glock g17 vs. Smith and Wesson MP 9mm

I'm new with handguns and I was wondering about these 2 different ones... I'm going to start applying at some different Departments in Kansas City and St. Louis and I was just wondering about these 2 guns... as in which would be a better service pistol and/or learning to shoot and protection/ service pistol? Some of the departments I've looked at require you to provide your own pistol...

I've checked all the stats on these guns but I still don't know which would be better... if you could help me out a little bit, I would appreciate it.

Also, the Springfield Armory XD9...

http://www.handgunforum.net/general-semi-auto/5751-glock-xd-m-p.html

The Glock is time tested and the number of accessories are greater. Also I believe that the magazines for Glock are less expensive to purchase. I believe that someone on this forum describe Glocks as "the timex of the gun world" - that is a perfect description.

Smith & Wesson is newer and has several perceived advantages over the Glock such as interchangeable backstraps so as to help you find a grip that better fits you.

Try them both to see which you like better.

Do you happen to know what the local agencies that you might be applying to issue? If you can find that out then maybe you should consider this information before making your next purchase.

BTW the Springfield xd-9mm is a great pistol, that is worth your consideration.

Glock... Doctor tested, mother approved.

The G17 is the original that started it all. The first commercially manufactured polymer pistol to take off in the mainstream. It has tons of aftermarket support, simple to work on design, and an easy to use trigger.

I carry a G19 almost daily and it's utterly reliable, lightweight, and easy to deploy if necessary.

The M&P is what Glock would have been if they had kept engineering on the design. I have both and they are both good shooters. For me I like the Glock 19 for carry and the M&P for the range and home defense. JMHO.

I've not dealt a lot with the M&P but I keep getting closer to getting one..heh. I never though about the back strap thing till I tried and then bought a Browning Pro-40 that has them. I really like the option. Glock does have a lot of after market things to go on them but people are making more and more to fit many of the modern design pistols. Smith mags are more pricey but that will change as more companies start making them. Used to be Glock mags were pretty high back a few years. One couldn't go wrong with either of them you ask me.

I think NYPD issues both Glock 19 and Glock 17 for new officer trainees. That should tell you something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SugarmillMan

I think NYPD issues both Glock 19 and Glock 17 for new officer trainees. That should tell you something.

---

It's cheaper!

Just a bit of FYI: Broward Sheriff's Office in South Florida is moving slowly away from Glock only rule. They have more options and many are using HKs as Duty and Off Duty carry guns. I'm not 100% sure of the details, but I notice more and more guys using USPs on duty.

Glock is cheap, but most LEOs have to purchase their own firearm for large departments. May as well buy a gun you really like right? I love my G19, but it's not the only option for everyone I know that.

Oh, and the NYPD buys their Glocks through the department. Costs them $800 at LEO discount last I heard...thanks to the State and NYC firearm taxes etc.

Both are excellent pistols. I prefer the Glock because of the lower bore axis and better trigger reset, but either would serve you well. Holsters and accessories are more common for the Glock, also.

Personally, I'd have to go with Glock. I would refrain from giving reasons for myself, but some of our other members have already hinted at that. I'm no brand basher, but I know what works for me, and millions of others. If you've never owned a Glock, then get what works best for you and try to keep impressions or what others tell you out of your mind. If you choose something other than Glock, I figure it will only be a matter of time before you are shooting one regularly and loving it and carrying it full time. Some of us have already gone through the learning curve you're about to embark upon, and some of us would rather not pressure you into a decision you won't be able to live with. Pistols are an investment in most cases, and for those who carry, it's an investment in life so-to-speak. Make your decisions wisely and educated....you are the only one who will make or break the ultimate decision in pistols for you. Good luck in everything you do.

I have both and I do not see any significant difference in them. Like most guns, if you practice with them they work. I would think that one will serve just as well as the other for self defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bassman86

I've checked all the stats on these guns but I still don't know which would be better...

---

The one that would be better is the one that feels best to you and that you shoot better. All three are good pistols, but one that is better for someone else, may not be better for you. In my opinion, the price of accessories should not matter so much because if you shoot better with one, then money is well spent on accessories no matter how much they are. Also, although availability is better for some moreso than others, the accessories ARE out there for all three of these pistols. You just have to look more for some than you do for others.:watching:

-Jeff-

After shooting my Glock 17, I dont think I would give it up for anything. It just feels right.

I would say go and hold both, find the one that "talks" to you and feels the best. Only you can decide that.