Completely on the Fence over M&P vs Glock
- Thread starter 121x
- Start date
I am of the same thought. I would rather have a separate gun and not place wear on the larger caliber pistol. (I shoot LOTS of 22)
A GSG would give same 1911 handling. (I prefer Ruger MkII,III's personally)
Personally both guns are really good. Having tried a friends M&P 9mm and a Glock 17 Gen 4 I decided to go with the Glock 17 for feel, the beaver tail rides low on the inside pawl between my thumb and index finger with no free space, the M&P sits with a tiny bit of space for free play even with a tight grip. I got medium sized hands and even trying the guns with the different back straps/ grips I found the Glock to fit just a little better.
I have a feeling you will be disappointed with the ergonomics of a S&W or a Glock, after owning and shooting a Sig 226. Of course everyone is different and new guns are wanted for variety. Believe me, I know. I shot Glock's and S&W semi's and the Sig was and is the best for me. Fits/feels/balanced the best.
I started with a CZ75b... then purchased:
CZ97b-sold
GSG 1911-sold
Currently
S&W 686
Sig 226 Enhanced Elite (SRT trigger, Tritium Sights, Beavertail)
Sig 226r Base model
CZ75b (sold on installment plan to a friend-still in my possession)
HK USP
Wish list:
CSA VZ58 Shorty
Desert Eagle 44mag
Sig Stainless 1911/Elite???
A Glock or S&W polymer pistol, nope.
I started with a CZ75b... then purchased:
CZ97b-sold
GSG 1911-sold
Currently
S&W 686
Sig 226 Enhanced Elite (SRT trigger, Tritium Sights, Beavertail)
Sig 226r Base model
CZ75b (sold on installment plan to a friend-still in my possession)
HK USP
Wish list:
CSA VZ58 Shorty
Desert Eagle 44mag
Sig Stainless 1911/Elite???
A Glock or S&W polymer pistol, nope.
Ok your right they are both very easy guns to field strip and clean. Just the Glock is a "little bit" easier lol.
Starscream
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Southern Alberta
There is only one possible answer to this question.
Get BOTH!!!
It's not technically required, it's the proper procedure but it was designed that way so that you didn't need to pull the trigger to disassemble the firearm (you CAN pull the trigger on an empty M&P to achieve the same effect). Apparently some very select officers don't quite understand the idea of clearing a weapon before attempting to disassemble it. Especially when the first step of that disassembly involves pulling the trigger. And then they blame bad disassembly procedure.
Get BOTH!!!
It's not technically required, it's the proper procedure but it was designed that way so that you didn't need to pull the trigger to disassemble the firearm (you CAN pull the trigger on an empty M&P to achieve the same effect). Apparently some very select officers don't quite understand the idea of clearing a weapon before attempting to disassemble it. Especially when the first step of that disassembly involves pulling the trigger. And then they blame bad disassembly procedure.
You should try handling an M&P before you put your foot in your mouth - you can field strip an M&P by pulling the trigger, just like a Glock - the lever, which can be flipped down with a finger nail, a key or a tooth pick is so you don't need to pull the trigger. The lever is permanently attached to the pistol. The frame tool, which is I think what you're referring to, can be used for that, or it can be used as the only tool you need to completely strip the pistol frame, down to the last part - that is, when it's not holding your grips on. You're unlikely to lose the part that holds your grips on.
Hey Guys,
First off I want to say thanks for all the opinions. You gave me a lot to think about it and I have decided to take a slightly different approach thanks to the advice and contribution of those here.
A fellow CGN'er read this post, touched base with me and offered me the chance to fire the glock 17 gen4 and 22 gen3. And what do you know, he also owns an M&p 40. Fired all three head to head (about 75 - 100 rounds each) and for me the M&P felt better, looks more pleasing to the eye and feels more natural allowing quicker follow-up. The M&P more closely resembles the p226 than the glock. Another member had posted a couple pages back that given my familiarity with Sig's I might have a hard time adapting to, or not find the ergonomics as nice. He was right. Going from a sig (226 in this case) to a glock is quite a bit of difference. I am sure given time and use you would adjust accordingly.
I have decided instead to buy a .22 conversion kit for one my sigs and purchase the m&p 40 with 9mm conversion barrel. Nothing against the Glock of course, or I would not have been debating it. I will likely still have an itch to purchase one a bit further down the road but I have my sights set on a new rifle and two new shotguns which are going to take precedence.
Thanks again guys.
First off I want to say thanks for all the opinions. You gave me a lot to think about it and I have decided to take a slightly different approach thanks to the advice and contribution of those here.
A fellow CGN'er read this post, touched base with me and offered me the chance to fire the glock 17 gen4 and 22 gen3. And what do you know, he also owns an M&p 40. Fired all three head to head (about 75 - 100 rounds each) and for me the M&P felt better, looks more pleasing to the eye and feels more natural allowing quicker follow-up. The M&P more closely resembles the p226 than the glock. Another member had posted a couple pages back that given my familiarity with Sig's I might have a hard time adapting to, or not find the ergonomics as nice. He was right. Going from a sig (226 in this case) to a glock is quite a bit of difference. I am sure given time and use you would adjust accordingly.
I have decided instead to buy a .22 conversion kit for one my sigs and purchase the m&p 40 with 9mm conversion barrel. Nothing against the Glock of course, or I would not have been debating it. I will likely still have an itch to purchase one a bit further down the road but I have my sights set on a new rifle and two new shotguns which are going to take precedence.
Thanks again guys.
The rumours about an adjustable back strap on a Glock go back about 5 years, they sat on the design and continued to sell the fixed grip for as long as they could, so everyone would have a reason to upgrade.
I agree completely, but you'd think they'd want to be out in front of the competition instead of playing catch up. I guess they thought that people would buy what they wanted to sell, and then along comes the M&P and by the time they realized what was happening, they were playing catch up. The folks at Glock are well renowned for being a little egotistical.
Being a self professed and proud cheapskate, I always ask myself what I plan to feed a pistol before I purchase, if you are shooting lead reloads, go M&P. If you are shooting plated or factory ammo, you can't go wrong with a Glock.
Or you could by an aftermarket barrel to shoot lead in your Glock... gee, I'm no help.
Or you could by an aftermarket barrel to shoot lead in your Glock... gee, I'm no help.
Being a self professed and proud cheapskate, I always ask myself what I plan to feed a pistol before I purchase, if you are shooting lead reloads, go M&P. If you are shooting plated or factory ammo, you can't go wrong with a Glock.
Or you could by an aftermarket barrel to shoot lead in your Glock... gee, I'm no help.
Both handle pretty much anything. Currently, I only feed factory to my M&P but I see that changing in the near future
.
