Hi

I've been a S&W fan since I started handgun shooting 25 years ago. Had a variety of 2nd and 3rd gen SW classic style. Had a SW99 for a while. Now, I have Glocks and like them very much. Hearing good things about the M&P.

Just interested in hearing hands-on experienced folks compare their Glock and M&P experiences.

K

Have converted to a MP.45 a few months ago for duty after carrying a Glock 35 for 4 years. I like the feel of the MP.45 grip, the caliber and the trigger pull better than the Glock. Other than that, they are about the same.  

Friend of mine is a departmental armorer and instructor.  A dyed in the wool Glock-o-phile.  Until he tested the M & P.  He is now recommending it as standard issue.  Likes the grip angle, likes the different size grip inserts, likes just about everything about it.  

If it got him to switch it must be good.

Thanks for the replies

Triggerman--how would you describe the difference in the triggers? What is it about the MP trigger that you prefer over the Glock's?

K

I own an M&P 9mm and love it, have shot a few glocks and generally wasn't impressed.  I liked the little G26 mostly because the grip angle didn't bother me as much on the compact since I only had 2 fingers wrapped around it anyway.

I have a MP.45.  I still carry a Glock 22 but I love my new Smith & Wesson MP 45.

I prefer the grip angle of my M&P better than the glock.I also like the overall feel of the grip without the finger grooves and blocky feel.

My friend has a Glock 17 and the compact Glock 9mm. I have the M&P.45 and love it. I don't care for shooting his Glocks, the smaller on is better but for whatever reason the bottom of the Glock trigger guard hits my right middle finger when I shoot any Glock.

JMHO

Here's my 2 cents worth when comparing my m&p 40 to my glock 22:


M&P 40 Positives

1) Better ergonomics than the glock 22.

2) Interchangeable backstraps.

3) Sweetest/Softest recoiling .40 caliber handgun that I have ever shot. Period.

4) So far it has demonstrated pretty good off-hand accuracy out to 25 yards.

5) Better sights that are easier to adjust and are made of steel rather than plastic.


M&P 40 Negatives

1) At this point, the glock has a better out-of-the-box trigger than my m&p 40 (at least imo). According to various internet accounts, the m&p's trigger is supposed to improve with continued use.  I have owned my m&p for less than 2 weeks now so I'm currently stuck in the "I'm still waiting to see that" mode in regards to its trigger performance.  


Glock 22 Positives

1) As stated the glock has a better standard (5.5#) trigger with a much much much better reset.

2) Glocks tennifer finish is about as durable and time tested as a gun finish can possibly come. Glock tennifer finish = A tough dang gun finish that is able to withstand dang near anything the world's elements can throw at it.

3) Aftermarket support for the glock is enormous. If you can't find a particular accessory for your glock then you simply aren't looking for it all that hard.

4) Glocks reputation as a no-nonsense defense gun is second to none and---in terms of shear reputation---is probably rivaled by the 1911 and ONLY by the 1911.

5) I can shoot my glock 22 slightly more accurately than I can shoot my m&p----at least so far.


Glock 22 Negatives

1) I simply do not like the grip angle of the glocks when I compare them to other guns like the XD's, M&P's and the various 1911's. Glocks don't have an awful grip but, on the same token, they don't have a grip that I would prefer over the other firearms that I just mentioned.

2) Glocks tend to feel rather bulky and blocky to me whereas the m&p tends to feel thinner and better suited for concealed carry.

3) For better or worse, glock 40's tend to have a bad rep when it comes to KB's especially when reloaded ammo is used. This point can be debated all night long but, rightfully or wrongfully, this rep exist for glocks and that's a negative in my book.

4) I don't like the factory 3-dot plastic sights that come on a glock.  I realize plastic sights are cheaper to produce but, imo, steel sights are better to use and are (probably) more durable in the long run.

5) Due to the glock 22's grip angle and general ergonomics, it is my opinion that the glocks tend to recoil more than their m&p counterparts. This is especailly true in the .40 caliber variants.


M&P 40/Glock 22 Pushes

1) I like the m&p's steel magazines more so than the glocks plastic magazines. However, as a flip side to this, the m&p mags are twice as expensive as comparable glock 22 mags plus they are a bit harder to find locally. Glock mags are both very abundant and very cheap.

2) Ease of disassembly/assembly: I've owned my m&p for only 2 weeks now so I really don't know how easy or difficult field stripping an m&p would be in comparison to my glock 22. It's probably pretty easy and I know glocks process is easy.

It's been my experience that both of my M&Ps (MP9 and MP9c) and all the Glocks I've owned have been 100% reliable.

The M&P wins the ergo battle hands down, for me anyway. And especially when you move up to the .45s.

Most importantly, I shoot an M&P far better than I ever have shot a Glock. YMMV

Eleven0

Thank you for taking the time to post that very comprehensive reply. Very good info and appropriate as I have a Glock 22 and would probably get a M&P in .40 as well.

I will have to rent a range M&P in the near future.

To honest though, I like the way my Glocks shoot so much, that I would have to see a big improvement to justify a new make. We'll see.

