Big v. Little: The Effect of Pistol Size on Shooting Performance

[joshs]

Like a lot of people, increased work from home last year made me a bit lazier when it came to carrying a "real" pistol. I started off with a G48, but, trying to live my best dot life, I picked up a P365 XL and 43X MOS. Both are pretty awesome little pistols (I even just bought a $315 grip module because of some good old fashioned p-f enabling (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?47301-Home-brew-P365X-perfect-for-Exec-Protection-and-EDC)). They're better shooters than I ever thought a 9mm of this size could be, but the shooting performance difference between this size of pistol and a G19 is still quite substantial.

After shooting these little pistols almost exclusively, I recently started shooting USPSA again with a G19/H407 in Carry Optics. The performance difference is stark. I actually thought my gun was broken on my first shot/first stage this weekend because of how slow I perceived the slide moving in comparison the the P365XL or 43x.

But, oddly I notice almost no performance increase by shooting a pistol larger than a G19. For example, my average classifier performance is about 80-100% with the 19, and effectively the same when shooting bigger pistols. I'd be lucky to break 75% on a classifier with one of the smaller pistols, and the disaster factor is way higher.

Shooting with a dot obviously impacts this since sight radius doesn't matter.

Moving the other direction, down to a P365 or G43, I again notice a huge difference compared to the 43x or XL. So much so that I really have no interest in those pistols.

Practically speaking, I guess this means I should really be carrying the 19 since I have no real need for the smaller guns. (My work is pretty gun friendly :cool:). I also find claims that a G48/43x with the Shield Arms mags makes a G19 obsolete to be very wrong. If you only value capacity and size, maybe, but there are very real tradeoffs in shooting performance.

Maybe I just suck at shooting skinny-gripped pistols, or maybe the Boresight Razorback grip module will be magic on the P365XL (it should be for the price). I do feel like the P365XL has more potential than the 43x, but the tiny grip is currently holding it back for me. My 43x has all the worst attributes in the Glock trigger lottery (stacking, excessive over-travel and a very defined wall), so that's probably not helping in the performance comparison.

Do others also notice the super steep performance curve with a near plateau at the point of diminishing returns when it comes to pistol size?

[MickAK]

I think it can be difficult to relearn things if you originally got good with a G19 size pistol. Mainly grip. There are very different muscle groups in play, and it's easy enough to develop an effective grip but more difficult to maintain it at speed when your muscle memory is telling you 'X' and you need to be doing 'Y'. I think a lot of people have more trouble getting the trigger finger moving independently with thinner/smaller grips.

I think a lot of subcompacts strive to be lighter than they really need to be. The PPS is notably heavier than most of the newer comparable size pistols but I don't see that as a drawback. I don't care how easy it is to carry if I can't shoot it effectively. It's not that much weight.

[Clusterfrack]

I carry a P-07 because I can shoot it nearly as well as a Shadow2. I cannot shoot a Glock 43 that well. Grip is very important.

[TheNewbie]

I carry a P-07 because I can shoot it nearly as well as a Shadow2. I cannot shoot a Glock 43 that well. Grip is very important.

I shot a P-07 in a class recently. They really are easy to shoot guns after a little practice.


If they came from the factory with just slightly better DA triggers, and maybe
a couple of other minor changes, then they might be the best option on the market. I do wish LTT worked on CZs.

[Lon]

I’ve had many of the slimline 9mm options - Kahr (multiple), G43, G48 and Walther PPSM2. The only one that I came close to running as well as a G19 was the PPS. Nowadays, I’m running some form or MRDS’d G26 or 19 for everything - work, off duty and competition.

[Lon]

I carry a P-07 because I can shoot it nearly as well as a Shadow2. I cannot shoot a Glock 43 that well. Grip is very important.

The P07 is one of the best guns of the G19 size, IMHO.

[Chuck Whitlock]

Do others also notice the super steep performance curve with a near plateau at the point of diminishing returns when it comes to pistol size?

Yes. But.....the bell curve works differently for different people.


I carry a P-07 because I can shoot it nearly as well as a Shadow2. I cannot shoot a Glock 43 that well. Grip is very important.


I shot a P-07 in a class recently. They really are easy to shoot guns after a little practice.

Fit is very important.

After all the praise for the P-07 here, I had to coon-finger one when I ran across it in an LGS. My thumb was not long enough to reliably actuate the decocker.
Mind you, on a Gen3 Glock, the pad of my index finger in register rides on the take-down lever. The tip of my trigger finger only barely protrudes beyond the front of the trigger guard....on most any service pistol. And not so much more on smaller weapons, either. So, while I can still operate a Gen3 Glock fairly, a smaller grip circumference and trigger reach are more optimal for me.....YMMV

* I feel like a lot of folks here harp on how difficult the small guns are for them to manipulate. For some people, the opposite is true. Maybe I'm being a little over sensitive about it.

[CarloMNL]

Like a lot of people, increased work from home last year made me a bit lazier when it came to carrying a "real" pistol. I started off with a G48, but, trying to live my best dot life, I picked up a P365 XL and 43X MOS. They're better shooters than I ever thought a 9mm of this size could be, but the shooting performance difference between this size of pistol and a G19 is still quite substantial.

After shooting these little pistols almost exclusively, I recently started shooting USPSA again with a G19/H407 in Carry Optics. The performance difference is stark. I actually thought my gun was broken on my first shot/first stage this weekend because of how slow I perceived the slide moving in comparison the the P365XL or 43x.

I've been working with a G43X since May. Haven't had a ton of free time for range visits but so far, I'm at the 800 round mark. Not a lot but am starting to get a better idea of how to shoot it. I have no issue making single hits from draw or ready at 7 yards, and can now punch the "A" out of the center of an IPSC Classic Board. Trying to go for pairs, I find the slide returns to battery really fast but my second shot comes in slow and a little low. I think it is a mix of grip and trigger control issues given my limited round count.

When I worked with my G17 after shooting the 43X, my experience mirrors yours.

I also find claims that a G48/43x with the Shield Arms mags makes a G19 obsolete to be very wrong. If you only value capacity and size, maybe, but there are very real tradeoffs in shooting performance.

I agree. Plus I've not had the best luck with aftermarket mags in Glocks, even the Magpul PMags. Adding another variable in a micro 9 with an already narrow window of reliability is not something I am willing to risk .

Maybe I just suck at shooting skinny-gripped pistols. My 43x has all the worst attributes in the Glock trigger lottery (stacking, excessive over-travel and a very defined wall), so that's probably not helping in the performance comparison.

The skinny grip makes the gun so easy to carry but from what I've seen very unforgiving when it comes to the shooting bit. I knew this coming in and got the gun more because not all my clients are tolerant of guns so the added concealability is worth the loss in shoot ability (for me.) The one I have is a railed non-MOS model that came with the Minus connector. It broke in nicely after about 500 rounds and a lot of dry presses. Not the lightest factory Glock trigger I have felt but clean. Still, the learning curve here is a LOT steeper for me than it was with a G17.

[joshs]

I carry a P-07 because I can shoot it nearly as well as a Shadow2. I cannot shoot a Glock 43 that well. Grip is very important.

Just to be clear, while I was talking about the G19, I've noticed the same thing with the P229, S&W M&P, P30, PX4 Compact, and P01. They've all shot so similar to the larger pistols that any difference is pretty much lost in the noise of my own performance variation.

[TheNewbie]

Yes. But.....the bell curve works differently for different people.





Fit is very important.

After all the praise for the P-07 here, I had to coon-finger one when I ran across it in an LGS. My thumb was not long enough to reliably actuate the decocker.
Mind you, on a Gen3 Glock, the pad of my index finger in register rides on the take-down lever. The tip of my trigger finger only barely protrudes beyond the front of the trigger guard....on most any service pistol. And not so much more on smaller weapons, either. So, while I can still operate a Gen3 Glock fairly, a smaller grip circumference and trigger reach are more optimal for me.....YMMV

* I feel like a lot of folks here harp on how difficult the small guns are for them to manipulate. For some people, the opposite is true. Maybe I'm being a little over sensitive about it.


I decock with my off hand, otherwise I have to shift the P-07 more dramatically.

[1slow]

This is from an old post by
DocGKR
5/10/15


“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 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.”

[D-der]

After carrying my RDS XL for the last 7 month's, I've been
shooting my P10C more over the last couple of weeks,
it does seem easier (for lack of a better word) to shoot
quicker and more precisely...
maybe the smaller dot on the 507C vs the 6MOA on the
407K play's a part ?
The P10 carry's well and doesn't give up much in concealment,
I think I'll go back to that route for a while and try a 507K
on my XL

[03RN]

I went through this maybe 5 years ago. I had a kahr cw9. I really liked it. Phenomenal trigger. Very accurate and easy to shoot...slow. it was just to small for me to shoot faster. I even stippled the shit out of the grips. They were sharp and knarly and helped but even with my M/L hands I couldn't get enough hands on the gun. Same with my wife's shield. Both good guns but if I could conceal larger guns as well then why hamstring my shooting?

Then factor in reloads with those tiny mags into those tiny grips I actually think I'm faster reloading revolvers.

[JAH 3rd]

For me, the things that affect my pistol abilities is proper grip fit to my hand. Then, I got to see the sights. Trigger reach is important too. The index finger falls naturally to the trigger face. For me these three things need to intersect naturally without having to think about it. That way I can focus on shooting the pistol without distractions.

[GJM]

A Glock 19/45 is always going to be easier to shoot than a 43X/365. Of course it prints more, and if you lose your job because of it, you might have wished you accepted less shootability for more concealment. As my work environment became more permissive this summer, I started carrying a 19/45 instead of a slimline.

The first year of USPSA CO, even though I preferred a full size grip, I competed an entire season with a 19, because I thought the slide tracked better than a 17/34. There was no G45 then. With the G45, larger hand shooters can get a flat tracking slide with a full size grip. One of our better AZ CO shooters competes with a G45.

Love the way my mongrel G23/45 MOS shoots.

[1Rangemaster]

I just recently decided to join the “kool kids” at work, and am working with a 43XMOS, topped with a 407k green X2 and a TLR7A”sub” mounted. This out of the excellent JMCK IWB holster-probably one of the best holsters I’ve used over decades, and I’m not an IWB guy.
I had a range session with a coworker yesterday, and vetted the 43X to my satisfaction. My “duty” guns are a G45 and 19. I have a 43, sorta for the weekends. I also have a 26 w/GLOCK BOLD irons. The 43 is the most difficult for me to shoot well. Part of the equation for me is the grip length AND trigger finger placement. The larger pistols, to include the 26(width, and I run a + baseplate usually) are more “comfortable”. I also find moving my trigger contact to the first joint has helped me with the slimmer frames. I think one gets away with a little more w/the thicker frames-or it could be practice effect.
With the slim guns and short sight radius, a “twitch” on the trigger really shows up for me past 15 yards. Yesterday, I shot 90%+ scores on some of the Rangemaster evals and a solid qual. But it’s easier with a G17/45/19 and optics(duh).
My last two +P rounds, untimed @15y, went into 3/4”. I’ll keep working out to distance(yep-grip important) and single handed shooting, as well as w/lights.
YMMV; and what is good/acceptable? I firmly believe a time limit element should be involved.

[joshs]

A Glock 19/45 is always going to be easier to shoot than a 43X/365.

I think that's quite clear, but I think the change in the slope of the "performance" curve is quite interesting. For me, it is very steep and then transitions to almost flat at the G19 sized guns. I did a bunch of 34 v 17 v 19 testing a few years ago (with irons) and found that reloads were probably the biggest difference between the compact to fullsize grips. The Gen 5 magwell shape on the 19 seems to help with this, but my reloads are definitely not where they used to be either.


Of course it prints more, and if you lose your job because of it, you might have wished you accepted less shootability for more concealment. As my work environment became more permissive this summer, I started carrying a 19/45 instead of a slimline.

Since I'm more likely to catch heat at work for not carrying a gun, this really isn't a problem for me.

[GAP]

Yes.

Conclusion: Glock 26 is still the subcompact king.

Seriously though, how many guns have to come out until people realize the width is a big factor that you can’t engineer away?

If you want to be on par with a G19 and cannot get past the two finger grip, just add a +2 baseplate and you will be much better off. The “bobtail” effect of the baseplate vs. a squared off G19 grip is substantial when wearing clothes that fit.

[M2CattleCo]

Yep.

A long time ago some group in the Army did a pretty good study on Glock 17,19, and 26. I think this was around the time Delta was messing with Glock 22s, after they spent millions of dollars to figure out that STI 2011s didn’t really work.

They basically spent a million dollars (who really knows) to figure out that everyone shot a 17 best, everyone shot the 26 worse, but the 19 was good enough because the 17 was very difficult to conceal.

And then the Glock 19 took over the world.

[03RN]

Yes.

Conclusion: Glock 26 is still the subcompact king.

Seriously though, how many guns have to come out until people realize the width is a big factor that you can’t engineer away?

If you want to be on par with a G19 and cannot get past the two finger grip, just add a +2 baseplate and you will be much better off. The “bobtail” effect of the baseplate vs. a squared off G19 grip is substantial when wearing clothes that fit.

