I’m starting to think a chopped 45 might be the best of both worlds.
I’m starting to think a chopped 45 might be the best of both worlds.
Ken
BBI: ...”you better not forget the safe word because shit's about to get weird”...
revchuck38: ...”mo' ammo is mo' betta' unless you're swimming or on fire.”
I prefer the 45 by a pretty significant margin. I have to dress around a Glock 19, it’s not that much more work to dress around a 45 especially with some of the fantastic holster options available.
The only acceptable answer to this is get two of each.
My 19x is on its way home after a grip chop. Like the way it shoots, but can't conceal a full grip.
Doesn't read posts longer than two paragraphs.
May I ask who your using? It would be great to see photos when you get it back as well. As I mentioned in this or another thread, I keep being tempted to send off a few Glocks for grip work from boresight or another company, but the sticker shock keeps my wallet in my pocket.
I shot Glock pistols a lot for two or three years, primarily 34's, but also 17's and 19's. There were other models, too. But in trying to stay on the subject of this thread, I just wonder why someone that needs or prefers the 17 length grip doesn't just shoot a 17.
If shootability is the priority, and the 17 length grip fits better, I understand the preference of a 45 over a 19.
If concealment is the priority, I understand the preference of a 19 or a 45 over the 17.
But how much more difficult is it to conceal a 17 as compared to a 45? Does that slight difference in barrel length (which also provides the advantage of slightly increased sight radius) really make the 17 significantly more difficult to conceal than the 45?
I only own a G43 today, which replaces my "J" frame revolver.
But if I were to return to Glock pistols, I'm pretty certain they would be Gen5 G17's . . . . both for competition and EDC. The grip fits my hand better than a 19/45, the pistol has a larger ammo capacity and a greater sight radius than a 45 or a 19, and the .51" longer (than a G45) to .67" longer (than a G19) OAL just isn't a deal breaker for concealment for me.
For reference, I am 6'2" tall, weigh 207 lbs., and wear size 12 gloves (big hands).
Well, it could matter, where one gets poked, with any type of inside-the-trousers rig. Concealment may not be the only consideration. Gimpy shoulder/elbow/wrist joints, plus high-riding holsters, can make a shorter barre/slide more desirable, as the shorter option clears the holster with less upward travel distance.
Then, there are those who like mini-comps, and want their adult-sized-grip Roland/Faux-land Specials to fit G34 holsters. I have a G19 Gen4 slide, and a Gen4 KKM barrel and comp, which I plan to try on a G45 G19x frame, when I can start going to ranges again. (I get my second Moderna stick tomorrow morning.)
Then, there is balance/heft. To borrow from my experience with 1911, and conversations with those who favor Commander-sized 1911 pistols, some truly prefer the balance of the Commander. I prefer the balance and heft of the Government-sized pistols, but do not disagree with folks who prefer the balance and heft of Commanders.
Retar’d LE. Kinesthetic dufus.
Don’t tread on volcanos!