M&P9 vs. Glock 17


PDA






Curare
December 13, 2006, 09:51 AM
Smith & Wesson M&P9 vs. Glock 17

I spent a half hour handling a M&P 9 last night. I have no reason to replace my G17, however, I'm always interested in seeing what else is out there. Unfortunately, I didn't have a chance for range time yesterday--hopefully I'll have a chance this week.

Overall fit and finish
Some of the mold lines were inconsistent on the M&P. The metal finish was very nice with just a few small dings under the finish on the edges here and there. The only tool marks I saw were in the extractor channel. The construction and finishing of the various subcomponents was decent. The muzzle crown on the M&P was not as nice as I have seen on Glock. The M&P features a similar slide and barrel surface treatment to Glock's Tenifer, imparting firearms industry benchmark surface hardness and corrosion resistance.

Sights
For factory sights, the edge clearly goes to the M&P with the dovetail mounted Novaks. The night sights and the regular white dots were well done. They are low profile front and rear.

Grip
With a comfy oval shaped cross section of the M&P grip, combined with interchangeable rubberized backstraps, and a lack of finger grooves, the M&P grip is far superior to the Glock, and every other pistol I've handled. Grip angle is very natural. The beavertail was well done on the full size M&P, however, I've never experienced slide bite with the Glock.

Frame
The frame of the M&P9 is clearly an advancement of the Glock design, with a stainless steel chassis for rigidity. One thing that I did not like, however, was the prevalence of roll pins, and general increased complexity of the frame. The rail was well exectued with multiple cross slots, however. There is a SIG-like take down lever on the left side of the frame, and you can field strip the M&P without pulling the trigger--a feature sure to please administrative types.

Slide
The M&P slide takes away the blockiness of the Glock slide, creating more compact proportions. The front of the slide is nicely radiused for holstering, and the slide serrations are a work of art, aesthetically and functionally.

Magazine
The improved ergonomics of the grip are helped to a great extent by the well thought out metal tube magazine of the M&P. It seemed slightly thinner than the polymer on metal Glock mag while still holding 17 rounds of 9mm.

Slide release
The ambidextrous slide release is a great feature on the M&P. It's well placed and easy to engage. Inside the frame, it is clearly well designed. It was easier to release than a Glock slide release.

Magazine Release
The M&P9 has a reversible magazine release, that was easy to manipulate. It also lacked the sharp edges seen in the Glock magazine release. It is very easy to reach.

Recoil Assembly
The M&P features a very nice metal guiderod, as oppsed to the polymer Glock version that some of us have seen crack.

Trigger
The M&P trigger features a much nicer "trigger safety" compared to the Glock. Looking at it, I didn't think that I'd like it, but the surface and width gave a nicer feel than the Glock trigger. Take up felt comparable to a Glock. The release was noticeably crisper than the Glock, however reset was long and vague as I let the slide slowly forward. Glock has a superior, well defined reset--a feature that is very important to me.

Barrel
The M&P features traditional rifiling compared to the hexagonal rifling in the Glock. This alows one to shot lead bullets with reduced risk of creating an overpressure situation, however, it will slightly decrease velocity and ease of cleaning.

Durability and Reliability
Long term durability and reliability on the M&P is now being defined. The added complexity and increased parts count of the M&P may present durability and reliability issues.

Spare Parts, Ease of Disassembly
The advantage at this time clearly goes to Glock. I can detail strip it with a rusty nail in about 2 minutes without tearing it up. I'm not so sure if I could do that with the role pins and increased parts count/complexity of the M&P. I can find OEM Glock parts at half a dozen places around town, and they are cheap enough to stock up a good supply under the unlikely circumstances that I may actually need them.

Overall Comparison
I'll hold off on my final assessment until I can put several hundred rounds through each pistol, back to back. The M&P offers superior ergonomics, and more flexibility. It keeps many aspects of what has made the Glock the most influential autopistol since the 1911, and corrects several deficiencies that have kept people away from the Glock, i.e. grip angle, blockiness, finger grooves. However, I have become so familiar with the Glock and its love it/hate it trigger (that I have modified to suit my needs), that switching may not come easily. While the Glock is more simple, I view that as an asset. It's a simple, durable, reliable tool that has served me well for over a decade, and I may not be able to give that up on that history. While it may not be the choice for me, I can see this pistol grabing substantial marketshare in the Law Enforcement and Military markets. Hopefully the increased competition may influence Glock to make some much needed changes.