I've never liked adding grip to a magazine. When I use longer mags in shorter grips I always leave those things off. I hate pinching my hand while reloading.

[John Hearne]

It's no longer cool but for years, the smart people would take a longer slide model and cut the grip module to take the next smaller magazines. Think a 17 that takes 19 magazines or a 19 that takes 26 magazines. This meant that the hard to conceal part was smaller but you had the longer slide for better reliability, ballistics, sight radius etc. With the rise of dots, extra slide for sight radius is a moot point but the fact is that longer slide guns tend to have simpler recoil systems and tend towards greater reliability.

My non-uniform gun is a full-size P320 slide on top of an X-Grip module that has been cut (in a very crude fashion) to take compact magazines. It's just luck but with a magazine in place, this is just long enough to get all of my fingers on the gun in order to shoot it well.

I've watched folks struggle with guns that did not fit their hands for years. For a long time, it was people with guns too big for their hands because they wanted capacity. With the rise of micro 9's I see more guys struggling with guns that are smaller than optimal which they have to grasp perfectly to make everything work. Just saw a guy this weekend with huge hands and long fingers. His Glock 17 was swallowed and he had to warp his finger to try to place it on the trigger in a way that didn't interfere with his marksmanship. I told him to consider adding a Pierce pinky extension to see if it helped.

[GAP]

I've never liked adding grip to a magazine. When I use longer mags in shorter grips I always leave those things off. I hate pinching my hand while reloading.

I don’t use extensions either; I don’t feel they are necessary since the pinky actually does very little for your grip. The G26 reload should be with a G19 Mag to avoid pinching.

Some people find it aids their draw, which I can understand.

[Jim Watson]

For example, my average classifier performance is about 80-100% with the 19, and effectively the same when shooting bigger pistols.

Amazing, that is A to GM with a hideout gun. Wonder why anybody bothers with those iron butted 2011s and railroad track CZs.

[joshs]

Amazing, that is A to GM with a hideout gun. Wonder why anybody bothers with those iron butted 2011s and railroad track CZs.

I've personally engaged in lots of gun flavor of the month, so I can't critique anyone else doing that.

I'm also in that space where I'm never likely to win a major match, but I'm a pretty decent shooter, so I have to decide what I personally want to get out of competitive shooting. For me, maximizing performance with the gun I actually carry is what interests me currently.

Having a shooting mentor who was also more accuracy focused than most give him credit for (many people missed the "hit" in Aim Fast, Hit Fast) was also great for my technical shooting proficiency, so I can usually crush the fixed time classifiers.

[Doc_Glock]

Great post joshs

I don't have much to add except that my findings concur in almost every way and I appreciate how you wrote that up.

I recently downsized to a G19 from a chopped grip G17 and can't really say as I can tell the difference.

[Jim Watson]

For me, maximizing performance with the gun I actually carry is what interests me currently.

There is a guy at my Wednesday evening indoor USPSA shooting what I think is a P365. He is either exercising his carry gun or that is all he has. He is not shooting any A class scores (but then neither am I with more usual match gun) but he is getting a lot of work in.

[joshs]

There is a guy at my Wednesday evening indoor USPSA shooting what I think is a P365. He is either exercising his carry gun or that is all he has. He is not shooting any A class scores (but then neither am I with more usual match gun) but he is getting a lot of work in.

The relaxing of a lot of (what I thought were silly) rules has definitely led to more people shooting USPSA with carry guns/gear. It was pretty uncommon to see people shooting from concealment a few years ago. To the point where I'd get a "where's your gear" from ROs when shooting Limited/AIWB. Now, we get at least a few people at local matches who are shooting from concealment, including several very good shooters. The recent rule changes seem to have been good for attracting new/different shooters to USPSA.

[Lon]

I don’t use extensions either; I don’t feel they are necessary since the pinky actually does very little for your grip.

Totally disagree with this, but that’s a different topic for a different thread.

[GJM]

Amazing, that is A to GM with a hideout gun. Wonder why anybody bothers with those iron butted 2011s and railroad track CZs.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but unless I misunderstood, I don’t believe Josh said he made GM in CO with his G19?

[joshs]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but unless I misunderstood, I don’t believe Josh said he made GM in CO with his G19?

No, but that's the goal. A couple more fixed time classifiers in a row should do it :cool:

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Go to Google scholar and search on handguns and grip strength.

Here's a new article:

Applied Ergonomics
Volume 97, November 2021, 103536

Examining the impact of grip strength and officer gender on shooting performance

Simon Baldwin Brittany Blaskovits Craig Bennell

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003687021001836


Abstract
Background

Effective shooting performance relies heavily on sufficient grip strength. However, some standard issue pistols used by police services may have a trigger weight that causes problems for officers with insufficient grip strength, including female officers. The current study aimed to replicate previous findings, which show that grip strength is positively related to shooting performance. We also sought to determine what grip strength is required to achieve proficient scores on a standard police pistol qualification (PPQ) when a heavy trigger weight (i.e., 8lbs–12lbs) is used. Finally, we explored the relationship between officer gender and PPQ scores to determine if grip strength plays a mediating role in this relationship.
Method

The dominant hand grip strength (in lbs) of 86 male and 32 female officers were recorded prior to their participation in their agency mandated annual PPQ. Officer gender, grip strength, and PPQ scores were analyzed to explore how they related to one another.
Results

Grip strength significantly impacted officers’ ability to pass the PPQ, with female officers possessing lower grip strength compared to male officers, as well as achieving poorer scores on the PPQ. We determined that grip strengths in the range of 80lbs and 125lbs were needed to score approximately 85 % and 90 % on the PPQ, respectively; exceeding that of the average grip strength for the female officers in the study (M = 77.5lbs). Mediation analysis suggested that grip strength may mediate the relationship between officer gender and shooting performance, but studies with more power are needed to confirm that.
Conclusion

To improve shooting performance as well as public and police safety, law enforcement agencies may need to consider including grip strength training in their conditioning regime or examine the adoption pistols with a lighter trigger pull weight (e.g., 6lbs).

-------

From the gun world and Karl Rehn: https://blog.krtraining.com/small-gun-class-data-2019-2020/

[TCinVA]

Do others also notice the super steep performance curve with a near plateau at the point of diminishing returns when it comes to pistol size?

Ultimately if the gun doesn't fit your hand it's not going to work as well for you. It's really difficult to stabilize the gun in the hand if the grip doesn't let you get your whole hand on it.

And the small 9mm's seem like a great idea until people start trying to shoot them and then start sucking because the recoil puts them off. Especially new shooters. The number of people I've encountered who are trying to learn how to shoot on a 365 and reflexively trying to get it away from their face with every shot is legion.

[03RN]

He is not shooting any A class scores (but then neither am I with more usual match gun) but he is getting a lot of work in.

That's why I shoot my 2.75" m66 at matches.

[TCinVA]

I don’t use extensions either; I don’t feel they are necessary since the pinky actually does very little for your grip.

The pinky and ring finger's action is where the vast majority of grip strength actually comes from.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/health/16pink.html

If you are an adult male who has actually picked up heavy stuff from time to time, it's really easy to get by shooting a pistol with your pinky and ring finger just being along for the ride and not deliberately gripping the gun. At least when you have two hands on the gun.

But that just means you are leaving a bunch of control and performance on the table.

And, frankly, it's probably why you miss when you miss. "Jerking the trigger" is bullshit. Most of the time what's actually happening is that people tighten their grip as they press the trigger, and that is what steers the gun off the intended point of aim. If you are not applying deliberately activating that part of your hand before you press the trigger, odds are you'll do it as you press and that's where most of your misses come from.

So, folks, it's not a surprise that these small guns turn in shittier performance for someone who has hands that are too big for them. If you're only getting 1/2 your ring finger on the base of the pistol, you are never going to shoot it as well as a pistol you can get your whole hand on.

That doesn't mean there's no reason to compromise. There may be circumstances where someone is choosing between a P365 or no gun...or a P365 and a J frame.

The primary benefit of the smaller guns really is for those people who have much smaller hands. A gun that fits the typical female hand better is a great thing for them. And they'll need a full grip because the little 9mm's provide zippy recoil. I find folks shoot the S&W Shield and Shield EZ better than the P365 most of the time just because those guns aren't as unpleasant to shoot.

[03RN]

Go to Google scholar and search on handguns and grip strength.

Here's a new article:

Applied Ergonomics
Volume 97, November 2021, 103536

Examining the impact of grip strength and officer gender on shooting performance

Simon Baldwin Brittany Blaskovits Craig Bennell

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003687021001836


Abstract
Background

Effective shooting performance relies heavily on sufficient grip strength. However, some standard issue pistols used by police services may have a trigger weight that causes problems for officers with insufficient grip strength, including female officers. The current study aimed to replicate previous findings, which show that grip strength is positively related to shooting performance. We also sought to determine what grip strength is required to achieve proficient scores on a standard police pistol qualification (PPQ) when a heavy trigger weight (i.e., 8lbs–12lbs) is used. Finally, we explored the relationship between officer gender and PPQ scores to determine if grip strength plays a mediating role in this relationship.
Method

The dominant hand grip strength (in lbs) of 86 male and 32 female officers were recorded prior to their participation in their agency mandated annual PPQ. Officer gender, grip strength, and PPQ scores were analyzed to explore how they related to one another.
Results

Grip strength significantly impacted officers’ ability to pass the PPQ, with female officers possessing lower grip strength compared to male officers, as well as achieving poorer scores on the PPQ. We determined that grip strengths in the range of 80lbs and 125lbs were needed to score approximately 85 % and 90 % on the PPQ, respectively; exceeding that of the average grip strength for the female officers in the study (M = 77.5lbs). Mediation analysis suggested that grip strength may mediate the relationship between officer gender and shooting performance, but studies with more power are needed to confirm that.
Conclusion

To improve shooting performance as well as public and police safety, law enforcement agencies may need to consider including grip strength training in their conditioning regime or examine the adoption pistols with a lighter trigger pull weight (e.g., 6lbs).

-------

From the gun world and Karl Rehn: https://blog.krtraining.com/small-gun-class-data-2019-2020/

I wish it was just grip strength. I'd be a much better shooter:o

[joshs]

Go to Google scholar and search on handguns and grip strength.

Right, but that effect doesn't seem to occur in a linear way, also, of the three pistols described in my first post, the P365XL has the lightest trigger (all are factory).

I also tend to think that studies like that, with such a low level of skill, may not be that informative for more varied skill levels.

Obviously, my grip strength doesn't change, yet one of the interesting points that I was thinking about that led to starting this thread is that I don't tend to shoot pure competition guns, with much lighter triggers, in an appreciably better way than a stock G19. Some of that may be that other triggers often have more "wall," which tends to induce anticipation for me.

I'm not diminishing the role of grip strength in pistol shooting (I spent a long time working with COC grippers and bands), it's hugely important. But, I started to think about the shape of the curve for pistol size v. performance, and I thought it was quite interesting. It matters a lot, until it doesn't.

[blues]

I'll disagree with the generalization that shooting with a grip you can get your whole hand on vs. a truncated grip necessarily leads to better results, all other things being equal.

I've been shooting G19 and G26 since the G26 came out in 1995 to present day. My scores back in 1995 through present day, were within a couple of points of one another, with sometimes one, sometimes the other being superior. (Take your pick of equally well, or equally bad. I shot much more regularly in the 90's when I was a member of a special response team aside from my regular duties...and while I wouldn't say I was anything exceptional, I was more than competent. Nowadays I compare the results during my day and night qualifications with the local sheriff's office.) This was with the OEM 10 round mag in the G26 vs. the OEM 15 round mag in the G19.

I deadlift a couple of times a week, and have for years...aside from the other parts of my strength and cardio routines. So, hand strength has never been an issue.

Obviously it's only one data point, but I've always found it interesting that the result has been so consistent for over 25 years.

[GAP]

The pinky and ring finger's action is where the vast majority of grip strength actually comes from.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/health/16pink.html

If you are an adult male who has actually picked up heavy stuff from time to time, it's really easy to get by shooting a pistol with your pinky and ring finger just being along for the ride and not deliberately gripping the gun. At least when you have two hands on the gun.

But that just means you are leaving a bunch of control and performance on the table.

And, frankly, it's probably why you miss when you miss. "Jerking the trigger" is bullshit. Most of the time what's actually happening is that people tighten their grip as they press the trigger, and that is what steers the gun off the intended point of aim. If you are not applying deliberately activating that part of your hand before you press the trigger, odds are you'll do it as you press and that's where most of your misses come from.

So, folks, it's not a surprise that these small guns turn in shittier performance for someone who has hands that are too big for them. If you're only getting 1/2 your ring finger on the base of the pistol, you are never going to shoot it as well as a pistol you can get your whole hand on.

That doesn't mean there's no reason to compromise. There may be circumstances where someone is choosing between a P365 or no gun...or a P365 and a J frame.

