Glock vs SW&P durability

Friends....

I'm interested only in two factors: durability and reliability. Of the two, Glock 27 vs mp.40c, which do you think has a higher level of durability...able fire 5000 per year for the next 10 years?
And of course... which one is more reliable. Thanks

 

I prefer the Glock but think both are plenty reliable and durable. So I would vote for the one you like better.

The FNSc would be worth a look too...

 

The m&p 40’s were designed around the 40 caliber, the glock 40’s were designed around the 9mm caliber. So in my opinion, just from a design standpoint, a design made specifically to handle 40 s&w would be more durable (component wise) over one shooting 40 caliber out of a 9mm design. However I do have a Glock 23 that’s been fantastic for well over 10 years and thousands upon thousands of rounds. Also there are thousands of people who have had great success with glock 27’s being utterly reliable for long periods of time. I like m&p’s but glock does seem to get a lot of things right. I hate to be that guy, but it’s gonna come down to personal choice

 

Glocks have fewer parts which means less things to break.

Glock magazines are significantly cheaper than Smith & Wesson M&P magazines.

Regardless of any supposed design flaws in the original Glock 27 they've been available for at least 20 years and I'm sure that the design flaws (if any design flaws ever actually existed) have been addressed.

The only advantage I see of the M&P over the Glock is the ergonomics and that has nothing to do with reliability or durability.

Well that and the M&Ps come from the factory with better quality sights but again that's not reliability or durability.

 

I would say they are equal, as I have seen both shot very heavily with little or no maintenance, and they just continue to run. I have a Glock 17 range gun that has no right to continue to function, but I have never owned such a forgiving pistol. I prefer the Glock because I am so accustomed to them. I fire a lot of steel cased Russian and that filthy Winchester forged ammo in my Glocks with no issues. My M&P shield will sometimes malfunction with that stuff, but itds GTG with brass cased anything.

 

Excerpted from an old Hilton Yam "Modern Service Weapons" article (the original is no longer available)

https://www.military.com/kitup/2013/02/hilton-yam-10-8-performance-glock.html

 

You needed to have a box fo "No Appreciable Difference."

oops. . . now I see it, there is one

 

The s&w has an internal metal frame to aid in rigidity which will also help longevity

Glock couldn't figure out how make a pistol in 40 cal that could shoot reliably with a weapons light attached.....or a 9mm that didn't throw ejected brass at the shooters face.

I own 4 glocks and one 2.0. I think the 2.0 is better in almost every regard except parts availability and aftermarket support.

My 19 gen 4 is the least reliable pistol I own and chokes once every 100-150. The coating on the front frame rails is also wearing off after only 2-3k rounds.

I still like glocks but almost every major player has produced a great and reliable pistol by now .

 

The production variation between individual guns is probably greater than the variation between those models of guns. Also if you're running 50,000 rounds through a $500 gun, you should expect to need parts replacements occasionally. And if you can afford to run 50,000 rounds through a gun, you can afford to have a spare gun. At that kind of round count I would definitely prefer not to have only a single gun.

 

My Glock 23 broke. My M&P hasn't. That's a sample size of 2. The Glock is a simpler design. Easier to work on, easier to detail strip and reassemble.

 

Care to explain in a little more detail. Just asking.

 

OP sorry I couldn’t vote. I have always thought that for something to be more reliable it must be more durable. And to be more durable it must first be reliable.

 

I don't think reliability and durability are the same thing.

I'd expect a Beretta 92 to be more reliable than a Glock 17 (Glock ejection/extraction problems, limp wristing, etc.), but I'd expect the G17 to be more durable than a Beretta 92 (aluminum frame, locking blocks).

In .45ACP shooters, I'd expect the generic SIG P220 to be more reliable than the generic 1911, but I'd expect a much greater life span from the generic 1911 than from the typical P220.

 

Not the same, but linked.

 

5,000rds a year?

Buy both and shoot the crap out of both and then tell us

FWIW i have 3 glock 40’s, round counts:

G27: 2k
G23: 4K
G35: 3k

Number of malfunctions: 0

 

Fte every 150 rounds or so
And btf has become very....very annoying.

 

What sort of ammo are your shooing? I have not seen a glock have those sort of problems, ever. I have also not see. A S&w have those problems either, or any other decent gun...

 

It's all ammo
It isnt limp writing
It isn't mags
It isnt the rsa
I've replaced both ejector and extractor

It's the only pistol I've owned that is that bad.

 

I would send it back to glock. That is unacceptable

 

Durability: the ability to withstand wear, pressure, or damage.
They are even. Both will need replacement parts for wear items (recoil spring, extractor, firing pin, etc.) when you are talking lifetime round counts. One machine is not inferior to another when it comes to the reasonable replacement of wear items. For instance, have you ever shot a subcompact with a worn out recoil spring? The limiting factor is not the machine, it is the shooter. Many people talk about "battered slides" but when a subcompact in 40S&W has a worn out recoil spring, you will know because it batters the shooter. At the point where the shooter looks at the handgun and really doesn't care to shoot it due to noticeable recoil is the point when a new recoil spring is required. It has not lost durability due to the necessary replacement of a wear item.

Reliability: the quality of being trustworthy or of performing consistently well.
They are also even. Both are polymer framed, striker fired handguns from reputable manufacturers. Trying to compare two well made products ends up coming down to minutiae like magazine cost, "aftermarket support," and other nebulous decision factors because people have to split hairs to declare (or rationalize) a "best" when comparing very good products.

The problem I see with the question is that it attempts to make a decision point based on very narrow criteria. I wouldn't consider either the most important criteria among equivalent products. That would be - hand fitment. Does the handgun fit your hand? Is the grip comfortable and is the sight alignment natural?

The typical responses to the reliability and durability in the context of a lifetime round count will either be from people's opinions based on a manufacturer's customer service or from people who don't shoot the round counts referenced because if a person shoots the round counts referenced, both handguns will require periodic service.

 

M&P 40
7 years, 10,000 rounds per year. All my own casts and reloads after the 1st 100 factory reloads and 1k commercial plated/cast bullets.
Changed recoil spring after 2 years, really didn't need to but it was free. Haven't bothered to change it since
Changed mag springs 2 years ago. Ditto above
Range gun only so there is no wear on the outside. Looks and shoots like new.
Even if anything does wear out, S&W has a lifetime warranty and will replace it for free.

I shoot the cr*p out of all my guns and quite frankly, none of them have failed in terms of reliability or durability for me. I don't throw them into the mud or hunt ISIS in the desert sands and I do field strip and clean them at least once every thousand rounds or so (about once every 4-5 range trips) but that's it.

 

A failure to eject every 150 rounds. OK, that’s a concern, no doubt. Any Idea why?
Did it tie up the gun? Did you talk to Glock about it?

 

If you are shooting 5 - 10K rounds per year of .40 S&W then your smallest expense is the pistol itself.

 

Never spoke with glock about it
Most failures are classic stovepipe