Hey yall. Here recently I've been looking into purchasing another 9mm handgun. I am an active duty LEO for a county agency in southern Georgia. My department issues the Glock 21C, which I have grown to love. I have found Glocks to be one of the easiest handguns to shoot well with the proper training. That said, I want either a M&P9 or a Glock 17 for my personal handgun for lower ammo costs. I have found the M&P9 with factory night sights and 3 mags for $399. The same package Glock 17 comes out to around $477. Both of these prices are with the LEO discount. I am asking myself why the Glock is more. Is it the name? Don't get me wrong, I love the Glock, but that extra $70 or so bucks could go to ammo if I purchased the M&P9. I have handled both, and have shot the Glock 17 before. The M&P did seem a tad bit more ergonomic, but I am used to the Glock trigger after carrying one for close to four years on the road. Any suggestions?
Price difference btw M&P9 and Glock 17
- Thread starter Georgian
- Start date
noonesshowmonkey
New member
The 9mm Glock is probably the most prolific handgun in the world right now. They are setting the standards for that class of firearm (polymer, striker fired, high capacity, low-snag profile), and as a result get to set the price. Everyone else has to compete with them, by either offering a vastly superior product, a vastly superior price, or both.
From what I've heard, S&W have engineered out the various issues that came up earlier in their life/deployment cycle.
All the same, if you run a Glock 21 at work, why not run a Glock off duty? Same manual of arms, same holsters, same magazines, same everything.
From what I've heard, S&W have engineered out the various issues that came up earlier in their life/deployment cycle.
All the same, if you run a Glock 21 at work, why not run a Glock off duty? Same manual of arms, same holsters, same magazines, same everything.
noonesshowmonkey,
Glock 21 = .45acp
Glock 17= 9mm
Completely different holsters and magazines, although manual of arms is the same. And if the M&P doesn't have the external safety, almost identical manual of arms as well. Takedown being the biggest difference.
So in a sense, he'd have to buy all new gear regardless of which gun, and the M&P is cheaper, so there's extra money for that, as well as ammo. Plus, I'm in the camp that thinks the M&P is the better gun, and that has a lot to with how much more ergonomic it is.
My vote? The M&P.
Glock 21 = .45acp
Glock 17= 9mm
Completely different holsters and magazines, although manual of arms is the same. And if the M&P doesn't have the external safety, almost identical manual of arms as well. Takedown being the biggest difference.
So in a sense, he'd have to buy all new gear regardless of which gun, and the M&P is cheaper, so there's extra money for that, as well as ammo. Plus, I'm in the camp that thinks the M&P is the better gun, and that has a lot to with how much more ergonomic it is.
My vote? The M&P.
Dirty_Harry
New member
If your asking for a vote...Glock.
It will be beneficial to have the common platform.
It will be beneficial to have the common platform.
noonesshowmonkey
New member
Brain farted and thought he was talking about the .40 cal 22 vs the 9mm 17, which have almost identical form factors.
huskybiker
New member
I'm definitely an M&P guy, but if I was used to carrying a Glock, that's what I'd go with. Both are equally fine weapons.
marine6680
New member
In my area without any special pricing the two are very close in price... I am guessing S&W is more aggressive with the discounts.
I like my M&P, but I don't shoot it as well as other striker pistols. I think I need to spring for the Apex kit to help with trigger pull. I could probably get better without the kit if I practice with it exclusively, but I have other pistols I enjoy more.
There is definitely something to be said for keeping things as similar as possible when going between firearms. So that is a good point to the glock.
If you want something different, then get the M&P... Cheaper is always good so long as you don't sacrifice quality.
I like my M&P, but I don't shoot it as well as other striker pistols. I think I need to spring for the Apex kit to help with trigger pull. I could probably get better without the kit if I practice with it exclusively, but I have other pistols I enjoy more.
There is definitely something to be said for keeping things as similar as possible when going between firearms. So that is a good point to the glock.
If you want something different, then get the M&P... Cheaper is always good so long as you don't sacrifice quality.
Uncle Malice
New member
The M&P used to be more expensive than the Glocks. Before the gen4s came out, Glocks were standard around $499 retail. M&P's were more like $549 to $599.
The M&P's have come down in price in the last couple of years. My best guess is due to the amount of sales they have experienced. Economies of scale, R&D paid off, etc.
The increase in Glock price is partly because of the additional 3rd mag with the Gen4, extra stuff(backstraps), and partly because of the newer design. You're helping to pay off the development costs.... and partly just inflation, I'm sure.
I really like both Glocks and M&Ps. I regretfully let my M&P 9 Pro Series go a few months back, but I plan on getting another standard M&P 9 and adding the APEX forward set trigger and the other bits to it in the future.
I did just recently pick up a 'used' (3rd party) but unfired, new-in-box M&P 45 mid-size with 3 magazines and an Apex DCAEK still in the plastic for an easy $400 cash. I never get deals like this, so I was pretty surprised. The M&P 45 mid-size is the model that I've always wanted. I have had the full-size and compact in the past. I don't like the looks of the extended slide on the full-size and I didn't like the grip on the compact. The mid-size has the full size grip and compact slide(4" barrel). Got the Apex kit installed and it's awesome as usual. All it needs now is to be loaded up with Trijicon HD's.
Do I like it as much as my Gen4 Glock 21? No, I don't. But I really like the G21. I like it better than the HK45 and even USP 45, too. Size vs capacity, it's just a spectacular weapon. With the simple +2 base-plate, it becomes a 15rd magazine and it's not nearly as huge as the FNX-45. I have no trouble concealing the G21 with the standard 13rd magazine.
Most days, I carry the G17. Sometimes the P229 or P226. If I want to go a little smaller, the P30 or USP compact get to go for a ride.
So... back to your original question. Is the price difference worth it? Yes and no. I find any price difference between the M&P and Glock to be wholly inconsequential. It's barely the cost of a single trip to the range. It's less than I'll spend on new sights for either gun. It's a couple of mags. Basically... whichever gun you like best - buy it. Write off the cost of entry because you'll get years of enjoyment from both of them... and if you're an addict like the rest of us, you'll probably end up owning both anyways.
Clear as mud? Glad I could help.
Good luck on whatever you choose.
The M&P's have come down in price in the last couple of years. My best guess is due to the amount of sales they have experienced. Economies of scale, R&D paid off, etc.
The increase in Glock price is partly because of the additional 3rd mag with the Gen4, extra stuff(backstraps), and partly because of the newer design. You're helping to pay off the development costs.... and partly just inflation, I'm sure.
I really like both Glocks and M&Ps. I regretfully let my M&P 9 Pro Series go a few months back, but I plan on getting another standard M&P 9 and adding the APEX forward set trigger and the other bits to it in the future.
I did just recently pick up a 'used' (3rd party) but unfired, new-in-box M&P 45 mid-size with 3 magazines and an Apex DCAEK still in the plastic for an easy $400 cash. I never get deals like this, so I was pretty surprised. The M&P 45 mid-size is the model that I've always wanted. I have had the full-size and compact in the past. I don't like the looks of the extended slide on the full-size and I didn't like the grip on the compact. The mid-size has the full size grip and compact slide(4" barrel). Got the Apex kit installed and it's awesome as usual. All it needs now is to be loaded up with Trijicon HD's.
Do I like it as much as my Gen4 Glock 21? No, I don't. But I really like the G21. I like it better than the HK45 and even USP 45, too. Size vs capacity, it's just a spectacular weapon. With the simple +2 base-plate, it becomes a 15rd magazine and it's not nearly as huge as the FNX-45. I have no trouble concealing the G21 with the standard 13rd magazine.
Most days, I carry the G17. Sometimes the P229 or P226. If I want to go a little smaller, the P30 or USP compact get to go for a ride.
So... back to your original question. Is the price difference worth it? Yes and no. I find any price difference between the M&P and Glock to be wholly inconsequential. It's barely the cost of a single trip to the range. It's less than I'll spend on new sights for either gun. It's a couple of mags. Basically... whichever gun you like best - buy it. Write off the cost of entry because you'll get years of enjoyment from both of them... and if you're an addict like the rest of us, you'll probably end up owning both anyways.
Clear as mud? Glad I could help.
Good luck on whatever you choose.
Last edited:
Dragline45
New member
Good choice. While Glock's are fine handguns, they grip angle of the M&P's point better for me.