M&P vs GLOCK

[Shenaniguns]

I never said that they didn't. What I am saying is that considering in order to get to those little parts and springs, you would have to fully disassemble the gun, which any sane individual would only do when time allowed, not in the middle of a fight for your life. In the grander scheme of things, I believe it's more important to the OP how well the gun shoots, not how well it completely disassembles or reassembles.

Look back at what you said, after i was talking about the fire control, It's not just about disassembly but it's the chance more parts can possibly fail. That's what I'm talking about.

One of the reason I went with Apex Tactical's parts is also for more durable then stock parts with better (more consistent) quality control.

[Shenaniguns]

I completely agree 100%. Bashing aside, they may not look pretty but all I use now are Glocks and Sigs. They are both simply and operate very well. I looked into the M&P's and love the .40/.357 Sig models in full size and compact. Honestly though, if the OP is considering the two, I recommend going for what fits your hand first, and the price both go hand in hand.

Everywhere I shop the M&P is more money, I've never seen it lower unless it was a used model. These Glock vs XD/M&P/HK/Sig threads seem to get old very quickly. Most of the time people haven't even held them, I recommend doing that and then shooting preferably.

In any case to the OP, I recommend the Glock. Its a fantastic platform, in 9mm, 10mm or .357 Sig I personally think there the most ideal pistols. Sigs I tend to do go for the .45 and .40 due to the heaver weight of them, but they are more expensive. I also recommend trying the trigger reset on the Glocks and M&P's to give you a better idea of what you want for plinking. Glock has tons of aftermarket parts, great track record and warranty. Its really a win. If the gun just feels terrible in your hand, then that's a different story.....

Try reading the thread, many of us have quite a bit experience with multiple platforms discussed.

[tacticalcity]

I disagree. I'm sure the OP doesn't really care if it takes 1-2 minutes as opposed to 4 to detail strip a gun. Since I assume he is cleaning it at that point, it doesn't really matter. If, on the other hand, both required a full strip down in order to clear a malfunction under stress, then I would understand. But talking about a few minutes when detail stripping one doesn't seem too relevant. When it comes to stripping it for a basic clean in the field, i.e. taking the slide off, barrel out, etc., then both I believe are fairly straightforward, no tools required.

tacticalcity:

I firmly believe one needs to shoot or at least hold the gun he or she is contemplating purchasing. I am not disagreeing with your post of how important it is to learn reset, techniques, so on and so forth, but surely having a gun that feels "right" to you would only help learning said techniques? Why use a gun that you don't like the feel of and train with that, as opposed to using a gun you do like the feel of? Again, the feel of a trigger, the reset, ease of draw, etc. are all very subjective. What works for you may not work for someone else. What you perceive as a terrible reset may be perfectly acceptable to someone else. Yes, with more experience you will able to tell differences between guns, but at that point you may as well have been training with the gun that felt natural at the start. I'm not bashing Glocks, I believe they are wonderful firearms. But for some, the feel is so unnatural (like me) that they would, as you said, be fighting the firearm. Why train with a gun that you're constantly fighting because it doesn't feel right? You could be that much better using a gun that feels right to you to begin with.

To the OP, ultimately you will buy what makes YOU happy. You will be more inclined to train with it and take pride of ownership in a gun that you truly like.

My argument is that you will be able to make a more informed choice the more skill and knowledge you have. Most peoples argument in favor of the M&P or XD is that they feel better in their hands or they shot better while plinking. They say it like it is the end all be all way of evaluating a gun, and do not take into account whether or not the shooter truly knows how to put the guns through the paces and evaluate which is better. I am not saying it is useless to feel it, or shoot it. I am just saying you could do both those things and discover later that with a simple entry level course under your belt you would have been much better with a different gun. I discovered this the hardway. My first gun was a Beretta 96. Felt like glove, shot like dream while plinking, and boy was she sexy. But when training in a realistic manner it was nightmare. The design was just way too complicated, and the freakishly hard first trigger pull combined with a very light follow up pull made mastering the trigger extremely difficult. Even once I mastered it, the Glock was still a much better option. So I switched. That was an $820 lesson I learned (after fees and taxes). I took a $220 loss when I sold it. I blame the "which feels best" and "which shoots best" camps for that. Because I listened to what turned out to be very bad advice from them.

