What is the point of the M & P anyway?

[SIGfiend]

With the Glock and P99 being proven, reliable, accurate designs for much longer time and with arguably better build quality, what does the M & P really do any better or differently? Can S & W even build something to the reliability level of either of those guns, considering the dud they made with other polymers like the Sigma?

Update:

For the record, I hate Glocks. Used to own a G19 and sold it due to its poor ergonomics and uncomfortable serrated trigger. I do like the P99 much better though. The point of this thread is to ask is how the customer benefits from another polymer Glock clone. What better do we get? Anything?! Yes, I know it's a cash grab by S&W, but what do we get?

 

[Shuler13]

I got my m&p 9 for less than a Glock 17/19 and the ergonomics are better (IMO).

 

[o Unforgiven o]

Despite what you may think, Glock is NOT perfection, and there are many other polymer guns that that are every bit as good and in some respects better.

 

[SIGfiend]

So trading away reliability is worth saving a few bucks, like what say a $100?

 

[smalls]

What?

Different guns fit different people. That's why there are thousands of models in all different calibers and sizes.

The Sigma was hardly a dud. They sold tons of them. Crappy trigger? Yep. Just as reliable as a Glock, or M&P? Yep.

 

[o Unforgiven o]

Please share with us why you feel that Glock is more reliable than an M&P, or any number of other high quality polymer handguns.

 

[browningguy]

M&P's don't seem to blow up as often as Glocks in .40, so the reliability of Glock is a real question mark to those with an open mind. To my eye the M&P is marginally more aesthetic although neither are really good looking, I like the grip of an M&P better than the Glock.

I don't own either by the way although I have shot them both. My primary carry pistols are Browning Hi Powers and Springfield XD's, for target shooting I use a EAA Witness Match.

 

[2wheels]

So trading away reliability is worth saving a few bucks, like what say a $100?

Who says the M&P is unreliable? Glock fanboys?

Aside from the cruddy trigger, the Sigma is actually known for being very reliable. It just didn't sell well. With the M&P, they had learned their lessons from the Sigma and came out with a handgun that could compete on the same level as the Glock, and even forced Glock to stand up and pay attention (would the gen4 have adjustable grips if there was no M&P?). I know lots of people who have dumped their Glocks for M&Ps or even XD/XDMs for that matter. Glocks aren't all that, no matter what their supporters like to think.

Having options is never bad, I'd take an M&P over a Block any day of the week.

BTW, the point of the M&P is to make S&W money. They're a business, and poly pistols are big business!

 

[biokillr]

The glock has been around longer so it has a track record. The m&p is "new" and yet to be proved in the eyes of some people.(understandable) I have been a huge glock fan for several years. I recently traded my glock 19 for an m&p 9. I have not regretted it. The m&p has survived through my torture tests which sadly I put almost all of my new guns through. It has performed better than I expected. I am a little more accurate with the m&p most likely due to the smaller grip.(small hands) but one thing I do prefer the glock for is the safe action trigger. It appears to be harder to snag and engage on clothing.

 

[kcshooter]

So trading away reliability is worth saving a few bucks, like what say a $100?

Did you just say that the M&P is unreliable?
Care to back that up?



If you don't like it, and you think Glocks are better, fine, but to call it unreliable just blows any credibility you may have had.

 

[shootniron]

I'll take the M&P over a Glock...or a SIG...have no use for either.

 

[tarosean]

There hasnt really been any real inventions in about 50 yrs... So what is the point of any firearms manufactured after that time?

 

[9mmepiphany]

So trading away reliability is worth saving a few bucks, like what say a $100?

The most obvious advantage that the M&P has over the small frame Glock line is that it was designed to function optimally with the .40...whereas the Glock was adapted from the 9mm.

The M&P introduced to the LE market the interchangeable backstraps to fit different hand sizes. This was sus a huge improvement that Glock needed to respond with their Gen4 models

Your title is about the M&P line, why do you keep bringing up the Sigma to find shortcomings?

 

[highorder]

With the Glock and P99 being proven, reliable, accurate designs for much longer time and with arguably better build quality

This thread is trollish.

Perhaps a better question can be asked?

 

[Skribs]

Can't tell if troll, or just fanboy...

There are several polymer-framed striker-fired pistols that are not on your list, including XD/XDm, Caracal, FNS, Ruger SR, Taurus 24/7, and maybe one or two that I forgot. Each one brings their own little flavor to the table, with different features and a different price range. Taurus might have a bad rep, but I'm sure the non-lemons are fine, and each of the others offers a quality product that many people like. I wouldn't say the M&P is any less of a quality pistol than Glock or Walther. In fact, Glock and Walther aren't even options I'm considering - I'm deciding between XDm, M&P, and FNS, for various reasons with each choice.

Also note that M&P is made by a different manufacturer than the other two, because S&W wants to make money. For the same reason you have TVs made by Sony, Panasonic, and Visio, even though they're all 60" HDMI 1080P LED 3D TVs.

 

[Old Fuff]

Gee... I always thought that the M&P was a .38 Special / 6-shot /double-action revolver that don't have a bit of plastic in it.

I suppose that this is what happens when you get old.

 

[Skribs]

Gee... I always thought that the M&P was a .38 Special / 6-shot /double-action revolver that don't have a bit of plastic in it.

I suppose that this is what happens when you get old.

What's the M&P going to be in 20 years that makes me say "I always that the M&P was a 9/40/45 autoloader..."?

 

[Ash]

And that, my friends, is why so many folks don't like Glock. It really isn't the pistols, its the obnoxious posts with absurd finality.

Glock, of course, copied SIG, FN, and Hk to create his pistols. His barrel is a blatant rip-off of SIG's design, and Hk came up with the DAO poly pistol years before.

That detracts in no way a Glock's reliability, but the fanboi does make it tough to discus things. For such a boi, Glock could bottle warm urine and he would declare it smoother than Budweiser with fewer calories.

 

[Skribs]

I don't like Glock because they don't have enough ambi support. I couldn't care less what the fanbois say, if I like the gun, I'll get it.

 

[tarosean]

The M&P line of pistols is just another attempt by Smith & Wesson to follow the leader which is Glock!

LOL I wonder just how S&W managed to produce weapons for 77 years prior to Mr. Gastons birth???

 

[kcshooter]

The M&P line of pistols is just another attempt by Smith & Wesson to follow the leader which is Glock!

Face.
Palm.

 

[matrem]

One real good point that comes to my mind:
Do you think Glocks would be the same price today if there were no M&Ps, XDs, or any other real competition?

 

[Auto426]

The point? Different strokes for different folks. Just because Glock's work more often than not doesn't make them the perfect pistol for everyone.

 

[19-3Ben]

Cmon guys.

Seriously now. The OP is obviously either a) a troll, of b) so incredibly misinformed that it would pay better to educate rather than chastise him.

 

[Esoxchaser]

I may have owned one or two in my day, but in all honesty, plastic guns are ugly. There is no exception to that rule.