Objectively choosing between 2 guns/systems for EDC

[mhl6493]

I've had my carry permit for about 5 years, and I've gone back and forth between what gun I carry - mainly between a Glock 19 Gen 4 and a p229 Legion 9mm.

I like the slightly extra feeling of safety I get with the DA/SA Sig, but I like the consistent trigger pull of the G19. They both obviously have advantages and disadvantages.

My question is, what objective process do you personally use to choose between 2 guns (and in this case, 2 different systems) for your carry gun? I go to the range fairly often (at least compared to the average concealed carrier) but my range time has basically consisted of slinging bullets at paper with no real training objectives or drills (it's an indoor range). I know that needs to change. But, given how I've been shooting these two pistols, I shoot them pretty much the same. One doesn't really stand out over the other - though subjectively I "like" the Sig.

Would love to hear from the collective PF wisdom on how you approach this. I'm ready to devote myself primarily to one system and carry gun, and then begin doing what I need to do to actually improve, whatever that might involve. Thanks for your time!

[Le Français]

I recommend vetting both for reliability, if you haven’t already. Of course, a “2,000 round challenge” is a bit pricey these days, but you want to make sure both work well with quality hollow points.

After that, get a shot timer (or use a shot timer app that works) and shoot some drills (good ones are available on pistol-training.com) with both pistols. Shoot the drills from your normal concealment gear.

Compare your performance, and remember that reliably delivered hits on target within the timeframe demanded by the situation (which is not predictable) is what matters most with an EDC handgun.

Other factors to consider are cost of support equipment, concealability, customization potential if that’s your thing, etc.

That’s how I would do it, but it’s a moot point for me since I carry the pistol I’m issued.

ETA: On that last note, I’ll add that my issued pistol is what I carry every day, whether on duty or off. Almost all of my pistol shooting is done with that pistol, or with a very similar model used for competition.

[gruntjim]

I tend to go with the most reliable, as the first point. Then accuracy, then durability.

Once those are met, I stay with whatever I can pick up cold, and then shoot 10 rounds, at ten meters, in ten seconds. It's somewhat old school, but I've found it a good barometer for what YOU can do with the platform.

In my case, it's a 2.0 Shield in 9mm, with the 2.0 Compacts in various calibers as holster guns.

[feudist]

Very little is objective when it comes to choosing a sidearm. Both of them are fine EDC choices.

If the issue with the Glock is fear of a N.D. during holstering you can get a Striker Control Device.

I have one and it definitely makes me less nervous when holstering my G19 AIWB.

Which gun do you "like" better? Which do you want to shoot more?

The G19 is where a lot of lines cross: weight, capacity, serviceability, less prone to rust, less picky about maintenance. The Gen5's are darn near bulletproof.

But there is a lot of P229 love on this forum, as well as liking the TDA.

One Notion that a lot of us on this forum subscribe to is to have two identical carry guns. One to carry after it has been vetted with duty ammo. Then it lives in your holster. The

second gun is for practice and training. It gets all the wear and tear. Plus if something happens to your primary(parts breakage, seized as evidence by police after a shooting)

then your second gun becomes your EDC. Actually, the ideal setup is three guns: EDC. backup EDC, and trainer.

Keep both? Sell one to finance a second gun?

I've carried a Glock 19 for the better part of thirty years now,so I definitely advocate for it.

But, YMMV, always.

[Wondering Beard]

I've had my carry permit for about 5 years, and I've gone back and forth between what gun I carry - mainly between a Glock 19 Gen 4 and a p229 Legion 9mm.

I like the slightly extra feeling of safety I get with the DA/SA Sig, but I like the consistent trigger pull of the G19. They both obviously have advantages and disadvantages.

My question is, what objective process do you personally use to choose between 2 guns (and in this case, 2 different systems) for your carry gun? I go to the range fairly often (at least compared to the average concealed carrier) but my range time has basically consisted of slinging bullets at paper with no real training objectives or drills (it's an indoor range). I know that needs to change. But, given how I've been shooting these two pistols, I shoot them pretty much the same. One doesn't really stand out over the other - though subjectively I "like" the Sig.

