Can You Go Wrong With S&W or Glock?


PDA






Dynasty
July 30, 2012, 12:33 AM
First off, this is not a S&W M&P vs. Glock debate. I am not asking which is better because, frankly, there are already thousands of discussions on the topic.

My question is simple. Can you really go wrong by going with the M&P pistol or the Glock pistol? Both are highly praised firearms in terms of reliability, accuracy, and accessories.

Is it safe to say go by what feels better in the hand and what feels better when shooting vs. getting caught up in playing brand favorites?

Is it safe to say you are buying a high quality firearm no matter if it is the M&P or the Glock?

If you enjoyed reading about "Can You Go Wrong With S&W or Glock?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Skribs
July 30, 2012, 12:42 AM
If you are left-handed, the M&P has more features for you. Other than that, not really.

ShadowsEye
July 30, 2012, 12:43 AM
In terms of reliability, and function, no you can't go wrong. Personally I'm not a fan of the S&W trigger at all.

SW40
July 30, 2012, 12:51 AM
For me the M&P trigger is better, again for me. When it came down to it I chose the M&P because it felt the best and offered a manual safety.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Skribs
July 30, 2012, 01:00 AM
Personally I'm not a fan of the S&W trigger at all.

Apex Tactical has an aftermarket trigger that uses the Glock-style trigger. It's why the M&P is even on my radar as a potential.

Skribs
July 30, 2012, 01:01 AM
Double post, sorry.

hentown
July 30, 2012, 09:02 AM
Does that Apex trigger sell for about $10, like a Glock connector? :evil:

Kahuna5
July 30, 2012, 09:08 AM
yes it is safe to say both will last a lifetime and be of equal quality as long as they are well maintained.

wildehond
July 30, 2012, 09:12 AM
Shoot both, buy the one you like best.

One_Jackal
July 30, 2012, 09:25 AM
The only advice I can offer is to stay away from Magnum calibers with either. It's not that either gun can't handle the stress. They both are really durable. I just can't handle the muzzle whip a magnum cartridge produces in a lightweight gun. It defeats the purpose of a semi auto.

Dreamliner787
July 30, 2012, 09:44 AM
Size, weight and fee. Nnce you choose the brand then it's about size you want to carry or what your use is. Ex. many people think they need to go with a G26 because it's small, but actually when you compare it to the G29, the G26 is only fractionally smaller but the G29 feels a lot better in the hand and holds more capacity.

TonyT
July 30, 2012, 09:48 AM
In a single word - NO! Both the S&W M&P and Glock semki autos are reliable piostols. The choice depends on ones preference for the ergonomics.

bds
July 30, 2012, 09:52 AM
No, can't go wrong with either.

I have both and like them both and here are some particulars of each brand:

- If you want to shoot lead reloads, M&P barrels are better suited due to conventional square cut land/groove rifling vs Glock's rounded hexagonal rifling with longer leade that tends to build up fouling fast and require frequent cleaning around 200-300 rounds. With M&P, I can shoot lead reloads all day (500-1000+ rounds) without issues.

- You can get 40-9 conversion barrels for both to practice with cheaper 9mm and carry 40S&W.

- Glock mags are probably the cheapest of any factory mags (in terms of price, not quality) and they work well.

- As posted already, M&P pistols have full ambi controls (slide lock, safety, mag release) for left handed shooters.

- M&P has small/medium/large grip inserts for better fit and my wife's small hands are happy with full size M&P45 using small insert. M&P controls are very ergonomic and offer more "natural grip angle" regardless of shooter/hand size.

- IMO, M&P captured recoil spring sets with stainless steel full-length guide rods offer softer felt recoil. But my Gen3 Glock's captured recoil spring sets offer softer felt recoil than most other factory stock pistols. Replacement Glock recoil spring sets are cheaper (around $8 (http://www.midwayusa.com/find?sortby=1&itemsperpage=20&newcategorydimensionid=2419&)).

- Glock's loaded chamber indicator (bump on the extractor) works better for me than M&P's hole on top of barrel hood (if the hole gets dirty, you can't see as well).

- M&P trigger can be modified to provide probably the best striker fired trigger I have shot either through Apex Tactical parts replacement or trigger job - http://www.burwellguns.com/M&Ptriggerjob1.htm

- Glocks are very easy and faster to field strip for inspection/cleaning.

- IME, new shooters I have seen/helped produced the smallest and more consistent shot groups with Glocks than most other non-1911 factory stock pistols under $1000. New shooters obtained smaller shot groups with my M&P45/trigger job than stock Glocks. (I have not seen the M&P models with the new S&W triggers yet so this may change in the future ;)).

- M&Ps are made in the USA and Glocks are made in Austria.

All in all, both are great pistols and I would not hesitate to grab either to defend my life or the lives of my family in a moment's notice as they have been very reliable and accurate.

smalls
July 30, 2012, 10:05 AM
When I think of reliable polymer pistols that can take a beating, I think of both Glock and S&W's M&P line. It's just really up to your personal preference from there!

The only advice I can offer is to stay away from Magnum calibers with either. It's not that either gun can't handle the stress. They both are really durable. I just can't handle the muzzle whip a magnum cartridge produces in a lightweight gun. It defeats the purpose of a semi auto.

Y'know, I can't think of one magnum cartridge that either pistol are available in from the factory :confused:

918v
July 30, 2012, 10:33 AM
This guy went wrong with a S&W:

http://mp-pistol.com/mp-full-size-pistols/31671-m-p-45-fs-thumb-safety-loose-rear-frame-rails.html

Thaddeus Jones
July 30, 2012, 10:49 AM
I don't think you can go wrong with the Glock. ;)

fanchisimo
July 30, 2012, 10:55 AM
If you read that link then the wiggle he noticed was checked by several including S&W gun techs who said all was good. My M&P9 does it a little and has never had an issue so I would still say you can't go wrong with the M&P. The only reservation about a Glock is that you have to get used to it's different grip angle, but once you do it's gtg.

strykerfire
July 30, 2012, 11:02 AM
pick which one feels better to you. You have to live with it. And dont forget about the XDM. Better than both of them.

918v
July 30, 2012, 11:20 AM
If you read that link then the wiggle he noticed was checked by several including S&W gun techs who said all was good.

Last time I checked, frame rails are supposed to be rigid, not loose. That S&W tech is a ****.

fanchisimo
July 30, 2012, 11:26 AM
And dont forget about the XDM. Better than both of them

He asked between the two of his but nonetheless to Stryker, +1.

coolluke01
July 30, 2012, 11:44 AM
And dont forget about the XDM. Better than both of them. :barf: :barf:

XD fanboys jumping in and offering input that was not asked for. Glock fanboys would never do such a thing!

I will always choose the Glock over the M&P because I like the Glock grip angle. Gaston got it right. I can say, now that I have been spoiled by the way I shoot a Glock, I will never own another brand of simiauto. They just aren't Glocks!

Sapper771
July 30, 2012, 12:10 PM
I chose to stay with Glock. I do enjoy shooting my Friend's M&P 9 though.

Out of the box, I prefer the Glock trigger. Either is serviceable with enough training.

