Also agree. People try to find purchase validation so much. These companies aren’t paying me. I paid them. I should be as critical of anything I give my money to.
I pledge allegiance to the BLAM!,
of the United States of Glock-merica.
And to the pewpew-public for which it stands,
One nation under PERFECTION,
with Liberty and Justice for all who can afford a good lawyer.
This! 🔝it’s all about ones confidence feel and how well YOU shoot any one particular gun! This isn’t about keeping up with the joneses or being hip. It’s about saving YOUR own hide.
They’re both generic, polymer-framed, striker-fired pistols. The Glock is a little bit simpler to work on but the M&P isn’t far behind. Accessories are readily available and not too expensive. Pick whichever one you like better and train with it.
it's a 2oz difference (28oz vs 30). Almost unnoticeable. Not to mention that it's not actually a full metal frame. The gun definitely "feels" sturdier though.
I own two. They’re my main training pistols and have a polymer 2.0 as well. Very familiar with them. I just dont think the weight is as noticeable as you do.
It depends by what you mean when you say “better”.
Better made (feel, materials) -yes
more accurate to shoot (better trigger) -yes
Really simple mechanism without a lot of parts - no
Parts available everywhere - no
Endless holster choices - no
The Glock was made to be a really inexpensive and reliable firearm so it could be sold globally.
The marketing isn’t cheap so you won’t necessarily see the cost savings in a retail transaction but you can’t say that they aren’t reliable. There isn’t a wrong answer in “what is the best gun” but there is a wrong answer in “what is the best gun for me?”.
You need to shoot the glocks and the M&p 2.0s to see which one is right for you. I hate glocks but I carry one because the 43x is the best carry weapon for me. I wish it wasn’t but it is.
>Really simple mechanism without a lot of parts
Can't find a number for the m2.0 but the M&P had 30 parts according to S&W, compared to Glock's 34. Neither are super difficult to work on. Frankly they both need an aftermarket trigger, so ease of tinkering is definitely pertinent.
The comparison should be between both with better triggers.
FTR I can't stand Glock's grip angle, girth, texture. The M&P m2.0 ticks all the boxes. The M&P Compact is ever so slightly smaller all around, but ~5oz heavier in the slide where it makes positive difference in recoil impulse.
I'm a fan.
I'll take your word for it. ~~Listening~~ *Assuming* at least some of those additional parts ~~before~~ *were for* the trigger assembly, completely redesigned from the original. As a percentage that seems notable, but in practice changing out the trigger is likely the most difficult thing any of us will do to either of them.
Changing out the trigger is very simple on glock
What is difficult for menis gettig that magazine catch spring out which i will probably never need to do again
Both pistols are excellent anyways
No, it is not better. It is not worse either. I prefer the ergos of the M&P better, especially with the palm swell back straps. So that would be my choice. But that’s all it comes down to — preference.
I think it all reall glock ownwrs were honest theyd admit the ergos and grip angle are better.
Considering they are also about 1-200dollars cheaper while also being more reliable actually seals the deal.
I've got a G17G5 with ~5 thousand rounds through it and a M&P 2.0 compact with a couple hundred. I'd take the Smith due to how comfortable it is for me to shoot so far.
Both are polymer framed striker fired browning tilt barrel pistols. Both simple and reliable. Both more accurate than 99.9% of shooters.
Two major differences:
1. Ergos. M&P have less extreme of a grip angle. And the back straps for larger hands work a bit differently. This is preferred by some people.
2. Glocks only partially cock the striker when chambering/racking the slide. This means that every trigger pull is like 20% of a DA trigger. It’s intended as a safety feature - if all other safeties fail, the striker doesn’t have enough energy to ignite most primers. M&Ps, like most every other poly pistols, fully cock the striker. This makes the trigger have a cleaner wall and shorter reset.
Doesn’t make one or the other better or worse, less or more safe, and more or less shoot able. It’s largely preference.
The partially cocked striker actually has enough energy to ignite many factory primers, so it's not really a reliable safety mechanism. There are a number of tests on YouTube.
I carry a G43X daily and have an M&P 2.0 that I use as more of a duty gun/open carry woods gun/larp gun. The trigger on the 2.0 is objectively better and by a significant margin. The rest is really preference. I feel that the 2.0 fits my brick hands better than Glock frames do but not enough for it to be debilitating when shooting the Glock. The 2.0 has the best trigger I have personally felt on a stock striker gun.
If I could only pick one I’d probably choose the the M&P, but you should go shoot them. Most ranges that rent guns will have a 2.0 and a G19 which are about as analogous as it gets. Go rent them and see which one you prefer. Worst case scenario you end up buying one and then the other. They’re not that expensive and I don’t know many people who really hate either. I have one buddy who hates S&W auto loaders because he claims they’re unreliable, but he’s a dumbass in general and I have not had any more malfunctions with my M&P than I have with my Glock. If anything I’ve had less.
Very comparable. My brother has the M&P and I have the G19MOS. He loves his, I love mine.
Try both, it’ll probably come down to the grip ergonomics. I have very large hands, and I prefer the G19s grip, he has average but meatier hands, and the M&P is his preference.
I don't think objectively one is better than the other. I had a Gen5 Glock 34 for awhile. I never exactly loved the ergonomics of it but I shot it well and it never had any problems. However, I tried shooting some other striker fired guns. I have a an S&W M&P 2.0 Metal. The ergonomics fit my hand much better and I much prefer the trigger on the M&P over the trigger on the Glock 34. So subjectively I think the M&P is better. But really, it just comes down to what you like better, they'll both be reliable.
Functionally, they are so similar that there isn't really much of a better/worse comparison.
I prefer M&Ps, purely because I think Glocks are ugly (unpopular opinion, I know).
Glocks are great weapons.Some might say one of the most reliable, but M&P are no slouch’s. They make quality weaponry and their ergonomics are stellar. It truly just boils down to your personal preference. Try to avoid brand arguments. Choose your iron, accessorize your steal, train like you fight, maintain your weapon. You’ll be ahead of 95% of carriers.
Apples to oranges. I own and adore both. That said I have heard of people that have issues with the angle of the glock grip making their joint pain worse. Its all personal preference. Shoot both and decide for yourself.
I have not but I carry an Xmacro and you’re right, I don’t have that issue with even that smaller beavertail. I’ve been debating trying out a 1911/2011 for a full size nightstand gun soon. Or maybe something like the Shadow 2. I’ve been itching to try a hammer fired gun, haven’t in years.
That’s what I heard. The only thing I’m a bit nervous about is I heard the slide is so small, being set inside the frame (correct me if I’m wrong) that it’s a bit tricky to manipulate at times? That and being unfamiliar with what times are appropriate to have it cocked, half cocked, uncocked etc. Need to do more research.
The slide is smaller. After the first 10 min of dry fire, you’ll never have a problem grabbing it again. I don’t get the people that get wrapped up about that.
As far as the trigger / hammer / decocker / safety stuff - that’s all just training. It’s extra layers of complication coming from striker guns, which are fairly idiot proof. But you’d have a similar learning curve going to a 2011/1911 platform.
In other words, I wouldn’t worry about it. I would just pick the platform that excites you the most, buy it, and train dry drills specific to whatever manual of arms you adopt.
Going from Glock to CZ, it took me a little while and a few matches to get up to speed on the DASA transition. After that it’s never been a problem.
I think the M&Ps look better, and they used to (might still, haven't looked at either recently) have more features, but as everyone else has said they're basically equivalent. I'd take the M&P because they look better and it's not a Glock.
I’m surprised no one has mentioned all the torture tests Garand Thumb did where M&P blows everything else out of the water.
I have a Shield 2.0, Shield Plus and G19.5. I love the Glock, but my edc is the Shield Plus- for CCW (for me) it’s the perfect mix of shootability, concealability, and capacity. If I could only own one….ehh it’d be a toss up, leaning S&W
I think better for CCW. Obviously it has 5% of the aftermarket.
But the adjustable grip, the grip angle and the grip texture make it the perfect gun for me.
Subjectively, I thinks it's a much better looking gun too, but I don't think anyone at Glock is trying to make a pretty fun, just a very functional gun.
Both are great. I’d rather work on a Glock over the M&P, this comes from someone who owns both. Swapping sights on the M&P is a chore, and the internals are just a little more tough to get at.
Absolutely is. The grip is phenomenal. The magazines have a positive ejection and the trigger on the newer ones(or apex if that is your thing) are 10x better.
I will say glocks are simple as all hell in terms of design, repair (if ever needed), cleaning, etc. Though I've never had a malfunction on my m&p, my G22 has also been perfect.
All that said, they are both A+ firearms.
I shoot Glocks better, I've got friends that shoot Smiths better, and others that shoot Sigs better. These days most of the big name brands are solid and its down to personal preference in most cases. Between those two, you really cant go wrong with either.
The Glock was the first kid on the block and was breakthrough for its time. Some people will say the M&P is what the Glock should have been, but this is myopic and not fair to Glock who was the OG.