The primary benefit of the smaller guns really is for those people who have much smaller hands. A gun that fits the typical female hand better is a great thing for them. And they'll need a full grip because the little 9mm's provide zippy recoil. I find folks shoot the S&W Shield and Shield EZ better than the P365 most of the time just because those guns aren't as unpleasant to shoot.

Yeah, if you flag it out away from your hand.. not when you clench it tightly (like a fist) against your hand under the baseplate.

[Sammy1]

I've seen many people shoot ultra compact pistols on a flat, static range and proclaim them to be just as good as full size guns. I'd like to see them add in drawing from concealment, movement, stress... then see how well they do with their mouse guns.

[Rex G]

The compact pistols that I could not shoot as well as their duty-sized brethren are those that do not firmly brace against against the “heel bone” of my hand. A few years ago, those same pistols started vexing the arthritis in my right wrist and thumb, which is why I traded-away my three Gen4 G19 pistols. I was always able to shoot a G17 notably better than a G19, even though I could get my pinkie finger firmly onto the G19’s grip frame, and I actually liked the Gen4 G19’s finger groove spacing. The “heel” of the G19’s grip was, in effect, floating too freely, during shooting. For reference, I have long hands, and medium, skinny fingers, so I have been able to get a good three-finger grip on quite a few compact pistols, with grips too short to reach the heel bone of my hand.

I did keep some compact auto-loading pistols, which I now regard as primarily left-hand guns, as my left hand has aged better than my right. (Plus, I naturally write and eat lefty, so left finger dexterity has never been a problem.) I had sold my Gen4 G26, too, even before I traded-away the G19 pistols, but regretted it, so bought a new Gen3 G26 to replace it.

So, my idea of an ideal “compact” Glock was not a G17 slide/barrel unit, on a G19-height frame, but a G19-length upper unit, and a G17-sized slide. The G19x made perfect sense, to me, and so I bought one. Notably, once upon a time, I almost bought a limited-run Colt 1911 that had a Commander-sized grip frame, and an Officer’s ACP slide/barrel unit. I do not recall the name of that pistol; perhaps the Lieutenant Commander?

I am neither a doctor, nor a scientist. I did become seriously interested in kinesiology, some number of years ago.

[Noah]

All roads lead to G19 or a G19 derivative gun. I track performance in a notebook for every drill of every range session I have, and the numbers don't lie. The differences in performance between full size guns with optics (Beretta 92FS, 92X LTT RDO, M&P 2.0, and G34, G17, G45) and a G19 with optics or PX4C are far, far smaller than all the random variations from level of practice, having a good day or bad day, weather, phase of the moon, and what I ate last. I'm shooting better now with a G19 than I ever have with a larger gun. It was accepting this raw data which led me back to a G19 from the Berettas early in 2021 after spending time with all the larger pistols above over the last few years, Duke style. Why deal with the size and weight and pokey bulk of the Berettas if they aren't ultimately giving me more performance on the clock, or only a tiny increase?

On the other hand, I see a relatively large drop in performance with a G48 or even subcompact double stack or snub size K frame. For me, anything smaller than a G19 shoots a lot worse, and anything bigger doesn't shoot much better.

[GJM]

It makes me sad, after all the fiddling I have done, but once you get to a Glock 19 sized pistol, the gun literally does not matter, or matters so little as to be inconsequential.

[Noah]

It makes me sad, after all the fiddling I have done, but once you get to a Glock 19 sized pistol, the gun literally does not matter, or matters so little as to be inconsequential.

Yep, this.

[medmo]

What a coincidence that this thread parallels where I'm at in my journey with a G43x MOS. My recent conclusion is that no matter how much I invest in this sized platform my performance will be better and more consistent with compact sized pistols. PX4CC RDS, G19 G5 MOS, M&P 2.0 C OR specifically. My speculation is the ergo fit for me. Only a speculation. I wear 2x sized gloves. The G43x grip feels somewhat awkward for me.

As far as hand strength goes, the ring and pinky finger are the power grip, connected to the bottom of the arm and goes to the body core. The index and middle are fine tuners, connected to the top of the arm and go the shoulders. We instinctively switch to the power grip when doing work and need more power. Example, when starting a screw with a driver we use the index and middle primarily. When the screw binds or it is really snug we instinctively flip our hand over and use the pinky ring finger side of the hand. Not my thoughts or theory, just a page out of ergonomics.

[MVS]

Funny, I just experienced this yesterday but not with the same results as many of you. I had a red dot class with Dave Spaulding Sunday and went out yesterday to work on some of the things. Before I did that though I shot my Sig X compact and my Walther Q5 using the Rangemaster Bullseye course. I scored a 295 with the Q5 and for the most part also shot much faster. I scored a 273 with the Sig. Much of the point difference came at the 25 yard line. The big takeaway for me though was how much harder I had to work with the Sig X compact. Even at 5 yards (where I modify the drill to shoot SHO as opposed to FS) it was much easier to do well with the Walther. Now I didn't run my NPE 365XL but from prior experience I know I shoot that about the same as the Sig X compact. I will say I am looking to get my hands on a Q4 as I don't think I need all of that barrel length of the Q5.

[Lon]

Broke one of the optic screws off on my 26 slide. Put this slide on while I’m waiting to have the screw removed by CHPWS. Went and shot it yesterday. Wasn’t noticeably slower than my 19 with the exception of my reloads.
79679

[JCN]

I don’t use extensions either; I don’t feel they are necessary since the pinky actually does very little for your grip. The G26 reload should be with a G19 Mag to avoid pinching.

Pinky doesn't do much for my grip... but it does a lot for my recoil management.
Torque arm length from the pivot point of rotation.

To the point where I add pinky extensions to all the teeny micro guns like the LCPs and P32s.



I'm also in that space where I'm never likely to win a major match, but I'm a pretty decent shooter, so I have to decide what I personally want to get out of competitive shooting. For me, maximizing performance with the gun I actually carry is what interests me currently.


No, but that's the goal. A couple more fixed time classifiers in a row should do it :cool:

I'm guessing you're also pretty decent with weak hand shooting. That can skew your data a little bit.

-----------------------------------

So people who know me know I test things to get a sense of quantifiable information to base decisions.

I would say that classifier performance would depend on the classifier. Something that really was heavily into recoil management and reloads (like Can You Count) would be affected more by a small gun than something like something where you have more transitions.

joshs the way to tell is to run classifiers back to back with different guns to get a sense of where there's drop off. I did a bunch of that previously with competition gun versus Glock 19 (actually an MR920 but close enough) versus a P365. It was consistent on every classifier that I dropped a few percent with every incrementally smaller / lighter gun.

Since that could be done ad infinitum, I went the other way and said: "Can I crush an objective self defense standard with my carry gun?" If yes, then I can carry it. Doesn't matter if it's the best gun I shoot. Only that I shoot it well enough by some objective standard.

I made GM in CO with a Shadow 2 and shoot that better than most other "normal-ish" guns that I own. I had to experiment quite a bit with different grip widths to optimize my ergonomics.

But it made my carry gun performance "good enough" without having to work on it specifically.

Illustrative videos:

Normal gaming performance with a CO gun:

https://youtu.be/1zknAzX2nr4

I am confident that I could NOT do that with a significantly smaller gun.

Goofing around with the defensive SCAT drill with the CO gun ~200 points.


https://youtu.be/upd4OWClBOw

But that translates into "decent" P365x shooting despite it being less than my gamer gun.

Bakersfield 100 points.

https://youtu.be/MFn7-9SSfNA

Movement practice.

https://youtu.be/ysLLBd1blJw

Can split down to 12-13s, but not consistently. Recoil management is more difficult with the tiny gun.

https://youtu.be/jVr0NWdz-Ww


One of the local guys got GM with a G19. Kudos if you can do it!
GM was hard enough for me that I wanted every advantage I could get and in back to back component testing I felt like the Shadow 2 was better in my hands than any other option at the time. I think G19 with WML would be just fine though. I'd pick a Gen 5 for the magwell, personally.

[Borderland]

How does a Sig p-239 compare in size to a Glock 19? I find that my P-239 is my favored CC pistol. Grip size is about perfect for me. Bigger doesn't do much for me in the accuracy department until I get up to P-226 but I don't really consider that a pistol to CC. G19 capacity is 7 more rounds vs. p-239 which would make it more attractive to a lot of people.

I don't know anything about Glocks. Shot a 19 years ago but don't remember much about it. Just not a striker fan. I know, I'm living under a rock. ;)

Edit. Found a comparison. Not a lot of difference in size.

https://www.handgunhero.com/compare/glock-g19-vs-sig-sauer-p239

[JCN]

https://www.glocktalk.com/threads/which-carry-gun-trade-off-part-2.1831206/

Found the comparison thread

79683

[GJM]

As I have said a number of times, I am distinctly unimpressed by classification. If someone was motivated to do as well as they could in classification with a 19 in CO, I would add a Chip-Wiz brass grip plug and a light. Haven't thought through X300 vs a TLR-7. The X300 is heavier and protrudes longer, helping to stabilize the pistol in the holster, but the TLR-7 might draw faster.

Since a Glock draws, reloads and transitions fast, I would focus on classifiers where those skills are helpful, and especially classifiers involving support hand shooting, since a Glock is such a good one hand shooting pistol.

[JCN]

As I have said a number of times, I am distinctly unimpressed by classification. If someone was motivated to do as well as they could in classification with a 19 in CO.

I routinely get my ass handed to me by a local A class shooter that doesn’t care about weak handed shooting or fast reloads. IMO it’s a separate test/game like a FAST or Vice Card challenge or climbing Kilimanjaro.

No disrespect to people who don’t want to play that game.

But just like anything else we have our personal carrots and goals we chase. It feels good to get the payoff of whatever goal you set and conquer.

I have a TLR-1 filled with tungsten that’s 9 ounces. Has a tiny LED light that fulfills the letter of the law.

[GJM]

I routinely get my ass handed to me by a local A class shooter that doesn’t care about weak handed shooting or fast reloads. IMO it’s a separate test/game like a FAST or Vice Card challenge or climbing Kilimanjaro.

No disrespect to people who don’t want to play that game.

But just like anything else we have our personal carrots and goals we chase. It feels good to get the payoff of whatever goal you set and conquer.

I have a TLR-1 filled with tungsten that’s 9 ounces. Has a tiny LED light that fulfills the letter of the law.

I hear you. I am clearly over classified, in terms of being able to shoot my classification at any larger match. Heck, I am pedaling hard to just not let my wife beat me too often!

I am definitely not trying to move up, but being 2.3 percent away, if it happened I moved up, the very next thing I would do is to request to be moved back down.

[1Rangemaster]

So, gentlemen, what evaluation(s)/drills would you propose as an indicator of “carry” competence. Recognizing there are several factors involved, from awareness to luck, how can handgun and skill with it be measured.
I have no doubt that GJM, JCN and others could score highly or “ace” some of Givens evals, the “Test”, “Wizard”, etc.
But curious as to your opinions; can I “clean” the Wizard for example with my carry guns? Yep-but it’s easier for me with a 19 than a 43. Thoughts? Probably been done before..

[Polecat]

Yeah, the point of diminishing returns. Interesting. I hope one of the companies considers a “tweener” model between the micros and compacts. I can dream.

[Glock26]

What's the smallest gun you can shoot comfortably? Rephrased, what is the smallest gun that you can shoot without a change in your technique? That is the size that dictates at what point your "plateau" begins. This point of diminishing returns can be moved if the shooter adapts technique to suit the smaller gun and shoots a larger gun as if they're still holding a smaller gun.

After shooting and adjusting my technique solely around the G26, I think at this point there's not much difference for me between it and its larger counterparts. I haven't experimented with shooting a micro-compact with a red dot at speed, but I guess there will be a sharp performance drop until I adapt solely to that. That being said, I think something the size of the P365 is the limit at which I can reasonably move my point of diminishing returns.

[Robinson]

Interesting thread, even though I don't experiment with smaller guns.

I like the G17 but shoot the G34 measurably better. I shoot a Government Model 45 a bit better than a Commander. I know I'm not the shooter that many PFers are, so there's that. But I find myself carrying full size pistols on the heavier side because I simply shoot them better.

[JCN]

So, gentlemen, what evaluation(s)/drills would you propose as an indicator of “carry” competence. Recognizing there are several factors involved, from awareness to luck, how can handgun and skill with it be measured.
I have no doubt that GJM, JCN and others could score highly or “ace” some of Givens evals, the “Test”, “Wizard”, etc.
But curious as to your opinions; can I “clean” the Wizard for example with my carry guns? Yep-but it’s easier for me with a 19 than a 43. Thoughts? Probably been done before..

If you were asking me personally what traditional carry tests I thought were good metrics of carry competence?

I would say it depends on your goals.

For me, I would NOT pick anything that was heavy on reloads. Especially not on slide lock reloads as we know that’s vanishingly rare for civilian self defense.

I would also NOT pick slow fire bullseye COF or weak hand stuff in general.

If I were to pick a more complicated one:
https://www.shootingillustrated.com/content/federal-air-marshal-qualification-test-your-ccw-skills/

And set minimum pass (135) as my minimum.

