why all the rage in single stack 9mms?

[Burner]

Also, many jump on the bandwagon before having actually shot a full house 9mm load in a sub compact frame. It's uncomfortable and it's hard to be accurate.

I shot an LC9 for the first time yesterday so I could give a friend interested in getting one my take on it. On the contrary it was very easy to be accurate and muzzle flip was minimal. Fast and accurate is another thing, though, your'e very limited by the obnoxiously long trigger pull and short frame so your hand has to flex excessively to fully actuate the trigger. This really slows you down. It could really do with a trigger pull a few millimeters shorter.

All of this being said, I am a big guy and fire a few thousand handgun rounds a year, but regardless the mechanical potential of the weapon is fine. Not amazing but fine.

 

[MLeake]

Onward Allusion, I've owned a PM9, own a PX4 Subcompact, and carry a PPS.

Accuracy has not been a problem with any of them, though I prefer the PPS.

The PM9 had pretty lively recoil, with a slight twist to its motion, but it was not remotely painful. I put 400 rounds through it in one session, once, to see when it might start acting up. (Edit: I don't recommend more than 250 rounds without cleaning a PM9.)

The PX4 is a bit too thick for ideal concealability, IMO, as the Compact isn't much bigger than the Subcompact, and is the better shooter of the two. That said, the Subcompact isn't unpleasant, and is accurate enough.

The PPS is a very easy shooter.

I've only shot one LC9, but it was no big deal. Shot the center X out of the target at 7 yards on the first try.

I suspect some of the people who complain about small 9s probably don't shoot all that much - kind of the opposite of your bandwagon theory.

Are bigger guns easier to shoot? Quite often, yes - though other factors do come into play (grip fit, trigger reach, trigger itself, sights, bore axis, etc).

Does that make small guns bad shooters? Not necessarily.

 

[shep854]

BlueTrain, I hope I wasn't sounding as if I were trying to put words in your keyboard , I simply shared my takeaway from your statement. The fact is, full-size, single-stack 9mm pistols are rather large for what they do. They look as if they are very comfortable, reliable guns, but when the double-stack models started showing up, the single-stacks became a niche pistol, for enthusiasts or those limited by law to a low mag capacity.
For size/payload, the 3913 is more efficient than a 39. The same point can be made for 6913s compared to 69s. The current crop of mini/micro 9mms show just how small a gun can be made that has respectable firepower (for lack of a better word)

 

[RBid]

Burner and MLeake,

I had a very hard time being consistently accurate with the LC9, and I shoot about 150 rounds a week. The issue for me is large palms, and average size fingers. My hand shifts during the trigger pull, right before the break. I know it's coming, so I can avoid it, but it takes some doing. I had an easier time with the PF-9, which I suspect is due to the slight difference in trigger.

I know that I'm not alone in this. I have seen and heard the same sentiment on various boards, YouTube reviews, and in conversation with locals who have shot the LC9.

 

[MLeake]

RBid, I have fairly large palms and long fingers. For whatever reason, the LC9 didn't bother me.

I don't prefer it, personally, but it's not what I'd consider abusive.

 

[spodwo]

PM9 is a pretty soft shooter. I know it's softer to shoot than my S&W snubby in .38 special with 158g bullets. I forgot how snappy that can be.

That Kahr, for it's size, is great to shoot. The only thing I did was add a rubber wrap around grip.

 

[BillCA]

For size/payload, the 3913 is more efficient than a 39. The same point can be made for 6913s compared to 69s. The current crop of mini/micro 9mms show just how small a gun can be made that has respectable firepower (for lack of a better word)

In one sense, I can agree with your point. The other factor here is how concealable the double-stack guns are vs. the single-stacks. For some of us, different body shapes make concealing a double-stack grip much more difficult. The single-stack's slimness means it's much easier to hide.

I wish I had video camera when we did this, but I used an IWB holster to conceal a Beretta 92FS under a loose (ugly) Hawaiian shirt. Even with the pattern to help break up the outline, it was quite obvious that there was something there. But when it was replaced by the older M1951 Brigadier single-stack, it was considerably more difficult to see any kind of outline.

M1951 Beretta Brigadier single stack

Are bigger guns easier to shoot? Quite often, yes - though other factors do come into play (grip fit, trigger reach, trigger itself, sights, bore axis, etc).

Does that make small guns bad shooters? Not necessarily.

I believe most poor shooting scores with small guns are due to compromises the shooter makes in the fit of the gun to the hand. It was shown several decades ago that the small S&W "Chiefs Special" guns could keep under a 2" circle at 50 yards (with proper elevation). Quality made small autos are not much different.

Oddly enough, small hands don't always do well with small guns. A friend's hands were as small as her 12 year old daughter, yet she could not shoot well with a Baby Browning .25, a Walther PPK, or a Charter Arms .32. A Colt .380 Gov't was okay, but not a Kahr K-9. Surprisingly she liked the feel of the Beretta 92 the best and shot it very well. The lesson here is that each person should shoot a pistol that comfortably fits their hand.

 

[shep854]

BillCA, excellent points. Regarding the J-frames, I am amazed that anyone can do anything with guns wearing the original tiny 'lemon-peel' grips. I don't think I could make them work, even with a J-frame .22!

With guns, one size absolutely does not fit all!!

 

[seeker_two]

BillCA: I definitely agree with the kudos for the 39-series S&W's.....but I also have to point out that my XD9sc can hold 12 rounds of 9mm in a grip frame 1/2 the length. That was my tipping point....that, and the XD9sc can take the XD mags, which can give me a full-size grip for range practice.

Not slamming anyone's choice....just pointing out some thoughts....

 

[BillCA]

Seeker,

Thanks for the kudos. Oddly enough, it was magazine compatibility between the two 39 series guns that sold me on the 3914NL. I've never felt at much of a disadvantage with 9 rounds and 16 more to back it up and I do prefer the thinner grip for CCW.

 

[tobnpr]

I carry a CZ-82, IWB as my every-day carry.
I like thirteen rounds- but I need to dress to conceal it. Heavy Polo shirt...T-shirt won't cut it.

OTOH, my wife's LC-9- at half the weight, and much thinner because of the single stack, can be concealed with a T-shirt, and I forget it's there sometimes. I never "forget" I'm wearing the CZ...

Living in FL, there's no such thing as carrying OWB for me, and the light clothing makes all the difference in what you can carry and still conceal it.

 

[CWKahrFan]

You're my hero, tobnpr... I love my CZ82 but rarely carry it due to weight compared with my polys... But my hat's off to you. When I do carry it, aside from the weight, it feels great... Big fan!

 

[mightyoakwildlife]

Two of the things which drive the market are: what people want, and what the producers want people to have. In an ideal situation, both forces come together as the same.

Long ago, I worked part-time for a dept. that transitioned from revolvers to (gasp!) autos. We didn't want them, for the most part, but they made such a compelling offer (armorer support & training, spare parts, transitional training, outrageous pricing were all part of the package) that the bean-counters convinced the Town Board and Chief to give them a trial period. The producers wanted us to have their product. Once the transition was complete and we all began carrying the new-fangled things, individual Officers and many Locals all started to consider them a viable choice for personal purchase. The "market" then wanted what the producers had to offer. Once sated, the producers offered variations, based on words from the street or ideas from the drawing room. They produced, we bought, we wanted more. To justify these changes, they are called, "improvements". Are they needed? No. Can they be justified, and they truely do anything better? Probably. Could we do without them, as mass-produced incarnations of an earlier model? Yeah, I think so.

When all the makers offer their version of the same thing, something is changed. We somehow find a niche for it, covince others to try it, and it becomes fashionable. The cycle repeats itself regularly. The earlier examples I remember from the category of micro-compact (at least that's what they were called then) pistols include the Seecamp, Walther PPK, and the Devil. Very small following in that time, but worth a small mint today.

 

[BlueTrain]

Generally speaking, military establishments do not change many things very often. Handguns in particular tend to have a long service life, even when they are used in wars. The army's 1911 model was used for around 70 years. The German army's P08 was in production for over 30 years, some for export, and it was in use in some places until replaced by Glocks.

Police departments for some reason seem to replace their standard firearm more often, possibly because they are often seen as personally owned weapons, possibly for other reasons.

Finally, ordinary civilians want to replace their favorite with something new every couple of years, just like their car.

 

[BillCA]

Police departments for some reason seem to replace their standard firearm more often, possibly because they are often seen as personally owned weapons, possibly for other reasons.

Some of the reasons departments change their issue firearms are....

• Mechanical failures over time. If a gun shows to be prone to a certain type of failure over time and the agency isn't satisfied with the maker's response, it's time for another RFP and new guns.
• Inadequate caliber performance. Several failures to stop the perp with reasonable hits; poor performance against certain barriers; poor training/shooting scores.
• Higher than predicted maintenance costs.
• Abnormal accidental discharges.
• Higher than normal training costs.
• High malfunction rate during firing.
• Poor accuracy

Unlike the military, the handgun is the police officer's primary weapon. It must work properly and do so with the lowest "overhead" in maintenance and upkeep.

It seems to be normal that after about 8-10 years, departments either purchase newer models of the same gun or they re-examine the offerings available. In either case, it's a good opportunity to renegotiate existing support contracts for repair, maintenance and training. It is often these support contracts that determine the TCO and purchasing decisions.


*TCO Total Cost of Ownership

 

[Shadi Khalil]

I much prefer single stack autos. The slim grips always almost fit my hand better while many double stacks (especially in .45) are just too thick for me.

 

[dalegribble]

we have gone full circle. once upon a time people had to carry guns with as few as 5 rounds. then someone thought a double stack mag would increase the ammo count 2 or 3 times. a whole new generation of pistols were born. generation 1,2,3,4 were born because people were told they needed 10 or 15 shots in a magazine to be able to protect themselves. how could you responsibly protect yourself or your family unless your gun held 10 or 15 rounds?

now people say you need a lighter slimer more concealable gun to protect yourself. it seems we now need a gun that weighs less to make sure we will carry it where ever we go. so now we are told we need to carry lighter guns. we are also told that high capacity guns are like trying to hide a brick when we are CC. so now we are told we need single stack semi's that are alot thinner so we can hide them more easily. so now we are back to where we started, carrying 5 to 7 round guns that we are told are better suited for cc protection.

so just when we were told we finally had the perfect gun we are now told it is to big/thick/heavy and we now need smaller, lighter guns with fewer bullets in order to protect ourselves properly. i wonder whats next?

 

[shep854]

BillCA; don't forget Fed grants and inter-department envy/rivalry.

 

[BillCA]

Thanks Shep, that's another series of factors.

PD's don't always buy what's best, they buy from who makes the best deal.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Yeah, basically they are generally willing to go with any reputable gun manufacturer who a good deal on a firearm with a reasonable caliber which often means being Glock, Sig, Beretta in 9mm, .357 sign, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP with a certain bias downward to 9mm if going with just a singular caliber. Calculated into the deal are going to be how much the company is willing to pay for buybacks of current gun models and what sort of parts/parts service policy and repair training that will be provided.