Are Mid-Sized Guns Too Much of a Compromise?

[D-Man]

Does anybody find that a mid-sized gun is too much of a compromise? For example, in the Glock family you could own a 17 for range duty and a 26 for carry duty. Sure, the 19 can work fine for either role, but if I had a choice (and the money), I'd rather have both (17 & 26) and use them for their dedicated purposes.

For carry guns, I want them small and concealable, and admit that at the range they won't be that fun to shoot. For range guns I want them large and heavy, to make them more enjoyable.

I do understand that the mid-sized guns offer you more firepower in a relatively small package that can be concealed with the proper methods. But in my case, I just don't seem to enjoy them as much.

Am I crazy here?

 

[chris in va]

I guess in my view there's a distinct difference between enjoyment at the range and training with your CC weapon.

For example I train some with my P11. Don't enjoy it one bit. But when it's time to relax and do some plinking, I bust out the CZ Kadet.

Really the G17 was meant for OWB and high capacity. Cops don't need to conceal their weapons while on duty, so they can be large. We on the other hand need something smaller/lighter to be comfortable, so I suppose it is a compromise if all you have is one gun for plinking AND CC work.

 

[Steve C]

When I bought my Glock19 there was no model 26. They came about as a result of the 10 round magazine law imposed on the American public by the Democrats. Manufacturers simply downsized the pistol to the maximum magazine capacity of that time. While I've shot a Glock 26 I wouldn't give up my Glock 19 and 5 more rounds for it. I have no trouble concealing the Glock 19.

Neither do I see any advantage, other than 2 extra rounds, in the Glock 17. Most of the time people report shooting the Glock 19 more accurately than the 17 and I concur.

I would say that most "mid-sized", actually compact, versions of service guns are really "right sized" do it all guns.

 

[BozemanMT]

I'm a big guy with big hands.
I can barely hold small pistols like a G26 or that small Kahr.

And while big guns are fine with me, I can handle a beretta 92 all day if i wanted to

BUT
a G19 is the best sized glock around ( I was going to say ergonomic, but then realized I was talking about glocks here )
I like a commander sized 1911 better than a full size
4' barrel revolvers better than 6"
etc

the balance is better, the weight is less yet controllability is still there.

 

[DougDubya]

I'm a "medium sized guy" with "medium sized hands" and the Glock 27 grip forces me to curl my pinkie under the mag base plate.

Gimme a Glock 19, and I'll just wear looser overshirts to hide that "too much grip length."

Conversely, I love the Glock 34 with its extra-long slide.

 

[19-3Ben]

I find that my Ruger SP101 3" is the perfect size for just about everything. I love it for carrying. It is large enough and heavy enough that I could shoot it very accurately if i had to, but also small enough to conceal easily. It's also got enough weight on the end that it makes for really fun range gun. At least with .38spl. I can shoot it well with .357mag, but at that point it's more for the sake of training than pleasure.
I had a friend over and he held the Ruger. His first remark was "this gun is just the right size." It's true. It's like the story of GoldieLox and the tree bears. I've found the gun that is "just right."

 

[Debunk Brady]

If you ask me, the G17 is the compromise. If you are going fullsize, get a G34 or G17L.

While we are on the topic, a G19 is a joy to shoot IMO. If thats the only issue, I don't see a problem. If you are shooting accuracy competitions, go for the long slide.

 

[D-Man]

Good points so far.......will try to explain how this thought came up.

I was at the range today - brought my P228 and P226ST (both in 9MM). I first shot the P228. For all the so called accolades bestowed upon it, at the range it just is nowhere near as fun as the P226ST.

Now, of course if I had to carry, the P228 would be my choice as it's smaller and lighter. But it's not the smallest of guns, and for ease of carry, I can go with a S&W 642 or Kahr MK9. And something like a M&Pc or G26 would be slightly smaller, and be closer to it in capacity.

So there will always be a compromise, regardless of what we choose.

 

[Javelin]

I honestly do not see the point of a "large" frame pistol in a Glock. I wear XXL gloves and my mitts fit perfectly around a G23... fills up the handle exactly. No reason to have a G22 full sized as I won't use the entire grip. Maybe if you have HUGE hands and need that extra handle it would be applicable..or you shoot 1911 or some type of serious competition activity.

So what my suggestion is to go with meduim and small size pistols.

 

[GunNut]

To me a Glock 19 offers the best of both the 17 and 26.

The grip is long enough to get a quick consistent grasp of where the 26 at times is hard to unless adding extensions which make it the same length as the 19's.

The slide is long enough to be stabilize the gun IWB, where the shorter slide on the 26 seems to want to tip out for me.

They all shoot better than me.

 

[miestro_jerry]

I have a Glock M 38, but it is more my carry openly pistol. My conceal pistol is a S & W 340 PD in 357 Mag. 12 ounces of pure recoil.

If I want to be a little more conventional maybe a Kimber Pro Carry 45.


Jerry

 

[Zak Smith]

I don't know-- I think the Glock 19 is the perfect all-around size. I actually shoot it better than the 17.

 

[9mmepiphany]

i also fine that the Glock 19 is the best shooting 9mm Glock.

i find the 17 useless too, for that long a grip i'd rather have the 34.

 

[Navy joe]

I'd take a G19 if it fell into my lap and was GenII. It is close enough to full size. That said, I carry a G17 IWB regularly. I do agree mid-sized guns are a compromise. That said, I think small guns are a carry crutch. Kahr K40, MK40, and Kel-Tec P3AT are sold now because having a small gun around makes me more likely to carry that instead of a real gun. I have allowed myself one small gun, an S&W 642. Other than that it is Glock, 1911, or N-frame. It's been Glock for two years straight.

 

[DougDubya]

Some people fit the 17 better. Others fit the 19 better. Also, the different slide lengths allow for sight radii that accomodate different shooters.

Hence my like for the 34 and the 19.

 

[riceboy72]

I pretty much have given up buying full size pistols and now that I think about it, just about all of my purchases over the past few years have been mid size pistols.

One of my favorite pistols is a second generation Glock 19; it fits my hand well and isn't too 'girthy' or extend too far past my pinky. I have shot and looked at the Glock 26. They are awesome pistols, but for my purposes, I'd rather have a mid size pistol for daily carry and range time. I've also owned a Glock 22 and didn't find the few extra rounds and the extra size to be of any significant benefit.

I've seen this trend in the department where I work, too. While the majority carry the Glock 22, more than a few Deputies (men, not necessarily women) have gone with the Glock 23. Their reasoning? Carry the same gun off duty as they do for duty. Same size, same sight radius, same everything. This also is apparent in another large local department that issues Kimber Pro Carry 1911's as duty weapons. They could've gone full size, but instead chose the Pro Carry for comfort reasons for those units in plainclothes assignments and on motors. I believe the state agency also issues HK USP Compacts for the same reason.

I can't see myself buying another full size pistol anytime soon. My next purchase will be a Rock River Arms 1911 that I'll have built; it will undoubtedly be the Commander size with nary a thought to the Government model. Compromise? Not really for me. I'd rather get pistols that I know I will carry versus buy full size ones and never carry them because they wind up being 'too big' or 'too uncomfortable' to wear throughout the day.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

I would say that most "mid-sized", actually compact, versions of service guns are really "right sized" do it all guns.

Agreed.

 

[Autolycus]

I prefer full sized guns myself. However though my personal favorite handgun is a midsize gun. It is the HK P2000.

 

[ccmdfd]

For 9mm's, I think that mid-sized guns like the G19, P2000, P228, P99, and the like are the "sweet spot" in the size range. They have good capacity near to or equal to their larger counterparts, good shooting with low recoil, yet are easier to carry/conceal.

 

[ccmdfd]

double post

 

[ccmdfd]

dang, triple post

 

[DawgFvr]

I believe that there is a valid arguement for the full size pistol/revolver over the compacts. Everybody is thinking that size, round count and concealability are the compromise. Me...I'm thinking that the barrel size and number of twists needed for adequate velocity to insure consistent hollow point expansion. It does not make sense to carry a miniscule weapon (for your convenience) and shoot little ice picks that won’t stop the fight. If I actually have to pull out a weapon and attempt to stop an aggressor...I want a full size weapon with a long barrel and bullets I know will penetrate as well as expand consistently.

 

[Zak Smith]

A Glock 17 has about 1/2" longer barrel than a 19, which will generally affect muzzle velocity by less than 40 fps. Looking at the FBI-spec ballistic data using the 124gr Speer Gold Dot as an example, you see almost identical expansion/penetration data with spreads of 100fps or more.

 

[XDKingslayer]

I think they are.

Give me 5" or 3". Most mid-sized 4" guns are too big for me to conceal and too small for me to enjoy at the range. I'd buy a 5" XD and a 3" XD before I bought a 4".

But that's just me.

 

[michael_aos]

I really like the way the G19 fits my hand, but I shoot my G34 better.

Mike