I don't see how taking a gun apart easier is a factor for buying. It's a bit of a wash, as some can take a glock apart faster than you can blink, I on the other hand think that those little tiny ass serrated blades on a g17 are a b!tc# to grab on to and screw around with the slide. The m&p you just pull it back, turn down the lever and pull the trigger. Even a fat fingered guy with Parkinson's could do that. As far as quality of workmanship, I don't think the m&p is garbage at all. It doesn't rattle, everything appears to be machined nicely. Other than the trigger (not even a consideration as anyone who gets any handgun is not going to leave the trigger stock). What exactly makes the glock light years ahead in terms of machining, and what difference does that make if the gun functions just the same, reliably?
Glock17 or M&P9
- Thread starter ss1980
- Start date
They really are apples and oranges given the Glocks you buy here are made in the US on US machines by American workers. You are reaching now. I have handled a Glock and there is no discernible difference in quality that I can see. Both are excellent pistols. The M&P does offer a few more options to widen their market.
Go back and read the sentence he mentions take down then the parts. Neither of the statements are true anymore but if you think so....
Take care
Bob
Hi Bob,
I have no doubts that You are right, however I was referring to the detail strip process in my post.
My apologies if I didn't come out clear on that.
For me it's. I like to be able to work on my pistol on my own.
Understanding the action and how different parts work together is important for me.
I like to be able to fix the issues that I may have without calling a gunsmith.
For police departments it's also important as the time of any certified armorers is expensive.
Simpler means faster and equals cheaper.
If this is not important to You, it's perfectly fine. It's a free country after all.
No Sir, they are not made in the states. The finishing on Glock guns in prohibited to manufacture in the United States hence the parts are made in Austria and assembled in US. NOT THE SAME.
The parts coming from Austria are assembled in US and completely finished before hand with products and finishes allowed in european countries.
At one point in time, you could read the sentence MADE IN US on the frame but that did not last very long and they went back to MADE IN Austria, this I assume, must have been a marketing move that was later abandoned due to legal Issues with Glock Austria.
So no, Glocks are not made in US, are only assembled there. The only german/european guns made in the States are SIG and that is why the finish in German and US guns is different, whoever says this is not true has not held one next to each other, the finish on the us sig is different (mostly in the frames, unless you got a full frame + slide german made -very rare theses days) from the the german ones.
So there is that.
The parts coming from Austria are assembled in US and completely finished before hand with products and finishes allowed in european countries.
At one point in time, you could read the sentence MADE IN US on the frame but that did not last very long and they went back to MADE IN Austria, this I assume, must have been a marketing move that was later abandoned due to legal Issues with Glock Austria.
So no, Glocks are not made in US, are only assembled there. The only german/european guns made in the States are SIG and that is why the finish in German and US guns is different, whoever says this is not true has not held one next to each other, the finish on the us sig is different (mostly in the frames, unless you got a full frame + slide german made -very rare theses days) from the the german ones.
So there is that.
Last edited:
I stand corrected as do you. There is no discernible difference between the fit and finish of the Glock or M&P in my mind.
Nestor taking the M&P down to the frame is only a matter of removing three pins and you have the gun completely disassembled. The striker block pops out as does the trigger group. Both guns are incredibly easy to disassemble. Almost as easy as the 1911. The latter can be stripped to the frame using a spent cartridge and only the parts from the gun.
Take Care
Bob
Nestor taking the M&P down to the frame is only a matter of removing three pins and you have the gun completely disassembled. The striker block pops out as does the trigger group. Both guns are incredibly easy to disassemble. Almost as easy as the 1911. The latter can be stripped to the frame using a spent cartridge and only the parts from the gun.
Take Care
Bob
Limp wristing is a user error, my p30 and my usp will choke up if you limp wrist it, along with the m&p, it will induce malfunctions in lots of pistols, that arguement holds no water.
For me the sights are a moot point because all my pistols run trijicon HD. but fair enough you want to run stock to stock the m&p gets the edge.
I don't know if the revised models use polygonal rifling or not but I do recall glocks do use polygonal rifling, and the initial m&ps did not. Big detractor for me. Big plus point for glock.
The tennifer coating on the glocks looks like it is a superior finish to the one used on M&Ps, now I can't objectively prove that so I won't push that point.
