jf89
Member
On several other forums there seems to be a lot of dislike for the no in. 45 cap but in. 40 and 9mm its most people's go to gun....why? Does it have problems in that caliber or something?
What exactly does leading inflammatory titles mean?
I have not seen the negative comments. I suggest you follow those discussions you talk of and ask for clarification there.On several other forums there seems to be a lot of dislike for the no in. 45 cap but in. 40 and 9mm its most people's go to gun....why? Does it have problems in that caliber or something?
For purposes of discussion below, I will be comparing the Glock 17 vs. the M&P 9mm full sized model. If we were comparing the Glock 21 to the M&P 45, then let’s just stop here and declare the M&P .45 the winner and move on. Superior ergonomics by far, good accuracy, and availability of thumb safety to help transition 1911 shooters make the M&P 45 the clear winner in my opinion. Add a viable and reliable factory 14 round magazine, and you pretty much have the whole package wrapped up with a bow. Same with .40 – the M&P was designed for the .40, with steel chassis for increased rigidity and none of the durability or function issues of the Glock 22. Oddly, the 9mm was shoehorned into the M&P platform rather than the reverse which is true for Glock, and it is therefore the weakest model of the M&P. So why do I shoot one all the time?
Those situations seemed to have been pretty much resolved with the new releases. Barrel issues were addressed, and the new M&Ps have a distinct reset, much crisper trigger.The only complaints that I have heard is accuracy in the M&P 9 @ 25 yds. and some don't like the triggers .