Please feel free to add your comments in the comparision of the G17 and M&P9.

If you enjoyed reading about "M&P9 vs. Glock 17" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
pablo45
December 13, 2006, 06:09 PM
I will agree the M&P is a nicer pistol and it does have some advantage's over the Glock. However the magazine part is the only part i disagree with. The Glock 17 may hold 17 round's but there are also extension's all the way up to 33-120 round drum's. So i feel that glock should win that category. Oh did i mention the 33 round is factory. The M&P compact hand's down will win against the Glock26. That is a nice gun.

StrikeFire83
December 13, 2006, 06:33 PM
Well, my glock 17 has fired 2600 rounds without a malfunction of ANY kind, so i think I'll be sticking with it.

real_name
December 13, 2006, 06:37 PM
Has anyone compared the M&P .40 with the Kimber KPD .40?
From what I have read here and elsewhere they are the same gun.

Onmilo
December 14, 2006, 08:55 AM
I am going to stick with Glock.
We have sold several of the M&Ps, people are fairly pleased but my opinion is that Smith was on the right track to making things right and good in the gun world again and then they booted the Convict CEO and brought in a Market Specialist.
Since then it seems they are playing the business as usual trend.
Bring out a lot of different items that people go OOh and AAh over until they look really really close and realize just how extensive this Company has cheapened up the products they market while exclaiming the advantages of new production techniques,,,,,,,,,
In my eyes real Smith and Wessons are made of forged steel and wood and Glocks are made of plastic and modern molded metal.
I don't have an issue with this, I have an issue with S&W trying to be just like Glock, and Wilson Combat, and Ruger, and,,,,,, God forbid let's bring rifles and shotguns back into the fold, yeah that worked out so very well the last time they tried it, cost the Company a fortune, probably cause the sale there of, and dang near bankrupted them, yeah, what a great idea.

rbernie
December 14, 2006, 11:16 AM
Onmilo - I don't understand your comments. Why is OK for Glock, et al. to make a polymer duty pistol but not S&W? How does their offering a polymer duty pistol somehow cheapen them beyond salvation, when they continue to make fine wood-n-steel revo's for as many folk that will buy 'em?

I have thee M&Ps, and I like them a great deal. They're not nearly as nicely appointed as my Sig 220s or CZs or SA 1911s or S&W wheelguns, but they're not supposed to be. They're duty pistols. And for what they (and Glocks) are - they're dang near perfect.

Hi-cap, ergonomic, easy-to-use and maintain, inexpensive (I bought my last two NIB for $399 plus tax), and worthy of being drug thru the mud, so to speak. It's a fine fightin' pistol, best as I can tell from my unedumacated perspective. I have no issues with S&W making 'em, and I vastly prefer them over a Glock or XD.

YMMV.

treebeard
December 14, 2006, 12:00 PM
Why is OK for Glock, et al. to make a polymer duty pistol but not S&W? How does their offering a polymer duty pistol somehow cheapen them beyond salvation, when they continue to make fine wood-n-steel revo's for as many folk that will buy 'em?


Very good point! I would take my M&P over the G17 any day. That is what this thread is about right?

Alerion
December 14, 2006, 02:49 PM
If you continue to do fair and unbiased comparisons of your Glock to other pistols and especially if you concede that other guns have features that may actually be an improvement over Glock, you won't get a Christmas card from Gaston this year! :uhoh:

Very good review!

Tom

CountGlockula
December 14, 2006, 03:05 PM
There's a reason why Glocks have been a successful firearm...many want to immitate: HK USPs, Springfield XDs, and now the present Smith M&P.

Many have seen the value of a polymer reciever: weight, balance, value and accuracy. But it all goes back to the originator. They can try to make a better pistol, but it's all the same: a Glock.

