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.