anonimoose
New member
Shooters,
Oy. Feel like I'm opening up Pandora's Box here. In short, despite the admonition that there is no one "perfect" firearm, I am in the hunt for a pistol:
- that is chambered in 9mm
- that can serve as both a carry piece and as a home defense tool (so no pocket pistols, and ideally railed to add a Streamlight if it stays home)
- that is comfortable to shoot for both myself and the female companion (who has tiny hands, ring size 4.25)
For a long time, the last requirement has basically ruled out the Glock since the grip is too blocky (more for her, but still). Thankfully, there are a number of great alternatives with either slimmer or more ergonomic grips -- the various Berettas (PX4 Compact, Subcompact), Kahrs (CM9, CW9, etc), Rugers (SR9c), Smith & Wessons (39xx, 69xx, M&P9 series) and Walthers (PPS, P99). (I've found the Springfield XDs just as bulky as the Glocks, and the HK and Sigs are beyond my budget.)
However, I recently tried out the gen4 G19 with the smallest backstrap (the 2mm makes a difference!) and got a whiff of the Kool-Aid. Even with all these great alternatives out there, I can't help but think that if the Glock fits, go for the Glock. After all, no one I met has been able to deny that Gaston's firearms are the gold standard when it comes to reliability. They may say that this or that are "just as good", but even the haters can't deny that the gen3 G19 has been utterly, boringly reliable.
Has that changed with the gen4 G19? I know it's still a Glock and that replacement recoil springs have largely fixed the issue, but do the documented issues with the gen4 G19 chip away at the aura of utter reliability? Is the gen4 G19 no longer the gold standard for reliability, but "just another" modern polymer pistol, on par with its peers/competitors?
Oy. Incoming!
respectfully,
Moose
Oy. Feel like I'm opening up Pandora's Box here. In short, despite the admonition that there is no one "perfect" firearm, I am in the hunt for a pistol:
- that is chambered in 9mm
- that can serve as both a carry piece and as a home defense tool (so no pocket pistols, and ideally railed to add a Streamlight if it stays home)
- that is comfortable to shoot for both myself and the female companion (who has tiny hands, ring size 4.25)
For a long time, the last requirement has basically ruled out the Glock since the grip is too blocky (more for her, but still). Thankfully, there are a number of great alternatives with either slimmer or more ergonomic grips -- the various Berettas (PX4 Compact, Subcompact), Kahrs (CM9, CW9, etc), Rugers (SR9c), Smith & Wessons (39xx, 69xx, M&P9 series) and Walthers (PPS, P99). (I've found the Springfield XDs just as bulky as the Glocks, and the HK and Sigs are beyond my budget.)
However, I recently tried out the gen4 G19 with the smallest backstrap (the 2mm makes a difference!) and got a whiff of the Kool-Aid. Even with all these great alternatives out there, I can't help but think that if the Glock fits, go for the Glock. After all, no one I met has been able to deny that Gaston's firearms are the gold standard when it comes to reliability. They may say that this or that are "just as good", but even the haters can't deny that the gen3 G19 has been utterly, boringly reliable.
Has that changed with the gen4 G19? I know it's still a Glock and that replacement recoil springs have largely fixed the issue, but do the documented issues with the gen4 G19 chip away at the aura of utter reliability? Is the gen4 G19 no longer the gold standard for reliability, but "just another" modern polymer pistol, on par with its peers/competitors?
Oy. Incoming!
respectfully,
Moose
Last edited: