Posted: 12/18/2008 3:29:10 AM EDT
Okay, forgive me for the lack of knowing but is Glock planning a 19SF or 17SF? I have read some references to that. I just got to handle a 21 SF at a local shop...
I used to have a few Glocks..17,17L,19,21, 34 etc...I liked them but they did not fit my hand at all. For me the SF changes how it fits my hand, I might get back in to Glocks hard if this is true. Thanks! |
|
Quoted:
There were no 19 or 17 SF's made. They were 19 and 17 MB's designating the ambi mag release and they were released in Europe. SF denotes the short frame which is unnecessary in the 9mm guns. Bradd you're absolutely right. The backstrap of the grip was not altered but they did have the ambi mag release. A European GT member posted pictures of his G19 a while back. |
|
this is the pic I've posted a few months ago
this pic show the differences between a standard G19 and newer G19 MB.
- of course the ambi mag release; - new ambi magazine that will work with "old" glock since the cut on the side is still there; - new slide stop lever (b); - new mag follower; new MB frames wont be marked "MB" on the side like SF frames are.  |
|
Ok...thanks for the info guys.
Quoted:
There were no 19 or 17 SF's made. They were 19 and 17 MB's designating the ambi mag release and they were released in Europe. SF denotes the short frame which is unnecessary in the 9mm guns. Bradd...I would tend to disagree...respectfully. The 17/19 sit poorly in my hand compared to Sigs,1911's,Hi-Powers etc. The 21SF sits the same way. I would be all over a 17SF. I will grab this used/new 21SF at the shop. |
|
Quoted:
Ok...thanks for the info guys. Quoted:
There were no 19 or 17 SF's made. They were 19 and 17 MB's designating the ambi mag release and they were released in Europe. SF denotes the short frame which is unnecessary in the 9mm guns. Bradd...I would tend to disagree...respectfully. The 17/19 sit poorly in my hand compared to Sigs,1911's,Hi-Powers etc. The 21SF sits the same way. I would be all over a 17SF. I will grab this used/new 21SF at the shop. I think the SF would be a good addition to the glock 9/40 family. One of the reasons the XD does so well is that it has a great grip and a more natural grip angle |
|
Quoted:
Ok...thanks for the info guys. Quoted:
There were no 19 or 17 SF's made. They were 19 and 17 MB's designating the ambi mag release and they were released in Europe. SF denotes the short frame which is unnecessary in the 9mm guns. Bradd...I would tend to disagree...respectfully. The 17/19 sit poorly in my hand compared to Sigs,1911's,Hi-Powers etc. The 21SF sits the same way. I would be all over a 17SF. I will grab this used/new 21SF at the shop. The more I read on forums that more I come to the conclusion, I have some big a$$ hands or something. I can't imagine the G17 grip not fitting even the smallest hands. I thought the G21 fit me fine but I picked up a G21SF at a store to check out the hype - and damn to me its perfect. To me a single stack 1911 is too small without big grip panels on it. I wish to hell Glock would kick out a G20SF soon as I really don't want to "make" one. |
No, interchangeable backstraps do in fact suck. If you like 'em, great.
I believe in mastering the weapon as it is, not using gimmicks to force the weapon to conform to my individual hand shape. A grip reduction would be in order for those who absolutely cannot master their individual grip on a Glock. |
|
I dont think the compact frames (G19/23) have much to give with regard to reducing the backstrap dimensions. Not a whole lot to reduce there.
I believe though that the G17/G22 frames would benefit from this though as the backstrap (hump) on these is rather large. The trigger reach is also slightly longer on the G17/22 frames than on the G19/23. Reducing the upper portion of the backstrap on these larger frames could be a good thing. Then again, I say this only because i dont have large hands, and part of the reason for the full sized pistol is for people with larger hands. I do know several people with large hands though that feel the hump on the G17/22 is still a bit too large for their taste. I agree with Glock not having interchangeable backstraps. |
|
I have very small hands and my G17 fit me pretty damn well. I think that this would be cool for people with small hand like me, and I would snap one up for sure. That said I don't think it is necessary. The standard frame is pretty much GTG as is, I'd just like to get a gen 2 17 or 19. Both of those fit even better for me.
my .02 Derek. |
|
If they'd make SF across the board I'd probably buy more than just my 21SF. Then maybe some of us with what are apparently freakishly large hands could use them without chunks coming out of our fists. I've had a 17, a 19, a 31 (by far the worst because of the recoil), and used to be forced to carry a 22 at work (finally got out of it when I proved the damn thing was biting me!) and they all took nasty chunks of flesh off my hand whenever I pulled the trigger. I'm not talking little scrapes, but actual missing pieces of flesh. As soon as I started shooting a 21SF this all stopped, thanks to my hand not being shoved up the back of the gun by the hump. I suppose I could get a backstrap reduction done, but I prefer not to mess with a Glock as it's nearly perfect the way it is and I figure dinking around might mess something up. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, they won't be doing SF for the smaller frame guns. Unecessary. Interchangeable backstraps suck. +1 but seriously.... http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o21/tr1290/Smilies/hugeretard.gif 
|