Glock versus S&W M&P

[vrod2011]

I just read a couple of threads, some of which got shutdown. In an effort to avoid that, I'll give the full back story. For those that don't want to read the back story, my question is: What, if any, is the main/major difference between Glocks and S&W M&Ps?

Back story:

I have a very good friend who is a Jeff Cooper trained Master Instructor. He teaches and uses Weaver. Also, he has never been to a USPSA match. Great guy, carries a 1911 everywhere he goes. Again, a very good friend. But, he is not a Glock fan. Not only that, he thinks it is a worthless gun, and would only carry it if it was the last gun available to him.

So, tonight, there was a group of us meeting, and he brings out a Smith and Wesson M&P in 40S&W, the 4.25". I look over at him, smile, and say, "So I guess this means you have changed your mind on Glocks as well."

He responds, "Oh, no, no. This is a FAR SUPERIOR gun to the Glock." Then he proceeds to talk about the dehorning and how visible the sights are. He probably went a little further in detail, but my mind had already shut off and steam was coming out of my ears.

From what I can tell about the two guns, the trigger pull is a little different, the Glock being more of a two stage and the M&P more smooth, or roll. M&P might not have the unsupported chamber (I don't know). Glock has a great reliability track record, where S&W track record with autos is sketchie at best.

Is there a major difference between the two guns? If so, please let me know. If there is a danger of the thread getting shut down, please send your response to me directly. My friend and I are the 2 "gun experts" in our group of friends, and it would be nice if we could agree on something other than 1911s. I guess I should be thankful that we agree that M&P is a good substitute for guys not willing to put out $1000 for a decent 1911. I just wish I could turn him over to Glocks as well.

[Flexmoney]

He shoots and teaches weaver, doesn't shoot USPSA and hates Glocks. Sounds like a man that has made his choices.

Whadda ya gonna do....change his mind somehow???

[atmar]

maybe your friend is just very patriotic and will buy only "made in usa" guns. afaic they're the same polymer guns. striker fired also. if i recall right s&w tried to copy glocks design when they came out with the sigma.

[vrod2011]

It might be impossible to change his mind. I'm just hoping to open it a little. If he sees the benefits of the M&P, maybe that will open the door to the Glock. I'm just making sure my ducks are all in a row on the similarities.

[ede]

to me the short of it is if you like glock you ought to like the M&P or the other way around.

[iainmcphersn]

I've been shooting Glocks for 20+ years so a Glock is more natural to me. Kind of like a 1911 is to most folks here. I don't own an M&P but have shot one a couple times. I really thought I wanted one until I got a chance to play with one.

The biggest difference for me was weight. The M&P is several ounces heavier than the Glock and I like light guns. Not a big difference to most people though.

The trigger is smoother but the travel feels longer to me.

The sights sit higher over the web of my hand than a Glock.

Ultimately I decided not to invest in an M&P but for strictly personal and financial reasons. (I did not want to trade or sell something to get one.)

I think for a 1911 person, they make a great gun and most people will transition to them much easier. There is nothing I know that is wrong with M&Ps but I found that Glocks fit me better.

YMMV

Shoot safe,

John

[Micah]

Brother, I gotta tell ya, get out of the mind chaning business as soon as possible! That path leads to the dark side (read: fustration, anger, etc). I'm a Glock shooter, but can certainly appreciate the strengths of the M&P. A friend of mine has hands like a bunch of bananas, and Glocks literally eat the webbing of his thumb and index finger. The shape of the M&P fits his hands infinately better, and thus is the better choice. The different grips that can be applied is another strong benifit of the M&P.

One of the greatest aspects of USPSA/IDPA/IPSC is the wide open assortment of pistols that we can use. Each has their own strengths and weaknesses.

[revchuck]

My guess is that the reason he likes the M&P is that the grip angle is the same as that of the 1911. That, and the trigger doesn't have that Swingline feel.

Seriously, don't worry about changing your friend's mind. He may be in the process of changing it himself, based on his acceptance of the M&P.

I'm as guilty of reverse snobbery as anyone I know concerning Glocks, but I appreciate their reliability. They're solid guns - I just don't like them.

[Joe4d]

If he is a master instructor and teaches and uses weaver he learned and set his mind in the revolver era, The M&P has a more DA revolver like trigger. Any one claiming to be a master instructor but puts down a gun that is simple, reliable, accurate very sturdy and has an extremely well proven long track record is a pretty crappy instructor and is more concerned with showing off than teaching a class. I dont like Glocks either, but it's because the grip angle doesnt work for me and I also dont like the center of gravity changing as I shoot and I think they are ugly. But they work and are accurate and reliable. So if I had a student with one the only way I would put it down is if I could tell it didnt fit.

[Jman]

I'm of the understanding that S&W has produced another fine gun. They do that. I shoot USPSA exclusively and besides the 1911 platform Glocks dominate in the plastic arena and have for nearly 20 years. The two I own have one thing in common, neither have seen a gunsmith.

Your friend sounds like a gentleman who knows what he likes. Good for him. If I were someone primarily interested in the use of handguns as a defensive weapon he very well could be "the guy". I have guns that work consistently for 800-900 rounds in monthly matches. Plus 250 more in drills. All in extremely dusty desert conditions. To each his own.

Jim M

[Middle Man]

Ergonomically, the M&P and Glock are quite different. The M&P has the same grip angle as a 1911 while a Glock mimics a revolver. The M&P grip is (to my hand) slimmer and more round, Glocks always felt squarish. The M&P interchangeable backstraps allow a more personalized fit. The M&P is a bit heftier and consequently has somewhat less muzzle whip in recoil than a Glock. The Glock frame is designed to flex in recoil, the M&P does not and it has more frame rail contact area with the slide than a Glock. The factory sights on an M&P are far superior to the Glock's factory sights. The triggers have very different feels. Glock has the reliability track record.

[racerba]

IMO - One major difference that makes the Glock 'better' than the M&P is that the bore centerline is lower in the Glock. Another big difference is that the Glock is far easier to fully take down and has less pieces to get lost and/or break.

[Matt Griffin]

To be fair, the Glock stock sights do suck for the most part, so he's right about that. The trigger is also pretty lousy, but both can be fixed for $60 each.

As for the rest, he needs to go to a match. He might learn something. After all, those who can't, teach . . .

H.

[Jim Watson]

For what it is worth, I prefer the Plastic M&P. I am a long time 1911 shooter and while I am willing to be open minded about calibers, materials of construction, and method of ignition, I am NOT going to retrain myself to the Lugeroid grip angle of a Glock.

[mike cyrwus]

Glock shooters that try out the M&P miss the nice clicky reset and grip angle that they have grown used to .

In my opinion, both triggers stock, are different, but neither is inherently better than the other.

A worked over M&P trigger has the edge over a massaged glock trigger, when seen from the eyes of a shooter not familiar with either platform.

They are two great guns, and Glock has an advantage of history and a great track record. I prefer the M&P for competition; but I wouldnt necessarily go sell a competition glock to switch over to an M&P.

[The Antichrome]

In regards to your friend; The term "Stick to your guns" was made for him. Nothing wrong with that. A man's got

to know where to draw the line and when to cross it. More power to him.

As for the guns. I regularly shoot and compete with both Glocks and M&P. I like them all just fine.

Nicer grip (and changable too) on the M&P. I can understand how a 1911 user would prefer it over the Glock.

I'll be buying a M&P 9pro when it comes out. But when I pick up a 1911, I say to myself,

"Nice, very nice"

I wonder what your friend thinks of XD's????

[vrod2011]

I wonder what he thinks of them too. In the most basic terms, I put Glock, M&P, XDs, Taurus 24/7 (kind of), PX4 Storm (but with hammer), and that new Ruger all in the same class. I would think if someone has an issue with one, they would probably have an issue with all, as opposed to Sig/Beretta/Ruger P Series and 1911/Hi-Powers.

Please don't flame. I know I'm casting a mighty big net.

Anyways, I'll talk to him more on Memorial Day. I really do appreciate all the feedback. It looks like the main differences are the grip angle, quality of sights, and the trigger.

As far as changing minds, the problem is we have influence over about 80 men, most of who have never shot a gun. I bite my tongue a lot around these guys, but I really couldn't let this one go. For years we have disagreed over Glocks. Then, when he came championing the M&P, I got pretty hacked off. I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't missing some greatness in the M&P over the Glock.

Thanks again for all your inputs.

[reneet]

Ergonomically, the M&P and Glock are quite different. The M&P has the same grip angle as a 1911 while a Glock mimics a revolver. The M&P grip is (to my hand) slimmer and more round, Glocks always felt squarish. The M&P interchangeable backstraps allow a more personalized fit. The M&P is a bit heftier and consequently has somewhat less muzzle whip in recoil than a Glock. The Glock frame is designed to flex in recoil, the M&P does not and it has more frame rail contact area with the slide than a Glock. The factory sights on an M&P are far superior to the Glock's factory sights. The triggers have very different feels. Glock has the reliability track record.

+1 to what he said. I've always had a problem with the 1st knuckle of my strong hand thumb getting bruised shooting both revolvers and glocks. Thinking maybe I just wasn't holding it right, I went to Jerry and explained the problem. He moved my grip even higher up on the revolver but it didn't help any. I wouldn't buy a glock for that reason alone although I think they are fine pistols and the ones that I've borrowed over the years to shoot GSSF matches with worked flawlessly.

That being said, the 1st time I got my hands on a S&W M&P - Loved it. Luckily for me, I won one at the Lady SMith match held here @ The SHootout last month and it just came in. A big THANK YOU to S&W for supporting the ladies match! I'll be taking it to Jerry to get him to do a little trigger magic for me and start shooting it sometime this year. I finally have a production gun. Now I have to figure out where I'm going to shoot it.

[Flexmoney]

...the problem is we have influence over about 80 men, most of who have never shot a gun.

If that is the case, then you might owe it to them to present a well-rounded and informed opinion. (Coming here and asking is a good step in that direction...but, don't stop now.)

