These days, I find myself gravitating to a 47 or a 19 with a comp and LTT a grip anchor.
These days, I find myself gravitating to a 47 or a 19 with a comp and LTT a grip anchor.
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
Okay so I answered some of my own questions today. I went and compared the grip/balance/etc... on a Gen 5 G19 and a G47. To me the G19 feels fine whereas the G47 just feels "off", which is what I remember from the G17. I went ahead and bought the G19, lubed it, and shot 100 rounds. After just one range session I already like it better than the G17s I've owned. The recoil is snappier but I find it easier to get hits with the G19.
It was a positive outing, since I like the G19 and the Dan Wesson Pointman Carry (CCO) 45 I just bought looks to be excellent based on shooting today.
Did you shoot the 47 ?
Did you shoot the 47 slide on the 19 frame ?
In dry handling the 47 feels like a 17, but when you shoot it, the recoil impulse and tracking is noticeably better.
IME about 1/3 of people shoot the G17 grip 10-15% better, 1/3 shoot the G19 grip better and 1/3 shoot both about the same.
I’m a G17 grip person but YMMV so shooting both the 47 and the 47 slide on a G19 grip are necessary to make any real determination.
If how guns feel in the hand dry was an accurate measure of performance I would be shooting S&W M&Ps, VP9s etc. I feel great but I don’t shoot them because timers and Targets don’t lie.
Last edited by HCM; 09-10-2023 at 07:55 PM.
It took me awhile but I read this whole thread. While a couple people that actually have the 47 really love the 47, I'm surprised more people didn't chime in on their experience. I'm tentatively assuming its because it not been widely purchased yet by folks here (or maybe full size Glocks are not very popular anymore). As someone who loves the 17, I am admittedly a little miffed that the 17 MOS got dropped from the line up as I was planning to pick one up so now I don't know what to do.
I also just read a few of the M&P 2.0 threads regarding accuracy, lockup geometry, lockup timing, etc. so that is also on my mind. Maybe just the M&Ps were poorly engineered in the beginning or the Glock engineers are really that good that they can just play legos with Glock parts by replacing the dust cover with the Glock 34-like slide extension and changing RSA to a 19 version with no adverse effects. While I am aware that that is what they originally did with the 34, they also cut out a piece of the slide to cut weight. In the 47 case, you are getting not only a 17 length slide but the additional weight of the slide that is replacing the dust cover with the shorter 19 RSA.
Maybe this isn't that big of a change as I imagine or I'm over thinking it but my brain just doesn't understand how this is a better option from a functional/shooting/reliability perspective (institutional needs for inventory controls is irrelevant to me). That is not to say that it is not, but I just don't understand.
Last edited by Cool Breeze; 09-10-2023 at 08:38 PM.
If you like the 17 why are you assuming you won't like the 47? And why are you assuming that changing the recoil spring will make the pistol less reliable/functional?
Nobody is complaining about the change to a standard locking block. I'm surprised someone isn't claiming he can feel the difference in recoil with the change from the legacy 17 locking block in the G.5 guns.
Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk