The video opens with a direct comparison between the Smith & Wesson M&P 2.0 Compact and the Glock 19 Gen 6, noting that the Glock shown is a heavily used example while the M&P is essentially new. Pricing is laid out clearly: the Glock 19 Gen 6 carries an MSRP around $725 but is commonly found near $600, while the M&P 2.0 lists around $699 and typically sells in the mid-$500 range. This raises the central question of whether the Glock’s higher street price is justified. The hosts highlight Glock 19 Gen 6 upgrades such as an extended beavertail, undercut trigger guard, support-hand thumb shelf, more abrasive grip texture with palm swell, and deeper front slide serrations, pointing out that many former aftermarket modifications now come standard. The M&P 2.0 Compact is described with its long-standing aggressive grip texture, four interchangeable palm swells, optic-ready configuration, semi-aggressive slide serrations, and hinge-style trigger, which is characterized as having a clean, favorable break before transitioning into live-fire evaluation.
On the range with the compact pistols, the hosts focus on how each gun feels in the hand and under recoil. The Glock 19 Gen 6 is described as feeling somewhat small, even with its improved palm swell and extended beavertail, while still offering solid ergonomics and a controllable recoil impulse. In contrast, the M&P 2.0 Compact feels slightly shorter but more locked-in due to its very aggressive grip texture and thicker backstrap, which help maintain control during rapid strings of fire. The presenters note that the M&P’s texture can be a double-edged sword, offering excellent traction but potentially being harsh for concealed carry against the body. Despite extensive Glock experience, one host finds the compact M&P easier to hang onto and more confidence-inspiring during shooting. This segment sets up a recurring theme: Glock’s refined ergonomics and smoother feel versus the M&P’s superior grip retention and out-of-the-box shootability for some users.
Attention shifts to the full-size pistols, starting with the Glock 17 Gen 6. The hosts point out that its palm swells are larger than older Glock 17 generations, and the frame feels thicker than a Gen 5. One presenter argues the 17 Gen 6 behaves more like a Glock 19 with extra slide and grip length, drawing parallels to the Glock 47 because it uses the 19 recoil system and a single guide rod reminiscent of Gen 3 designs. Ergonomics are praised, especially a defined ledge area for the support-hand finger that helps drive the gun down under recoil. The full-size M&P 2.0 is then examined, with its extremely abrasive, almost file-like grip texture noted as excellent for control but potentially uncomfortable for daily carry. During live fire, an unusual stoppage occurs where the M&P’s slide locks back unexpectedly without a clear obstruction, raising questions about the cause. Despite this isolated malfunction, the hosts continue shooting and comparing control, ultimately leaning toward the compact M&P over the full-size version for practical use.
The discussion broadens into overall ergonomics and recoil impulse between Glock and M&P platforms. Some impressions favor the Glock 19 and Glock 17 over their M&P counterparts, with the Glock pistols perceived as having a smoother recoil cycle and benefiting from the extended beavertail and refined frame contours. The support-hand thumb shelf and grip shape on the Gen 6 Glocks are credited with providing a strong purchase and consistent control during rapid fire. One host details extensive long-term use of a Glock 17, including modifications such as an extended beavertail, aggressive stippling, accelerator cuts, direct-milled optic, enhanced slide serrations, and upgraded sights. This background underscores a natural bias toward Glock based on years of carry and training. However, even with that history, the presenters repeatedly acknowledge that the M&P 2.0’s grip texture and ergonomics give it a compelling edge for some shooters, especially when prioritizing traction and out-of-the-box shootability over tradition.
The final segment zeroes in on trigger performance, especially the Glock Gen 6 design. Both hosts criticize the Glock Gen 6 trigger as spongy, with excessive pre-travel that makes the break feel less predictable and precise compared to earlier Gen 3 and other Glock triggers. They argue this long pre-travel can hinder precise shots, even though the trigger remains acceptable for general defensive or combat use. In direct comparison, the Smith & Wesson M&P 2.0’s hinge-style trigger is praised for a cleaner, more defined break, giving it the edge in this head-to-head matchup. This leads to a “house divided” conclusion: one presenter, despite being strongly invested in Glock and having the most experience with the Glock 17, still prefers the M&P 2.0 specifically because of disliking the Gen 6 trigger, stating that any other Glock generation would be preferable. The video closes by asking viewers which pistol they would choose, what comparison points might have been missed, and suggesting future comparison ideas such as CZ versus Walther.
Loading...