So I just took delivery of my new Smith & Wesson M&P .40 and thought I’d offer some impressions. I bought it from Bud’s for $439 shipped. With the current Smith rebate of $50 that means a new .40 with four hi-capacity magazines for $389 plus a $20 transfer. Not bad.
The M&P is the latest effort from Smith & Wesson into the combat handgun market. As a combat handgun, especially of the striker fired polymer breed, any look at it for me necessarily draws comparison to the Glock. This is for good reason. First, when you open up a gun like the M&P you can easily see design elements that have plainly evolved from the Glock. Gaston figured out how to do it well and everyone else has followed his lead. Also, it seems to me, no one so far has out-glocked Glock for what a Glock is built to do. I carry one every day, for a living, and personally own two others. I can attest to their worry free, no nonsense, durable, sure as the sun will rise reliability that they bring to the show. With religious loyalty, I believe in them as fighting weapons. I like Glocks a lot.
All that said, I think Smith has done something very important with its new pistol. It has addressed some of the details that I have always wished that Glock would work on. It offers lots of things that I like and very little that i don't.
The first and most important difference is the grip and feeling of the weapon in my hand. I never thought the Glock felt bad but after handling the M&P extensively over the last couple of days my trusty and familiar 2nd generation Model 22 feels like a new bar of Ivory soap, not uncomfortable but not like it was custom made for my hand either. The M&P does. It’s slimmer and sculpted with the human hand obviously in mind. It’s three interchangeable backstraps allows a shooter to custom fit the grip to his palm. It also has a pronounced beavertail that I found comfortably wrapped around the web of my hand providing a welcome additional leverage point against recoil and the gun’s cycling forces. The grip surface texture also affords a much better lock against my skin than does that of the Glock. I never liked having to put additional sleeves or tapes on my 22 just to keep it from being slippery. The M&P easily bests the Glock in hand fit, feel, and grip.
On my Glock 22 I have the factory installed metal tritium night sights. They work well and are well made but they are an option on that gun and as such they add expense. The standard Glock sights are an awful plastic imitation of combat sights. They are hard to use and mar easily in real world conditions.
I bought my M&P with the standard non-tritium sights. These steel Novaks are not only fantastic they are the best of any standard sight on any pistol of any brand I own. I really like these sights and wish that Glock would take a cue.
The controls on the M&P are simple and ergonomically designed. The mag release is perfectly placed for me and is very quickly reversible to the right side of the gun for lefty shooters. The slide release is also well placed and is ambidextrous but I found it to be a little tough to engage. This is partially because the gun is so new and partially because my thumb could not get quite enough purchase on the tab. The extended Glock slide release that I installed on my 22 is much easier to use but cannot be switched for a lefty.
The trigger on the M&P is quite good. It does have a negligibly bumpy and slightly creepy take-up but the break is not bad for a striker fired gun and is light-years better than the terrible trigger on the older Sigmas. Its also much better than that of Ruger’s new SR9 which I found to be mushy and gritty. The reset is a little difficult to feel on the M&P until you’ve fired the gun a bit and gotten accustomed to it. I do like the Glock trigger better but Smith has done very, very well here.
A couple of other small details that I also liked were:
The cocking serrations. On first glance I did not especially like the look of the scalloped serrations but with use I found that they provided a better bite for my fingers than do the Glock’s.
The safeties-actually the lack of them. There are no external safeties on the M&P 40, a condition I very much like on a fighting pistol. I have also become irritated with Smith’s use of internal locks and magazine disconnects on their handguns. The M&P is no different except that they are available as options. If you don’t want a mag disconnect, don’t get it. Likewise, if you don’t want an internal lock, don’t get it. My M&P has neither and I like it that way. Giving the end user the choice is a good business model and I hope other makers will follow the example.
The coated stainless steel slide is a very nice touch and unexpected for under $400.
The good fit and perfect finish, the metal guide rod, the very well made magazines, and the substantial looking claw extractor lend the M&P a high quality look and feel. I also like the unobtrusive loaded chamber peep hole. I dislike having an additional, usually red painted, moving post or bar telling me that the gun is loaded. I don’t mind however looking into a hole and seeing the shine of the case through it. This is a really innovative idea.
Shooting impressions were also very good. The weapon is dead on accurate. Felt recoil was no problem at all and, did I say, damn this thing feels good in the hand. Reliability was flawless with 200 rounds of ball. The alignment of the top round in the mag is so well placed that feeding should never be an issue. Also, this gun sits low in the hand, much like a Glock. I have never favored the height of the HK USP or the Sig P pistols in my hand. The M&P is just about right.