Would love to hear from the collective PF wisdom on how you approach this. I'm ready to devote myself primarily to one system and carry gun, and then begin doing what I need to do to actually improve, whatever that might involve. Thanks for your time!

What professional training have you attended?

I don't mean to ask that as any form of put down, but in a serious manner. Training by quality instructors (like a weekend class with Tom Givens) regarding what your use of your pistol will be, will tell you a lot about what works for you and what doesn't and will most definitely help you choose.

[mhl6493]

What professional training have you attended?

I don't mean to ask that as any form of put down, but in a serious manner. Training by quality instructors (like a weekend class with Tom Givens) regarding what your use of your pistol will be, will tell you a lot about what works for you and what doesn't and will most definitely help you choose.

No offense taken at all - that's a great question. This past Saturday, I tool Entry Level Pistol Essential with Brian Hill of the Complete Combatant in Dahlonega, GA. It was a basic class, but I wanted to make sure that my fundamentals were good before taking anything else. Other than that, and my carry permit class (which wasn't much), I haven't taken any professional training. I do plan to take additional classes from the folks at the Complete Combatant. I should have done that a long time ago.

[Wondering Beard]

No offense taken at all - that's a great question. This past Saturday, I tool Entry Level Pistol Essential with Brian Hill of the Complete Combatant in Dahlonega, GA. It was a basic class, but I wanted to make sure that my fundamentals were good before taking anything else. Other than that, and my carry permit class (which wasn't much), I haven't taken any professional training. I do plan to take additional classes from the folks at the Complete Combatant. I should have done that a long time ago.

It's great to hear your commitment to further training. :-)

I do not know anything about Complete Combatant but I'm sure that our members in your area can comment on them.

I'd add that once you have taken your next class, try matches of the IDPA or USPSA type. They're not training per se, but they require you to shoot precisely under time pressure and the mental pressure that provokes will not only be good for your skills (which is the most important) but it will also tell you a bit about your equipment.

Finally, when it comes to choosing which gun, reliability comes first; it has to go bang every time, in all sorts of conditions; end of story. After that, it becomes very individual as far as I'm concerned.

[OlongJohnson]

Put 200 rounds of Winchester white box ammo through the Sig and see if you still like it.

[mhl6493]

Put 200 rounds of Winchester white box ammo through the Sig and see if you still like it.

If I can find some, I'll definitely do that! ;-) It actually did have some feeding issues early on, but has been good to go since then.

[fatdog]

I have a set of very objective performance standards, a set of drills, that I judge my ability to perform with a CC pistol against. The old saying, timers and targets do not lie. If I pass those, then I am good with carrying that gun. This assumes the prerequisites of complete reliability including testing with acceptable defensive ammo is passed. After that I think it is simply a matter of which one you are most willing to carry, always. I your case I think the G19 might have a minor weight advantage and a couple of extra rounds, but maybe not enough to matter.

If you are looking for a broad set of objective performance standards (drills) you can measure your performance against, I don't know a better library of them than all those documented in the Rangemaster monthly news letters for the last 3-4 years, which you can go download for free.

[Tennessee Jed]

For me, there's nothing like shooting an IDPA match after a long day at work, tired and worn out, to test whether a particular gun works for me under less than ideal circumstances.

[RevolverRob]

Shoot side by side:

The Test
F.A.S.T
Hackathorn Standards (https://pistol-training.com/drills/hackathorn-standards)

From concealment with each gun.

The one you shoot better is the one to choose.

If you shoot both equally, the one that is easier to conceal is the one to choose.

If they both conceal equally well and shoot equally well, then choose the one you have the most accessories for.

Sell the other and buy a duplicate of the one you choose.

[mhl6493]

Excellent thoughts so far - thanks to all of you who've given input!

