Curious what everyone's thoughts are on these two guns. The XL disappears easily but the M&P has its advantages too: grip, width, etc. Which do you feel has the edge?

My vote is the XL. I like the modular FCU, have posted about the ability to swap out the grips and have a very versatile platform. Mine has been outstanding on the range, carries well, checks all the boxes for me.

For carry, the only advantage the M&P 3.6 has over the 365 XL is capacity. It's bigger than the SIG in every dimension. For CC purpose, I wouldn't call that an advantage.

Both good but the XL makes more sense in more cases. Since you could go to 10 or 17 round mags with a frame swap.

The Sig is only slightly smaller overall compared to the M&P but the Sig grip is much smaller than the Smith 3.6. I think a more comparable gun to the Sig would be the S&W 2.0 Plus 4" Performance Center but if you want the optic, the P365 has that. The P365 grip module was a little too small for my hands to shoot/grip comfortably and the S&W Plus just fit me better. The slight differences with the height and length is not very much for concealment.

Handgun Hero is a great site to look at the size of a firearm and to compare them visually.

How I score them:

Ease of and comfort for carry goes to the XL. Its slender profile is hard to beat. However the one that has the superior shootability is the M&P 2.0. There's less felt recoil and muzzle flip, and is faster to recover and get back onto the target. For myself (and a lot of other folks) it's far easier to shoot well with a larger gun. At close-in distances that superiority may not matter as much, but your threat may not always come at you from a point-blank situation.

I'm used to carrying G19-sized guns, so the S&W would be my choice even though it's slightly wider than my EDC G23. As always, YMMV.

Which gun is actually closest to the Glock 19? Is it the 4" or 3.6" M&P?

quote:

Originally posted by Mastrogiacomo:
Which gun is actually closest to the Glock 19? Is it the 4" or 3.6" M&P?

The 4", since the G19 also has the 4" barrel.

The XL has a narrower grip and weighs 4oz less. To me, it comes down to the trigger. Which one feels better to you?

I don't get too caught up in small dimensional differences as most don't seem to make any real world difference once they are inside of the waistband and under a shirt.
I really like the M&P line and I seem to shoot the compacts as well as I do the full size so that would be my pick. The Sigs just don't feel right in my hands and I have to shift my grip every other shot or so because of that. The Smiths just lock in the best.

Having had both and carried both. The slimmer profile of the XL is much better carry than the M&P 3.6. And even with my XL with the Macro grip, my XL by far is easier for to carry than my M&P 3.6.

I own an XL, and shot a couple of M&P. For me, with smallish hands, the XL is the clear winner, particularly with Wilson Combat grip module. It fits my hands darn near perfectly, both strong and weak hand grip.

WC grip module was among the best $66.26 (on sale and including tax and shipping) I ever spent.

quote:

Originally posted by monoblok:


Ease of and comfort for carry goes to the XL. Its slender profile is hard to beat. However the one that has the superior shootability is the M&P 2.0. There's less felt recoil and muzzle flip, and is faster to recover and get back onto the target.

This is exactly where I come out. I have the M&P 2.0 compact with 4 inch barrel and the basic 365. Not exactly the comparison you are asking about but close. I prefer the M&P, shootability trumps ease of carry for me - most of the time. And the M&P is not really difficult to carry.

The 4.0 is growing on me...and it was my first choice as I tend to like bigger guns.

I have both and my vote is for the XL.

They are both fine pistols so its really down to personal preference. The XL carries better for me, and I like the trigger better.

But I have no complaints with the M&P, just like the XL better