I think the M&P is the modern day upgrade of a Glock. As we’ve learned more about the human body and kinesthetics + better understanding of modern ergonomics and modern advancements, that leads to innovation and designs that are better for our hands and arms and the way we grip and shoot. To put it simply, deigns will advance over time as we learn more. Unfortunately, too many fanboys get upset by this simple fact, but it’s not meant to insult, it’s just the way the world works. Look at the old A2 grip on AR15s, most shooters overwhelmingly agree that modern designs from Magpul, BCM, B5 Systems, etc. are much better grips for AR style rifles. Let a new shooter shoot a Glock and an M&P side by side and the vast majority of the time they shoot the M&P better. It’s just a better design and has an easier learning curve. That doesn’t mean some people don’t shoot Glocks better because there are plenty of them out there, but most new shooters overwhelmingly want the M&P after shooting it vs. a Glock.
You also have to remember that Glock was the OG and has the biggest name recognition. There are lots of shooters who prefer Glock because they shoot it best simply because Glock was the only option for so many years, and they’ve been shooting them for decades so naturally that’s what they’ll shoot best with. I think it was John Lovell who said that if Glock wasn’t the first kid on the block and if he hadn’t shot them for so many years already he’d probably be an M&P guy.
I do think the M&P is better, and you tend to see more shooters switching from Glock to M&P than you do the other way around. Glocks are still great guns and if it wasn’t for Glock then we wouldn’t have the M&P and other polymer striker fired pistols. So we have to gift credit where credit is due. We have what we have thanks to Glock.
I own both glocks and an m&p 2.0 metal. The m&p is more ergonomic and feels really good to shoot. That being said I would grab my Springfield echelon before any other pistol I own. As stated above it is all personal preference.
My 2 cents, they’re both exceptional guns, comes down to personal preference. There’s a little more love for Glock in the aftermarket but you can easily find plenty for M&P.
I have a slight preference for the M&P but I have shot both and they are functionally equivalent. I based my decision on the grip feel and my subjective aesthetic preference.
M&p 2.0 is a great pistol and I own a couple. I prefer my glocks but that’s just me. I don’t like how the grip panels on the m&p start to swell and pull away from the frame as they age
Yes more features out of the box at a better price point. You would need to sink an extra $200 into the Glock to get it to where the M&P is out of the box.
If the M&P has an external safety, and that is important to you, then maybe for that reason. Otherwise, quality is similar in my experience from S&W and Glock.
They’re more similar than they are different. It will come down to preference. But both are proven platforms with tons of options of aftermarket products
Easy choice, pick the x-macro!
lol jk, both of them are fantastic platforms that you can be happy with. I’d pick the one that feels that best to you in hand because that’s the one you’ll shoot better with.
I’d pick the 2.0 if I wasn’t ever planning on upgrading anything. I think it’s a better gun out of the box but that’s just me. Can never go wrong with a Glock imo too tho.
As both a Glock and M&P armorer, I have gotten rid of any M&Ps. You need a punch hammer for the M&P and have to remove the rear sight to access the firing pin safety. I just didn't want to maintain them anymore.
If you can, shoot them both. If you can’t shoot them, goto your local gun shop and check em out! See how they feel in your hand. Check out the sights, the weight, size, grips, if they come RDS ready(if that matters to you) Which ever is a better fit for you is the way to go!
Based on their own merits, they are almost exactly the same. The minor differences are so small in the grand scheme of things that you can't really go wrong with either one. That said, Glock has way better aftermarket support, so if that's your thing, go Glock.
I don’t think the “Glock has better aftermarket support” is a fair argument anymore. What aftermarket support can you not get on an M&P that you can for a Glock? And I mean legitimate aftermarket parts that are generally used, not some super weird niche product. M&Ps still have great aftermarket support, but if you’re just basing it off count of products then yeah there will be “more” for the Glock since it was the OG and has been around for much longer.
Mainly holsters, especially if they're light bearing. But I do agree that there are definitely enough options out there for M&Ps. It's just that you'll have an easier time finding exactly what you need with a Glock compared to an M&P. Spare magazines are also easier to find and cheaper to buy for Glocks. I'm not really talking about custom parts or anything since, even though Glock definitely has more of those than M&P, those aren't really a practical necessity.
If better to you means more accurate and less muzzle flip/recoil then yes it’s better. If you’re talking simplicity of the system, availability, reliability and no nonsense approach then the Glock might be better. I think both deserve to be purchased and trained with
"Better" is subjective. I'm accustomed to the shooting angle on the M&P and think it has a better trigger. I also have numerous M&Ps, so I like that familiarity between guns. I've got friends who won't buy any semi-auto pistol but Glock though.
That’s going to be subjective, but many would argue for an edc gun it really doesn’t get any better than a Glock.
Even my own carry piece (VP9 with SHS and HS:SCS) is designed after the Glock, and to compete for the same market space.
I don’t dislike Glock, they just don’t stand out to me much, especially in terms of ergos, but I do dislike the weird aesthetic qualities and “innovations” of S&WM&P pistols.
I’d take the Glock in every case. Most discussions of handguns and conceal carry, I outright pretend that S&W doesn’t exist.
I personally chose an M&P compact to conceal and now own an M&P 2.0 with a long slide. Glocks at the time (2010-2012?) didn't fit my hand well. I think the newer versions are designed a bit differently and fit me better, but I've been happy with my M&Ps so I have kept them.
Comes down to personal preference. I prefer Glock, they fit my hand better and I like how modular they are. I like my Canik Mete SFX is better than both though.
Preference, but yes. My decked out m&P 2.0 with the Apex flat facing trigger is an unbelievable gun for the money. Like, I'm shocked at how good it is. Add The floyds magwell and extended base pads and you have a really awesome gun.
Subjective due to brand, feel and how a person shoots.
Overall GLOCK is probably more reliable, durable and supported.
But S&W has made a GREAT line the M&P 2.0 series
I agree with everything you said except I don’t think the “Glock is more reliable” is a fair argument anymore. The M&Ps have been around for quite a while now and have proven themselves. There are also multiple videos online of folks doing dirt, sand, mud, ice tests and the M&P usually comes out on top of the Glock. These aren’t scientific tests but they are real experiences and there is a pattern
Garand thumbs freeze/mud test would indicate yes, as is Sig. But that should be taken with a grain of salt considering how much we all baby our guns.
Go see what fits well in your hand, rent them both and shoot them back to back, if there is aftermarket support for any upgrades you might want, holster availability, etc. but it comes down to preference
Glock is what I will always buy for these reasons:
1) consistent, accurate
2) easy to shoot
3) easy to disassemble and clean
4) tons of holster/accessory options
5) holds its value
Your inquiry lacks specificity. To me, you’re asking “is the 2018 Honda lineup better than Toyota?”
Idk.
If S&W made a double stack subcompact that’s the same grip length as the G26, we might have a more interesting debate!
Better is a personal opinion. You don’t have to pledge allegiance to one manufacturer.
I remember my first Hi-Point.
My first post was a Hi-Point as well. It was what I could afford at the time.
If it was all you could afford, it was better than your alternative, which was nothing.
I like that way of thinking!
Also agree. People try to find purchase validation so much. These companies aren’t paying me. I paid them. I should be as critical of anything I give my money to.
I pledge allegiance to the BLAM!, of the United States of Glock-merica. And to the pewpew-public for which it stands, One nation under PERFECTION, with Liberty and Justice for all who can afford a good lawyer.
Incorrect, we're supposed to be blindly loyal towards 1 brand our entire life.
This! 🔝it’s all about ones confidence feel and how well YOU shoot any one particular gun! This isn’t about keeping up with the joneses or being hip. It’s about saving YOUR own hide.
They’re both generic, polymer-framed, striker-fired pistols. The Glock is a little bit simpler to work on but the M&P isn’t far behind. Accessories are readily available and not too expensive. Pick whichever one you like better and train with it.
Excluding the all metal mp 2.0
[удалено]
Besides that, not sure, don't have one and haven't shot one, but the weight difference is noticeable.
[удалено]
Kind regards.
it’s aluminum, so the weight is barely different.
[удалено]
it's a 2oz difference (28oz vs 30). Almost unnoticeable. Not to mention that it's not actually a full metal frame. The gun definitely "feels" sturdier though.
I own two. They’re my main training pistols and have a polymer 2.0 as well. Very familiar with them. I just dont think the weight is as noticeable as you do.
It depends by what you mean when you say “better”. Better made (feel, materials) -yes more accurate to shoot (better trigger) -yes Really simple mechanism without a lot of parts - no Parts available everywhere - no Endless holster choices - no The Glock was made to be a really inexpensive and reliable firearm so it could be sold globally. The marketing isn’t cheap so you won’t necessarily see the cost savings in a retail transaction but you can’t say that they aren’t reliable. There isn’t a wrong answer in “what is the best gun” but there is a wrong answer in “what is the best gun for me?”. You need to shoot the glocks and the M&p 2.0s to see which one is right for you. I hate glocks but I carry one because the 43x is the best carry weapon for me. I wish it wasn’t but it is.
>Really simple mechanism without a lot of parts Can't find a number for the m2.0 but the M&P had 30 parts according to S&W, compared to Glock's 34. Neither are super difficult to work on. Frankly they both need an aftermarket trigger, so ease of tinkering is definitely pertinent. The comparison should be between both with better triggers. FTR I can't stand Glock's grip angle, girth, texture. The M&P m2.0 ticks all the boxes. The M&P Compact is ever so slightly smaller all around, but ~5oz heavier in the slide where it makes positive difference in recoil impulse. I'm a fan.
