 3th match.. 1st place.. I am very happy with the gun.
the maintenance is almost the same in both guns.
Be aware of the gen4 glock I have read about many issues with the recoil spring..I would rather a gen3 if you go with glock.
Glocks have faster splits.
M&Ps have faster draws and reloads.
YMMV.
30 bucks to me isnt a significant difference
398 vs 426
it was a much bigger difference where i bought mine.
Better customer service and grip (which is subjective) goes to the M&P.
I have both and use both extensively. You really can't go wrong with either one purchased new at this point in their development. However, if I had to buy a used one, I would go with the Glock as earlier M&Ps had issues and I would not want to have to sort through that.
- Has noticeably less recoil
This is the one and only reason why I shoot an M&P instead of a Glock...for some reason I'm very sensitive to recoil.
I wouldn't be surprised if a grip reduced Glock with the finger grooves removed would hurt my hands a bit less, though. I just didn't want to spend the money and deal with the uncertainty until I've shot one.
This is the one and only reason why I shoot an M&P instead of a Glock...for some reason I'm very sensitive to recoil.
I wouldn't be surprised if a grip reduced Glock with the finger grooves removed would hurt my hands a bit less, though. I just didn't want to spend the money and deal with the uncertainty until I've shot one.
x2, me too
but I think this is less muzzle flip..
It is because the low bore axis
MarshallDodge
11-30-10, 22:51
You can shoot lead bullets in an M&P. May not be a big deal to some but as a reloader it has saved me enough to buy another M&P. :)
M&Ps have faster draws and reloads.
I can understand splits, but how's draw and reload [both are double-stacks with tapered mags and big hole] are a function of a gun, and not of a user?
In the battle of the G19 vs. M&P9 the M&P9 wins every battle. the M&P's recoil and muzzle flip is minimal, fits the hand better + customizable grip, stock sights of the M&P are infinitely superior, holds more ammo, shoots lead, is generally cheaper and is American made. I had a Glock 19 RTF2 which I could never adapt to and sold to buy the M&P.
The Gen4 G17 on the other hand is a completely different story. I found the grip to be much nicer, trigger break is light and consistent. The Gen 4 G17 is definitely the most accurate Glock I've shot. I would suggest to go that route if you are looking for a Glock. If not, in my honest opinion the M&P is indisputably better.
This is the one and only reason why I shoot an M&P instead of a Glock...for some reason I'm very sensitive to recoil.
I wouldn't be surprised if a grip reduced Glock with the finger grooves removed would hurt my hands a bit less, though. I just didn't want to spend the money and deal with the uncertainty until I've shot one.
The Gen4 Glocks have reduced felt recoil/muzzle flip.
In the battle of the G19 vs. M&P9 the M&P9 wins every battle
Outside of better stock trigger, a size that's generally considered near ideal, wider availability of stock and aftermarket parts, world-wide ubiquity (may not be important to some but quite relevant to others), and longer history of excellent service life and reliability with G19...
a size that's generally considered near ideal, .
Oh how I wish for an M&P in G19 size...
variablebinary
12-01-10, 03:03
Oh how I wish for an M&P in G19 size...
It's a very bizarre omission from the S&W M&P lineup
It's a very bizarre omission from the S&W M&P lineup
More than a few people find the sizing choices S&W made to be less than ideal. Others claim that the only reason the sizes seem odd is because we're used to the Glocks. The M&P9 is only .2" longer OAL and .1" taller than thee Glock 17, but the 17 gets .25" more barrel in the smaller package, making it functionally nearly a 1/2" difference. I would bet that this inefficient design is what lends the M&P9 to be perceived as having less felt recoil than the G19.
M&P9 7.5"L x 5.5"H
GL17 7.3"L x 5.4"H
GL19 6.9"L x 5.0"H
MP9C 6.7"L x 4.3"H
GL26 6.3"H x 4.2"H
Regardless of why I prefer the sizing, the Glock sizing works better for me personally and the Glock has other advantages like the availability of .22 conversions, a longer history of 3rd party support, etc.
Ultimately I think it's all hair-splitting. I've had this conversation at the range with people shooting the M&P and then watched them shoot even worse than me (and I really, really, suck with the pistol). I usually comment to the effect that "man, you're right. It's a good thing you're not shooting my Glock or you'd REALLY suck." :sarcastic:
Sparks2112
12-01-10, 06:57
More than a few people find the sizing choices S&W made to be less than ideal. Others claim that the only reason the sizes seem odd is because we're used to the Glocks. The M&P9 is only .2" longer OAL and .1" taller than thee Glock 17, but the 17 gets .25" more barrel in the smaller package, making it functionally nearly a 1/2" difference. I would bet that this inefficient design is what lends the M&P9 to be perceived as having less felt recoil than the G19.
M&P9 7.5"L x 5.5"H
GL17 7.3"L x 5.4"H
GL19 6.9"L x 5.0"H
MP9C 6.7"L x 4.3"H
GL26 6.3"H x 4.2"H
Regardless of why I prefer the sizing, the Glock sizing works better for me personally and the Glock has other advantages like the availability of .22 conversions, a longer history of 3rd party support, etc.
