MP-Pistol Forum banner

1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
514 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
What are your thoughts between the two pistols?



(If this topic has been covered, please delete).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
210 Posts
I agree with the others. I have a G27 and had a 40c, however I sold my 40c off to buy a 9c once I compared the two. The 40c was very nice, however I shot better with my G27. It all comes down to preference and which works best for you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
638 Posts
1enforcer said:
i would stay away from the glocks. go with the m&p. m&p is a far better gun.


I own both. The m&P is NOT a better gun. It is a different gun (no disrespect Enforcer but you really need to quantify if you are going to make a statement like that). Both are fine weapons and each should be handled and fired individually for comparision. For me, it largely comes down to ergonomics. I have never liked the grip angle on the Glocks and actually had my G27's grip reduced by Robar to make it more comfortable. The plus is that Glocks have a proven track record, and while butt ugly in my opinion, have a well-earned reputation for going bang every time (as a general rule). There is also a boatload of after-market accessories, and OEM replacements are cheap and readily available. In time, I expect the same to be true for the M&P. But for now the M&P is the new boy on the block, and while things look promising, there have been reliability issues, albeit easily correctable by the factory. Time will tell if the M&P like the Springfield XD, will give Glock a true run for the money. I am optimistic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54 Posts
I own four Glocks and my 27 is the only Glock that resides in my safe only to come out once in a while to shoot paper because of reliability problems. I use to carry it, but not again until I have 500 trouble free rounds though it again. My S&W M&P compacts never malfunctioned, so I'd go for the M&Ps.



Dennis
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
471 Posts
1enforcer said:
i would stay away from the glocks. go with the m&p. m&p is a far better gun.
You are entitled to your opinion 1enforcer, but I sure don't agree with you. Glock has been around now for many years. It is a time proven and reliable design! While I do feel that ergonomically the M&P pistols are a better design (at least in my hands) that does not make them a better, or worse, pistol.

That said, I traded my G27 in for the M&P .40c several months ago now and I am very happy.



Ron
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
638 Posts
40SX said:
I own four Glocks and my 27 is the only Glock that resides in my safe only to come out once in a while to shoot paper because of reliability problems. I use to carry it, but not again until I have 500 trouble free rounds though it again. My S&W M&P compacts never malfunctioned, so I'd go for the M&Ps.



Dennis


My G27s and I've owned two of them now, have both been essentially flawless right out of the box, both as .40s and one as a 357 Sig compliments of a conversion barrel. Unlike the G36 the most controversial of all the Glock models, there are no persistent issues associated with the G27 that I am aware of. My only recommendation is if you own a G27, to swap out the OEM captured recoil spring assembly for the more robust Wolff assembly (non-captured design). I had my OEM assembly fail after 300 rounds in a new G27. In closing, I would venture to say that the overwhelming majority of G27 owners are very satisfied with their weapon. It's been around a long time now and continues to sell well. Having said all that, I prefer the feel of the M&Pc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
599 Posts
MP C VS Glk 27

Just sold my XD 4" 40cal today and would like info on you that own and shoot a MPc 40.

How is the recoil? I own a 4" MP 40 and love it. I will have to get a new light ,due to short

rail, maybe SF XT light. Any thoughts on lights for guy on fixed income?

Thank you
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
414 Posts
Generally speaking, I like the ergos better on the M&P (I have a 40Compact), but I have had perfect reliability with my Glocks (29 and 19) and problems with mag drops, slide lock back, and light primer strikes with my M&P. S&W is verrry good about trying to correct problems with the M&P, but the fact remains that it is not uncommon for M&P owners to have problems with these three issues I mentioned. I am doing my best to try to get my confidence level with my M&P up there, but unfortunately, I can't rely on mine to be as drop dead reliable as my Glocks. I carry my Glock 19 most of the time these days. My M&P gets regular shooting, but I'm still having some problems with it. If I were to go out and buy a carry gun that I would need to rely on right now, I'd put more trust in the proven Glock design than on the new M&P design. Perhaps in another year or two, these common M&P problems will disappear altogether.



I like the M&P Compact concept a lot and prefer the grip & trigger feel of the M&P, but I'd say that if you want a stone-reliable, compact 40 with near certainty of no problems, I'd buy a Glock 23 and a 9mm Lone Wolf barrel and you'll have both a 40 and a 9 in a very proven, solid, compact design.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
638 Posts
DHart said:
Generally speaking, I like the ergos better on the M&P (I have a 40Compact), but I have had perfect reliability with my Glocks (29 and 19) and problems with mag drops, slide lock back, and light primer strikes with my M&P. S&W is verrry good about trying to correct problems with the M&P, but the fact remains that it is not uncommon for M&P owners to have problems with these three issues I mentioned. I am doing my best to try to get my confidence level with my M&P up there, but unfortunately, I can't rely on mine to be as drop dead reliable as my Glocks. I carry my Glock 19 most of the time these days. My M&P gets regular shooting, but I'm still having some problems with it. If I were to go out and buy a carry gun that I would need to rely on right now, I'd put more trust in the proven Glock design than on the new M&P design. Perhaps in another year or two, these common M&P problems will disappear altogether.