K

Many of the new "poly" pistols have designed the grip sizes and angles to better suit shooters likes. Remember Glock grip angle is going on 20ish?? yrs old. A few reasons Glock has chosen to not change their grip is 1) no loose parts to break or come loose 2)current models still sell well holding a dominant market share globally 3)Production costs to change grip would be $$$$ thereby cutting bottom line. It's a give and take issue. Yes they might sell more if the grip was changed but how many more and at what cost. In competition shooting matches many of the newer S&W, Springfield pistols are showing up, but in the end Glock still holds the majority. With all the newer CAD technology in manufactuers reliability has been greatly increased. Glock lead the way for the world to experience the polymer pistol. Now many manufactuers have made their versions of the gun. I would expect to see Glock grips changing but only on 1-2 models ata time over many years. Glock has recently introduced a thinner grip version of their 45acp pistol as a side note.

Quoted: Eleven0 Thank you for taking the time to post that very comprehensive reply. Very good info and appropriate as I have a Glock 22 and would probably get a M&P in .40 as well. I will have to rent a range M&P in the near future. To honest though, I like the way my Glocks shoot so much, that I would have to see a big improvement to justify a new make. We'll see. K

No problem. My best advice would be to go somewhere and rent an m&p and make your comparison that way.

So many guns. So little money. LOL

Quoted: Hi I've been a S&W fan since I started handgun shooting 25 years ago. Had a variety of 2nd and 3rd gen SW classic style. Had a SW99 for a while. Now, I have Glocks and like them very much. Hearing good things about the M&P. Just interested in hearing hands-on experienced folks compare their Glock and M&P experiences. K

I am a much bigger fan of the M&P than the Glock.

For me, the S&W handles better. The slide of the M&P doesn't slice my hands to pieces like the Glock does. The trigger of the M&P is better than the staple-gun trigger of the Glock. The stock sights are a HELL of a lot better than Glock's dumba$$ sights.

I shoot an M&P slightly better, possibly because the grip is more comfortable.

Proven reliability, great trigger, solid feel for Glock.

For self-defense right now, it's Glock. But for a range gun, I think I will get a MP soon. - Then if it turns out to be reliable maybe it'll replace my brick-gripped gun.

I'm a 10 year Glock shooter. When I picked up the M&P with the factory trigger, I shot it as well as I do the Glock with the 3.5# connector.

You'll see some people who take them apart to rip on the M&P, but I think the proof is in the shooting.

The S&W MP.45 trigger breaks cleaner than the Glock. The  3  forty cal Glocks I own feel  mushy at point of firing when compared to the MP. I have about 1500 rounds of Speer hardball throught it. I also shoot the S&W better, time will tell if it is as well designed / made as the Glock.  

Quoted: Many of the new "poly" pistols have designed the grip sizes and angles to better suit shooters likes. Remember Glock grip angle is going on 20ish?? yrs old. A few reasons Glock has chosen to not change their grip is 1) no loose parts to break or come loose 2)current models still sell well holding a dominant market share globally 3)Production costs to change grip would be $$$$ thereby cutting bottom line. It's a give and take issue. Yes they might sell more if the grip was changed but how many more and at what cost. In competition shooting matches many of the newer S&W, Springfield pistols are showing up, but in the end Glock still holds the majority. With all the newer CAD technology in manufactuers reliability has been greatly increased. Glock lead the way for the world to experience the polymer pistol. Now many manufactuers have made their versions of the gun. I would expect to see Glock grips changing but only on 1-2 models ata time over many years. Glock has recently introduced a thinner grip version of their 45acp pistol as a side note.

This has been my experience also. A lot of the shooters in my area who switched over to M&P have gone back to their Glocks for various reasons. I seem to be a very finicky shooter because the M&P never felt "good" to me. However, I have done so much after-market work to my competition Glock that most "out of the box" guns feel funny to me. And unlike a lot of guys that shoot with me, the angle of the grip doesn't feel right to me either. As others here have said YMMV.

i'm a firearms instructor and i just recently tested an M&P .45 for my dept. it's a really good weapon, and that's coming from a person who hates S&W semi-autos. the two things i don't like are mag capacity and lack of a positive trigger reset. other than that, it's a great pistol.

I have both. Actually I've been shooting Glocks for over 15 years now. I've had the M&P for about 6 months now.

I really like the Glock design but I am no kool-aid drinker and do not think the Glock is "perfect" hence the reason why I've been willing to try new designs as they've come out (such as the SA XD and the S&W M&P). I too really like S&W and was glad to see them finally come up with a really viable and competitive semi-auto.

I will say the S&W M&P is a very nice pistol and they got a lot right with it. The low bore axis, nice trigger, nice sights. The replaceable grip panels are a great improvement (and is a trick that Glock needs to learn too IMO). All that said, I decided to stick with my Glocks. Why?...

Well I guess the #1 reason is I have so many years experience with them and while I really like the S&W, I didn’t see it as a large enough step up from the Glock to be worth switching over for. I also think Glock is a more mature platform meaning it’s a more time tested design, with a lot more parts and accessories available for it. One of the things I really like about the Glock is how easier it is to detail strip with no special tools and how each and every part for it is cheap and easy to find. It is also hard to ignore that fact the M&P mags are over twice as much $ as the Glock mags.