Otherwise for a quick test I would run the Bakersfield qual for 10 rounds.
Pass from concealment would be pretty decent.

[medmo]

Pinky doesn't do much for my grip... but it does a lot for my recoil management.
Torque arm length from the pivot point of rotation.

To the point where I add pinky extensions to all the teeny micro guns like the LCPs and P32s.






I'm guessing you're also pretty decent with weak hand shooting. That can skew your data a little bit.

-----------------------------------

So people who know me know I test things to get a sense of quantifiable information to base decisions.

I would say that classifier performance would depend on the classifier. Something that really was heavily into recoil management and reloads (like Can You Count) would be affected more by a small gun than something like something where you have more transitions.

joshs the way to tell is to run classifiers back to back with different guns to get a sense of where there's drop off. I did a bunch of that previously with competition gun versus Glock 19 (actually an MR920 but close enough) versus a P365. It was consistent on every classifier that I dropped a few percent with every incrementally smaller / lighter gun.

Since that could be done ad infinitum, I went the other way and said: "Can I crush an objective self defense standard with my carry gun?" If yes, then I can carry it. Doesn't matter if it's the best gun I shoot. Only that I shoot it well enough by some objective standard.

I made GM in CO with a Shadow 2 and shoot that better than most other "normal-ish" guns that I own. I had to experiment quite a bit with different grip widths to optimize my ergonomics.

But it made my carry gun performance "good enough" without having to work on it specifically.

Illustrative videos:

Normal gaming performance with a CO gun:

https://youtu.be/1zknAzX2nr4

I am confident that I could NOT do that with a significantly smaller gun.

Goofing around with the defensive SCAT drill with the CO gun ~200 points.


https://youtu.be/upd4OWClBOw

But that translates into "decent" P365x shooting despite it being less than my gamer gun.

Bakersfield 100 points.

https://youtu.be/MFn7-9SSfNA

Movement practice.

https://youtu.be/ysLLBd1blJw

Can split down to 12-13s, but not consistently. Recoil management is more difficult with the tiny gun.

https://youtu.be/jVr0NWdz-Ww


One of the local guys got GM with a G19. Kudos if you can do it!
GM was hard enough for me that I wanted every advantage I could get and in back to back component testing I felt like the Shadow 2 was better in my hands than any other option at the time. I think G19 with WML would be just fine though. I'd pick a Gen 5 for the magwell, personally.

Totally respect your opinion and abilities but since I'm from the Crayon snacking, window licking crowd I need to ask for some clarification. What is your answer, (small words and short sentences please?), to:

"Do others also notice the super steep performance curve with a near plateau at the point of diminishing returns when it comes to pistol size?"

[GAP]

So, gentlemen, what evaluation(s)/drills would you propose as an indicator of “carry” competence. Recognizing there are several factors involved, from awareness to luck, how can handgun and skill with it be measured.
I have no doubt that GJM, JCN and others could score highly or “ace” some of Givens evals, the “Test”, “Wizard”, etc.
But curious as to your opinions; can I “clean” the Wizard for example with my carry guns? Yep-but it’s easier for me with a 19 than a 43. Thoughts? Probably been done before..

I personally use:

- Gabe White’s Standards
- 25 yard groups to test pure accuracy
- 15 yard Bill Drills

I regularly score light on the bill drills and light/turbo on F2S and IC. 25 yard groups are a strength of mine as I have always been really accurate with handguns.

The Glock 26 and the 10 round flush mag work well for me without the need for a third digit on the grip.

Individual appetites for dedication may vary.

[JCN]

Totally respect your opinion and abilities but since I'm from the Crayon snacking, window licking crowd I need to ask for some clarification. What is your answer, (small words and short sentences please?), to:

"Do others also notice the super steep performance curve with a near plateau at the point of diminishing returns when it comes to pistol size?"

79697

I find it’s kind of linear. But if you were to index that based off USPSA classifier levels it would seem steeper of a drop off because it’s normalized against a Hundo that was likely shot with competition gear.

For example if I lose 10% from an S2 to a Glock 19 and another 10% to a P365x:

79698

For Can You Count. Dropping HF by 10% drops the classifier percent by almost a full class as well.

It’s hard to do much over a Hundo for most USPSA classifiers.

While it’s fairly routine for a good gamer to be able to do double the pass score of most tactical tests since they’re usually geared towards Pass = B/C class level.

[YVK]

In a typical pf fashion, when a thread is past page # 5 it spreads over multiple topics. If I remember right, the initial question was whether gun size above G19 offers incremental performance advantages.
I haven't done my own comparisons mainly because I don't remember when I owned a full sized Glock. When I shot one in USPSA, it was a 19x and I was able to shoot my own classification with it.

My only observation is this: the minute brass plugs, tungsten rods, and flashlights became legal, pretty much everyone I shoot or have shot matches with put some or all of them on their polymer guns, unless those polymers were already infused with tungsten. Not bad shooters but a bunch of respectable Ms and As. Seems like there's some consensus if not the size but weight.
I am leaving out a USPSA specific point of many preferring longer barrels, all things being equal, to make power factor with lighter loads, and a sight radius discussion with irons guns.

[Bucky]

Like a lot of people, increased work from home last year made me a bit lazier when it came to carrying a "real" pistol.

*snip

Do others also notice the super steep performance curve with a near plateau at the point of diminishing returns when it comes to pistol size?

I’m several steps behind you in that lazy department.

When I first moved to a free state, I was dedicated to carrying whenever legally possible. While I never could make a full size work, I’ve had many in the “compact” category (G19/23, P229, cougar L, G30, 92C,VIP, EDC X9, P2000, USPc, just to name a few). Finding that sweet spot was a second hobby to me.

Fast forward 18 years later, a hip problem that makes 2:00-4:00 uncomfortable, some Covid gut making AIWB less comfortable, and 2 major life changes, one proceeding and one during COVID (1 bad, but 1 good), and I often find myself leaving the house with nothing but my trusty Benchmade. When I do think of it, I throw my J frame in a pocket.

At this point, I’d be thrilled to at least step it up to the 43, especially considering I shoot the 43 freakishly well, and the J, not so much.

As to the second point regarding performance curve, as they say the first step is to have a gun, which I’m struggling with. Second, I do think there is a balance of comfort vs capability vs lifestyle / environment. There are those who can pull off, and don’t mind carrying an STI with an optic and a flashlight and two spare mags and a handheld light and a fixed blade. That was never me.

[JCN]

medmo

I guess additional quantification:

Some representative data from where I’m at.

With a Shadow 2 I’m around 0.15-0.17 splits on a 7 yard target for reliable A zone from a standing position.

With a stock G34 it’s around 0.17-0.18

With a P365 it’s around 0.18-0.20

With a heavy open gun with additional bracing like thumb rests, even shooting 357 Sig power ammo the splits are 0.14-15.

Those splits require good mechanics and good vision so the differences are left to physics of the gun.
Even though in absolute terms it’s just a few hundreths it does wind up being the 10% decrements talked about above.

Here are some videos of max splits I did illustrating it some time ago:

Shooting Speer Lawman:

https://youtu.be/6mUQGBE-W2M


https://youtu.be/Q5mCIn42SYo


https://youtu.be/-w5F33gNGo8

More recently with Open gun:

https://youtu.be/075KmlrTP4o


https://youtu.be/modTXax_trY

But individual performance will affect personal results.
If people are vision or mechanics limited, then the recoil management properties of the gun get dwarfed out by the shooter’s limitations.

[TGS]

But individual performance will affect personal results.
If people are vision or mechanics limited, then the recoil management properties of the gun get dwarfed out by the shooter’s limitations.

Precisely. I see this a lot at my work. A few years ago we bought the G19M as our new service pistol, but are also issued Gen 4 Glock 26s.

It's very common for our agents to actually shoot better at 25 yards with the 26 since it has regular night sights on it. The 19M's Ameriglo Agent sight is so big and bright that a lot of agents have trouble focusing on the front sight post for those shots requiring more accuracy than speed, and switching back and forth between the 19M and 26 means that for many of them, they're unable to properly develop that skill at the baseline expenditure of ammunition/training time.

Me personally I love the 19M's Ameriglo sight and it's 2nd in accuracy at 25 yards only to my souped up Beretta 92. But, it's sometimes funny how the mechanics work out with unintended consequences.

[Crow Hunter]

My anecdotal observation.

On my first and only competition was at a GSSF match several hours away years ago. 5 to Glock, Glock M and Glock the Plates.

I shot my Gen 3 G19, G26 and G30 with old Trijicon night sights, no other enhancements, just my carry guns using 115 gr UMC bulk pack ammo for the 9's and WWB 230gr for the .45.

My G19 score was 103.83

My G26 score was 134.34

My G30 score was 152.22

I had a +10 sec penalty for shooting an extra popper on the Glock M stage. This was my first and only experience shooting poppers/reactive targets and it was so much fun I got a little carried away. :o:rolleyes:

Informal bullseye shooting on a blank piece of typing paper is really all I had done prior to this match. I had always "felt" that I shot the G26 better than the G19 and the G30 better than the G19 but not as good as the G26 since my "groups" were always much tighter with the G26.

I found out I was wrong. :)

I was personally really surprised how much "control" I lost shooting the other two guns. I have since divested myself of the G26 and G30.

I am still always in search of the "better G19" but I have yet to find it. :D

[JAH 3rd]

Decades ago I wanted a small .45acp pistol. I found my perfect pistol (I thought)......the Sig P245. It's a smaller P220, 6+1 capacity with a 3.9" barrel. I took it to the range. I found that the grip was not long enough to secure the pistol in my hand. I had to reposition my hand on the grip after each shot. I got rid of it after my first outing. Reality of the Sig conflicted with the emotion of buying the pistol. I just didn't want to invest the time and money in this pistol.

I have a Ruger LCP .380, the original offering. While I shoot the pistol ok, I find that the grip, for me, is too small to quickly get it out of my holster. If I was going to carry it, I would look at additional holsters, but for pocket carry, I use my S&W 340PD. I do still have the LCP.

These examples are specific to me, YMMV. Just showing two examples of how actually using these pistols affected my opinion of them. Usage of anything offers clarity to one's opinion.

Same goes for holsters. I'm sure I'm not the only one on this forum with a box full of holsters that didn't quite work as expected.

[JHC]

So, gentlemen, what evaluation(s)/drills would you propose as an indicator of “carry” competence. Recognizing there are several factors involved, from awareness to luck, how can handgun and skill with it be measured.
I have no doubt that GJM, JCN and others could score highly or “ace” some of Givens evals, the “Test”, “Wizard”, etc.
But curious as to your opinions; can I “clean” the Wizard for example with my carry guns? Yep-but it’s easier for me with a 19 than a 43. Thoughts? Probably been done before..

Since these times of lower round count live fire, I've settled on some baselines when assessing whether I have the confidence in my ability with a carry gun option to carry it as a primary. This is a minimalist "Minimum Viable Product" approach. I am not recommending it to anyone else. It's been influenced by the technical shooting advancement from PF leaders of same, of the "good enough" debates here and heavily from "blooded" BTDT folks I consider SMEs. Clark Jackson similar influencers.

1. Draw to one shot on the timer - 25 yards on a USPSA or VTAC target. PAR started at 4 sec but has shifted down to 3 sec for everything because longer than that now is distracting my flow. Whether I shoot 5 or 10 reps on a given day, if the majority are Alphas with some close C's I call it good. It's common that the majority of the alphas will be in the VTAC reduced upper chest "alpha" box.

2. 5 or 7 yard F2S on the same targets. Over 5 repetitions if I'm running all 3 Alphas or 2 Alphas and a solid Bravo in the 2.5 sec range, I'm cool with that.

With 5" 1911s and G45/19X the times are faster and the hits super-majority solid. With sub-compacts just a little slower and usually more Alphas but outside the VTAC chest box. I see more variation between sizes of pistols at 25 yards and darn little at 5 or 7.

Presently, I'm feeling fine carrying my 1911s, G45, G26, 43X or 43 depending on dress or activity.

FWIW, not even $0.02, I take most pleasure in shooting the 25 yard "standard". Once upon a time blazing at closer ranges was my jam but not that much anymore.

Recently set two PRs at 25 on consecutive shots with the 19X (blue ink). Usually that's a steel framed 1911.
79713

Steel frame 1911s most every week consistent
79714

G26 can run with the big dogs
79715


I could well be FOS but if I feel good about how IF I can hit pretty quick at 25, the closer range drills are pretty manageable. The exception is like pounding Bill Drills but for my context, I'm assuming nothing is standing still while I shoot it 6 times and when I add transitions to simulate a target that moved off it's X, then the problem solving is there. (hat tip and thank you DB for some insights about that).

[Leroy Suggs]

JHC "G26 can run with the big dogs."

Yes. Yes it can.

[Mark D]

So, gentlemen, what evaluation(s)/drills would you propose as an indicator of “carry” competence. Recognizing there are several factors involved, from awareness to luck, how can handgun and skill with it be measured.
I have no doubt that GJM, JCN and others could score highly or “ace” some of Givens evals, the “Test”, “Wizard”, etc.
But curious as to your opinions; can I “clean” the Wizard for example with my carry guns? Yep-but it’s easier for me with a 19 than a 43. Thoughts? Probably been done before..