I can already tell that I'm going to have to find a different range to do some of these drills. My current range is indoors, and they don't allow drawing period, much less drawing from concealment. But I'm sure I can find somewhere to give them a go.

[Doc_Glock]

My question is, what objective process do you personally use to choose between 2 guns (and in this case, 2 different systems) for your carry gun? ...I shoot them pretty much the same. One doesn't really stand out over the other...


If there are two guns that I shoot about the same and are equally reliable here are my objective thoughts:

1. Weight: For carry you are living with the thing many hours each day. Lighter is simply better.
2. Size: It's concealed carry. Small is better.
3. Serviceability. This is way down the list, but it is nice to know if I fall in a sewer or something I can clean it out in a hotel room and get the gun serviceable without difficulty.

Ultimately it is your choice and I would pick whichever one turns you on enough to train. It truly doesn't matter so long as it goes bang when needed.

For me the answer is Glock and I feel like I have tried about them all at this point. Yeager is a tool, but he's not wrong when he says: "All guns should be Glocks, all Glocks should be 9mm and all Glock 9mms should be 19s."

[Olim9]

One doesn't really stand out over the other - though subjectively I "like" the Sig.

As someone who's in the same boat, been carrying Glocks for years but currently revisiting the DA/SA 226, see how well you can manage the DA trigger. It's going to take consistent practice to maintain proficiency with a longer and heavier trigger pull. Shooting at 25yds isn't the end all be all metric but if you're having issues making hits at that distance right out of the gate with a DA trigger, ask yourself if this is something that you're going to devote time and effort into learning how to do. If you can confidently hit a realistically sized target at 25, I think that works as a confidence booster which is important for a shooter.

If you like a gun more than another even if it's because "it looks cooler", you'll probably be motivated to dryfire and take it out to the range more. Try and shoot the Sig more exclusively!

[Caballoflaco]

I don’t disagree with anything posted but will second that a big part of it for me is what gun/system will allow me to carry a gun every time I leave the house. That’s one reason I went for glocks so I can tote a 26 in the summer full time at work and a 19 or 17 when that size works for me.

[Clusterfrack]

If there are two guns that I shoot about the same and are equally reliable here are my objective thoughts:

1. Weight: For carry you are living with the thing many hours each day. Lighter is simply better.
2. Size: It's concealed carry. Small is better.
3. Serviceability. This is way down the list, but it is nice to know if I fall in a sewer or something I can clean it out in a hotel room and get the gun serviceable without difficulty.

Ultimately it is your choice and I would pick whichever one turns you on enough to train. It truly doesn't matter so long as it goes bang when needed.

For me the answer is Glock and I feel like I have tried about them all at this point. Yeager is a tool, but he's not wrong when he says: "All guns should be Glocks, all Glocks should be 9mm and all Glock 9mms should be 19s."

I agree. The default defensive gun is a Glock 19. I'll never be without one. It checks all my boxes:

1. Carryable
2. Shootable
3. Reliable
4. Safe
5. Well-designed, well-tested, well-supported, made by a reputable company I trust.
6. Simple enough for me to understand how it works. Able to proactively replace parts as needed, without needing a gunsmith or sending it to the manufacturer.

Note that I didn't put in anything about how well I shoot it. Unless a gun has terrible ergos, or it simply doesn't fit me at all, I'm willing to put in the time to learn to shoot it well.

Like many of us here on P-F, I've invested a lot of time and money in trying other guns to replace the G19 as my primary carry. When I think what it cost me to figure out that 1911s and Sig p320s don't check all my boxes... Ugh. And what it cost me to figure out that the CZ P-07 does check all my boxes. I'm not sure it's worth it for most people. A Glock 19 is the easy button.

[Doc_Glock]

Like many of us here on P-F, I've invested a lot of time and money in trying other guns to replace the G19 as my primary carry. When I think what it cost me to figure out that 1911s and Sig p320s don't check all my boxes... Ugh.