[vrod2011]

...but, don't stop now.)

What would you say the next step is?

[Glshooter]

The best way to influence these 80 men? Start by inviting some of them to go shooting with you. If you have different types of guns then let them try them. Then they can make thier own informed opinion.

[zhunter]

...but, don't stop now.)

What would you say the next step is?

An unbiased overview of all platforms

OMG, did I just say that?

[Suburban Commando]

M&P 9mm - Glock 17 Comparison

Stock sights on the M&P are much better, but I prefer the 5lb. Glock trigger.

[raz-0]

Well, I resisted 1911s fro a while when I started shooting, but after getting to shoot some mnore than a few rounds, I REALLY liked the 1911.

Glocks, despite beign able to shoot them decently, have always left me cold, and I have found most of their problems extend to most striker fired pistols to some degree. The M&P reduced enough of what I didn't like in striker fired polymers to make me buy one.

In general I've found the trigger on striker fired guns to be very mushy or you can feel the striker spring loading up and it just never felt right to me. On top of that, most of them also don't have a clean crisp break to the trigger while at the same time retaining a lot of overtravel. glocks, XDs, walthers, etc all have exhibited this to some degree or another.

For glocks in specific, there is also the matter of grip angle, the molded in finger grooves, the sights, frame flex, the mag release, and the slide lock. The 3rd gen grips with the finger grooves, have a grip angle that is less annoying, but outside of the g19, I find them to not agree with where my fingers actually fall in use. So I can have a disagreeable grip angle on a gun I'll have trouble replacing, or an workable grip angle on a gun I have to fight some useless window dressing to get a good grip. Yeah I could play the BS game some do. The factory sights suck, which I dont' find to be a real deterrent as most factory guns come with sights I don't want to keep anyway. But that doesn't help me like the gun any more. Then there's the frame flex with stouter rounds. In the ported 10mm, it kind of works as a whole despite feeling weird. In a full power .40 or .45 it just feels weird. I could probably get used to it, but once again it works against me liking it. I also don't like the mag release, and I don't like the location or size of the slide lock. Those last two are enough to make me avoid a gun all by themselves. Also, though not a problem for me, if you have big meaty hands, the glock has no beaver tail and can slice up the web of your hand if you get a proper high grip on the gun.

That being said, I have found glock triggers i like as of late that are based off of the NY trigger spring and some lightened parts in other areas. If done right, they hae a positive break and a positive reset finally. Also in limited where you can grind down the finger grooves and cover over the front strap with grip tape, add a mag well, and relieve under the trigger guard, and modify the mag catch and slide lock to suit, and it starts being an attractive gun. Problem is that with that ammount of modification, unless you do it yourself, you aren't that far off from paying for an edge or a para. Both of which I like better. The mags don't thrill me either. They are jus kind of bulky and marginal in feel to me. For polymers mags I like the USP plastic ones better, and pretty much all metal mags better.

For the XD, everything is enough better than the glock I would shoot them, but for the fact that the trigger is ultra mushy and unless you get a good trigger job, it annoys me. With a good trigger job, I find the trigger to be so light and smooth I'm not really comfortable shooting it without an external safety. I might be biased by my shooting buddies who run XDs getting lighter trigger jobs than you ahve to, but from what I have seen, it's not for me in that regard. ETAL oh yeah, and the 12 round .40 capacity worked against it to me.

The M&P has better stock sights than the glock (I still don't like them, but they are loads better than the glock), it has a beaver tail which lets you get a nice high grip without getting cut, it has a distinct break to the trigger, and a more positive reset out of the box. I REALLY like where the mag release is. I like the interchangable backstraps, and I like that it has a metal sub frame to reduce frame flex (something i really liked in the steyr pistols, but couldn't cope with their extreme grip angle). It has the capacity of the glock while having nice slim metal mags, and also keeps the nice low bore axis and light overall weight. It also has a faily generous magwell opening. And it has a very 1911 like grip angle.

As someone who likes 1911s and dislikes glocks, that's my take. IMO nothing wrng with a glock, but it's REALLY jsut not for me.

Edited May 22, 2008 by raz-0

[David Sinko]

I am very suspicious of people who "hate" Glocks for whatever reason. Regardless of who you are or what grand title you hold, the Glock has deservedly established a stellar reputation for reliability and user friendliness. ANYBODY can change parts or install a set of superior sights or keep the gun running 100% without the need of a gunsmith. I feel that the Glock with stock parts and a 3.5 lb. connector can be mastered by anybody who puts forth any kind of effort. I liked the stock trigger of my Glock 35 much better than the trigger of the M&P 9 that I tried. And nothing beats the simplicity and ease of disassembly of a Glock.

I have no emotional attachment to Glock. I am first and foremost a revolver shooter. But if I had to depend on an out of the box pistol for whatever reason or application, it would be a Glock. Being a 1911 fan, maybe your friend hates Glocks because they work as advertised right out of the box and do not require the association of some big name expensive gunsmith?

Dave Sinko