Ultimately I think it's all hair-splitting. I've had this conversation at the range with people shooting the M&P and then watched them shoot even worse than me (and I really, really, suck with the pistol). I usually comment to the effect that "man, you're right. It's a good thing you're not shooting my Glock or you'd REALLY suck." :sarcastic:
Are the M&P measurements including the beavertail in the OAL? I've always found my 9 to be a nice fit sort of like a 17 frame with a 19ish slide. Anyway.
Main reason I switched to the M&P series was the ability to pretty much set them up as polymer striker fired 1911s (as far as the manual of arms goes).
The Gen 3 G19 is very much a proven, robust, reliable and durable firearm. It is exceptionally simple to operate, maintain, and field/detail strip.
The M&P seems to offer slightly better ergonomics, and the option of a manual safety. Sears/triggerpulls seem to be a work in progress, with many seeming to opt for after-market solutions to achieve a better than "acceptable" triggerpull. While the potential is there (and Todd Green's recent high-roundcount testing is a great exemplar), I do not believe that the M&P has reached the reliability/durability of the Glock G17/19.
Both are excellent guns, but at this point I'd recommend the Glock-and, in 9mm, a Gen 3 over a Gen4.
Best, Jon
ehcarl2983
12-01-10, 08:35
I'm guessing since you're considering a G19 this would be for EDC, HD etc.
First off why the RDS? I know it's kind of a recent trend but IMO unless your eyes suck go with a quality set of 1,2, or 3 dot night sights.
In the interest of full disclose, I'm a 100% Glock guy. I tried the M&P (between myself and my father we put about 2500rds through a M&P9C, actually really liked it but reset concern issues (which have been debated ad nauseum here) and another (covered below) sent the M&P packing.
[QUOTE]In the battle of the G19 vs. M&P9 the M&P9 wins every battle./QUOTE]
I care about how accurate a pistol is. If I can't repeatedly keep a group in the 3-4" range or less at 25 yds I'm not a happy camper. Yes I know the majority of armed engagements happen at 7 yds and closer. I found the M&P to leave much to be desired in the accuracy department. 6-8" groups to be specific. I find this unacceptable YMMV though. This finding has been repeated elsewhere, something about a light recoil spring in the slide allows the gun to come out of battery under recoil while the bullet is still in the barrel. For a speed shooter it's fantastic though. First day I picked it up I was able to shoot plates and drills as fast or faster than with my glocks. Overall I still believe the Glock is the greatest defensive pistol there is today and the G19 is the greatest EDC pistol on the market today.
Just my .02 though
jasonhgross
12-01-10, 08:51
It shoudnt be about what (in numbers) of things that the M&P or Glock does better than the other. It should be a matter of your priorities and what pistol best matches those priorities. For me it was:
Reliability (not of just one example but of an aggregate of examples over time).
Concealability
Lack of gettting in my way IE: doesnt impose training requirements or constraints on the operator.
Trainers using it as their own training or carry weapon (called a clue)
Availability of spare parts, mags, holsters ect for the long run (because after I decided on one weapon system, I was going to stick with it - and I have.)
I think all this is important because on the heirarchy of so-called tactical/self defense needs equipment is something that can be carefully thought about, chosen, and then you can move on from there not worrying about it anymore, concentrating on real issues like preperation, mental conditioning, physical conditioning, tactics, ect. So stop worrying about it, pick the one that without a doubt keeps you from second-guessing yourself, go with that choice, buy 2-3 of them, and just train the shit out of it.
LonghunterCO
12-01-10, 08:56
You can shoot lead bullets in an M&P. May not be a big deal to some but as a reloader it has saved me enough to buy another M&P. :)
I agree. Important to me too.
The dots fall out of the sights better, the strikers break better, and the trigger gets deader better, on the M&P.
I can understand splits, but how's draw and reload [both are double-stacks with tapered mags and big hole] are a function of a gun, and not of a user?
M&P has the following advantages, IMHO.....
- size and position of magazine release
- metal magazines vs. plastic
- grip contour and how quickly it "points"
- beaver tail helps index your hand just a smidge better on the down stroke.
That said, I've purchased one M&P. I've since purchased 3 more Glocks. I just shoot them better.
The Gen 3 G19 is very much a proven, robust, reliable and durable firearm. It is exceptionally simple to operate, maintain, and field/detail strip.
The M&P seems to offer slightly better ergonomics, and the option of a manual safety. Sears/triggerpulls seem to be a work in progress, with many seeming to opt for after-market solutions to achieve a better than "acceptable" triggerpull. While the potential is there (and Todd Green's recent high-roundcount testing is a great exemplar), I do not believe that the M&P has reached the reliability/durability of the Glock G17/19.
Both are excellent guns, but at this point I'd recommend the Glock-and, in 9mm, a Gen 3 over a Gen4.
Best, Jon I agree with this,but I think ergonomics are subjective and as dependant on the individual as the pistol itself.I used Gock 19's for 16 years almost exclusively.I am still adjusting to the Glock 17's I bought about about 2 years ago:D For me it makes a difference. The M&P's are no doubt fantastic. I've shot quite a few of them but havn't bought one. Being heavily set up for the Glocks is probably a primary reason for this,as welll as pretty much fixed income being in retirement.I applaud S&W on a great design,but given a choice I'd still have to pick the G19. Of course,if we talk ergonomics we'd have to talk 1911's. They fit everybody!;)
The dots fall out of the sights better, the strikers break better, and the trigger gets deader better, on the M&P.
