P320. Better trigger than both, and points far more naturally than the Glock. I have thousands of rounds through mine with nary a hickup, and the modular design makes the platform more versatile than either of the other two.

I have used and Glock and M&P for a duty gun. The M&P 2.0 is hands down a better gun then the older M&P's and has a far better trigger then any Glock. The changeable grips on the M&P 2.0 are way better then the Gen 5 Glock changeable back straps.

I would choose the 2.0 over the Glock for personal fit issues, but also because I find a Glock trigger guard so small that it becomes unsafe with gloves.

Between these two I really don't think there's a bad choice. For me it's Glock because that's what I'm used to and most comfortable with. But if Glock had never existed, the 2.0 would be right up there with the VP9/40 in my book.

Glocks fit my hand better than the M&P 2.0. I don't like short trigger reach and that the trigger breaks way back on the M&P 2.0. One should try out whatever they are considering first if possible and if not at least handle and dry fire but live fire is much much more telling.

quote:

But if Glock had never existed, the 2.0 would be right up there with the VP9/40 in my book.

This.

But since they do exist, for duty, I'd probably go with the 17 just for the prolific amount of aftermarket support for the platform available almost everywhere.

First, thank you all for the responses and commentary.

Let me give you a bit more detail on why I put this poll up now that I have more time to explain.

Being a LEO for 20 years, I have carried many brands of guns for duty. The majority being Glocks in 40 and 45. In 2012, I bought my own first generation M&P40 and carried it for a year or so. That is still a great gun and I shoot it so much better than the Glock 40, but here is why I put it in the safe and went Glock 22 Gen4 which I use today. In between, I went the Beretta 92 Brigadier way which I love, but it was so damn heavy that in the safe it went after a few years.

When I carried the M&P40, at the 2000 round mark, the trigger return spring broke. It was a major malfunction which made it into a paper weight since the M&P did not have a manual forward trigger option built in. I lost faith in the gun I shot the best and retired it.

I can shoot Glocks well in a combat setting at combat ranges, but when the target goes farther away, that damn hump makes me shoot high and left, to the point I have to use Kentucky windage and aim low and right to make hits. Pretty annoying when I know there are guns like the M&P and the Beretta 92 that I can make far hits with center of aim.

But, for patrol, I opted for reliability and confidence, rather than distance marksmanship.

This leads us to here today. When I researched M&P trigger return springs breaking, most cases were from 2013 and not much recently.

I know the Glock 17 will be great, but if I can be sure the 2.0 M&P will not have issues, that is the gun that fits me the best.

You guys should know though that with the M&P, if only that conical trigger return spring breaks, the gun will have a total failure. If not for this fact, it would be my choice.


So the question is: Do I pass on the proven G17 and hope the 2.0 M&P will be as reliable, considering there are really no current cases of trigger return spring failures.

Anyone from S&W here that can comment??

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
P226, I know it wasn't an option, but it should be.

Plus 2

quote:

Originally posted by Angel King:
First, thank you all for the responses and commentary.

Let me give you a bit more detail on why I put this poll up now that I have more time to explain.

Being a LEO for 20 years, I have carried many brands of guns for duty. The majority being Glocks in 40 and 45. In 2012, I bought my own first generation M&P40 and carried it for a year or so. That is still a great gun and I shoot it so much better than the Glock 40, but here is why I put it in the safe and went Glock 22 Gen4 which I use today. In between, I went the Beretta 92 Brigadier way which I love, but it was so damn heavy that in the safe it went after a few years.

When I carried the M&P40, at the 2000 round mark, the trigger return spring broke. It was a major malfunction which made it into a paper weight since the M&P did not have a manual forward trigger option built in. I lost faith in the gun I shot the best and retired it.

I can shoot Glocks well in a combat setting at combat ranges, but when the target goes farther away, that damn hump makes me shoot high and left, to the point I have to use Kentucky windage and aim low and right to make hits. Pretty annoying when I know there are guns like the M&P and the Beretta 92 that I can make far hits with center of aim.

But, for patrol, I opted for reliability and confidence, rather than distance marksmanship.

This leads us to here today. When I researched M&P trigger return springs breaking, most cases were from 2013 and not much recently.

I know the Glock 17 will be great, but if I can be sure the 2.0 M&P will not have issues, that is the gun that fits me the best.

You guys should know though that with the M&P, if only that conical trigger return spring breaks, the gun will have a total failure. If not for this fact, it would be my choice.


So the question is: Do I pass on the proven G17 and hope the 2.0 M&P will be as reliable, considering there are really no current cases of trigger return spring failures.

Anyone from S&W here that can comment??

Carry a back up. I don't care who the maker is, all these guns can break. Carry a back up. I probably don't need to tell you that... but I've broken a Sig P320, Glock and M&P. None of them are perfect.

