Three of the more popular polymer frame pistols...a matter of prospective

Status
Not open for further replies.

whatnickname

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2008
Messages
1,004
Location
Oklahoma
First let me say that I have several of each of the Glock, Smith & Wesson M&P and Springfield XD pistols. All are quality pistols but each of them have their strengths and weaknesses. I prize the dozen or so Glocks I own very highly. They are by far the easiest pistol to work on and modify for a particular use. The pistol only has 34 parts in it and requires nothing more than a 3/32" punch to completely disassemble. There are by far more after market parts for the Glock than any other polymer frame pistol on the planet and the Glock is 100% bullet proof reliable. I carry the Glock in a belt holster more than I do the other two makes and the Glock is available in a wider range of calibers than the Smith or Springfield either one. Make no mistake about, if I knew I was taking a handgun to a gunfight it would be a Glock. The down side, at least for me anyway, is that the Glock is nothing to hold in aesthetic contemplation. They're ugly and that's just the plain truth of the matter. The ZEV Technology Fulcrum Trigger is one of the best on the planet and I can install one in about ten minutes. Aside from aesthetics, the down side for me is that the Glock does not fit my hand very well but that has been less of an issue with the onset of the Gen 4s. Glock's customer service is world class.

The Smith & Wesson M&P is by far a much nicer looking pistol than the Glock and with the large grip insert fits my hand like a glove. The bore axis is low in relation to my hand and that is also a plus IMO. The down side...more difficult to work on, primarily because of the ambidextrous slide release. While Apex makes a very nice replacement trigger for them, their trigger will not function with the older model, small sear pin, sear housing. And no, Smith & Wesson will not sell you one either. In fact they're down right anal about the matter. So if you want to convert an older pistol you have to scrounge for a replacement sear housing...I mean God forbid that someone would actually put a decent trigger in an M&P! Plus the M&P couldn't decide what it wanted to be when it grew up so not all the parts (like the trigger and trigger bar) interchangeable. All in all a good pistol and I like the 5 I have...particularly the two CORE models I have out of the Custom Shop.

The Springfield XD is by far the best made of the three brands. The machining and fitting are simply superb. The grip configuration is very reminiscent of the old Bren 10 of years past and feels pretty good in my hand. They are larger pistols, width and height, on average than the other two and the axis of the bore in relation to the hand is a good bit higher. The down side? They put the damn sights and extractor in with at least a 10 ton press. The extractor? Well maybe but *** were they thinking when they put the damn sights in? That no one would ever want to make a windage adjustment or replace them with night sights? Seriously??? After market trigger...Powder River makes an excellent after market trigger but you better pack a lunch. Sometimes you have to fit both the sear and the safety leaver by hand and here's the key...you can always take a little more metal off but you'll have one hell of a time getting any to go back on. Oh, put the slide back on before that safety lever is properly fit and you're gonna have one HELL of a time getting the slide back off the frame...probably teach yourself some new words before you're done with that project. Not all models have been created equally either. I have a 2003 vintage XD40 that simply cannot be fitted with a Powder River slide safety leaver...just not gonna happen. All said and done the 3 I have are all very reliable and I'm gonna hold on to them. Springfield's pretty picky about what replacement parts they will sell you. That extractor...assuming you can actually get it out of the slide...Forget it! It aint gonna happen, which is a minus in my book.

So these are just my thoughts and observations...What about yours?
 
Glocks are fine...I can appreciate the mechanics of them, and they sure seem to have a broad appeal. I actually kinda like their aesthetics. Beauty in utilitarian simplicity. But not for me.
The XD was fine, I didn't have any particular fondness for it, and it went to somebody who wanted it more. And for whatever reason I can't put my finger on, I don't care for the S&W, but my experience with them is very limited.
I'm pretty tickled with my FNP. It's my 3rd favorite pistol. (1st BHP, 2nd para p14)

Nice review though!
 
Excellent write up! I don't have nearly the experience with the other two brands that you do but love my Glocks. I originally got into Glock through my interest in the 10mm Auto. I still have the Gen III G20 and it is pretty much my prized possession at this point. I agree that the ergos have to be trained into but I do okay with it now. I love that they are easy to work on. I love the short trigger reset and the low bore axis. I know it is an apples to oranges comparison but I shot a friends compact .40 Springfield alongside my G20 and I think the Glock actually had less muzzle flip even with the full power 200 gr handloads.
 
For everything that you stated is the reason that I wish I liked Glocks. But I hate them and they hate me. But I always preach to new shooters to try a Glock first and get broken in on them and maybe they will avoid the hatred that I have. I agree, the gen 4's are nicer though. Maybe one day...

S&W fit best in my hand, but I shoot the XD's the best.

On a side note, I like my Canik TP9sf best for striker gun...
 
Have all three of the above and enjoy them equally. However, I also have a PPQ and a CZ P07 and I enjoy them more, especially the PPQ. To each his own, they are all excellent defensive handguns.
 
I personally hated just about all design features of the M&P. they look cool and ergos are nice but that's about it. glocks are ugly and have horible ergos, but I shoot them well. springfield is and always has been my favorite, although they have been missing the mark with XD-e, I think they would have been much better off making a double stack to compete with the beretta PX4 and Sig SP2022 for the price point and size.
 
Between the M&P and the Glock, I prefer the Glock. I used it extensively in the military and as a contractor (17, 19), along with in competition (17, 34), HD/CCW (19, 17, 26), and as a "woods/hunting sidearm" (23, 21 SF). So you can say they are imprinted on me, and that's why I generally prefer them over the S&W. I will say that the 43 didn't meet my expectations for summer carry, and I now do that with a shield 9. I have shot other M&P models a bit, and I wouldn't have a problem using/owning them- if it weren't for my "Glock imprint".The XD is an excellent pistol, it feels good and shoots great- but again, I am more accustomed (comfortable) with the Glock. I would love to get some time with the striker pistols from Ruger, HK, and Sig, just to experience them- but I'm not going to buy them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vba
Assuming the OP intends "perspective," not "prospective."

I find the M&P, H&K's VP-9, SIG P-320, Walther's offererings and even the Ruger American superior to the Glock insofar as trigger, accuracy and ergonomics are concerned.
 
I have several poly pistols, and none of them are Glocks, M&P's, or XD's, and it's unlikely I will ever own any of them. Of the 3, the M&P's are the ones I like the best, or better yet, dislike the least. The Glocks just feel plain wrong, no matter what generation they are. I just don't like them. IMHO, the XD's are way overpriced. And almost as ugly as a Glock.
I'm old, I like hammer guns, poly or steel, preferably steel, like the gun in my avatar. I will be looking for a CZ P-07 as my next semiauto gun to buy. They are on sale right now, of course, but I'm bidding on a couple of revolvers that each cost more than a new P-07 does, so the money isn't available to grab one of them right now..
 
Glocks, for me, are sort of like a bad habit that I can't seem to quit. Every 3 or 4 years I purchase one, shoot it well enough, convince myself that the pure number of parts and third party support is the reason to adopt it...then figure out that I shoot nearly every other pistol a bit better and kick Glock to the curb and swear them off.

If you handed me a Glock, I would feel well armed and hit what I'm aiming at...mostly. If you handed me a 320, RAP, FNS, I'll shoot circles around the Glock pattern.

I actually don't care for the way the M&P fits my hand, and the Springfield offerings just don't do it for me.

I find that the 320 fits my hand the best. Once the drop fire thing gets fixed, I may reduce my poly handguns to just this pistol. I love it.

I think FN makes a hellova pistol that is both underrated by the shooting public and under supported by FN (they can't seem to introduce new guns that will use the same overly expensive mags of previous models).

The Ruger is a pig of a pistol in the best possible way. $399 and built to be equal parts shooter and equal parts cudgel. It's a beat up muscle car sporting a black spray can primer paint job. Strength if lacking in style...and I still shoot it better than a Glock.

The great news...we all win. There are so many great guns out there to enjoy:)
 
Glocks, for me, are sort of like a bad habit that I can't seem to quit. Every 3 or 4 years I purchase one, shoot it well enough, convince myself that the pure number of parts and third party support is the reason to adopt it...then figure out that I shoot nearly every other pistol a bit better and kick Glock to the curb and swear them off.

If you handed me a Glock, I would feel well armed and hit what I'm aiming at...mostly. If you handed me a 320, RAP, FNS, I'll shoot circles around the Glock pattern.

I actually don't care for the way the M&P fits my hand, and the Springfield offerings just don't do it for me.

I find that the 320 fits my hand the best. Once the drop fire thing gets fixed, I may reduce my poly handguns to just this pistol. I love it.

I think FN makes a hellova pistol that is both underrated by the shooting public and under supported by FN (they can't seem to introduce new guns that will use the same overly expensive mags of previous models).

The Ruger is a pig of a pistol in the best possible way. $399 and built to be equal parts shooter and equal parts cudgel. It's a beat up muscle car sporting a black spray can primer paint job. Strength if lacking in style...and I still shoot it better than a Glock.

The great news...we all win. There are so many great guns out there to enjoy:)
Amen brother! I own several other polymer guns...Sig 2022, HK P2000, Ruger SR9c. While I believe that each of these pistols are highly reliable, I did not include them in my initial write-up because I don't think I can base any permanent opinion on a sample of one pistol. I think all three are well made and all three companies have a reputation for both quality and strength. Bought the SIG in like new condition last month from a local dealer for $260.00...like new condition but no box. IMO the HK is way over priced.
 
I've found that reading about and owning a Glock in the past, they are as reliable as most any other pistol. There is a thread on another forum where the poster discusses the long term reliability of firearms he rents in Vegas and what issues each model suffers. Glocks have theirs, just as much as any gun that shoots 100,000 rounds a year.

Nonetheless, the original Glock design is a novel improvement and certainly a higher order of gun despite it's owner's marketing tactics. It is interesting that what would constitute the buying public's castigation if the product was a knife maker's is completely ignored because "Glock."

Then there are the various issues which have cropped up with each generation, and accepting that they are no more perfect than any other common mass produced gun. They all have their problems. But I wouldn't expect someone who states they own twenty or more to dwell on that much, they are obviously entranced with the product line and don't need to be disturbed with facts.

I find I'm getting to be like those 1911 fans in the '70s - the newer designs seem to cater to those who need to be protected from themselves, rather than make a gun that can be counted to be a reliable igniter of primers. As time goes on we seem to be worried more about dumb proofing the guns rather than accepting our lack of skill as the real issue. In those warm and fuzzy rembrances of yesteryear the solution then was to make the gun DA/SA with a thumb safety. It worked and even promoted the introduction of the wondernines, which is what Glock worked so hard to conquer.

What he couldn't conquer was human intransigence to be careful, which a thumb safety enforces, and which is offered on military firearms as mandatory. Even some of his. When you have a legion of young inexpert gun handlers and tens of thousands of them in the field, you have to accept a worse case mindset about gun handling. Ask a municipal authority about their LEO's on medical leave because they purchased a gun with no separate safety that will go off when a finger or entanglement is inside the trigger guard.

Those of us who haven't fallen for the siren song of Austrian engineering and Atlanta strip club contract negotiation tend to think differently. It doesn't make other guns better, it levels the playing field so we can consider each guns strengths and weaknesses, then decide which we could compromise on because no gun is perfect in every detail. Ever.

I'm not seeing that in the discussion.

I have only one pistol which is DA and I always carry it so that the trigger guard is covered at all times - which strangely enough is exactly what Glock recommended in 1984 and still does. If they think that the trigger is still vulnerable despite the SAFE toggle on it then who am I to disagree? I'm sure those laid up on the force might have their opinion on it.

You can't completely engineer out human error. Glock came up with a nice try, it was a very similar manual of arms to the revolvers it was superceding. It is not in some ways better or safer than a gun with thumb operated safety. There are pros and cons to the discussion, with points of merit on both sides. Which should be obvious enough at that point, Glock isn't the answer we all wish it was.

Keep your trigger covered.
 
I have several Glocks, Sig, Colt, and S & W. Glocks are definitely my favorite and the ones I always carry to the range. The others mainly stay at home. The Glocks are simple, easy to maintain, you don't have to run them wet, they are easy to modify, and parts are readily available. And I shoot them very well.

I strongly considered a Sig P320 recently but decided to go with a Glock 17. The Sig may be one I will consider in the future after the dust settles from the current concerns about the accidental discharges.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: vba
Rugers & Kahrs are my choice of Tupperware - I like them simple, slim, compact, and relatively inexpensive (along with good quality & reliability as mentioned by the other posters for their favorites).
 
I don't like Glocks. I have been issued them for department use and they were easy to teach new shooters on, but that is pretty much it. I don't own any. And if I were issued one again I would use it of course, just nothing to write home about. For a duty gun I would ideally want a PPQ, but we can't always choose our issued weapons.

For my personal selections I would put Walthers at the top, as I have enjoyed all the ones I have handled (minus the PPS M2, can't stand that guy). XDm would be toward the top. Rugers are good too depending on the model. Glocks and Smiths would go towards the bottom of the list.
 
I've never owned a Glock or a S&W poly. But I do have two Springfield XDs, one being the new XD-E. I love that new pistol. My other favorite poly gun is the SIG SP2022. Seems I like my poly pistols best with a hammer.
 
I have never shot an M&P, wouldn't mind trying one. I do find it funny that the Croation Sensation you list as the best manufactured firearm, being the only real import. :) I shot one when it was the HS-2000, and thought it not bad at all. The Glock I carry professionally, and qualify with as Expert or Distinguished Expert every year, and can't stand the things. Nothing wrong with the pistol at all. Like the famous breakup mantra, "It's not you, it's me." Doesn't fit me at all.
Nobody here will be surprised that my poly pistols are CZs, P-09, SP-01 Phantom and P-10C, and the Phantom fits like the glove it is. The P-10C I am warming up to and currently carry. However, what many will find surprising and probably amusing is that I really want one of the first poly pistols, the weird HK vP-70z. :) And yes, I've tried the trigger. ;)
Thank you for the detailed perspective.
 
Ive had Glocks,Now the only one I own is a 21SF great gun.But Ive been playing with the Canik SF Elite its been fabtastic.Accurate and sturdy.JUst need to find a couple of places to buy mags and a holster.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top