Glocks have a simpler detail strip. If you are slightly mechanicall challenged it's much easier with the glock.
Glocks also have a longer track record than the M&Ps. That is an edge to the glock.
Grip angles are different between glocks and my usp. I have zero issues with either.
Hey Bob,
The trigger mechanism is different as is the sear and disconnector assembly.
However, the slide break down is very similar to a Glock.
You do, however, have to remove the rear site in order to remove the firing pin safety plunger.
Here is the video for those that are interested.
ztunelover - the M&P has cut rifling. The advantage is you can use lead safely/ That said I know folks who have shot lead in their Glocks for years. They just clean the guns after each range session. My Tanfoglio .40cal has polygonal rifling and had never shown any sign of leading. I have a 9MM top end for the gun as well with cut rifling and it doesn't lead either. Neither barrel shoots any better than the other.
I mentioned sights only because I have not heard anyone claim the factory sights match the guns quality. I replaced the sights on my M&P's because my preference for FO front sights as I use the guns for shooting the games and FO fronts are much faster to pick up against cardboard targets using older eyes. The rears ttoo have been changed to widen the notch. I have one .40 cal that doesn't leave the house often with a front night sight. The latter sights are a PITA for me when shooting tan targets.
You enjoy the Luger angle because that is what you are used to and you likely make the adjustment to put the gun on a flat plain automatically. Most new users have to learn that.
It really comes down to personal preference. Neither are target pistols, nor are they meant to be. My CZ/Tanfoglio off a bench are easily more accurate. In hand for what I use the guns for, the difference does not matter.
Nestor forgot about that. After I replaced the USB I doubt I will ever take it out again. I haven't for two of my guns. You just turn the Allen screw and push/tap the rear sight off left to right. You didn't mention you really need a sight pusher to get the front sight off. For most this is a one time event but it is necessary. Unless I decide to play with my trigger pull weight some more I doubt I'll be stripping any of my M&P's again. For me it isn't necessary any more. I have the guns where I want them (4). May switch to my Ruger GP100 for playing IDPA next year and compete with the round bellies. The youngsters are getting to hard to chase, chicanery and guile can only take you so far. :>).
I am going to use my Tanfoglio in Standard Division next year and a pair of El Patrone's in Cowboy Action.
Take Care
Bob
I mentioned sights only because I have not heard anyone claim the factory sights match the guns quality. I replaced the sights on my M&P's because my preference for FO front sights as I use the guns for shooting the games and FO fronts are much faster to pick up against cardboard targets using older eyes. The rears ttoo have been changed to widen the notch. I have one .40 cal that doesn't leave the house often with a front night sight. The latter sights are a PITA for me when shooting tan targets.
You enjoy the Luger angle because that is what you are used to and you likely make the adjustment to put the gun on a flat plain automatically. Most new users have to learn that.
It really comes down to personal preference. Neither are target pistols, nor are they meant to be. My CZ/Tanfoglio off a bench are easily more accurate. In hand for what I use the guns for, the difference does not matter.
Nestor forgot about that. After I replaced the USB I doubt I will ever take it out again. I haven't for two of my guns. You just turn the Allen screw and push/tap the rear sight off left to right. You didn't mention you really need a sight pusher to get the front sight off. For most this is a one time event but it is necessary. Unless I decide to play with my trigger pull weight some more I doubt I'll be stripping any of my M&P's again. For me it isn't necessary any more. I have the guns where I want them (4). May switch to my Ruger GP100 for playing IDPA next year and compete with the round bellies. The youngsters are getting to hard to chase, chicanery and guile can only take you so far. :>).
I am going to use my Tanfoglio in Standard Division next year and a pair of El Patrone's in Cowboy Action.
