Comparison: M&P9 2.0 C VS Glock 19
Ah, the never-ending debate: ‘Which pistol shall reign supreme in the arena of concealed carry?’ A constant topic of debate with all sides quickly devolving into grunts about the other side’s clear fondness for crayon ingestion.
When comparing the Smith& Wesson M&P9 M2.0 c (“c” stands for “compact”) and the Glock 19, it is my belief that only preference will lead you to one or the other.
Both are so similar that comparing them is a bit fruitless since all that separates them are minor details, instead of glaring strengths or weaknesses. Several factors change what makes a firearm correct for you and your situation.
Being on the larger side at 6’2, I'm capable of carrying a full size pistol, but choose not to because of the more noticeable printing and the added length of the grip and barrel makes it less comfortable. And besides, I own both pistols discussed in this article and they handle everything I require.
When choosing the right handgun for you, a balance should be attempted between the size, caliber, and capacity.
Carrying a .22 caliber derringer style pocket gun might be the most comfortable to carry but isn’t the best choice tactically and the same thing could be said for a huge “Dirty Harry” gun. Something in between is ideal and both the G19 and the M&P9 achieve that good balance.
The M&P and G19 are very similar in dimensions. Here the M&p is on top.
This is where both the G19 and M&P9 shine and why many consider them to be the best balance of all factors and a popular choice for a good portion of the concealed carry community.
Glock has long been the forerunner in this area since they released the G19 in 1988. Since that time, it firmly held the place of the “as close to perfect as possible” position for a lot of concealed carriers.
In a move that left everyone wondering what took them so long, Smith and Wesson released the M&P92.0 compact which closely matches the dimensions of the G19.
Both share the same round capacity, and reliability holds up as each are built to function in all conditions. Although Glock has a far longer track record on conflict front lines and in many law enforcement holsters, M&P is arguably just as reliable and trusted in the same circles Glock is comfortable running in.
They are so similar I wouldn’t recommend one gun over the other. Though I prefer the M&P, I also own the G19 because it’s a quality pistol I know I can rely on. It mostly comes down to personal preference and which you are more comfortable with purchasing and carrying.
The Comparison
Since both pistols retail brand new for about the same price ($500-$600), it can be hard deciding which to pick up as your new CCW pistol. Here are a few things I’ve noticed to help you make an educated decision:
Ergonomics:
If you already own and shoot other Glocks, I’d recommend staying with the G19. The grip angle will feel right at home in your hands and you won’t have any difficulty picking it up and scoring first round hits.
If you’ve grown up on other handguns, then the grip angle can take a little time getting used to. All this requires is a little time at the range getting out of old habits. Not an impossible endeavor by any means and we could all use the extra range time.
In my opinion, the M&P has a more natural grip angle and fills my hand better compared to the boxier grip of the G19. Both the latest models of each pistol include interchangeable back straps for a more customizable pistol grip.
The stippling on the M&P is a little overaggressive for me. It feels fine in the hand, but I don’t enjoy the rough texture scraping against my skin. I prefer to carry with an undershirt between me and the gun to help prevent chafing.
Mags and Capacity:
Both pistols boast an adequate 9mm 15-round magazine capacity, but each is also able to accept 17-round mags as well. The M&P 9 c 2.0 comes with two grip extensions which slide onto the base of 17-round mags for a seamless integration. The G19 doesn’t include these extensions but they can be purchased from aftermarket suppliers.
G19 w/ extended mag (17 round).
Since the grip of both guns is long enough for my larger than average hands, these grip extensions are more cosmetic than anything else, in my opinion.
This detail makes the M&P initially more desirable in my book, but it’s important to note that these metal magazines are substantially more expensive then the polymer mags available for the G19.
It’s easy to find mags from between $10-$20 for the G19 whereas I've seen plenty of M&P mags in my local gun shops going for over $50 each.
If you wanted to, you can even find mags for the Glock that are well over the 17-round limit of the M&P, with 33-round, and 50-round drums available. Not that practical for CCW perhaps, but undoubtedly fun to have.
M&P9 M2.0 c w/ extended mag (17 round).
While there are aftermarket mag extensions available for the M&P, there are few other options for increasing the capacity similar to the G19.
Trigger:
The trigger is the next most notable difference between the two pistols. I dislike the stock M&P trigger due to its clunky, awkward feel and prefer the stock trigger in Glocks. The M&P Pro Series has a reportedly better trigger for a higher retail price, but I have not had the option of testing one as of yet.
If you’re planning on changing out the trigger anyway, like I do, then this may not be an important factor for you. I recommend getting both pistols in your hand and feeling the difference between them to decide which you prefer, or if this is even a factor that you care about.
Products from Apex Tactical are my go-to for aftermarket triggers, but this doesn't mean the M&P9 M2.0 c is useless without a trigger upgrade. It's a perfectly adequate trigger. I only prefer a smoother, crisper trigger.
