Differences in shoot-ability?

[45dotACP]

Okay, so I've always had this question. So many people talk about the .45 like it's harder to shoot than a 9mm. Yes, it's bigger, heavier, pricier, and holds less ammo, but I've personally not encountered huge differences in performance with my Glock 21 (old gun) as compared to my Glock 34 (current gun).

I also note that Todd turned in some pretty impressive numbers with the HK45 as compared to the fairly similar P30...namely sub 2 second Bill Drills, which I view as the test of whether or not your gun is "shootable" at speed. If you slow fire, any caliber will do, because recoil is no concern, but with a Bill Drill, the greater recoil should make a big difference right?

So is the shootability difference really all that great? I may be totally off base here. What do you guys think? Do you see any huge performance gaps between different calibers (9, 40, 45 etc..) in similar sized guns?

[Mr_White]

I don't think the difference is very much - freestyle.

Single handed there seems to be a significant difference for me.

I am trying to learn from other people's experiences and avoid a heavy caliber over time and with many thousands of rounds expended, for the sake of my elbows.

Range/training ammo is one thing to base recoil characteristics off of, but to my sense every caliber is hotter in a proper duty/defense load. 9mm goes from 'easy' to 'quite manageable', .40 goes from 'unpleasant' to 'get it the f away from me', and .45 goes from 'quite manageable freestyle' to 'wow, I can't believe the muzzle is climbing like sixty degrees with this 230gr + P HST.'

.40 is also a standout ugly recoiling caliber when crammed into 9mm-sized guns.

I seem to shoot 9mm more accurately, I think because it doesn't drag as much of a flinching/anticipatory response out of me. I don't think I'm alone there.

I'll take 9mm.

[RevolverRob]

Physics is still a thing, right? Well - if you compare the physical forces from 9, 40, and 45 you aren't seeing a heck of a lot of difference, but there is still some...

Let's see - 124-grain FMJ - 351 ft/lbs of muzzle energy; 230-grain FMJ 365 ft/lbs of muzzle energy (source: http://www.ballistics101.com/). That's 14 ft/lbs of energy different. That is less than the energy it takes to swat a fly different.

Yea, I don't think you're going to find a really big difference between any of the service size calibers.

[jetfire]

I shot a G21 and a 1911 pretty well when I was shooting .45s. For me, the issue was less one of shootability and more of durability over the long run. I find dry fire tedious, and up until this year had ample time to engage in serious live fire sessions. I found that I tend to fatigue quicker shooting a .45 than I would with a 9mm.

I know that Todd by the end of the HK45 test was wearing an elbow wrap, and another friend of mine whose duty gun was a 1911 had similar issues.

For what it's worth, my PR on the Triple Nickel was set with a Glock 21.

[Wondering Beard]

in similar sized guns?

I think those are the operative words.

To a great degree we are talking about ergonomics rather than caliber here. I can do things more easily with a Glock 21 (e.g. shoot strong or weak hand only, be more accurate) than I can with a 1911, and that's because of the way the G21 fits my hand.

Of course, another factor is experience.

[45dotACP]

FWIW, I prefer the 9mm. I am a cheapskate, so cheap practice ammo won me over in the end. It all pretty much started when I saw this guy's video though. Thought it was an interesting side by side comparison. He spouts occasional bits of gunstore commando like "stopping power" etc...but the video interested me most.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzDOodYtDT0&list=UU2AEawZVE_9_AI44ybfjZRQ

[Leroy]

Ft/lbs of energy does not equate to force applied to shooter. Force is product of mass and acceleration whereas engery is mass and velocity. A .45 could accelerate at the same speed as 9 mm albeit for shorter period of time and come out of the barrel significantly slower but impart twice the force because of twice the mass. But it has been a long time since I did math on moving bodies so i could be wrong.

[JHC]

My recollections (fond) from my 20's is I ran a .45 1911 faster than anything before or since. But that was in the early '80's. I didn't own a timer so who knows now. But I cannot run a .45 1911 or G21 even close to how I can run a 9mm today. Not freestyle and certainly not duelist. Physics has caught me.