Take Care
Bob
I've owned both, shot both quite extensively over the years, and frankly there isn't 10 cents between them on anything other than ergonomics, and even that isn't as big a difference as it used to be with the Gen 4 Glocks. To me, they're like the Camaro and Firebird of handguns. The melonite on the M&P will certainly last as long as the tennifer on a Glock, neither one is a match gun for accuracy. Out of the box the Glock has a more amenable trigger, but the M&P has useable sights (pretty much a wash there) build quality and durability are excellent for both, both are easy to work on, parts are available and cheap for both. Incidentally, the M&P can be completely stripped using the "frame tool" that holds the back strap on - it's not just for popping the little lever down on mag safetied guns. So basically, having owned a very early Gen 1 Glock and an early Gen 3 (G19), and having shot a Gen 4 (really very nice) I've put probably 10,000 rounds combined through Glocks, between 2 early M&P9's (one of which I still own and has been obscenely reliable, despite the poor treatment it's had) and an M&P45, I have close to 50,000 rounds through various M&P's. Trust me when I say, the differences aren't worth arguing about. Damn, now I might have to go out and buy a Gen 4 Glock.
Oh - ETA, the Glock does have a bit of an advantage when it comes to training and practice, the SIRT is basically a Glock, so Glock holsters etc, work with it.
Last edited:
enefgee as Nestor pointed out to me the USB can only be removed after you remover the rear sight and for that you need at least an Allen wrench and likely a punch and hammer. Two of my guns had very tight rear sights.
I agree there is nothing between them. Both work extremely well in IDPA. The .45acp version of both I believe have won CDP division at least once at the US Nationals against tuned 1911s.
The Glock grip and I don`t get along otherwise I would have gone with the Glock. I have since modified my replaceable back strap on my Competition guns to emulate a more CZ or Tanfoglio grip.
Take Care
Bob
I agree there is nothing between them. Both work extremely well in IDPA. The .45acp version of both I believe have won CDP division at least once at the US Nationals against tuned 1911s.
The Glock grip and I don`t get along otherwise I would have gone with the Glock. I have since modified my replaceable back strap on my Competition guns to emulate a more CZ or Tanfoglio grip.
Take Care
Bob
I had a Glock before. Gen 2. Sold it. Got M&P recently. The grip is very positive on M&P compared to brick-design-style on Glock. M&P is very pleasant to the eye and to your hand. Equally reliable, equally accurate.
The problem comes with mags. Glock original mags are pinned to 10 and are flawless. M&P mags are cut at the bottom and replaced with huge plastic plug. The difference is noticeable when you have one round in the chamber and are trying to slam in the fully loaded 10-rounder mag. It just doesn't go in!!!
In IPSC competition situations -- this is unforgivable!!!
The problem comes with mags. Glock original mags are pinned to 10 and are flawless. M&P mags are cut at the bottom and replaced with huge plastic plug. The difference is noticeable when you have one round in the chamber and are trying to slam in the fully loaded 10-rounder mag. It just doesn't go in!!!
In IPSC competition situations -- this is unforgivable!!!
That is why we trim the legs on the follower of our M&P mags. It is a simple cure. Why S&W does not correct this is beyond me but they have not yet. The 10 rd mags are not cut from 18 round mags they are made that way, just like some versions of Tanfoglio and CZ mags are.
Take Care
Bob
abbynormal
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- West Coast
Yep - the M&P with the Range Kit is the better deal, BUT - and this is just my opinion now, I prefer the Glock, and would take it over the M&P any day of the week.
I've had both (at the same time), I did have a few issues with the M&P, nothing serious - just inconvenient. I've never had an issue with any of my Glocks - period.
Just my .02 .....
Abby
It´s a horse that have been beaten to really dead all over the places. it´s just a personal preference.
if you are serious about firearm, I would say to get both and to be proficient on both. I got both G22 and MP40, then 9mm conversion barrels for both of them. personally, glock grip is a bit too big for my hand, but after some practice, I like both.
if you are serious about firearm, I would say to get both and to be proficient on both. I got both G22 and MP40, then 9mm conversion barrels for both of them. personally, glock grip is a bit too big for my hand, but after some practice, I like both.
I was surprised not to see any forums in here comparing Glock and M&P.
I have a good deal on both guns and am thinking of getting one or the other for some plinking, some IPSC and similar range time activities.
Would owners / users of Glock 17s and M&P9s chime in their opinions and possibly compare the two?
Thank you for your input.
Forest1488
CGN Regular
- Location
- South of Toronto
As most have said, to each their own. My choice ended up being an M&P 9 Pro with an Apex trigger job. It rocks. Will still end up buying a Glock some day.
