S&W M&P versus Glock

Status
Not open for further replies.

Balrog

Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
3,236
I do not mean for this thread to develop into an argument. I have been a Glock owner for decades, love Glocks, shoot Glocks regularly, and generally find them to be excellent weapons. I have never fired a S&W M&P double stack auto, but a year or so ago I bought a M&P Shield in 9mm. I love the Shield. It shoots well, is accurate for its purpose, and I really like the fact that it has an external thumb safety. I know the Glock does not need a thumb safety to be safe. I know that safety lies within the responsibility of the shooter. Nevertheless, I do feel a thumb safety is a bit reassuring, especially when holstering the gun, and potentially as a means to prevent an unauthorized user from getting the gun and being able to immediately firing it. The Shield has never had any functional problems, has never had a jam, and shows no sign of any weakness after probably 500 rounds minimum through it.

So, I have been thinking about getting a mid size or full size M&P in 9mm which could serve for concealed carry in lieu of my Glock 19. The main reason for switching to the M&P would be because of the thumb safety.

My question is, how does the M&P mid or full size compare to a G19 or G17 in terms of long term reliability? Are they more likely to have issues?

This thread is not about the need for a thumb safety. Its a matter of personal preference. I am on board with the idea that Glocks don't need a thumb safety. I don't have to be convinced. But after shooting the Shield with the thumb safety, I personally really like it.
 
The thumb safeties on double-stack M&Ps are different creatures from the Shield's thumb safety.

While I am highly confident in the operation of a Shield's thumb safety, I am less confident in those on the larger M&Ps, even with the stiffer safeties on the new M2.0 models.
 
Its a matter of personal preference.

and thats really all it will boil down to. people will chime in with *their* preferences making it nothing but a popularity..
buy it and try it for a while so you have your personal opinion.
 
I have a Gen 3 19 and a full size M&P 2.0. Both are excellent, and I've never heard of long term reliability issues with either. The M&P is one of the guns that has replaced the 19 when I carry. The ergonomics and trigger are better fit for me and, like the 19, it's never malfunctioned. The M&P has a lifetime warranty, so if you do have issues I'm sure Smith and Wesson will take care of you. Had the compact version been available when I bought mine I would have bought it.
 
I'd expect both to be equally as durable and reliable. The Glock has a better reputation for accuracy over the M&P 9. Most of the differences can be attributed to personal preferences.

Hilton Yam has commented in the past, but his article is gone, but here is another that quotes from it.

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

Some other data points...

Todd Green on 62,000+ round M&P 9 test http://pistol-training.com/archives/category/range-reports/mp-monday

Kyle Lamb

 
Last edited:
I have been a 1911 guy for years. At my nephew's urging, I decided to drink the Kool-Aid and try a Glock a couple of years ago. I actually got two - a 17 and a 19. I tried - I honestly tried - to make myself like the damn things but it just didn't work. Based on my LGS owner's suggestion, I decided to try an M&P9. Totally different ball game. The quality, the feel and the accuracy left the Glocks in the dust. I now have a 9mm Shield, an M&P9C M2.0, and an M&P45 M2.0. I'm actually starting to like them at least as well as I like my 1911s.
 
I think the MP 2.0 will fare better in 50 years due to the internal metal frame. That’s just my opinion though

For the average range shooter, concealed carrier, Leo, or even soldier the only real difference is how it feels in the hand.

Both are plenty accurate, very reliable, very durable, same size, and have a good slide finish.




The internal frame and better trigger is a big boost to the MP 2.0

The parts availability and ability to take down the entire gun with a punch in 5 minutes is a boost to glock.



And external safeties do more harm than good on a dao striker fired pistol.
 
I have always been a manual safety fan, but I have gotten away from them. I keep having them flick off when I seated or getting out of my car, especially ambi safeties.
 
The M&P compact 2.0 will likely intrigue you, as it is a Glock 19 match in terms of size, capacity, and barrel length. The old M&P compact was more like halfway between a 19 and a 26.
 
My question is, how does the M&P mid or full size compare to a G19 or G17 in terms of long term reliability? Are they more likely to have issues?
in MY EXPERIENCE, my M&P has gone 10,500 rounds with 3 malfunctions, 2 of which were with child/female shooters and one was in the first few mags. Extremely reliable by my standards. And I don't baby it. Dusty desert environment, dropping mags in the dirt and gravel, up to 2K rounds in between wipedown/lube. My M&P core 9L built in 2014 is very accurate.