According to S&W the strikers in currently produced M&P pistols are good for 70,000 dry fires. And according to S&W, currently produced M&P pistols with the new sear housing, sear spring and plunger should put the sear failure to reset (dead trigger) issue to bed once and for all. As for the dots falling out of sights, I don't know how prevalent this was or still is. I also hear the factory triggers are better on the current M&P pistols then when they first came out.
Bob, thank you. That was just the opening I was looking for. I've recently gotten reinterested in the M&P, ever since my trusty Glock 19 started giving me a nasty slide bite (despite no change in my grip or the weapon). I was looking at the Gen 4 Glocks but, since the 9mm isn't proven yet, thought of going with the .40. So, I'd be interested in the same comparison between an M&P .40 and a Gen 4 Glock 22/23.
Do the same benefits of reduced recoil, flip, etc apply between a G4 Glock .40 and an M&P .40?
The Gen4 Glocks have reduced felt recoil/muzzle flip.
I haven't even seen a 4th Gen Glock in person yet, much less shot one, so I know nothing about them.
Lucky Strike
12-01-10, 20:29
Thanks for all the replies....gives me a good list of pros/cons of each. I can run through them and prioritize...some of the stuff I just don't care about like an external safety.
Although I'm thinking more and more that if I handle these two models and don't have one that just feels a lot better then the other I'll probably just go with the one I can find used for the best price
According to S&W the strikers in currently produced M&P pistols are good for 70,000 dry fires. And according to S&W, currently produced M&P pistols with the new sear housing, sear spring and plunger should put the sear failure to reset (dead trigger) issue to bed once and for all. As for the dots falling out of sights, I don't know how prevalent this was or still is. I also hear the factory triggers are better on the current M&P pistols then when they first came out.
Wow, a company saying that everything they do wroks great.:p
Wow, a company saying that everything they do wroks great.:p
Yea, like "perfection". at least they recognize and admit a problem.
Buzz,
If your asking me about the .40's, your asking the wrong guy. I just grip and rip it. The nuances of recoil have always been lost on me, "flat", "soft", "push", "snap","shove" its all the same to me, its either heavy or light.
I like the trigger reach on the M&P better, I like the trigger itself on the M&P better, I like the rail, and the fact that it actually works with a light on it, and I like the thumb safety, I like the fact that it was built as a .40, not a 9mm with a bigger hole in the barrel.
Lucky, if you were lookin for a used .40, I might could have helped ya out.
Bob
don't know if this is a factor for you, but you can get a .22lr slide for a glock but not for an m&p as far as i know...
don't know if this is a factor for you, but you can get a .22lr slide for a glock but not for an m&p as far as i know...
Something may be on the horizon.
Bob
Magic_Salad0892
12-02-10, 02:02
Metal magazines on the M&P drop free better (faster) but IMHO the polymer magazines on the Glock is more durable, and I think they'll last longer.
The Glock weighs less.
The M&P has a better backstrap system that seems to have been an afterthought on a Glock.
The Glock has less muzzle rise for me, and it points better. (I LOVE THE GRIP ANGLE.)
The M&P has better stock sights.
The Glock has less parts, IIRC.
The M&P has the option of a manual safety if your coming off of the 1911.
The Glock has a longer service life.
The M&P can be had with a factory threaded barrel.
The Glock 34 barrel threaded will still last longer.
The M&P has an ambidextrous slide catch.
The Glock has a frame that is IMHO more conducive to modification, and to fit the end user better.
The M&P is American made.
The Glock is more proven.
For me. I choose a Glock. (17. Gen3, but I have a few Gen4 guns as well.)
But the M&P is also a good option. (However, it IS a better gun in .45 ACP.)
I always disliked the Glock because of its grip angle, the M&P 9 has more of a "normal" 1911ish grip angle and feels better in my mitts than a Glock does.
-Tom
Metal magazines on the M&P drop free better (faster) but IMHO the polymer magazines on the Glock is more durable, and I think they'll last longer.
The Glock weighs less.
The M&P has a better backstrap system that seems to have been an afterthought on a Glock.
The Glock has less muzzle rise for me, and it points better. (I LOVE THE GRIP ANGLE.)
The M&P has better stock sights.
The Glock has less parts, IIRC.
The M&P has the option of a manual safety if your coming off of the 1911.
The Glock has a longer service life.
The M&P can be had with a factory threaded barrel.
The Glock 34 barrel threaded will still last longer.
The M&P has an ambidextrous slide catch.
The Glock has a frame that is IMHO more conducive to modification, and to fit the end user better.
The M&P is American made.
The Glock is more proven.
For me. I choose a Glock. (17. Gen3, but I have a few Gen4 guns as well.)
But the M&P is also a good option. (However, it IS a better gun in .45 ACP.)
You're making some pretty bold statements there. Could you please provide service life numbers for both weapons?
Also, by the very nature of the adjustable backstrap system the M&P is USER configurable. A glock has to be sent out to a pistolsmith for mods. Gen 4's help this issue but many regard the backstrap system as being terrible.
Im also curious as to what is so configurable at the gunsmith level about a Glock frame? The fact that there is more material to remove? That right there is ass backwards in that we are REMOVING material because there SEEMS to be a problem for ALOT of shooters.
