[poncaguy]

Main reason I'd go with the Glock ,and I've had both, is My Glock 22 is a 40 caliber, but I have 9mm and 357 Sig barrels for it. Barrels were $100 each and shot very well with no problems and good accuracy.
Recoil is with the M&P though.

[vector16]

Originally Posted by poncaguy

Recoil is with the M&P though.

What? Are you saying that the M&P has more recoil than the Glock or the Glock has more felt recoil than the M&P?

You also might want to also look onto the S&W SD40. I had one and it was a great gun too. Very similar to the Glock but has a better grip and looks nicer. The trigger pull is factory set to 8lbs but that can be adjusted with about $40 in parts. The SD runs about $350. I never had a misfire or malfunction at all with the SD and I fired 20K+ rounds thru it. The Sigma is a great gun for the price too but I think those were discontinued.

[Dizzll]

Glock no doubt. Just make sure it is Gen4. They have done a great job designing the new gen around the 40 and reducing recoil over the gen3.

[ak47bob]

Glock all the way. And in a fire fight, you don't have to worry about jamming.

[AARguy]

Glock has an "unsupported chamber" problem that deforms the brass in a way that makes reloading potentially unsafe. While other firearms have this problem, it is only the Glock that effects reloading effectiveness.

Have you thought about the Ruger SR40 or SR40c? I have the SR40c and can't think of any way it could improved.

[vector16]

Originally Posted by Dizzll

Glock no doubt. Just make sure it is Gen4. They have done a great job designing the new gen around the 40 and reducing recoil over the gen3.

gen 4 have a heavier trigger due to and extra little bump on the trigger bar that supposedly keeps the bar centered on the firing pin release button. Gen 4 is not the way to go.

Originally Posted by ak47bob

Glock all the way. And in a fire fight, you don't have to worry about jamming.

Unless you happen to limp wrist which is entirely possible during a fire fight.

Originally Posted by AARguy

Glock has an "unsupported chamber" problem that deforms the brass in a way that makes reloading potentially unsafe. While other firearms have this problem, it is only the Glock that effects reloading effectiveness.

Have you thought about the Ruger SR40 or SR40c? I have the SR40c and can't think of any way it could improved.

Ruger is a better gun than the Glock. Glock is not the holy grail of firearms contrary to the words of so many of their owners.

[gymgu]

I assume you want a full size 40. If for concealed carry you might consider an S&W Shield. Mine has a great trigger, fits my hand better than most and eats any ammo with no problems. I also have an Springfield XDs in 45 for concealed carry which is close to the Shield in ergonomics. Of course neither is as accurate or will carry as many rounds as a full size but they sure are a pleasure to carry.

[jersey_emt]

The best advice that anyone could give would be to shoot (or at least hold) the .40 S&W pistols from all of the major manufacturers.

Glock 22 / 23
S&W M&P 40 / SD40
Ruger SR40
SIG Sauer P226 / P229 / P250
Springfield XD-40 / XD(m)-40
Beretta Px4 Storm
CZ 75 B / 75 P-06 / 75 P-07 Duty / 75 SP-01
FN Herstal FNX-40 / FNP-40
HK USP / P2000
Walther P99 / PPQ / PPX

All of these are great guns that are built to last and are reliable. There is no "best" one, only the best choice for you. Only by shooting them or holding them in your hands will you be able to figure out which one fits your hands, requirements, and budget the best.

You can get more info, photos, and specs on each of the guns listed above (and others) at:

http://whichgun.com/pistols/type:compact,full-size/caliber:40-sw/sort_by:name.

[OlympicFox]

Originally Posted by lbwar15

Sig,XD,M&P , super soaker then glock.

Love it!

OK, personally, my choices are pretty much right along those lines. My home defense gun is a Sig P226, her's is a S&W 686. For personal defense, my primary CCWs are 1911's: a Sig 1911 Ultra, Dan Wesson Guardian & an Ed Brown SFC. My BUG is an XDS. The wife's CCWs are a Sig P220 Compact, M&P 9c and M&P Shield. There's also a few other Sig's (P226 Elite Dark, P238, P938), a pair of 9mm XDm 5.25 Competitions, an M&P 9 Pro and M&P 40L.

The wife bought a Glock 27 once. She hadn't even finished emptying the magazine before handing me the gun, telling me to sell it. Interestingly, I kinda liked it & would have kept it if it wasn't so chunky and uncomfortable in an IWB holster compared to a 1911.

Glocks are certainly popular guns, but that doesn't make them great guns. And they are reliable gun, but so are Toyota Corollas and I never read any reports that accused a Corolla of being a "great car". Interestingly, there's a guy at my club that considers me his nemesis and the guy he is most concerned about beating in IDPA matches. He shoots nothing but Glocks. It sure seems like he has at least one malfunction in every match, while my 1911's, M&Ps, Sig's, and XDm's simply run like there's no tomorrow.

Personally, I don't like the way the Glock feels in my hand, or the way it looks. But, mostly I don't like the grip angle because it is so radically different than most other guns that transitioning between a Glock and say a 1911 is a PITA because the Glock just doesn't point like most other guns.

But, if it works for you . . . great. That's why we have choices.

[Renegade44]

Guess I'll be the odd one here then. I have a Glock 40 and M&P 40c. Both very similar except for the grip thicknesses and the breakdown down steps. To me the M&P has better feel to my hand and having just had thumb surgery I can still breakdown the M&P easily compared to the Glock. I've never had a misfire in my M&P but I've had 4 in the Glock in 4 years. No reloads through either one of them ever.
Shoot both and don't hesitate or over think it. Both are guns.