thinking of getting one of the 2 for home protection and for a little fun as well. i don't know too much about guns. i have fired a 9mm bereta, M-16, a few shotguns and revolvers.
i went to a gun dealer and held both. the S&W had a good feel to it. but i hear so much good things about the glock.
should i consider .45 glock instead?
the price for the S&W and glock were the same, $589. any good info would be helpful, thanks.
If possible go to a range where you can rent different guns and give them a try.Decisions like this should not be taken over looks and feels, but over how well can you shoot it. Glocks with a 5 pounds trigger would not be my first recomendation for a novice shooter. If you can get one with the heavier pulls, then I wouldn't hesitate.
As for calibers, the same. Try to see what you can shoot best. Remember accuracy is always more important than caliber.
i value your info but let me give you a little more info about me. i was L/E (law enforecement) officer in the coast guard for 3 years, moved on into aviation. we used the 9mm bereta during that period.
i qualified expert with the 9 and M-16, highest qual one can have.
so i do have knowledge of how to shoot. i just have never been one to know extensively about guns.
as far as the range i live in the boonies. a "try out" of a gun probably isn't likely.
I have a Glock mod. 27 (mini .40) and a mod 23 (midi .40) The little one for me anyway is still too large for much of my ccw, I usually carry my little Kel-Tec P3AT instead. The larger model 23 is a honey of a pistol. I love to take/carry it wherever I can. I have a nice shoulder rig for it too. I have the internal Lasermax installed. It seems to digest any HP ammo I give it without a hiccup. Mine definately DOES NOT have the New York police trigger! I'd guess mine is down about 4 lbs. Recoil doesn't seem bad at all (I do have a .454 Casull...) My antique Ruger P85 Mk II 9mm hasn't been out of the safe in a couple years.
No LEO here... I'm a high school teacher (I did do some prisoner excort duty for my Uncle Sam back in 1971, but that was a lifetime ago.)
Peanut Man
Welcome to TFF, Cents! Trust me, you'll like it here. Great folks and help and opinion on just about anything related to firearms (not to mention politics, knives, history, and general BS).
On your question, here's my view, which is likely worth about what it will cost ya. Avoid S&W at all costs unless you're buying a revolver! Buy a Glock, a Sig, an H&K, a Springfield. or even a CZ if you want an auto pistol in .40 S&W caliber. Admitedly, I'm basing that opinion only on my own experience and others may certainly disagree with me. Smith builds the finest revolvers in the world, bar none, but their auto pistols, while certainly adequate and quite reliable, are not in the same league with Glock and the others I listed. I have an S&W Sigma in .40 and frankly, it was a waste of money. I never carry the bloody thing. The trigger is so heavy that reasonable accuracy is very difficult to obtain with it and there is no way to adjust that trigger. Granted, S&W also builds better, more expensive autos than the Sigma model, but for the same money you can have a much smoother and more accurate handgun. Personally, I am VERY partial to Glocks. I have both a Glock 30 in .45 ACP and a Glock 33 in .357 Sig. Both have always functioned flawlessly and I can definitely hit what I shoot at with them. Ursus' earlier comment is also well worth heeding. Never buy a weapon until you have had a chance to handle it, and if at all possible, shoot it. Each of us is different. What works well for me might not be the best choice for you.
I am, by experience, a glock fanatic. can't say enough good stuff about them. one thing you might want to consider is that if you were to purchase a glock 22 (.40 cal) you could also buy a 357 sig barrel( glock 31) and drop it straight in, boom, you have two guns(barrel costs about 130.00). this will also work the other way from 357 sig to 40 cal. just a thought to consider.
If you're referring to the S&W M&P, it is sweet. But I also like the Glock 23. I carry them both, but think if you are going to just have one, and want to have fun at the range, the M&P is a little easier on the trigger finger. That safety lever down the middle of the Glock trigger gets to me after about 50 rounds or so. And the ergonomics for the M&P are superb, the Glock for me doesn't have any. But it is so simple, rugged, and reliable I'll never get rid of it.
I never been impressed by S&W autos. They seem a little cheaply made, which I know is odd because their revolvers are damn nice. A Glock is a lot more pistol for your dollars, I'm gonna say.
For someone trained on a Beretta 92(Military M9) I'd highly advise considering a Beretta 92 or 96 for a personal weapon. You already know how to maintain it, for one, and two, being familiar with it counts for a lot. Beretta has several variations including more compact versions for carry.
.40 cal: potentially bigger wound/deeper tissue penetration, but more recoil
9mm: cheaper practice ammo/low recoil means faster refire, but proper shot placement a little more necessary
Pistols in both calibers are usually high capacity.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
The Firearms Forum
2.2M posts
71K members
Since 2003
A forum community dedicated to all firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!