M&P vs. Glock

N

nanney1

New member
I eventually plan to add a full size compact 9mm. I think the Glock 19 would be one to try, just because, or just to see what all the interest is in this particular model. But all of the Glocks seemed to be priced in the $500-550 area. Whereas, the 2.0 M&P Compact is already in the $450 range and at $399 on at least one website.

I'm sure the Glock 26 and 43 models are great to own and shoot. But the M&P Shield can be found everywhere in the $350 range and often below $300. No wonder it sells.
 
"full size compact" -- an oxymoron

I'm not sure if you asking for opinions or asserting an opinion. Glocks and SW M&Ps are both reliable guns. I've gone with S&Ws simply because the original M&P grip frame worked for me better than the Glocks did at the time. I've seen no reason to switch. I also see no reason to diss a Glock. Buy which ever one strikes your fancy or your wallet the best.
 
I realized that after I posted, I had not asked a question. Basically just rambled about the costs of the M&P's being less than the Glocks. As for the "full size compact" reference, I consider the 2.0 compact and Glock 19 to be full size, despite their compact moniker.

I wasn't stating an opinion either way as I don't own a Glock and have no frame of reference. Just stating that the Glock 19 is one I would really like to own one day. But, that it is hard to justify purchasing one if the M&P's can be had for $150 less.
 
My personal preference between the two is the Glock 19. Your best bet is to try out shooting both and then go with the one that you like the best.
 
Regarding Glock prices, I've been told by a Glock dealer that the company will not allow its dealers to advertise a G19 for less than $499. Note that they can sell the pistol for whatever price they feel is appropriate; they just can't advertise a lower price.

Ergo, if the sporting goods store flyer says "Too Low to Print, Call for Price," or the website prompts you to "Email for Price," it's wise to do as they suggest. :)

(FWIW I'm talking about standard consumer retail prices and not the Blue Label program.)

[EDIT: Glock apparently no longer has this policy.]

Regarding the original question... Glock mags are cheaper and more widely available. The M&P is available with a manual safety and/or a mag disconnect, of those features float your boat. Other than that...
sigarms228 said:
Your best bet is to try out shooting both and then go with the one that you like the best.
Click to expand...
...this sums up my advice as well.
 
Last edited:
In owning a lot of M&Ps and a lot of Glocks I've had better luck with the QC from the factory for Glock. I've had 6 M&Ps with issues over a number of years:
M&P 45c - failure to feed when dirty (once 40 or so rounds had been fired)
M&P 9FS - trigger safety rubbing on frame (didn't stop function but added about a half pound to the trigger press)
M&P 9c - ejected straight to the 6 o'clock position (even worse than brass to the face with Glocks, thank God for eye protection)
M&P Shield - trigger safety not engaging between shots (recall fixed this)
M&P 9c - penning on slide and barrel
- tilting of sear block in the frame that at times wouldn't release the striker
M&P Pro Series 5" - odd accuracy at say 25 yds as opposed to closer in
I also had a $1200 1911SC from S&W that was a serious problem child from day one in terms of extraction, ejection, and feeding, however that's not an M&P. I like the pistols and kept giving them a try. After a while I concluded that S&W was using their excellent warranty program in place of better QC at the factory. In asking smaller and larger dealers locally they also have seen more issues with M&Ps than Glocks, but I have no doubt someone on here has the opposite experience.

I've also had Glocks with issues, all of them ejection related where the pistol would still function but my forehead wasn't too happy. Those seem to have been notably bad a number of years ago in both the Gen 4s and Gen 3s right around the release of the Gen 4. The issue does seem to have gotten better with Glocks I've owned in the past year or two and my Gen 5 hasn't beaned by head more than a handful of times in a 1000 rds. All that said, in my experience Glocks don't have a particularly positive ejection pattern compared to many other pistols.

As to your point about cost, you're absolutely right. Even with Gen 4 and Gen 5 Glocks coming with 3 mags when you look at the prices and the fact that S&W at least includes steel sights as a default the M&P is cheaper. Two things I personally like about Glocks better are that the trigger stays to the rear when the striker is released and that you don't have to remove the rear sight to get access to the striker block like you do on the M&P. But I also wish the undercut on the Glock was better. At first I didn't like the texture on the M&P 2.0, but after handling it more it's growing on me.

Honestly I think you'd be well served with either option, more likely than not. Couple that with price and I think it makes sense to go with the M&P. I do think Glocks are worth trying though. At some point all this brand comparison becomes a lot about personal preferences. And now with every company making a striker fired pistol hopefully something should meet those preferences.
 
Also, look at Walther and Beretta for additional "carry" size. PPQ's have great reviews and Beretta Storm compacts do as well for the DA/SA set.
 
I own G19's and a couple Shields----I haven't had much luck with the regular M&P line though.

The new M&P 2.0 compact looks pretty tempting and might have to try one----maybe.
 
nanney1 said:
I eventually plan to add a full size compact 9mm. I think the Glock 19 would be one to try, just because, or just to see what all the interest is in this particular model. But all of the Glocks seemed to be priced in the $500-550 area. Whereas, the 2.0 M&P Compact is already in the $450 range and at $399 on at least one website.

I'm sure the Glock 26 and 43 models are great to own and shoot. But the M&P Shield can be found everywhere in the $350 range and often below $300. No wonder it sells.
Click to expand...

Your references to size confuse me as to what you want. "Full size" and "compact" are two different things. (I like the term "mid-size" rather than "compact," but "compact" is more common, so I'll go with that.) Meanwhile, the Glock 26 and 43 are both subcompacts (double- and single-stack, respectively), so you've really referenced three sizes, almost the full range of handguns.

I have a Glock 19 Gen 4 for a couple reasons. First, because it's the standard-bearer in its class; second, because at the time I bought the Glock, the S&W M&P9 compact was the wrong size, smaller than a typical compact, but larger than a subcompact. I did not like the original M&P compact at all.

But the new M2.0 compact is the perfect mid-size (essentially identical to the Glock 19), it has an improved trigger, and lotsa people think it's ergonomically superior to the Glock. (Plus, as you've noted, the M&P costs less than the Glock.) The new S&W compact is a huge improvement in my mind.

So now I'd like to add an M&P9 compact to my collection. However ... if I were starting from nothing and wanted only one mid-size ... it'd be the S&W M2.0.
 
Last edited:
I find the G19 size perfect for an all around handgun. I don't shoot the bigger guns any better and can always use the larger capacity mags in the 19. The smaller G26 or single stack G43 are a little easier to carry, but I still shoot the G19 enough better to prefer it unless it is just too big.

I really want to like the Smith M&P and the new 2.0 version seems to be a winner. But I keep coming back to Glock. The grip angle/shape argument is nonsense. Anyone can learn to shoot any of them. I have Glocks, 1911's, Ruger's, revolvers, and a Sig. I've owned just about all of them at one time or another and can adapt to any of them.

Honestly, if I were working for someone that were furnishing the gun I could be happy with just about any of the popular guns. Give me about 200 rounds to familiarize myself with any of them and I'd carry it with confidence. But if I'm paying for it, I'll buy a Glock.
 
Make sure you try out a Glock before you buy..it's a love it or hate it kind of gun....lol I have the G27, G19 and G30...I like my Sigs better.. :cool:
 
And if you want to spend about $3K, check out the Wilson EDC X9, their new version of a 1911, without a grip safety, with the Glock 19 capacity...........

Here's hoping for a winning lotto ticket..........
https://www.wilsoncombat.com/edc-x9/

x9left.jpg



YIKES! SORRY to the MODS, please resize as necessary
 
Had a 19 and have a “full size” M&P and have shot thevconpact.
No contest, and it’s not the Glock.
 
I’ve posted on this subject before on TFL I have three Glocks and I like them but I’m not in a real big hurry to add any more right now. Between a Gen5 19 and an S&W M&P9 2.0 Compact, I’d take the M&P hands down and pocket the $90 difference between the 2!
 
carguychris Regarding Glock prices, I've been told by a Glock dealer that the company will not allow its dealers to advertise a G19 for less than $499.
Click to expand...
Glock no longer has a MAP on Gen 3's.....dealers can sell them for a dollar if they want.
 
I've owned a Glock 17, M&P Compact 1.0, Glock 26 gen 4, and M&P 2.0. If I had to choose one brand over the other, it would be tough; they're both excellent. But the Smith M&P wins in 3 ways as far as I'm concerned:
1. Better grip angle. The Glock doesn't "bother" me, but the M&P feels more natural
2. Steel sights included. It doesn't "break the bank" to upgrade from the plastic Glock sights, but I think it's unacceptable that they leave the factory this way.
3. Cheaper!

With all that being said, I still love Glocks. I just love M&Ps a little more!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top