Recently, I ordered him an Apex Tactical DCAEK for his M&P. Once installed, the trigger pull was spongey, but lighter. The reset was shorter. The one thing that it did not fix was the tactile reset "click". When the glock trigger resets, you can hear and feel it. You know when its ready to send another down range. The M&P doesnt have this. The DCAEK kit cost around $100 shipped and took about an hour to install.

With about $25 and an hour's worth of work, one can put a nice trigger on a Glock. I have done several of them. Its not complicated. It is cheaper and the results are better, IMO.

Its all about what you want and what fits you. I feel that you cant go wrong either way.

Skribs
July 30, 2012, 12:22 PM
- As posted already, M&P pistols have full ambi controls (slide lock, safety, mag release) for left handed shooters.

Not full ambi. Mag release is reversible, not ambidextrous. The difference is that I cannot switch hands and have it work the same without taking the gun apart first.

- M&P has small/medium/large grip inserts for better fit and my wife's small hands are happy with full size M&P45 using small insert. M&P controls are very ergonomic and offer more "natural grip angle" regardless of shooter/hand size.

Glock Gen4 has grip inserts.

Fishbed77
July 30, 2012, 12:24 PM
You can't go wrong with either, unless you just want to take a step up and get a Walther! :evil:

ny32182
July 30, 2012, 12:29 PM
After significant stick time with both, my feelings are:

M&P advantages:
-Lefty controls for lefties (this is me)
-Factory beavertail (wish this was modular)
-Steel guide rod... gives more aftermarket options specifically for gamers

Glock advantages:
-Everything else (reliability, "grip angle", accuracy, aftermarket support, parts availability, simplicity of design, etc, etc)

The M&P has a more complicated trigger system, that as a I just discovered, you better maintain or it will start to have issues. Just due to this I would give the reliability edge to the Glock.

They are both "good guns" in my opinion; and I am shooting an M&P because I am left handed. It is not the panacea I was hoping it would be; though there is a lot to like about it, if I were right handed I would still be shooting a Glock.

Looking forward to checking out the FNS as soon as they come out with the 5".

charlie fox
July 30, 2012, 12:42 PM
In a word, no. Both designs are designed and executed well. I would give the nod to Glock though, as it has a proven track record. My Glock 19 has almost 7000 rounds through it with no issues at all. I have friends that own M&P's and are experiencing 100% reliability and very good accuracy. Every manufacturer will have a lemon in every lot, but, by and large, both guns are everything a defensive pistol should be: easy to carry, easy to use, accurate and reliable.

jimbo555
July 30, 2012, 01:16 PM
No,unless you don't like handguns with plastic triggers!

tarosean
July 30, 2012, 02:51 PM
Nope

plouffedaddy
July 30, 2012, 04:28 PM
To the OP's question. You can't go wrong with either because both companies have stellar customer service and make great products. Even if you got a lemon, both companies will pay shipping both ways and fix it for free so not much to worry about....

fastbolt
July 30, 2012, 06:03 PM
First off, this is not a S&W M&P vs. Glock debate. I am not asking which is better because, frankly, there are already thousands of discussions on the topic.

My question is simple. Can you really go wrong by going with the M&P pistol or the Glock pistol? Both are highly praised firearms in terms of reliability, accuracy, and accessories.

Is it safe to say go by what feels better in the hand and what feels better when shooting vs. getting caught up in playing brand favorites?

Is it safe to say you are buying a high quality firearm no matter if it is the M&P or the Glock?
Short answer?

Yes, you're receiving a good quality firearm when buying both S&W M&P and Glock pistols.

I'm an owner of both (3 Glocks & 2 M&P's).

I'm an armorer for both (as well as some other makes/models of firearms commonly used in LE work).

I shoot both Glock and S&W M&P pistols a fair amount (as an owner/user, firearms instructor & armorer).

There are some aspects & features I prefer in both designs, and some not so much.

I know other folks who are owners/users of both pistols, some of whom are also firearms instructors and armorers for various platforms. While there's been an occasional repair & parts replacement required for each of the firearm makes (which is why they train LE armorers ;) ), the owners of each company's product I've personally known have generally been pleased with the products from both companies.

They both work.

Aiko492
July 30, 2012, 10:25 PM
i don't think you can go wrong. Comes down to ergonomics and which you shoot better.

Dynasty
July 30, 2012, 10:59 PM
I appreciate all the input, everyone. I need to rent both and shoot the snot out of them, then I will make my purchase.

strykerfire
July 30, 2012, 11:09 PM
try out the XDM

TimboKhan
July 30, 2012, 11:18 PM
I don't think so. I mean, personal preference being what it is and everything, I don't know that you can go really wrong with ANY pistol these days. Oh, you have your Jimenez and Bryco pistols that aren't so hot, but really, I don't think there is much out there that is truly awful. I am sure people are going to pipe up with "XYZ blows" or "ZYX stinks", but truthfully, it's hard to make a mistake.

Specific to your question though, no. I do not believe on any level outside of personal preference that you can go wrong with either a Glock or a S&W.

holdencm9
July 30, 2012, 11:21 PM
Not really.

And I don't even like Glocks.

(Of course there is always the one in a thousand lemon, even with Glock)

C0untZer0
July 31, 2012, 12:05 AM
When you start getting ploinked in the head with brass you'll think "where did I go wrong?"

Then you'll be taking your Glock apart and checking the part numbers and wading throught hundreds of posts on Glocktalk to figure out what the latest part number is to try to get the right ejector, extractor, and RSA. And you'll be holding your extractor up to the light wondering "Is this a dipped extractor?"

Check out the Walthers and check out the Caracals :)

newglockguy
July 31, 2012, 06:17 AM
I own a glock 23 and have shot my friends M&P .40. They both shoot very well and can't go wrong with either

OARNGESI
July 31, 2012, 07:10 AM
both are great guns you cant go wrong unless you end up with one of each

WinThePennant
July 31, 2012, 09:03 AM
They are both great guns.

I went with Glock because it's easier to modify the gun yourself (drop in mods are GREAT!), and the after-market product selection is better with Glock.

miles1
July 31, 2012, 10:10 AM
No.......Honestly their both great pistols IMHO.

TestPilot
July 31, 2012, 02:20 PM
Yes, you can go very wrong with either one.

Glock's grip angle can be a problem. Yes, yes, I know it can be overcome with training. But, training effectiveness just does not compare to starting with a pistol that you don't have that problem to start with. And, even after getting used to the Glock's grip angle, there is no guarantee that it's a permanent fix.

If you're sensitive to heavier trigger resistance and rough break, you may have to spend more time and expense on training with a Glock than M&P. If this sounds wierd, keep in mind that Glock's 5.5 lb trigger really is not 5.5 lb.

If you are the type who heavily relies on "tactile" reset, then you can go wrong with M&P. You might short stroke an M&P if you came from Glock. Training issue? Yes. But, a non-issue with a Glock. Why choose to have a training issue to overcome when you can avoid it? Unless there's some other gain that is.

If you need to have a light on a pistol rail, you can go very wrong with a either pistol. Glock still have not fixed the failure to feed problem with lights up to Gen 3, and Gen 4 still is an unknown. M&P has shorter rail, and some lights that fits on a Glock may not fit.

When someone says "You can't go wrong with either one." they're irrisponsibly ommitting the fine print:"...if you spend significant amount of time, expense, and headaches to overcome whatever charateristics you don't like about it."