[Savage Hands]

So is the shootability difference really all that great? I may be totally off base here. What do you guys think? Do you see any huge performance gaps between different calibers (9, 40, 45 etc..) in similar sized guns?

A perfect example is the XDs in 9mm and .45acp which are the same size, I have shot a few hundred rounds in one session with the 9mm while I hate shooting more than one mag out of the .45.

[Leroy]

Yeah, I am wrong about my theory. Although I find 9mm easier to shoot fast and accurately because I flinch less. I also find the gun does not lift as much which makes it easier to track the sights.

[45dotACP]

A perfect example is the XDs in 9mm and .45acp which are the same size, I have shot a few hundred rounds in one session with the 9mm while I hate shooting more than one mag out of the .45.

Psh, those guns are combat accurate at bad breath distance on the streets ;)

That's an excellent point. So I'm guessing the size/caliber differences come into play with progressively smaller guns. Would the cutoff point be at guns around G19 sized then? I seem to recall reading something to the effect that shooting a G22 vs a G17 probably won't see as much difference but shooting a G19 vs a G23 would see a noticeable difference and a G26 vs a G27 will have obvious differences, but I forget the source.

[GardoneVT]

So is the shootability difference really all that great? I may be totally off base here. What do you guys think? Do you see any huge performance gaps between different calibers (9, 40, 45 etc..) in similar sized guns?

I fired my Tanfoglio Match 10mm after a session with a 9mm AR-24 Armalite (essentially a 9mm Tanfoglio Witness made by Sarsilmaz and imported by Armalite) .

The AR24 9mm didnt impart a magical performance improvement-either I applied the fundamentals and hit the target, or didnt and missed.

In my determination the biggest advantage of 9mm is economic. Ammo costs money, and the marginal increase in rounds-per-dollar with 9mm adds up. Because most people who buy guns use them for gun safe ornaments, this detail isnt considered much at time of purchase.

[Savage Hands]

Psh, those guns are combat accurate at bad breath distance on the streets ;)

That's an excellent point. So I'm guessing the size/caliber differences come into play with progressively smaller guns. Would the cutoff point be at guns around G19 sized then? I seem to recall reading something to the effect that shooting a G22 vs a G17 probably won't see as much difference but shooting a G19 vs a G23 would see a noticeable difference and a G26 vs a G27 will have obvious differences, but I forget the source.

I only owned the XDs 9mm for one range session thanks to the recall spooking me from ever trusting it but I hate to say it shot almost as well as my Gen 4 Glocks at 25 yards and definitely better than my Gen 3 Glocks. I have a pic of the target somewhere but minus a flyer I did about a 3" six round group standing unsupported with Blazer Brass iirc.

[David Armstrong]

Keep in mind the shootability difference is also dependent on the shooter, at least in part. For the upper echelon shooters the differences may be minimal, while a new shooter may find the differences huge.

[GJM]

Keep in mind the shootability difference is also dependent on the shooter, at least in part. For the upper echelon shooters the differences may be minimal, while a new shooter may find the differences huge.

New shooters buy new guns thinking they can buy performance. Experienced shooters buy guns for the same reason, but realistically know performance is not something you can buy.

[David Armstrong]

New shooters buy new guns thinking they can buy performance. Experienced shooters buy guns for the same reason, but realistically know performance is not something you can buy.
Some might, but I doubt that is the idea for many. Many new shooters want something that feels comfortable to them and they can shoot. They are not wanting to buy performance, they are wanting to make a wise investment in a personal protection gun or some such. And there is a distinct difference in carrying a full-size 1911 and a medium-frame revolver and a difference in shooting the .45 versus the .38. IME new shooters find the first a bit difficult on both counts while an experienced shooter may be able to work either of them at a fairly high level.

[ToddG]

So is the shootability difference really all that great?

From a consistency standpoint, I'd say yes. While you may be able to turn in the same "personal best" with any caliber, being able to meet a tough standard time and time again consistently is harder the more oomph is behind the bullet.

