What is the point of the M & P anyway?

[FireInCairo]

It appears the M&P's can be had cheaper than your average Glock, too. So there's a second point of improvement.

 

[Ike Arumba]

The point of this thread is to ask is how the customer benefits from another polymer Glock clone. What better do we get? Anything?!

Well, OK, I'll tell you why I chose an M&P over a Glock.

1. It feels better, and is better balanced in my hand.
2. I auditioned a G17 by shooting 70 rounds downrange, and my trigger finger was sore by 50.
3. The Glock is prone to bite my hand with the slide upon firing.
4. The M&P points more naturally.
5. If I hold a Glock the way that is recommended these days, my support hand's wrist is flexed hard against its stop.
6. I saw accounts of the G22's frame warping so as to misfire when a light was hung on the rail.
7. The M&P tames recoil better.

There, does that satisfy you? As for the P99, it doesn't fit my hand as well, and there were no examples to rent at the local ranges. BTW, I liked the Px4 better than the Glock.

Note: I tried G17, G19, G21, G22, G34, and G35.

 

[Ash]

The Glock is so last century.

Frankly, the question should be "Why not?" Glock pistols don't fit me at all, which is why I use what I use. But others like them and they fit. I have known true Glock-o-philes who went with the M&P and never looked back. Ditto for the XD. Yet, Glock retains followers. It really is a happy land, and I can like Swiss, Italian, and Czech CZ's to boot.

 

[TennJed]

Sounds like a lousy deal. The P99 did a lot, it got to the ergonomics point first, then it added a cocked indicator, ambi mag release.

I was hoping to uncover some sort of major changes like that, but I guess there are really none then?

If this is a serious post and you were after "some major changes" then you honestly do not know much about firearms. They are rarely major changes made over a short period of time. Glock offered no major changes after HK. Designs build off of each other.

By your theory Glock and the P99 had no reason being built either

Please educate yourself.

 

[tarosean]

that gun made the improvement you speak of long before the M & P came out

In your opinion....


You do realize that S&W also produced a SW99 based off the P99??? Couldnt you say the M&P is the next step in improvements to a dated weapon? After all that hump in the trigger guard and rounded backstrap were certainly not ergonomically "better" to many shooters.. (yes I know they revised in subsequent gens)

Glock has sat on their laurels too long allowing everyone to catch or surpass them at their own game. Now they are trying to play catchup with backstraps, etc. Next gens will probably have a "tactical" model with forward serrations.

 

[SIGfiend]

If this is a serious post and you were after "some major changes" then you honestly do not know much about firearms. They are rarely major changes made over a short period of time. Glock offered no major changes after HK. Designs build off of each other.

By your theory Glock and the P99 had no reason being built either

Please educate yourself.

The double/single action trigger was one of the things I forgot. That is definitely a major change. How many striker polymers do that? Now you can get back to the topic of explaining what the S & W does better, if anything.

 

[JohnBT]

This thread is more fun than Olympic badminton.

 

[19-3Ben]

The P99 did a lot, it got to the ergonomics point first, then it added a cocked indicator, ambi mag release.

But everyone's hand is different. Simply saying that the P99 "got to the ergonomics point first." is an inane statement to say the least. Just because the P99 fits YOUR hand well, doesn't mean it fits EVERYONE'S hand well.
Me? I detest and loath the P99. The feel of it is "off" for me, and shooting a p99 in 9mm, it had more subjective recoil to me than an M&P40. I find the M&Ps to be very light shooting.

As for what they do differently than a Glock? Not a lot of anything major, but it's all the little stuff they do that really makes a difference and has made the gun such a home run.

 

[Skribs]

The double/single action trigger was one of the things I forgot. That is definitely a major change. How many striker polymers do that? Now you can shut up and get back to the topic of explaining what the S & W does better, if anything.

I'm a little confused about what you're talking about here. Are you talking about the half-tensioned striker? In that case, different PFSF pistols have different tension levels. XDm is 100% cocked, M&P is 98% cocked, Glock is about half cocked, not sure on the others. If you're talking about something like a DA/SA pistol, the only PFSF pistol that actually offers different trigger pulls is the Taurus, with its double strike (and that only happens on a misfire).

Now you can get back to the topic of explaining what the S & W does better, if anything.

Sounds like you're not trolling for the sake of it, but because you posted the thread and wanted everyone to agree with you that the M&P is unnecessary because you don't like it. He was pointing out that M&P vs. Glock isn't too much different than Glock vs. HK or Hi Power vs. 1911. Things build on each other over time.

 

[verdun59]

Wow, i just stepped out for some more popcorn, keep it going guys. By the way when you settle this , how about a rousing debate on 9mm vs .45acp.

 

[Inebriated]

Wow, i just stepped out for some more popcorn, keep it going guys. By the way when you settle this , how about a rousing debate on 9mm vs .45acp.

I'd rather talk about AK vs. AR!

 

[Frank Ettin]

More than enough bickering and bad manners.