I would take a slightly shorter reset over more comfortable feeling gun every day of the week. The gun is not meant to give me a back massage (I would use a more intimate example but it would get me banned). A fire fight is only going to last a few seconds. It could have razor sharp spikes sticking out of the grip for all I care, so long as it allows me to get out of the holster and multiple good hits on target considerably faster than the other options. The right balance of speed and accuracy are critical in duty weapon. The only reason comfort comes into play at all for me, is because 8 hour training days are involved. So the comfort levels just needs to be acceptable. It does not need to be luxurious. It would be great if it were luxurious, but I am not willing to sacrifice a better reset for it. Doing so is just not being practical. I would need a practical reason that is as critical as speed and accuracy to be willing to sacrafice either even a little bit.

Now, with the Walther PPS, you end up sacrificing a little bit of reset for significantly better concealablity. That is a little easier justify. I don't like giving up the better reset. In fact I hate it. But it is something I am strongly considering. A lightweight daily concealed carry gun that doesn't print in a decent caliber that is also a pleasure to shoot is a difficult thing to find indeed. The little bit of research and testing I have been able to do thus far has me very interested in the PPS. I have not made up my mind yet. The trigger is not nearly as nice as the Glocks which worries me, but that thin frame, light weight, and decent size grip are calling to me. Hopefully I will get a chance to truly put one through the paces sometime soon.

I had hoped the 1911 would solve my concealed carry needs but the weight is annoying. You definately gain concealablity with regards to printing. Metal weighs much more than plastic and if it is on your belt all day long that is a practical issue that needs to be considered. You also give up magazine capacity, and for me the thumb safety slows me down considerably. Too many years on a Glock have spoiled me in that regard. Over time that will improve as I get more and more used to it and it becomes muscle memory.

Sadly, there is no such thing as the perfect handgun. Every single one of them has flaws. You just have to decide what is more important to you.

The OP is lucky in a sense. His is looking at two very similar guns. Which ever he chooses will be a good choice compared to 99.99999% of the other guns out there. The hard part is figuring out of those two very similar guns work best for his needs. But it is not like there is a choice here that would be a HUGE mistake. Both are great options.

[RollingCode3]

It takes all of about 4 minutes to strip that M&P pistol down to a pile of parts and a frame. I've never stripped a Glock down, is it that much faster?

4 minutes? I don't buy it. I call it BS. I can take the Glock completely down and put them together with a punch under 4 minutes. I detail strip my M&P last night and it took me a good 45 minutes. All you need is a punch to detail strip a Glock. Not so much with the M&P (punch, hammer, tweezer, sights pusher, hex driver, etc..)

[Sturnovik]

Try reading the thread, many of us have quite a bit experience with multiple platforms discussed.

Well that was for the new people and the OP. I wasn't pointing fingers at you. I've shot Glocks, Beretta's, Sigs, Smiths, Colts, AMC's, Rugers etc. I only own Sigs and Glocks. Its my preference. In any case alot of the time people who post these are just looking for some features to sway there opinion since both platforms seem to be decent. I'd by a M&P .357 Sig if it already had the apex trigger in it, at the price of a brand new glock. Alas I havent found it.

[Shenaniguns]

Doc Roberts sums it up well:

As I noted previously, I like the fact that the M&P is perfectly usable right out of the box, just like a Glock; I also enjoy that I can easily modify M&P's into a modern, modular, reliable, inexpensive alternative to a 1911. I have fired a lot of rounds out of M&P's this past year without ANY problems; the M&P's keep getting better with each minor improvement the factory introduces. I primarily use the M&P w/ambi safety and have found the recent stock triggers acceptable for duty use. Likewise, the Apex parts work very well. In fact, 2011 will be the first time in 25 years that I will not be carrying a 1911--instead I am going to use the M&P45 w/ambi-safety and Apex Duty Kit. Surprisingly, during quals this past month, I shot the M&P45 better than the G19 I have been using for the past 15 years.

Recently I added a RAM to a M&P9FS w/o manual safety--for me this created a perfect duty/carry trigger, resulting in the easiest pistol I have ever shot. Without a doubt I prefer the M&P trigger with Apex Duty Kit and RAM to any Glock trigger I have used.

[Shenaniguns]

4 minutes? I don't buy it. I call it BS. I can take the Glock completely down and put them together with a punch under 4 minutes. I detail strip my M&P last night and it took me a good 45 minutes. All you need is a punch to detail strip a Glock. Not so much with the M&P (punch, hammer, tweezer, sights pusher, hex driver, etc..)

Exactly, I'm not posting overly biased info as I love both platforms but prefer the M&P now.

[lmudave]

I've got both.... M&P wins for my personal ergonomics, looks better to me visually (who cares though) and with the apex parts installed, its trigger becomes very nice... On the other hand, my glock 19 has a phenomenal trigger reset and I think I really would trust it's reliability over any other handgun in a real life situation. I'm more accurate with the M&P. Although similar in many ways, they are different guns, depending on what you want it for I don't think you could go wrong with either. If it's your only handgun, I think I'd go with the Glock for reliability alone.

[absc280]

I personally have a Glock plus you would have a famous gun...

[Knauga]

An M&P is what a Glock could be if they just made the grip a little rounded and ergonomic.

The ONLY reason I bought a Glock 36 is because they don't make an M&P compact 45 yet. When they do, I'll buy one

Other than the ergonomics, a Glock is a fine weapon that will go bang every time you pull the trigger.

[tbhracing]

I love my Glocks and not everyone can have one. So please buy the M&P and XD models.

[ZX-10R]

Fixed what you said...

Everyone has a Glock so please buy the M&P and XD.

I love my Glocks and not everyone can have one. So please buy the M&P and XD models.

[rojocorsa]

Hmmm, I've always been drawn towards the GLOCK for its virtues, and I think I will stay with my choice of a GLOCK 17. But I figured it was a good thing to give the M&P a fair, objective shakedown as well.

I should explain a little about myself. Truth is, you don't see me post much on the pistol section, but I love handguns. Unfortunately, I am not old enough to buy one* and I do not get to shoot pistols as often.

**I am aware of the intra-familial transfer BTW...not going to pursue that avenue for logistical reasons.

The 1911 was my first favorite handgun when I first got into shooting back when I was in highschool. Oh man, the I remember the first time I went shooting. I got to shoot a 92FS, a Colt Mk. IV S-80, and a customized Kimber (built for Blackwater specifically). I had shot so well for being my firs time, and it was love at first sight with a 1911.



As I learned more and more about handguns, I came to realized the strenghts and weaknesses of the 1911 design. Granted, I still enjoy it and would personally own one (I want to some day). But when I had my change of heart, I stopped basing my reasoning on emotions and rather on real world merits. I am also a fan of the SIG P22X series, which I like to think I shoot well. The SIGs are excellent pistols, of which I also hope to own one some day. Definitely my go to choice for a DA/SA gun, especially with its SRT (short reset trigger) tune up.

BUT, I as learned more about pistols, I came to realize why the GLOCK is what it is. It's like applying the logic of the AK series into a pistol format. Simple. reliable, resistant---it's to the point. It's also quite economical as well. Recall that the first pistols that I ever got to shoot are the ones pictured above. Both are all steel and have steel frames.

I remember the second time I went to go shoot at that indoor range (Markley's which I no longer go to because I prefer Valkyrie Arms of Milpitas) I wanted to rent a GLOCK 17. But that one was already taken, so I ended up with a GLOCK 22. Wow, being a novice, that thing felt like it "kicked" more than the .45. But I know why, it's lighter frame, and the fact that I was shooting 180gr JSWC rounds. Anyway, my very very very first impression of a GLOCK was "Damn, this thing is LIGHT!!!"

Not to sound like a GLOCK kool aid sipper, but I also like the fact that its barrel has polygonal rifling which is supposed to extend barrel life and foul up less. I am also drawn to that tennifer finish, because I have to baby all of my guns here due to the Monterey humidity. (Im actually picking up a dessicant for my safe next week, but when I see rust on a gun, I get all paranoid and ****). I also remember that one "project" torture test someone took out on their GLOCK 21. It had pretty impressive results.

I want to thank everyone who took their time to reply to my thread, I appreciate it as I'm sure that threads like these get hella old really fast. I learned a couple new things, and I am glad that some of the posters here mentioned on the significance of training--I admit I forgot about how important that is. It is certainly something I want to strive for; moreover, I think it's my moral duty as a responsible gun owner to be properly trained. One can get all caught on having all the latest tacti-crap and all those little gadgets that are supposed to give you an advantage and whatnot, but I think we should't ignore the basics.

[Bruce]

What brand is the grip sleeve on the pistol in the middle?

[Bakerloo]

It looks like a Huffy brand grip sleeve...bike tire tube.