You may want to consider the 5 Yard Roundup. If I recall correctly, it was developed by Justin Dyal as a test of basic defensive competency. I'm sure members of PF will not find it particularly challenging, but I've found it to be a good way to compare different sized guns. The SHO and WHO strings, in particular, are interesting indicators.

[Clusterfrack]

Let's talk about the difference between reactive and predictive shooting.

Predictive: Fire the next shot before reacting to what you see. Control of the gun drives speed and accuracy. This is how people shoot 0.1X splits.

Reactive: Fire the next shot after reacting to what you see. Sight confirmation drives speed and accuracy of shooting. This adds at least 0.10-0.20 to each shot because of the time it takes your nervous system to process and react.

There's a good argument to be made that when shots matter (in both defensive and competitive shooting), most shooters are better off shooting reactively. So why do we chase 0.1X splits and predictive shooting?

1. Fast splits are fun and people like to show off
2. At the higher levels of competitive shooting, saving 0.10 to 0.20s for multiple shots the course of a stage adds up to enough points that it makes a difference.
3. Training to shoot well predictively informs and improves reactive shooting. We train grip, index, return of the gun, relaxation, trigger press, and speed up our vision.

[M2CattleCo]

JHC "G26 can run with the big dogs."

Yes. Yes it can.


Put an RMR on one and they become a little monster!

[1Rangemaster]

I want to thank the folks who responded thoughtfully to my inquiry about shooting evaluations. I also had a brief discussion with a USPSA competitor I respect who commented to the effect that if you’re last at a competition you might want to work on skill improvements-and I certainly see his point.
Odds are though-and I’m musing about “concealed carriers”, whether LE or licensed citizen-that the vast majority of people “packing” would not do very well on some of the evals mentioned(see Karl Rehn, Werner, Dobbs, etc.). I do appreciate again the responses. It’s why I stick around the forum.
I use the Roundup, Wizard and the “Test” as a several times a month check on where I’m at. I think I’ll incorporate the Bakersfield qual; I also like the 25 yard shooting mentioned. A local club has a plate rack on a pistol range, and I think I’ll try 6 “cold” shots, one at a time in 3 seconds with whatever I’m carrying next time I’m there.
Stay safe and keep shooting!

[GJM]

On CCW proficiency, I see it as follows:

1) know how to manipulate your gun, because if you can't get it loaded and into action, you have lost.

2) be able to hit what you are trying to hit.

3) know how to do 1 and 2 above at a relevant speed.

Back to the G19 premise, with an optic I think weight may be more important than slide length. Between guide rods, grip plugs and lights, we have easy ways to increase weight.

[JAD]

For me it is not an absolute question of size, but a multi variable problem of trigger address. For example, I can shoot the 26 and 17 well, but not the 19. I can shoot a P229 well, even though it’s a lot more piggy than the P30, which I shoot poorly. I am unable to be predictive about what guns I will shoot well— I have to evaluate.

[JCN]

There's a good argument to be made that when shots matter (in both defensive and competitive shooting), most shooters are better off shooting reactively. So why do we chase 0.1X splits and predictive shooting?

I’m going to ask a clarifying question.

Do you consider the predictive versus reactive to also apply to the FIRST shot and not just subsequent follow up shots?

I do. Like off a draw or off a transition. I’m not just reacting to where the dot is, I’m calculating the press before it gets there by the rate of approach.

That’s where I see the value of it for defensive shooting.

Predictive so that when you’ve decided bullets need to go someplace, they go there without delay.

That would also apply to movement and moving targets.

[Clusterfrack]

JCN, I agree. Good points.

[cheby]

I’m going to ask a clarifying question.

Do you consider the predictive versus reactive to also apply to the FIRST shot and not just subsequent follow up shots?

I do. Like off a draw or off a transition. I’m not just reacting to where the dot is, I’m calculating the press before it gets there by the rate of approach.

That’s where I see the value of it for defensive shooting.

Predictive so that when you’ve decided bullets need to go someplace, they go there without delay.

That would also apply to movement and moving targets.
There's some misunderstanding and misused terminology in this thread.
Predictive vs reactivate shooting applies to one skill - recoil management. There are a lot of factors that could contribute to effective recoil control. Personal skills (obviously top guys can shoot more difficult targets predictably). Also gear. It is easier to shoot predictively heavier, bigger guns. Or open guns with compensators, or PCC... that is why even C-class open shooters double taps anything up to 10yrds. Major ammo is also more difficult to shoot predictively... Back to the original topic, it is very possible to shoot a hoser stage predictively (something like "Can you count" classifier) with G19 because it's mostly about gun handling and relaxation. It's more more difficult to shoot, say, Baseball Standards with a smaller guns. Not impossible of course.

[joshs]

Let's talk about the difference between reactive and predictive shooting.

Predictive: Fire the next shot before reacting to what you see. Control of the gun drives speed and accuracy. This is how people shoot 0.1X splits.

Reactive: Fire the next shot after reacting to what you see. Sight confirmation drives speed and accuracy of shooting. This adds at least 0.10-0.20 to each shot because of the time it takes your nervous system to process and react.

There's a good argument to be made that when shots matter (in both defensive and competitive shooting), most shooters are better off shooting reactively. So why do we chase 0.1X splits and predictive shooting?

1. Fast splits are fun and people like to show off
2. At the higher levels of competitive shooting, saving 0.10 to 0.20s for multiple shots the course of a stage adds up to enough points that it makes a difference.
3. Training to shoot well predictively informs and improves reactive shooting. We train grip, index, return of the gun, relaxation, trigger press, and speed up our vision.

I think being able to blend both is really important for high level competitive shooting, but defensive shooting should be 100% reactive. The only way to .1x spits is definitely through predetermining that you're going to fire the next shot, but being able to make up a Mike in .3 and then switch back to predictive shooting on the next target is more useful than super fast splits.

As you point out, the mechanics that you need to be very good at predictive shooting are also useful for reactive shooting. Just like many people might see having a super refined index as a "gamer" skill, it's something that carries over very well to doing other more realistic things with a pistol.

[JCN]

There's some misunderstanding and misused terminology in this thread.
Predictive vs reactivate shooting applies to one skill - recoil management.

I don't think that's correct.

I'm using Clusterfrack definition and explanation as below.


Let's talk about the difference between reactive and predictive shooting.

Predictive: Fire the next shot before reacting to what you see. Control of the gun drives speed and accuracy. This is how people shoot 0.1X splits.

Reactive: Fire the next shot after reacting to what you see. Sight confirmation drives speed and accuracy of shooting. This adds at least 0.10-0.20 to each shot because of the time it takes your nervous system to process and react.

cheby

In the definition above, he's talking about 0.1x splits.

I see my sights and trigger based off vision down to 0.12 splits. It's not a "double tap" it's two separate sight pictures. By the above definition even though I'm using my vision, I can do that because of predictable mechanics and gun handling. Even if something got in my vision at the point of triggering, I'd still know when to trigger because I calculated the rate of dot deceleration and can PREDICT where the nadir of the "bounce" will be and basically ambush that.

That same concept also applies to things that aren't recoil management related. Which is why I asked for clarification about draws and transitions.

I do the same thing with draws and transitions that I do with recoil management.

I calculate the rate of deceleration of the dot as it gets close to target to PREDICT where the dot will be in the next few hundreths and trigger based off that.

It's not that I get to the target and then decide, "hey, I'm on target... I should trigger now."

Clusterfrack

As a primarily dot shooter, I get the best visual feedback with a press out draw. I pick up the dot early so I can start my calculations earlier and trigger AS I get on target and not after I get on target. It's still vision based with this kind of prediction. But takes reproducible mechanics so the prediction is easier.

It's basically the difference of trying to catch a baseball when you can track it visually in flight versus trying to catch it when you lose it in the sun... and then it appears in your vision almost at impact.

[JCN]

but defensive shooting should be 100% reactive. The only way to .1x spits is definitely through predetermining that you're going to fire the next shot, but being able to make up a Mike in .3 and then switch back to predictive shooting on the next target is more useful than super fast splits.

If you expand the definition to predictive with regard to draws and transitions, then I'll take exception saying that it should be 100% reactive.

I'm also going to say that with early good shot calling based on vision, you can decide to make up or abort the 3rd shot.

Because the decision gets made at the previous trigger press so the tenth of decision making is simultaneous with the trigger reset.

In a defense shooting, I'll also question whether you should shoot a single shot... wait... reassess... shoot again if necessary?

Versus shoot until the threat stops threatening. So you could get 0.1x splits until the "stop" mental command is given because the threat is neutralized.

But all shots would be shot to vision and not just burst fired at a set cadence.

[joshs]

If you expand the definition to predictive with regard to draws and transitions, then I'll take exception saying that it should be 100% reactive.

I'm also going to say that with early good shot calling based on vision, you can decide to make up or abort the 3rd shot.

Because the decision gets made at the previous trigger press so the tenth of decision making is simultaneous with the trigger reset.

I still consider that reactive, you're seeing the sight lift, then making your decision. I'm also only talking about shooting based on vision, no "one sight picture two trigger presses nonsense."

There is more of a blend if you have a Mike on the first shot on a target where you know you're going to predictively fire two shots. All of the decision making can occur concurrently with the second shot, so it's definitely more of an in between what I'm understanding as the difference between predictive and reactive shooting.


In a defense shooting, I'll also question whether you should shoot a single shot... wait... reassess... shoot again if necessary?

No waiting, but I think you should be actively processing what is happening as you're making the decision to fire each successive shot.


Versus shoot until the threat stops threatening. So you could get 0.1x splits until the "stop" mental command is given because the threat is neutralized.

But all shots would be shot to vision and not just burst fired at a set cadence.

That's still a recipe for potentially firing shots after the bad guy is no longer active since you've made the decision to fire the next shot before processing any change from the prior shot. Those are potentially going to be harder to explain, especially if they land in a place on the bad guy that is anatomically difficult to explain.

[JCN]

I still consider that reactive, you're seeing the sight lift, then making your decision. I'm also only talking about shooting based on vision, no "one sight picture two trigger presses nonsense."

There is more of a blend if you have a Mike on the first shot on a target where you know you're going to predictively fire two shots. All of the decision making can occur concurrently with the second shot, so it's definitely more of an in between what I'm understanding as the difference between predictive and reactive shooting.

No waiting, but I think you should be actively processing what is happening as you're making the decision to fire each successive shot.

That's still a recipe for potentially firing shots after the bad guy is no longer active since you've made the decision to fire the next shot before processing any change from the prior shot. Those are potentially going to be harder to explain, especially if they land in a place on the bad guy that is anatomically difficult to explain.

I think what you’re finding is that predictive versus reactive are two discrete terms that are actually trying to describe a continuum of vision, mechanics and decision making.

Regarding the last part (re bad guy), I think that’s also a continuum.

Maybe a USPSA swinger is a better analogy to a self defense scenario.

You’re supposed to put two shots on the target. But you’re tracking the target and calculating your available time versus target availability. Is that predictive or reactive? Or a mishmash of both? You might take both shots on one pass if you have the time. Or you might hold off the second shot if you can’t get it off before the target is unavailable.

You don’t just hose two in the general direction of the swinger because you made up your mind that it needs two shots.

And yes of course you’re assessing and deciding during each shot. Even at full speed.

[Clusterfrack]

There's some misunderstanding and misused terminology in this thread.
Predictive vs reactivate shooting applies to one skill - recoil management.


I don't think that's correct. ...I calculate the rate of deceleration of the dot as it gets close to target to PREDICT where the dot will be in the next few hundreths and trigger based off that.

It's not that I get to the target and then decide, "hey, I'm on target... I should trigger now."


Yes. Any shot--and other action--can be done predictively. E.g. a "Trigger break exit", where you move out with no 'followthrough' confirmation of the sights lifting. Or predictive shooting on a mover vs. tracking and confirming.

This saves time, but typically adds risk.

[Clusterfrack]

I think being able to blend both is really important for high level competitive shooting, but defensive shooting should be 100% reactive.


I don't agree entirely with this. It would be awesome to hear from Mr_White about this question, but I'll take a stab. Look at the Gabe White drills and par times. Some shots can and should be done reactively, confirming sights on each shot. Others, like the Bill or Immediate Incapacitation, start with reactive first shot and include predictive shots after. This makes sense, assuming your skill allows that.

[JHC]

I don't agree entirely with this. It would be awesome to hear from Mr_White about this question, but I'll take a stab. Look at the Gabe White drills and par times. Some shots can and should be done reactively, confirming sights on each shot. Others, like the Bill or Immediate Incapacitation, start with reactive first shot and include predictive shots after. This makes sense, assuming your skill allows that.

Does any level of skill provide for a decision to abort when a non-shoot flees across the kill zone during a predictive string with splits in the teens? Say in a Bill Drill? I'm betting not. I was told by Ben S some years back the Bill Drill's value was for for learning recoil control. Edited to add . . . while shooting a static target 6 times.