Comparing 9mm to .45 is pretty specific because you're talking about a fast sharp recoil impulse compared to a slower heavier impulse. My wife, who is pretty recoil sensitive, actually liked shooting a P220 more than a P226 because while the recoil pushed against her hand with more force, the gun didn't move around on her as much so she felt more in control of it. She shoots the same 2-second splits with either gun. :cool:

In my experience and talking with other folks who shoot at a higher level than me, the general consensus seems to be that they can both be shot about the same but the larger calibers require more effort in terms of grip, etc. It's the difference between lifting an ounce and lifting ten pounds. You can do either one but nonetheless the ten pound weight is still heavier and requires more effort.

[GJM]

If you were to take a similar weight and configuration bolt gun in .308, .300 WM., .375 H&H and .416 Remington, and shoot them all in a row, it it will be clear that as the caliber increases, so does the recoil. That doesn't mean that a good shooter can't shoot a .375 better than a less skilled shooter with the .308 or .300, or some designs handle recoil better than others, but apples to apples, you can't cheat bullet weight X velocity.

There may be good reasons to shoot the larger caliber, but felt recoil is not one of those reasons.

[Chuck Haggard]

I find that a lot of people think "I can handle a .45/.40/.357mag snub", but they mean with two hands on a square range standing on two feet on a warm spring day.

One handed or in a compromised position, not so much.

[Gio]

I have gone back and forth a lot between a 1911 in .45 (springfield pro) and a Glock 19/17 for duty and have done countless "comparison" tests between them. I also compete with a G35 (USPSA M class) in limited and production. I find that there is a tremendous difference in recoil between the 17/19 and the 1911 using factory ball and duty ammo. However, if I download the .45 to 170 PF reloads with a fast burning powder, it becomes extremely pleasant and controllable.

In my opinion, a 25 yd bill drill is a better indicator of your ability to control recoil than a 7 yard bill drill. At 7 yds, I can pull off a 1.8-1.9 bill drill with the 1911 whether using factory ammo or reloads vs. 1.9-2.0 with the Glocks. I can grip the gun hard enough that the recoil isn't going to take me out of the A zone at this distance. When I move back to 25 yards though, I shoot about a 2.9-3.3 bill drill with the Glocks or 1911 with 170pf reloads vs. 3.8-4.0 with the 1911 with factory ammo. I am also much more likely to pull shots into the D zone or even have complete misses with the 1911 with factory ammo because of the severity of recoil making it that much harder to reset the sight picture after each shot. We issue standard pressure .45 JHP's going about 850 fps. I can't imagine how much more difficult the 1911 would be to control at speed with 230 gr +p HST or the 220gr +p Hornady Critical Duty.

[JAD]

I think how much live fire is in your diet is really important. 200 rounds twice a month through a lightweight commander is not hard or bad. Much more than that and I get a little flinchy. I can shoot 4-500 rounds out of many 9s with no appreciable deterioration. It's a topic I've been exploring in my training journal.

[1slow]

I found 2,000 rounds in 4 days of shooting school to wear on me with a GL30 in .45ACP 230gr.

[psalms144.1]

I daily carry a G19 (Gen4). Our "training" load is M882 NATO ball - a 124 gr +P equivalent. I also have a G30S, and our issued "training" load for it is good old fashioned 230gr FMJ (in my case, loaded by Winchester in 1988 - yikes!). The two pistols are size/weight equivalent, generally speaking.

I CONSISTENTLY shoot more accurately on our qualification with the G30S - it's simply a more mechanically accurate pistol than the G19, AND, I believe that, in the SPECIFIC loads I'm shooting, the .45 is more consistent.

I ALWAYS shoot measurably better with my G19 on ANY drill that doesn't involve enormously generous "scoring zones" and time standards that can be measured with a sun dial (like our qualification). I can consistently shoot a "NOW" drill (draw, fire a full magazine, reload, fire one more round) into a fist sized group with the G19 at a 7 yards in 8 seconds or less (sometimes considerably less). With the G30S, not so much. I either have to slow my splits down quite a bit, or my accuracy suffers. As someone stated above - there's no arguing with the laws of physics.