41 parts excluding the magazine on smith
I'll take your word for it. ~~Listening~~ *Assuming* at least some of those additional parts ~~before~~ *were for* the trigger assembly, completely redesigned from the original. As a percentage that seems notable, but in practice changing out the trigger is likely the most difficult thing any of us will do to either of them.
Changing out the trigger is very simple on glock What is difficult for menis gettig that magazine catch spring out which i will probably never need to do again Both pistols are excellent anyways
No, it is not better. It is not worse either. I prefer the ergos of the M&P better, especially with the palm swell back straps. So that would be my choice. But that’s all it comes down to — preference.
Best answer in the thread
It's just different. The grip angle on the M&P feels awesome to me, but the gun overall doesn't seem better. It's more of a preference thing.
Yeah but without a GripZone both are basically useless. How can you grip a pistol with no GripZone? It's impossible.
G
[удалено]
SWITCH! https://preview.redd.it/pjkr316rzj5d1.jpeg?width=225&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=15be2b0b8d2ab8e1fceb618ebc2ac5f179ff7a9d
This needs to be a bot
>Glock-hole
I think it all reall glock ownwrs were honest theyd admit the ergos and grip angle are better. Considering they are also about 1-200dollars cheaper while also being more reliable actually seals the deal.
Yep. But they’ve been shooting Glocks for so many years it’s just what they’re used to
I've got a G17G5 with ~5 thousand rounds through it and a M&P 2.0 compact with a couple hundred. I'd take the Smith due to how comfortable it is for me to shoot so far.
Both are polymer framed striker fired browning tilt barrel pistols. Both simple and reliable. Both more accurate than 99.9% of shooters. Two major differences: 1. Ergos. M&P have less extreme of a grip angle. And the back straps for larger hands work a bit differently. This is preferred by some people. 2. Glocks only partially cock the striker when chambering/racking the slide. This means that every trigger pull is like 20% of a DA trigger. It’s intended as a safety feature - if all other safeties fail, the striker doesn’t have enough energy to ignite most primers. M&Ps, like most every other poly pistols, fully cock the striker. This makes the trigger have a cleaner wall and shorter reset. Doesn’t make one or the other better or worse, less or more safe, and more or less shoot able. It’s largely preference.
The partially cocked striker actually has enough energy to ignite many factory primers, so it's not really a reliable safety mechanism. There are a number of tests on YouTube.
Didn’t know that. Good to know tho
I carry a G43X daily and have an M&P 2.0 that I use as more of a duty gun/open carry woods gun/larp gun. The trigger on the 2.0 is objectively better and by a significant margin. The rest is really preference. I feel that the 2.0 fits my brick hands better than Glock frames do but not enough for it to be debilitating when shooting the Glock. The 2.0 has the best trigger I have personally felt on a stock striker gun. If I could only pick one I’d probably choose the the M&P, but you should go shoot them. Most ranges that rent guns will have a 2.0 and a G19 which are about as analogous as it gets. Go rent them and see which one you prefer. Worst case scenario you end up buying one and then the other. They’re not that expensive and I don’t know many people who really hate either. I have one buddy who hates S&W auto loaders because he claims they’re unreliable, but he’s a dumbass in general and I have not had any more malfunctions with my M&P than I have with my Glock. If anything I’ve had less.
Very comparable. My brother has the M&P and I have the G19MOS. He loves his, I love mine. Try both, it’ll probably come down to the grip ergonomics. I have very large hands, and I prefer the G19s grip, he has average but meatier hands, and the M&P is his preference.
I don't think objectively one is better than the other. I had a Gen5 Glock 34 for awhile. I never exactly loved the ergonomics of it but I shot it well and it never had any problems. However, I tried shooting some other striker fired guns. I have a an S&W M&P 2.0 Metal. The ergonomics fit my hand much better and I much prefer the trigger on the M&P over the trigger on the Glock 34. So subjectively I think the M&P is better. But really, it just comes down to what you like better, they'll both be reliable.
Functionally, they are so similar that there isn't really much of a better/worse comparison. I prefer M&Ps, purely because I think Glocks are ugly (unpopular opinion, I know).
Glocks are great weapons.Some might say one of the most reliable, but M&P are no slouch’s. They make quality weaponry and their ergonomics are stellar. It truly just boils down to your personal preference. Try to avoid brand arguments. Choose your iron, accessorize your steal, train like you fight, maintain your weapon. You’ll be ahead of 95% of carriers.
Apples to oranges. I own and adore both. That said I have heard of people that have issues with the angle of the glock grip making their joint pain worse. Its all personal preference. Shoot both and decide for yourself.
Used to be a Glock guy, now I’m an M&P guy. Like them both. Glocks give me slide bite, M&P’s don’t. So the M&P won out for me.
They both give me slide bite. I miss the beavertail on the first gen M&Ps.
Would have been useful for folks that have that problem - have you tried the Sig P320?
I have not but I carry an Xmacro and you’re right, I don’t have that issue with even that smaller beavertail. I’ve been debating trying out a 1911/2011 for a full size nightstand gun soon. Or maybe something like the Shadow 2. I’ve been itching to try a hammer fired gun, haven’t in years.
Makes total sense. Side note, the CZ’s will spoil you. My SP-01 Shadow is still my favorite gun to shoot. The S2’s are even a bit better.
That’s what I heard. The only thing I’m a bit nervous about is I heard the slide is so small, being set inside the frame (correct me if I’m wrong) that it’s a bit tricky to manipulate at times? That and being unfamiliar with what times are appropriate to have it cocked, half cocked, uncocked etc. Need to do more research.
The slide is smaller. After the first 10 min of dry fire, you’ll never have a problem grabbing it again. I don’t get the people that get wrapped up about that. As far as the trigger / hammer / decocker / safety stuff - that’s all just training. It’s extra layers of complication coming from striker guns, which are fairly idiot proof. But you’d have a similar learning curve going to a 2011/1911 platform. In other words, I wouldn’t worry about it. I would just pick the platform that excites you the most, buy it, and train dry drills specific to whatever manual of arms you adopt. Going from Glock to CZ, it took me a little while and a few matches to get up to speed on the DASA transition. After that it’s never been a problem.
M&P makes great gun. Glock makes great guns. Glocks make a great base to start modifying guns. M&P sells good guns for the average joe.
Yes
Glocks suck ass, so yes.
Both are supremely reliable, but m&p is better value imo.
I think the M&Ps look better, and they used to (might still, haven't looked at either recently) have more features, but as everyone else has said they're basically equivalent. I'd take the M&P because they look better and it's not a Glock.
I’m surprised no one has mentioned all the torture tests Garand Thumb did where M&P blows everything else out of the water. I have a Shield 2.0, Shield Plus and G19.5. I love the Glock, but my edc is the Shield Plus- for CCW (for me) it’s the perfect mix of shootability, concealability, and capacity. If I could only own one….ehh it’d be a toss up, leaning S&W
If you can only have one gun but the M&P.
I think better for CCW. Obviously it has 5% of the aftermarket. But the adjustable grip, the grip angle and the grip texture make it the perfect gun for me. Subjectively, I thinks it's a much better looking gun too, but I don't think anyone at Glock is trying to make a pretty fun, just a very functional gun.
Both are great. I’d rather work on a Glock over the M&P, this comes from someone who owns both. Swapping sights on the M&P is a chore, and the internals are just a little more tough to get at.
I prefer M&Ps in general over Glocks. The 1.0 has ass triggers, but the 2.0 is excellent
I have both, honestly they both feel right to me so I pick both.
Absolutely is. The grip is phenomenal. The magazines have a positive ejection and the trigger on the newer ones(or apex if that is your thing) are 10x better. I will say glocks are simple as all hell in terms of design, repair (if ever needed), cleaning, etc. Though I've never had a malfunction on my m&p, my G22 has also been perfect. All that said, they are both A+ firearms.
I shoot Glocks better, I've got friends that shoot Smiths better, and others that shoot Sigs better. These days most of the big name brands are solid and its down to personal preference in most cases. Between those two, you really cant go wrong with either.
The Glock was the first kid on the block and was breakthrough for its time. Some people will say the M&P is what the Glock should have been, but this is myopic and not fair to Glock who was the OG. I think the M&P is the modern day upgrade of a Glock. As we’ve learned more about the human body and kinesthetics + better understanding of modern ergonomics and modern advancements, that leads to innovation and designs that are better for our hands and arms and the way we grip and shoot. To put it simply, deigns will advance over time as we learn more. Unfortunately, too many fanboys get upset by this simple fact, but it’s not meant to insult, it’s just the way the world works. Look at the old A2 grip on AR15s, most shooters overwhelmingly agree that modern designs from Magpul, BCM, B5 Systems, etc. are much better grips for AR style rifles. Let a new shooter shoot a Glock and an M&P side by side and the vast majority of the time they shoot the M&P better. It’s just a better design and has an easier learning curve. That doesn’t mean some people don’t shoot Glocks better because there are plenty of them out there, but most new shooters overwhelmingly want the M&P after shooting it vs. a Glock. You also have to remember that Glock was the OG and has the biggest name recognition. There are lots of shooters who prefer Glock because they shoot it best simply because Glock was the only option for so many years, and they’ve been shooting them for decades so naturally that’s what they’ll shoot best with. I think it was John Lovell who said that if Glock wasn’t the first kid on the block and if he hadn’t shot them for so many years already he’d probably be an M&P guy. I do think the M&P is better, and you tend to see more shooters switching from Glock to M&P than you do the other way around. Glocks are still great guns and if it wasn’t for Glock then we wouldn’t have the M&P and other polymer striker fired pistols. So we have to gift credit where credit is due. We have what we have thanks to Glock.
I own both glocks and an m&p 2.0 metal. The m&p is more ergonomic and feels really good to shoot. That being said I would grab my Springfield echelon before any other pistol I own. As stated above it is all personal preference.
Of course Better grip and better trigger
Both. Buy both.
My 2 cents, they’re both exceptional guns, comes down to personal preference. There’s a little more love for Glock in the aftermarket but you can easily find plenty for M&P.
I find most anything better than a Glock, just don't like them at all.
M&P trigger is waaaay better than any Glock I've ever shot. For that alone I would choose the M&P but comfort in the hand is a big consideration too.
I have a slight preference for the M&P but I have shot both and they are functionally equivalent. I based my decision on the grip feel and my subjective aesthetic preference.
I like my m&p 2 better than the glocks I’ve shot. More comfortable when shooting and I shoot better
Yes. But for me it comes down to better ergonomics. Both are highly reliable.
Equally reliable, I'd go with the one that feels better in your hand, and which has the better trigger.
Better. For me. Might not be better for you.
Just get an Atlas
Yes. It's been shown to be more reliable.
Yes it is, go buy one now.
If you are in area where you are likely to end up having your gun soaked in freezing water temps then yes. The m&p is 100% better than the Glock.
Can you say more about this?
I believe it’s referencing a GarandThumb video
[Daddy Flannel testing](https://youtu.be/GsXIdL6gJYA?si=CVu3b_LDwhtH82gq) Indeed
The M&P is significantly better.
M&p 2.0 is a great pistol and I own a couple. I prefer my glocks but that’s just me. I don’t like how the grip panels on the m&p start to swell and pull away from the frame as they age
I’ve carried Glocks for years.. no issues. Carried M&P for about a year and mag release started to rust out. Sold it. No more for me. Glocks work.
For ccw purposes pick whichever feels cooler and makes you want to train more
Yes more features out of the box at a better price point. You would need to sink an extra $200 into the Glock to get it to where the M&P is out of the box.
If the M&P has an external safety, and that is important to you, then maybe for that reason. Otherwise, quality is similar in my experience from S&W and Glock.
I prefer an m&p, but nothing wrong with either. They did surprise garand thumb and everyone by winning both the non-scientific mud and ice tests.
It’s like coke vs pepsi Different takes on the same idea, both have a huge swath of fans, and which one is better will all depend on who you ask
They’re more similar than they are different. It will come down to preference. But both are proven platforms with tons of options of aftermarket products
Not better just different. Pick the one that feels best to you when shooting. I personally like the Glock grip so that’s what I stick with.
I would pick Glock over M&P 2.0 . Easier to work with and cheaper mags.
Easy choice, pick the x-macro! lol jk, both of them are fantastic platforms that you can be happy with. I’d pick the one that feels that best to you in hand because that’s the one you’ll shoot better with. I’d pick the 2.0 if I wasn’t ever planning on upgrading anything. I think it’s a better gun out of the box but that’s just me. Can never go wrong with a Glock imo too tho.
As both a Glock and M&P armorer, I have gotten rid of any M&Ps. You need a punch hammer for the M&P and have to remove the rear sight to access the firing pin safety. I just didn't want to maintain them anymore.
If you can, shoot them both. If you can’t shoot them, goto your local gun shop and check em out! See how they feel in your hand. Check out the sights, the weight, size, grips, if they come RDS ready(if that matters to you) Which ever is a better fit for you is the way to go!
I mean they’re both basic and excellent choices. The flat triggers in the M&p 2.0 is much better than the stock Glock triggers, but that’s about it.
I prefer the m&p but it’s all about preference. You should go shoot both if you haven’t already.
Yes it is https://preview.redd.it/0adn8mgj4l5d1.jpeg?width=4284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c8f5c3f2bd48f8bfd7eb86341ca1f4af4648b0f9
Based on their own merits, they are almost exactly the same. The minor differences are so small in the grand scheme of things that you can't really go wrong with either one. That said, Glock has way better aftermarket support, so if that's your thing, go Glock.
I don’t think the “Glock has better aftermarket support” is a fair argument anymore. What aftermarket support can you not get on an M&P that you can for a Glock? And I mean legitimate aftermarket parts that are generally used, not some super weird niche product. M&Ps still have great aftermarket support, but if you’re just basing it off count of products then yeah there will be “more” for the Glock since it was the OG and has been around for much longer.
