Don't totally divorce the Glock or you might buy one (or 3) again at some point. Keep it around as a friend with benefits as long as possible.
Don't totally divorce the Glock or you might buy one (or 3) again at some point. Keep it around as a friend with benefits as long as possible.
What you do right before you know you're going to be in a use of force incident, often determines the outcome of that use of force.
A lot of truth there. Going through it right now, yet again. Currently abandoning my full size M&P9's and replacing them with Glock 19's. Before the M&P's were 1911's, and before that were Glocks. Funny thing is now, years later, I am shooting the Glocks better than I ever did years ago.
Part of me wants to go 100% to one system. But then again, I prefer the M&P Shield to the G43. And I just shoot the CZ P-07 too well to abandon it completely. And I really like CT grips on the M&P for home defense.
So maybe I am just stuck shooting 3 platforms for different purposes.
I have been in this position lately trying to reduce the the switching from different guns, I do not have the time to learn 3-4 different types of pistols nor the funds. I need reps and training. I wanted to 'divorce from DA/SA Sigs due to some perceived short comings.
So I started to shoot in steel challenge competitions. The times did show a trend, between a Glock 17/19, Sig P320 and P226R, I shot the P226 much better with the the P320 distant 2nd and Glock last behind it.
I had less misses with the P226, and scored at least 2 to 3 seconds per run per stage quicker than both striker fired pistols. The perceived detriment of the first DA shot went away (all of those dry fire practice sessions). I have had a few ftrb's which made me question the P226.
so you may want to test the Glock/VP9 under different circumstances to see if you indeed are better with one versus the other.
the Shield and the full size Glocks are a good pair. There are no real magazine/small parts commonalities between the G43 and its bigger brothers, so you aren't losing out on that with the shield. The triggers are close enough, in my opinion, for there to be little to no loss in ability when transitioning between the two. I shoot mostly Glocks (have a J frame and a K frame that do things which no autoloader could for me) but carry a Shield very often and don't feel there is any disadvantage to doing so whatsoever.
I'm not Lt, but since I had the same experience I just found the Sig easier to shoot. I can shoot the Sig with better accuracy in less time and with less thought. It is simply more natural. With the Glock, I'll start pushing left as I get going faster way before I'll start pushing the Sig left.
Imagine this is a bull's eye. With a Glock, all my shots will be clustered in the red. With a Sig, they will be pretty equally distributed between red and blue.
With revolvers, I don't waver as much left/right. I tend to string more vertically, like a zipper, as I get going faster than my skills allow. Since MOST people are taller than they are wide, I'd rather string vertically than horizontally. Obviously the ideal is not stringing at all if you aren't trying to, but there's that.
I, too, shoot SIGs better than Glocks. I just moved back to Glock, in 9mm this time 'round, to get the lower bore axis, along with the lesser per-shot recoil of 9mm. (Recoil/muzzle flip, with .40, cumulatively, was killing my right wrist.) Previously, in 2004, I had moved to .40 SIG P229R, from .40 Glock G22, after I had been frustrated trying to shoot Glocks as well as I could shoot a 1911 or S&W/Ruger medium to medium/large DA revolvers. The first time I shot my then-new P229R, it was on our duty pistol qual course, and my score was higher than I had ever shot with a Glock, in over two years of trying. (94+ points, with the P229R, if I remember correctly, versus never attaining 94, and perhaps not even 93 points, with Glocks. This is a fast-faced, timed course, with turning targets, rarely shot "clean" by anyone. I could, in my 1911 days, usually shoot about 94 to 95 with a 1911, and 95+ with a 4" revolver, almost on demand, if I fumbled no reloads. )
Gen4 Glocks do work notably better in my hands, however, than the Gen3 Glocks I used from 2002 to 2004, so I hope the accuracy will be better this time. This is particularly true with my right hand. Thus far, it is apparent I do still have much work to do, though my accuracy is reasonable enough to merit carrying the Glocks, and semi-retiring the SIG. (At the time I switched from Gen3 Glock to SIG, it was not yet apparent that my chief would allow major grip modifications. Now, it has been established that grip mods are OK, though with the advent of Gen4, I do not think I need any changes.)
I do still keep current with my DMRs; Designated Markman Revolvers. The more I have trained with Glocks and SIGs, the better i have become with a K-frame S&W or Ruger GP100. I cannot revert to carrying a revolver as a primary duty handgun, but I can bring the sixgun with me, when feasible, for special occasions, or choose to wear it as "primary" during personal time.
Last edited by Rex G; 11-14-2015 at 11:14 PM.
I don't subscribe to splits as a measure of handgun compatibility. First shot from the holster into the "A" zone at 5 and 10 is the measure I prefer.
As to leaving behind a pile of mags, holsters, and plentiful aftermarket parts and accessories, I equate it with what I spend for cable TV vs. what I actually retain... that lessens the sting a bit.
YMMV
I think I often get caught up in things that don't matter such as gadgets and doo dads. In reality first shot on target should be far more a priority. If I don't make a good shot with the first pull Ive already made the problem worse.