Ok, in reality it has been a few weeks with the M&P Shield, including a couple range days. I am generally a proponent of carrying as close to a full size service pistol as possible, even for off-duty/plain clothes work. But I also understand that there is reality, and sometimes it is just too impractical to attempt to conceal a Glock 19 and still be appropriately dressed. In this role, and that of a second gun, the M&P Shield is certainly a viable choice. Continue reading
|Glock 17 RTF vs. S&W M&P 9|
A couple days ago, the Vuurwapenblog responded to GunNuts Media blogger Shelley Sargent’s question: Why the M&P?. Shelley eloquently highlights some of the advantages of the M&P over the Glock, including truly ambidextrous controls, interchangeable backstraps to accommodate different sized hands, and location of manufacture.
I own both, and having put many rounds through multiple copies of both models (and with all due respect to Shelley, whom we at 10-8 hold in high regard,) I have to side with the Vuurwapen blogger on this one, mainly due to the accuracy issues of the M&P 9mm. With nearly any box stock Glock 17, I can hold better than three inches at 25 yards using factory ammunition. With most M&Ps, my groups at the same distance using the same ammunition is around eight inches.
To add insult to injury, most M&Ps come with nearly unusably bad triggers out of the box. The end user must either send the pistol back to the S&W Performance Center for a sear upgrade, or purchase the excellent Apex Tactical Hard Sear to have a pistol with a decent trigger. Glocks consistently come with workable triggers right out of the box.