Differences in shoot-ability?

[Gio]

Those are some pretty fast runs, do you happen to have any videos?

No, but I will get one next practice session. Those numbers aren't anything most M/GM shooters couldn't replicate.

Chuck Haggard
I recall a similar thread on LF ref 9 vs .40, an extremely studly shooter in a special unit that does special things in special places spoke about being able to gun a G22 basically pretty much as well as a G17, but when one got to the G19 or G26 sized guns there was no way, "The juice ain't worth the squeeze". Doc might recall that thread.


I used to be able to shoot anything, and I did. That is likely one reason why I am so F'd up in my right elbow now. IMHO most of us only get so many magnum rounds in our life before something has to give. Had I known then what I know now I would have invested more heavily in 9mm pistols and ammo, and .38 WCs by the case, instead of doing what I was doing...

I just think it is a matter of physics. You can take someone like Bob Vogel, give him a G22 with 175PF loads and a G17 with 125PF loads, and he is going to have faster/more accurate splits with the G17, even if he's still faster/more accurate with the G22 than any other Glock shooter in the world would be with a G17.

[mizer67]

Those are some pretty fast runs, do you happen to have any videos?

^ This. I've got to see these. That's smokin' fast to shoot anything in the 3's.

[Beat Trash]

I found that when I was younger that there was a difference in "Shootability" between the calibers, but it was very slight.

I have found that as I reach the age where junk mail includes constant offers to join AARP, that the 9mm guns hurt less after a day of training and shooting.

So except for a couple of guns kept for sentimental reasons, all my pistols are 9mm's.

A lot has changed with the gun culture since the 1980's, where magnum revolvers were all the rage.

Not to mention that getting older is highly over rated...

[DocGKR]

Chuck, I remember that LF thread very well, as the individual in question is HIGHLY experienced at battling many of our Nation's foes. He also has the distinction of having used 9mm, .40, and .45 Auto pistols in combat during various phases of his career. He wrote the following superb analysis discussing how pistol calibers and pistol sizes (competition = G34/35, full size/duty = G17/22, compact = G19/23, sub-compact = G26/27) effect his ability to shoot handguns well in combat situations:

“Not getting into the weapons transition issues from frame design to frame design (it's the reason I love to hate the Glock), the fact of the matter is that the recoil on the G23 crosses the magic line of running the shit out of your pistol. Allow me to explain... Most of the guys (in my unit) mentioned that they can handle the reduced size of the 19 and the recoil increase over the G17 is acceptable. Most of us have also determined that this does NOT cross over to the .40 cartridge. Guys with a firm handle on recoil manipulation can use the G22 and G35 with acceptable results. However when you go down to G26's and G23's, the juice is not worth the squeeze. The recoil is now noticeably effecting times and it's measurable. If you can't effectively control recoil and are wasting time allowing your pistol to settle between shots then this is all a wash and means nothing to you, but if you can apply the fundamentals effectively you will quickly see that you can't run a sub-compact 9 or a compact .40 worth a shit. So a decision to accept a larger pistol in order to have an acceptable recoil impulse based upon caliber must be made. The smallest 9mm Glock recoil that I will accept is the G19 and I will not go below the G22 when bumping up to .40.”

[JHC]

Chuck, I remember that LF thread very well, as the individual in question is HIGHLY experienced at battling many of our Nation's foes. He also has the distinction of having used 9mm, .40, and .45 Auto pistols in combat during various phases of his career. He wrote the following superb analysis discussing how pistol calibers and pistol sizes (competition = G34/35, full size/duty = G17/22, compact = G19/23, sub-compact = G26/27) effect his ability to shoot handguns well in combat situations:

Some of his observations remain one of the greatest unsolved gun Interwebz mysteries to me and remains an unresolved debate between Doc and I. "you will quickly see you can't run a subcompact 9 . . . worth a shit".

G26, G19 and G17 FAST times (repeatedly over time) have shown me that I can shoot any of them between 5 to 6 seconds clean. Not world class but more than not worth a shit. And The Test scores between G26 and G17 have been remarkably close from low to mid 90's very common.

The 10-8 Headbox standard presents me a pretty good border to the sub-compact/compact vs full size shootability zone. G26 and G19 is on one side and the 17/34 are on the other.

