Why such a difference in price btw M&P9/Glock 17?

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's just that S&W is more aggressive in law enforcement market at the moment. That is all it is.

I used both and I don't see any quality difference in either. There are reasons I hate dealing with both of them, but then again, there are things I hate about other companies too.
 
I'm in SE GA as well and I paid less than that for my blue label G-19 at the dealer I use. Happy to provide info by PM if needs be...
 
Remember, too, that every Austrian Glock costs more to get to the end user than guns made by S&W in this country.

Glocks have been assembled in the US for many years. They have been building from scratch for 1-2yrs in GA.

Glocks do hold their resale value more than M&P's thou.

All I can add is that I've had an m&p that jammed, but never one of my Glocks. You usually get what you pay for.

Ive had the complete opposite experience, and owned 6 total Glocks and only 1 M&P. Course the trigger is the reason the M&P no longer resides in my home.
 
Glocks have been assembled in the US for many years. They have been building from scratch for 1-2yrs in GA.

Yes, but there's still a huge number that are made in Austria and shipped in. On those, Glock's cost to sell it here is more. They can choose to subsidize the gun and realize a reduced profit.
 
Yes, but there's still a huge number that are made in Austria and shipped in. On those, Glock's cost to sell it here is more. They can choose to subsidize the gun and realize a reduced profit.

Your making excuses..

Read the book.... Glock: Rise of Americas gun. It really doesn't have anything to do with where it's made.
 
I have had both, from the factory, the Glock just feels more reliable after shooting a few hundred rounds, That's my take, people will argue about this stuff all day, it comes down to what you like better. The price really has little to do with it when you are talking about 50-100 dollars IMO. That would not tip the scales one bit for protecting me and mine.
Truth be told they are both great guns, and you won't do much better in the category they are in. You can spend more on a Sig or H&K, but really, isn't it just for the name?
I also like the Walther and CZ for that price range of around $500. For me the Glock 30 "S" is about the perfect do it all gun.
 
Don’t remember this happing with the 92FS?
You mean the vast majority of NDs and self-inflicted handgun injuries in the US armed forces over the last several years were committed with guns other than 92FS's? I guarantee there were fewer on-duty Glock accidents in the US military than there were Beretta ones over the same time period.

OTOH, very few LEOs have managed to shoot themselves with their Hi Points - does that mean Hi Points are somehow safer?

Or to put it another way - if 65% of American LEOs carry Glocks, and half of all LEO self-inflicted handgun injuries involve Glocks, then Glocks are safer than average, even though there were more injuries from Glocks than any other brand.

Back when I was a Deputy Sheriff, every single time someone managed to accidentally discharge the shotgun while it was still racked in the patrol car, the shotgun was a Remington 870P - because that's what was in every patrol car. Mossberg accidents were unheard of in those days.
 
Read the book.... Glock: Rise of Americas gun. It really doesn't have anything to do with where it's made.

It must! Otherwise, why set up manufacturing in the US? Honda, BMW, Mercedes et al. contradict that thinking. Now that labor rates here are below those in many other industrialized nations, that plus the lack of tariffs makes it very appealing.
 
I have and shoot both. I prefer the M&P. Its never had a part break (not true for the Glock - its had to have an extractor replaced), it feels better in the hand, and the trigger is better.

Yes, I did put an Apex kit into the M&P to help the trigger, but in their STOCK forms IMHO the Glock is just as bad as the M&P.

The only thing I can honestly say that I DISLIKE about the M&P is that the striker block is kept in place by the rear sight. Makes milling the slide for a different sight type pretty much a non-option. By the same token though Glock's "screw on" front sight is also annoying, as is their use of polygonal rifling (I like to shoot some lead reloads).
 
It must! Otherwise, why set up manufacturing in the US?

To skirt the BATF asinine points system that NO glock passes in the configuration that it was imported and then changed to be sold in the USA. All Glocks were imported with "Target" sights, "target" grips and the subcompacts with the grooved ""Target"" triggers and parts swapped in GA to sell to the US market. All this expense just to get the points high enough for import. (their .380's could never be imported.) Now that they are assembling and building guns here none of the rules apply.

Here is the Points List...

https://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-5330-5.pdf




FWIW there are a great number of Automobiles that can never be imported here for use on our streets as they too have many hurdles and regulations to overcome.
 
M&P 9mms have persistant accuracy isues that have plagued the 4.25" and 5" models. I wouldn't buy one sight unseen.
 
I remember when a m&p 9 was more expensive then a glock 17. I think glocks hold their value better then the m&p. I have both and like the glock slightly more due to not needing a trigger job and being able to find mags and other parts easily and less expensive. Also it is easier to find accessories/holsters for glocks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top