Inspired by the Glock vs M&P thread I figured I'll post a direct comparison to help people that are deciding between the two.
Here is a Gen 4 Glock 22 and M&P9. They are both DAO polymer framed guns but they are as different as they are similar.
Size. M&P's slide is a little bit wider, but the M&P is a little smaller overall but the beavertail actually makes it unnecessarily longer than a Glock, even though M&P's slide and barrel is a little shorter than Glock's. My first M&P that I had years ago, got a beavertail reduction for that and another reason mentioned below.
Trigger feels is a little lighter on the M&P, but the difference is slight.
Sight radius is identical on both guns. But the sights themselves are better on the M&P (vs basic Glock model). Although Glock's plastic sights are still very usable and provide a good sight picture.
Grip is where the main differences are IMO. (M&P has a small backstrap and Glock doesn't have the backstrap add ons - feel the most comfortable that way for me). Gocks grip is a lot more grippy which I like but I suspect after a long day of shooting M&P would feel more comfortable for that reason. Also, the angle of the grip on a Glock forces your hand to sit very high on the gun which makes M&P feel like it has a higher bore axis where in reality they are about the same. When I hold the M&P the web of my hand isn't even close to touching the beavertail, which is another reason why I'm not a fan of it. M&P has an edge in grip size tho, it feels smaller than Glock.
Accessories. Glock has an advantage with mags and parts being cheaper and easier to come by which is a big factor for me
I would rate both guns above Styer and Ruger SR9/40 (which I owned in the past)
more to come if I think of something.
Here is a Gen 4 Glock 22 and M&P9. They are both DAO polymer framed guns but they are as different as they are similar.
Size. M&P's slide is a little bit wider, but the M&P is a little smaller overall but the beavertail actually makes it unnecessarily longer than a Glock, even though M&P's slide and barrel is a little shorter than Glock's. My first M&P that I had years ago, got a beavertail reduction for that and another reason mentioned below.
Trigger feels is a little lighter on the M&P, but the difference is slight.
Sight radius is identical on both guns. But the sights themselves are better on the M&P (vs basic Glock model). Although Glock's plastic sights are still very usable and provide a good sight picture.
Grip is where the main differences are IMO. (M&P has a small backstrap and Glock doesn't have the backstrap add ons - feel the most comfortable that way for me). Gocks grip is a lot more grippy which I like but I suspect after a long day of shooting M&P would feel more comfortable for that reason. Also, the angle of the grip on a Glock forces your hand to sit very high on the gun which makes M&P feel like it has a higher bore axis where in reality they are about the same. When I hold the M&P the web of my hand isn't even close to touching the beavertail, which is another reason why I'm not a fan of it. M&P has an edge in grip size tho, it feels smaller than Glock.
Accessories. Glock has an advantage with mags and parts being cheaper and easier to come by which is a big factor for me
I would rate both guns above Styer and Ruger SR9/40 (which I owned in the past)
more to come if I think of something.
Last edited:
Glock's reputation is based on reliability not how pretty it is... If you want pretty, stick to playing with Barbies... 