[psalms144.1]

I had the opportunity to shoot quals today. For a variety of crappy reasons, this was the first time I've fired ANY rounds out of ANY pistol since Oct. I shot my Glocks (Gen4 G23, Gen4 G26, Gen4 G19 is at Glock for "evaluation"), PM9, and my 642. Here's what I found. Of the four, I shot the 642 BY FAR worse than any; lack of practice, skimpy sights, funky grip shape/angle (compared to any other commonly trained pistol), and heavy recoil (with 158+P LSWCHP) all added up to a miserable performance. My hands are still swollen and achy from a meager 100 rounds.

The PM9 gave me the next "worst" performance, again, largely due to a trigger I'm out of practice with and comparatively heavy recoil. When I shot slowly and deliberately, it performed as I'd hope, but as soon as I tried to "run" it, the combination of short stroking the trigger and significant flippiness made for a miserable performance.

I actually shot the G23 first, as it's filling in as my "primary" while my G19 is at the mothership. Cold (and I mean COLD - outdoor range, over cast, sub 30 degrees with 10-15 knot sustained wind in the face cold), I turned in the single WORST qualification score I've ever shot with ANY pistol, ever. By my own personal standards, I DQ'd because I managed to drop a round off silhouette shooting weak hand only, my agency's standards, thankfully, aren't so strict.

The G26 was next, and I shot a perfect score (300/300) with it.

Switched back to the G23 and set up the steel plates - a rack of 6" steel that I shot at about 15 yards. Performance was again marginal - accuracy was OK, but my shot-to-shot times were SLOW, again, the G23's front sight wants to take a significant jump in recoil, and it's a LOT harder work trying to control that muzzle flip and maintain speed. The G26 cleared the rack cleanly, with significantly less time between targets.

Thoroughly disgusted with myself, I pulled out the "guaranteed to make you smile" MP5KN, and spent a half hour running through a qual and 300 rounds of various drills. Again, I started out rusty, but, by the end of the day, was back to making single shot hits with the "happy switch" engaged.

Back in my "happy place," I decided to have another go at the qualification with my G23. This time, I made the conscious decision to use all the time allotted on each engagement, instead of trying to shoot the qual at "gunfight" speed. Surprise, surprise, 300/300.

So, what's the point of this windy discussion - there is, for me, a point where recoil control with lightweight compact guns becomes "too much to handle" at shooting speeds that I consider acceptable. I'll also add that my agency issues Federal 155 gr JHP for .40 S&W, which I find to be about the most obnoxiously heavy recoiling load I've ever shot in that caliber. As always, YMMV, and, I don't remember any pistols being this painful to shoot before my 50th birthday moved to "danger close."

Regards,

Kevin

[LSP552]

For me, the Glock 27 is about the most obnoxious pistol on the planet, and the 23 isn't that far behind.

[1slow]

I find the GL27 to be more obnoxious than the GL29 with full 10mm loads.

[psalms144.1]

For me, the Glock 27 is about the most obnoxious pistol on the planet, and the 23 isn't that far behind.

I couldn't agree more. I've lost count (actually I haven't, but the number is upwards of double digits at this point) of the number of agents carrying personally owned G27s that I've had to work HARD to untrain all the problems they developed after getting and shooting the G27 much. I had one female agent that a different Field Office sent to me to "fix" because she hadn't passed a qualification in 18 months. We started off at the 5 yard line, shooting at a B8, slow fire, no timer, no stress, just the two of us on the line. By the third round I told her to cease fire, and took the pistol away from her.

Put my G26 in her hand, spent about 30 minutes dry firing to get over the flinchies, by lunch she was shooting high 270s out of 300 using my G26, and she's subsequently shot at least one "clean" qualification, using the G26 that she bought that afternoon when we got off the range. And our 9mm training ammo is full house NATO ball, so it's not a "soft" 9mm round, but there's just that much difference in recoil between the two.

Again, I know PLENTY of folks who flat RUN a G23, and my best friend shoots his G27 like its a cap gun, but that's not in the cards for me anymore...

[JHC]

I'm running into that "anymore" thing with dismaying regularity (at age 57)