GunTalk-Online.com

I have been looking at, and test shooting, different polymer 9mm hg's trying to replace a void that my recently sold beretta caused. A couple I have been interested in are the S&W m&p and the SA XDm. Anybody own either of these or have any input about your favorite?
Haka

Both are very competent pistols. I own an M&P and have fired several XD's. Both shoot well and can be fired accurately. I believe most of the folks who have either like them. I preferred the ergonomics of the M&P. I haven't been disappointed. My M&P seems to be pretty insensitive to what I'm loading. I also haven't had a functioning problem with the pistol.

Around here a number of the IDPA shooters are switching from Glocks to M&P's. I know a couple who have sent their M&P's to a gunsmith named Dan Burwell for tweaking. They have very nice shooting pistols.

Between the two, the choice would be whichever you like. Smith & Wesson has a better warranty.

thanks for the helpful response, it's sort of the way I feel, 6 of one, half dozen of the other. I somewhat like the appearance of the smith a little better, and it's interchangeable grips are easier to change (not a big deal). It has a longer sight radius, I think, then the SA. The SA is a nice set up though.
H

I was looking for a subcompact 40 a while back, and i was on the fence between the m&p and the XD....I like them both, but I got a deal i could not ignore on the XD so i got that one....and i like it a lot

go with the one that feels best, and if that don't help go with the better deal, or get them both , they are both affordable pistols

I like the "get 'em both" idea.
H

Hakaman wrote:I like the "get 'em both" idea.
H

GO FOR IT, HAKA.

GO FOR IT, HAKA.

Do I have your permission OM?

Hakaman wrote:

GO FOR IT, HAKA.

Do I have your permission OM?

Do it, whatever problems you get into at home, don't call me.

Well I took OM's advice and "just did it", and I didn't get into any probs with the better half.
I decided to get the S&W m&p 9mm pro, with a 5" barrel. I think I will be very satisfied with this gun,
as it gets some pretty good reviews. I rented the same gun at the range and she shot pretty good.
It comes with 2 mags, 2 extra grip backstraps for different size grip to fit your hand, and the usual stuff.
Here's a link to a review from guns magazine:
http://www.gunsmagazine.com/Features/0908/Ftr0908.html
Some pics I took of the gun:



haka

Looks nice! I can't wait to hear what you think about it. I've had a chance to thoroughly evaluate one of its predecessors, the Sigma, and wasn't overly impressed with it. I do see a lot of improvements in this line and perhaps it fairs better. In any case I hope you enjoy it!

R,
Bullseye

Bullseye wrote:Looks nice! I can't wait to hear what you think about it. I've had a chance to thoroughly evaluate one of its predecessors, the Sigma, and wasn't overly impressed with it. I do see a lot of improvements in this line and perhaps it fairs better. In any case I hope you enjoy it!
R,
Bullseye

I went out today to the local range and went thru 4 boxes of ammo (200rds). I rented a Glock 34 and compared it to my new S&W m/p pro. Both guns shot well with no complaints about either, no "failures to ------". The triggers are a little different, with the glock being a steady 5 lbs-ish thru firing. The Smith has a light pull until it engages, then quickly fires at about 6 lbs. I like the Smith because of this quick firing when the sear is engaged. The grips angles are different as well with the Glock having more angle towards the rear of the gun inre of the barrel. I noticed this quickly when I alternated between guns while comparing. I personally feel that the Smith grip angle is more relaxing and more natural for the shooting position. Also, the Smith comes with a total of 3 replaceable backstraps, small, medium, and large, with the large having a inherent beavertail on it. What a "sweet" grip it is, accommodating most any hand size. Both guns seemed to have equal muzzle flip as both are about the same in technical specs. The Glock has an nice sight arrangement, partridge type, with a white dot in the front and a square notched "adjustable" rear outllined in white, nicely visible. For me, the Glock has an advantage with the adjustable rear sight (easy to see in low light). The Smith has the advantage during well lit times with the HiViz. There is something about the HiViz that makes it easier for old eyes to see. Another interesting characteristic with the Smith is the one step procedure to inserting another loaded magazine into the gun in a self defense situation. After dropping the spent magazine (17+1 rd) in a gun fight, simply insert a new loaded magazine into the gun abruptly, and the slide automatically resets and chambers a round ready for firing. You do not have to hit the slide reaease, it happens on it's own.