Now for what I don’t like. Really its only one thing but I really hate it. Its the M&P’s takedown procedure. Smith’s bow to the nanny state can be found here. In order to take the weapon apart one is expected to remove the takedown tool from the backstrap (which doubles as a lock for the interchangeable grip panel), lock the slide to the rear, turn a takedown lever similar to that of a Sig, and then using the tool from the backstrap flip a sear disconnect lever inside the mag well just below the chamber. I found that with some marked discomfort (since the lever is obstructed by the rather sharp ejector) I could use my finger instead but it was difficult. After all that, the slide then comes off normally.
It is the intent here I suppose to have the user fish around inside the chamber in order to force a verification that the weapon is unloaded. I get it but I don’t like it. A pistol is a dangerous device, its supposed to be. I don’t like compulsory extra steps like this that try to make my world safe for three-year-olds. I especially don’t like having to use a tool to perform the extra step. That little lever also adds another potential failure point and that’s just not acceptable for a combat weapon. Besides, if a lever inside the chamber is necessary (which its not), I think that the same safety function could have been engineered in by making the lever accessible to my finger.
I also did not like the “CAUTION: CAPABLE OF FIRING WITH MAGAZINE REMOVED” printed on the side of my pistol. I know that Smith has used these mag disconnects in the past but when I opt out I don’t need warnings pasted all over my gun like the airbag alert on my car’s sun visor.
Aside from that I have no other major complaints but I will offer a few final observations.
Both the M&P and the Glock have a trigger safety. The Glock does it with a lever that is depressed by the trigger finger while the Smith uses a two-pieced hinged trigger that when depressed, straightens slightly and allows the trigger to move and the weapon be fired. In all my years carrying Glocks I have not seen a trigger safety break and Smith’s design might well prove to be just as durable. On the Glock however, if this lever were to fracture or fail the default is a functioning trigger. If the Smith’s were to break you’d have no trigger at all, or at least nothing particularly functional as one.
The interchangeable grips, as mentioned above, really made for a great custom grip on the M&P. However, on a fighting pistol I do prefer Glock’s simple one piece design even if its not as comfortable. The Smith feels so good in the hand but under the worst conditions and circumstances less parts to break is less parts to break and maybe a single piece, well sculpted grip would be a better answer.
So, has Smith & Wesson out-glocked Glock? Nope. Glock still stands in my mind as a real fighting pistol with a short learning curve and rock solid durability that’s proven to be perfectly suited for a fight. The Glock is also wonderfully matched, for lots of reasons, as service issue hardware to cops and warriors alike. That said, I like the Smith an awful lot, I mean a lot, maybe even more than the Glock. This is probably subjective more than objective and I would never be sorry to have either with me in a scrap but it will be the Smith that goes with me to the range most often. Get one.
The M&P is the latest effort from Smith & Wesson into the combat handgun market. As a combat handgun, especially of the striker fired polymer breed, any look at it for me necessarily draws comparison to the Glock. This is for good reason. First, when you open up a gun like the M&P you can easily see design elements that have plainly evolved from the Glock. Gaston figured out how to do it well and everyone else has followed his lead. Also, it seems to me, no one so far has out-glocked Glock for what a Glock is built to do. I carry one every day, for a living, and personally own two others. I can attest to their worry free, no nonsense, durable, sure as the sun will rise reliability that they bring to the show. With religious loyalty, I believe in them as fighting weapons. I like Glocks a lot.
All that said, I think Smith has done something very important with its new pistol. It has addressed some of the details that I have always wished that Glock would work on. It offers lots of things that I like and very little that i don't.
The first and most important difference is the grip and feeling of the weapon in my hand. I never thought the Glock felt bad but after handling the M&P extensively over the last couple of days my trusty and familiar 2nd generation Model 22 feels like a new bar of Ivory soap, not uncomfortable but not like it was custom made for my hand either. The M&P does. It’s slimmer and sculpted with the human hand obviously in mind. It’s three interchangeable backstraps allows a shooter to custom fit the grip to his palm. It also has a pronounced beavertail that I found comfortably wrapped around the web of my hand providing a welcome additional leverage point against recoil and the gun’s cycling forces. The grip surface texture also affords a much better lock against my skin than does that of the Glock. I never liked having to put additional sleeves or tapes on my 22 just to keep it from being slippery. The M&P easily bests the Glock in hand fit, feel, and grip.
On my Glock 22 I have the factory installed metal tritium night sights. They work well and are well made but they are an option on that gun and as such they add expense. The standard Glock sights are an awful plastic imitation of combat sights. They are hard to use and mar easily in real world conditions.
I bought my M&P with the standard non-tritium sights. These steel Novaks are not only fantastic they are the best of any standard sight on any pistol of any brand I own. I really like these sights and wish that Glock would take a cue.
The controls on the M&P are simple and ergonomically designed. The mag release is perfectly placed for me and is very quickly reversible to the right side of the gun for lefty shooters. The slide release is also well placed and is ambidextrous but I found it to be a little tough to engage. This is partially because the gun is so new and partially because my thumb could not get quite enough purchase on the tab. The extended Glock slide release that I installed on my 22 is much easier to use but cannot be switched for a lefty.
The trigger on the M&P is quite good. It does have a negligibly bumpy and slightly creepy take-up but the break is not bad for a striker fired gun and is light-years better than the terrible trigger on the older Sigmas. Its also much better than that of Ruger’s new SR9 which I found to be mushy and gritty. The reset is a little difficult to feel on the M&P until you’ve fired the gun a bit and gotten accustomed to it. I do like the Glock trigger better but Smith has done very, very well here.
A couple of other small details that I also liked were:
The cocking serrations. On first glance I did not especially like the look of the scalloped serrations but with use I found that they provided a better bite for my fingers than do the Glock’s.
The safeties-actually the lack of them. There are no external safeties on the M&P 40, a condition I very much like on a fighting pistol. I have also become irritated with Smith’s use of internal locks and magazine disconnects on their handguns. The M&P is no different except that they are available as options. If you don’t want a mag disconnect, don’t get it. Likewise, if you don’t want an internal lock, don’t get it. My M&P has neither and I like it that way. Giving the end user the choice is a good business model and I hope other makers will follow the example.
The coated stainless steel slide is a very nice touch and unexpected for under $400.
The good fit and perfect finish, the metal guide rod, the very well made magazines, and the substantial looking claw extractor lend the M&P a high quality look and feel. I also like the unobtrusive loaded chamber peep hole. I dislike having an additional, usually red painted, moving post or bar telling me that the gun is loaded. I don’t mind however looking into a hole and seeing the shine of the case through it. This is a really innovative idea.
Shooting impressions were also very good. The weapon is dead on accurate. Felt recoil was no problem at all and, did I say, damn this thing feels good in the hand. Reliability was flawless with 200 rounds of ball. The alignment of the top round in the mag is so well placed that feeding should never be an issue. Also, this gun sits low in the hand, much like a Glock. I have never favored the height of the HK USP or the Sig P pistols in my hand. The M&P is just about right.
Now for what I don’t like. Really its only one thing but I really hate it. Its the M&P’s takedown procedure. Smith’s bow to the nanny state can be found here. In order to take the weapon apart one is expected to remove the takedown tool from the backstrap (which doubles as a lock for the interchangeable grip panel), lock the slide to the rear, turn a takedown lever similar to that of a Sig, and then using the tool from the backstrap flip a sear disconnect lever inside the mag well just below the chamber. I found that with some marked discomfort (since the lever is obstructed by the rather sharp ejector) I could use my finger instead but it was difficult. After all that, the slide then comes off normally.
It is the intent here I suppose to have the user fish around inside the chamber in order to force a verification that the weapon is unloaded. I get it but I don’t like it. A pistol is a dangerous device, its supposed to be. I don’t like compulsory extra steps like this that try to make my world safe for three-year-olds. I especially don’t like having to use a tool to perform the extra step. That little lever also adds another potential failure point and that’s just not acceptable for a combat weapon. Besides, if a lever inside the chamber is necessary (which its not), I think that the same safety function could have been engineered in by making the lever accessible to my finger.
I also did not like the “CAUTION: CAPABLE OF FIRING WITH MAGAZINE REMOVED” printed on the side of my pistol. I know that Smith has used these mag disconnects in the past but when I opt out I don’t need warnings pasted all over my gun like the airbag alert on my car’s sun visor.
Aside from that I have no other major complaints but I will offer a few final observations.
Both the M&P and the Glock have a trigger safety. The Glock does it with a lever that is depressed by the trigger finger while the Smith uses a two-pieced hinged trigger that when depressed, straightens slightly and allows the trigger to move and the weapon be fired. In all my years carrying Glocks I have not seen a trigger safety break and Smith’s design might well prove to be just as durable. On the Glock however, if this lever were to fracture or fail the default is a functioning trigger. If the Smith’s were to break you’d have no trigger at all, or at least nothing particularly functional as one.
The interchangeable grips, as mentioned above, really made for a great custom grip on the M&P. However, on a fighting pistol I do prefer Glock’s simple one piece design even if its not as comfortable. The Smith feels so good in the hand but under the worst conditions and circumstances less parts to break is less parts to break and maybe a single piece, well sculpted grip would be a better answer.
So, has Smith & Wesson out-glocked Glock? Nope. Glock still stands in my mind as a real fighting pistol with a short learning curve and rock solid durability that’s proven to be perfectly suited for a fight. The Glock is also wonderfully matched, for lots of reasons, as service issue hardware to cops and warriors alike. That said, I like the Smith an awful lot, I mean a lot, maybe even more than the Glock. This is probably subjective more than objective and I would never be sorry to have either with me in a scrap but it will be the Smith that goes with me to the range most often. Get one.
Last edited:
. My point was that the Smith design team was opting to design in a feature which could help prevent some of those nasty mishaps, which we know occur even to experienced gun handlers. "If even one life is saved", and all that.