In addition, I can confirm that, at just shy of 50, at the end of 300 rounds of training with the G30S, my gimped up left wrist is sore, and stays that way for a while. The G19 I can shoot all day, every day, even with a relatively "hard recoiling" 9mm load, with no aches or pains anywhere (except my ego, which HATES the accuracy I get from my G19...) This is one man's opinion, of course. When my old team got our HK45CTs (again size/weight equivalent with our G19s), none of the "young" guys seemed to notice or be bothered by the recoil difference (of course, that's an apples-to-oranges issue, due to differences in the platforms).

Regards,

Kevin

[BN]

Back before IDPA, my wife and I were shooting USPSA Limited with .45 ACP Paras at a 175 power factor. We both had experienced pain in our elbows. Soon after IDPA started we realized we could shoot our 9mm Glocks and soon our pain went away. :)

To help you see the difference in shoot-ability, just compare a 43 oz. 1911 in 9mm vs. a 43 oz. 1911 in .45 ACP. ;)

[Mr_White]

Back before IDPA, my wife and I were shooting USPSA Limited with .45 ACP Paras at a 175 power factor. We both had experienced pain in our elbows. Soon after IDPA started we realized we could shoot our 9mm Glocks and soon our pain went away. :)

To help you see the difference in shoot-ability, just compare a 43 oz. 1911 in 9mm vs. a 43 oz. 1911 in .45 ACP. ;)

You know, strictly speaking, you could have shot those 9mm Glocks in Limited... ;)

[BN]

You know, strictly speaking, you could have shot those 9mm Glocks in Limited... ;)

That was back when people looked down on and laughed at the funny plastic Glocks. I guess not much has changed. LOL

My first Glock 17 I got off a guy who was shooting it in Open Major. I guess he stuffed a bunch of Blue Dot in it and was shooting it because it was high capacity. Back then I think the magazine still couldn't be extended. I went on and shot it a lot for several years. Probably close to 100k. Still works just fine. :)

[JHC]

In my opinion, a 25 yd bill drill is a better indicator of your ability to control recoil than a 7 yard bill drill. At 7 yds, I can pull off a 1.8-1.9 bill drill with the 1911 whether using factory ammo or reloads vs. 1.9-2.0 with the Glocks. I can grip the gun hard enough that the recoil isn't going to take me out of the A zone at this distance. When I move back to 25 yards though, I shoot about a 2.9-3.3 bill drill with the Glocks or 1911 with 170pf reloads vs. 3.8-4.0 with the 1911 with factory ammo. I am also much more likely to pull shots into the D zone or even have complete misses with the 1911 with factory ammo because of the severity of recoil making it that much harder to reset the sight picture after each shot. We issue standard pressure .45 JHP's going about 850 fps. I can't imagine how much more difficult the 1911 would be to control at speed with 230 gr +p HST or the 220gr +p Hornady Critical Duty.

That's pretty interesting. I've got nowhere near that level of 7 yard capability with a 1911. I know pure grip strength is not my strong suit. Nor is "mass". It makes the point even stronger for 9mm for me.

[Gio]

I shot a couple hundred rounds this weekend through my Springfield Pro and finished up with about ~50 rounds out of my G19. Interestingly, I did several FAST drills (on a USPSA target) with the Pro at 7 yds. The fastest was 3.73, avg was 4.1, slowest was 4.58. I moved back to 15 yards and had 2/3 runs with close misses on the index card and a couple C's on the body shots (rounds still hit the USPSA target head) and one clean run with all A's and 2 index card hits in 5.78.

I finished the range session with the G19, ran a couple 7 yd FAST drills at 4.03 fastest, and ran three more 15 yd FAST drills all clean in 5.28, 5.15, and 5.01.

Just like my bill drill results posted earlier in this thread, the lack of recoil from the 9mm compared to factory 195 power factor .45 makes a big difference in shootability as I increase the distance to the target, especially when trying to recover the sights from recoil and make accurate follow up shots. The frustrating thing about it all is I can stand still at 15 yds and shoot a slow fire group with the Pro that would be half the size of the G19, but when I add time pressure to it, I can't overcome the physics of 195 pf vs. 135 pf.

