Re: Glock or Smith and Wesson
My original, unedited post is above for you to re-read. It clearly states, "even the grip angle with the <span style="font-style: italic">larger </span>grip all change." This is three times you've brought up the same issue, and my response hasn't been any different any of the three times. Just look at the large sized M&P backstrap for yourself:
If the limits of a combat pistol are the ability to hold 17 rounds in the magazine and put holes in things at a reasonable handgun distance, they both do the same thing. I tend to think that the ability to drive one accurately plays into that. S&W realized that their pistol sucked, discontinued it, started from the ground up, and built what I believe is the absolute best polymer, striker fired pistol on the market. My M&P has a better trigger, better sights, and better ergonomics hands down. Both are equally reliable and simple to maintain.
If you think obsolete is a poor choice of words, so be it. I don't. I think revolvers are obsolete for our uses as well. The M&P has been so successful that S&W can't make enough of them (they are at full capacity and still behind), and their use in IDPA and USPSA's Production Division has taken the biggest chunk out of Glock's market share since the shooting sports have existed.
Glock will either make drastic changes (rather than little updates) to their excellent design or I think you can expect their market share to fall even further. It's not that their product is no good, or doesn't work. It's just way behind the curve of what the market wants in its class.
Glock is resistant to change, because they know that they started a trend that is here to stay and are reluctant to mess with it. I don't blame them for that. But look to see S&W continue to take a bite out of their market share if they cannot bring something new to the market in the very near future.
Oh and one more thing. The Glock trigger is not easy to "clean up." My friend has a $150 Vanek in that Glock you see in the picture above, and it still doesn't have the crispness of my bone stock, factory M&P Pro. And the 3.5 lb connector in my G19 doesn't even compare. I don't expect a striker fired pistol to have a single action quality trigger, but the suggestion that the Glock trigger is somehow "easy" to make as slick and nice as even a factory M&P is ridiculous. I've felt some damn nice Glock triggers in my time, but you're not touching one of them for less than $150-200. My M&P came with a smooth, light trigger from the factory. It's a longer pull than I'd prefer, but that's something I can deal with. The Glock trigger feels like you're dragging your nails across a chalkboard and they've done nothing to improve that in the nearly 30 years they've had that pistol on the market. So even if I didn't give a rat's ass that I prefer the grip angle of the M&P better, or that it actually came with metal sights, a stainless slide, a grip that fits the human hand better, a much more ergonomic magazine release, etc., I'd still prefer my M&P because the Glock trigger sucks. Those of you guys who shoot Glocks all the time just don't know what you're missing. I'm used to shooting a single action pistol and so it matters a lot to me. And the ability of most shooters, especially new ones, to maintain their sight picture and send rounds downrange is based on little other than the trigger in their gun.
Yeah they go bang and put holes in things. That's about where the similarities end.
And I do own both:
But I'd be a liar if I said that the Glock is better in <span style="font-style: italic">any </span>area at all when compared to the M&P. It's not. It does the job, but the M&P has serious advantages that have remained totally unanswered by Glock.
My original, unedited post is above for you to re-read. It clearly states, "even the grip angle with the <span style="font-style: italic">larger </span>grip all change." This is three times you've brought up the same issue, and my response hasn't been any different any of the three times. Just look at the large sized M&P backstrap for yourself:
If the limits of a combat pistol are the ability to hold 17 rounds in the magazine and put holes in things at a reasonable handgun distance, they both do the same thing. I tend to think that the ability to drive one accurately plays into that. S&W realized that their pistol sucked, discontinued it, started from the ground up, and built what I believe is the absolute best polymer, striker fired pistol on the market. My M&P has a better trigger, better sights, and better ergonomics hands down. Both are equally reliable and simple to maintain.
If you think obsolete is a poor choice of words, so be it. I don't. I think revolvers are obsolete for our uses as well. The M&P has been so successful that S&W can't make enough of them (they are at full capacity and still behind), and their use in IDPA and USPSA's Production Division has taken the biggest chunk out of Glock's market share since the shooting sports have existed.
Glock will either make drastic changes (rather than little updates) to their excellent design or I think you can expect their market share to fall even further. It's not that their product is no good, or doesn't work. It's just way behind the curve of what the market wants in its class.
Glock is resistant to change, because they know that they started a trend that is here to stay and are reluctant to mess with it. I don't blame them for that. But look to see S&W continue to take a bite out of their market share if they cannot bring something new to the market in the very near future.
Oh and one more thing. The Glock trigger is not easy to "clean up." My friend has a $150 Vanek in that Glock you see in the picture above, and it still doesn't have the crispness of my bone stock, factory M&P Pro. And the 3.5 lb connector in my G19 doesn't even compare. I don't expect a striker fired pistol to have a single action quality trigger, but the suggestion that the Glock trigger is somehow "easy" to make as slick and nice as even a factory M&P is ridiculous. I've felt some damn nice Glock triggers in my time, but you're not touching one of them for less than $150-200. My M&P came with a smooth, light trigger from the factory. It's a longer pull than I'd prefer, but that's something I can deal with. The Glock trigger feels like you're dragging your nails across a chalkboard and they've done nothing to improve that in the nearly 30 years they've had that pistol on the market. So even if I didn't give a rat's ass that I prefer the grip angle of the M&P better, or that it actually came with metal sights, a stainless slide, a grip that fits the human hand better, a much more ergonomic magazine release, etc., I'd still prefer my M&P because the Glock trigger sucks. Those of you guys who shoot Glocks all the time just don't know what you're missing. I'm used to shooting a single action pistol and so it matters a lot to me. And the ability of most shooters, especially new ones, to maintain their sight picture and send rounds downrange is based on little other than the trigger in their gun.
Yeah they go bang and put holes in things. That's about where the similarities end.
And I do own both:
But I'd be a liar if I said that the Glock is better in <span style="font-style: italic">any </span>area at all when compared to the M&P. It's not. It does the job, but the M&P has serious advantages that have remained totally unanswered by Glock.