My Glocks have had more malfunctions and the frame rail broke off my G23 which was a fluke and glock replaced the frame. My Glock 41 has had very few malfunctions (one, with Wolf ammo IIRC) and has been extremely reliable. They are ergonomic nightmares for me and borderline painful to shoot after a couple hundred rounds, I still shoot them well. Chief complaint is the hump at the rear of the trigger guard. Grip shape/grooves are secondary complaint.

I've HEARD that Larry Vickers and Ken Hackathorn make fun of you if you bring "that M&P Crap" to their classes, as they are 1911 and glock (and HK) guys. Not saying whether they've actually seen more failures or whether they are perpetuating industry bias. But IMO they seem pretty credible otherwise.

But in my personal experience, I've seen a lot of FTFs with glocks at local matches. Not so with M&Ps. But that's out of dozens and dozens of glocks and about 4 M&Ps, so take that FWIW.

Of the two I prefer the Glock trigger design simply due to ease of dis/reassembly, but the 2.0 M&P might be better. Getting the pin back through the slide stop/trigger spring/etc. of the M&P is a royal PITA. I think the candycane was sort of silly and I think the 2.0 does away with that. I put an Apex FSS sear and trigger in my CORE but the OEM trigger was very shootable.

M&P mags fly out of the gun when you press the button, whereas my glocks don't drop free about half the time. And about a third of my G23 mags don't drop free regardless, even though they are the later type.

If I personally had to pick one system, I'd pick the M&P.
 
It's purely a matter of personal preference. Glocks are known for their reliability. My 6 year old M&P 40 has gone through over 55,000 rounds and is still working just fine. The 2.0 compacts are so close to the 19 in all aspects that again, it's a matter of personal preference.

If you are used to the Glock grip angle, it might be best to stick to that brand over all others because in a stressful SD situation, you want to point the gun naturally without taking careful aim lining up the sights (dollars to donuts you won't even see the sights in that situation). When I shoot skeet I don't even "see" the shotgun, my focus is on the bird. To be a good shot in a SD situation, you want to be able to point and shoot without taking aim.

I just put another 150 rounds through my M&P 40 with 5.6g BE-86 under the Lee 401-175-TC at just a tad over 1000 fps and loved it. A little scattered at 10 yards, but I just finished putting through 150 rounds through my XD45 just before this.
tSMGVMdL_o.jpg
 
Last edited:
o, I have been thinking about getting a mid size or full size M&P in 9mm which could serve for concealed carry in lieu of my Glock 19. The main reason for switching to the M&P would be because of the thumb safety.

I had the same thought right after the M&P came out and bought one with a safety. A good idea poorly executed, it just didn't work well. I don't have anything at all against the M&P, but I have Glocks, like 'em, and even though I've tried others just can't find a reason to buy anything else with no safety.

It is my opinion that as long as you don't go with some of the really light aftermarket triggers any of the striker fired guns with no safety is just fine as long as it is kept in a holster. But there are times when holster carry is not the best option. I'm specifically thinking about nightstand duty or glove box carry in a vehicle. If my nightstand or glove box gun is in a holster it is very difficult to retrieve from a holster you're not wearing. It takes 2 hands anyway and I find it easier to just leave the chamber empty. For that use, and probably others I'd really like a safety, and don't think it hurts a thing, if properly designed, even in a holster. The owner can always choose not to use it.

I kinda like the looks and feel of the new Sig 320 and it is offered with a safety. I haven't handled, or even seen, one with a safety yet. But may well end up with one. In the meantime, the RugerSR9 or Ruger American can be had with a safety. While I've not tried all of them, those 2 are the ones with a safety that I prefer.
 
They are both great guns. I prefer the Glock, but I CCW a shield because I didn't care for the G43. The only complaint I have on the M&P is the trigger slack. I attended an advanced school in the army, and several of the instructors were using M&P's in an experimental capacity. They really shot those guns hard, and did little if any maintenance. Some of those guns looked like they were stored in wet ashes, and they worked fine.
 
