wanderinwalker
Member
I'm currently in the research stage of picking a new pistol. A couple weeks ago I ran the Higginbotham Controllability test as outlined here with my Gen 3 Glock 17. Starting from a low-ready and shooting at only 5 yards I expected it to go well. Instead I got an eye-opening surprise with lots of misses, which seemed to reinforce my growing suspicion that my "issues" trying to push the speed with the full-size Glock frame aren't entirely software related. (I say this because I had no issues running the same drill with a Gen 3 Glock 26, which I did BEFORE trying it with the 17.)
At this point I see I have 2 or 3 options:
1) Try a Gen 4 Glock 19. The reduced trigger reach and smaller grip may work to get me closer to the way the Glock 26 fits in my hand, while still having a full-size pistol I can utilize as range opens up. (I do not buy into the "anything past this far [spread arms out] is murder" excuse for only practicing handgun shooting at 7 yards and accepting groups big enough to apply for statehood. Plus, shooting at longer ranges with a pistol is very entertaining.) However this may leave me in the same Glock-rut I've been in for years.
2) Try a S&W M&P. This gets a bit more "complicated". Why? Because I've held the 9mm in store and liked the grip feel. I've tried an M&P45 on the range and liked the way it shot. Yet an M&P40 really captures my interest. I've read a lot about 9mm vs .40, contributed my thoughts to a lot of those discussions (I'm generally in the "nine is fine camp"), tried a USP Compact in .40, didn't like it, tried a Browning HiPower in .40, didn't like it, tried a Glock 27 in .40, really didn't like that, tried a Ruger SR40 and did like it, and for some reason I feel a tug to try this pistol. It would be a pain at first because I have to include some more magazines, new holsters, reloading equipment to a new caliber, and enough factory ammo to test a new pistol is going to be more expensive in .40 versus the same quantity in 9mm. But curiosity has me.
3) Save up some more money, sell a couple of things and get a Colt Commander. This may be a stretch, as I'm feeling impatient and I'm always split on 1911s. On one hand, they sing to my heart and I really enjoy the way they handle and shoot. On the other hand, I know they require more maintenance than one of the modern wonder-pistols and can be pickier about ammo and magazines.
Any reason to push one way or the other? I know in time "All of the above" will probably be what happens, but for now it has to be one.
And before anybody recommends "other" and says try a Ruger SR, let me just say that yes, I have gotten to try one in .40 and one in 9mm. They fit my handle well and shoot OK, but I honestly consider them to be consumer-grade pistols next to a Glock or a S&W. (Seriously Ruger, what were you thinking with that tacked-on thumb safety on the SRs?)
At this point I see I have 2 or 3 options:
1) Try a Gen 4 Glock 19. The reduced trigger reach and smaller grip may work to get me closer to the way the Glock 26 fits in my hand, while still having a full-size pistol I can utilize as range opens up. (I do not buy into the "anything past this far [spread arms out] is murder" excuse for only practicing handgun shooting at 7 yards and accepting groups big enough to apply for statehood. Plus, shooting at longer ranges with a pistol is very entertaining.) However this may leave me in the same Glock-rut I've been in for years.
2) Try a S&W M&P. This gets a bit more "complicated". Why? Because I've held the 9mm in store and liked the grip feel. I've tried an M&P45 on the range and liked the way it shot. Yet an M&P40 really captures my interest. I've read a lot about 9mm vs .40, contributed my thoughts to a lot of those discussions (I'm generally in the "nine is fine camp"), tried a USP Compact in .40, didn't like it, tried a Browning HiPower in .40, didn't like it, tried a Glock 27 in .40, really didn't like that, tried a Ruger SR40 and did like it, and for some reason I feel a tug to try this pistol. It would be a pain at first because I have to include some more magazines, new holsters, reloading equipment to a new caliber, and enough factory ammo to test a new pistol is going to be more expensive in .40 versus the same quantity in 9mm. But curiosity has me.
3) Save up some more money, sell a couple of things and get a Colt Commander. This may be a stretch, as I'm feeling impatient and I'm always split on 1911s. On one hand, they sing to my heart and I really enjoy the way they handle and shoot. On the other hand, I know they require more maintenance than one of the modern wonder-pistols and can be pickier about ammo and magazines.
Any reason to push one way or the other? I know in time "All of the above" will probably be what happens, but for now it has to be one.
And before anybody recommends "other" and says try a Ruger SR, let me just say that yes, I have gotten to try one in .40 and one in 9mm. They fit my handle well and shoot OK, but I honestly consider them to be consumer-grade pistols next to a Glock or a S&W. (Seriously Ruger, what were you thinking with that tacked-on thumb safety on the SRs?)