I figure it is the price of an education. But yeah.

[Nephrology]

I am glad that I never really strayed from Glocks. They work great. Never really been tempted to replace them with something else, which has saved me a lot of money it seems :)

If you own two different guns and are trying to wean down to just one, I'd pick whichever you have more $$$ invested into (guns, mags, accessories, etc). If you're equally deep into both, keep the Glock.

Unlike some here I don't think it's worth trying to figure out which one you "shoot best." I don't think you'll arrive at an objective conclusion, and don't think it matters anyway. You can spend 10 lifetimes learning to shoot either gun and still have room to improve.

[mhl6493]

I figure it is the price of an education. But yeah.

Yep. And this class unfortunately has a high price tag...

[L-2]

I'm agreeing with Post_4.

I've got both a G19Gen5 and a SIG P229R (9mm). With my personal circumstances of being issued and using Glocks in my LE career for 20 years, I ended up preferring and most comfortable with Glock. My fellow LEOs in neighboring departments which issued SIGs may feel differently about what they prefer to carry.

You can practice with both brands/systems, but all I can see occurring is you'll find becoming proficient with both, if you're not already so. Then it comes down to your subjective feelings on the matter. If you don't have feelings on the issue and need objective testing, then so be it and choose some test criteria as others have also suggested. That's ok too.

BTW, it's ok to be proficient with two systems. You've bought two of my favorite handgun models, although I've got a few more favorites being other Glock models.

I wouldn't get rid of either handgun at this point. Just keep both and decide each day which gun to carry. There's no wrong answer here. After more time, you'll likely begin choosing one over the other and that's the way it goes.

[claymore504]

I would first decide on striker fired or DA/SA. Then find a gun that works best for you and train with it.

[Mike C]

I agree. The default defensive gun is a Glock 19. I'll never be without one. It checks all my boxes:

1. Carryable
2. Shootable
3. Reliable
4. Safe
5. Well-designed, well-tested, well-supported, made by a reputable company I trust.
6. Simple enough for me to understand how it works. Able to proactively replace parts as needed, without needing a gunsmith or sending it to the manufacturer.

Note that I didn't put in anything about how well I shoot it. Unless a gun has terrible ergos, or it simply doesn't fit me at all, I'm willing to put in the time to learn to shoot it well.

Like many of us here on P-F, I've invested a lot of time and money in trying other guns to replace the G19 as my primary carry. When I think what it cost me to figure out that 1911s and Sig p320s don't check all my boxes... Ugh. And what it cost me to figure out that the CZ P-07 does check all my boxes. I'm not sure it's worth it for most people. A Glock 19 is the easy button.

Logistics and ease of maintenance are definitely a thing, more so when you have one gun and don't want to have to send it off to fix it. Preventative maintenance is also huge as you pointed out and can keep you from having any major issues for the most part. The Glock 19 is definitely the easy button and at this juncture I couldn't honestly tell anyone to buy anything else in good conscience. They definitely check all the boxes for a one and done.

[Bigghoss]

Since you like the consistent pull of a striker but the safety of a DA/SA have you considered ditching both and trying either a DAO or LEM trigger?

[mhl6493]

Since you like the consistent pull of a striker but the safety of a DA/SA have you considered ditching both and trying either a DAO or LEM trigger?

No, but if I can rent one somewhere first to spend some time with it, that’s certainly worth looking into.

[1slow]

Read Darryl Bolke's threads and articles on HK LEM.
Also GJM's threads on HK USP match/LEM hybrid.

[Bucky]

A note on some comments regarding the ease of Glock disassembly. For sure, none of the mainstream guns are as easy and simple to maintain and disassemble as Glock. That doesn’t mean it can’t be learned.