Are they both accurate and reliable pistols? Yes. But, so are plenty of others. Merely pistols working as advertised does not mean it particularly suits you well.

Which is better depends on the user needs. One clear fact of the matter is that they are NOT the same.

TimboKhan
July 31, 2012, 03:34 PM
Please. That grip angle thing is the most over hyped "problem" in the entirety of the shooting world. Its an extremely minor grip adjustment at worst, and i would bet most people don't even notice it unless someone brings it up.

If you fire thousands upon thousands of rounds per year, maybe it is more of an issue, but even then i think its vastly overstated.

I do agree that working well and being the right gun are two separate issues though.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

TestPilot
July 31, 2012, 03:51 PM
Please. That grip angle thing is the most over hyped "problem" in the entirety of the shooting world. Its an extremely minor grip adjustment at worst, and i would bet most people don't even notice it unless someone brings it up.
...


Let the individual user decide if it's overrated or not.

That being a minor grip adjustment for you does not mean it's a minor adjustement for everyone else. And, even if it is minor, having to do that minor adjustment when my opponent does not can mean I lose.


...
If you fire thousands upon thousands of rounds per year, maybe it is more of an issue, but even then i think its vastly overstated.
...


Why is it more of an isssue for a person who shoot more? If a person is firing thousands upon thousands per year with a Glock shouldn't that person be more used to it?

ny32182
July 31, 2012, 03:58 PM
Exactly.. the more reps you have, the more ingrained your subconcious presentation mechanics are going to be.

One thing I prefer about the Glock is that that LITTLE bit more cam-over in the wrist position, I believe locks down your grip just a LITTLE better. And still, almost 14k rounds removed from the last time I shot a Glock, I still give a little dive to my M&P sights occassionally as if I were shooting a Glock. I don't think it is a factor significant enough to base a decision on, especially for a new(er) shooter who isn't likely to have one or the other really ingrained anyway.

LoneStarWings
July 31, 2012, 04:10 PM
No, just don't get an xd unless you like paying double for a $300 HS2000.

kcshooter
July 31, 2012, 04:24 PM
That grip angle thing is the most over hyped "problem" in the entirety of the shooting worldSo, the gun not pointing where you think it is pointing isn't a concern?
Please, indeed.
Totally disagree.


It is a problem for many people. Just because it isn't for YOU doesn't make it overhyped, or not a problem.

With an unmodified Glock, my followup shots are about twice the speed they are with my Sig or 1911 pistols. The sights aren't where they should be as fast as they should be. Now, once I perform a grip reduction to the gun, they fall right in line.

Sorry, but that doesn't qualify as overhyped in my book. It's a provable, measureable difference.

ny32182
July 31, 2012, 04:38 PM
A doubling of splits is the shooter, and goes far beyond any ergonomic quirk with the gun.

TimboKhan
July 31, 2012, 04:51 PM
I will try and respond to this later on my laptop, but let me say that much like this grip angle debate, we are only separated by a matter of a few degrees of opinion on this. Its easier to get this point across when it doesn't take an hour to tap out!

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

kcshooter
July 31, 2012, 04:54 PM
A doubling of splits is the shooter, and goes far beyond any ergonomic quirk with the gun. Yeah, sure it is.

That's why it only happens to me on unmodified Glocks, goes away immediately after modification, and doesn't transfer to any other standard grip angle pistol.

Yeah, that makes sense.

coolluke01
July 31, 2012, 11:13 PM
Learned behavior is hard to overcome. This doesn't mean they Glock angle is wrong. You have just learned to shoot a certain way. For a new shooter starting out with a superior grip angle is a good thing as they don't have any learned behavior. You may never get over the Glock grip angle, again, this doesn't mean the angle is wrong or bad.

Glock's grip angle can be a problem. Yes, yes, I know it can be overcome with training. But, training effectiveness just does not compare to starting with a pistol that you don't have that problem to start with.

Again the angle is not the problem. Your learned behavior is the problem.

I wouldn't recommend that people who are ingrained in a particular platform switch to a new style. It's just too hard to overcome for some.
The fact that some may not shoot as fast with a unmodified Glock doesn't mean the grip angle is slower or inferior. It's all what you are used to.

I would go with the Glock over the S&W for a new shooter or a reasonable person that is willing to change how they shoot. I have relearned to shoot with the Glock's a few years ago. The improvements have been huge! I wasn't as ingrained as some may be, but 10 years of shooting a particular platform I was open and willing to find the best. I'll never go back.

TestPilot
July 31, 2012, 11:28 PM
...
Learned behavior is hard to overcome. This doesn't mean they Glock angle is wrong. You have just learned to shoot a certain way. For a new shooter starting out with a superior grip angle is a good thing as they don't have any learned behavior. You may never get over the Glock grip angle, again, this doesn't mean the angle is wrong or bad.


Quote:
Glock's grip angle can be a problem. Yes, yes, I know it can be overcome with training. But, training effectiveness just does not compare to starting with a pistol that you don't have that problem to start with.

Again the angle is not the problem. Your learned behavior is the problem.

I wouldn't recommend that people who are ingrained in a particular platform switch to a new style. It's just too hard to overcome for some.
The fact that some may not shoot as fast with a unmodified Glock doesn't mean the grip angle is slower or inferior. It's all what you are used to.

I would go with the Glock over the S&W for a new shooter or a reasonable person that is willing to change how they shoot. I have relearned to shoot with the Glock's a few years ago. The improvements have been huge! I wasn't as ingrained as some may be, but 10 years of shooting a particular platform I was open and willing to find the best. I'll never go back.
....
I never said Glock's grip angle is "wrong." If the grip angle of the pistol does not suit the shooter, and require the shooter to put extra time and expense to over come it which is not required by other pistol, it's a problem. It does not matter if it's because of the shooter's learned behavior or not, it still is a problem. I never said the problem is Glock's fault.

A left handed shooter being left handed is because of the shooter's learned behavior, but to argue that left handed shooter shooting a pistol designed for right handed person only is not a problem because of that would not make sense.

Also, if learned behavior making Glock's grip angle is a problem, then following that logic getting used to Glock's grip angle would also be a problem for majority of other pistols whichi does not have Glocks' grip angle. If Glock does not provide any significant advantage, there is no point in developing a "learned behavior" that will be a problem for shooting other pistols just to switch to a Glock. If Glock is that good for a particular shooter, then no problem.

Also, there are situations where Glock's grip angle can be more of a problem as an objective matter. When a shooter is forced to shoot in a compressed posture, with the pistol closer, the shooter often has to tilt the wrist downward in order to do so. Since Glock's grip angle already has the shooter's wrist tilted more downward than most other pistols, Glock limits motion range more so than others.

kcshooter
July 31, 2012, 11:40 PM
Why would I completely relearn 20 years worth of shooting to be able to use a gun that has a completely different grip angle than any other gun out there?

Or another way to say that, I can learn that ONE gun, or I can learn every other one.




I like my Glocks. I really do. But I didn't until I modified the gun to fit ME.
If they work for you unmodified, that's great, but you have to admit that it isn't the same as other guns.
There has to be a reason that after over 25 years on the market, and dozens and dozens of new guns designed since then, nobody else has duplicated that grip angle.

coolluke01
July 31, 2012, 11:44 PM
I know you didn't say it was wrong. I was just making a point.

I truly believe that the Glock angle is far superior to other angles. I have no desire to buy other handguns because they don't have the "proper" angle. They just don't shoot as well.

A compressed position is not an issue at all. I have worked on shooting from those positions with the Glock a great deal. Not a problem.

Having the gun at the limit of the wrists range of motion is a huge advantage when bringing a gun back down on target for follow up shots. Also bringing the wrist forward brings the bore axis of the handgun lower in and more in line with the forearm. This makes most of the recoil transfer straight back into the arm with less muzzle flip.

kcshooter
July 31, 2012, 11:51 PM
For you, it might be superior. I can shoot a 1911, Sig, or M&P thumbs forward with my wrists fully locked. The front sight recovers from recoil immediately and I can tap out a magazine in a blink without even really having to try.

Put an unmodified Glock in my hands, and the sight doesn't stay where it should for me as cleanly. Not sure how better to describe that, but the issue comes to light on rapid followups. I have to roll the wrist forward more, past what is fully locked extension for me, and it's neither comfortable nor productive to my shooting.

Give me a weekend to correct the Glock's grip, and I can empty a magazine almost twice as fast and stay as or more accurate as I was before the mod.

It's a grip that works for some, and doesn't for others. If it works for you, that's great, but if it doesn't you need to look at a different platform or correct this platform to fit you.

You can't say it's a better grip. You can say for YOU it's a better grip. For me, it's not.

coolluke01
July 31, 2012, 11:52 PM
Rolling ones shoulders forward helps achieve proper wrist lock.

It is true that I can say they work for me. They may not work for you, but I would venture that it is based on learned behavior more than greater or lesser quality grip angle.

It was a gutsy move to make a gun that was different! Just because no one else has copied the Glock angle doesn't mean all other designs are superior. XD & M&P designers would have been foolish to try and compete head to head with Glock. They were very smart to stick with a traditional grip angle so they could get 1911 owners to buy their guns.
Again this could be only a marketing strategy.

kcshooter
July 31, 2012, 11:57 PM
Again this could be only a marketing strategy.I'm not buying that. If the Glock angle was really so much better, there's no way others would not have tried to copy it. Other parts of the gun were copied, some so much so that there was a lawsuit over it, but even though the other functional parts were copied, nobody bothered with that angle in their designs.
The M&P has interchangeable backstraps. If there was really a reason to make a gun point like that, they could easily have designed a backstrap with a angle mimicking the Glock. They didn't.


Rolling ones shoulders forward helps achieve proper wrist lock.I do know the technique, and I assure you, I am locked.

coolluke01
August 1, 2012, 12:00 AM
well backstraps can't make a gun have the same angle as a Glock. They might be able to make the back of the grip the same angle but they won't fix the front of the grip. That's a important part of the grip.

Many competition rifles and custom handguns for target shooting have angles more like the Glock than the 1911.

kcshooter
August 1, 2012, 12:08 AM
They might be able to make the back of the grip the same angle but they won't fix the front of the grip. That's a important part of the grip.That's true, but it's the butt that causes the issue in my hands. I do shallow out the top half of the frontstrap with my modification, but the big difference comes in to play with the bottom half of the backstrap.

Again, that's what it does in MY hands. Not everyone is the same, and that's why there are a LOT of different guns out there.


(I'm just glad most all of the others haven't tried to make their grip goofy)

TestPilot
August 1, 2012, 12:10 AM
...
Having the gun at the limit of the wrists range of motion is a huge advantage when bringing a gun back down on target for follow up shots.
....

No, a gun with an angle that places the wrist in a manner that it would naturally return to position after recoil has the advantage. For some, it can be the limit of one's wrist motion range while it is not for some others.

There are bunch of pistols manufacturers made to compete with Glock, but none of them wanted Glock's grip angle.

If you really want limit of your wrist motion range, you should try a Luger P-08. None of modern pistols worth mentioning adopted P-08's grip angle.

If it's such an advantage why do you think no manufacturers are rushing to adopt Glock or P-08's grip angle?

coolluke01
August 1, 2012, 12:17 AM
If it's such an advantage why do you think no manufacturers are rushing to adopt Glock

Foolishness! That's the only thing I can think of. LOL Theres to many people that are used to a "old" platform so they keep making antiquated guns. lol. I'm just giving you guys a hard time.

TestPilot
August 1, 2012, 12:28 AM
Foolishness! That's the only thing I can think of. LOL Theres to many people that are used to a "old" platform so they keep making antiquated guns. lol. I'm just giving you guys a hard time.

If Glock's grip angle is such a critical advantage, I guess Dave Savigny can't beat his record with a Glock with his FNS and Julie Golob can't beat her record with a Glock with her M&P, at least according to how you view it.

TimboKhan
August 1, 2012, 04:45 PM
Shoot a Ruger Mk series of pistols, or a neos or virtually any revolver. The grip angles are way, way different. Then transition to whatever gun you want.

Is it really that much of a pain to transition? I am guessing for most, the answer is no.

Now, if your preference is one or the other, or in kc's (and many others) case a modified version of whatever, fine! I am not arguing it is the perfect pistol, I am simply saying that the issue is vastly overblown. That does not mean it doesn't exist, but rarely is it to the extreme that it is so frequently touted. Often times by people who know not of what they speak.

Now then, lets get back on topic. I am guilty of derailing this thread, so i gotta be the one to get it back. I am not saying that to stifle this discussion, but someone can start a new thread on this topic if we want to continue!



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

kcshooter
August 1, 2012, 05:06 PM
I am guilty of derailing this threadIt was Luke's fault! (hard time returned, sir)
OK, I admit it, I helped. So in the spirit of actually answering the OP's question:


If the Glock grip angle works for you, then no, you can't go wrong.
If it doesn't, then you can't go wrong with a Smith & Wesson M&P.

Both quality, accurate, reliable, both backed by excellent companies, either one will serve you well.

There are also a lot of aftermarket parts to customize either one, so if you'd like something to be a little different on it, it's probably out there.

GLOOB
August 1, 2012, 09:12 PM
Sorry to continue the grip angle argument, but here is yet another 2 cents:

Or another way to say that, I can learn that ONE gun, or I can learn every other one.
This argument is pretty good, but not quite true. I give it the credit it's due. Most centerfire semiautos have a grip angle noticeably straighter than a Glock. But even then there's still some variation. Notably, a Cougar has a grip angle much STRAIGHTER than a 1911!

If Glock does not provide any significant advantage, there is no point in developing a "learned behavior"
Ahh, but indeed it DOES.

There are a lot of different reasons that 9mm Glocks are quite popular in shooting games. But the grip angle is one of them; the steep grip angle of a Glock 9mm is a BENEFIT to most shooters. 9mm is a low recoil cartridge. Having a lower bore axis helps most people shoot a 9mm faster while maintaining accuracy. When you step up to higher momentum cartridges, low bore axis is NOT as beneficial. It may even become detrimental. With a too-low bore axis and a lot of recoil, it becomes harder to shoot quickly. When you're trying to keep your weight forward to keep your weight over the balls of your feet, you may not especially steady when large recoil impulses are going straight back into your arms, threatening to throw your balance. Also, you will get more felt recoil and more horizontal movement in your sight alignment.

There's no "best" grip angle. So while lots of people choose a Ruger 22/45 because of a "familiar" grip angle, that's fine if your goal is to get cheap practice for your 1911 carry gun. But in reality, the MkIII grip angle is SUPERIOR for rapidfire of the 22LR cartridge for most people. If you put them both in the hands of an Olympic shooter, all else equal, the MkIII would almost surely be the better gun for fast, accurate fire.

On the other end of the equation, the Glock 23 tends to be too snappy for some shooters. The grip angle is too steep for those shooters, considering the light weight of the gun and the high recoil. This does NOT help them shoot faster.

Mr.357Sig
August 1, 2012, 09:21 PM
First off, this is not a S&W M&P vs. Glock debate. I am not asking which is better because, frankly, there are already thousands of discussions on the topic.

My question is simple. Can you really go wrong by going with the M&P pistol or the Glock pistol? Both are highly praised firearms in terms of reliability, accuracy, and accessories.

Is it safe to say go by what feels better in the hand and what feels better when shooting vs. getting caught up in playing brand favorites?

Is it safe to say you are buying a high quality firearm no matter if it is the M&P or the Glock?

Absolutely. It comes down to personal preference. Rent both brands and go with the one that works best for you.

skoro
August 1, 2012, 09:41 PM
Short answer: no.

Either is a high quality reliable weapon that would serve well if needed. I decided on the M&P via the "hold it in your hand" test. The M&P just fit my hand better and was a natural pointer. Other folks prefer Glocks. It's all good.

bds
August 2, 2012, 11:14 AM
As to the grip angle discussion - Holes on target speak volumes.

Just shoot both pistols and see what the shot group sizes are at 7-15 yards.

When I help some new shooters select their pistols, I have them face a full-size target at 3-5 yards and shoot 5-10 rounds with their eyes closed at center-of-mass.

Why eyes closed? I figure it would help identify their "natural" POA and how they might shoot in low light conditions.

When they group more consistently with particular pistols over others, I suggest they do more range testing with their eyes open at longer distances. Funny thing is many shoot better with their eyes closed than open ... :eek::D

bds
August 5, 2012, 03:20 PM
Here's Hilton Yam's take on M&P/Glock - http://10-8performance.blogspot.com/2012/04/glock-vs-m-why-i-shoot-m.html
If we were comparing the Glock 21 to the M&P 45, then let's just stop here and declare the M&P .45 the winner and move on. Superior ergonomics by far, good accuracy, and availability of thumb safety to help transition 1911 shooters make the M&P 45 the clear winner in my opinion. Add a viable and reliable factory 14 round magazine, and you pretty much have the whole package wrapped up with a bow. Same with .40 - the M&P was designed for the .40, with steel chassis for increased rigidity and none of the durability or function issues of the Glock 22 ...

M&P ergonomics are far superior for a 1911 guy, and better thought out overall than Glock (even the Gen 4). The availability of interchangeable backstraps and thumb safety make the M&P a very logical polymer substitute for a 1911. I love my M&P 9's light recoil and lack of maintenance and setup requirements, making it a great vacation from high maintenance/setup 1911s.

I am not blind to its faults (http://10-8performance.blogspot.com/2012/06/s-m-barrels.html), but I have figured out how to work around (http://10-8performance.blogspot.com/2012/01/60-days-with-m-9-aka-confessions-of.html) all of them, and really enjoy the platform. With the M&P, I am also pleased to see an American made gun from an American manufacturer start to work its way into the holsters of American law enforcement.

The Man With No Name
August 5, 2012, 03:40 PM
If you need to have a light on a pistol rail, you can go very wrong with a either pistol. Glock still have not fixed the failure to feed problem with lights up to Gen 3, and Gen 4 still is an unknown. M&P has shorter rail, and some lights that fits on a Glock may not fit.

Huh? I have been using lights for some time on Gen3 guns. My department has finally issued lights to all patrol and selective enforcement officers so all of our current Gen4 guns have them. No issues ever.

The Man With No Name
August 5, 2012, 03:49 PM
Why would I completely relearn 20 years worth of shooting to be able to use a gun that has a completely different grip angle than any other gun out there?

Or another way to say that, I can learn that ONE gun, or I can learn every other one.




I like my Glocks. I really do. But I didn't until I modified the gun to fit ME.
If they work for you unmodified, that's great, but you have to admit that it isn't the same as other guns.
There has to be a reason that after over 25 years on the market, and dozens and dozens of new guns designed since then, nobody else has duplicated that grip angle.
And yet on department ranges across the country experienced and inexperienced shooters alike seem to have no problem with the Glock. I'm old enough that when I started shooting Glocks didn't exist. I had no problem when they came out though learning them. Frankly their was nothing to learn as far as the grip angle for me. I simply had to learn to take advantage of the short reset. Later on I used two guns to shoot competition. A Les Baer 45 for accuracy at distance and a Glock 23 (later replaced by a 23C) for speed stages. I had no problems going from one to another during a single day. I'm not discounting that you had some issue but frankly just because you had an issue with the grip angle does not mean that is the norm for most folks.

kcshooter
August 5, 2012, 04:00 PM
frankly just because you had an issue with the grip angle does not mean that is the norm for most folks. And yet there are thousands of posts similar to mine, duplicating the same experience I have had.
There are dozens of gunsmiths throughout the country performing grip modifications to correct the same issue I have. Do you think they all did so because the gun didn't fit me? Or do you think maybe it's because hundreds of others have had their guns modified in order to make the grip also fit them.
I don't know what qualifies "norm" in your opinion, but I assure you, it isn't uncommon.

Frankly just because you had no issue with the grip angle does not mean that is the norm for many folks.

kcshooter
August 5, 2012, 04:04 PM
Huh? .... My department has finally issued lights ... No issues ever.
Huh?? Your department issues lights for Glock pistols without even bringing up the possible issues with that combination?

Here's what Glock has to say about this:Q: Are there Issues Using Tactical Lights on Glock® Pistols?

A: Some Glock® .40 caliber pistols, models 22 and 23, exhibit feeding malfunctions, either nose down or nose up (stovepipe), when used with tactical lights. The problems tend to occur with individual guns, with some pistols becoming totally unreliable while other identical, even close in serial number sequence, guns have no problems. Most models 22 and 23 are reliable.

A sensitive gun may malfunction with any tactical light - the TLRs, the older M models, and even Glock®’s own brand. There is evidence that the problem sometimes develops with use, and may progress until the pistol is unreliable even with no light attached.

On the basis of testing by Streamlight, we believe the problem is magazine related. It appears that the rounds are unable to rise fast enough for proper cycling. We have observed proper feeding for the first few rounds, consistent failures at mid-magazine capacity, and a return to proper feeding of the last few cartridges in the magazine.

We have tried both stronger and weaker recoil springs, and compound-action recoil buffers, all without success. Sometimes new magazine springs, either new Glock® or Wolff, will cure the problem. In one case of a pistol which was totally reliable when new but progressed to malfunctioning on every magazine, even with no light installed, we found two solutions which restored reliability, but which might not be acceptable to some users. The first was using 10 round capacity Glock® magazines. The gun will not cycle reliably with 15 round mags with their steeply stacked columns but works flawlessly with 10 round mags. The second solution was a new magazine follower from Brownells®, their part number 069-000-006. When used in a 15 round magazine with a new spring, reliability was restored. However, the follower would not lock the slide open after the last round.

Ammunition is also a factor with any weapon. Some brands and weights may be totally reliable while others jam repeatedly. Make sure your gun is thoroughly tested with your duty ammo.

Brownells® is a registered trademark of Brownells®, Inc.
Glock® is a registered trademark of GLOCK Gesellschaft mbH.

Hangingrock
August 5, 2012, 04:11 PM
I have Glock 17 and S&W MP9. The grip angle of either is not problematic for me. The S&W MP trigger system was nettlesome and did take some getting use to.

The Man With No Name
August 5, 2012, 07:08 PM
And yet there are thousands of posts similar to mine, duplicating the same experience I have had.
There are dozens of gunsmiths throughout the country performing grip modifications to correct the same issue I have. Do you think they all did so because the gun didn't fit me? Or do you think maybe it's because hundreds of others have had their guns modified in order to make the grip also fit them.
I don't know what qualifies "norm" in your opinion, but I assure you, it isn't uncommon.

Frankly just because you had no issue with the grip angle does not mean that is the norm for many folks.
I have a department full of Glock shooters. Plenty of local departments also. Plus the public. I've never seen a modified grip on a Glock. I know they exist and plenty of gunsmiths can do it yet despite these thousands of modified guns you claim I've never seen one in the hands of any leo or public person in my decades of shooting Glocks. Like I said, obviously not the norm. I'm also not the only shooter I know that can switch from a Glock to a 1911 style gun with ease.

The Man With No Name
August 5, 2012, 07:11 PM
Huh?? Your department issues lights for Glock pistols without even bringing up the possible issues with that combination?

Here's what Glock has to say about this:
Like I said, no issues. Some of us have been using Glocks with lights long before our department issued them so this is our experience with both Gen3 and Gen4 guns. Maybe it is ammo related. Maybe something else. I don't know. All I know is for us it is a non-issue. Is this a 40 cal issue only? I know of a very large local department using lights with first Gen3 22's and now Gen4 22's without issue.

76shuvlinoff
August 5, 2012, 07:27 PM
Yes you can go wrong, you'll end up in grip angle arguments. ;)

There are a lot of good manufacturers out there, you only go wrong when you become fixated that the 1st choice you made is THE BEST without further hands on investigation.

I like 1911s and wheelguns, among my tupperware I own one of those double priced XD's too. :rolleyes:

I don't own a GLOCK but anytime I've been offered one I shoot them pretty well... but I still don't own one. Yeah that's ironic but my choice. Not a thing to do with grip angle, I just abhor the choir.

It's like owning my Kimber .45, every time I read all the word vomit against Kimber around here I get a true grin because I must be the luckiest gun buyer in the world.

TestPilot
August 5, 2012, 09:08 PM
...I have a department full of Glock shooters. Plenty of local departments also. Plus the public. I've never seen a modified grip on a Glock. I know they exist and plenty of gunsmiths can do it yet despite these thousands of modified guns you claim I've never seen one in the hands of any leo or public person in my decades of shooting Glocks. Like I said, obviously not the norm. I'm also not the only shooter I know that can switch from a Glock to a 1911 style gun with ease.
...

Many departments have "You SHALL NOT modify pistols" policy, so you not seeing modified Glocks in the hands of officers means nothing.

Many people including people like Paul Howe recommends modifications like attaching Grip Force adapter.


...Like I said, no issues. Some of us have been using Glocks with lights long before our department issued them so this is our experience with both Gen3 and Gen4 guns. Maybe it is ammo related. Maybe something else. I don't know. All I know is for us it is a non-issue. Is this a 40 cal issue only? I know of a very large local department using lights with first Gen3 22's and now Gen4 22's without issue.
...

It is certainly an issue for Gen 3. Not all of them are subject to it, and the occurance is random; so you may have not seen it, but there are departments that acknowledged this problem.

http://forums.officer.com/t85284/

http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=5&f=13&t=70772

I have also personally experienced this problem. Failure to feed with lights, then the problem goes away when the light(X300) is removed.

It is still an unknown in regards to Gen 4.

boricua9mm
August 5, 2012, 09:53 PM
You can wind up with a Glock that ejects brass to your face and to the lefthand side. You can also wind up with an M&P that breaks the striker or exhibits poor accuracy b/c of barrel lockup problems.

Looking at straight up brand new production pistols, neither are a sure bet. In my experience, a Gen. 3 Glock made before mid 2010 should be good to go with no issues.

YMMV

The Man With No Name
August 5, 2012, 10:02 PM
Many departments have "You SHALL NOT modify pistols" policy, so you not seeing modified Glocks in the hands of officers means nothing.

Many people including people like Paul Howe recommends modifications like attaching Grip Force adapter.


It is certainly an issue for Gen 3. Not all of them are subject to it, and the occurance is random; so you may have not seen it, but there are departments that acknowledged this problem.

http://forums.officer.com/t85284/

http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=5&f=13&t=70772

I have also personally experienced this problem. Failure to feed with lights, then the problem goes away when the light(X300) is removed.

It is still an unknown in regards to Gen 4.
1. Yes most do not allow any modification of a department issued weapon without prior armorer approval. Many officer do (as do I) own their own Glocks though. Not saying that is the norm either as it isn't where I'm at. Did I also mention that I've never seen one in the hands of the non-leo public either already? I've been frequenting ranges before the Glock ever existed. Yes I thought of taking a Glock 21 myself and having the grip reduced because it was too large for my hands or having the finger grooves (the one change over the years I hated) removed. Never have though. Never thought of getting the grip angle changed nor have I met even one person that did so even though I've met countless Glock shooters over the years so I do not consider that the norm still. Most including ALL the older officers I know seem to live with the grip angle just fine. Some even prefer it although I've personally never found it more instinctive to point vs. a 1911 or (even better) a SAA.
2. Paul Howe is the norm?
3. The issue may exist. I grant that. Just haven't seen it myself and it seems every leo I know that isn't state trooper carries a Glock now. Also don't be too quick to take what you read on the internet as gospel. If that were the case then alot of myths in the past about Glocks would still go unchallenged to this day.

TestPilot
August 6, 2012, 02:31 AM
...
1. Yes most do not allow any modification of a department issued weapon without prior armorer approval. Many officer do (as do I) own their own Glocks though. Not saying that is the norm either as it isn't where I'm at. Did I also mention that I've never seen one in the hands of the non-leo public either already? I've been frequenting ranges before the Glock ever existed. Yes I thought of taking a Glock 21 myself and having the grip reduced because it was too large for my hands or having the finger grooves (the one change over the years I hated) removed. Never have though. Never thought of getting the grip angle changed nor have I met even one person that did so even though I've met countless Glock shooters over the years so I do not consider that the norm still. Most including ALL the older officers I know seem to live with the grip angle just fine. Some even prefer it although I've personally never found it more instinctive to point vs. a 1911 or (even better) a SAA.
2. Paul Howe is the norm?
...

You happen to seeing law enforcement people with Glocks who are forced to carry it without modification does not prove they are satisfied with every characteristics of a Glock. Those who did have complaints about it may stop complaining about it after they got used to the characteristics after training, but they could have been even more effective if the pistol was more compatiple with them in the first place.

