What are characteristics of a pistol that will run the cheapest 9mm reliably?

[HCM]

If you have smaller hands, skip the B92.

I’d also skip the PSA dagger. It might be a fine pistol, but they haven’t been proven over high round counts to be reliable. Reliability in firing cheap ammo appears to be your primary objective. It doesn’t seem worth the $100 savings over a used glock to get a dagger.

If you’re super price sensitive (I mean cheap [emoji3]), consider a Ruger P95. I consider them duty-level guns. Mine shoots anything, and mags are reasonably cheap.

But even the cheap P95 isn’t worth the discount over a used glock. I mean that the used glock is worth way more than the extra $100 over a used P95, so it’s a better deal overall.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agree about buying a Glock vs anything cheaper.

With even “cheap” 9mm running over $300 / thousand you’ll exceed the cost of the gun in less than 2k rounds.

[MattyD380]

If you have smaller hands, skip the B92.

I have unusually small hands for a human male and I find the Beretta 92's trigger reach to be just about perfect in single action--considerably better than double stack Sigs.



And this is an OG 92F without the radiused backstrap you find in the newer 92FSs. It's slightly more challenging in DA, yes, but no more or less so any other double stack DA/SA gun I've found. That said, I have no experience with the Ruger P-Series (though there is a very nice P89 languishing at my LGS).

Though, as they say, YMMV.

[Ed L]

While the Glock 17 and 19 may be good with cheap ammo, but I would avoid the Glock 45 9mm. Mine seems to be sprung heavier and will not function reliably with Blazer Brass and 115 grain American Eagle. It will function 100% with 124 grain American Eagle. I would imagine that the same would apply to the Glock 19X.

[Navin Johnson]

Looking to buy a semi auto 9mm, even though I don't really need one. Just want something to run the hell out of while shooting as cheaply as possible. So it got me thinking, what are some characteristics of a pistol that would make it conducive to running the cheapest stuff. Barrel/slide length, heavy vs a lighter slide, hammer or striker, polygonal or traditional rifling and so on. If a pistol was being made from the ground up to run the cheap stuff specifically, what would it look like and what's out there already that comes the closest to that? I don't know the ins and outs of pistols to have much of an idea, that's why I'm asking you guys. The only thing I can think of is maybe a longer barrel at least 4" might be good to keep flash down since cheap ammo doesn't use any kind of flash suppressant powder. Let me know what you think, thanks.

Define “cheap”. Low quality or low price?

Reloading is lowest cost

Low quality is often costly

How many rounds do you think you will shoot annually

What is “run the hell out of”

Most modern Polly guns cost the price of 2 cases of ammo

To me your describing a case+ a month $3k ish annual so cost of launcher is irrelevant.

Higher quality guns have much better resale in relation to cost

[Hambo]

I didn't clean my Brigadier for 1 year/8000 rounds of whatever I was reloading. All it got was oil and ammo. It did so well I went to annual cleaning only for a few years.

[19852+]

For me the answer to that question is every 9mm pistol I own. All hammer fired and I keep the full power mainspring installed. The only pistol I witnessed having trouble with Wolf was a Glock 21 .45 auto. It was at a match and I could follow his progress through the courses of fire by the trail of ejected cartridges.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

My 26 and 17 ran through a thousand rounds of Red Army just fine. Blazer aluminum, no problems.

[HCM]

While the Glock 17 and 19 may be good with cheap ammo, but I would avoid the Glock 45 9mm. Mine seems to be sprung heavier and will not function reliably with Blazer Brass and 115 grain American Eagle. It will function 100% with 124 grain American Eagle. I would imagine that the same would apply to the Glock 19X.

Whatever you are experiencing it’s something unique to you or your gun.

The G45 and 19X are not spring heavier. The use the exact same RSA (and slides and barrels) as G19 Gen 5s.

Glock does occasionally produce a lemon, especially in times of high demand. A buddy has both a G-45 in a 19 X, one of which sheets like a typical GEN five Glock and the other was producing 10-12” groups at 25 yards. We swapped barrels between the two guns and the accuracy issue followed the barrel.

Maybe there’s something about the barrel chamber or extractor/ejector of your particular G 45 ?

[HCM]

I have unusually small hands for a human male and I find the Beretta 92's trigger reach to be just about perfect in single action--considerably better than double stack Sigs.



And this is an OG 92F without the radiused backstrap you find in the newer 92FSs. It's slightly more challenging in DA, yes, but no more or less so any other double stack DA/SA gun I've found. That said, I have no experience with the Ruger P-Series (though there is a very nice P89 languishing at my LGS).

Though, as they say, YMMV.

If the OP has small hands maybe one of the Beretta 92 series guns with the Vertec grip ? Like the M9a3 or a4 ?

[john c]

I have unusually small hands for a human male and I find the Beretta 92's trigger reach to be just about perfect in single action--considerably better than double stack Sigs.



And this is an OG 92F without the radiused backstrap you find in the newer 92FSs. It's slightly more challenging in DA, yes, but no more or less so any other double stack DA/SA gun I've found. That said, I have no experience with the Ruger P-Series (though there is a very nice P89 languishing at my LGS).

Though, as they say, YMMV.

For single action, I agree. But for full use of the functionality of the gun, the double action length of pull is important. That's difficult for small hands.

Since the OP is clearly price sensitive, getting an $800 new Beretta (radius backstrap or Vertec) seems like the wrong direction, vs a new glock.