I have been a LE instructor for 30 years and I have a lot of experience with Glocks; some 21s but mostly 17s. They are simple, work well enough, are service pistol accurate, and are cheap to buy so the agency goes with them. I have also seen too many unintended discharges and add to that the cautions about lead bullets; if it was my own money I would go with the M&P.
 
Not normally a fan of threads that pit one handgun versus another, really ... but, though I am also not a fan of striker-fired pistols, gotta say for me, the ergonomics of the M&P are far superior to the Glock, and now that the 2.0 has addressed the M&P trigger and accuracy issues (not to mention having come up with a great grip), coupled with the fact that S&W puts far superior factory sights on its pistols compared to Glock -- I'd have to say the win goes to S&W ...
 
My Gen3 17 and 19 and my Gen4 21 have all served their intended purpose for me very well over many years and many thousands of rounds. The fact that an M&P equivalent is more ergonomic than one of my Glocks is totally irrelevant is me, I have enough practice time with these guns so that I can hit my targets with all of them reliably and accurately and for my purposes that is all that counts!
 
I love my G19, and can't foresee ever getting rid of it. (In all fairness, though, I almost never sell guns.) That said, had the M&P 2.0 Compact been available at the time I bought my G19, it's entirely possible that I would have bought the M&P instead.
 
and thats really all it will boil down to. people will chime in with *their* preferences making it nothing but a popularity..
buy it and try it for a while so you have your personal opinion.
This is the answer right here.

I prefer M&Ps. Both brands are good shooters, so pick the one you like.
 
I've HEARD that Larry Vickers and Ken Hackathorn make fun of you if you bring "that M&P Crap" to their classes, as they are 1911 and glock (and HK) guys. Not saying whether they've actually seen more failures or whether they are perpetuating industry bias. But IMO they seem pretty credible otherwise.

IIRC Mr. Hackathorn was shooting an M&P with some work done to it (top slide serreations and I’m not sure what else) at the class I went to. He also had a Wilson combat 1911 that he shot too.

The 2.0s may have changed things but I can recall when guys were getting M&Ps for the ergos but then having to drop the money on apex triggers and fitted barrels to get them performing how they wanted.

Personally the VP9 is closest out of the box to what I like in a striker gun. If they had a G19 sized one I’d like that. I haven’t used the new 2.0 M&P. That said give me a glock, HK, S&W, steyr, walther and any of them can get it done. I might want to tweak something here or there because over the years I’ve developed preferences. I also find each has their relative strength and weaknesses. I like my HK and steyr a lot but have been carrying glocks largely for logistics reasons.

Get what you like. Shoot it. Make sure it works for you and that your example is a good one and that in your hands you can meet the standards you set for your self and be happy.
 
Last edited:
The 2.0s may have changed things but I can recall when guys were getting M&Ps for the ergos but then having to drop the money on apex triggers and fitted barrels to get them performing how they wanted.

The M&P accuracy issues were solved years ago before the 2.0 even came out. Some shooters may still prefer the Apex trigger but the factory 2.0 trigger is just fine as-is.
 
I'm a CZ aficionado. However, my wife selected a S&W M&P9c (1st gen) as her personal sidearm, and I agree that it's nice for that class of firearms. She has the original factory trigger, and while that's probably my least favorite part of the gun, she hasn't complained about it, so we've just left it as-is.

I've always hated the Glock grip angle and was relieved that she didn't select one for herself (I didn't limit her from considering them, though, and two Glocks made it into her top three! :eek:). Despite my own experience that Glocks have poor ergonomics (at least for me), I can't argue with their time-tested reliability, so I don't have a problem with those who like them. But if I could only choose between a Glock and an M&P (especially 2.0), I'd pick the M&P all day long.

EDIT: I suppose I neglected to mention safeties... I'm not a fan of safeties in general (decockers on DA/SA are my preference), so I advised my wife to get the model without a manual safety. That would be my choice as well, though it's less about the specific gun and more just something I don't want to fumble with/accidentally engage when it is "go time"...
 
Last edited:
I'm ok with or without a safety, depending on gun use but I'm not at all fond of the M&P safeties. Just a little too small and takes a bit more effort for me to manipulate. I want a more tactile unit.

A compact .45 M&P is on my wishlist, but sans safety.
 
As stated above, it's all personal preference. all my carry guns are M&Ps (except the 642). I believe Glocks to be every bit as reliable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top