I settled down on 2 platforms

[tercel89]

I finally settled down on 2 platforms of pistols based on one thing : Ease of disassembly/reassembly and readily available parts.
The 1911 and the Glock .
Both have very easy to find parts found most anywhere and both can be disassembled and reassembled easily completely . No complex springs assemblies , no complex trigger assemblies and so on .
It has been a long time to finally come to this. I have been messing with pistols since I was 21 in 1994 and now I finally have solved my own question of what 2 pistol platforms are for me. I have tried lots and I mean lots ! I still like some others but when I have a pistol I want to be able to take the whole thing apart when trouble arises and I have found that the GLock and 1911 platform fits me perfect. 2 great designs . When I say take it apart easily I mean COMPLETE DISASSEMBLY. I have taken apart a Beretta M9 and Sigs and the springs and levers and parts are just crazy !
What are your "perfect designs" and why ?

 

[badkarmamib]

My BIGGEST problem of the striker-fired system in general and Glocks in particular is requiring a pull of the trigger for disassembly. I know about triple-checking for a clear chamber and all of that, and I have never had a ND, but with all of the idiots out there (and I may one day prove to be among them), in my mind, it is an accident waiting to happen. I prefer the 1911 system and similar, which is what I stick with.

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

BHP

No striker.
No barrel bushing - for the most part.
Lots of parts.
Seldom needs parts.
Mags are cheap and the market isn't overfouled with crappy ones.
A fella can field strip it and reassemble one handed.

Loves me sum High Power... and those lesser hi Powers too!


Todd.

 

[stchman]

If ease of dis-assembly is one of your requirements, then the 1911 should NOT be on that list. I own two 1911s and while I enjoy shooting them, they are far too complex to take apart and put back together, especially when compared to Glocks or any other modern pistol.

Glock parts and 1911 parts availability might be about the same. Usually a 1911 aftermarket part requires some "gunsmithing" to fit while an aftermarket Glock part usually goes right into place.

Reliable Glock mags are cheaper than reliable 1911 mags.

1911s are FAR better looking than Glocks.

If you can afford both of them, then do it.

 

[C0untZer0]

9mm and .22LR

 

[Robert101]

I like your philosophy. I've settled to 1911's and Glock as of late as well. One exception, I did buy each of my daughters (when they became 21 years old) Bersa Thunder pistols. I have also decided to not add any more calibers to my list. So far I have 38, 44 MAG, 44 Special, 10MM, 40 S&W, .380, 22 LR and the venerable 45 ACP. That is right - no 9MM. I feel that is plenty of variation in the handgun class.

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

While I enjoy shooting them all, my main platform is still DA/SA with decocker.
Mostly Sigs.

I am not overly concerned with parts, they are common enough. I do like the idea of being extra proficient with one manual of arms, though. I use DA/SA for competition and carry.

I do strongly recommend people get competent with all of the common handguns (Striker, SAO, DA/SA, DA only, etc...)

 

[Deanimator]

No striker.
No barrel bushing - for the most part.
Lots of parts.
Seldom needs parts.
Mags are cheap and the market isn't overfouled with crappy ones.
A fella can field strip it and reassemble one handed.

Loves me sum High Power... and those lesser hi Powers too!


Todd.

I frequently carried an older transitional Hi Power (ambidextrous safety, but old sights) until I sold all of the holsters which fit it. Eventually, I'll make another tuckable IWB for it and carry it from time to time.

 

[Deanimator]

I like your philosophy. I've settled to 1911's and Glock as of late as well. One exception, I did buy each of my daughters (when they became 21 years old) Bersa Thunder pistols. I have also decided to not add any more calibers to my list. So far I have 38, 44 MAG, 44 Special, 10MM, 40 S&W, .380, 22 LR and the venerable 45 ACP. That is right - no 9MM. I feel that is plenty of variation in the handgun class.

I'm currently carrying a Glock 19 until I can finish the tuckable IWB for my Citadel 3.5 CS.

Other than my 3" S&W Model 65 and my S&W Model 36, those are the guns for which I have CCW holsters.

 

[<*(((><]

I don't understand and probably never will why people use the argument of "having to pull the trigger to takedown" on striker fired pistols as a huge detriment to owning one. It just seems like it's platform ego speaking? And I'm not trying to be antagonistic about this but it just baffles me?!?

So all those 1911 users out there that use this argument, never practice dry firing their weapon?

There are many other aspects of hammer fired guns that one can mount an argument on their benefits over striker fired pistols then the argument above. JMHO

 

[badkarmamib]

I don't understand and probably never will why people use the argument of "having to pull the trigger to takedown" on striker fired pistols as a huge detriment to owning one. It just seems like it's platform ego speaking? And I'm not trying to be antagonistic about this but it just baffles me?!?

So all those 1911 users out there that use this argument, never practice dry firing their weapon?

There are many other aspects of hammer fired guns that one can mount an argument on their benefits over striker fired pistols then the argument above. JMHO

Yes, I dry-fire my 1911 often. I dry-fired the Glocks I used to own. But when dry-firing, I point the muzzle at a suitable backstop in front of me, not sideways so I can overhand the slide to manipulate the takedown lever. You're right, I have many more reasons why I traded/sold my Glocks, the biggest being the odd grip angle compared to every other pistol out there. I love how low the bore axis is, and how reliable they are, and the aftermarket support they enjoy, but they don't point as naturally for me as other offerings. I was merely conveying my dismay at something I see as a potential danger inherent in the design of striker-fired pistols. I completely understand the Glock following, it just isn't for me.

 

[guyfromohio]

I find the platform simplification strategy another case of overthinking. Buy and shoot what you enjoy. If you take a Makarov to the range one day, you won't suddenly forget how to shoot your Glock. I have many platforms and I choose my favorites less by platform and more by reliability, accuracy, and comfort.

 

[Plan2Live]

What are your "perfect designs" and why ?

My "perfect designs" are traditional Sig DA/SA and Springfield XDm.

Why? I prefer DA/SA on a carry gun, it's clearly a safer action for carry. The grip safety on the XDm adds an extra layer of safety when I want to carry a higher capacity pistol. And because both are super simple to field strip, even easier than the brand from Austria. Drop the mag, lock the slide back, flip one lever, release the slide and bingo frame and slide are ready for cleaning. No pulling the trigger, no gripping the gun just so while you pull up on two separate release mechanisms or push out any pins.

I've never felt the need to detail strip any firearm, seems like overkill. If I ever feel the need for that I'll pay someone to do it for me. I don't change my own oil anymore or iron my shirts even though I know how, I pay someone to do those things.

 

[Harleytoo]

I would agree Plan, I prefer Sig DA/SA 90% of the time. However, I still like my 1911's and carry an EMP when I need something really small.

I also converted my 2 PX4 Storms to DA/SA decocker "G" versions as well. So, aside from the 1911's everything I carry is DA/SA.

 

[I6turbo]

What are your "perfect designs" and why ?

For semi-autos in the 9mm and 45 flavor, the Browning Hi Power and the CZ 75 and 97 platforms are my favorites because I love the way they feel in hand and the way they operate and shoot. For my purposes, I'd never select a gun based on how easy it is to completely disassemble because that's not where I get my enjoyment and satisfaction. It's from shooting and operating it.

If needed, I'd deal with a little more complexity in disassembly or cleaning if I like shooting a particular gun, and if I don't really enjoy shooting it (1911s, Glocks, HKs, Berettas, and many others fall into this category for me) I don't much care what other features or benefits it has, it'll stay in the safe in favor of guns I enjoy shooting.

As it happens, I'm in the process of selling off this less favored group of guns at the moment -- the ones that have been relegated to holding the safe down while the ones I enjoy shooting get all the action.

 

[bannockburn]

My favorite platform would have to be the 1911. Really can't be all that difficult to completely disassemble if I could build one completely starting with just a frame and a set of Swiss files.

 

[tarosean]

I own more 1911's and glocks than anything else.. Yet I still like variety, so there are a numerous other handguns around.. I'll never settle.

