TexasCHLforum.com

Wilson Combat Spec Ops 9 compared to a M&P9c
Carries better than the M&9C because it's so thin, both in Blade Tech Nano IWB holsters

My brother is a big fan of the M&P, but I just can't get over the texturing on the slide and grip. I should still shoot one just to see how it is in that regard, but they do nothing for me visually.

Backslider wrote:My brother is a big fan of the M&P, but I just can't get over the texturing on the slide and grip. I should still shoot one just to see how it is in that regard, but they do nothing for me visually.

Well, I'm a long time 1911 guy, and that's what I usually carry. But, a few months ago, I bought a full sized M&P 45 because I wanted a double stack striker fired pistol in .45 ACP, and I hated the way the Glocks felt in my hand. I had it down to the XD45, and then I handled an M&P, and it was all over. I have to say that I really like the gun. M&Ps aren't the only guns to have this feature, but the interchangeable back straps was a selling point for me. True, the capacity is limited to 10+1, but it also makes for a very handy gun for a double stack .45, and it is still slightly more capacity than a 1911.

It also seems to point naturally the way a 1911 does. And another thing I like about - which I also did like about the Glock, by the way - is that the gun sits down low in the hand. It is about the same length overall as my 5" springfield, and marginally wider in all its dimensions. But it is no where near as wide as a .45 caliber Glock. And bonus points.... it shoots very well.

I really like that Wilson 9mm, but at $1995.00 a copy, you can get 3 or 4 of the M&P9c pistols, or a matching set of an M&P15 rifle and a pistol to go with it. So as desirable as the Wilson is, I don't think you justify it by comparing it to a $500 gun. A better comparison would be to another $1995.00 gun. Sure is a nice gun though.

I like the M&Ps a lot

My comparison was just for size reference when used for CHL and in particular IWB