I've broken the trigger spring on the M&P at some very odd intervals. From 2K to 8K, what I've found if your department will allow it..... Apex poly trigger reduces the trigger travel and that spring is not as stressed. My results in the 1st gen and 2.0 have been zero failures of that spring up to 8k, but I do switch them out around 6k because they are cheap insurance. Just my 2 cents.

I prefer the 2.0 for a striker gun.

Back up gun. Definitely. Alway with me.

Glock Gen 5. I shot an M&P rental and the trigger left a blister on my finger from the trigger slap. Granted that was a rental that was probably heavily abused, but still.

I was a Glock convert many years ago. Went through the armorers school. When the M&Ps came out I wanted to buy in to the system but the slightly more complicated system and slightly different sizes coupled with limited aftermarket support at the time kept me in Glock's orbit. I still see no reason to change even though the M&P is new and improved with mucho support now. The Glock is still simpler and meets my needs.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
Glock, because I currently shoot and carry Glocks. And I'd probably take a G45 over a G17.

I concur..

There are a lot of well made reliable platforms out there that would serve you well as a duty gun.

My personal recommendation now is the G45 hands down.

I like the 320 pistol as well, and also have a couple of X Carrys I use on duty on occasion. While I like them, they need more of a track record before I can without hesitation recommend them.

Mine have been flawless, but they don't have a 30 plus year track record behind them yet.


TXPO

While I personally prefer the Gen 4s over the Gen 5s, between the two choices, I'll take the G17 Gen 5.

And yes... carry a back up, regardless of the brand of primary carry gun.

Choose the one that you want, and the one that strikes your fancy.

Posting a thread soliciting opinions is pretty useless because people look for excuses to justify their choices.

Let's examine a few, shall we?

"30 plus year track record". I love this one. Do you mean the track record of guns getting officers injured in Wisconsin because when you put a light on them they stop functioning? Or how about the gun that blows up in your hand chambered in .40 because of no case support? Or the one that ties up because the extraction and ejection is so weak that it throws brass to the face? The one that the frame rails crack, fall off, and tie up the gun. Or the one that the slides fly off the front of the gun? That one? And all the while, the company blames ammo, the officers, and everything under the sun, except to take responsibility for the defects? That 30 year track record? People either weren't around in those days, or they willfully ignore the fact of the multiple shit sandwiches in that past. If that is "Perfection", well..........

"Availability of parts and accessories are everywhere". If you intend on buying your gun stuff at Walmart, I can see this being a plus. Unless you live in West Pigsknuckle, AR, every gun shop is going to have accessories for any of the major players. Oh, and you use Amazon for everything from shoes to porn, so I'm guessing they'll deliver what you need there as well when it comes to parts and accessories.

"I like...." This is the biggie. I like a lot of stuff. We live in really great times that there are so many good choices. But, they are all just a choice. Glock has it's fanboys who are so indoctrinated that it is clearly the only choice. Next year, their heads are going to explode when they find out that JSOC is dropping the Glock 19. Is it a good pistol? Yes, absolutely it is. Is it a clear choice? Not in todays market. I'm not anti-Glock. I can take every other manufacturer and do the exact same thing to their product line. Smith had huge issues with the M&P that are pretty well known. Don't need to go into the P320, because everyone here knows. These guns are merely choices, that we go into through the prism of our own likes in dislikes. But, the playing field is pretty level with no distinct leader.

My advice for a duty pistol choice? Something modern, chambered in 9mm, something that has high capacity, something that you can shoot well, and something that Safariland makes 9,000 holsters for in light/no light configurations. Safari land dominates the police market, so if you are going to use it for any kind of duty, you probably need the versatility of holster options for light/no light/adding an optic.

We live in great times with so many good choices. Shoot several, pick the one you like. If it comes down to Glock, I would look seriously at the G45 instead of the G17 as mentioned. Likewise, I'd look at the M&P 2.0, or the P320 Pro Carry model. If you can find an X Carry, that is my current choice as the Pro is vaporware to this point.

I am not a Glock fan, I admit they are reliable enough and accurate enough, I just do not like how they fit my hand or feel while shooting

Therefore I would go for the M &P, but not one of the 2.0 versions. I would go for one of the original versions



I do not like the feel of the M&P 2.0s texturing of the gripping surfaces.

Those are my personal preferences. Go out and rent or borrow one of each and form your own preferences.

I voted for the M&P. I had a Glock as a duty weapon for years, and i never was a good of a shot with it, as i am with other pistols.

There is nothing wrong with either pistol, both are great guns. Shoot them both and pick the one that works best for you.

I voted M&P because I am really starting to like the platform.

I have the same problem that rexles has in which Glock's hammer away at my middle finger behind the trigger guard.

I have carried one briefly on duty but I never carried one or practiced with one long enough to become confident in my abilities with it.

Just switched to the 2.0 at work. Love it. Also own a full size 2.0 with an RMR, a 3.6”, and a Shield, all in 9mm. They feel thinner in my hands and the grip angle feels better to me. The factory grip stippling is real nice, too.