Glock vs Smith & Wesson

[TheProf]

Are Glocks more mechanically designed to be more reliable and more robust than other semi-auto striker fired guns?

I am asking specifically of Glock 26 vs Smith & Wesson m&p 9 sub compact.

Do they have the same record of reliability?

Can they equally go through thousands upon thousands of rounds without wearing out. I realized that both require reg spring changes. But is there a design advantage?

 

[IdaD]

I personally prefer M&P pistols because they fit my hands better and point more naturally. I honestly don't think one is better, more reliable, more robust or has any design advantage over the other, though.

In my opinion Glocks and M&Ps (especially the 2.0 versions) are the top of the heap for your mainstream striker pistols.

 

[jmr40]

Glocks have a proven track record. There are several documented 9mm Glocks over 200,000 rounds and some over 300,000. The M&P was originally designed as a 40 S&W and early pistols in 9mm had serious reliability issues. And while they may eventually prove to be just as reliable no one has pushed the Smiths like they have the Glocks, yet.

BUT... by all accounts Smith has figured out the problem and I've not heard of any issues in several years. I've been a "Glock guy" for many years, but have given Smith an honest chance over the last couple of years. I've had zero issues with a full size and Compact 2.0. For now they've given me no reason to doubt them. And there are some design features I like better on the Smith. Accuracy is about the same.

The biggest difference to me is that Smith offers their gun with a 1911 style thumb safety. I've been shooting 1911's a lot longer than Glock and like having the option. If I were debating between a Smith without a safety vs Glock I'm going with the one with the track record. If having a thumb safety is appealing there is only one option, Smith.

 

[rpenmanparker]

Glocks have a proven track record. There are several documented 9mm Glocks over 200,000 rounds and some over 300,000. The M&P was originally designed as a 40 S&W and early pistols in 9mm had serious reliability issues. And while they may eventually prove to be just as reliable no one has pushed the Smiths like they have the Glocks, yet.

BUT... by all accounts Smith has figured out the problem and I've not heard of any issues in several years. I've been a "Glock guy" for many years, but have given Smith an honest chance over the last couple of years. I've had zero issues with a full size and Compact 2.0. For now they've given me no reason to doubt them. And there are some design features I like better on the Smith. Accuracy is about the same.

The biggest difference to me is that Smith offers their gun with a 1911 style thumb safety. I've been shooting 1911's a lot longer than Glock and like having the option. If I were debating between a Smith without a safety vs Glock I'm going with the one with the track record. If having a thumb safety is appealing there is only one option, Smith.

There are many options with thumb safeties. Ruger, for example.

 

[Omaha-BeenGlockin]

I still have my Glocks but the Smith's are slowly creeping in------have had a 1.0 9mm Shield for a couple years now-----and got a pair of 2.0 9mm 4in Compacts a couple months ago-----and just today picked up a 1.0 .40 full size---it was priced to sell and I mainly plan on converting it to .357 Sig.

As said before---they feel better in the hand and point better than Glocks do

 

[Obturation]

You wont wear out either one. And if you do you'll have spent 20x or more on ammo as you did the gun. For me i prefer glock, simple and utilitarian. No bells, no whistles. The extensive aftermarket support is great for both but theres more for glocks. Im a simple guy though, i dont need to reinvent the wheel every year or two and i just like my carry guns to be simple too. Not that the m&p is complex or difficult to operate, just had glocks before smith made a competetive offering. The abuse my glocks have endured and their fantastic customer service has made me a customer for life.ymmv

 

[JTQ]

The M&P was originally designed as a 40 S&W and early pistols in 9mm had serious reliability issues.

I'm aware of reported accuracy issues with 9mm M&P's, but I don't recall hearing of a durability issue with the 9mm M&P's.

 

[Mike J]

Back around the first of this year I bought my first Smith & Wesson. I went with a 2.0 40 compact. To be honest I was thinking about getting a Glock 23 but you can buy the Smith new for about the same price a used G-23 goes for. Accessories are more readily available for the Glock than they are the Smith.

 

[labnoti]

No. Neither is reliable enough that once a novice stops being indecisive about equipment choices they would be well advised not to practice thousands upon thousands of iterations of malfunction drills.

 

[Buzznrose]

I’ve been a Glock guy for a lot of years and have accumulated a fair number of firearms, magazines, parts, and holsters, so I’ll be a Glock guy for the foreseeable future. I’ve never had a Glock go down.