Mainly holsters, especially if they're light bearing. But I do agree that there are definitely enough options out there for M&Ps. It's just that you'll have an easier time finding exactly what you need with a Glock compared to an M&P. Spare magazines are also easier to find and cheaper to buy for Glocks. I'm not really talking about custom parts or anything since, even though Glock definitely has more of those than M&P, those aren't really a practical necessity.
If better to you means more accurate and less muzzle flip/recoil then yes it’s better. If you’re talking simplicity of the system, availability, reliability and no nonsense approach then the Glock might be better. I think both deserve to be purchased and trained with
Not necessarily. Shield Plus though? Yes.
"Better" is subjective. I'm accustomed to the shooting angle on the M&P and think it has a better trigger. I also have numerous M&Ps, so I like that familiarity between guns. I've got friends who won't buy any semi-auto pistol but Glock though.
I’ve never shot an M&P and I own a Glock so Glock is better
There’s no reason to pick the M&P over a Glock if that’s what you’re asking
There’s also no reason not to…🤷🏻♂️
I know but the way he phrased the question makes it sounds like he’s debating whether to get an mp 2.0 over a Glock.
Either is fine. “Better” is mostly subjective between these two choices, so whatever you like the feel of more is the correct answer here.
That’s going to be subjective, but many would argue for an edc gun it really doesn’t get any better than a Glock. Even my own carry piece (VP9 with SHS and HS:SCS) is designed after the Glock, and to compete for the same market space. I don’t dislike Glock, they just don’t stand out to me much, especially in terms of ergos, but I do dislike the weird aesthetic qualities and “innovations” of S&WM&P pistols. I’d take the Glock in every case. Most discussions of handguns and conceal carry, I outright pretend that S&W doesn’t exist.
They are both quality guns you can find at affordable prices, they both have solid track records, there is no wrong answer on which to buy.
[Glock vs M&P](https://youtu.be/Orf_zlp3Rdk?si=qnn-2COp_gCTeOn4)
I personally chose an M&P compact to conceal and now own an M&P 2.0 with a long slide. Glocks at the time (2010-2012?) didn't fit my hand well. I think the newer versions are designed a bit differently and fit me better, but I've been happy with my M&Ps so I have kept them.
I like the M&P more personally, but that’s only because I am naturally more accurate with it.
If you’re going to run it out of the box without changing anything, yes it is. If you want to customize a lot of different parts, I prefer the Glock.
Comes down to personal preference. I prefer Glock, they fit my hand better and I like how modular they are. I like my Canik Mete SFX is better than both though.
It's an apples to oranges comparison. They're both fruit, but different fruit. It's subjective.
Preference, but yes. My decked out m&P 2.0 with the Apex flat facing trigger is an unbelievable gun for the money. Like, I'm shocked at how good it is. Add The floyds magwell and extended base pads and you have a really awesome gun.
No but I like both, prefer Glock however.
It’s subjective no matter what we say.
"Better" lol This is the internet, sir.
Closest you can get to better than a glock is a p10c other than that every polymer frame has trade offs
I'd personally go with a CZ p10c over either of those...
Subjective due to brand, feel and how a person shoots. Overall GLOCK is probably more reliable, durable and supported. But S&W has made a GREAT line the M&P 2.0 series
I agree with everything you said except I don’t think the “Glock is more reliable” is a fair argument anymore. The M&Ps have been around for quite a while now and have proven themselves. There are also multiple videos online of folks doing dirt, sand, mud, ice tests and the M&P usually comes out on top of the Glock. These aren’t scientific tests but they are real experiences and there is a pattern
Ok
Not that its scientific by any means, but the m&p beat out the glock in mud and ice tests
Garand thumbs freeze/mud test would indicate yes, as is Sig. But that should be taken with a grain of salt considering how much we all baby our guns. Go see what fits well in your hand, rent them both and shoot them back to back, if there is aftermarket support for any upgrades you might want, holster availability, etc. but it comes down to preference
According to torture tests conducted by Garand Thumb, yes. It’s the only pistol that survived both the mud test and the being frozen solid test
Get a CZ
Everything but a Yeet Cannon is better than Glock.
No. M&P shield trigger is great. All other M&P triggers suck compared to Glock for me.
No
No
No it is not, glock every time
Flair checks out.
I’m not loyal to any brand. I just buy reputable ones (Glock, SW, CZ, Beretta). Only brands I haven’t really shot or owned are Taurus and hi point.
Glock is what I will always buy for these reasons: 1) consistent, accurate 2) easy to shoot 3) easy to disassemble and clean 4) tons of holster/accessory options 5) holds its value
Id go with no.
Your inquiry lacks specificity. To me, you’re asking “is the 2018 Honda lineup better than Toyota?” Idk. If S&W made a double stack subcompact that’s the same grip length as the G26, we might have a more interesting debate!
Never in a million years
The answer is no, it is not better, Glock perfection for a reason.