M&P9 VS Glock 17

[No_Regerts]

I just spent a nice and wet day out on the range with the M&P9. I put 400 rounds through it and figured I would write a half-azzed review for my own amusement mostly. I will compare it with the Glock 17 which I have also qualified with.

I fired two 50-round scored PPCs shooting at 5, 7, 10, 15 and 25 yards. Each course of fire begins from the holster. The shooter must move and reload according to the range master's commands. 40 rounds strong hand, 10 rounds weak hand. No supported shots. Scores were similar across the board ranging from 488 to 497 out of 500. Compared to the Glock, I'd give the nod to the M&P for overall practical accuracy because most pistol engagements occur at closer ranges and the M&P was easier to shoot well. It also shoots a bit softer than the Glock.

With theGlock 17, I've had no failures across the board. The M&Ps Ive seen on the range had some FTEs that looked to be caused by insufficient slide velocity (limp wristing). Not to be stereotypical, but all FTEs were with small female shooters. I would attribute the difference being the Glock grip angle making the shooter lock the wrist more. Ive seen an M&P slide stop snap off. We have been told to not use the slide stop to release the slide due to breakages (real confidence builder). We also cant use +P to practice with due to frame wear and the M&P is not rated for +P+. I've seen a lot of goofy things with M&Ps over the last few years so Id give Glock the reliability award.

During action drills, I found the M&P was softer shooting but still seemed to open up more during rapid fire. It was physically easier to shoot it fast (5 rounds center mass at 7 yards in 1.39 seconds) but Glocks seem to recover quicker and hold a tighter group when shooting fast. I think its because of the trigger in the M&P being less mushy. I was only slightly slower with the Glock but the groups went from being softball sized to racquet ball sized. So, I'm willing to sacrifice .11 seconds for the ability to place shots more accurately.

Glock 17 Pros:
*Reliable with a wider variety of ammo
*Durable
*Fast recovery between shots
*Rear sight shape allows easier one handed operation (nothing $75 wont fix)
*More aggressive grip texture
*Longer barrel with shorter slide length vs M&P (maybe a couple more FPS)
*Magazine release is more pronounced
*Lots of accessories (many weapon lights come sized to fit Glocks the best out of the box)
*Very easy to feel and hear the trigger reset

M&P Pros:
*Grip backstraps feel like they make more of a difference between in how the gun feels versus the Glock backstrap
*Ambidextrous slide stop (even though we arent supposed to use it)
*Easier to switch magazine release
*Shot better one handed
*Metal magazines dropped smoother than Glock polymer mags
*Trigger doesn't need to be pulled to disassemble (not a big deal if you clear your freaking gun)
*Trigger not as mushy
*Spring weight is easier to charge, especially for women
*Less expensive per unit

In short, its a toss up but I prefer Glock because of durability issues mostly. We've had to replace a lot of our first M&Ps, especially the 45s and we have had issues with magazines (all new mags this year due to this). However, the M&P is a newer gun and there are bound to be bugs.

Read More

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

Im jelous. Though not at the range, I love shooting in the pouring rain, I hate having to oil the hell out of everything afterwards but its still a ton of fun.

Personally, I like the glock.
Its no frills simple, tons of aftermarket parts and gizmos..etc.

 

[v0lcom13sn0w]

im a glock guy.

i do own a shield 9mm amongst my collection of polymer pistols. i will say, i do like the s&w. i feel that s&w m&p line gererally has similar features as a glock. trigger safety, firing pin plunger and cruciform/trigger bar drop safety. i mean come on, they made the sigma which was as close to being a glock as it gets.

all in all the glock, in my opinion sets the standard for polymer pistols and to me gets the edge over the m&p based on my own personal experience with how the gun fits in my hand and how i shoot with it.

 

[No_Regerts]

Ive done some drills using an M&P shield and I found that it wasnt easy to hold on to compared to my 642 or my G26. You cant argue with the ease of reload and capacity advantage though. I did have issues with my pinky getting pinched during reloads on the shield.

 

[wayoutwest]

SO just to clarify, did you run this course with both guns, it reads like you ran the drills, but then says some of the failures were with the female shooter(s). Or was this your observation of the two guns?

I'm curious as I am a Glock shooter (19's and 30sf) but have been looking at the M&P 9 or Shield

 

[No_Regerts]

Ive run PPCs and a bunch of drills with each gun. I personally have had no malfunctions with either gun, but observed a dozen FTEs and a broken slide stop with the M&P The M&P became an option for duty carry in 2009 and the whole inventory has been replaced twice already.

I don't think the M&P is a bad gun but I dont believe it to be as durable as the Glock. We are not authorized the use of +P for the M&P. The manual for the M&P addresses this as well. As an agency, S&W treats us great. We break their guns and they send us new ones. But we do seem to break them a lot.....

 

[Stomper]

Clearly the "S" doesn't stand for "Samsonite".

 

[erudne]

When you have to defend the lives of those you love the last thing you need to worry about is if your gun will go Bang!
If your carry gun did not always go bang
It's the wrong gun
Believe me, you never want to have that moment of uncertainty between the instant you pull that gun and the moment it "might" fire. Most PPL will freeze due to that uncertainty

 

[M. D. Van Norman]

We have been told to not use the slide stop to release the slide due to breakages.…

"It's a slide stop, not a slide release!" That was a commandment given at my first training course over a decade ago.

Glocks are fine pistols, but for me the M&P is the better ergonomic fit. Then again, I also don't see the need to run over-pressure ammunition, especially with modern hollow-point designs, so I don't worry about durability problems beyond the obvious compromise of relying on a polymer-framed handgun.

In the end, you have to try different guns out to see what works for you the best. Glocks serve a lot of people very well, but then so do revolvers and m1911-series pistols.

 

[No_Regerts]

Not saying anything about you or your post, it just reminded me of this article I read the other day:
"Whatever Works for You" is BAD Advice

Great article! You dont know how many times Ive heard "whatever works for you", especially in regard to shooting technique.

 

[etrain16]

I've owned both M&P's and Glocks - multiple models and calibers of each. To date, I've not experienced a single failure with any of them. My round count is not up where the OP's are, but I've taken them shooting many times over the years and have run many rounds - from cheap FMJ to good defensive ammo. Perhaps if I was harder on them, I'd experience a failure of some kind.

My carry is an M&P9c. It has at least 1,500 trouble-free rounds through it. I took it through a defensive handgun course where we ran about 400 rounds over about 6 hours. It ran very well. As a test, after that class, I decided to let it run dirty for some time and got up to about 1,000 rounds before I finally cleaned it. Never did have a hiccup.

I'm always keeping a close eye on my guns for any signs of excessive wear, failure, etc. Perhaps time will tell if I should reconsider one or the other. For now, I do feel comfortable with both.

 

[No_Regerts]

"It's a slide stop, not a slide release!" That was a commandment given at my first training course over a decade ago.

Glocks are fine pistols, but for me the M&P is the better ergonomic fit. Then again, I also don't see the need to run over-pressure ammunition, especially with modern hollow-point designs, so I don't worry about durability problems beyond the obvious compromise of relying on a polymer-framed handgun.

In the end, you have to try different guns out to see what works for you the best. Glocks serve a lot of people very well, but then so do revolvers and m1911-series pistols.

I mentioned +P ammo more as a testament to the durability of the gun and the specs to which it was built. SAAMI specs in the US rate ammo as +P while NATO classifies those pressures as standard. You would think that 9mm being the principal martial pistol cartridge amongst NATO countries and the availability of 9mm worldwide would make a builder conform to the standard to maximize the number of agencies/militaries who might buy the gun or maximize the ammo that could be used for the gun.

 

[fxdc]

Got a gen 4 glock 34 to use as an open division race gun, never like the earlier generations but the large back strap made it bearable.

Had it about 3 weeks and was going to order my parts for the build. Stopped at northwest armory and held the CORE model and that's all it took.

Bought it on the spot, and got rid of the Glock. It just plain fit my hand more naturally.

No regrets, using the M&P core as a Major 9mm open gun. And I have yet to break the SLIDE STOP.