Pistol World Forums banner
1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Big decision. I would like to get a 9mm full size that I could shoot regularly and use for home defense. I am considering going into IPSC and other shooting competitions. I never really considered Glocks before now because I didn't like it's slide stop lever's size or the mag release. Now that the G4's have the exchangeable back straps, larger mag release, and slide stop, it is now in the running for my next purchase. I love the M&p's ergonomics but I have heard horror stories about Smith and Wesson's reliability. I have gotten mixed reviews about the Smith but I still seem to like it better because it has a slight edge on ergo's over the Glock. The Glock is more reliable and has more parts that I can use. Does anybody have experience with the new G4's or MP's? I am flexible on other pistols or designs. Please let us know about your experiences!!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
I have a M&P 9c and I love it. Handles great. I have shot the full size in .40 and that was really nice. Recoil was less than expected and could get it back on target quick. I haven't had any problems with it and from the way it has operated I dont really expect to. From what I understand though if you do have a problem S&W customer service is supposed to be excellent. Lifetime warranty on the gun doesn't hurt either. Trigger is a little gritty out of the box but gets better after awhile. There are some really nice kits from Apex Tactical that can be ordered and installed to greatly improve the trigger. I think they also just produced a competion trigger kit. I haven't handled any of the newer Glocks. I have the same opinion of the older ones as you, just dont feel good in the hand. Chances are whichever one you choose you'll be happy, they're both good guns. Check out the M&P forum lots of good info there.

http://mp-pistol.com/boards/index.php?showforum=59
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Since no one else is posting thought you might like to see my M&P all dressed up.

M&P 9c
Apex DCAEK (trigger kit)
Crimson Trace laser grips
Truglo TFO sights
Micro90 light

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
I would go with the Glock, hands down. My biggest issue with the Smith & Wesson M&P line of pistols is the constant slide rusting issues that come up all the time with these guns. The Smith & Wesson M&P Models are having severe rusting issues with the slide, and have been for some time now. Google "Smith & Wesson M&P slide rusting issues", and you'll get the phone book.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n ... ing+issues

This is being caused by the inferior Melonite treatment process to the slide itself. Springfield Armory went through much the same thing with their XD line of pistols a while back. That process did not involve Melonite, but the result was much the same. The slides themselves rusted like an old railroad track, especially when carried in a cold climate. When going from the cold outdoors into a warm building the in / out condensation rusted the slides on these guns in no time.

The reason for this is Melonite, and all of the other trade names this process is sold under, are far inferior to the Tenifer process that is used by Glock. I know someone will argue that, but it is a fact. Melonite, along with the other processes like Tufftride and Nitride, (both gas and liquid), are sold as being, "Just as good". The fact of the matter is they are not. Certainly not from a rust and or corrosion standpoint. The best proof of this over the years is both companies, (Smith & Wesson and Springfield Armory), who have used the Melonite process, or ones similar to it including the forms of different Phosphate treatments, have all experienced rusting issues, while a Tenifer treated Glock is all but impossible to acquire any rust on in most any environment. This has been proven over and over in torture treatment after torture treatment involving everything from ocean immersion for months on end to storage in rock salt. Tenifer beats all other anti rust metal treatments hands down. It also reduces the coefficient of friction of the surface itself substantially. It is one of the reasons Glock treats the inside of the barrel itself with it. The Tenifer process is .005 M.M. thick, and is close to the hardness of Diamond. This is why it wears so well. It literally takes years of daily carry for a Glock pistol to develop any kind of holster wear on the slide because of this process.

The reason S&W and Springfield Armory don't use it is because the Tenifer process is banned in this country because it cannot be made to meet EPA environmental standards. This is why the Glock pistol is made in Austria, but assembled in this country in Georgia. Glock applies the Tenifer in Austria where the slide and barrel itself is manufactured. The parts are then shipped here, and the pistol assembled, boxed, and shipped to various distributors.

The Springfield Armory XD line of pistols are made in Croatia, but are shipped as completed guns. There really is no reason they could not use the Tenifer process on their XD line unless there is a logistics problem in getting it done, or else there may be a cost issue. I don't know, but I do know that Glock has it, and Springfield does not. Because of that an XD is far more likely to acquire rusting issues than any Glock ever will.

There is in fact zero reason for a modern defensive carry pistol to be prone to rust in today's manufacturing era. These metal treatments are out there. Glock has proven for over 25 years they do in fact work. A Glock has proven to be one of the most, if not THE most weather resistant handgun manufactured to date. You should not have to keep a modern defensive pistol soaked with oil to prevent it from rusting. That is total nonsense. It isn't the 1950's anymore. The other manufacturers tout their metal treatment processes like Melonite as "Just as good", when in fact it has been proven they are not. S&W needs to step up to the plate here. It is 2010 and they are having trouble matching manufacturing standards Glock has set the bar at in the early 80's. To me that is totally unacceptable in today's day and age. Bill T.
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Top