Also, whats with the comments about the Glock 34 barrel lasting longer. Longer than what, a comparable M&P barrel? Got any proof here? Its awfully hard to shoot out a pistol barrel.
Ultimately my take on the subject is that both pistols are fantastic and will serve the end user very well. The idea here is to shoot both pistols and find which one fits the individual. Each gun has pros and cons on paper but neither the pros or the cons for each gun can determine which pistol is "better" unless you're a lefty and you absolutely must have a slide stop and magazine release mounted on the left side of the frame.
Go shoot both and pick whichever one you shoot better on the clock running a known set of standards, ie the FAST drill, 10-8 pistol test or the Hackathorn drills.
Good luck!
According to S&W the strikers in currently produced M&P pistols are good for 70,000 dry fires.
People have been breaking those strikers at WAY less than all of the previous factory estimates.
It was S&W's game to loose, and they are. $5 says 2011 pricing will reflect this.
People have been breaking those strikers at WAY less than all of the previous factory estimates.
It was S&W's game to loose, and they are. $5 says 2011 pricing will reflect this.
Im not sure i follow. To date i havent read a report of ANYONE breaking a silver striker. I might be wrong but 100% of the reports that ive read have been in regards to the older, black strikers.
Can you give us some data otherwise?
Im not sure i follow. To date i havent read a report of ANYONE breaking a silver striker. I might be wrong but 100% of the reports that ive read have been in regards to the older, black strikers.
Can you give us some data otherwise?
I don't shoot M&P's anymore. So I don't bookmark all of this info
I don't remember who it was I spoke to who spoke to the continued striker failures, but I'll see what links I can find for you.
Besides making much more revenue for Apex Tactical than any G19 does, they're also single-action (sshhh, don't tell the BATF or any agencies...).
People have been breaking those strikers at WAY less than all of the previous factory estimates.
It was S&W's game to loose, and they are. $5 says 2011 pricing will reflect this.
Are you talking about the current Gen 5 strikers or the older ones ?
What does a M&P9 do better then a 3rd Gen Glock 19?
I put about 2K through my 3rd Gen G19 the first half of this year before I decided to switch to the M&P9. The G19 doesn't do anything wrong IMO but the M&P series just offers more IMO (for less money to boot).
The stock sights are better.
The mag release is better positioned, longer and reversible. (At least to my hand)
The slide release is ambidexterous.
the slide release is better positioned to where I have to try to "ride" it. (At least to me hand)
Thumb safety is available.
Adaptable backstraps. (At least to my hand this is a huge advantage.)
The Crimson Trace interface trounces every visible laser sighting system available on any glock.
So to me the M&P is a less expensive, more ergonomic, and versatile platform that doesn't need an additional $120+ (for aftermarket sights) put into it. No, it doesn't have the G19's long track record but in the (comparatively) short time the M&P has been on the streets it made Glock sit up and take notice since they've been extremely comfortable sitting around pretending that they were perfect (see Gen 4 Glocks).
I'll take mine in compact for carry (more useful size than the G19 IMO, and the fullsize if I were going to stick a red dot on it.
People have been breaking those strikers at WAY less than all of the previous factory estimates.
It was S&W's game to loose, and they are. $5 says 2011 pricing will reflect this.
Interesting. I have not heard this.
How do people know that they have the current gen 5 striker? I know what they look like, but most do not.
Remember that just because someone buys a NEW M&P does not mean that it is actually a "NEW" M&P. It could have been sitting on a dealer or distributors shelf.
To date, we have not heard from a SINGLE customer concerning a broken striker.
S&W has been lowering prices on M&P's for at least 2 years now with the $50 dollar mail in rebates. My guess is that they will stop with the rebates and just make it a permanent thing.
C4
Im not sure i follow. To date i havent read a report of ANYONE breaking a silver striker. I might be wrong but 100% of the reports that ive read have been in regards to the older, black strikers.
Can you give us some data otherwise?
There were some silver strikers that were old too and could break with excessive dry firing.
I have an e-mail into S&W about any issues with the new GEN 5 strikers. So will get it directly from the horses mouth.
C4
Fire_Medic
12-02-10, 19:38
Interesting. I have not heard this.
How do people know that they have the current gen 5 striker? I know what they look like, but most do not.
Remember that just because someone buys a NEW M&P does not mean that it is actually a "NEW" M&P. It could have been sitting on a dealer or distributors shelf.
To date, we have not heard from a SINGLE customer concerning a broken striker.
S&W has been lowering prices on M&P's for at least 2 years now with the $50 dollar mail in rebates. My guess is that they will stop with the rebates and just make it a permanent thing.
C4
Our S&W rep from the store I work at p/t told us in 2011 prices will be going down on everything across the line. M&P semi-autos, revolvers, etc.
A few of the local stores have related to us that they have been told the same.
We were told it was to be more competitive at their price points.
Magic_Salad0892
12-03-10, 06:37
You're making some pretty bold statements there. Could you please provide service life numbers for both weapons?
Also, by the very nature of the adjustable backstrap system the M&P is USER configurable. A glock has to be sent out to a pistolsmith for mods. Gen 4's help this issue but many regard the backstrap system as being terrible.
