Another Glock vs M&P thread!!

300Spartans said:
I would like to have both.

Glocks do rock though! :dancingbanana:
Click to expand...

I do have both...and I like them both...although, I would have to give the M&P an edge as far as grip fit in my hand, and for the lead bullet issue...hey whether true or not, I shoot lead bullets and want to avoid any problems since I don't have access to unlimited funds with which to replace things that went ka-boom...
 
Canuck44 said:
TDC said:
If I haven't a clue then why not educate me??

Educating the clueless is well outside my pay scale.

Perhaps I've called you out and you can't support your claim?

You only wish

Take Care

Bob
Click to expand...

Stop dancing around the topic Bob. You proclaimed I am clueless and that you have the answer so why not educate the masses? I gave my opinion on down range direction while reloading. So do tell, is the reason behind it because of ignorant range rules(square range mentality) or is the answer more to do with poor tactics. I still don't see how its important. Your pistol is inoperable during a reload(aside from a possible round in the chamber) and you should be behind cover or atleast concealment so muzzle directed at the target isn't important and does not aid in the reload.

TDC
Click to expand...
 
Tdc

Please read this carefully. I don't give a rats a$$ if you or every shooter on the planet prefers their mag release on the weak side. Here is what works for me.

1. For me having the mag release on the string side is allows me to do an IDPA approved reload faster as well as an emergency reload sometimes used in IPSC.

2. By keeping the gun pointed in the general direction of the target I find it quicker to require the next target both in IDPA and IPSC. Both shooting diciplines require some semblance of speed in shooting (Terrace shooters need not comment on my speed).

3. Even if I revert to my childhood imagination I can't find it within my self to imagine a situation where I might have the remotest chance of ever being involved with a Commando Unit fighting off the vaunted enemy. Been through that stage when I was 8 years old - yes as 8 year old we regularly engaged the Jerries and Japs in the middle of the Edmonton Airport airfield). Our "training" must have done some good because one of the warriors commancing "B" company at the time eventually became a General in the Canadian Army. He lived on 107th St. hence he got to be the CO for "B" Company.

I am afraid any of your comments regarding your indepth experience in tactical shooting is wasted on me.

Unlike you, we didn't have the internet when we were kids to lecture others on the tactics we learned while in mock combat. I can tell you though, the pistols and machine guns we made out of poplar branches were utterly reliable, never failed to function and had thousands of rounds down the tube. I dare say the engineers at Glock would have held our weapons in envy.....

Take Care

Bob
ps Now you have read this post, you should still be clueless if you aren't you are starting from an even less of a level of maturity then most here have given you credit for.
 
Last edited:
Chuckbuster said:
I do have both...and I like them both...although, I would have to give the M&P an edge as far as grip fit in my hand, and for the lead bullet issue...hey whether true or not, I shoot lead bullets and want to avoid any problems since I don't have access to unlimited funds with which to replace things that went ka-boom...
Click to expand...

Yes, having handled and worked with a couple, I do like the grip I can get on an M&P. I only shoot jacketed though, so for me at least, Glocks do the job and I'm confident I won't be getting any k-booms. I like the M&Ps a lot, and they are made by a good manufacturer, so if anyone chooses to go with that pistol, they'll do well, although I would like a Sig 226 before an M&P.
 
koalorka said:
John Browning, otherwise known as GOD, never made a gun with ambidextrous controls. You are a deviant in his eyes and should learn how to shoot guns properly i.e. right-handed.
Click to expand...

Let's not get carried away... when referring to Saint Browning, or his disciple, Saint Cooper. LOL
 
Bob, remember what I said in our phone conversation about some thinking they are the living breathing re-incarnation of....? LOL

As for a comment somewhat germane to this thread, is it true that the 45 calibre Glocks have regular rifling as opposed to the polygonal type in the other models?
 
Silverado

Yup! In TDC we have Captain Canuck and GI Joe all wrapped up in a one little package. We have to be careful though as he may be in training for his next weekend tactical course.:D Unleashing him is like cutting a tight cable. When he is cut loose it is not a pretty sight.

We are truly blessed.

Take Care

Bob
ps Just to stay on topic I like my M&P 9MM. When I got mine the price was $550 with two extra mags and a $50.US rebate. As Wes would say....sweeeet.
 
what really is the advantage to lead cast bullets?