[JCN]

I don't agree entirely with this. It would be awesome to hear from Mr_White about this question, but I'll take a stab. Look at the Gabe White drills and par times. Some shots can and should be done reactively, confirming sights on each shot. Others, like the Bill or Immediate Incapacitation, start with reactive first shot and include predictive shots after. This makes sense, assuming your skill allows that.

I think we are still having difficulty defining terms.

Even when shooting 0.12-0.15 splits, I’m confirming sights on each shot. But I still consider it predictive because I’m not triggering based on a reaction. I’m triggering based on my prediction of sights but I confirm it at the shot.

Basically like hitting a fastball. I would track it and predict where the ball is going to be and time my swing to that.

But I can still get feedback on whether it was successful by watching the hit.

I still confirm on exit. Just how much confirmation depends on how large the target is.

You mentioned the Gabe White standards.

This is as close as I have on video. It’s the Vice card FTS.

Even at that speed I’m confirming each shot.


https://youtu.be/e2sRwwOE550

[JCN]

Does any level of skill provide for a decision to abort when a non-shoot flees across the kill zone during a predictive string with splits in the teens? Say in a Bill Drill? I'm betting not. I was told by Ben S some years back the Bill Drill's value was for for learning recoil control. Edited to add . . . while shooting a static target 6 times.

Yes. As long as you have enough mental bandwidth.

Ideally you would be aware enough to pick up the non-shoot peripherally in your vision 2-3 shots before it gets there because that’s still within 1/2 second.

Once you start a Bill Drill, you’re not committed to fire all six shots lol.

If you have something super fast moving into your line of fire where it could go from outside your peripheral vision to blocking the target within 0.2s then you’re screwed. But you’d be taking about jet plane fast.

Again think of the swinger. You’re not just firing into the hard cover or no shoot.

Take this example.

I give you a slow-ish swinger flanked by no shoots. I tell you to do a Bill Drill.

How are you going to approach that?

[JHC]

Yes. As long as you have enough mental bandwidth.

Ideally you would be aware enough to pick up the non-shoot peripherally in your vision 2-3 shots before it gets there because that’s still within 1/2 second.

Once you start a Bill Drill, you’re not committed to fire all six shots lol.

If you have something super fast moving into your line of fire where it could go from outside your peripheral vision to blocking the target within 0.2s then you’re screwed. But you’d be taking about jet plane fast.

Again think of the swinger. You’re not just firing into the hard cover or no shoot.

Take this example.

I give you a slow-ish swinger flanked by no shoots. I tell you to do a Bill Drill.

How are you going to approach that?

OK. I'm skeptical. But I appreciate it.

Regarding the last . . . manuever.

[JCN]

OK. I'm skeptical. But I appreciate it.

Regarding the last . . . manuever.

IMO this is one of the big benefits of USPSA from a self defense standpoint.

You know how when you're running a PF drill and it's "shoot two shots."

But there's nothing after that part of the drill. Your mind stops because that's the end of the drill.

It's one of the big downsides to just doing short bite drills. Clark Jackson

Your brain doesn't have to hold any other information, plan or do any parallel processing outside the shooting drill at hand. You can get VERY tunnel vision doing those kinds of drills.

But for most of USPSA, the COF doesn't end after you engage one (or two) targets. You're always holding context in mind and the shot leads into something else (usually movement).

There are a couple of situations in USPSA where it tests what you're talking about.

Swingers like we talked about: If you can't get both shots off or if you call a miss you might transition to a different open target and KEEP THE SWINGER IN YOUR PERIPHERAL VISION so you can return to the swinger when it presents itself again. The whole time you're engaging the separate open target, your active mind is processing your exit and setting up for the swinger.

The other example is a Max trap or Clamshell. It usually has a no-shoot face that blocks the open target if you're not fast enough to get both shots off.

So if you are running out of time, you may abort the second shot to avoid hitting the no-shoot. But that happens real-time. Sure sometimes people make judgement errors on one side or another, but you're making a conscious decision while you're splitting to continue or abort.

[Clusterfrack]

I think we are still having difficulty defining terms.

Even when shooting 0.12-0.15 splits, I’m confirming sights on each shot. But I still consider it predictive because I’m not triggering based on a reaction. I’m triggering based on my prediction of sights but I confirm it at the shot.


I think we are mostly talking about the same things. As I have learned the terms from Hwansik K and Ben S, the difference between reactive and predictive is when you 'confirm' or see the sights: 0.15s+ before (reactive), or during/after (predictive) you fire. At 0.15, there is no time to react to what you see, but you can still record what happened in your vision.

Sometimes we want see what happened during predictive shooting, but not always. E.g. in a trigger-break exit, we react to the break of the trigger and immediately snap vision to the next thing.

[Clusterfrack]

Does any level of skill provide for a decision to abort when a non-shoot flees across the kill zone during a predictive string with splits in the teens? Say in a Bill Drill? I'm betting not. I was told by Ben S some years back the Bill Drill's value was for for learning recoil control. Edited to add . . . while shooting a static target 6 times.

You cannot abort a predictive shot. But you can abort a string of predictive shots.

Mr_White's Gabe White Standards (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?22600-Gabe-White-Standards) use a Bill in a defensive context.

Turbo Pin - A highly developed level of excellence in core technical skills of drawing and shooting.
Bill Drill, 2.00 (1.00 + .20 + .20 + .20 + .20 + .20)
Failure to Stop, 1.70 (1.00 + .20 + .50)
Two to the head, 2.00 (1.50 + .50)
4 body 2 head, 2.60 (1.00 + .20 + .20 + .20 + .50 + .50)

[JCN]

OK. I'm skeptical. But I appreciate it.

Regarding the last . . . manuever.

Clusterfrack

I was reminded of a particular target that I own.

It’s called the MGM triple dropper.

It’s set on ratchet teeth and drops after a variable number of hits.

You don’t know when it’s going to drop. But the thought is training to keep neutralizing until the threat is down.

Then stop.

JHC this is essentially what you’re talking about right?

Here were some testing and runs.

I was able to stop shooting in the middle of engagement when the threat was down.

Hope that lends support to that being possible to be have enough unconscious competence that your higher functions can say go-no go and override the technical part.

Clark Jackson these kinds of tests where you’re not in control of the COF are helpful to train parallel processing in a way that short COF bites run in the same way over and over don’t train you.


https://youtu.be/9cfOtcIyi3A

[Clusterfrack]

JCNs points made me realize that the to abort shooting based on vision is maybe 1/2 the min time required to react and adjust sights to target. So, maybe as short as 0.075s?

[JCN]

In looking more closely at the video, the 22LR on Texas Star also supports real time decision making.

You keep hitting the target until it falls off (takes multiple shots with 22LR) and then you move to another.

It’s seamless. You’re not just mag dumping on one target even after it has fallen off.

And with a Texas Star you also have to track it as well. Multiple channel processing.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Force Science and some others did studies of the time it takes to abort a shot and how the motor program keeps operating even while you appreciate the stop signal? Is that the issue. I've seen the reference but don't have it at my fingertips.

[JCN]

Force Science and some others did studies of the time it takes to abort a shot and how the motor program keeps operating even while you appreciate the stop signal? Is that the issue. I've seen the reference but don't have it at my fingertips.

Looks like these:

https://www.forcescience.org/2009/10/new-developments-in-understanding-the-behavioral-science-factors-in-the-stop-shooting-response/

https://www.forcescience.org/2014/08/police-officer-reaction-time-to-start-and-stop-shooting-the-influence-of-decision-making-and-pattern-recognition/

I think those sound reasonable… for the subjects they tested.

I think it is fairly safe to say that part of results depend on the skill level and level of automaticity the subject has in shooting mechanics. It’s very clear to see the difference between a C class shooter when something unexpected happens versus someone at A/M/GM level.

More mental bandwidth allows for peripheral observation and additional contextual processing to reduce “tunnel vision” if that makes sense.

[GJM]

The Rogers School is primarily falling plates, which appear and disappear. Over the week, where each shooter fires about 2,500 rounds, almost no shots are fired after the plate disappears, indicating shooters can quickly process target changes.

[1Rangemaster]

I had the privilege(and sometimes pleasure) of getting to the Rogers School(“back in the day”). I worked and was awarded a gold pin a couple of times with iron sight guns. I have a distinct memory of a plate faltering-slipping off its axel-on a “two body, then head(the plate)” drill. I recognized the issue and did not fire a second time. .5 to.75 reaction(?). The late Ronnie Dodd(RIP) had a couple of Rogers setups and generously allowed me a day to start my dot journey. I believe the dot only enhances awareness.
Bill Rogers in his lecture talks about reaction time and demonstrated by tapping a timer after the beep; human reaction was about .25-.35.
John Hearne I’m sure has something to offer.
I’ll stop with another memorable event: a few years ago a deputy in a southern department saved his partner and himself with a shot delivered to a man trying to aim a handgun at them. The assailant had retreated to a bedroom and behind the bed, and rose up to shoot at the deputy’s partner in the door(all captured on body cam). What impressed me
was his fire discipline as he fired one round-a hit-and the assailant IMMEDIATELY dropped. No other rounds fired. The deputy was/is highly trained, goes to classes on his own, etc.
So, stopping is as important as accuracy it seems. Witness this travesty of a trial in WI. The ADA tried to make something of two rounds fired…

[JCN]

Bill Rogers in his lecture talks about reaction time and demonstrated by tapping a timer after the beep; human reaction was about .25-.35.

This is what Clusterfrack and I were talking about.

In your example it’s not the limit of human reaction time.

It’s recognizing the stimulus AND the time it took to send the Go signal to the finger AND have the finger execute the task.

What if you didn’t have to move the finger? How much faster would the reaction time be?

Do this experiment:

Test the reaction time it takes to execute a complex function like moving a finger versus the time to STOP executing a function and relax / stand down. If you were gripping something and on the stimulus instead of initiating a movement all you had to do was initiate release.

It would be faster.

[1Rangemaster]

Yes, I was not clear on Rogers statement. Your point is correct.
To go back to the subject of one or more evaluations, I was steered toward the “Core 4” by a member here. Several folks had input; I gave it a go at lunch:
Targets @7 yards, “A” zone defined. Each string repeated once, with a time limit and hits for GO/NO GO.
One shot from ready on one target: .63, .70(1.0 limit). Ready, 2 shots on one target: 1.10, 1.15(1.25 limit). Ready, 1 shot on each of 2 targets: 1.30, 1.4(1.5), and 1 round on one target from concealed draw:1.43,1.43(1.5 par). On the draw had first one high in “head”(NO GO). Second was on.
I’ll work some more and address Gabe’s pin tests soon. Thanks to all for their comments.

[JHC]

JCNs points made me realize that the to abort shooting based on vision is maybe 1/2 the min time required to react and adjust sights to target. So, maybe as short as 0.075s?

IIRC this has all been studied a lot in use of force studies and the time for that discretion if much longer. It's been explained in the context of why in LEO UOF incidents entry wounds end up in the back etc. Stress and the tunnel vision etc impacting everything of course.

[JHC]

Clusterfrack

I was reminded of a particular target that I own.

It’s called the MGM triple dropper.

It’s set on ratchet teeth and drops after a variable number of hits.

You don’t know when it’s going to drop. But the thought is training to keep neutralizing until the threat is down.

Then stop.

JHC this is essentially what you’re talking about right?

Here were some testing and runs.

I was able to stop shooting in the middle of engagement when the threat was down.

Hope that lends support to that being possible to be have enough unconscious competence that your higher functions can say go-no go and override the technical part.

Clark Jackson these kinds of tests where you’re not in control of the COF are helpful to train parallel processing in a way that short COF bites run in the same way over and over don’t train you.


https://youtu.be/9cfOtcIyi3A

IDK. I've fired a burst at a popper and didn't mean to keep firing as it fell, shooting over it and knocking down one of two long distance stop plates set up past the close poppers. Worked out well for me. ;) Not so much if it was a no shoot. ;)

Clark and I got run through a dynamic COF with a controller calling out immediate action commands throughout. Damn good training. And BTW I do think competition is pretty decent for problem solving. Esp for a chump that doesn't walk the COF. :(

I'm pretty "meh" about the Bill Drill in a defensive context. At least burning it down at Turbo levels and beyond.

Clark Jackson

[JCN]

IDK. I've fired a burst at a popper and didn't mean to keep firing as it fell, shooting over it and knocking down one of two long distance stop plates set up past the close poppers. Worked out well for me. ;) Not so much if it was a no shoot. ;)

Clark and I got run through a dynamic COF with a controller calling out immediate action commands throughout. Damn good training. And BTW I do think competition is pretty decent for problem solving. Esp for a chump that doesn't walk the COF. :(

I'm pretty "meh" about the Bill Drill in a defensive context. At least burning it down at Turbo levels and beyond.

Clark Jackson

Yeah, but if there was a no shoot behind you probably would have given yourself more of a margin. Didn’t say it was infallible, just that there is some mid-string decision making.

I agree that I think Bill Drills in general are silly.

[JHC]

Yeah, but if there was a no shoot behind you probably would have given yourself more of a margin. Didn’t say it was infallible, just that there is some mid-string decision making.

I agree that I think Bill Drills in general are silly.

You remind me. Match stress had me oblivious to what was beyond the near poppers. I must ponder on the Tree of Woe

[JCN]

You remind me. Match stress had me oblivious to what was beyond the near poppers. I must ponder on the Tree of Woe

Hehe. Forgive me if I’m misremembering, you’re “A classification” at this point right? Why were you shooting a burst at a popper?

The less bandwidth the shooting part takes up, the more is available to do other stuff.

You’re still at a shit ton higher level than the average joe and most LEO though.

And you have an idea of how much you can lose your mind when other variables come into play besides the single bite drill. So you might choose a more conservative plan.

[JCN]

Clark and I got run through a dynamic COF with a controller calling out immediate action commands throughout. Damn good training.

I should totally do that with a friend. I have a 4 channel controller and could do hidden shoot no shoot targets and add verbal commands to eat up bandwidth too.


https://youtu.be/6H9_iWb4se4


https://youtu.be/yUWCoW4FlFo

[JHC]

Hehe. Forgive me if I’m misremembering, you’re “A classification” at this point right? Why were you shooting a burst at a popper?

The less bandwidth the shooting part takes up, the more is available to do other stuff.

You’re still at a shit ton higher level than the average joe and most LEO though.

And you have an idea of how much you can lose your mind when other variables come into play besides the single bite drill. So you might choose a more conservative plan.

I'm not any classification and I'm pretty sure I couldn't paper class A. This "outlaw" match had heavy poppers that may or may not go down to 9mm depending where on the popper was hit. I was shooting it to the ground so to speak. ;)

[RJ]

Do others also notice the super steep performance curve with a near plateau at the point of diminishing returns when it comes to pistol size?

I have recent experience with almost all the guns mentioned in your post, in terms of owning for at least several months, and shooting several hundred rounds. I have M hands, and am no where near the shooters on p-f. Due to approaching vision problems, I transitioned to dots last year.

I don't think there's a big difference going from a G19+dot to a G34, no. At least for me. I bought a G34 because of a perception of "longer = better", which is not really true, as evidenced by people like GAP, and the guy who made GM, shooting G26's. The G26 is an amazing shooter. So it's not the gun. But I do like my G34, and am up to almost 2K rounds through it after a year. I quite like it. And having finally settled on a single game gun, I'm now focusing on other software things, like a real no kidding Dry Practice program, doing the work, and setting out my Performance goals.

Going the other way?

Yeah, for sure. Taking a Tom Givens class with a P30SK LEM V1 was a bad idea. Reloads were a pain, not to mention the glacial pace of my LEM shooting (this was my fault, trying to shoot a VP9 in USPSA at the same time. No bueno.)

Tiny guns like the P365 were accurate for me, but dang if I could get my hands on them. Same for a rental G43, and a Shield 1.0. They were jumpy as heck.

I liked the thin compacts I had (G43X/G48/P365XL). They seemed pretty close to a G19, in terms of subjective performance, "for me". I have no data to back this up. I shot my Gabe White class in 2018 with my 2017 G19 Gen 5 OWB; failing to get a pin. What they made up for though was carryability. A single stack, 10+ round 9mm really works well for me AIWB. Drawing, well, for sure it is not as fast as a compact G19, again, perception only. But for the mission I needed it for, i.e. a retired geezer going to the mall in a T shirt and shorts here in FL, the slimlines are the way to go.

So after the 14 or so various pistol purchases bought and sold after picking up a gun for the first time in 2013, I'm down to just three: a take out the trash pocket carry Ruger LCR .38, a G34 game gun with bells and whistles and the latest thin carry experiment, the P365x. The Sig I plan to put a dot on and wring it out. I'm hopeful it will work, but we'll see.

Just my 0.02.

[GJM]

RJ, what happened to the 19, I thought it was your do everything/EDC pistol?

[RJ]

RJ, what happened to the 19, I thought it was your do everything/EDC pistol?

On consignment at the LGS to assist in the transaction for the P365x.


Yeah, I know, I change guns like people change their socks. Remember a lot of it has to do with that I had zero background in firearms. Back in 2013 I made a commitment with SWMBO, to make sure my hobby doesn't get out of hand, that if one comes in, one must go out. Three seems to be the working number. I get to have (and have had) experienced a bunch of different pistol brands, including S&W, Walther, HK, Ruger, Glock and Sig. And yes I do know how much this costs me, but buying the Glocks lately via GSSF pricing helps with that. Of course, they think I'm nuts at my LGS, but I am having fun. :)

[GAP]

RJ - thanks for the shout-out. The reason I can run the G26 so well is because that is what I’ve trained with 90% of the time for 5+ years.

My recommendation would be to stick with the new P365X and really learn to feel the pistol, work reloads, fix malfunctions, learn the recoil, etc. Do this for at least a full year before deciding the pistol does not work for you.

[RJ]

RJ - thanks for the shout-out. The reason I can run the G26 so well is because that is what I’ve trained with 90% of the time for 5+ years.

My recommendation would be to stick with the new P365X and really learn to feel the pistol, work reloads, fix malfunctions, learn the recoil, etc. Do this for at least a full year before deciding the pistol does not work for you.

You got it. I have always admired your ability to run the G26. It's impressive. I don't really want to derail the thread any further, but I did want to say I appreciate your thoughts. I hope the P365x works out too.

[Crow Hunter]

On consignment at the LGS to assist in the transaction for the P365x.


Yeah, I know, I change guns like people change their socks. Remember a lot of it has to do with that I had zero background in firearms. Back in 2013 I made a commitment with SWMBO, to make sure my hobby doesn't get out of hand, that if one comes in, one must go out. Three seems to be the working number. I get to have (and have had) experienced a bunch of different pistol brands, including S&W, Walther, HK, Ruger, Glock and Sig. And yes I do know how much this costs me, but buying the Glocks lately via GSSF pricing helps with that. Of course, they think I'm nuts at my LGS, but I am having fun. :)

I did that back in the late 90's before I got married. I owned or tried just about everything available during that time period. I settled on Glock because that was what I shot the "best" for me other than the Walther P5 (I miss that gun) and eventually sold off/traded away everything else.

But it still doesn't stop me from wanting something "better".:cool:

So you know, the quest will never end.

[JCN]

Yeah, I know, I change guns like people change their socks. Remember a lot of it has to do with that I had zero background in firearms. Back in 2013 I made a commitment with SWMBO, to make sure my hobby doesn't get out of hand, that if one comes in, one must go out. Three seems to be the working number. I get to have (and have had) experienced a bunch of different pistol brands, including S&W, Walther, HK, Ruger, Glock and Sig. And yes I do know how much this costs me, but buying the Glocks lately via GSSF pricing helps with that. Of course, they think I'm nuts at my LGS, but I am having fun. :)

I think all my socks are older than your current guns.

I never touched a gun until 2016.
Haven’t sold one since.

I don’t think I could (or want to) limit myself to just three.

Every competition class I join requires three guns (for me). A live, match and dry gun. Same thing with carry guns. One loaded, low round carry gun, dry gun and practice gun.

You might want to change the terms of your agreement with the wife now that you’re putting in the work to get better instead of just talking about getting better.

[GJM]

On consignment at the LGS to assist in the transaction for the P365x.


Yeah, I know, I change guns like people change their socks. Remember a lot of it has to do with that I had zero background in firearms. Back in 2013 I made a commitment with SWMBO, to make sure my hobby doesn't get out of hand, that if one comes in, one must go out. Three seems to be the working number. I get to have (and have had) experienced a bunch of different pistol brands, including S&W, Walther, HK, Ruger, Glock and Sig. And yes I do know how much this costs me, but buying the Glocks lately via GSSF pricing helps with that. Of course, they think I'm nuts at my LGS, but I am having fun. :)

RJ, the obvious pistol missing from your three gun collection is a "serious" compact defensive pistol. I would go get that 19 back from the LGS, or if you are limited to just three, sell the 34 and go with a 19 along with an extra Glock 45 frame with a Chip Wiz brass plug and an Overwatch trigger for USPSA.

[CHNEAL]

I went down the Slimline rabbit hole starting in ‘19. Started with the little 43 as a yard gun. I knew I didn't shoot it well but figured I was only going to use it on my way back into the house. That soon became just to the store and back, still didn't shoot it any better but damn was it comfortable to carry. Then I found the 43x. Shot a bit better and had 10 rounds but every time I took it and the 19 to the range I would shoot a couple mags then go to the 19 and tell myself I was being an idiot but kept on trying to be comfortable. Bought a 48 then both 48 and 43x in MOS trying to create magic from water…I was committed and told myself everyday I just need more time with them, they are cool everyone says so…

The range and class work just don’t lie. I shoot the G19, I practice with the Slimlines. I sold 5 slimline Glocks, 3 complete OEM upper and lower parts kits. Took the money and put it into two Gen5 G19 MOS with RMR and TLR7. I dress around the gun and ignore the additional discomfort. Shooting good enough just wasn’t good enough for my family’s safety

Your mileage may very and this is of course just an aging rednecks thoughts on the matter.

Stay Safe
Clay

EDIT to add that I did buy a Gen5 26 and have Jagerwerks cut it for an RMR. Bought everything to fit it out and sold it the day I got it back. I’m now afraid of rabbit holes…

[M2CattleCo]

I stuck with the 43 for 5 years until they ceased to be sufficiently reliable.

Sold all of that nonsense and ended up with an RMR’d 26.

I shot both side by side quite a bit and the difference in recoil is stark. Anyone who says they can shoot a slimline Glock as well as a 19, even a 26, is gonna have a tough time proving it.

[YVK]

I thought so too but when I put myself on timer with G48 and G26, the difference that I expected to see wasn't there.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

While a one time anecdote, I rented a G48 and found it squirmy. It evoked my flaw of shooting horizontally to the right (lefty) which I had beaten on the wider grip guns. Sticking with my 26 for EDC.

[RJ]

I stuck with the 43 for 5 years until they ceased to be sufficiently reliable.

Sold all of that nonsense and ended up with an RMR’d 26.

I shot both side by side quite a bit and the difference in recoil is stark. Anyone who says they can shoot a slimline Glock as well as a 19, even a 26, is gonna have a tough time proving it.

YMMV and all that. I think it's up to individual hand size, finger dimension, palm width, grip technique, skill level, practice with the platform, maturity as a shooter, etc. etc.

I shot the slimlines a bit better than my G19; at least from the logs I keep. Below are some historical snips from my first G19 ('17 production Gen 5), my G43X, and my G48, before being milled, all from shooting The Test (10x10x10). There's not really much difference, for me. Actually I did a bit better with the slimlines. Whether I was getting better, I dunno. I'd have to go look at my TJ to see if there are some recent runs of TT, but mostly those are with dots, so not sure it's apples to apples.

Gen 5 Glock 19, iron sights:

80080

G43X, iron sights:

80081

G48, iron sights:

80082

I don't have any notes from my Gen 5 G26; IIRC I only shot it 200 rounds. I didn't, really enjoy it much. Analytically, "for me", a G26, while an awesome shooter for many, carries quite heavily, for having a 10 round mag. And being as wide as a G19, and fit in the same holster, I often opted just to carry the G19; it made almost no difference for me. My G19 rig weighs 35.7 oz, or 2.2 oz per round carried. An equivalent G26 rig, at 10+1, weighs in at 32.3, or 2.5 oz per round. But like I said, it's a great pistol,, it just didn't fit in with me. Kinda like my fling with the P30SK LEM, or the Walter PPS M2.

The slimlines advantage for AIWB carry is significant, again, "for me", that it makes quite a bit of difference in overall comfort. That's the major reason to try the P365x again. I understand the disadvantages I perceived with my P365XL (overall robustness (or lack), potential for corrosion on magazines, mag catch, and sights, and magazines that are arm and leg expensive.) I would still be shooting and carrying the G48 if it had been more reliable with carry ammo, unfortunately. And I put 1,180 rounds through it in 9 months, trying to verify it as a carry gun, which I was not thrilled with. So here I am.

[M2CattleCo]

I carried my 43 in a JM AIWB long, I carry the 26 in a 19 holster. Printing is minimally different on me. Shooting the double stack is a lot better for me. With a 43 my trigger finger wants to go all the way around to go all the way through the trigger guard and drag on my left hand knuckle.

With full power ammo recoil of the 26 is dramatically softer and it tracks with a lot effort for me.

Slow fire accuracy better the two is just about equal though.

[EVP]

With full power ammo recoil of the 26 is dramatically softer and it tracks with a lot effort for me.



Good point.

I was going to mention this earlier as well. I noticed too that with defensive ammo, the recoil of the smaller guns increases a lot more versus the bigger guns.

[Chuck Whitlock]

YMMV and all that. I think it's up to individual hand size, finger dimension, palm width, grip technique, skill level, practice with the platform, maturity as a shooter, etc. etc.

This right here.

