I love seeing all the opinions here but they all filter to one thing: There is no 'best' gun, as there's TOO many variables to really compare. "Is a handgun the best in it's caliber? Then what would the definitions be for the 'ideal' size for that caliber?"
The truth is, there's LOTS of great guns out there. Lot's of reliable platforms, well balanced pistols. So many that are perfectly acceptable for the one specific task of Self-Defense. Guess that's why we gun owners collect so much.. so many good guns to choose from soo why not have them all?
From my point of view, no gun invented a certain ideal role, the role already existed and needed to be filled. And so invention started to fill that role, and as advancement came, the material we have to fill that role started to be plentiful.
For the size? I think the Glock 19 is the perfect size , for a mid-caliber handgun. Note I didn't say 9mm handgun. There's plenty of different priorities to be requested for someone choosing a 9mm that we can't say there's a best one for that caliber. Does someone want a concealable, or a competition gun? They want a strong gun, or a fancy one? So for a more 'one size fits all' approach like Couguer1717 pointed out, it's best to be generic about the size of the caliber rather than be specific. Specifics come after a gun, not before it.
So anyway, after all has been said and agreed on, I like the Glock 19 for it's size alone, and for it's ultility. Is it the 'best' handgun? No. I couldn't ideally take a deer down with it. That's what my revolvers are for.
If you could only own one gun the G19 may be the best.
On the other hand, I look at the G19 like the stand-up college defensive end who comes into the NFL as a "tweener". He's too small to play defensive end at the NFL level, and too slow and can't cover well enough to play linebacker.
As a duty gun the G19 is a little small, and as a concealment gun it is a little big. In spite of all the clamoring for S&W to release a G19 sized M&P (which they did with the 2.0 family), I always thought the S&W M&P sizes were better than the Glock sizes. The full size M&P is a better duty size than the G17 or G19 (note the arrival of the G19X and G45), and the (original) M&P Compact was a better concealment gun than the G19 and shooter than the G26.
Well maybe for some people. For duty use there are no downsides to a bigger gun. But at least with me I don't shoot a full size G17, Sig 320 or M&P a bit better than the compact versions of those 3. Given the choice of full size or compact with any of those I'd choose the compact and have the option of using either compact or full length magazines.to get a couple more rounds.As a duty gun the G19 is a little small,
Not the best for me, I prefer DA/SA, hammer fired pistols.
IMHO THESE are the best Sig m11A1 and mk25
So all this putting night sights etc. is a waste you won't be lining up anything.
I am presently in a church security class, 8 weeks or so. Saturday we did the third week which was gun fighter class...Most defensive situations happen in 3 ft.- 7yds. and like 6 rds or so and a couple of seconds. So what's best, you tell me. I'm rethinking my carry weapon, leaning towards an XD9 subcompact. For me too small is a problem. It was a real eye opener, one last thing was we didn't use any sights except for head shots. So all this putting night sights etc. is a waste you won't be lining up anything.
I'm not trying to change your mind about whatever gun you choose, but thinking about "church security" I would assume puts you in a large open space with a whole bunch of people where the typical personal defense scenario of "3 ft. - 7 yards and 6 rounds in a couple of seconds", is likely to go out the window.I am presently in a church security class, 8 weeks or so. Saturday we did the third week which was gun fighter class.,... The XDE is double/single action, the first shot is long and slows response to reacting to a bad guy. My Glock 19,striker fire, quicker follow up but harder to conceal, more rounds,etc. Most defensive situations happen in 3 ft.- 7yds. and like 6 rds or so and a couple of seconds. ... one last thing was we didn't use any sights except for head shots.
I wouldnt go that far. Good sights are a necessity, even if they arent always used.For me too small is a problem. It was a real eye opener, one last thing was we didn't use any sights except for head shots. So all this putting night sights etc. is a waste you won't be lining up anything.
Not saying take all your sights off. Sights are needed at times and a bright one would help. It's just that the focus of aligning a sight takes too long. We were shooting at silhouettes keeping the gun level and going for the thoracic area sometimes on the move which you can't see your sights.Do you think a good set of sights like HD’s with its bright front sight or a fiber optic front sight might help you track your gun with your peripheral vision and in turn get you on target faster?
Yes there will be times to make longer shots but the scenarios were much closer. This was just one class but very informative. We have 4 more weeks to go.Never said that and didn't try to imply that. No we never got the impression that further distances are not self defence, yes they are.Any use of a gun to protect yourself or others is self defence. Also a little note here the aim of our instructor isn't gun first but last. A number of other means of intervention before deadly force. Of course long shots are needed just try to avoid them due to collateral damage.I'm confused. You are in a security class that is supposedly training you for an active shooter situation in a church, which 90% of the time means you will be at much greater distances than "typical" self-defense situations.
My church is a smaller one, with maybe 500 on a Sunday. From where I sit near the back and in the middle, to where the pulpit is, is about 150'. From my seat to the main entrance into the worship hall is about 200'.
I don't see a scenario in which a shooter walks in and starts either shooting right away, or rushes the pulpit, or starts waving a gun around and threatening to open fire, and the distance between me and him is going to be less than 75'.
If your instructor is telling you that you need to only be prepared for point shooting from 3' to 7yds, then I don't think he is facing reality. Perhaps you should do some measuring of the actual distances in your church and make sure you are proficient at those ranges.
The idiotic argument that anything further than 7yds away is not self-defense is just that; idiotic.
Can debate all night long and poll all you want, you'll have the guys with Toyota Land Cruisers, BMWs, or Bentleys slowly shaking their heads...
"Best" for WHAT?
And thinking to themselves, “I could have just bought a Yugo”. Facepalm!