M&P vs G19 Parte Deux: Photo Essay

[blackscot]

Difference in length is 0.65 in, or about 5 %, and in height is 0.5 in. (also 5%). Thickness is virtually identical. Weight difference is 3.01 oz. or 7 %. A more direct comparison is the G17, which is within 1% dimensionally, although 1.96 oz. or 4% lighter.

The main difference I see carry-wise is the half-inch greater rearward protrusion of the grip. Hopefully a good holster with the right cant angle can address that.







The big difference for me shooting-wise is in the grip, which on the G19 as any Glock is rather boxy.



I among others maintain that one measure of a correct grip configuration is alignment of the bore axis with the forearm. This directs the recoil straight back without any sideways component that compromises follow-up return to the target. I can position the G19 this way, but that is not how it naturally falls.



I must pull the heel of my palm around the butt of the G19, which prevents the fingers from reaching fully around the frontstrap (note that the knuckles are off-center), and also leaves about an 1/8-inch air gap between the side of the grip and the pit of the palm.



Placing the G19 more naturally and fully into the pit of palm removes the gap and gets the fingers farther around the frontstrap (centered knuckles), but in so doing throws off the bore-axis alignment.



In contrast to the G19, the grip on the M&P has a more oval cross section (shown here with the small-size inserts), much like other models that have fit me well including the 1911, CZ75B, and Beretta VERTEC.



Even placed fully into the pit of palm, the M&P maintains bore-axis alignment with the forearm.



There is no gap between the palm and side of the grip, and the fingers reach fully around to center the knuckles across the frontstrap.



Among other considerations, I’ve always actually liked the Glock’s white-outline rear sight. “Put the dot in the box.” Although they are cheaply made, they are durable, easy to see, and do the job for my rapidly aging eyes.



The M&P’s three-dot system gives me the same trouble as this design has on other guns. “Dammit - which dot is the front sight??? !!!” I’ll have to get some kind of replacement rear.



Glock insists on keeping the hooked and textured trigger guard intended for placing the index finger of the weak hand, a technique now almost universally discounted and a design dropped by most makers nearly 20 years ago. I’ve also never really been comfortable with the ridged and serrated trigger face.



Like most current models, the trigger guard of the M&P does just that: guards the trigger. I also like the flat and smooth trigger face.



In summary, the M&P appears to handle as well for me as the earlier mentioned, much heavier and bulkier models. It may become the best performing pistol that I can actually carry on an everyday basis.

[John_Wayne777]

The rear sight can be fixed fairly cheaply using a black sharpie. Just color in the dots.

There are plenty of good rear sights out there (like the Warren sight) but if plain black is your only desire you can get it with model paint or a sharpie on the rear sights.

[M4arc]

Outstanding post!

[blackscot]

.......other models that have fit me well including the 1911, CZ75B, and Beretta VERTEC......the M&P appears to handle as well for me as the earlier mentioned, much heavier and bulkier models.......

A little follow-up FYI, these full-size models exceed the M&P dimensionally by up to 8%, and by weight by as much as a whopping 24%!

[Razoreye]

You didn't mention length but it looks a good .5" longer as well.

Next comparison should be the compact models.

PS - I switched out my G30 trigger long ago for a smooth one... I think I got it from Lone Wolf.

[blackscot]

You didn't mention length but it looks a good .5" longer as well.....

There's some variation among the full-size service pistols, so I did some generalizing here.

.....Next comparison should be the compact models. .....

Some have argued the G19 is close to the M&P, but the G17 is really a lot closer (nearly exact) match size-wise, so I think the G19 still occupies a distinct niche. The compact M&P seems most comparable to the G26, but I don't own either of those to tell first-hand.

.....PS - I switched out my G30 trigger long ago for a smooth one... I think I got it from Lone Wolf.

Some have also discussed the relative merits of the triggers, and I'm sure improvements can be accomplished on either platform. They both remain basically in the same class to me though, distinct for-instance from a good 1911 trigger.

[wahoo95]

I think S&W did a great job sizing the M&P's right between their Glock counterparts. The M&P9/40 is sized between the Glock Full Size and Compacts...while the M&P Compacts are sized between the Glock Compacts and Subcompacts.

[C4IGrant]

Excellent review.


C4

[Sidewinder6]

Great job on the post. Along the same line, Id love to see an analysis done on the triggers with a digital gauge and also measure the travel/break distances.

I have not been a Smith fan since the days of the Model 39 and 59 so I had this mental wall to get over. (In honesty, it was the DA/SA thing)

I shot the M&P 9 when it came out (at a demo by Doug Koening ) and fingered a number of others in shops and cannot get past the feeling of grinding. I have similar issues with the travel on Glock triggers that I get rid of pretty close to the time that I dump the factory sights. After that, I am spoiled on these simple and reliable firearms. They are about as easy to maintain as a 1911.

I think the M&P is attractive and have a good profile for concealment but I stop after that.

[John Fettes]

I have a second generation G19 & a Glock 26, and have considered a MP9 or MP9c. I guess that the G19 splits the difference in size between the two Smiths. I'd compared the G26 &9c, but think that I need to take a closer look at the 9 vs. the 9c.

I have a MP45 and am pleased with it.

John