“The One”
(this was pretty much a way for me to get my ideas typed out, but get ready to sit back and read... and its late, so please excuse the spelling and grammar errors)
For the last couple years I have been in pursuit of what I would describe as “The One”. From this point forward, “The One” will be referred to as “TO”.
To me, “TO” describes a specific handgun or handgun series (Glock/M&P/ Etc) that does EVERYTHING you need it to do. I say series because I think part of “TO” is having a backup gun associated with it, which is necessary for my needs( Preferably in the same series of gun but not a deal breaker).
The one needs to be able to be carried for uniform duty (think duty belt/Safariland holster setup) but also to be carried off duty. The method of off duty carry is appendix.
Articles on here like Docs article about “ 9 mm: Glock vs M&P” and other articles like “The Passion of the Gun” have made the standards that I require from “TO” seem like they will never be met.
I have been all over the place I feel in terms of trying guns out which has brought me to the point where I am now and the feelings I have about the handguns I have tried.
I am convinced at this point I am in my own head and don’t know where to go from here. I believe my standards for “TO” are unable to be met by one handgun platform but before I give up the search I wanted to throw this out there to get people’s ideas.
No matter what I decide on I will be buying 2-3 of the primary because stippling and my preferred sight setup is mandatory for me. A WML (Surefire X300U) will be on the duty gun with no WML being on the off duty.
Currently the handguns that have been narrowed down to are:
(Before I get started, yea I know, not really narrowed down anything at all huh?)
Here is what I have decided for me are the Pros and Cons of each platform:
Glock:
Pros: Our agency issues Glock 17 in 9mm so this means that a stock Glock 17 Gen 4 is issued with Glock night sights for use. This currently is used as a training tool and home defense option. The Glock being issued also means that armorer support as well as parts and mags are available through the dept to an extent. I very much like the idea of being able to have “TO” detail stripped if needed, and easier is always nice.
-Glocks are able to be customized to my liking by myself and have anything you need in terms of sights and holsters.
-I am able to pocket carry a 26 as a backup gun and in terms of consistency primary to backup, the G26 is very much liked because of its ability to have the same sights, trigger pull, grip and use the same magazines that will be on my belt all day.
-I shoot the Glock well, only gun I shoot better is the M&P. I say “better” meaning able to manipulate the trigger at a more consistently fast rate and find the natural point of aim I have with the M&P to translate to better shooting at speed.
-Gen 4s I have handled have shown VERY good accuracy
-The Glock I think has the BEST setup in terms of size of handguns. As I stated above I think the 26 is a great size for a backup gun, everybody and their mother wishes that their gun company would make a Glock 19 sized version of whatever they shoot that is not a Glock 19, the 17 a Glock 17 so well just leave it at that, and I feel the Glock 34 is as large as a handgun carried on a body really can get for me in terms of barrel length while still having a grip that conceals when off duty.
Cons:
-I cannot manipulate the Glock trigger as quickly as I can the M&P and I notice this consistently. I have problems with staging the Glock trigger and this causes me to throw shots at speed.
-It is a striker fired gun with no manual hammer to ride while re-holstering off duty appendix. This is not a mandatory requirement but does add a sense of safety.
-The main problem I am finding with the Glock is I have no passion for it. Even after I do all the grip work I will and ad sights, I still lack a passion for the Glock platform.
Smith & Wesson M&P:
(I have tried both the full size and the 5’’ Pro and I prefer the full size as I find the 5’’ top heavy)
Pros:
For me, the M&P corrects a lot of “problems” I feel the Glock has. I think the M&P has a more visually pleasing slide contour and has rear serrations that leave nothing to be desired, I love them in terms of functionality.
The M&P has no finger grooves which I greatly prefer and has a beaver tail which is also functional. S&W also did away with Glocks tabbed/split trigger, which I do not care for.
I do like the M&Ps beavertail, but feel it is a big large and I reduce mine like Doc has shown that he does. I like the grip length of the M&P because I feel it is perfect for a duty gun but I can easily conceal it off duty under just a t-shirt.
-M&P has the best trigger reach for me. I have medium sized hands, but a short trigger finger and the shorter trigger reach of the M&P assists me in operating the gun, specifically at speed.
-Most natural grip angle, specifically for accelerated (5 yards and in) reference shooting.
-Easiest trigger for me to manipulate as speed (as stated above)
-Close to the Glock in terms of aftermarket support (sights, holsters, mags, etc)
-Reloads are faster with the M&P
- I am more passionate about shooting this gun than I am the Glock and cant really explain why. Maybe its because its “not a Glock” and I have the need to be different, or maybe its because with this gun I am able to operate it at speeds that I am not able to with a Glock.
Cons:
-Accuracy issues have plagued it for as long as it has been around pretty much
-Not as easy to detail strip as Glock
-I am very much not a fan of the M&P compact for a backup gun so the Shield would be the option for that and the full size M&P and Shield of course cannot use the same mags like the 19/17/34 and the 26 would
-No physical hammer to ride for appendix work off duty (same as Glock)
-Not supported by the dept so the availability of parts/mags etc would entirely be up to me
The guns listed above I have multiples of and are by far the front runners when it comes to this search. The main thing holding me back from just committing to the two options above and deciding between them is the lack of a physical hammer when carrying off duty appendix. Because of this option I began looking into the hammer fired market which brought me to these 2 options:
HK P30
Sig P Series
HK P30
I currently have a HK P30 LEM V1 and love it for what it is, a hammer fired gun with no manual safety and a consistent trigger pull. The HK has great ergonomics and is growing in terms of popularity and aftermarket support but is not to the level the M&P and Glock are in terms of patrol/on duty support by companies. I will admit, I had never even considered the P30 until seeing how highly it was praised on here by the likes of TLG, DB, Ernest and others.
The HK P2000SK would be the front runner for a back up gun for the P30 but I have never handled/shot/ compared sizes on the SK so that would be a debate in itself. If the SK would not work as a backup gun, I would be back to square one in terms of looking for a backup gun for the P30.
My main downside to the P30 is I do not have nearly as much aftermarket items for it in terms of duty carry and before committing to it, would really need to invest a large amount of money into the P30 and I am not sure if simply having a hammer on the gun is worth that to me.
The last gun is the Sig P series.
Frankly, this gun was not even on my radar until I was able to pick up a P229 in the last couple days.
The combination of the E2 grips, the reduced reach trigger, and the SRT is just butter in my hands. I do not have nearly as much time in this setup/trigger system as I would need to begin carrying this gun on duty and would really need to invest in the DA/SA system to commit to this gun.
Backup gun front runner for this are the P290RS (lack of magazine compatibility) and the P224 in DA/SA with SRT.
Both of these hammer fired guns are very fun to shoot for me and make me more passionate about shooting and wanting to improve with them (more so than shooting the Glock).
Like I stated above, the M&P and Glock are by far in the lead in the search for “TO” but the HK and SIG are on the radar.
So why is “TO” so hard to find?.... I mean is it too much to ask for a gun that has:
-ergonomics and trigger of the M&P
-aftermarket support, ease of detail strip, and variety of sizes of the Glock
-accuracy of the HK (ok, maybe some P30 ergonomics also)
-and a little of the buttery smooth SIG SRT thrown in there?
…Oh yea, and it has to be the “perfect size” for on duty and off duty carry, have the ease of shooting of a striker fired gun but the safety of a hammer fired gun…… and have a perfect backup.
I mean really, am I asking THAT much?...
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by montanadave