I like the M&P Compact concept a lot and prefer the grip & trigger feel of the M&P, but I'd say that if you want a stone-reliable, compact 40 with near certainty of no problems, I'd buy a Glock 23 and a 9mm Lone Wolf barrel and you'll have both a 40 and a 9 in a very proven, solid, compact design.


Your points are well-taken. Ditto for problems with mags falling (in my case a bad mag catch) and the slide locking back on the last round with my M&P 9c. For now, both issues have been corrected. The only point I would disagree but maybe it's a moot point if you're restricting your gun to practice fire, would be shooting 9mm out of a 40SW Glock. I would not rely on this combination for carry or home defense. Different story going from .40 to .357Sig or vice versa though I recommend (as does Glock) that you use dedicated magazine followers depending on what caliber you are shooting (the mag housing and spring are ok - only the followers need to beswapped out if you want to use your converted gun for carry/HD). And yes LW barrels are a great buy, better yet they're drop in, no gunsmithing required. But 40 to 9, same Glock, not recommended for that worst case scenario, not in my opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
414 Posts
Kraig... I haven't personally tried a 23 converted to 9, but from what I gather from others who have... it apparently works well. I do agree with you that for best reliability, shoot the gun in the caliber it was created for in the first place... unless and until you have proven to yourself that your caliber conversion is stone reliable. I have a 29 and a 19 and have only shot them in their native calibers. They are stellar performers even if the grip feel isn't as nice as I'd like it to be. I think a 23 is on the horizon for me as a 40 cal carry gun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
638 Posts
DHart said:
Kraig... I haven't personally tried a 23 converted to 9, but from what I gather from others who have... it apparently works well. I do agree with you that for best reliability, shoot the gun in the caliber it was created for in the first place... unless and until you have proven to yourself that your caliber conversion is stone reliable. I have a 29 and a 19 and have only shot them in their native calibers. They are stellar performers even if the grip feel isn't as nice as I'd like it to be. I think a 23 is on the horizon for me as a 40 cal carry gun.


It's only going from 40 to 9 that I have heartburn with. I have since converted my G27 (40) to 357Sig (I'm using a LW .357 barrel) and I am confident enough in it to use it for carry. Reason being, I have put over a 1000 rounds through it without one single failure. Keep in mind too that all the parts are the same in the Glock 40s and .357 Sigs with the exception of the magazine followers. Not so between the Glock 9s and 40s. You have a different design extractor for one.



PS: Converting from 40 to .357 Sig is only recommended on the current geneation Glocks with reinforced tabs on the frame. Older Glocks did not have.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
414 Posts
Kraig... totally understand that 40 and .357 SIG are closer for interchangeability than 40 and 9. I'm very happy with my 19 in 9 and having a 23 in 40... and keeping the two guns native.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
638 Posts
DHart said:
Kraig... totally understand that 40 and .357 SIG are closer for interchangeability than 40 and 9. I'm very happy with my 19 in 9 and having a 23 in 40... and keeping the two guns native.


Enjoy them both!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
414 Posts
Kraig... when converting a 23 or a 27 to 9mm, one simply installs a 9mm barrel and a 9mm extractor and then uses 9mm mags... and that's the total conversion, right? I don't understand your concern for doing this conversion, especially if once done, reliability is proven... I gather from the GLocktalk forum that people do this conversion all the time with complete success...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
414 Posts
Thanks for the info. Unless one really NEEDs to get two calibers out of a 23 or a 27, it sounds like buying two guns is just a much better way to go, even if it's a bit more expensive!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
638 Posts
DHart said:
Thanks for the info. Unless one really NEEDs to get two calibers out of a 23 or a 27, it sounds like buying two guns is just a much better way to go, even if it's a bit more expensive!


Yep. If nothing else for safety reasons. As you get older, it's not as easy to keep things straight.




Of the two (the G27 and G23) the G27 is a better bet to convert to .357Sig. Both the G27 and G33 use the same sight heights. No so for the G33/ G23 and G27 converted to .357Sig. Not a big deal at close combat ranges but something to think about if you are a serious target shooter. Not that any of these guns were designed as serious target guns in the first place.



By the way, I meant to point out the difference in ejectors between the two not extractors. It's been a long day.
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top