The Innovative Glock in 1991

[JR24]

I listed why the M&P is a better gun. No real argument. Steel sights, option for safety, slightly lower price( at least before the madness. I got my M&P Compact 2.0 for $399 shipped 18 months ago), metal mags which are much easier to disassemble for cleaning, lifetime warranty. Grip angle for me is FAR superior than the Glock

None of these are objective reasons the M&P are better, just things you happen to like, and none of what you listed is better, to me or for me. You could make the argument about the metal sights, but I almost always replace stock sights so the added expense of metal sights is pointless, for me.

I will say that the M&P does feel better in my hand, but it does not translate to better shooting, for me.

Subjectively, I hate the M&P hinged trigger. Shoot them fine, but I just don't like how they feel. 1.0, 2.0, whichever. I suppose APEX is an option, but I never mess with thr trigger of a potential carry gun (which is all my autoloaders).

 

[Miami_JBT]

It's changed a lot. Internally and externally. If you're not a fan I won't bore you with the details but the 2.0 is a totally different gun, and I'm not only talking about grip texture. The trigger alone is a vast improvement.

And since the M&P first arrived, S&W has made Compact, Sub Compact, Full size, all the main calibers, AR style rifles, pocket .380, Shield, Shield EZ.

So has the GLOCK. The Gen 1 and Gen 2 had total parts combability. The Gen 3 went to the three pin frame and that made it not being totally compatible with the previous models. The Gen 4 revamped the design again and the M and later Gen 5 did it even further. The trigger in the Gen 5 is not the same as a trigger in a Gen 1.

 

[JR24]

It's changed a lot. Internally and externally. If you're not a fan I won't bore you with the details but the 2.0 is a totally different gun, and I'm not only talking about grip texture. The trigger alone is a vast improvement.

And since the M&P first arrived, S&W has made Compact, Sub Compact, Full size, all the main calibers, AR style rifles, pocket .380, Shield, Shield EZ.

Again, you contradict your own argument. You claim Glock hasn't changed since the 17, yet claim your M&P has. You cite internal changes and size/size caliber modifications, all which have also been done by Glock as well, several of which (full size, compact, subcompact, long slide, various calibers) Glock had more or less set the standard for before the M&P was released. Sure, Glock was late to the party with the single stack .380 and 9mm, but 5 generations and all the calibers is hardly static.

And let's not forget being so early to the > 8 round .45 ACP game that this whole thread is based on.

 

[Miami_JBT]

Again, you contradict your own argument. You claim Glock hasn't changed since the 17, yet claim your M&P has. You cite internal changes and size/size caliber modifications, all which have also been done by Glock as well, several of which (full size, compact, subcompact, long slide, various calibers) Glock had more or less set the standard for before the M&P was released. Sure, Glock was late to the party with the single stack .380 and 9mm, but 5 generations and all the calibers is hardly static.

And let's not forget being so early to the > 8 round .45 ACP game that this whole thread is based on.

Some of what Homerboy says as "improvements" isn't even that. It is marketing. M&P is a brand, not a design. The M&P-15 AR-15 and AR-10 are just ARs with the M&P brand. The M&P BG380 is just a rebranded S&W Bodyguard .380. The M&P EZ9 and EZ380 aren't even striker fired guns. The M&P Revolver line is just the J-Frame with a blackened finished and the M&P logo.

The M&P was soooo bad that the Texas DPS ditched them and went back to their older SIG P226s in .357 SIG until they found a replacement in the SIG P320. Atlanta PD was a long time S&W customer and they went from their 3rd Gens to the M&P and ditched them asap for GLOCK since the M&P kept failing. Same deal with Detroit PD.

The M&P 2,0 line came out because the M&P 1.0 line kept failing.

GLOCK simply updated and changed their generations because of the change in market tastes and requirements. They did minor improvements.... but you never saw GLOCK have to revamp their entire design because their guns failed. Nope... they just upgraded with the times.

 

[JTQ]

GLOCK simply updated and changed their generations because of the change in market tastes and requirements. They did minor improvements.... but you never saw GLOCK have to revamp their entire design because their guns failed. Nope... they just upgraded with the times.

The 3 pin was to help the .40 S&W Glocks improve their lifespan, the Gen 4 was to improve the .40 S&W guns lifespan and to get them to work with a weapon mounted light, some of the Gen 5 changes were to correct ejection and extraction issues with the Gen 4.

The Glock .40 S&W guns were always 9mm guns with a .40 S&W barrel. They were optimized for 9mm and had issues with the .40 S&W round.

The Gen 5 G22/G23 will have a heavier slide (essentially a .45 GAP slide), which is another attempt to make the Glock more .40 S&W friendly.

 

[Homerboy]

Again, you contradict your own argument. You claim Glock hasn't changed since the 17, yet claim your M&P has. You cite internal changes and size/size caliber modifications, all which have also been done by Glock as well, several of which (full size, compact, subcompact, long slide, various calibers) Glock had more or less set the standard for before the M&P was released. Sure, Glock was late to the party with the single stack .380 and 9mm, but 5 generations and all the calibers is hardly static.

And let's not forget being so early to the > 8 round .45 ACP game that this whole thread is based on.

No problem with Glock changing, it’s just not innovative, which was the whole point of this thread. In 35 years, the Glock is largely the same product, just minor tweaks to stay with the times. Nothing innovative at all. They make a good product, but they stopped being innovative 30 years ago.

Yeah, M&P is a product line. One of many from S&W. A company that makes semi auto pistols,rifles, revolvers, (steel, polymer. Aluminum, scandium). I would argue that there has been FAR more innovation coming from S&W over the last 20 years than Glock. Glock makes one thing and one thing only: pistols. They do a good job of it, but they’re not “Perfection”. Never have been and never will be. And while they might have opened the doors to the other companies regarding plastic striker fired guns, others have surpassed them, in my opinion. An M&P, Sig, HK, or Beretta are no less a gun than a Glock.

Enjoy your Glocks. Makes no difference to me. As I said, I’ve owned some and I might get another, just to pair up with my Ruger carbine they uses Glock mags. Some people like Coke, others Pepsi. It’s all the same stuff.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I think we've discuss the points raised in the OP adnauseum. Maybe it's time to give it a rest and move on to something else