[CraigS]

My wife and I have been shooting DA/SA 92s for 20+ years and really, really like them. But she carries a g19 and I carry and M&P9 compact. As received I felt that the triggers on both the G19 and M&P were a little on the light side for carry duty so I started experimenting. We ended up w/ two pistols w/ about 5.5-6# trigger pulls that we both shoot just fine. Since the DA pulls of our 92s are right in that range also we don't have any trouble switching guns. I bought a PX4 compact thinking it might replace one of our carry guns. For whatever reason my wife always shoots it a little to the right (3-4 inches at 30 ft) so no go for her. I shoot it just fine and like it a lot, but it is obviously heavier than the M&P, so it sits in the safe. We see no problem w/ having different systems for edc vs range time for both of us and idpa for me.

[JonInWA]

The earlier comment by Tennessee Jed in post #11 about shooting an IDPA match is a good one. Shooting a pistol in a dynamic shooting sport activity, like an IDPA, ASI or similar match can give you an excellent feel for how a given platform carries, and how well you can access it, shoot it, reload it, and holster it under stress.

Personally, I've had multiple P229s; both DA/SA and DAK. After years of use and comparison with Glock G19s, I chose the Glock G19. Weight, shootability, maintainability were all criteria The P229 can be an excellent pistol, but for me Glock simply checked mre boxes, and was more comfortable to carry.

An additional factor to consider is naggang concerns over SIG's varying quality control, and the varying inherent quality of some of the gun's components (i.e., mid-level Indian MIM). Those same concerns apply to the SIG P320 family, which would be a more direct comparison with the Glock.

If you want to remain with a DA/SA SIG, I would recommend consideration the polymer-frame SP2022, which almost solely within the SIG handgun lineup has remained virtually problem-free throughout its production, presumably due to mandated military/LEO foreign contracts with quality and QC requirements.

HK has some excellent possibilities in the P30, P2000 and VP lineups as well.

Best, Jon

[mhl6493]

Thanks again to all of you for the excellent suggestions.

This morning I went to my indoor range and shot a modified version of the Dot Torture test (shooting from compressed ready instead of drawing, no reloading), and a 5 x 5 drill with both the G19 and the p229. I had never shot either of these drills before. Let's just say, I see now why it's called Dot TORTURE - it was very humbling and frustrating indeed. I began the session by shooting 5 rounds with each gun into a B-8 target - I wanted to see how I shot them cold.

While I didn't shoot either gun what I would consider particularly well, I have to say that the G19 was a bit more accurate and natural for me to manipulate. Also, while I didn't time myself, I did try to run through it fairly fast (getting off the trigger and prepping it for the next shot during recoil, shooting again as soon as I thought I had a good sight picture). The p229 actually had a failure to eject when running it at this speed. It hadn't had one of those in about 800 rounds or so. But, I hadn't been shooting it this quickly either. (Shooting a mix of 115 and 147 grain Blazer brass).

So, just based on today's results, it would seem that the G19 would be the choice. I'll run through some additional drills (and take it to a class in the future) just to confirm, but that's the way it's looking as of now.

[Duke]

Dump the 229 and get an RMR cut slide and optic for your 19....

[Rex G]

I can only guess what you should do, but perhaps my Glock-to-SIG-to-Glock journey will have some conceptual application:

In my personal case, accuracy was the deciding factor, the first time around, in 2004. The first time I fired my P229R DAK, I started, cold, without warm-up, on my employer’s duty pistol qual course. I shot a better score than I had with a Gen3 Glock G22, in 30 months of trying. I was not a stranger to SIG, as I had used a DA/SA P220, but it had been more than a decade earlier.

I soon added a DA/SA P229, as a fun/spare gun, and, same result; I shot it far better than I had ever shot a G22.

Both the G22 and P229 “pointed” well, for me, but fit was not equal. I was fighting nature, every time I fired a Glock. Except for the decocker hump, on the left side of the P229, it fit me as if custom-sculpted. (DAKs lacked decockers, but the frame hump was still there.) At the time, it was not clear whether PD firearms policy would allow me to qual with a Glock, if it had a modified grip frame.