[JV_]

The fastest was 3.73, avg was 4.1, slowest was 4.58.
Those are some pretty fast runs, do you happen to have any videos?

[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...

[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) :D

[GJM]

On the shoot ability issue, I really wish Gaston had designed the Glock with a more conventional grip angle. Perhaps not an issue for someone who only shoots a Glock exclusively for their career, but a constant challenge for me shooting the Glock and other stuff.

With the Glock, I only get the muzzle fully level at the end of my extension, when I fully lock up and cam my support hand. That means I get a slight muzzle up arc on my presentation, compared to a Beretta, CZ, etc. It also means, if I am not fully locked up, my shots will impact high. Shooting one hand, where I don't get the benefit of support hand cam, I need to consciously cam my shooting hand over to level the muzzle.

[JHC]

In Gaston's brilliance this was to compensate for the yanking shots low tendency on that trigger. ;)

[LSP552]

All I want is for my G17 grip to "feel" and point like my P226…….
Is this really too much to ask for??

Oh, I also want my P226 trigger in the G17…...

[Gio]

On the shoot ability issue, I really wish Gaston had designed the Glock with a more conventional grip angle. Perhaps not an issue for someone who only shoots a Glock exclusively for their career, but a constant challenge for me shooting the Glock and other stuff.

With the Glock, I only get the muzzle fully level at the end of my extension, when I fully lock up and cam my support hand. That means I get a slight muzzle up arc on my presentation, compared to a Beretta, CZ, etc. It also means, if I am not fully locked up, my shots will impact high. Shooting one hand, where I don't get the benefit of support hand cam, I need to consciously cam my shooting hand over to level the muzzle.

I am the opposite. I've been shooting Glocks so long (and for some long stretches exclusively) that when I try to switch to anything else, I have to put in a significant amount of dry fire to naturally aim the sights where my eyes are looking.

[Surf]

For myself I can definitely see small differences in performance under a microscope if that is the measure I am going by. In a real world situation, not sure if it really is going to make a great deal of difference as I don't think I will be ripping strings of fire into multiple targets, with reloads in between strings of fire while on a static line. Who knows never say never? I will say without a doubt from same platform in just full power caliber changes only there is definitely a difference in my pure performance under a microscope. As an example, if I go from a Sig P226 in 9mm to .40, no doubt. Go to a P220 or P227 less dramatic of a difference than 9mm or even .40 but it exists. Same results with a Glock as another example. Sight recovery is slightly different and shot spread size increases when rate of fire remains constant between all weapons. Now again this might be nit picking and if you are a "combat effective" type and are all good with everything in the A zone from 7-10 yards, if I am running .20 or so splits, then you probably wouldn't notice a difference in my targets if you only care about the A zone, but there is definitely going to be an increase in group size as a whole. Small but it exists.


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:I am a long time member at LF but don't frequent there much and did not see this thread, but these are my exact same thoughts when it comes to the glock. G35 / G22 not my favorite but small difference. Step down to the G23 or G27 and it goes downhill quickly. I love the G19 but the G23 is one of my least favorite Glocks.


On the shoot ability issue, I really wish Gaston had designed the Glock with a more conventional grip angle. Perhaps not an issue for someone who only shoots a Glock exclusively for their career, but a constant challenge for me shooting the Glock and other stuff.

With the Glock, I only get the muzzle fully level at the end of my extension, when I fully lock up and cam my support hand. That means I get a slight muzzle up arc on my presentation, compared to a Beretta, CZ, etc. It also means, if I am not fully locked up, my shots will impact high. Shooting one hand, where I don't get the benefit of support hand cam, I need to consciously cam my shooting hand over to level the muzzle.I actually really like the grip angle. As a life long 1911 guy (flat mainspring housing) and carried a Sig P226 for 14 years going through 3 barrels in one pistol until I cracked the frame, I will say that I hated the Glock initially. I did however have a "come to Jesus, err come to Glock" moment where when things finally clicked, it was an immediate shift for me thereafter.

Instead of trying to make the Glock fit my Sig / 1911 grip, I made my grip fit the Glock. This seems like a no brainer so to speak but it really was hard to overcome ingrained body mechanic until the light went on. I found that the added rotation of the support wrist had much more "lockout" power which lessened muzzle rise and created a quicker and more consistent return to neutral of the muzzle. Speed, accuracy of follow ups went through the roof. Others may not notice as much, but it was clear as day for me.

As for the muzzle up on press out, I am right there with you. Same for me and you can still see it in some of my presentations. Mostly when I am not rushed and it may be a distance shot and I know I am going all the way to extension before the weapon is going to fire. Kind of the drop the front sight into the notch. Up close, rapid or flat presentations with a flat muzzle from 3 all the way to 4, I tend to tuck my primary elbow closer to the rib cage area and the support shoulder and elbow rise slightly higher. This keeps the body compact and cams the muzzle flat throughout the presentation. I do practice this quite a bit and it is completely natural for me to do. So I don't consciously think about the presentations they just happen according to the situation. Might not be ideal for everyone, but it has made me much better at what I do.


All I want is for my G17 grip to "feel" and point like my P226…….
Is this really too much to ask for??

Oh, I also want my P226 trigger in the G17…...I want my Glock grip to feel like a P226 and wish they would remove the hump and finger grooves so that I don't have to. I don't do Glock mods for profit so if they just left it out I would OK with it. However I wish the Sig would point like the Glock with a steeper grip angle. Not much they can do about higher hand placement without a radical design shift. If I get too much "cam" or too high on the Sig, I get into fouling the slide stop and decocker. Again as a long time Sig guy, I nowadays really like a more "cammed" wrist position that is hard for me to get on the Sig.

[Salamander]

Last winter was cold (by coastal standards) and dry. Most of my nights at the range in 2013 it was slipping into the low 40s or upper 30s by the end of the night. That was when I decided that shooting 45 wasn't as much fun as it used to be in my younger days. A M&P45 was distinctly unpleasant after 100 rounds. A 1911 was a lot better because of the extra weight. Until I went to my G19 or P2000, and was reminded that I can shoot those pistols in 9mm all night and it's still fun.

This winter is mild and wet so far, it's 57 with scattered showers right now. I've shot only 9mm (and a little .38 special) this winter, and the .45s are collecting dust in the safe.

I need to go someplace where it's really cold for a day or two just to find out what the various calibers feel like at 20 degrees. But I think I can guess.

As for the discussion above on subcompacts; I got rid of my G26 for reliability reasons, it was one of those tolerance-stacked ones that just wouldn't work consistently. I had it long enough to know that it shot pretty well on warm dry days, and OK even on cold days. But with wet or sweaty hands, it tended to shift during faster fire. It rains a lot here half the year, so for me that matters.

The discussion on age has got me thinking, too. In my 20s I shot mostly .45 and .357, I've been lucky and no elbow issues thus far. However if I think about the older guys at the range, it's the ones who usually shoot .45s and big magnums who are always complaining about aches and pains. The two guys I'm specifically thinking of are both pushing 80 so I guess that's to be expected. I've noticed that one of them now shoots .22 most of the night and only gets his 1911's out for a little while. The other guy still shoots his big stuff, the other day it was .41 magnum, and his range sessions are now down to about 30 minutes max per night.

[GJM]

Gabe reminds me of a saying that the point of competition is to tease out tiny differences in ability, and by extension, shoot-ability. Since Bolke is in town, and we are shooting together Tuesday, I decided I better tune up on LEM. At the end of my Glock 17 session today, I pulled out a USP Compact .45 LEM, and shot 70 rounds. It is dead nuts accurate and reliable. It is also dead nuts slow, by Glock standards. I can't imagine the difference would matter in a fight, as it puts those big bullets where you aim -- it just doesn't like to be made to do it in a hurry by modern timer standards.