But if I was starting over, I’d seriously consider the M&P 2.0 line. Great guns by the account I’ve read and the ones I’ve shot.

I do have several Shields...they have been flawless

 

[gbw]

Glock 19 is thicker/bulkier than it needs to be for 9mm.

The M&P 2.0 is even wider and bulkier, and heavier as well.

They all need to take a lesson from the Sig P365 and Kel-Tec PF9, and some others, for scaling 9mm pistols.

 

[cfullgraf]

I have a Glock 17 and several different cartridge versions of the S&W M&P 1.0's. I prefer the S&W's over the Glock.

But both shoot well.

I cannot comment on the M&P 2.0 though.

I prefer an DA/SA semi-auto though and carry an HK P30SK.

 

[tarosean]

Are Glocks more mechanically designed to be more reliable and more robust than other semi-auto striker fired guns?

NO. Is the simple answer.

 

[jjones45]

Well if you really wanna chase it down check out the late Todd Green’s endurance testing on the Glock and M&P. If I recall correctly the Glock went over 71,000 rounds with more stoppages than the m&p that went over 62,000 rounds with fewer stoppages but the slide cracked and they stopped the testing. Also the Glock did better in the mhs trials as it and the p320 were the 2 finalists. Most people wouldn’t shoot enough to see a discernible difference between the 2 and both companies would take care of any warranty work. I’ve owned both brands and still own glocks because I like them more than the m&p. If you plan on shooting over 60,000 rounds through one or the other I think you would have enough money to have other guns to hold you over while the Glock or m&p is getting repaired/replaced since literally you would have paid for the pistol several times over with the cost of ammunition.

 

[rskent]

Are Glocks more mechanically designed to be more reliable and more robust than other semi-auto striker fired guns?

Hard question to answer. When it was designed there wasn’t any common poly striker gun to be more reliable than. Glock pretty much started the genre.
Just because other company’s like Smith and Wesson have upped their game doesn’t diminish Glock at all.

I am asking specifically of Glock 26 vs Smith & Wesson m&p 9 sub compact.

As far as the G26. I just can’t figure out how Glock got that gun that others here have described as “a pig” to shoot like a full sized gun.

Do they have the same record of reliability?

I don’t think reliability would be a factor. I’m sure either one would be reliable. If I went into a gun shop today and I didn’t already own a Glock or two, I’m not sure which one I would pick.
Probably the Glock, but not because the Smith is a bad or even lesser gun. I just like the minimalistic design of the Glock. And Smith triggers just feel weird to me.

 

[Ben86]

Both brands are designed to achieve the highest in modern handgun reliability and rigorous field use.

I am a big fan of both, but usually pick M&Ps because they fit my hand and I shoot them better.

To me reliability and accuracy are at the same level so choose the one that fits your needs better.

I own both Gen 5 Glocks and M&P 2.0s at the moment.

I have also owned a Gen 1 M&P9C and all Gens of G26. I much prefer the M&P9C for a comfortable shooter that still carries easy.

 

[edwardware]

Over at AR15.com (yes, I know. . .) there's a really neat long-standing thread by a gunsmith who works at Battlefield Las Vegas. He services rental pistols that frequently see 100k in a few months or years. It's one of the best sources of high-round-count reliability and part failure data available without Uncle Sam's budget. You should read it.

For me, a Glock feels like an undersized 2x4; I could get used to it, but I don't see any reason to. My XD* and M&Ps feel much like my preferred 1911s, so that's what I buy.

 

[Old Dog]

I'm aware of reported accuracy issues with 9mm M&P's, but I don't recall hearing of a durability issue with the 9mm M&P's.

Me neither. My department jumped on the bandwagon early ('07-'08 rollout); while the 9s demonstrated only adequate accuracy and a hit-or-miss trigger (our second batch had much improved accuracy, better trigger, though still sometimes a tad mushy and often lacking a clearly detectable reset), the only problems we encountered were with our initial issue of the 45s, had some disconcerting parts breakage issues.

The 2.0s, however, are simply superb. The only Glock I was ever issued or carried was the 23, and while it was durable, accurate, had a decent trigger, just didn't fit me.

 

[JDR]

I’ve had my Gen3 17 almost 10 years and I just put a set of Wilson Combat Vickers Elite F.O. front / battlesight rear sights. When I first got this the original M&P had been out for a few years but the M&P 2.0 to me at least is a major upgrade over the original.