I was long-accustomed to long-stroke DA, with revolvers, and to SA, with the 1911. The Glock trigger was not my cup of tea. I was making ammo manufacturers wealthy, trying to up my Glock accuracy, but had reached a plateau.

When Gen4 Glocks came along, they fit me much better than Gen3. .40 S&W recoil, combined with the SIG high bore axis, started combining to make training painful, for my aging hands, by 2011, so I contemplated transitioning back to Glock. When my chief OK’ed 9mm as an alternative duty pistol cartridge, I made the switch back to Glock, in 2015, though, of course, Gen4 G17. Even so, I have never managed to shoot a Gen4 Glock as well as I could shoot a P229, whether DAK or DA/SA. So, now, in the 2017-2020 time frame, the “orthopedic” factor is the deciding factor, in SIG-versus-Glock, in my case.

I could buy an all-stainless steel P229 or P226, chambered in 9mm, and probably shoot it better than a Glock, and with substantial pain as 9mm has less recoil energy than .40 S&W, and steel damps recoil better than aluminum, but I am not likely to want to spend the money, and, I have some very nice, very accurate, all-steel, low-bore-axis, gently-recoiling 1911 pistols. Good “old man” guns.

Your Glock-v.-Sig experience and results may vary.

[Duelist]

Subjectively, I like both, but TDA Sigs, probably better than Glocks. Objectively, it’s not even a contest. I own 5 Glocks to zero Sigs. I carry Glocks and stainless j frame S&W revolvers. All my other guns are here only because I like them.

[SwampDweller]

For me, there's nothing like shooting an IDPA match after a long day at work, tired and worn out, to test whether a particular gun works for me under less than ideal circumstances.
What have you found to work for you under these less than ideal circumstances? Or, what have you found not to work for you?
When you say "works for you under less than ideal circumstances", are you talking about shooting performance, or reliability?

[RJ]

I'd need to ruminate on this a bit; I'm a charter member of the "gun of the month" club, coming new to shooting in 2014 lol. I got a lot of input when I was picking a new carry gun in 2017; perhaps scanning some of the responses in this thread might help?

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?16312-Shield-or-P30-SK-or-something-else


So, this is somewhat 'in general', and may or may not apply in your specific situation, but I found them applicable, to me:

- Don't mix trigger systems.

At one point, I was shooting a HK VP9 in USPSA, and carrying a P30SK LEM. I decided to "test" my carry gun by taking a 2 day Tom Givens class. Boy was that an eye opener. I had trouble both with the long LEM pull as well as the short grip. I sold both and bought a Glock 19.

- You really should not go back and forth between systems.

Unless you like a gun for sentimental value (not that there's anything wrong with that) don't keep it. While I kept the VP9 and P30SK, I still had a M&P 9mm full size. It did nothing for me in the safe. I should have sold it immediately.

- Supporting two different systems is more expensive than one.

I had at various points up to four guns, mostly with different sights, holster types, magazines, tools, and so forth. It got expensive, much more so say than having a G19/G26. I think if you can enjoy shooting a G26 (I didn't) that combination is almost perfect.

- If you don't have a snubby, you probably need one.

They are just so darn convenient. I picked a Ruger LCR .38 but many here love their J frames. Yes a five shot revolver is just that, but it is a Rule 1 gun ("have a gun") very suitable for walking the dog, getting the mail, watching Netflix :cool: etc.


So, what to do in your case?

Do both shoot reliably? If they don't, the choice is easy. Sell the one that doesn't.

Do you shoot them both accurately with self defence ammo? Pick the one you shoot better, using a numeric standard ("The Test" is a good one; 10 rounds at 10 yards in 10 seconds, scored on an NRA B-8, out of 100).

Can you test each one under stress in a timed match? Using a gun in a Steel Challenge, or USPSA, or IDPA match, will surface issues in equipment, technique, and mental fitness, very quickly. It's surprising how fast the wheels come off when someone's timing you. Pick the one you objectively do better with.

If they're still tied, which one is most convenient? This is things like size, loaded and holstered weight (an under appreciated criteria in a carry gun, IMHO).

Lastly, if you can't come to a conclusion after this, I'd start to look at overall through-life cost. Things like magazines, holsters, spare parts availability, ease of maintenance (you or the gunsmith); you know, logistics.

Once you come to a decision, I would sell the gun you are not using and start training with the one you picked.

Good luck!

[ranger]

Look at Ronnie Dodd's "Rogers Class" in Tennessee - that is a class focused on shooting fast and accurately. If Dahlonega is in driving range then Ronnie Dodd's facility should be in your driving distance. He probably can offer a class with reduced round count to help you decide.

[BehindBlueI's]

Objective testing is fine, but honestly minute differences in "shootability" or drill performance aren't what the vast majority, one is tempted to say all, random citizen vs criminal gun fights hinge on. There's been plenty of options on how to determine what you shoot best, but I'll add the ability to not shoot is at least as important as the ability to shoot. Unintended discharges can life altering for the discharger. What can you administratively handle under the stress of post-shooting safer? What will you actually carry?

Nobody objectively shoots a j-frame better then *insert hot competition pistol of the day* yet few select the second option for real world carry.

[ccmdfd]

Todd G talked about this many years ago.



For most shooters, if you take two (or more) different guns to the range to test objectively, you will not get the best idea for which one is actually better, especially for average joe shooters.



If I were to take a G19 and P229 to the range today and run drills with them, one gun would come out on top. Repeat 3 days later and I will get a different result. There are enough inconsistencies in my shooting to make that happen.



If you really want an objective measurable difference between two platforms, you should pick one platform and train with it exclusively for many months. Can’t remember if he said 3 or 6. Note your scores on various tests. Then switch platforms and yet again stick with one for several months. Whichever one scores better “wins”.


Yes it takes a long time, but by sticking with one platform only, you really get to wring out its performance, and quirks.



Also agree with BB's post above that shootability may not be the best thing to decide regarding a defensive pistol.

[JAD]

I would add emphasis to the idea that if you stick with the G19 you should install a Striker Control Device. I own a lot of Glocks and they all have one; I wouldn't carry one without it.

I would choose based on which gun I like better, if they seem equally reliable and carryable. If I like it I'll shoot it, if I shoot it I'll get better with it.

[psalms144.1]

If I were to take a G19 and P229 to the range today and run drills with them, one gun would come out on top. Repeat 3 days later and I will get a different result. There are enough inconsistencies in my shooting to make that happen.

If you really want an objective measurable difference between two platforms, you should pick one platform and train with it exclusively for many months. Can’t remember if he said 3 or 6. Note your scores on various tests. Then switch platforms and yet again stick with one for several months. Whichever one scores better “wins”.
Couldn't agree more. The "new gun" syndrome, or "honeymoon" syndrome with a new gun is very common. For instance, I've been shooting 1911s mostly for the last year. I noticed an IMMEDIATE improvement in accuracy and speed over the Glocks I've been running for decades, and then that leveled off. I'm still more accurate and faster with the 1911s, with less effort, 15 months or so in, but nowhere near the drastic shooting change I saw when I first started back with 1911s.

Recently picked up a P365XL, mainly to have a smallish pistol that's easy to mount an optic on. First time on the range, and I couldn't miss with it. 3x5s at 25 were stupid easy. After initial vetting of pistol and optic, I went back to shooting 1911s. Ran the P365XL this weekend on our qualification, and found that I was shooting low and left with it, and the trigger that felt great the first time I took it out is now not so good.

Short term shooting results mean darn near nothing. Long term shooting results over time are really where the rubber meets the road.

[Tennessee Jed]

What have you found to work for you under these less than ideal circumstances? Or, what have you found not to work for you?
When you say "works for you under less than ideal circumstances", are you talking about shooting performance, or reliability?

I was looking for reliability and shooting performance, but most of all consistency. I wanted to find the platform with which I could very consistently put all my shots in the down zero zone from all distances in the matches, from odd off-balance stances (like leaning out from behind cover, cover garment getting in the way on the draw, shooting with my weak hand, etc.), and do it relatively quickly, but I was willing to give up a little speed for consistent down zero hits. There's something magical about that timer going off that has a way of scrambling one's brain.

For me, that platform is a double action revolver. I can shoot SAO, TDA, or striker fired pistols better (meaning better score at a match) when I'm at my best, but when I'm tired (like after a long difficult day at work), or I'm just not into the match and wish I was somewhere else, or am feeling under pressure, or am not entirely focused on grip/trigger/sights, or get a less than perfect grip on the draw, etc., I've found that I don't shoot semi-autos as well as I do a revolver in that condition. IDPA helped me realize that. I would've never learned that on a square range, and probably not at a training class, either.

[RJ]

I was looking for reliability and shooting performance, but most of all consistency. I wanted to find the platform with which I could very consistently put all my shots in the down zero zone from all distances in the matches, from odd off-balance stances (like leaning out from behind cover, cover garment getting in the way on the draw, shooting with my weak hand, etc.), and do it relatively quickly, but I was willing to give up a little speed for consistent down zero hits. There's something magical about that timer going off that has a way of scrambling one's brain.

For me, that platform is a double action revolver. I can shoot SAO, TDA, or striker fired pistols better (meaning better score at a match) when I'm at my best, but when I'm tired (like after a long difficult day at work), or I'm just not into the match and wish I was somewhere else, or am feeling under pressure, or am not entirely focused on grip/trigger/sights, or get a less than perfect grip on the draw, etc., I've found that I don't shoot semi-autos as well as I do a revolver in that condition. IDPA helped me realize that. I would've never learned that on a square range, and probably not at a training class, either.

I picked a different flavor of competition, but the way you put this really resonated with me and my experience when that BEEP! goes off. Great post.

[mhl6493]

Objective testing is fine, but honestly minute differences in "shootability" or drill performance aren't what the vast majority, one is tempted to say all, random citizen vs criminal gun fights hinge on. There's been plenty of options on how to determine what you shoot best, but I'll add the ability to not shoot is at least as important as the ability to shoot. Unintended discharges can life altering for the discharger. What can you administratively handle under the stress of post-shooting safer? What will you actually carry?

Nobody objectively shoots a j-frame better then *insert hot competition pistol of the day* yet few select the second option for real world carry.

That’s a great thought that I hadn’t really considered. I love the extremely short reset on the p229 Legion, but I have to wonder if under extreme stress how likely I’d be to shoot unintentionally because of it. I mean, it’s SO short...

Y’all have given me a lot to think about, and I really appreciate it.

[MGW]

Todd G talked about this many years ago.



For most shooters, if you take two (or more) different guns to the range to test objectively, you will not get the best idea for which one is actually better, especially for average joe shooters.



If I were to take a G19 and P229 to the range today and run drills with them, one gun would come out on top. Repeat 3 days later and I will get a different result. There are enough inconsistencies in my shooting to make that happen.



If you really want an objective measurable difference between two platforms, you should pick one platform and train with it exclusively for many months. Can’t remember if he said 3 or 6. Note your scores on various tests. Then switch platforms and yet again stick with one for several months. Whichever one scores better “wins”.


Yes it takes a long time, but by sticking with one platform only, you really get to wring out its performance, and quirks.



Also agree with BB's post above that shootability may not be the best thing to decide regarding a defensive pistol.

Lots of great advice here. I’ve done what TLG suggested and worked with a single pistol for extended periods of time. I expected for the data to show me clear “winners” and “losers”. But it didn’t. There was not a significant difference between the best times and scores on set tests once I became familiar with something. There were pistols I was more likely to train wreck a drill with. There were pistols that did not work well for me if I had to take time off from practice. This was more telling to me than the pistols I could shoot the best on good days.