Why all the craze of single stacks ?
I turned 21 a few years before the "Clinton Ban" where AK's , AR's , and magazines over 10 rds were banned from 1994 to 2004. So I have seen first hand how bad things can get as far as that goes. I just cant see why these younger people are all into the new craze or fad of single stacks. I have my 1911 which is a single stack by design and a small LCP in 380 but that's for days when I go to the store with running shorts on and quickly go back home. But regularly I carry double stack 9mm and 45acp. When the Clinton ban was going on , a regular old Glock 17 rd magazine would sell for around $95 from person to person. It just seems weird how these younger people are all tied up in the single stack world and all. A double stack Glock 17,19 or any 9mm or 45acp isnt that much fatter but you sure have more ammo. Ok , I will stop my "old people" type talk and see what you guys think.
Well OP, if you're pushing 50 you probably weren't old enough to have been owning and shooting guns when revolvers, M39's, P38's, 1911's (and Spanish clones) and other single stacks were still quite popular for concealed carry, even though the M59 and Hi-Power were around and in use. The thicker grip frames necessitated by the double stack mags made concealment a bit less comfortable for many folks, and the whole "high capacity" craze hadn't yet caught the eye of the average gun owner/user. Hell, many new pistols only came with
one magazine.
Even after the double stack/higher capacity mags were really catching on, not everyone who had to carry a duty weapon all day/night for work necessarily wanted to carry it on their own time. That's why the 5 or 6 shot snub revolvers, Walther PPK's, Commanders and other single stacks still proved popular among cops for off-duty carry, and for much the same reasons the somewhat thinner gripped pistols were popular among private owners/carriers.
Sure, younger guys new to the
"I can carry a gun" mentality still often liked to carry the biggest handguns they could get, and the growing popularity of the double stack mag pistols fed right into it.
Fast-forward to today, with so many more states having adopted Shall Issue for CCW licenses and more licenseless carry than were the case in the 60's-early 80's, and once the thrill of carrying a thick and/or long handgun is gone, it's not uncommon for many average folks to look for something a little more manageable (convenient) in their regular daily activities.
Small 5-shot revolvers and slim single stack pistols are once again being "rediscovered" as being an attractive compromise between being unarmed or having to carry around a full-size handgun.
The common rebuttal heard against carrying larger and heavier guns, meaning
"You just need a better quality holster", is true to a certain extent. If you've been using a less well designed and crafted holster, going to a better one might better balance and distribute the weight on your hip. That might help some folks, but still not fully satisfy the concerns of others. After all, it's still not going to "shrink" the thickness or length of the grip frame, nor "shrink" the length of the slide. These things can matter, depending on the length of someone's torso, the type of sitting they do (chairs, cars) and the type of garments they prefer, or are required, to wear for work or leisure.
Bottom line? The smaller, slimmer and lighter single stack 9's, .40's & .45's are finding buyers among both older and younger shooters, as well as well as among both private owners, and employed owners who want to be armed on their own time with something less unwieldy than what they may carry for 8-16+hrs each shift.
The gun companies have found
very fertile ground in the market place for these smaller handguns.
There's a reason for that.