Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 12/17/2016 5:11:07 PM EST
I know that the M&P was built as a .40 then scaled down, but they didn't really scale it down. Does the barrel really need to be "twice" as thick as the CZ-75? And why didn't they machine the side-cuts as deep as the target M&P? These changes would make it feel like a Glock 17.

Don't get me wrong, I love the feel of the heavier components and it does reduce recoil a bit, but still...
Link Posted: 12/17/2016 5:27:29 PM EST
Isn't the M&P 9 just 2 oz heavier than a Glock 17?
Link Posted: 12/17/2016 5:34:19 PM EST
Yes, but you are talking about total weight. If you remove the magazines of both guns, and flop them around in your hand, the m&p has excess and un-needed weight at the top. I would LOVE to experience an M&P that is truly scaled down for the 9mm.
Link Posted: 12/17/2016 5:42:29 PM EST
Having owned both, I never noticed a difference.
Link Posted: 12/17/2016 6:03:24 PM EST
No way! Hold both in your hand, and pivot on the grip, moving the slides left and right to feel for slide weight. I don't own a glock 17 my firend does, so I wish I had them in front of me.
Link Posted: 12/17/2016 6:09:03 PM EST
Link Posted: 12/17/2016 6:22:25 PM EST
I like the way the 9Pro feels and the 9C. And yes I have Glocks as well. No CZ yet.
Link Posted: 12/17/2016 7:10:34 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Steinhatchee:
View Quote


This conversation is a waste of time since I don't have a G17 and a scale. I want to know what the slide + barrel weigh.
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 6:47:25 AM EST
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 1:20:16 PM EST
The inside of an M&P 9 slide has less material than an M&P 40. It is lighter. The barrel is the only difference from how Glock does business and the thicker wall of the M&P 9 barrel, when compared to a 9mm Glock, isn't that much.

It probably made sense to them as they only needed one size bit for cutting the barrel opening into the front of the slide and no lathe adjustment for turning down the external surface of the barrel. That equated to keeping costs lower.
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 4:08:10 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By cbsaf:
The inside of an M&P 9 slide has less material than an M&P 40. It is lighter. The barrel is the only difference from how Glock does business and the thicker wall of the M&P 9 barrel, when compared to a 9mm Glock, isn't that much.

It probably made sense to them as they only needed one size bit for cutting the barrel opening into the front of the slide and no lathe adjustment for turning down the external surface of the barrel. That equated to keeping costs lower.
View Quote


Dude, what you wrote is what I thought the first reply would be: simplicity of manufacture = cost savings. I get that. I still think the m&p is a .40 pistol not properly scaled down. Proof? The slide was too heavy when they made it into a long-slide version so they made the cuts deeper, meaning that the same could (and should?) be done with the m&p 4.25" model.

Look, if you guys don't want to talk about it that's fine, but don't tell me I'm a fool because I am raising a good point. And again, it's an EXCELLENT American poly-frame pistol and I'm very glad I own one.
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 4:42:51 PM EST
Of course the longer slide is too heavy. It's longer. Glock did the same by cutting a hole in the 34 slide.

You're not really going to make a point until you post some slide weights.
Link Posted: 12/18/2016 6:39:55 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/18/2016 6:40:40 PM EST by cbsaf]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Cleft_Asunder:


Dude, what you wrote is what I thought the first reply would be: simplicity of manufacture = cost savings. I get that. I still think the m&p is a .40 pistol not properly scaled down. Proof? The slide was too heavy when they made it into a long-slide version so they made the cuts deeper, meaning that the same could (and should?) be done with the m&p 4.25" model.

Look, if you guys don't want to talk about it that's fine, but don't tell me I'm a fool because I am raising a good point. And again, it's an EXCELLENT American poly-frame pistol and I'm very glad I own one.
View Quote


You say want the 4.25" M&P 9 to be scaled down. They did scale it down, they took the materiel out of the inside of the slide to make them externally the same but the 9mm slide lighter. Why would they alter the external profile of the slide to make them different if they didn't have to? If the 9mm slide was too heavy, they would have just shaved more from the inside of the slide. If Glock would have designed the Glock 22 before the Glock 17, the barrels would probably be the same diameter too.

How much lighter do think the factory 9mm slide should be? Do you think the 16lb recoil spring rate should be different?
Link Posted: 12/19/2016 12:14:30 PM EST
Link Posted: 12/19/2016 3:30:08 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bradd_D:
Having owned both, I never noticed a difference.
View Quote


Ditto
Top Top