Im also curious as to what is so configurable at the gunsmith level about a Glock frame? The fact that there is more material to remove? That right there is ass backwards in that we are REMOVING material because there SEEMS to be a problem for ALOT of shooters.
Also, whats with the comments about the Glock 34 barrel lasting longer. Longer than what, a comparable M&P barrel? Got any proof here? Its awfully hard to shoot out a pistol barrel.
Good luck!
I know the Glock 17's service life to the best of my knowledge is more than 205,000 rounds. At that point Kyle Defoor stated that his Glock 17 barrel had been shot out.
However, I'd assume with a new barrel the pistol would still function.
I remember reading here on these forums (Grant?) that the M&P slide lasted to about 60,000 rounds, or so. I remember it being under 100k.
And assuming the G34 barrel has the same lifespan as the G17 barrel, I'd say it'd last longer than a M&P 9s barrel.
Then again I don't know much about the M&P 9 barrel's service life. I do remember reading that it was something like 150k rounds.
I'll go ahead and give you the thing about the frame modification. However I wouldn't say you need to take it to a gunsmith for modification. I've done all mine at home.
Our S&W rep from the store I work at p/t told us in 2011 prices will be going down on everything across the line.
...snip...
We were told it was to be more competitive at their price points.
Exactly. Not many buyers want to spend more money for a gun which is hopefully as good as a gun that costs less.
I know the Glock 17's service life to the best of my knowledge is more than 205,000 rounds. At that point Kyle Defoor stated that his Glock 17 barrel had been shot out.
However, I'd assume with a new barrel the pistol would still function.
I remember reading here on these forums (Grant?) that the M&P slide lasted to about 60,000 rounds, or so. I remember it being under 100k.
And assuming the G34 barrel has the same lifespan as the G17 barrel, I'd say it'd last longer than a M&P 9s barrel.
Then again I don't know much about the M&P 9 barrel's service life. I do remember reading that it was something like 150k rounds.
I'll go ahead and give you the thing about the frame modification. However I wouldn't say you need to take it to a gunsmith for modification. I've done all mine at home.
I dont think you understand the definition of service life. I also think that some times we use the term service life improperly as the definition can mean a few things. Generally, the term service life implies the mean time between failures, or the overall expected lifespan of the item.
This is a decent overview.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_life
Kyle defoors sample of one is not indicative of the entire product line nor is Todd G's pistol.
The average firearm user/shooter is not going to perform their own grip reduction. You are in the VAST minority.
Moose-Knuckle
12-03-10, 15:28
Kyle defoors sample of one is not indicative of the entire product line. . .
We not discussing the entire product line here, only the Gen 3 G19.
Kyle Defoor, Larry Vickers, etc. . .all have similar results and shoot more ammo through their GLOCKs (Gen 3 G19s & G17s) than I for one could ever afford to purchase much less have the time to T&E.
Magic_Salad0892
12-04-10, 03:58
I dont think you understand the definition of service life. I also think that some times we use the term service life improperly as the definition can mean a few things. Generally, the term service life implies the mean time between failures, or the overall expected lifespan of the item.
This is a decent overview.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_life
The average firearm user/shooter is not going to perform their own grip reduction. You are in the VAST minority.
I was referring to the overall lifespan of the item. IE: When it stops functioning as intended or breaks.
I was using the word properly. No offence.
No it isn't indicative of the entire product line. But I'm not referring to .40, .45, .357, etc. models. Pretty much every account I've read of a G17/19 being worn to failure (barrel. I've never heard of the slide assembly wearing to death.) was more or less at the same round count.
Same with the M&P.
Once, again. I'll give you the thing about the M&P being more user configurable.
But most Glock mods (save rear channel reduction) is pretty user doable with a dremmel tool, a wood burner, and a sanding kit. (I don't do grip stippling myself though.) That's what... $50 maybe on tools? Then you can personalize any poly framed pistol you own ''free'' (you did pay for the tools so I guess I can't say free...) for life?
Saying that it's hard to modify a Glock frame just isn't true.
Removing finger stops - five minutes.
Stippling - 2 hours or so.
Undercut trigger guard - five minutes, if.
Backstrap channel mod (if your confident) - maybe an hour. Not including the time it takes for the polymer/silicon to dry.
I don't do grip reductions on Glocks. I really like the standard grip angle. I'm the vast minority. :|
ETA: Thanks for reminding me who wrote the M&P write up. :)
I prefer the M&P FS9 overall ergonomics and grip angle, hinged trigger and full four fingered grip frame over the Gen 3 G19. Also, my twin fullsize M&P 9's are set up with Apex Tactical fire control parts and extractor, which to me anyways makes them even better. That being said, if I couldn't have the M&P FS9's setup my way I would choose a Gen3 G19 or G17. As long as the pistol is reliable, durable and I can hit with it I really don't care whose name is on it.
I think this thread has lost sight of the original question and its being derailed by a ton of opinions.
One sample of a gun that runs 205 thousand rounds does not set the average or somehow set the standard for the service life of a brand.
The manufacturers are the ones that determine an estimated service life for their products.
