Why are Glocks and M&Ps preferred in training & competition?

S

Smoke Screen

New member
So I've gotten into quite a bit of tactical training lately, drawing from concealment, dynamic movement, etc... A current Navy Seal that I train with (uses an M&P) as well as a former member of Marine recon (uses a glock) keep telling me that eventually as I train and compete (I'm new to IDPA and USPSA) that I will switch over to the dark side and get an M&P or a Glock.

I currently use a Beretta PX4 storm and sold my 2nd gen G17 to get the PX4 as I was more accurate with it. However, now that I'm training with tier 1 operators, I find that the way I train has changed drastically. For example, I'm doing a lot of point shooting within 1 to yards, and my the way I acquire target alignment is different. I always loved the glock, but didn't prefer the 6 oclock sights, but now that I train, shall we say, correctly, do I need to go back to a Glock or *gasp* an M&P? Are they THAT much better at dynamic training and shooting than my Px4?

I could use some input from some guys who compete or regularly train tactical methods...what pistol do you use? Thanks in advance fellas.
 
Glocks, x8.

The platform really is "that good" and is still the easiest to 'adjust' to your liking than any of the later clones (S&W, H&K, Sig, Ruger, etc.)
 
I'm a fan of accuracy, speed and reliability.

I'm willing to train and use ANY gun that offers me those features. It can come in the flavor of Glock, Smith, Ruger, Sig, HK, Browning....
 
The Glock is a good, serviceable gun, offered at a price that's generally lower than all the other good, serviceable guns.
Talking to the shooters I know, the M&P is a good, serviceable gun that feels more natural in the hand to most American shooters.
 
A lot boils down to personal preference, but still some guns are better for some tasks. A factory stock M&P, Glock or Px4 probably won't do for the National Matches, but for what you are doing, any one will be just fine. Will you want to change guns as you gain further skill? Possibly. Or you might choose something else not even mentioned here.

As you improve your own skills, you reach a point where the gun you once thought perfectly adequate is now holding you back. It is like any other sport involving hardware. I like my Camry, but if I were good enough to compete at Daytona, I don't think I would have much chance of winning with the Toyota.

Jim
 
Brands, whether in guns, cars, or macaroni and cheese, become popular because people like them. The question that needs to be asked is whether those people like them for the same reasons that will make you like them. What do you like about your PX4? Is it serving you well in the role for which you are currently using it? What inherent benefits are there in switching to a Glock or M&P? Will they work better for you in that role? If so, make the switch. If not, keep what you have. There is no shame in switching or not, just perception. It's really no different than a Ford/ Chevy debate - both will do the job they were designed for, but one may be better for the specific tasks you need done. That is the one to get.
 
I believe the preferred and winningest platform in IPSC globally is the CZ 75 pattern. The Europeans seem to choose that, even though Glocks are made there, too.
 
You can always use what you prefer... Equipment familiarity is always a positive when learning new skills with that equipment.


But... Should you choose to switch sometime...

Glock and M&P are both good pistols.

Glock has a ton of aftermarket support, and that favors highly in the reasons it is used as much as it is now.

The M&P has a lot of aftermarket support, though nowhere near the level of a Glock.

I feel that a tuned M&P trigger is superior to a tuned Glock trigger. I prefer the ergos of the M&P as well.

Both are great pistols, and if you do decide to swap to one, then you should be satisfied. Tweaks are easy on both. Just pick the one that fits your hand the best.
 
If 80% to 100% of the shooters in a competition class, or in a specific training routine were using Glock's, M&P's or whatever brand/model, I'd think about using that brand/model.

Most folks tend to shoot what they like and what they shoot best. I shoot a Witness Elite Limited with a Burris Fastfire. I like it and it's super accurate. However, I have several other guns I also like and shoot well. Witness claims to have good results in international competition, but I bought the gun because it's relatively cheap and easy to mount red dot sights. Pleasantly surprised as to how good it is and how much I like it.
 
Glocks dominate the IDPA nationals followed by some 1911 pattern.

They work and shot well for most. M&Ps are having some accuracy problems according to some LEO chatter. Haven't really followed it.
 
Last I heard... The M&P accuracy thing was corrected a few years ago or more... New barrel and twist rate.

Basically it boiled down to a twist rate that was not well suited to the heavier 9mm bullets in use.


From my understanding, in competition... Glock is the top, followed by M&P, then 1911, and then a mix of the rest. I seen a breakdown within the last few weeks, claiming to be pulled from data from the last couple years. Glock and M&P took their spots by a wide margin I believe.
 
I always loved the glock, but didn't prefer the 6 oclock sights,
Click to expand...

If the sights threw you off, they could always be changed.

A benefit to the Glock/M&P line is ease of use. You take the gun and pull the trigger, same weight/distance each time. No safety to disengage (unless you have one on the M&P), and there are a million and one "upgrades/modifications" you can do, or have done, to better fit your needs. Start with a .40 and want to go to 9mm? Get a conversion. Grip not working out, have it changed... And the list goes on and on.

As an added bonus, they are very reliable firearms. My Glock had early issues with 115gr 9mm on the first range trip (magazines were super tight). After that it has performed great. I've shot six different brands of ammo through it since without any FTF/FTE's.
 
