Kyle Lamb Glock VS S&W M&P
- Thread starter mildot
- Start date
If they didn't have early-unlocking issues and excessive variation in nitriding bath duration, I think the m&p would be a better gun.
The small parts problems are a wash considering glock's inability to figure out how to work out extractor geometry.
I often wonder if glock actually designed a particularly good pistol, or just fluked into a great magazine design, and mated it up with a decent pistol with a known/stolen barrel lockup design that happened to be forgiving of the floppy frame.
Well, until they stuck a .40 in it.
I'd sum up the guns as:
glock (my preference) mediocre engineering which is consistently executed and great factory mags;
S&W: better engineering, unreliable execution and decent but not fabulous magazines (mainly on account of S&W's complete inability to either make things the same way every time, or keep the accounting and engineering departments separate).
They both work; neither is really amazing. I'd switch to a ppq or something but I have fifty pounds of glock stuff and mine work fine.
The small parts problems are a wash considering glock's inability to figure out how to work out extractor geometry.
I often wonder if glock actually designed a particularly good pistol, or just fluked into a great magazine design, and mated it up with a decent pistol with a known/stolen barrel lockup design that happened to be forgiving of the floppy frame.
Well, until they stuck a .40 in it.
I'd sum up the guns as:
glock (my preference) mediocre engineering which is consistently executed and great factory mags;
S&W: better engineering, unreliable execution and decent but not fabulous magazines (mainly on account of S&W's complete inability to either make things the same way every time, or keep the accounting and engineering departments separate).
They both work; neither is really amazing. I'd switch to a ppq or something but I have fifty pounds of glock stuff and mine work fine.
r34skyline
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Can you explain that in greater detail?
Slightly but I'm not going really deep on cgn.
Glock has had consistent issues executing even minor changes to their guns. They've repeatedly misunderstood the issues that their design changes have made and they've had major problems working out proper extractor geometry on the gen4s.
The reason glocks work well is really that they make good magazines. Their inability to address problems in their guns makes me wonder how they did a good job on the mags, because that's actually pretty complicated. That's why I wonder if the mags were an accident. Although double stack 9mm mags are easier. But if they were really good at engineering guns, none of the extractor craziness with the gen4 would ever have happened. They got burned trying to drop in parts that didn't fit and they took forever to work out why.
S&W does a pretty good job on the design phase. They have a long track record of building guns that run welll in many different styles. When the early-unlocking issues cropped up, they brought in a super high-speed camera and filmed a bunch of mp9s firing and started trying to solve the problem.
The problem they run into, though, is that they always have a good idea, and then cut costs until it sucks. So they have these highly skilled engineers on hand, and then ignore them. That's the classic smith and wesson problem.
Glock has had consistent issues executing even minor changes to their guns. They've repeatedly misunderstood the issues that their design changes have made and they've had major problems working out proper extractor geometry on the gen4s.
The reason glocks work well is really that they make good magazines. Their inability to address problems in their guns makes me wonder how they did a good job on the mags, because that's actually pretty complicated. That's why I wonder if the mags were an accident. Although double stack 9mm mags are easier. But if they were really good at engineering guns, none of the extractor craziness with the gen4 would ever have happened. They got burned trying to drop in parts that didn't fit and they took forever to work out why.
S&W does a pretty good job on the design phase. They have a long track record of building guns that run welll in many different styles. When the early-unlocking issues cropped up, they brought in a super high-speed camera and filmed a bunch of mp9s firing and started trying to solve the problem.
The problem they run into, though, is that they always have a good idea, and then cut costs until it sucks. So they have these highly skilled engineers on hand, and then ignore them. That's the classic smith and wesson problem.
I have owned more than 5 glock 17 and never experienced the extractor issue?
Are u talking about brass to face issue? I never had one of those either...
I am curious
On the other hand, I did buy a sw mp9 which had no lands and groves on one sode of the barrel, very poorly machined (brand new 2013).
I am bit puzzled about the previous statements. Where are you getting all this info from?
Are u talking about brass to face issue? I never had one of those either...
I am curious
On the other hand, I did buy a sw mp9 which had no lands and groves on one sode of the barrel, very poorly machined (brand new 2013).
I am bit puzzled about the previous statements. Where are you getting all this info from?
I have a lot of contacts in this industry. I do some contract work for different people and don't say much if I can avoid it because a lot of what I know is either directly covered by an NDA or I can't remember if it is or not, or I think it's connected to something that would be covered by an NDA so I don't say anything. I have never done any work for S&W or Glock.
The extractors changed a few times beginning about a year before the Gen4 was introduced. Some chucked brass straight back for sure. But it got really bad after the late Gen3 extractor was dropped into the new gun...the first Gen4 G19s could barely get through a magazine without choking.
That wouldn't be the first smoothbore S&W I've seen, either.
The extractors changed a few times beginning about a year before the Gen4 was introduced. Some chucked brass straight back for sure. But it got really bad after the late Gen3 extractor was dropped into the new gun...the first Gen4 G19s could barely get through a magazine without choking.
That wouldn't be the first smoothbore S&W I've seen, either.
I posted the video, because I like Kyle and I thought it was a fair comparision and easy to understand. I don't think he is working for S&W. I pay attention to what he has to say, but I don't take it as "verbatium". I'm a "dyed in the wool" Glock guy, however I would defintly try a S&W M&P 9.
I have no issues with either gun and I own them in 9mm. Manufacturing defects aside, they both work well and I'd be happy with either. I'm just happier with the S&W because it was my first centre fire and it has the most rounds through it. It has been flawless.
- Location
- Fort St John B.C.
glock has been a one trick pony for 34 years doing just cosmetic changes for the most part, how many DIFFERENT models of semiauto guns/revolvers has S&W released in that same time (some of them even ripping off glocks design).
frankly i am surprised the glock 42 is as well recieved as it has been, glock has hit a hme run with the new design..... but again alot of it is just downsizing the existing principles, one of the biggest advanes i have seen for them is the work on the g41 and g30s, the 41 they got the slide mass down so far they left it a solid top and now it is identical to the g34/35 width. yes thinner barrel as well but the design is working well.
Clobbersauras
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Waaay out west.
Lamb founded Viking Tactics. S&W just happens to make a VTAC M&P.
I don't really care about this particular video though. Lamb has enough good material out there to disregard some of his less good material. It's hard to keep an online presence without looking like a jackass at some point.
From my experience. I'd say this video was spot on in terms of strengths/weakness of the two.
Hi there, I purchased an M&P 9mm with a serial # that puts the manufacture date somewhere around march of this year. The gun seems to shoot better than I can operate it that's for sure. I think once I get used to the sights and stiff trigger pull the accuracy will be pretty close to the PPQ that I was running earlier. I do notice my gun seems to shoot a bit to the left so Once i can confirm I will probably drift the sight over slightly