[JHC]

The range and class work just don’t lie. I shoot the G19, I practice with the Slimlines. I sold 5 slimline Glocks, 3 complete OEM upper and lower parts kits. Took the money and put it into two Gen5 G19 MOS with RMR and TLR7. I dress around the gun and ignore the additional discomfort. Shooting good enough just wasn’t good enough for my family’s safety


For you!!! Clint Smith has a way with words. :D

https://www.instagram.com/p/CWV6ZVApOec/

[xtrtsqrt11]

I mostly carry my Commanders or Hi Power. I feel dressing around your choice is best.

I've tried a G43, didn't work for me-couldn't hit for crap. I have lots and lots of Glock 22 rounds down range (issue pistol), but I have to work real hard to get it to work for me. I do have a G20 but that's my HD and hiking gun because of full power 10mm-I do better with it than I do with the G22 sized frame, that and I really like my 10 8 performance sights on it. Otherwise I'm not a Glock fan.

The smallest gun that for me has had big gun accuracy and performance was my Walther CCP that I broke down and gave it a whirl when I heard about it. I got the M2 version after watching the mixed reviews for awhile with the original version. LE pricing from Walther direct to my FFL was so reasonably priced I figured I'd risk it. My sample of one has been very reliable and it is very accurate. A little limited with it's 8+1 in 9mm maybe, but I carry a spare mag anyways and try to avoid going to any questionable areas. I got it right before the 365 with safety came out, I also had thought I'd try AIWB to see if it was doable for me. I did NOT want to put a striker fired, no safety, gun in a holster that was arguably aimed at important stuff for me. And, no, AIWB was not for me in my trials, I just find 3:30 IWB much more comfortable.

[CHNEAL]

For you!!! Clint Smith has a way with words. :D

https://www.instagram.com/p/CWV6ZVApOec/

The world needs more Clint Smiths!

[GJM]

While I have been shooting a M&P in USPSA CO, Josh got me inspired to consider a Glock again. Setting up a USPSA CO pistol, I spent some time shooting a G5 17 with and without an X300, and for me, the weight of the light helps me to shoot faster. Josh, are you using a light? Since I have a TLR-7 on my carry pistol, it is an easy way to add 2.7 ounces in a good place, without changing the size envelope of the pistol too much, and I am ordering an OWB a holster for that combination.

[joshs]

Josh, are you using a light? Since I have a TLR-7 on my carry pistol, it is an easy way to add 2.7 ounces in a good place, without changing the size envelope of the pistol too much, and I am ordering an OWB a holster for that combination.

I’m not, but I haven’t done enough comparison with light on/off shooting to be sure if I prefer the light or not.

[revchuck38]

You may want to consider the 5 Yard Roundup. If I recall correctly, it was developed by Justin Dyal as a test of basic defensive competency. I'm sure members of PF will not find it particularly challenging, but I've found it to be a good way to compare different sized guns. The SHO and WHO strings, in particular, are interesting indicators.

I changed from large to medium backstraps on my M&Ps due to this. While the large backstrap feels better in freestyle shooting, in one-handed shooting I was pulling shots to one side (it's been long enough ago I forget to which side). Pulling the shots went away when I switched to the medium backstrap and there was no change shooting freestyle.

[GJM]

I’m not, but I haven’t done enough comparison with light on/off shooting to be sure if I prefer the light or not.

My perception is that with the light, or more precisely the weight of the light in that position, the dot settles with less of my input than is required without the weight there. I also think a heavier gun, and I have the light and a Chip Wiz brass plug, makes the gun more stable aiming, and more resistant to an imperfect trigger press than a lighter gun is.

[GJM]

Really windy day here, and just back from the range, where my objective was to get some data on the difference between a G5 17 with a dot and a G5 45 with a dot. Because of the wind, I had three eight inch steel set up, and varied between drawing and shooting each steel once or doing doubles on the three steel.

I started with the 17 I have been shooting the last few days, and had pretty much landed on using a 17 for ease of making power factor and because it is mid way between 19 and 34 slide length. Unexpectedly, the G45 with the 19 length slide, both pistols with an SRO, was measurably faster on singles and doubles.

[Dave Williams]

Unexpectedly, the G45 with the 19 length slide, both pistols with an SRO, was measurably faster on singles and doubles.

The G45 has become the most popular PMO setup at my Police dept. I would be interested in more real data comparing the G17 and G45 with RDS.

[YVK]

I started with the 17 I have been shooting the last few days, and had pretty much landed on using a 17 for ease of making power factor and because it is mid way between 19 and 34 slide length. Unexpectedly, the G45 with the 19 length slide, both pistols with an SRO, was measurably faster on singles and doubles.

I vaguely remember someone who was gaming with 19x at that time sending you a slide to check it out like 2 years ago..

[GJM]

Lately, I have been experimenting with the 407 CO. While the display is smaller than the SRO or Romeo 3 Max, there is something very intuitive (and efficient) about dropping the 8 moa circle into the scoring zone. Something I did on the PDP I have the CO mounted on, is remove the BUIS which were obscuring the lower part of the display, effectively shrinking it.

[JCN]

Lately, I have been experimenting with the 407 CO. While the display is smaller than the SRO or Romeo 3 Max, there is something very intuitive (and efficient) about dropping the 8 moa circle into the scoring zone. Something I did on the PDP I have the CO mounted on, is remove the BUIS which were obscuring the lower part of the display, effectively shrinking it.

That’s a great point that favors “irons forward” BUIS, at least you can still see the dot projected on the rear sight if it’s in front of the lens as opposed to just blocking the view of everything with rear BUIS.

[GJM]

That’s a great point that favors “irons forward” BUIS, at least you can still see the dot projected on the rear sight if it’s in front of the lens as opposed to just blocking the view of everything with rear BUIS.

I will have to look at that. Just another reason to favor irons forward, along with not shreading your shirts and stomach, and keeping the lens further away from blast.

[JCN]

I will have to look at that. Just another reason to favor irons forward, along with not shreading your shirts and stomach, and keeping the lens further away from blast.

It’d be like “taping the lens” except it’d be a half block with the irons.

[D-der]

Primary Machine milled both my P10C and M&P 2.0
with irons forward, much preferred, you lose a
little of the target but, not the dot

[RJ]

Ok so I never did sell the 19, and kept it as a backup. I took it as my carry gun down to a class with Tim Herron in Homestead FL this past weekend, since my P365X was down due to a missing battery tray screw. I accidentally left my Glock 34 at home, so I shot the class with my box stock Glock 19 Gen 5 MOS.

Well.

My shooting was much improved between Saturday and Sunday, since I put into practice what Tim taught. I discovered/confirmed (take your pick) that it's not the gun in USPSA; it's establishing your grip, seeing what you need to see, and working the trigger (shocking, I know).

Anyway, one item specifically that Tim corrected for me was my grip. He had me rotate the gun just a tad so that it was more aligned with my forearm. This resulted in curing my low and away shooting almost immediately. It felt kinda weird, but it worked.

So fast forward to today. I took my G34 and took off the M beavertail I had, to make it the same as my G19. Also removed the Talon tape. I went to my local square range and shot the G34 70 rounds, very well, at static targets. But, to be honest, my trigger reach wasn't quite the same, and I wasn't sure why.


I got home and got the tape measure out to compare. Both the 19 and 34 grips measure almost exactly 140mm around at the tippy top of the grip. But when I measure the circumference of the grip, and include the trigger shoe (striker released), I get 171 mm for the G34, and 165 mm for the G19, meaning the reach on the G19 is that much shorter. Subjectively, I seem to be able to get more of my trigger finger on the trigger with the G19, which matches the data.


My question for those of ya'll with experience with Glocks, is this correct/typical? That in general, a G19 will have a slight advantage in trigger reach, especially for shorter finger people like myself?

I'm not sure because these are the only two Glocks I have. My G34 has an Apex connector with an Apex trigger bar and trigger shoe, with the G19 having an OEM - connector and OEM trigger bar and trigger shoe. But I'm not sure if that comes into play or not.

TIA...rich

EDIT TO ADD: I ended up swapping out the two trigger groups. I put the original connector/trigger (minus) back into the G34. I then took the stock parts (dot) out of the G19, and put the Apex group in. The result? The figures reversed; now the G19 circumference measures 170mm, and the G34 is 165. This seems to be entirely due to the trigger shoe in relation to the grip; meaning at least as far as these two G19/G34 are concerned, they appear to be pretty much identical at the top of the grip. Disregard all after Good Morning. :cool:




GJM JHC HCM


Apexed Glock 34:
86185


Stock Glock 19:
86186

[JHC]

It does not ring any bells. I haven't noticed different trigger reaches across standard frame models. The measurement is including the trigger so the aftermarket pieces seem like the likely suspect.

I'm not the best at picking up small nuances - best example is having to read on the internet that my 19 triggers had grooves while my 17s were smooth. :o

See ball hit ball. Grip and rip. et al. ;)

[HCM]

Ok so I never did sell the 19, and kept it as a backup. I took it as my carry gun down to a class with Tim Herron in Homestead FL this past weekend, since my P365X was down due to a missing battery tray screw. I accidentally left my Glock 34 at home, so I shot the class with my box stock Glock 19 Gen 5 MOS.

Well.

My shooting was much improved between Saturday and Sunday, since I put into practice what Tim taught. I discovered/confirmed (take your pick) that it's not the gun in USPSA; it's establishing your grip, seeing what you need to see, and working the trigger (shocking, I know).

Anyway, one item specifically that Tim corrected for me was my grip. He had me rotate the gun just a tad so that it was more aligned with my forearm. This resulted in curing my low and away shooting almost immediately. It felt kinda weird, but it worked.

So fast forward to today. I took my G34 and took off the M beavertail I had, to make it the same as my G19. Also removed the Talon tape. I went to my local square range and shot the G34 70 rounds, very well, at static targets. But, to be honest, my trigger reach wasn't quite the same, and I wasn't sure why.


I got home and got the tape measure out to compare. Both the 19 and 34 grips measure almost exactly 140mm around at the tippy top of the grip. But when I measure the circumference of the grip, and include the trigger shoe (striker released), I get 171 mm for the G34, and 165 mm for the G19, meaning the reach on the G19 is that much shorter. Subjectively, I seem to be able to get more of my trigger finger on the trigger with the G19, which matches the data.


My question for those of ya'll with experience with Glocks, is this correct/typical? That in general, a G19 will have a slight advantage in trigger reach, especially for shorter finger people like myself?

I'm not sure because these are the only two Glocks I have. My G34 has an Apex connector with an Apex trigger bar and trigger shoe, with the G19 having an OEM - connector and OEM trigger bar and trigger shoe. But I'm not sure if that comes into play or not.

TIA...rich

EDIT TO ADD: I ended up swapping out the two trigger groups. I put the original connector/trigger (minus) back into the G34. I then took the stock parts (dot) out of the G19, and put the Apex group in. The result? The figures reversed; now the G19 circumference measures 170mm, and the G34 is 165. This seems to be entirely due to the trigger shoe in relation to the grip; meaning at least as far as these two G19/G34 are concerned, they appear to be pretty much identical at the top of the grip. Disregard all after Good Morning. :cool:




GJM JHC HCM


Apexed Glock 34:
86185


Stock Glock 19:
86186

I never measured trigger reach but the is difference in the g19 grip vs the 17/34. The hump on the back of the grip on the G19 sits higher and IME has a more pronounced “hump.”

This is why some people shoot one or the slightly (10-15%) better while the remaining 1/3 perfomthe sane..

[lawboy]

Ultimately if the gun doesn't fit your hand it's not going to work as well for you. It's really difficult to stabilize the gun in the hand if the grip doesn't let you get your whole hand on it.

The number of people I've encountered who are trying to learn how to shoot on a 365 and reflexively trying to get it away from their face with every shot is legion.

Lawd, have mercy, YES!

[JAD]

RJ I shoot the 17/34 dramatically better than the 19. The placement of the hump is what I think matters.

[GJM]

A friend and I were discussing this today, as part of a conversation on the recent proposal to make the 2011 legal for USPSA carry optics. Amazingly, Nils shot 99.43 in the 2021 Limited Nationals, using a Canik shooting minor. The point this underscores, is the better the shooter you are, the less the gun matters. Conversely, when you have less developed skills, the gun can make a large difference.

[JAD]

A friend and I were discussing this today, as part of a conversation on the recent proposal to make the 2011 legal for USPSA carry optics. Amazingly, Nils shot 99.43 in the 2021 Limited Nationals, using a Canik shooting minor. The point this underscores, is the better the shooter you are, the less the gun matters. Conversely, when you have less developed skills, the gun can make a large difference.

The derivative thought is that shooters should not worry about hardware and just try to get better at shooting, and I agree so far as Cooper’s PII concept goes; but I’m a happier and more interested shooter when I’m not fighting the shit out of a gun I dislike. So, not really disagreeing, but there’s nuance.

[Donny B]

Greetings...I have noticed people tend to have more shooter induced malfunctions with the little guys then the duty size
guns when you up the performance requirements.

[Clusterfrack]

Greetings...I have noticed people tend to have more shooter induced malfunctions with the little guys then the duty size
guns when you up the performance requirements.

Welcome to P-F, Donny B.