Can You Go Wrong With S&W or Glock?

[TestPilot]

...
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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...
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]

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]

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]

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]

I am guilty of derailing this thread

It 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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[LiveLife]

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 ...

 

[LiveLife]

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, but I have figured out how to work around 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.