Coronach
December 14, 2006, 03:09 PM
Many have seen the value of a polymer reciever: weight, balance, value and accuracy. But it all goes back to the originator.You mean H&K (http://www.hkpro.com/VP70.htm)?

Mike :D

Coronach
December 14, 2006, 03:13 PM
Also...They can try to make a better pistol, but it's all the same: a Glock.If we were discussing the S&W Sigma, you would have a point. The Sigma was such a Glock rip-off that S&W got sued and lost. The M&P, the XD and the USP are all pretty unique pistols, both from each other and from any Glock design. Calling them all Glocks just because they have a polymer frame and no manual safety is the same as calling my wife's Honda Element a Ford F150 just because it has four wheels and is made of sheet metal.

Mike :rolleyes:

Skywarp
December 14, 2006, 03:56 PM
Glock still wins in my opinion.


Reputation:
Glock is known for exteme reliability. Previous Smith autos......not so much.

Innovation:
When the 17 came out there was nothing like it and they blew everyone away. Yeah H&K had the first Polymer pistol but the Glock was totally new. What innovation does the M&P have? Removable backstraps : Walther, HK and Beretta did it before. Ergos: P99 and P2000 are more comfortable. Annoying Take Down: Ruger did it first in the P series. Safety in the Trigger : Glock and the XD beat them to it. Traditional Rifling in a striker fired polymer pistol : P99, XD.

It doesnt bring anything new to the table you cant find in another gun.

Ergonomics:
M&P wins this one but loses to the P99 in a separate comparison

Decocker:
The both lose to the P99 SIG and P2k

Price:
Around the same prices depending on where you look. If its for a HD/SD or a service weapon than this should not be an issue IMHO.

Looks:
They are both ugly.

After Market support:
Glizock! If i didnt live in CA id have a few 33 round mags and maybe a drum. Glock has crimson trace sights lasers, laser max lasers, and their own brand of rail mounted gear.

(Beyond the scope of this comparison)

Caliber Selection:
Glock FTW!!! 9x17, 9x19, 357SIG, 40S&W, 10mm (God's cartridge) 45CRAP and 45ACP.

CountGlockula
December 14, 2006, 03:59 PM
Coronach-I was hoping you weren't going to bring the H&K card.:)

Don't forget the Glock Torture Test!!!

Coronach
December 14, 2006, 04:12 PM
Hey, I don't have a dog in this fight. I just calls 'em as I sees 'em. :) I own a Glock (20), an H&K (P7) and an M&P. They all work great, they're just different answers to the problem.

Next up? An XD45 in 5" would be mighty nice...

Mike :D

rbernie
December 14, 2006, 04:20 PM
I own a Glock (20), Sold mine.

Next up? An XD45 in 5" would be mighty nice...Just sold mine - way too top heavy, and handles like a brick. :evil: The 4" handles much better, IMO.

Innovation:
When the 17 came out there was nothing like it and they blew everyone awayI don't give one whit for innovation. This is a fighting pistol - it's not a range toy and it's not an heirloom. The target (animate or inanimate) knows nothing about how innovative my pistol is; they only record hits and misses.

The M&P is designed to be (to steal a phrase from Tromix) a high velocity lead delivery system. That's it. If it does that well, then it's a success in my book.

Coronach
December 14, 2006, 04:29 PM
Hmm. Good point about the 5" vs the 4" versions of the XD. Never compared them side by side. Do they share the same frame? Could you run one length barrel/slide/spring assembly and just swap to the other top half? Or are they completely different guns?

To keep this on-point, S&W will be making an M&P "tactical" with a 5" slide at some point...I wonder if it will be set up that way (swappable), or not?

Thanks,
Mike

10-Ring
December 14, 2006, 08:02 PM
IMO, the 9mm Glocks are the nicest ones in the inventory...my personal favorite is the 19. Anyway, between the two, I would go w/ the 17. As nice as the MP9 might be, it needs some history behind it to prove itself first.

rbernie
December 14, 2006, 10:02 PM
Do they share the same frame? Could you run one length barrel/slide/spring assembly and just swap to the other top half? Or are they completely different guns?
Dunno. Maybe it's worth a post in Gunsmithin', to see if anyone *does* know.

ugaarguy
December 14, 2006, 10:20 PM
Reputation:
Glock is known for exteme reliability. Previous Smith autos......not so much.
Outside of the Sigmas, what S&W autos are you talking about? The first, second, and third generation metal frame S&W autos are well known for their reliability.
Innovation:
When the 17 came out there was nothing like it and they blew everyone away. Yeah H&K had the first Polymer pistol but the Glock was totally new. What innovation does the M&P have? Removable backstraps : Walther, HK and Beretta did it before. Ergos: P99 and P2000 are more comfortable. Annoying Take Down: Ruger did it first in the P series. Safety in the Trigger : Glock and the XD beat them to it. Traditional Rifling in a striker fired polymer pistol : P99, XD.
If you wish to pick nits, I'll pick right along with you. I believe Glock uses tilt breech locking, which John M. Browning invented in th early 1900s. I believe they also use a twin column magazine, first seen in widespread use in a pistol in 1935 in JMB's final design, the Browning Hi-Power. I believe the first three Glocks, models 17,18, and 19, are chambered in 9mm Luger, invented at DWM back in the eraly 1900s as well.

Glocks are very nice pistols, very well made, very reliable, and quite accurate. Many other pistols can also make that claim. To call Glocks far and away superior to anything else just because they were the first to combine a bunch of features is buyng into marketing hype.

Onmilo
December 14, 2006, 10:34 PM
Actually Coronach is more than correct when he states that Heckler and Koch was the first manufacturer to introduce a handgun with all the radical concepts for a modern fighting handgun.
Polymer frame, radical trigger design, striker fired, double column high capacity magazine in 9mm, polygonal rifling, ability to convert to a shoulder stocked, select fire varient without radical modification,,,
That pistol? The H&K VP70 from 1977.

Black_Talon
December 15, 2006, 10:25 PM
That pistol? The H&K VP70 from 1977.

1977? I'm fairly sure they were around 8-10 years before that. I swear I remember reading about them around 1970-71 or so.

ugaarguy
December 15, 2006, 10:34 PM
According to HK Pro, they were developed beginning in 1968, and first saw production in 1970. http://www.hkpro.com/VP70.htm

Onmilo
December 15, 2006, 11:32 PM
I can't argue the exact date of introduction for the VP-70, I just don't remember anything about them in the USA before 1977.
What difference does that make anyway?
The pistol was still around way before anything else like it hit the market. Point made.

revjross
December 16, 2006, 12:17 AM
I think your assesment of the two is very good. Over all I prefer the design and appearance of the M&P over the Glock. I own a Glock 27 and have owned others, I also had a M&P 9 --------- for whatever reaso I just shoot the XD's better. So I've sold all my Glocks (except the 27) and M&P --and-- have gone with the XD's. -- Gotta go with what I shoot best!!

possum
December 16, 2006, 12:29 AM
There's a reason why Glocks have been a successful firearm...many want to immitate: HK USPs, Springfield XDs, and now the present Smith M&P.

Now you have gone to far!:D
no really though i don't believe that they are imitations especially the xd's, they took a good thing the glock and made it better. maybe the other companies have imitated but the xd is definetly an improvment of what was avaliable in the polymer world.

so is everything thing that comes after an original an imitation? times change and technology and the needs of people change. being smart gun makers they made the right choice. many people want dao, or polymer guns and the gun makers are making them, and giving the customers what they want, i really don't see why anyone is complaining that is competition, and gives us the gun owner more choices. having options is the hallmark of the American way of life. if the only polymer dao handgun out there was a glock i wouldn't own one i would have to go with a 1911, and i should have to be limited to what i own and why, that is why i own 2 x's and more in the future. the glock isn't an option for me, it dosen't fit me and i am not comfortable with it.

LoadedDrum
December 16, 2006, 09:45 AM
Having tried both, I did not feel enough difference between the G17 and the M&P to warrant giving up the superior aftermarket support and mechanical simplicity of the Glock. Now XDs and 24/7 Pros are another story however.

If you enjoyed reading about "M&P9 vs. Glock 17" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!