Ok so to get back on topic.... How many shoot lead from their guns anyway? I can't imagine how dirty that ammo is. So as a newb to pistols what is the advantage or disadvantage with regard to shooting.... lead really other than the cost? I didn't get to fire off all of the 1k that I had with me yesterday but 250 went down the tube with out a FTF or FTE. I will own a glock some day but who can argue that S&W doesn't make a good gun? The federal ammo is really clean too. The gun doesn't even look dirty.
 
M&P 9 for me! Grip felt much better than Glock and XD9. Never had any issues with it.
I would like to get a XD9/40 as well because of the 5" barrel, and all these factory included accessories.
Glock? maybe, I didn't like the grip angle from day one, it is a hate/love gun, you should go and try them all before you buy one.
 
My reloads, which were too weak for my CZ to cycle properly, fed through my M&P flawlessly. If shoots any damn bullet (even the wussiest loads) perfectly.
 
Contondant said:
My reloads, which were too weak for my CZ to cycle properly, fed through my M&P flawlessly. If shoots any damn bullet (even the wussiest loads) perfectly.
Click to expand...

On the opposite end of the scale I've put surplus CF 9mm through an M&P9 and it worked perfectly, too. This was the 124 grain NATO stuff with crimped in extra thick primers.
 
I owned a second-gen Glock 17 for fifteen years and a third-gen Glock 34 for four years, whereas I've only owned my M&P40 for a couple of months so I've got a lot more experience with Glocks than M&P's--here's a summary of my thoughts so far on the two designs.

In favour of the Glock:

  • Disassembly is easier on the Glock without the sear deactivation lever of the M&P
  • Neither of my Glocks had a malfunction or broken part while I owned them. The M&P has a ways to go to achieve the same reputation.
  • No magazine safety on the Glock--I understand why it's there but for me they're an annoyance.
  • Some of the earlier M&P's had problems with magazines dropping out when firing or having extraction problems due to rough chambers--these seem to be fixed on newer ones. Glock also had problems, though, with their early models--there was a significant "upgrade" in the early 1990's affecting hundreds of thousands of pistols.
In favour of the M&P:

  • The M&P has a grip angle that points more naturally for most people. The Glock grip angle can be learned, of course, but I think most people, especially if they're used to other semi-autos, will find it easier to adapt to the M&P.
  • The shape of the grip plus the interchangeable backstraps on the M&P make it much more comfortable to shoot. I know that it's more important that a handgun shoots well than feels good but most people will find a handgun that fits their hand easier to shoot.
  • No finger-grooves. I found the finger grooves on third-gen Glocks not bad but I prefer a grip without them.
  • The sights are better on the M&P (although I found the rear dots too distracting and blacked them out). The design of the Novak sights gives a sight radius equal to the Glock 17's with a barrel that's about a quarter of an incher shorter.
  • The trigger pull on my M&P is crisper (although a bit heavier) after two months than on my Glock 17 after 15 years.
  • I find the slide release and magazine release easier to reach on the M&P than on a standard Glock--to me they're about the same as the extended controls on the Glock 34
  • The M&P40's recoil with 180 grain Remington is less "snappy" than Glock 17 firing 147 grain Winchester. I'm not sure if this is due to the design of the M&P or due to the nature of the .40 S&W round--I've never fired another .40 pistol.
  • The trigger is more comfortable for extended shooting sessions on the M&P--the little trigger safety dealy on the Glock always bugged a little.
  • There might be a slight accuracy edge with the M&P compared with the Glock--too early for me to say for sure, though.
Smith and Wesson has finally produced a good centrefire semi-auto that I like--I owned a 5906 9mm and really didn't like it at all (actually I sold it to get my first Glock). It really looks like they looked at a Glock and made improvements in the things people don't like about them.
 
takman74 said:
Ok so to get back on topic.... How many shoot lead from their guns anyway? I can't imagine how dirty that ammo is. So as a newb to pistols what is the advantage or disadvantage with regard to shooting.... lead really other than the cost? I didn't get to fire off all of the 1k that I had with me yesterday but 250 went down the tube with out a FTF or FTE. I will own a glock some day but who can argue that S&W doesn't make a good gun? The federal ammo is really clean too. The gun doesn't even look dirty.
Click to expand...


My cast bullets cost me nothing. Commercial lead bullets can be had for about half the price of jacketed ones. Paper targets can't tell the difference.

Take Care

Bob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom