S&W M&P versus Glock

The both work. I own both - Glock 17 and M&P 9L. I honestly shoot the M&P better and prefer it but both are very, very reliable.

I suspect in long term reliability they will be real close. I will preface by saying I'm a Glock guy, but even then if .40 was my choice I'd look hard at the M & P ecspecially comparing to a pre Gen4 block. In .45 the Glock full size is just too big for my hands, but the compact 30SF fits great. As far as 9 it's HARD to beat Glock, they have been around so long support (parts, upgrades, mags) are available everywhere and cheap. You can buy Magpull mags for Glocks at about half the street price of Smith mags all day. And in acuracy my 19 is a tack driver, hits what a point it at, and shoots as good as some high end 1911's I've owned.

I think the new M&P 2.0 Compacts are a very nice option in the polymer, striker market. The 2.0 grip texture is really nice (some think it's too aggressive, personal preference here), the trigger is usable and the thumb safety option is nice to have for those who want it.

To be perfectly honest, in the modern polymer, striker-fired service pistol market, you would be equally served with any of at least half a dozen common models, and another half dozen less popular manufacturers. Competition has forced anybody putting out an offering to this segment to have a fairly refined product. Glock and S&W have the advantage of availability and distribution, no question. But depending on what you want for aftermarket doo-dads, there's nothing wrong with HKs, Walthers, Berettas, SIGs, CZ P-10Cs, Ruger Americans, Steyrs.

Tried M&P pistols from Glock, went back to Glock.

Trigger and feel were main objections.

I like the S&W trigger better than the GLOCK. I like the "feel" of the S&W better. In my opinion, they are both reasonably well made, good shooters. If you like the feel of the S&W in the hand, you will like it.

In my experience people who start off shooting Glocks prefer Glocks over anything else. It flows like a native language.

That being said, I don’t blame you at all for wanting an external safety. I live in St. Louis and there have been lots of accidental discharges amongst us who choose to carry pistols.

My FiL has a full-sized Glock 40 caliber and a full-sized M&P in 40 caliber. He and I both prefer the feel of the Glock and both of us shoot it better. But it's just a personal preference and hand size thing. They are both very good pistols and I would feel well-armed with either one.

Glocks are not as reliable as legend would have you believe. They have their share of problems but you don't read about them much because Glockfans shut down the poster. Frankly Glocks are a dated design. S&W's are more refined. The Glock owners I know are not particularly fond of the Generation 5 model. Generation 3 & 4 are more popular.

The Lady brought a M&P 1.0 last winter. I am not a fan of striker fired pistols but the APEX trigger kit in it is really nice. So nice in fact the our daughter wants to give up her Ruger SR9c for one.

Since I believe in 3 is 2, 2 is 1 and I is None I need to add a second M&P. Not sure if it will be another 1.0 or the 2.0

BSA1 said:

Glocks are not as reliable as legend would have you believe. They have their share of problems but you don't read about them much because Glockfans shut down the poster. Frankly Glocks are a dated design. S&W's are more refined. The Glock owners I know are not particularly fond of the Generation 5 model. Generation 3 & 4 are more popular.

Click to expand...

BSA1, you say a lot in this paragraph. I don’t think I agree with any of it.

I do think that it’s great that you have found a pistol that works for you. I wish you continued success with it.

First Glock was a G19 Gen 3. One FTE for me in the first 200 rnds for me, then I've had no malfunctions with it. However, there have been three FTEs in the next 2,000 rnds by other, less experienced shooter who have tried the gun.

Picked up a G19 Gen 4 and have had no malfunctions myself, but similar results as the Gen 3 for less experienced shooters.

Now shooting a M&P 2.0C. Over 1,700 rnds in the last two months, absolutely zero malfunctions no matter who is shooting it, or what power level ammo. Better trigger, feels better in the hand, and easier for me to shoot fast & accurate.

YMMV. For my uses, however, the Glock is now second string, and the M&P 2.0C is my primary.

Balrog said:

how does the M&P mid or full size compare to a G19 or G17 in terms of long term reliability?

This thread is not about the need for a thumb safety.

Click to expand...

I have shot a lot of rounds with Glock 17/19/26, Glock 22/23/27 (Used 2 Glock 22s as USPSA match pistols), M&P 40/45 and M&P Shield 9mm - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-s-w-hate-decline.828775/page-4#post-10689128

In terms of long-term reliability, both Glocks and M&Ps have been very reliable with no breakage of parts for me. Since my M&Ps came with gritty 7 lb+ triggers, I did trigger jobs using Burwell PDF down to around 4.5 lbs on par with Gen3 Glocks I currently shoot - http://www.burwellguns.com/M&Ptriggerjob1.htm

M&P Shield 9mm came with gritty trigger that jumped the front sight out of the box. After several hundred dry firing, trigger smoothed out and front sight barely moved. After 100+ rounds fired, trigger is much smoother and front sight does not move when striker is released.

dsk said:

The M&P accuracy issues were solved years ago before the 2.0 even came out.

Click to expand...

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/barrel-twist-rate-and-accuracy.780301/

S&W used different barrel twist rates for M&P 9/40 (1:18.75 and 1:24 briefly and I believe 1:16 for M&P40) and 1:10 after 2012 with 5 square cut land/groove rifling. Current advertising for M&P 2.0 shows 1:10 twist rate - https://www.smith-wesson.com/firearms/mp-40-m20-1

Glock uses 1:10 barrel twist rate for 9mm/40S&W (1:9.84 actual) with 6 rounded land/groove rifling (Gen5 now uses conventional square cut land/groove rifling). I use 1:16 Lone Wolf and 1:20 KKM barrels for my Glocks and they stabilize various 115/124/147 gr bullets just fine and produce more than acceptable level of accuracy for me.

Here's Glock 17 vs M&P 9 accuracy comparison - http://modernserviceweapons.com/?p=137

History of M&P 9 accuracy issue - http://modernserviceweapons.com/?p=16423

2.2" groups at 25 yards with M&P 40L - http://modernserviceweapons.com/?p=17008

Of course 2.2" group was with Performance Center worked M&P40L as my M&P40 never produced that small group even after trigger job. I have always obtained smaller shot groups with my Glocks over M&P 40. After I did trigger job on M&P45, accuracy definitely improved and I used it as reference testing platform for 45ACP loads until I got a Sig 1911 which is a tack driver even after 10,000 rounds.

I am unable to test newer M&Ps with newer triggers as S&W stopped selling semi-auto pistols in CA except for Shield 9/40 and SD 9/40.

After handling a gen5 g19 today at the range I lost what little excitement I had for the newest glock. They had two rentals with less than 1000 rounds through each and the barrels finish looks like it’s down to the bare metal already, so either that new finish isn’t all it’s cracked up to be or the barrel has less of an application. In the past the glock has been slightly more reliable with documented endurance testing. In the late Todd Greens test I think the glock went higher to like 71,260 and the m&p went to the 62,333 before parts breakage. The m&p kept running with a cracked slide and the engineers at s&w said it was safe to keep going, but apparently the lawyers stepped in and ended the endurance testing of said pistol. The whole article on both pistols can be read at pistol-training.com. The glocks and m&p’s I’ve owned have both been equally reliable. Coincidentally today a young man at the range did have a brand new g27 gen4 that was jamming at least once or twice every mag. The range staff was trying to troubleshoot the problem and even lubed it for him to no avail. I heard one guy say “keep shooting it because it probably needs a break in period and if it keeps happening after say 1000 rounds then contact glock”. Anybody who has owned glocks will tell you they require no break in period to be reliable. I don’t believe in break in periods for reliability, only to smooth out parts. I tried to help the young man but I guess he figured the “professionals” knew best, so I just kept shooting and mining my own business. If get another glock it will probably be a gen4. If I get another m&p it will probably be a 45 compact 2.0 when available

People bought Glocks because they ran reliably out of the box and kept on shooting even when dirty/neglected while people overlooked many shortcomings.

If Glocks stop doing these things, their appeal will fade.

For me, I will hang onto Austrian made Gen3 Glocks with Tennifer finish. I am interested in Gen5 barrels with conventional square cut land/groove rifling to shoot lead rounds.

I have never "broke in" any Glocks I have bought and neither with M&Ps. While I dry fired M&P Shield 9 several hundred times to smooth out the trigger, it ran reliably out of the box without issues. Interesting thing is people post their Shield 9 shoot better as they shot more. Perhaps trigger is smoothing out?

I believe S&W has a golden winner on their hands with M&P Shield 9mm. After firing several hundred rounds, trigger has smoothed out even more for me to shoot quarter size groups off hand at 7-10 yards and double taps into copy paper targets with comfortable felt recoil. All the female shooters like it and immediately becomes their number one buy gun.

Glocks are amazing guns. I've shot both the m&p9c 2.0 and a gen 3 glock 19 when I was trying to make my decision. It literally came down to one deciding factor grip. I loved the grip on the 2.0 I know a lot of people bash the fact that it's abrasive and rough but it feels good in my hands and feels like I have more control.

If you are looking at the 2.0 compact just spring for the full size the only difference I believe is the full sizes grip is a little longer (.5 inchs )the slides are the same length (7.25) there is a very slight weight difference ( .4 oz)when you look at it the 2.0 compact really isnt compact and you get +2 rounds in the full size the price might be better as well.
https://www.smith-wesson.com/dealer-resources/sw-product-spec-sheets

My personal advice to you is go to the range shoot both and do your research then decide

In reality the compacts slide is .25 inch shorter.With the grip frame being shorter it is the same size as a g19 and is a little eaiser to conceal.The compact can use 15 round mags that are flush with the grip and also use full size mags.For many it is the ideal size.I have both and prefer the compact.

BSA1 said:

Glocks are not as reliable as legend would have you believe.

Click to expand...

I don't always hear about faulty Glocks, but when I do, they are usually NOT 17s. When you take a well tested military weapon and start changing calibers and barrel lengths to fit every little niche in the commercial market, the mutants are probably not as good as the original. Seen in 1911s, too.

After further research I realized the slide lengths between the full size 2.0 and the compact are not the same there is a .15 inch (.4cm) difference but for $100 less and +2 rounds I went with the full size