WE as end users can be SERVED by the product for an indefinite amount of time and rounds but that is NOT what service life means. Im thinking something is being lost in translation here... I dont know how many times i can spell this out Mr Salad. You're citing one example of an M&P and one example of a Glock as gospel. Did you ever study averages in High School? Service life of a pistol is based off of a bunch of calculations in regards to average lifespan of ALL of the operating parts of a pistol. Springs wear, barrels wear, slides wear but at different rates depending on MANY factors. A manufacturer can specify that their trigger springs must be rated for 100k compressions, their recoil springs rated for 200k. These are just arbitrary numbers but in the end these numbers get thrown into some sort of algorithm and a service life is determined. Unfortunately i dont have the information handy but any armorers in here that can comment in regards to the factory specification for service life of a Glock or M&P? Do they even release that info to the general public or law enforcement agencies?
Ultimately, the Glock is a more proven system than the M&P but the M&P itself is no slouch.
If you want to talk FACTS the only things on paper that the M&P does better than a Glock are the following:
Reversible Magazine catch.
Ambidextrous slide stop.
Thats IT. Felt recoil, grip angle, being able to remove finger grooves (really?...) customizable grips, triggers, favorite season, favorite sexual position etc are all SUBJECTIVE.
Pick what you like and go shoot the damned thing for cripes sake. Trying to argue which gun is better is a losing battle. There is good and better in this world, nothing else, no best, period. Try and pick "better" based upon available FACTS, how the guns run in YOUR hands and enjoy yourself.
If this discussion is going to continue could we PLEASE try and keep this going in the spirit of M4c? It gets really tiresome to read "I like my Glock because" or "my M&P is the bestest because it shoots gud". This crap serves no purpose other than to inflate post counts and its really annoying to come here trying to find REAL FACTUAL information and having to sift through this crud.
/rant off.
Magic_Salad0892
12-05-10, 01:30
Magsz.
I understand that you don't want to continue debating, but I'd bet you that based on both arguments whoever read them probably still learned something.
I hope you didn't think I was engaging in a hostile tone with you.
If that's how it sounded, I apologize.
More than a few people find the sizing choices S&W made to be less than ideal. Others claim that the only reason the sizes seem odd is because we're used to the Glocks. The M&P9 is only .2" longer OAL and .1" taller than thee Glock 17, but the 17 gets .25" more barrel in the smaller package, making it functionally nearly a 1/2" difference. I would bet that this inefficient design is what lends the M&P9 to be perceived as having less felt recoil than the G19.
M&P9 7.5"L x 5.5"H
GL17 7.3"L x 5.4"H
GL19 6.9"L x 5.0"H
MP9C 6.7"L x 4.3"H
GL26 6.3"H x 4.2"H
Regardless of why I prefer the sizing, the Glock sizing works better for me personally and the Glock has other advantages like the availability of .22 conversions, a longer history of 3rd party support, etc.
Ultimately I think it's all hair-splitting. I've had this conversation at the range with people shooting the M&P and then watched them shoot even worse than me (and I really, really, suck with the pistol). I usually comment to the effect that "man, you're right. It's a good thing you're not shooting my Glock or you'd REALLY suck." :sarcastic:
one thing I found when facing this same question was the size difference. on paper it seems like the mp is a lot bigger than the g19. i think they do the measurements without a mag in. the M&P would be measured from the takedown tool/grip and the g19 from the bottom of the grip.
when you put the mags in, the M&P mag doesnt make the gun any taller, whereas the g19 mag sticks out a good amount. when comparing the height of the two with mags in, the difference is very minimal.
that said, i would love to have my M&P's grip chopped down some. thanks for the stats too, Rob. Seems like you always take the time to dig up the relevant information. Im sure everyone appreciates it...
Magic_Salad0892
12-05-10, 03:50
Rob. Seems like you always take the time to dig up the relevant information. I'm sure everyone appreciates it...
I appreciate it.
Borrow a M&P 9mm and a Glock 19/17. Whichever fits your hand better, points better and trigger fits the reach of your trigger finger better, buy it and shoot it. This is a Ford vs Chevy thing.
One of my shooting buddies loves S&W M&P .40 caliber pistols. I like his pistol, but I don't want to buy new leather for another pistol, so I'll stick with the Glocks. If I were starting over, I would probably buy the Glock, but the Smith & Wesson comes in at a very close second. Probably because of my familiarity with Glocks.
Lucky Strike
12-05-10, 14:12
Well I spent the other day at the gunshop handling both guns (along with a G17).
When doing dryfire pressouts I didn't find the Glock grip angle to be an issue for me.
The Glock grip is just too big for my girly hands. I couldn't reach the mag release without really altering my grip a lot. I know this could probably be remedied with the Vickers mag release or a grip reduction.
I'm thinking if I go ahead with this MRDS thing I would like to have the option of being able to use it as a CCW. What I was thinking about was getting a Glock 17 and then cutting the grip down to G19 length. This would give me the best of both worlds.
However when I started adding up the cost in mods that I would have to do to get the gun setup how I'd want it (Grip reduction, beavertail, vickers mag/slide release levers) the number came out to around $150 or 200
With a M&P9 I wouldn't have the option of cutting the grip (going down to a M&P9c grip would be too small..i want a full four fingers grip and the G19 has the perfect length for that with nothing extra) but I wouldn't have to spend any money getting the ergos set up how I'd want them.
