Glock 23 or Smith & Wesson M&P .40S&W

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BBush

Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
62
I am kinda in a dilemma..I can't make up my mind between the Glock and the Smith. Both have their advantages and disadvantages in comparing the two. I was just wondering if anyone that has both models could tell me which one is more inheritantly accurate. I have searched the internet, but I don't think I have seen a true comparison between the two as far as accuracy is concerned. I want to know which one most people shoot more accurately at 25 yards after they have become proficient with both guns. I know I may be splitting hairs when we are talking about accuracy between the two, but I don't know.
 
Well the full size M&P40 has a slightly longer sight radius than the G23, so that could be a little edge, but usually accuracy comes down to the shooter himself/herself (how well the shooter can shoot each weapon). I myself have both the G23 and the M&P40 compact and find I'm a little bit more accurate with the G23, but that's most likely due to I'm a lot more used to shooting Glocks. If I had to choose between the two (could only keep one for some reason) I would keep my G23 (I wouldn't be happy though giving up the M&P40 compact). Of course the G23 was my first Glock, so I am a little biased.;)
 
Keep in mind that the M&P will have better ergonomics. You can swap the backstraps until you find one that suits your hand. The Glock, well feels like a Glock...i'd say the M&P is more "inheritantly accurate." It's definitely more comfortable to hold and has a more natural pointability/grip angle. I'm also not a fan of the knuckle grooves that Glock has on the frontstrap.

Both triggers aren't too nice out of the box, but both can be tuned to perfection.

Overall I think the M&P is a more modern approach to combat handguns, and built better for today's needs. The Glock is still a fine pistol, and has a longer track record with a reputation for 100% reliability out of the box. Can't go wrong with either.
 
I have neither (mine is a M&P9c) but my trigger got WAY better after about a one hour kitchen table polish job. My groups shrank quite a bit after that. I like everything about the M&P better aside from the style of trigger safety. IMO that is the only thing the Glocks have on the M&P's.
 
I have both and shoot the S&W MP40 better because of the better ergomonics (grip and trigger) and better sights that are more easily adjustable. The G23 is smaller and makes a better Concealed Carry Gun....for that use, target accuracy is not required.
 
IMHO the M&P has much better ergonomics, but the Glock has the proven track record. The M&P might turn out to be a reliable and durable contender to the Glock but that will take years to develop. Unlike several years ago the field is awash with "combat Tupperware" from all the major handgun manufactures so their are a lot of good choices out their to try out before settling on a gun. But none of them have the track record of the Glock. And I am no Glock fan, but I do respect them for what they are intended.
 
M&P

I used to shoot a Glock 23, but being an older 1911 shooter, the grip angle caused me problems during rapid fire. The M&P is much closer to the 1911 grip and the interchangeable back straps make the grips feel pretty similar with the small or medium size. I just started shooting production class USPSA with the M&P 40 and am much better with it then I ever was with my G23. Also, neither one have ever had a failer to feed, fire or eject with factory or reloaded ammo in over 1,000 rounds. The M&P also has a longer barrel for slightly better velocity but is also a little bigger in case you might carry it. I don't think you can go wrong with either one. Just pick the one that fits you best and points naturally for you. If possible, shoot them both first at a range with rentals. I reload and have been able to work up loads for either that create one ragged hole at ten yards off hand and easily stay in the A zone in IPSC targets at longer ranges if I do my part.

Good shooting and stay safe.
 
I went the the M&P 9c over the Glocks due to pure ergonomics and I like to support American based companies. YMMV.
 
I prefer the ergos of the M&P, and the general reliability of the Glock (it's not "Perfection", but it's pretty good). The M&P has been pretty good thus far (mine has been fine, see below), but the only way to build a track record is to run the track. S&W is just starting that.

Which one do you shoot best? I'd buy that one.

Mike
 
I went the the M&P 9c over the Glocks due to pure ergonomics and I like to support American based companies. YMMV.
Click to expand...

Where is the M&P made? I thought it was overseas.
 
M&P for me, due to superior ergonomics. (Mine is a compact nine; I want to add a full-size .45 at some point.) The inherent accuracy of one over the other can only be determined through experimentation off a bench or machine rest, and I suspect it would be a wash. Far more important is the ability to get fast center hits, and this is where the better grip shape/angle, trigger action, sights and such will help you. And this is coming from a fairly long-time Glock owner (G19 since 1998).

I might mention that the full-size M&P is closer in size to the G22 than the 23, for a little more "apples to apples" comparison.
 
Where is the M&P made? I thought it was overseas.
Click to expand...

The only thing foreign made on the M&P is/are the magazines. They're made in italy (they look alot like beretta mags if you ask me......)


Everything else is made in the USA. I assume Massachusetts.

Justin
 
I forgot to add.



I was in the same boat that you are in. I went with the m&P compact 40. I'm glad I didn, and I never looked back.


Justin
 
Everything else is made in the USA. I assume Massachusetts.
Click to expand...

That's the problem. I didn't know Massachusetts was in the USA! What's next? You tell me Jersey is too?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top