Things I like about the Glock:
No "bs" type self defense style gun, proven over time to be quite reliable with proper ammo. Hard to beat. Excellent sights(easily visible in low light situations), consistant trigger pull, high capacity 17 rds. No-nonsense gun that will deliver when you need it to.

Things I like about the S&W:
Classy look, sort of sexy, with reliability mixed in considerably. Excellent front sight(HiViz), good trigger, multi-size interchangeable grip back straps, comfortable grip angle, good accuracy, and neat magazine insert/slide reset feature, high capacity (17 rds).

EDGE
Looks: S
Trigger: Tie, it's a matter of preference
Features: S
Reliability: G (only because the S hasn't been proven over years of test)
Grip: S
Accuracy: Equal
Sights: G Smith has HiViz front sight, but Glock has easier to see, white outlined rear sight.
Field Stripping: G has slight edge, S takes a little getting used to, but easy
Quality: Both are excellent guns

BOTTOM LINE: The Glock definitely has it's niche in the self defense world, it is proven reliable and simple to shoot in high adrenaline situations. It has a track record that speaks for itself. The Smith has most of the Glocks features and abilities (yet not proven like the Glocks years of trials), but also include some sexiness and functionality additions that the Glock doesn't have, like the HiViz front sight, the magazine/slide reset feature, the interchangeable grip back straps, with better grip angle (IMO). Glock does have an adjustable, better visible rear sight. I give the S&W m&p pro a slight edge because of the additional features.
I have attached the photo below the shows 100 shots @ 25 ft. I am not the greatest bullseye shooter, and most can do better, but I have been shooting seriously only for the past year. My eyes are old too. I will say this, I seriously miss my Beretta M9, but I could never do this well with that gun. These shots were not all taken at a total relaxed pace, some were at a semi-rapid pace as well. I will say this, I probably could hit COM @ 25 ft !

Hakaman

That is a very nice report on your new M&P! I'm happy to hear that you're pleased with its performance. Looks like a good defensive shooter based on that 8 yard target.

R,
Bullseye

Good report, H'man. I think the Hi-Viz sight is better than the 3-dot I have on mine. I think the M&P is about equal to the Glock on reliability and has been around long enough, but you'd have to rely on field reports.

Good report, H'man. I think the Hi-Viz sight is better than the 3-dot I have on mine. I think the M&P is about equal to the Glock on reliability and has been around long enough, but you'd have to rely on field reports.

I had to give the Glock a victory somewhere, otherwise people would think that I am favoring the Smith because I own it, which is probably true. Ooops.

Another issue i did not mention here while comparing the S&W and the Glock. Today, while field stripping/cleaning my hg's, I had three guns apart at once.
1) S&W m&p pro
2) Taurus PT1911
3) Kahr PM-9
To start with, I have experience with the Glock on how it supports the chambered round. At the 6:00 position, it does not have support there. This is done on purpose by Glock for better, more reliable feeding of ammo. This can be a problem when the shooter uses brass from a previous Glock firing. This 6:00 position can fatigue the brass and make it brittle an unstable, and could cause a case failure. Hence, do not reload Glock used brass (as they say). I noticed this on the Glock while having a barrel out of a gun and inserting a round in the chamber.
Back to the 3 guns listed above. The S&W m&p pro has a "fully" supported chamber, int that there isn't any brass casing protruding at all, except the rimmed portion, which goes without saying. The chamber is extremely tight as well, not allowing any wobble from side to side. I was pleased by this technical finding. S&W gets another vote from me.
The PT1911 does not support that well either, as I have heard from others. Funny you don't hear of any failures with 1911's, maybe because I haven't paid any attention to it, but maybe because a 45 acp has only 1/2 to 1/3 the pressure build up as the 9mm, or 40 cal cartridges.
The Kahr PM-9 surprised me as well. It's chamber appeared to be fully supported almost as well as the Smith, but a consistant distance still protruded out of the chambe all the way around the shell? I also was surprised at how much play the PM-9 had, as I could wiggle the chambered round laterally quite easily. This, again, was probably made this way for reliability of round feeding.
The Smith, again, impressed me with it's manf technique.
Hakaman