 

[Teachu2]

I find the platform simplification strategy another case of overthinking. Buy and shoot what you enjoy. If you take a Makarov to the range one day, you won't suddenly forget how to shoot your Glock. I have many platforms and I choose my favorites less by platform and more by reliability, accuracy, and comfort.

I agree. Variety is a good thing, and I like to stay current of many platforms.

 

[GRIZ22]

I don't know why so many have so much interest in "complete disassembly". There's no reason to go past field stripping unless the gun is broken. I have more than a few guns that are carried and shot often that have never been totally disassembled.

Guns aren't really meant to be taken totally apart on a regular basis.

 

[bangswitch]

I don't know why so many have so much interest in "complete disassembly". There's no reason to go past field stripping unless the gun is broken. I have more than a few guns that are carried and shot often that have never been totally disassembled.

Guns aren't really meant to be taken totally apart on a regular basis.

Agreed. I've never completely disassembled any of my handguns and never had a need to, even for cleaning. Standard "field stripping" is all that's needed, unless the intent is for repair or upgrade. My only Glock is a G20 Gen 2 that I bought in 1992. I couldn't say how many rounds have been through it, thousands for sure, but I've never taken it down past removing the slide and barrel. Never a need to go further, and it runs perfectly.

That said, of all the handguns I own, it's the only one I'd be willing to part with, and I own several other striker-fired pistols. It was the second autoloader I ever bought, and I suppose the only reason I still have it is because I like 10mm and haven't yet found a nice Delta Elite to replace it with.

The whole idea of not liking a take-down that requires pulling the trigger is ludicrous. If a gun owner can't verify beforehand that his weapon is unloaded and safe before he gets to that point, then Murphy and Darwin will both be around to help him learn.

I settled on two platforms long ago: revolvers and autoloaders.

 

[orionengnr]

Mine would be 1911s and S&W revolvers.

If ease of dis-assembly is one of your requirements, then the 1911 should NOT be on that list.

Field-stripping a 1911 is simplicity in itself. A complete strip is not much more difficult, and after you've done it a time or two is very simple. I do it (maybe) once a year, and that is more for curiosity/fun/relaxation than necessity.

 

[Shaq]

My BIGGEST problem of the striker-fired system in general and Glocks in particular is requiring a pull of the trigger for disassembly. I know about triple-checking for a clear chamber and all of that, and I have never had a ND, but with all of the idiots out there (and I may one day prove to be among them), in my mind, it is an accident waiting to happen. I prefer the 1911 system and similar, which is what I stick with.

I must say, if you ever get careless enough to pull the trigger on a gun without checking the chamber, you shouldn't own guns.

 

[Shaq]

Agreed. I've never completely disassembled any of my handguns and never had a need to, even for cleaning. Standard "field stripping" is all that's needed, unless the intent is for repair or upgrade. My only Glock is a G20 Gen 2 that I bought in 1992. I couldn't say how many rounds have been through it, thousands for sure, but I've never taken it down past removing the slide and barrel. Never a need to go further, and it runs perfectly.

That said, of all the handguns I own, it's the only one I'd be willing to part with, and I own several other striker-fired pistols. It was the second autoloader I ever bought, and I suppose the only reason I still have it is because I like 10mm and haven't yet found a nice Delta Elite to replace it with.

The whole idea of not liking a take-down that requires pulling the trigger is ludicrous. If a gun owner can't verify beforehand that his weapon is unloaded and safe before he gets to that point, then Murphy and Darwin will both be around to help him learn.

I settled on two platforms long ago: revolvers and autoloaders.

I always get a good laugh when I read something like, "I've only detail stripped my gun a few times & now my pins keep backing out."

 

[vba]

The 1911 is easy to completely disassemble. No extra tools required, one can use the parts in the gun as tools. I've done it many times. Even the grip screws can be removed by using the sear spring.

 

[Tallball]

I have finally settled on 20 platforms. I am completely firm on this. NO MORE. Unless I find another one I really like... 21 really isn't all that many...