Living in California I have the funds for guns but I don’t have the option of a commercial purchase of an M&P 2.0 or a Walther PPQ or what I’d really like, a Glock 48.

OBTW a guy on YouTube is bragging that he was able to do a California PPT (Private Party Transfer) for an original full size M&P 9mm, for (get ready for this) $700.00! This is an example of the stupidity you have to deal with to acquire an off-roster gun legally out here. No thanks, I’ll stick with what I have!

 

[Tallball]

I have a Glock 22 (full-sized 40 caliber). I bought a drop-in 9mm barrel and magazine, so it is also a G17 whenever I feel like shooting one. I also have the small single-stack and double-stack 9mm's, the G43 and the G26.

Recently I got a S&W M&P 2.0 45acp.

All of the above were bought used. The 40 caliber and the 45acp were police trade-ins. The Glocks were around $300 apiece, plus whatever. The S&W was only $229, plus whatever.

All of them are good shooters. Out of the entire group of four, I have had zero malfunctions. I shoot the S&W slightly better than the Glocks, but that is just me.

For me, it's win/win, with the slight nod to the S&W. But all of them are good solid pistols.

Smith and Wesson M&P 45acp

• Tallball
• Dec 10, 2018

 

[Thomas Mayberry]

I go with the M&P or 1911 simply because it fits my hand much better. I shoot the S&W and 1911 more accurately. I carried a Glock as a duty weapon for 23 years. It and its department mates were reliable, durable and sufficiently accurate (if the officer holding it was). Had they fit my hands well I could be a fan boy. As it is, when I retired I received my duty weapon, cleaned it and put it in my safe to be inherited down the road.

 

[Elkins45]

The ergonomic advantage favors the M&P to me. If you can afford enough ammo to wear out either then you can afford to go buy a new gun. Mechanical durability simply isn't an issue with either.

 

[Trey Veston]

Back around the first of this year I bought my first Smith & Wesson. I went with a 2.0 40 compact. To be honest I was thinking about getting a Glock 23 but you can buy the Smith new for about the same price a used G-23 goes for. Accessories are more readily available for the Glock than they are the Smith.

My carry gun for years was an M&P40c that I loved. Got the sub-compact craze and sold it for a S&W Shield 9 PC version. Had a bad barrel and had to send it back. Never did get it to shoot accurately enough and sold it. Bought the XDS 40 and carried it for a year, then decided 6 rounds wasn't enough. Bought a Glock Gen 5 G19 MOS and it fits my hand like a glove, but is a bit big. Bought an M&P40c that was clearanced for $300 with night sights. But it just doesn't fit my hand as well as the G19.

So now I'm looking for another "perfect" carry gun, lol. I want a safety on the next one. I bought a Taurus G2c 9mm that has a safety and realized that it really did add an extra layer of comfort, so my next carry gun will have a safety for peace of mind.

I was initially intrigued by the M&P40c 2.0, but I read that they increased the overall size to G19 size. My M&P40c 1.0 is a perfect size and capacity; just needs a safety.

The ergonomic advantage favors the M&P to me.

I found the opposite to be true when comparing a G19 Gen 5 to my M&P40c 1.0. But my M&P40 fullsize is definitely better. Weird...

 

[Browning]

I'm aware of reported accuracy issues with 9mm M&P's, but I don't recall hearing of a durability issue with the 9mm M&P's.

I remembered hearing about it a few years ago.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2...andguns-reliability-issues-returns-sig-sauer/

https://www.ar15.com/forums/general...oblems_with_SandW_MandP_handguns_/76-1669910/

 

[Pat Riot]

I like Glocks and trust them. I cannot comment on the S&W pistols as I do not own any, but my friends that do have nothing but good to say about them.
As for reliability I shot a Glock 34 gen 3 without cleaning it and only lubing it on occasion and got to 980 rounds before I had a malfunction. Stovepipe Jam. I tore it completely down and cleaned it and started the test again and after a few hundred rounds I decided that it was good enough and started treating it the way it deserved to be treated. I don’t know if an S&W would do that but I will personally probably never know. I found the gun brand that I trust. I don’t see why I should change.

I am not trying to be flippant or obnoxious. I am just stating my opinion. I love my Glocks.