M&P9 VS Glock 17
- Thread starter JoeOnePack
- Start date
I would actually say my M&P is quicker to strip. Both being under 10 seconds, it really is a moot point.
Really? If you're field stripping it you're in no rush, nor is it important how many steps are required.
TDC
calvados.boulard
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Victoria BC
Personally I've had both, and sold the Glock. The M&P fit me better, and I shot better with it. Both were stone cold reliable.
Thanks,
Cal.
Thanks,
Cal.
What an idiot....
First, it's your money so buy what you want but I will mention a few things IMHO of course.
The argument hat m&ps are just as reliable isn't valid IMO. The m&p has not proven itself. I always post this link when this question comes up. Show me anything remotely like this done with an m&p.
h ttp://theprepared.com/content/view/90/administrator/
Second the whole "buy whatever feels better" is also not a good argument for one over the other. Ak47, very reliable, they don't make them to feel good when you hold them. When I was teaching basic training all my soldiers got c7s. From 5 foot tall females to 6 foot 5" tall males. They all got the same weapon and all shot them just fine. 5 foot tall 18 year old female from nfld got top shot on the last course I taught.
Third, what is your criteria for purchasing a firearm? And what do you want it for? Do you want something that is a perfect fit for you hand? Some awesome 22s out there for that. Something to take to the range now and then to shoot? They will all do that. A gun for ipsc/idpa? Cz/glock/m&p etc.
For me personally the criteria that was the most important for me in buying a plastic wonder pistol was utmost reliability. It must go bang every time. No we can't ccw, my life doesn't depend on it but that's what I wanted. The bonus of it always working when playing ipsc is just that, a bonus. There is no other pistol on the planet that is as reliable as a glock. No other pistol can be put through the crap a glock can and still work. This is fact. That's really all there is to it.
If reliability isn't your main concern but rather how a gun feels then go buy what feels best for you.
I am also not some glock nut. I enjoy many handguns but you can be sure that my glock will work long after my 1911 quit.
The argument hat m&ps are just as reliable isn't valid IMO. The m&p has not proven itself. I always post this link when this question comes up. Show me anything remotely like this done with an m&p.
h ttp://theprepared.com/content/view/90/administrator/
Second the whole "buy whatever feels better" is also not a good argument for one over the other. Ak47, very reliable, they don't make them to feel good when you hold them. When I was teaching basic training all my soldiers got c7s. From 5 foot tall females to 6 foot 5" tall males. They all got the same weapon and all shot them just fine. 5 foot tall 18 year old female from nfld got top shot on the last course I taught.
Third, what is your criteria for purchasing a firearm? And what do you want it for? Do you want something that is a perfect fit for you hand? Some awesome 22s out there for that. Something to take to the range now and then to shoot? They will all do that. A gun for ipsc/idpa? Cz/glock/m&p etc.
For me personally the criteria that was the most important for me in buying a plastic wonder pistol was utmost reliability. It must go bang every time. No we can't ccw, my life doesn't depend on it but that's what I wanted. The bonus of it always working when playing ipsc is just that, a bonus. There is no other pistol on the planet that is as reliable as a glock. No other pistol can be put through the crap a glock can and still work. This is fact. That's really all there is to it.
If reliability isn't your main concern but rather how a gun feels then go buy what feels best for you.
I am also not some glock nut. I enjoy many handguns but you can be sure that my glock will work long after my 1911 quit.
Actually, due to the design of the firing pin channel liner in the M&P, you don't need to change anything on a stock M&P to be able to shoot underwater.
As far as Gen 4 Glocks go, M&P's are possibly more reliable - depending on when the Glock was built and if the owner changed out the extractor and RSA's properly. Glocks really have had issues, guys - Gen 3 40 cals that wouldn't shoot with lights on, Gen 1 trigger return springs that snapped, also frame rails tearing, Gen 4's that wouldn't extract, or feed. To suggest that a Glock (purely because it says Glock on it) is "more reliable" than any other handgun (particularly a handgun that is a simplified copy of a Glock) is absolute sh*t.
Incidently, the pistol being used in this post - theprepared.com/content/view/90/administrator/ - is an early Glock 21 - widely regarded by professional instructors as the red headed step child of the Glock line, due to it's lack of reliability, accuracy and durability - which only goes to show you that a sample size of 1 is statistically insignificant.
I'm actually a huge Glock fan, always have been. But to call it the most reliable pistol ever made is kind of ridiculous. The Glock I owned was no where near as reliable as the Beretta 92F I owned. I have seen Glocks spit out extractors, crack slides, lose their plastic sigts during remedial action, have various ftf issues or jams. It is definitely one of the more reliable guns out there, and one of the most simple and rugged pistols, but the mythological status it has attained as the most reliable pistol is BS. While its parts are not as durable in the long run I have found the Beretta 92 series pistols more reliable on the whole, so do a number of instructors. If I had to buy a pistol I knew would work out of the box that would be my first choice. But if I had to buy one that would run thousands and thousands of rounds I would buy a Glock. But it's not industructable, it can not run if packed with gunk and debris because you believe it never has to be cleaned. Like any other pistol, take care of it and it'll do the job. Don't and you shouldn't be surprised when it fails you.
http: //books.google.ca/books?id=F6Yd2aU3uc8C&pg=PA68&lpg=PA68&dq=ken+hackathorn+beretta+world's+most+reliable&source=bl&ots=TgRl7tm6hS&sig=tCdEITtnrxhrBQF1qcZs1qrXjdI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xKAKUMqPGaLs6gGvgrW-Cg&ved=0CEwQ6AEwAA
http: //books.google.ca/books?id=F6Yd2aU3uc8C&pg=PA68&lpg=PA68&dq=ken+hackathorn+beretta+world's+most+reliable&source=bl&ots=TgRl7tm6hS&sig=tCdEITtnrxhrBQF1qcZs1qrXjdI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xKAKUMqPGaLs6gGvgrW-Cg&ved=0CEwQ6AEwAA
I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that the M&P isn't proven:
http://pistol-training.com/archives/category/range-reports/mp-monday
Two stoppages in over 62,000 rounds is a pretty respectable performance in my books. In fact, the M&P performed better than the 4th generation Glock 17 in this test, particularly at the beginning:
http://pistol-training.com/archives/category/range-reports/gen4-friday
http://pistol-training.com/archives/4553
Current production 9mm Glocks seem to be problematic. If you want a Glock, your best bet would be a used model made prior to 2010.
At this point, the only thing that would make me hesitant to buy an M&P 9 is the possibility of getting stuck with one with severe accuracy problems that some users are reporting.
http://pistol-training.com/archives/category/range-reports/mp-monday
Two stoppages in over 62,000 rounds is a pretty respectable performance in my books. In fact, the M&P performed better than the 4th generation Glock 17 in this test, particularly at the beginning:
http://pistol-training.com/archives/category/range-reports/gen4-friday
http://pistol-training.com/archives/4553
Current production 9mm Glocks seem to be problematic. If you want a Glock, your best bet would be a used model made prior to 2010.
At this point, the only thing that would make me hesitant to buy an M&P 9 is the possibility of getting stuck with one with severe accuracy problems that some users are reporting.
I don't buy it. I suspect its the users more than the pistol. The stock trigger is a bazaar creature but its not the worst I've ever used.
TDC