So right now the decision I'm facing is
If I want to use it as a CCW would I be ok with that full size grip of the M&P9 sticking out (i carry at 4:30).
Or
Do I want to invest more money to get a Glock 17 setup like I'd want it.
Like others have mentioned I REALLY wish S&W would come out with a M&P version with a G19 length grip.
Right now i'm kinda leaning towards the M&P but since it'll be another month or so before I get the funds saved up to buy one of these I'm sure i'll probably change my mind back and forth a couple (dozen) times
...Ultimately I think it's all hair-splitting.
While the OP has been given some good advice in disecting the M&P and the G19, it truly is splitting hairs, either would be an excellent choice. And IMO, the size difference between the two is a boring and wasted argument.
The OP mentioned not having much trigger time with either model. Herein lies the problem. I have carried, shot and taken classes with both models being debated. My answer to the same question was self-evident at that point. No amount of internet polling is going to tell you what will run the best for you. You need to put the time in.
Rent them, borrow from friends, whatever, but you need to get time in with both models and decide for yourself. I opted to invest in both models, carry them, shoot the love out of them, and then sold off the brand less suited to my needs.
Either that or just flip a coin.
I am perfectly happy with either a 9 mm Glock or M&P. I currently have the ability to use both platforms, there is virtually NO difference in carrying the two pistol types when using good quality holsters.
Below are a couple of photos comparing a G19 with an M&P45 mid:
http://www.10-8forums.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=download&Number=7068&filename=G19_M&P45mid.jpg
Below is a G19 shown sitting directly on top of a M&P45 mid-size:
http://www.10-8forums.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=download&Number=7069&filename=G19%20on%20M&P45mid.jpg
Jay Cunningham
12-05-10, 18:40
I am perfectly happy with either a 9 mm Glock or M&P. I currently have the ability to use both platforms, there is virtually NO difference in carrying the two pistol types when using good quality holsters.
The winner!!
For me personally, the M&P is what I choose to carry and shoot 95% of the time. I still shoot my Glock and even run a class with it every now and then but if I were going to streamline my handguns they would all be M&P's. Even on days when I want to shoot better with the Glock I still find that I can put more shots on target quicker with the M&P. My biggest arguement (again, this is just me personally) for the M&P over the Glock is the lack of adequate space inside the trigger guard. After I put 100 or so rounds through the Glock my trigger finger gets raw from rubbing on the inside of the bottom of the trigger guard. While this would not be a factor in a self defense scenario it opens up the possibility of doing something different during training to alleviate that discomfort that would not lend itself well to use in a self defense scenario.
You can shoot lead bullets in an M&P. May not be a big deal to some but as a reloader it has saved me enough to buy another M&P. :)
I am just getting into reloading. I may be asking a dumb question but why is this a possibility with the M&P and not the Glock? Thanks.
I am just getting into reloading. I may be asking a dumb question but why is this a possibility with the M&P and not the Glock? Thanks.
The Glock has polygonal rifling.
You can reload for a Glock. You just need to use FMJ or plated bullets as opposed to lead bullets.
The reason you should not use lead is that polygonal rifling leads to an increase in lead build up leading to a potentially dangerous increase in preasure.
The coventional rifling in an M&P (or a KKM barrel in a Glock) means you can use lead without any issues.
Well I spent the other day at the gunshop handling both guns (along with a G17).
When doing dryfire pressouts I didn't find the Glock grip angle to be an issue for me.
The Glock grip is just too big for my girly hands. I couldn't reach the mag release without really altering my grip a lot. I know this could probably be remedied with the Vickers mag release or a grip reduction.
I'm thinking if I go ahead with this MRDS thing I would like to have the option of being able to use it as a CCW. What I was thinking about was getting a Glock 17 and then cutting the grip down to G19 length. This would give me the best of both worlds.
However when I started adding up the cost in mods that I would have to do to get the gun setup how I'd want it (Grip reduction, beavertail, vickers mag/slide release levers) the number came out to around $150 or 200
With a M&P9 I wouldn't have the option of cutting the grip (going down to a M&P9c grip would be too small..i want a full four fingers grip and the G19 has the perfect length for that with nothing extra) but I wouldn't have to spend any money getting the ergos set up how I'd want them.
So right now the decision I'm facing is
If I want to use it as a CCW would I be ok with that full size grip of the M&P9 sticking out (i carry at 4:30).
Or
Do I want to invest more money to get a Glock 17 setup like I'd want it.
Like others have mentioned I REALLY wish S&W would come out with a M&P version with a G19 length grip.
Right now i'm kinda leaning towards the M&P but since it'll be another month or so before I get the funds saved up to buy one of these I'm sure i'll probably change my mind back and forth a couple (dozen) times
It sounds like you and I are in the same "girly hands" boat. The Vickers mag catch improved things a bit for me but I still had to alter my grip, just significantly less so than the stock catch. The M&P was no problem in that arena. I don't know how big you are but I'm a small guy (5' 6", 155lbs) but I had a bit of a problem concealing the G19, it wasn't bad but it didn't "disappear" (using RCS Phantom IWB). It made shirt selection a bit more important. It wasn't that big of a deal but I did wish for something slightly less "tall" the M&P Compact fits in somewhere between a G19 and aG26 in height which I think is about perfect for me when using the extended base plates I was able to get a full firing grip w/o having my pinky hang off.
