New 9mm CCW - M&P or Glock

[Wreck-n-Crew]

On the note of manual safeties being a hindrance to safety, there have been several cases where the lack of an external safety became fatal

How do you figure?

Kids and guns for one. Seconds and barriers count when one finds a way into their hands.

What about the case where the woman took kids out shopping to spend their Christmas Gift cards at Wal-Mart. Toddler reaches in the purse that is within reach ( and designed for gun carry from what reports i have read) and shoots the mother with a gun that had no manual safety. We all know the outcome. Would a safety have been better here? At some point "finger off the trigger" is only one precaution. Training only a second. In this case a third would have made a difference.

How many people (anything from well trained to no training) have accidentally discharged a weapon that had no manual safety? Including LE like the most recent incident where an officer shot himself in an elevator. He should have been aware, it was against his training, yet had it had a safety that he was trained with it would have not went off! I am not advocating a manual safety. Just pointing out that safeties can save life and limb if used properly and there is just as much a reason to have one as not.

A manual safety is an extra measure. I already mentioned the use In the civilian market and there are some who are better off with one. The majority of gun owners know very little about guns. Many just the basics of the gun/guns they own. How Many of them put their finger on the trigger every time they grab a gun? (If I only had a dollar for every time i have seen it myself). Who are we to tell people that they shouldn't have an extra measure of safety being that they can't keep their finger off the trigger? Who are we to tell them to take more training? Who are we to say they have the wrong gun? In the end it's a matter choice, not a fact either way.

Going off topic too far on a response here. The OP clearly does not want a safety anyway.

 

[Warp]

You cannot cite lack of a manual safety as the reason a child killed themselves or another with a firearm.

- The child should not have had access to the (loaded) gun in the first place

- I'll wager that any child capable of pulling the trigger on a gun is also capable of disengaging a manual safety. Not that they would know that is what the yare doing, necessarily, but kids realize very very young what levers/buttons/switches etc are, recognize them, and try them when they find them

- You cannot blame the lack of a manual safety for a child discharging a firearm

- How many people have negligently discharged a weapon that DID have a manual safety? Plenty.

- DO NOT RELY ON A MANUAL SAFETY TO PROTECT YOURSELF FROM NEGLIGENTLY PULLING THE TRIGGER ON A LOADED GUN THAT IS POINTED IN AN UNSAFE DIRECTION. This cannot be over-stressed

- Nobody is telling anybody not to have a manual safety on their firearm if that is what they want. But I hope to God they want it for the right reason, and not because they think it will keep a young child from killing themselves when they find it loaded because the owner/parent was grossly irresponsible.

 

[Motownfire]

You can't go wrong with any of the Glocks. My wife loves her G26 for concealed carry. My G27 is my everyday smoke wagon.

 

[GLOOB]

I currently have a Glock 20SF and an M&P 22. With regards to grip ergonomics and trigger feel how similar is the Glock 20SF to say a Glock 19/17? And likewise how similar is an M&P 22 to a M&P 9 or 9c? I know the relative size differences, recoil etc. so let's not go there.

The Glock 20SF has a bit of a different shape than the G17/19. The G20SF frame has had a hump reduction, and thus it has the least glock-like grip angle. The hump on a G19/23 is the most aggressive hump, IMO, on any of the glock frames. It pushes the muzzle up quite a bit higher than on a 20SF. This forces you to adjust your wrists, giving the G19 a very, very low bore axis.

The G17 would probably be less of an adjustment, if you are particular to your G20SF grip. It's going to be in the middle between the G20SF and the G19.

On either G17/19, trigger break is going to be a little different than with the G20SF. You will have to curve your finger a bit more off of the side of the frame, and breaking the trigger without moving the gun will take a little bit of adjustment. Otherwise the feel is very similar. The G20/21 might have a very slightly heavier takeup and break (on average) compared to the other guns, due to a slightly more powerful striker setup. But this isn't practically noticeable.

 

[JohnBiltz]

In my opinion, its a question that needs to be answered by shooting them both. Your hands are what decides the question. Since no one else has your hands there is no point in asking opinions. Its like asking what size pants you should buy on the internet. Both are good quality guns that would serve your purpose well. Personally, I'm a Glock guy.

 

[stchman]

I found the manual safeties on the Ruger and M&P were too easy to switch. So I avoid them form that reason. Don't want to risk turning the safety on or off before a bad moment. The ones I sampled didn't have that solid click that 1911's have.

I disagree, I own two SR9s and the safeties(which I don't use) one actually has to go out of their way to engage or disengage.

So safeties suck on all pistols EXCEPT 1911s?

 

[torchroadster]

The Glock 20SF has a bit of a different shape than the G17/19. The G20SF frame has had a hump reduction, and thus it has the least glock-like grip angle. The hump on a G19/23 is the most aggressive hump, IMO, on any of the glock frames. It pushes the muzzle up quite a bit higher than on a 20SF. This forces you to adjust your wrists, giving the G19 a very, very low bore axis.

The G17 would probably be less of an adjustment, if you are particular to your G20SF grip. It's going to be in the middle between the G20SF and the G19.

On either G17/19, trigger break is going to be a little different than with the G20SF. You will have to curve your finger a bit more off of the side of the frame, and breaking the trigger without moving the gun will take a little bit of adjustment. Otherwise the feel is very similar. The G20/21 might have a very slightly heavier takeup and break (on average) compared to the other guns, due to a slightly more powerful striker setup. But this isn't practically noticeable.

Thank you. Exactly the type of response I was asking for.

 

[Zerodefect]

So safeties suck on all pistols EXCEPT 1911s?

I didn't say that. Read again.

 

[Hangingrock]

I have both Glock and S&W MP series pistols. Both are effective tools. Its up to the individual user which they prefer. I'm not going to praise one in order to diminish the other. Most commercial ranges have handguns to rent which would give you as individual an opportunity to use both.

 

[GLOOB]

Thank you. Exactly the type of response I was asking for.

No problem. My G21/20SFs are my own personal standard for what fits me like a glove. If I only get one shot at it, I will pick up my G21SF. And like you, I owned the G21SF, first. So I have paid attention to the differences between it and the other Glocks.

To elaborate on what I said earlier: it took several sessions until I could put the bullets exactly where I wanted with my G19; for awhile, I thought it was just not as accurate, or maybe the shorter sight radius was causing my issue. Shots were centered with the sights, but groups were a tad bigger than I expect from myself; weirdly, rapid fire didn't hardly increase this group size. I considered my rapidfire groups to be excellent, and my slowfire groups to be mediocre. But then I started having a moment of brilliance every now and then. Now, I can shoot it pretty darn good, but I still occasionally have an off day where I slip into "combat accuracy," where I am just slightly pulling every shot. I had no problem shooting a G17 from the start, and rarely have off days/moments with a G17 frame. I hardly ever have even an off shot with my G21/20SF frames; never had an off day. From the very first shot, I could put the holes exactly where I wanted. That said, I really like the G19 size and form factor, and I think I'll have it nailed down in the near future.

So if the G20SF works really well for you, you might find you have a similar experience.

*I have pondered, recently, that maybe the G21 is ever so slightly more accurate the way I shoot it. I ride the slide pretty hard with a high thumb hold. Maybe that takes a little slop out of the slide/rail fit? The 9mm/40 guns have a smaller slide, and the frame sticks out a little, so maybe I don't get the same amount of pressure on the side of the slide. I have also noticed that the infamous huge leade/throat of Glock chambers doesn't apply so much to my G21, as it does in my 9mm/40/10mm Glock chambers. But mostly, I'm convinced I am able to hold the gun steadier and pull the trigger better on the 20/21SF frame. The sights start out more steady, and as I squeeze the trigger and concentrate harder, they just get steadier. In my 19, I can see a little more high speed movement in the sights. And with a 1911, the sights sometimes start shaking as I squeeze the trigger; once that starts, the harder I try to stay still, the more I shake, lol.