I've done some dozens of hours of pistol training. For a lot of that I was using an HK P2000. The gun never had a malfunction. I did however switch to striker fired pistols in the form of the M&P 9c, P320 Compact, and Glock 19. Why? In working on a timer and working to fatigue I discovered that the lighter trigger weight and shorter trigger travel of the striker fired pistols allowed me to maintain smaller groups in the same amount of time, and if I wanted to maintain the same group size of my HK P2000 I could do so in less time. I spent a lot of time thinking about it and I came to the conclusion that for myself the DA/SA pistols didn't represent a significantly safer trigger mechanism. In addition, the majority of the striker fired pistols seemed as reliable. In short, there was no reason for me not to switch to striker fired pistols that weren't DA/SA. I could probably have also switched to a single action capable semiauto like a CZ, but I have stubby thumbs that make reaching that safety an awkward proposition on the draw.

It's decision that you should weigh for yourself, and if possible the best option would be keep your PX4 and get the striker fired pistol of your choice and see for yourself with your own comparison. I can't state that the short fraction of time I gained in speed will/won't save my life or be truly meaningful in the end. But I've come to realize that the search for a "perfect" system is often the downfall of a good system. Be open to what you learn and the answers usually present themselves.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
Glocks dominate the IDPA nationals followed by some 1911 pattern.
Click to expand...

The 2014 IDPA Nationals gave some stats by brand, but you can't tell TOO much from those figure, as they're incomplete.

Glock did dominate, but the 1911 "group" required a bunch of different gunmakers fielding guns that were far more expensive than Glocks or S&W M&Ps to make their showing. It was NOT clear from the IDPA stats whether any Glock 20s were highly ranked in match results.

The 1911 pattern still rules the .45 CDP division, but it's hold may be slowly weakening on the division that was clearly designed for it! I expect its grasp to weaken further as new H&K, FN, Springfield. and S&W offer new striker-fired .45s enter the arena.

When IDPA offered summaries of the match, they listed top entries by brand/pattern. This included:

Glock
62 Glock 34s
14 Glock 17s
21 other Glocks (not identified), but some were surely Glock 20s.
97​

S&W
35 M&P Pros
22 S&W M&Ps
30 other S&Ws (not identified), some may have been revolvers
87​

1911
22 STI
14 Wilson Combat
11 Nighthawk Custom
10 Kimber
06 Caspian
64 There were undoubtedly other non-brand-name 1911s among the competitors, but there's no way to be sure of how many.​

If you compared the number of 1911-pattern guns to striker-fired poly-framed guns, there would be no competition.

I would note, too, that no 1911 maker fielded more of their guns than the Glock 34s, the M&P Pros, or the M&P, and only two fielded more 1911s than the lowly Glock 17.
 
Last edited:
I can't answer that specifically but I will say, for me anyway, Glock's and M&P's are about the top of the ladder when it comes to the tupperware guns....:D. The M&P9c stands out as about as top notch of a shooter as I could find at $400.
 
What ever brand gun folks get used to becomes their favorite.
Which ever one you practice and shoot with the most will be the best one.
Truly, the gun is the least of it.
 
g.willikers What ever brand gun folks get used to becomes their favorite.
Which ever one you practice and shoot with the most will be the best one.
Truly, the gun is the least of it.
Click to expand...
reminds me of the old saying...."It ain't the arrow, it's the Indian":D
 
"It ain't the arrow, it's the Indian"
Click to expand...
But it's hard to tell from most conversations on the web that very many folks seem to believe it.
All those conversations about equipment and so few on how to use it.
So many questions on what is the best gun for home defense, for example, and so few on how to use it.
But don't get me started.
Oops, too late.
 
Last edited:
So many questions on what is the best gun for home defense, for example, and so few on how to best use what they got for home defense.
Click to expand...

Those kind of questions often come from folks NEW to handguns. A lot of the questions show that they're seeking a different type of knowledge.

Those new to shooting -- be it handguns, rifles, or shotguns -- think that shooting is a lot like driving: you get better as you go. Some do. The questions about TECHNIQUE don't really start to bubble up until the new shooters find they aren't as good as most others, or when they start competing. Those questions tend to be addressed in other areas on this forum. Lock and Load, and Competition Shooting, for example.

I've seen folks told, many time in a very kind way, that they should seek professional guidance -- 'cause teaching yourself often make you very proficient at doing wrong.

The point about the "indian, not the arrow" cliche is that a very good shooter with a mediocre gun will likely get better results than a mediocre shooter with a very good gun. In my experience, that is true.

How do you get from mediocre to good -- typically by watching, learning, asking questions, and getting instruction from those who know how... Just doing it yourself doesn't typically help that much.
 
But it's hard to tell from most conversations on the web that very many folks seem to believe it.
All those conversations about equipment and so few on how to use it.
So many questions on what is the best gun for home defense, for example, and so few on how to use it.
But don't get me started.
Oops, too late.
Click to expand...

It's human nature to consider your current situation and think if there might be a different or "better" alternative. If that wasn't human nature then we probably wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top