Thanks zacbol and kaltblitz.
The Vickers mag release or a Gen4 really increase the ease of dropping the mag on a Glock.
This thing between Glock and the M&P is nothing more than personal preference. Both are great guns and very reliable.
The Glock's crutch is it's ergonomics and grip size. If you have small hands the larger calibers will be difficult to handle, but Glock has started to address that issue with the Gen4 and SF models.
For the M&P it's crutch is it's stock trigger. Now it's gotten better over the years since it's release, but still has a long way to go as far as factory triggers go. The good news is there is a company called Apex Tactical that has turned the M&P trigger into a true masterpiece.
Glock has a huge following and will continue to do so. The M&P is gaining steam and building a good reputation within the LE community.
Quite honestly neither one is truly better than the other and in the end it comes down to what YOU like and what YOU want to shoot. Either one will serve you well.
sandsunsurf
01-01-11, 14:51
Besides making much more revenue for Apex Tactical than any G19 does, they're also single-action (sshhh, don't tell the BATF or any agencies...).
I agree. I found this thread while searching for a thread on the M&P design. I'm actually surprised that this hasn't been discussed- if anyone wants to point me to a thread that I overlooked I'd be grateful.
I heard a third hand story of a M&P discharging when dropped, so I decided it was time to look into the design. My initial thought was "no way, the striker isn't cocked because it's like a Glock." After taking an M&P apart and closely inspecting the workings, it's clear that the striker moves to the rear only a trivial distance when the trigger is pulled. To call it "double action" is disingenuous because only one thing is realistically happening when the trigger is pressed: the striker is released. It's not cocked or completing a cocking process.
I'm certainly open to discussion on this subject, I don't claim to be THE expert, but these are my observations and opinions so far...
G34Shooter
01-01-11, 14:56
I agree. I found this thread while searching for a thread on the M&P design. I'm actually surprised that this hasn't been discussed- if anyone wants to point me to a thread that I overlooked I'd be grateful.
I heard a third hand story of a M&P discharging when dropped, so I decided it was time to look into the design. My initial thought was "no way, the striker isn't cocked because it's like a Glock." After taking an M&P apart and closely inspecting the workings, it's clear that the striker moves to the rear only a trivial distance when the trigger is pulled. To call it "double action" is disingenuous because only one thing is realistically happening when the trigger is pressed: the striker is released. It's not cocked or completing a cocking process.
I'm certainly open to discussion on this subject, I don't claim to be THE expert, but these are my observations and opinions so far...
I can't see how it discharged with a functioning striker block.
Gutshot John
01-01-11, 15:20
I like and shoot both. I'll always have a sentimental attachment to the Glock but I carry and shoot the M&P objectively better.
Relentless
01-01-11, 15:54
Okay, I'll bite. (I've avoided this thread since it's inception, but heregoes.)
I've been a Glock guy for ~17 years. Shortly after the M&P was released, I jumped on it as an upgrade. Then, reality set in. As I shot it, the grip didn't fit me *that* much better than a stock G23. I bumped the mag release and ejected the mag more than once by accident (during off-body carry). At the time, mags were a bit more expensive and much harder to find than for the Glock. To completely detail strip the slide (which I do to my Glock about annually), you have to remove, then replace the rear sight on the M&P (what genius came up with that?!?). At lastly, there was the trigger. As I contemplated how to make the M&P trigger feel more like that of the Glock, it finally occurred to me that I should sell the M&P and just buy another Glock. So I did. Haven't regretted that decision for a second. YMMV.
sandsunsurf
01-01-11, 17:32
I can't see how it discharged with a functioning striker block.
I agree. Ultimately, I wasn't there, and it's only a third-hand story. My first guess is that the deputy attempted to catch a weapon he had dropped and somehow pressed the trigger to the rear, but the claim is that he didn't.
When I look at the design (again, I'm not an expert), I think that it is plausible that if the gun was dropped with the sights hitting the ground, the striker safety could have enough inertia to depress the spring and if at the same time the striker came off the "sear" (or little trigger block thingie, in my descriptive terms), it could fire. Pretty f-ing thin, I know, but it appears plausible.
The thing that really stuck out for me, though, is that it is not a double action or "safe-action" design. That striker is cocked, and it's fully cocked. I'm just surprised this hasn't become a bigger issue- i.e. Police Departments that won't even allow a 1911 pistol because it's an "evil single action, too dangerous to carry cocked and locked" but they allow the M&P.
I don't mean to derail this thread, maybe I'll start a new one....
The most fundamental difference that I don't believe has been mentioned in this thread is the M&P was designed around the .40 S&W, while the Glock was designed around the 9mm. The M&P has done superbly in other calibers, while the Glock has not transitioned to higher pressure or bigger bore calibers with great success.
The M&P has a stainless steel chassis molded into the polymer frame imparting rigidity and providing hard point mounts for pins.
The option of a 1911 type thumb safety is superb, particularly if you are a 1911 shooter.
The grip angle is a more natural point and it doesn't feel like a brick in your hand.
Ambidextrous, great mags, better factory supplied sights, interchangeable back straps that actually make a difference.
From someone that has been shooting and carrying Glocks since the 80's.
Not to mention the excellent CT laser for the M&P.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.