Sights:
The stock sights in the G19 are polymer and nothing to write home about even though they’re acceptable for what they are intended. However, I think they are far superior to those of the M&P.
The M&P stock metal sights tend to be rather sharp and I’ve noticed holes being worn in my shirt, not to mention an uncomfortable digging into my skin.
If you decide to purchase the M&P, you’ll probably want to get a set of sights from a reputable company like HI VIZ to help deal with this. Other than the unreasonably, and inexcusably sharp corners, the M&P sights are fine for accuracy and target acquisition and are adequate.
Shared Qualities:
Both these pistols will work great for what you want them to do: save your life. They are reliable and can function as either a full-size battle or a CCW pistol.
Both pistols shown w/ flush seated magazines (15 round).
Their popularity means it’s easy to find aftermarket upgrades and quality holsters as almost every holster smith will have a dedicated supply for these guns.
Since these pistols are not pocket guns, they’re easy to control and the recoil is manageable for most hands.
Main Take Away:
Both are great guns, worthy of your trust and the correct choice is more preference than anything else. Looking back over this article it would seem that the Glock 19 should be my CCW pistol of choice since I have a few more problems with the M&P then the G19:
- Rough stippling
- Trigger
- Sights
If these are things I have to put up with, why not just go with Glock? Because, for me, M&P shoots naturally. It feels like I have less to adjust to make first round hits.
The bottom line is this:
Try them both out. Many ranges offer the ability to rent firearms so that you can see which is likely to the most appropriate choice for you. Which did you choose? Let us know in the comments below.
Thanks for the review, interesting comparison of both.
I have 7 Glocks, well 5 are P80’s, 43 and 19 factory, and like them a lot, but bought an M&P 2.0 .45 acp for $410 from grabagun. The 9mm was $379 last I saw. As mentioned, my Smith is a .45. I find it comfortable, though grip is larger, similar to my Beretta m9. I think the M@P is a great deal. Note upgrading sights is a pita though, as the fit is very very tight. Glock sights I change with a mallet and nylon drift, the m@p took a real chunky site tool and 12″ wrench, and I haven’t bothered with the front yet.
Thank you for this review. I too, own both pistols and find each to be highly capable. What I take away from this article and what I believe you found out through writing it, is that grip angle, or “natural shooting” as you put it, probably plays the biggest role in which pistol you will lean towards. Everything else can be easily altered through various after market vendors.
I went with the M&P. I have a gen 1.0 tho. Have had it since 2012 and would not give it up. I don’t like the feel of the Glock in my hand, and the M&P 1.0 has the softer grips so it doesn’t dig into my skin when it is being carried.
Thank you for your article. I currently have the G19 Gen 4. I have not tried the M&P yet although I have heard many say they love it. Going to have to give it a try.
Who wins, the shooter who targets and shoots straight first.
Have both but the S&W is my carry. Just like many others report the Glock feels like a 2×4. The trigger on my M&P is much smoother than the stock Glock. My duty gun is a MP 40 and my off duty is a MPC in 40. This may just explain my preference.
When a 200 man department qualifies and shoots an additional 350 rounds each during training and only one stove pipe during this experience the quality of S&W is fantastic.
I am pretty close to you in what I have and carry M&P9C(Original vsn) for “Carry”
and the Full Size M&P9 for Competition.
Grip angle(on both) fits me better, more natural.
It is mostly “Feel” to the individual.
I suggest try both before deciding.
I shoot M&P9 Full Size in Competition so it is like shooting the 9C.
ie I don’t have to practice as much with the 9C.
It “Feels” and shoots a lot like the Full Size.
Why not Glock for me?
1 – GRIP ANGLE – I also Like the M&P Grip angle better.
2 – SLIDE – The Slide on the Glock is (Relatively) much wider then on the M&P
so the M&P just “looks” better to “My Eye” when shooting.
ie the Glock Slide “Looks” – “Blocky” “To ME” by comparison.
3 – TAKE-DOWN – At 70yo+ My thumbs don’t work as well as they did when I was young so I have trouble stripping down a Glock. But the M&P is easy
as pie, blind folded.
And since I shoot say 1,000rds/mo for Competition practice and cleaning frequency
It makes a difference.
I Compete most every Sat.
IDPA, Multi-gun, Combat Rifle, more
I “Do” feel the Glock offers more variety of modifications, parts, etc.
And – Since so many PD’s use the Glock – that says a lot about its reliability.
And about 60% of IDPA shooters shoot Glock.
And say 25% M&P. Roughly.
BUT – Since I have about 85,000 rds thru the M&P9 Full Size
I think – just that – says a lot about the M&P Brand. For me anyway.
Thank you for your service (former RM1 USN). Nice job on the comparison, I actually have a 19 & a M&P 40C. Spot on!!!
Stippling can be sanded to alleviate against the skin chaffing problem.
