Discussion in 'Handguns: Autoloaders' started by ryno31, Aug 14, 2013.
My experience M&P was more reliable (never malfunctioned) and the trigger was pretty bad. I bought the APEX FSS, which helped, and it was far more ergonomic than any of my glocks. With all that said, I still never grew to love the pistol and sold it.
I dont think you can go wrong with either though and it just comes down to personal preference.
I like my G20 well enough, but if the M&P had been available in 10mm, the Glock would not have even been considered.
Same frame with narrower slide.
I'm not a S&W fan (although I own a few) but having shot the XDm-45 3.8 and knowing it came with both a 9 and 13 round magazine (plus the sleeve) and has replaceable back straps, I'm just not sure I want the 30SF back.
I also have several 1911's and am familiar with that type safety. That was the appeal of the M&P with the safety. It combined the best features of a Glock and 1911. It just didn't work for me and I got rid of the Smith.
The 30SF is actually a good shooter...reliable with jacketed or lead reloads and mags are available at least in my area. But most important...the ergonomics are actually quite good. I can recommend it...but I think S&W quality is better, especially in the frame. It appears glock puts all their money into slides and barrels...and stick those onto cheaply made frames. But...they do seem to work.
That would be my appraisal too. I don't own either in .45 but I've got an M&P and a Glock in 9mm.
Reliability is a tie. Both are superb.
Accuracy is a tie. Both are ok.
Trigger is a tie. Without work both are pretty crappy (and both can be made good for relatively cheap)
Price is close. M&P is a LITTLE cheaper but the cost difference is low enough that I wouldn't let it affect my decision too much.
Sights - M&P wins for stock sights. Glock sights sit too low and are plastic. That said, aftermarket options for the two are largely the same and I replaced the sights on both so the point there is moot.
Ergonomics though M&P blows the Glock out of the water. I remember a while back I was prepping for a GSSF match so I shot my Glock exclusively for over a month prior to that just for practice. Got to where I thought "Hey, this Glock ain't that bad.". Then when I finally picked my M&P up again I got a little shiver of joy and realized just how much I missed that gun. The M&P just feels right in the hand. The Glock you have to put up with long enough until you ignore the ergonomics.
M & P
My vote goes with the M & P 45. I own both a 45 and a 9. Both of them are flawless performers and digest whatever ammo I feed them with out a hiccup. My 45 is more accurate in my hands than the 9.I would not however purchase high cap mags for the 45.They make it feel like a 2x4 in my hands.
Just a note - my Glock also did this, but it was due to a chipped extractor (and it was a fairly minor chip - one certified Glock armorer missed it but a more experienced one noticed it).
To Glock's credit they replaced it (and pretty much every other part in my slide except for the barrel) for free. It has worked just fine ever since. Since I bought my Glock used I'm not going to fault the gun for the initial issue - no telling what the original owner did with it.
I am partial to Glocks. The 30 s is the newest member of the Glock 45 family, you may want to look at that one. My M&P really never knocked me out, they are good guns though. You are really comparing apples to apples, not much difference other than partiality.
I don't own an M&P45. I do own an M&P9c often used as CCW, along with M&P Shield40. M&P's are definitely more ergo than Glocks. I did have the stock trigger assembly replaced w/Apex DCAEK. Also, changed out the sights w/TruGlo's.
... kind of toss-up
The new ones supposedly have the new trigger system
(I did my own)
The 21 is a 13 + 1 great range gun but definantly not ergonomic. I think with all that said andy disappointment with the glock 36 I should go with the smith and Wesson or consider the larger glock 21. Hope this helped.
Separate names with a comma.