There are private person shooting Glocks without complaints? So, people who happenes to like Glock buying it and shooting it somehow makes every characteristics about a Glock a norm for every shooters? Even for shooters who did not buy a Glock in the first place because the don't like the characteristics?

Why do you think it is that nearly every pistols came after Glock that studied what is good about Glock choose to leave out Glock's grip angle?

Why do you think it is that market for changing Glock's grip angle can easily be found, but I could not find a single company offering service to change an M&P, XD, or FNS's grip angle to that of a Glock?

"Paul Howe is the norm?"

What are you implying? So what if he's not the norm? His experience and skills makes his opinion that Glock's grip can be improved by modification is invalid? Does Paul Howe has abnormal body shape? What's your point?

The Man With No Name
August 6, 2012, 04:07 AM
You happen to seeing law enforcement people with Glocks who are forced to carry it without modification does not prove they are satisfied with every characteristics of a Glock. Those who did have complaints about it may stop complaining about it after they got used to the characteristics after training, but they could have been even more effective if the pistol was more compatiple with them in the first place.

There are private person shooting Glocks without complaints? So, people who happenes to like Glock buying it and shooting it somehow makes every characteristics about a Glock a norm for every shooters? Even for shooters who did not buy a Glock in the first place because the don't like the characteristics?

Why do you think it is that nearly every pistols came after Glock that studied what is good about Glock choose to leave out Glock's grip angle?

Why do you think it is that market for changing Glock's grip angle can easily be found, but I could not find a single company offering service to change an M&P, XD, or FNS's grip angle to that of a Glock?

"Paul Howe is the norm?"

What are you implying? So what if he's not the norm? His experience and skills makes his opinion that Glock's grip can be improved by modification is invalid? Does Paul Howe has abnormal body shape? What's your point?
1. They are making qualification yearly, the transition does not require extensive training, they are not instinctively throwing shots high or low because of the grip angle, and they are not complaining about the grip angle. Police departments are still overwhelmingly Glock departments in my state. Year after year of meeting all types of leo's and I've yet to hear one opine for a grip angle change.
2. First you talk about people who are forced to shoot Glock and then those that aren't forced and didn't buy it. The minority that think or really can't deal with the Glock grip angle are NOT the norm. Glock is about sales and they haven't seen any reason to sell these modified grip angle Glocks that you think we all need. That is because for the majority the angle is not an issue. Name one large federal agency, pd, sheriff's office, army, or whatever that chose another gun over the Glock based on the grip angle that they thought was an insurmountable issue they could not overcome.
3. Who is Paul Howe? That is my point. Is he some sort of guru who's opinion I should bow down to? I really don't know who he is and I'm not the one that brought him up so I'm waiting for someone to explain why I should care what he thinks a Glock needs. Maybe I should. I've been getting by for decades using them for first competition and concealed carry then for duty and concealed carry and have been perfectly oblivious at how I could do so well with the grip angle as is.

Don't get me wrong. I've modified more than one Glock and I mean quite a bit. None of the mods I've ever made were ever made because I "needed" them. They were in line with trying to gain a tenth or better in times. The grip angle was something I remember when it first came out and just didn't see a need for. It was one of those things people convinced themselves they needed because they could, so they could have a modded gun, something unusual, or various other vanity type needs. I am not alone in being able to switch from the Glock to various other platforms at will and grip angle not be an issue.

TestPilot
August 6, 2012, 09:36 AM
...
1. They are making qualification yearly, the transition does not require extensive training, they are not instinctively throwing shots high or low because of the grip angle, and they are not complaining about the grip angle. Police departments are still overwhelmingly Glock departments in my state. Year after year of meeting all types of leo's and I've yet to hear one opine for a grip angle change.
2. First you talk about people who are forced to shoot Glock and then those that aren't forced and didn't buy it. The minority that think or really can't deal with the Glock grip angle are NOT the norm. Glock is about sales and they haven't seen any reason to sell these modified grip angle Glocks that you think we all need. That is because for the majority the angle is not an issue. Name one large federal agency, pd, sheriff's office, army, or whatever that chose another gun over the Glock based on the grip angle that they thought was an insurmountable issue they could not overcome.
...

Who ever said the issue cannot be over come?

It can be for most. It's just that it's not worth dealing with when one does not have to.

I don't throw shots over. I out shoot most people who raves about Glocks with their own Glock. But, I still don't like Glock's grip angle and more effective with pistols with other grip angles.

Agencies don't complain because it meets the status quo, not because they're satisfied with every single characteristics of Glock.

Glock did not change the grip angle because they have to totally alter the feeding system which whill have no compatibility with existing models that established a track record of how reliable it is, except for the light issue. Then why did nearly 100% of the companies that made pistols after Glock did not copy Glock's grip angle?

Some have problems with Glock's grip angle and some don't. Only problem I have with your arguemnt is that you seem to be trying to assert that the problem does not exist based on your claim that you did not see people having problems with it. If it works fine with some peope, that's fine and dandy. Just don't claim the problem does not exist when it clearly does for some others. Whether if that problem can be "overcome" is irrelevant. Having to overcome something is a problem in itself.

The Man With No Name
August 6, 2012, 10:29 AM
Who ever said the issue cannot be over come?

It can be for most. It's just that it's not worth dealing with when one does not have to.

I don't throw shots over. I out shoot most people who raves about Glocks with their own Glock. But, I still don't like Glock's grip angle and more effective with pistols with other grip angles.

Agencies don't complain because it meets the status quo, not because they're satisfied with every single characteristics of Glock.

Glock did not change the grip angle because they have to totally alter the feeding system which whill have no compatibility with existing models that established a track record of how reliable it is, except for the light issue. Then why did nearly 100% of the companies that made pistols after Glock did not copy Glock's grip angle?

Some have problems with Glock's grip angle and some don't. Only problem I have with your arguemnt is that you seem to be trying to assert that the problem does not exist based on your claim that you did not see people having problems with it. If it works fine with some peope, that's fine and dandy. Just don't claim the problem does not exist when it clearly does for some others. Whether if that problem can be "overcome" is irrelevant. Having to overcome something is a problem in itself.

You seem to be creating a problem. That is what I am saying. I am saying it is not a problem. I'm saying it is not a commonly done modification. If it were thousands like you assert then you think I would have run into even one shooter over the years with it. You'd think I'd have run into even shooter after shooter that didn't buy a Glock because of it. You are saying that I make it out to be a problem that can be overcome. I'm not. I'm saying "once again" it is not a problem. I guess the sarcasm doesn't seem clear. Let me spell it out. If their were thousands that had this issue like you seem to think then it would also be safe to assume that Glock could easily offer a grip angle option. How are gunsmiths altering the grip angle so easily when it would require a complete redesign of the feed system like you claim. It wouldn't obviously. Even if it were thousands then I still say it would represent just a percentage of 1% of all the shooters that have Glocks. I would say even of that 1% of 1% that less than 5% would actually benefit from such a modification and the rest are just convincing themselves they need it (like most Glock mods) when actually what they need is more trigger time with whatever gun they own. That is not the norm which I thought was the whole point.

bds
August 6, 2012, 10:37 AM
Not to hijack the thread, to me it seems Glock could make a lot of money making another line with 1911 grip angle but that may clash with "Glock perfection" ...

BTW, Lone Wolf makes replacement Glock frames with 1911 grip angle and removable grip panels for $199 - http://www.lonewolfdist.com/Detail.aspx?PROD=80127

http://www.lonewolfdist.com/ItemMedia/10000/10000_70898.jpg

Ankeny
August 6, 2012, 11:04 AM
I am not alone in being able to switch from the Glock to various other platforms at will and grip angle not be an issue.
I tried for years to switch back and forth between Glocks and a 1911 and the Glocks do shoot just a bit higher for me when I shoot from my normal index with minimal visual inputs. Here is a video of a Bill Drill with a G19: Bill Drill (http://www.rtconnect.net/~rankeny/G19 Bill Drill.wmv)
I am not alone with that little issue. Sure I could devote muself to a Glock and train the issue away, but why bother when there are other platforms that shoot where I look? To each his own.

coolluke01
August 6, 2012, 11:04 AM
^^^^ Abomination!! :eek:

coolluke01
August 6, 2012, 11:05 AM
double post

kcshooter
August 6, 2012, 11:08 AM
I am saying it is not a problem.Well, sorry, but you're just plain wrong about that.
It isn't a problem for YOU. But for many others, it is.

it would represent just a percentage of 1% of all the shooters that have GlocksYes, but you aren't figuring in the countless number of people who simply won't own Glocks because of the way the grip fits them.

The issue may exist. I grant that. Just haven't seen it myself and it seems every leo I know that isn't state trooper carries a Glock now. Also don't be too quick to take what you read on the internet as gospel. If that were the case then alot of myths in the past about Glocks would still go unchallenged to this day. It isn't a "may or may not" thing. It does exist. Period. This isn't something you can argue. It isn't "read on the internet", it's in a published notification from Glock, so you can pretty much bank on it.



I get it. You like Glocks. That's fine. But to simply argue that they don't have characteristics that some people find objectionable is nonsensical.

TestPilot
August 6, 2012, 12:15 PM
a
You seem to be creating a problem. That is what I am saying. I am saying it is not a problem. I'm saying it is not a commonly done modification. If it were thousands like you assert then you think I would have run into even one shooter over the years with it. You'd think I'd have run into even shooter after shooter that didn't buy a Glock because of it. You are saying that I make it out to be a problem that can be overcome. I'm not. I'm saying "once again" it is not a problem. I guess the sarcasm doesn't seem clear. Let me spell it out. If their were thousands that had this issue like you seem to think then it would also be safe to assume that Glock could easily offer a grip angle option. How are gunsmiths altering the grip angle so easily when it would require a complete redesign of the feed system like you claim. It wouldn't obviously. Even if it were thousands then I still say it would represent just a percentage of 1% of all the shooters that have Glocks. I would say even of that 1% of 1% that less than 5% would actually benefit from such a modification and the rest are just convincing themselves they need it (like most Glock mods) when actually what they need is more trigger time with whatever gun they own. That is not the norm which I thought was the whole point.

So, if it's not a problem for you and you did not see it then the problem do not exist?

That is flawed logic.

Glock not offering different grip angle is a proof that it is not a problem for anyone? Because what Glock does or does not do is a sole measure of that? Never mind that there are 3rd party industry making money out of Glock grip modification. Conveniently ignoring all the other comanies that do not follow Glock's grip angle. Is Glock the only company in existence that do research on ergonomics and customer needs?

Ben86
August 6, 2012, 12:28 PM
Both M&Ps and Glocks are great guns. Both are durable, reliable and reasonably accurate.

I own both and after using an M&P9 as my carry gun for a year have switched back to my Glock 19 because I have proven to myself that I shoot Glocks better. They have a better trigger pull, and seem to fit my hand better; giving me a more secure grip. To my hands they also seem to have less muzzle flip, perhaps due to the lower bore axis. Glocks are also easier to detail strip and modify. In the end the Glock just works better for me.

As long as you pick the one that works better for you I doubt there will be a problem.

Dnaltrop
August 6, 2012, 02:32 PM
They're both great, but it comes down to comfort.

My hands are big, Long boned, and very flexible, the corner of the Glock slide drives directly into the bone of my thumb. There are aftermarket beavertails, but I DETEST sticking "things" onto my guns.

I Picked up the M&P .40 instead, and it just melts into my hand with the Large palmswell.

Kiln
August 6, 2012, 09:24 PM
The angle of the grip is the reason I got rid of my Glock 22 and picked up an XDM. For me the XDM sits better in my hand, balances, and points better. All the talk about the Glock's low bore axis, superior grip angle, and all the other "perfect" Glock features means very little when the gun points straight up for some of us when trying to draw from a holster.

A large percentage of people who dislike Glocks, cite this for the reason. Glocks are great if they fit you but are not great if they don't. The guys that Glocks work for are always claiming "perfection" but the rest of us are claiming "uncomfortable".

My G22 always fed, fired, and ejected reliably but never really fit me.

The Man With No Name
August 7, 2012, 07:31 AM
a
So, if it's not a problem for you and you did not see it then the problem do not exist?

That is flawed logic.

Glock not offering different grip angle is a proof that it is not a problem for anyone? Because what Glock does or does not do is a sole measure of that? Never mind that there are 3rd party industry making money out of Glock grip modification. Conveniently ignoring all the other comanies that do not follow Glock's grip angle. Is Glock the only company in existence that do research on ergonomics and customer needs?
I'm saying if it is a problem for a small (very small) minority then it is not the norm. That is not flawed logic.

The insignificant number of people doing grip mods (which according to you is not even possible because the feed system would have to be changed) does not make it a norm. The fact that other companies do not follow Glock's grip angle does not make it the norm. Too many people make too much out of grip angle. It is an issue in their minds that they then translate on to a target. How can I make it any clearer? No different than almost all mods done to Glocks other than sights. I was trying to find production numbers and the best I could come up with is that Glock showcased production numer 2 million at the 2000 SHOT show. Just 9 years later on the 2009 Glock annual the cover shows 4 million Glocks. I guess that is why they aren't following other manafacturers although many to this day still try to improve on what Glock did right to start with. How many USP's, M&P's, and other plastic fantastics all together in this time you think sold? Even close to the Glocks numbers? I know it's fashionable to hate something just because it is popular but sometimes something is popular for good reason. You may have a real issue but your issue is certainly not the norm and trying to convince yourself otherwise is fine but won't work with me.

kcshooter
August 7, 2012, 10:00 AM
You may have a real issue but your issue is certainly not the norm and trying to convince yourself otherwise is fine but won't work with me. Considering the number of times I've seen here and in person the large number of people who feel the angle is less than ideal, you just blindly repeating "it's not a problem" and trying to convince yourself otherwise won't work with us.

The other problem I have with Glocks is the blinders of foolishness the fanboys seem to wear, touting the perfection and infallibility or their new favorite gun, and their ignorance to that fact that not every platform works for everyone, regardless of what that platform may be.

TimboKhan
August 7, 2012, 12:51 PM
Sigh...

Its my fault. I derailed this thread irretrievably. Here's the worst part: I don't even own a Glock anymore as I sold my 26 back to it's original owner. Fact is, I like 1911's and XD's and SR9's.

Anyway, it's my fault this went off the tracks, but its still getting closed for veering way off topic.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

If you enjoyed reading about "Can You Go Wrong With S&W or Glock?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!