User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/17/2016 6:27:29 PM EDT
[#1]
Isn't the M&P 9 just 2 oz heavier than a Glock 17?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2016 6:34:19 PM EDT
[#2]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2016 6:42:29 PM EDT
[#3]
Having owned both, I never noticed a difference.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2016 7:03:24 PM EDT
[#4]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2016 7:09:03 PM EDT
[#5]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2016 7:22:25 PM EDT
[#6]
I like the way the 9Pro feels and the 9C. And yes I have Glocks as well. No CZ yet.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2016 8:10:34 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2016 7:47:25 AM EDT
[#8]
i still don't understand your complain/ argument
the pistol functions flawlessly in its current production, why compare it to a glock? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2016 2:20:16 PM EDT
[#9]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2016 5:08:10 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2016 5:42:51 PM EDT
[#11]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2016 7:39:55 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. 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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2016 1:14:30 PM EDT
[#13]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2016 4:30:08 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Having owned both, I never noticed a difference. Ditto |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