Both are nice. I happen to prefer the M&P, as I have a 9mm and .40. My wife prefers the G19. We both shoot each type and have become comfortable with both. Comes down to preference and comfort. To me, the M&P just seems more natural.
I own both,but have moved on to using the M&P as my carry gun because I have a problem with the Glock banging my knuckle,and when I am practicing on my range I shoot a lot of rounds and the M&P does not leave me with a sore knuckle.I am old and arthritic and little things like this can make a difference.Heck,in my younger days I shot a Glock 23 in IDPA matches and thought nothing of it.However those days are gone and so is the Glock 23.
Very helpful review of these two firearms. I have the M&P and absolutely love everything about it. It is a great concealed carry firearm.
Great article. I have the M&P and find it to be the perfect concealed carry pistol. I am not familiar with the Glock, so I am unable to make a comparison. I can say that I am very happy with the M&P.
Our county Sheriff’s CCW policy is no trigger mods (of course, in California) , so the M&P was out for me. I have a G34 for one home defense favorite and carry G26 and 30S for CCW….so a new Glock 19 Gen 5 MOS was my latest choice, Loved it at the range and even more so with a Holosun 507c red dot…..once I get more range time with the red dot, I’ll put the G19 on my license.
Your discussion about the grip or the way the gun feels in you hand is very important. I was a firearms instructor for a small police department. I was a S&W sixgun man for most of my career. I have won trophies in competition. After the two FBI agents were killed in Florida, many years ago, I started investigating automatic pistols. I spent almost two years before I was talked into trying a Glock. The model 17 was new and the only one on the market at that time. The first time I fired the Glock, I walked across the firing line and I fired three shots at each of three different targets. I fired the pistol from my hip as I walked. Each of the three targets had three holes in the bullseye. I later tried to do the same with numerous other pistols including my target S&W. I could not duplicate that same performance. Each of us are constructed differently, so every person needs to find a weapon that fits. I am retired now but I still two glocks. But they are both 40 S&W caliber.
“I fired the pistol from my hip as I walked. Each of the three targets had three holes in the bullseye”
My name is Bond….James Bond!
Great write up. One option the G19 offers as a upgrade option is a flared magwell for more accurate relodes in high stress situations. The Gen 5 series has a flared magwell but earlier gens allow that part to be installed. It also has kept my hand from getting a blood blister from slamming the mag in pistol. But the flared magwell part would make the end of the G19 print worse as a CCW. I have one on my G17 gen 3 and I love it.
I have a G1 M&P 9C and sold my Glock 19 G4. I love both guns but found the M&P a better fit and more comfortable shooter and carry gun. Benefits of the Glock are better availability of parts and cheaper magazines. Downside is crappy trigger and not a comfortable. Upside of M&P is more comfortable in hand, better iron sights (older sights you can rack slide anywhere, on anything). Downside of M&P are crappy trigger and magazine springs are REALLY tight. Either gun will need a trigger upgrade (I installed an APEX, it was perfect) but choose whichever gun you prefer and enjoy. They are both fantastic and equally reliable. Its nice to live in a country where we can actually enjoy these guns and carry them.
Yikes, plastic sights superior to steel sights?
I’d rather my sights be sharp and tear holes in my shirt than have them literally break off. Glock plastic sights are nothing more than a placeholder. That being said, M&P stock sights are by no means my favorite… but at least their steel.
May I suggest gunmagwarehouse (Google it). I picked up M&P 2.0 factory mags for under $30, the 17 rounders. Brownells will also run a 3 pack sale from time to time. 3 mags for $59.
Right now during the KoVid the 15 rounders are going for $34. They were probably lower before all of this blew up.
idiot thinks glock sights u notch plastic junk are better than 3 dot steel sights has no clue.
absolutely not. plastics sights junk, u notch sights junk.
I prefer my Glock 19, it’s a gen three that has survived years of abuse, my M&P is nicer looking but it doesn’t shoot as well for me and though it looks completely different than the Glock I know that it’s just another clone of the original Glock design, all polymer striker fired pistols of modern era are just copies in one way or another of Glocks design. Don’t get me wrong, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery but for the same money as the Smith I can grab a CZ or an HK that are also copies of Glocks design but they are remarkably better performers than the M&P line which took four tries to get the Glock design down pat and still doesn’t perform as well as the original when it comes to neglect, dirt and general abuse. Another plus for the Glock is it has never capitulated for political gain and it stays true to the origins map uncomplicated, reliable and simple design. I don’t hate clones I own a few LCPs and they are copies of a Kel-TEC, most browning designs were taken from Belgian small arms designers of no name or note and good old John Browning took all the credit and the loot for the designs. The Glock just runs better for me than the Smith, it runs better for me than anything I own outside of a few Ruger revolvers and my bolt guns. It’s the original, it’s uncomplicated, it’s simple and it works.