So let me explain the parameters of this comparison: I am comparing for the specific use of a survival weapon - a wilderness weapon. That is the direction of this blog, and that will be the direction of this comparison. As such, the most important qualities are as follows:
1) Reliable
2) Rugged
3) All around usability
4) Comfortable
The last category is the most subjective, and will vary by user.
Reliable - First, both of these weapons are rock-solid reliable. I have seen various tests, and they may have merit, but in my personal experience I have never had a mis-feed or stove-pipe with either weapon. They have eaten brass, aluminum, steel, FMJs and JHPs, with no problems. I did have one light load with the M&P which kept it from cycling, but that is an ammo issue, not a weapon issue. Obviously the Glock has the edge here, because it has been in service longer, but I suspect the M&P is every bit as reliable.
Rugged - Both are made of durable polymer and big chunks of steel. The Glock looks a little more sturdy, but I'm pretty sure you could park a truck on either one and it would come out firing. The Glock definitely has higher quality magazines, however, with a steel-inside-polymer design that looks like it could withstand a nuclear holocaust. On the other hand, even though the M&P mags are basically just steel with a polymer base-plate, they are still higher quality than almost any 1911 mag I've ever seen. However, the Glock does have a distinct advantage. This advantage is the simplicity of its parts and breakdown. Breaking down the Glock requires two quick motions, and results in a slide, barrel, spring, and frame. The M&P requires you to depress the sear before disassembly, which is a huge pain in the ass. You probably don't want to shove your finger in there, especially if it is a field strip, as you might get dirt in the chamber. To this end, S&W have provided a tool built into the backstrap that you can reach in there with. This requires removing the magazine, twisting out the tool, etc. And don't forget to put it back. The tool also holds the backstrap in place, so if you misplace it, you are in deep shit. Honestly, if I used this weapon in the wilderness I would use something else to depress the sear, as I would be too scared of losing the tool. Also, the Sig style breakdown is more difficult to accomplish than the Glock's takedown. Simplicity is king in the wilderness, and I think the Glock wins here.
Useability - The Glock also has an advantage in usability. The hollow backstrap of the Glock can be used to store implements - I suggest strike-anywhere matches - by utilizing a plug such as this one.
The M&P comes with three backstraps and two magazines, but frankly this is too much to keep up with. You will probably prefer the longer mag, and as a result will go out and buy a second one, forgetting all about the shorty (at least I did). As for the backstraps, once you select the one that fits, you will probably stash the others away. Certainly they spares will not have room in your bugout bag. All this to say that they are nice features, but they don't make the M&P customizable or adjustable in most wilderness scenarios. On the other hand, I highly recommend the 9mm round for most folks, to the point that I would suggest the 9c over the G23 for most shooters. I have several reasons for this recommendation. First, the .40 has more snap. It requires more practice and strength to control. On the other hand, my granny could fire a 9mm. Second, ammo for the 9mm is still the world standard, universally available, and doubles as a great barter tool. Finally, most shooters can re-acquire targets much more quickly with the 9mm.
Comfort - The first is the grip. The grip on the M&P is just too small. I have medium hands with longish fingers (I'm 6'1"), and even with the extended grip, my fingers are fighting for room. The Glock fits my hand almost perfectly in length and width. On the other hand, the M&P has an interchangeable backstrap to adjust the width to your hand. I suspect length will be the real issue with the c model. If you are considering the M&P, I suggest you look at the full size version. Conversely, people with meatier hands will find the Glock too short as well. I personally don't like the full size (17 and 22) models, as the finger bumps get in the way. I'm also uncomfortable with the grip angle. Again, these are personal preferences, and will change shooter to shooter. Second is the ability to carry and use. Both will carry well, all day and are light weight. The Glock has a negligible capacity advantage (13 vs. 12 rounds). The M&P I purchased has an external safety, but I would not recommend that. They just get in the way. I also dislike the M&P trigger - it feels spongy to me, with a long trigger pull. The Glock feels crisper, is solid metal, and I know exactly where the break is going to be.
Conclusion - The winner here seems to be the Glock, but while the ideas here might guide your own weapon selection, please do your own research for your own needs. Ironically, the most important metric is the most subjective, and that is which weapon fits you the best, gives you the most confidence, and can be deployed the most effectively by you - its owner and user.
No comments:
Post a Comment