Because of those last reasons, I don’t know that I would recommend an M&P over a Glock even for some one with no trigger time behind either? To me, the M&P really shines for those who can’t (or refuse to) handle Glocks oversized grip.

I have a Glock 22, XD Tactical's 9 & 40, and M&P 45. The Glock is the one I don't really care for that much, trigger, grip angle and recoil. My XD 40 and M&P 45 shoot much softer, more enjoyable to shoot for me, and are more accurate.

I really like the grip angle of my Glock. I guess that makes me weird. I can live with that Maybe I like the grip angle because my first pistol was a Ruger MKII. They both have extreme grip angles.
I recently spent $35 on a steel recoil spring guide rod and Wolff springs. My G27 is smoother shooting now. The recoil impulse changed to more of a push than the previous snap.

It's no secret that I love Glocks but as try as I might I can't seem to dislike the M&P. My M&P just keeps growing and growing on me. I had a thread running on mp-pistol.com and you can check it out here if you wish: M4arc's M&P Range Report

I haven't updated it in a long time but you'll find I make several comparisons to my Glocks in there. Comparisons that I tried to use to pursued me to abandon the M&P and return to my Glocks but that didn't happen

There are several things that I still don't like about the M&P; the cost of magazines and the lack of accessories, holsters and parts. The accessories will get better over time but I have a hard time paying $30+ per magazine

Over all I love the M&P but if I had to choose one and only one at this point it would be a Glock. I'll bet that if you asked me the same question next year you'll get a different answer

Quoted: Quoted: Over all I love the M&P but if I had to choose one and only one at this point it would be a Glock. Liar.

I'm speaking from a support aspect. Mags are half the cost, holsters are available in every shape and form and parts and accessories are every where.

As far as performance goes my M&P has been ultra reliable and I do shoot it better than my Glocks. Like I said ask me that question later and you'll probably get a different answer.

Plus, it's a good thing I don't have to pick just one

height=8

Quoted: Here's my 2 cents worth when comparing my m&p 40 to my glock 22: M&P 40 Positives 1) Better ergonomics than the glock 22. 2) Interchangeable backstraps. 3) Sweetest/Softest recoiling .40 caliber handgun that I have ever shot. Period. 4) So far it has demonstrated pretty good off-hand accuracy out to 25 yards. 5) Better sights that are easier to adjust and are made of steel rather than plastic. M&P 40 Negatives 1) At this point, the glock has a better out-of-the-box trigger than my m&p 40 (at least imo). According to various internet accounts, the m&p's trigger is supposed to improve with continued use.  I have owned my m&p for less than 2 weeks now so I'm currently stuck in the "I'm still waiting to see that" mode in regards to its trigger performance.   Glock 22 Positives 1) As stated the glock has a better standard (5.5#) trigger with a much much much better reset. 2) Glocks tennifer finish is about as durable and time tested as a gun finish can possibly come. Glock tennifer finish = A tough dang gun finish that is able to withstand dang near anything the world's elements can throw at it. 3) Aftermarket support for the glock is enormous. If you can't find a particular accessory for your glock then you simply aren't looking for it all that hard. 4) Glocks reputation as a no-nonsense defense gun is second to none and---in terms of shear reputation---is probably rivaled by the 1911 and ONLY by the 1911. 5) I can shoot my glock 22 slightly more accurately than I can shoot my m&p----at least so far. Glock 22 Negatives 1) I simply do not like the grip angle of the glocks when I compare them to other guns like the XD's, M&P's and the various 1911's. Glocks don't have an awful grip but, on the same token, they don't have a grip that I would prefer over the other firearms that I just mentioned. 2) Glocks tend to feel rather bulky and blocky to me whereas the m&p tends to feel thinner and better suited for concealed carry. 3) For better or worse, glock 40's tend to have a bad rep when it comes to KB's especially when reloaded ammo is used. This point can be debated all night long but, rightfully or wrongfully, this rep exist for glocks and that's a negative in my book. 4) I don't like the factory 3-dot plastic sights that come on a glock.  I realize plastic sights are cheaper to produce but, imo, steel sights are better to use and are (probably) more durable in the long run. 5) Due to the glock 22's grip angle and general ergonomics, it is my opinion that the glocks tend to recoil more than their m&p counterparts. This is especailly true in the .40 caliber variants. M&P 40/Glock 22 Pushes 1) I like the m&p's steel magazines more so than the glocks plastic magazines. However, as a flip side to this, the m&p mags are twice as expensive as comparable glock 22 mags plus they are a bit harder to find locally. Glock mags are both very abundant and very cheap. 2) Ease of disassembly/assembly: I've owned my m&p for only 2 weeks now so I really don't know how easy or difficult field stripping an m&p would be in comparison to my glock 22. It's probably pretty easy and I know glocks process is easy.

That post nails it exactly.  I'd only emphasize that the S&W trigger is not good.  I hope mine wears in, like they say.  Right now, it is gritty, rhymes with sh**y.  And, the grip is way better than Glock, at least for me.