Posted: 8/27/2016 11:50:02 AM EDT
|
I currently have some of both full and mid size handguns. Overall, I have to say that I prefer midsize handguns and kind of see no point in a full size anymore. I shoot them equally, the mid size are easier to carry and lighter, and they just seem to fit my had perfectly (I have large hands.) The only benefit I see is capacity 12-15 in mid size vs 17-20 in full size. (9mm)
Does anyone else feel this way about mid size handguns? Or am I missing something when it comes to full size? |
| With more modern designs ( glock 17/19,sig 226/228 etc) you do not give up anything by going mid size. Up to recently living in a communist state cap was limited to ten anyway so that was not a factor. Even now in a free state I still do not feel the extra couple rounds in the full size is worth the trade off.every carry gun is a compromise wether it be size caliber capacity or such. I am pretty content with a glock 26 and a spare mag ( which is now a 15 rounder) I found no difference in how accurate or fast I was shooting the 17,19&26. The only place I still prefer full size is in the gov sized 1911. |
|
Midsize is the new full size. I keep debating if I need to get a bigger gun to compliment my G26. But I think I shoot it as well, pretty much, as any full sized gun I ever had. I think. I need to do a bit more testing. The big question falls to capacity and velocity, at distance. Capacity can be solved with the larger guns mags, in a G26, but velocity at distance, I'm not sure it's quite the same and you may gain something from a full sized gun. But then again it might just have more to do with bullet performance at lower velocities. Very few ballistic gel tests are conducted at any distance over spitting distances.
|
|
From a CCW perspective mid sized/compact guns are probably as big as you would want to go. I can conceal a full size 1911, but I don't do it very often anymore. From a duty gun perspective where concealability isn't a concern then a full size, or larger (I.E. G34/35/41), are still relevant and a better choice due to increased capacity and one can argue a longer sight radius. <ETA> I CCW a sub-compact most of the time now. Going up to a mid sized/compact gun feels like I might as well be carrying a full size but that's just because of what I've become accustomed to. |
|
There is a place for both. But for conceal carry the G19/23 is about as big as is needed or is practical. Sure you can carry the full sized guns but the trade offs are not worth it.
Now for law enforcement and open carry, go full sized. It gives you sight radius and a touch more velocity. |
|
Quoted:
I will probably regret this but in your opinion why are they worthless ? Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm strictly Full Size, G17, P226, 92fs, etc... Mid size guns are pointless! I will probably regret this but in your opinion why are they worthless ? |
|
Depends on your needs. The Navy Seals are moving to the Glock 19. Why? Because it fills two roles: Concealed carry when needed and secondary firearm when they have a long gun. The write up explaining why used the term "operator sized" rather than "duty sized". When it is a secondary they would rather it take up less space and weigh less.
If you are a police officer, your sidearm will be your primary weapon 98% of the time. You may be called on to make precise shots at distance. In that case a full sized handgun may make more sense. If you are shooting competition, you probably want the increased sight radius of a full sized gun. For me, the main purpose of a handgun is as a concealed carry weapon. For me, I lean toward Glock 26 sized handguns with the Glock 19 and SIG p320 compact being on the larger size of what I carry. Even when I take a rifle class, I'll just keep my ccw piece on me for transitions because realistically that is what I will have on me. That said my favorite two handguns to shoot are my Glock 17L and SIG p226, but they rarely get carried. So what you have discovered is what your needs are. For your purposes, compact handguns are a better fit. |
|
Quoted:
Depends on your needs. The Navy Seals are moving to the Glock 19. Why? Because it fills two roles: Concealed carry when needed and secondary firearm when they have a long gun. The write up explaining why used the term "operator sized" rather than "duty sized". When it is a secondary they would rather it take up less space and weigh less. If you are a police officer, your sidearm will be your primary weapon 98% of the time. You may be called on to make precise shots at distance. In that case a full sized handgun may make more sense. If you are shooting competition, you probably want the increased sight radius of a full sized gun. For me, the main purpose of a handgun is as a concealed carry weapon. For me, I lean toward Glock 26 sized handguns with the Glock 19 and SIG p320 compact being on the larger size of what I carry. Even when I take a rifle class, I'll just keep my ccw piece on me for transitions because realistically that is what I will have on me. That said my favorite two handguns to shoot are my Glock 17L and SIG p226, but they rarely get carried. So what you have discovered is what your needs are. For your purposes, compact handguns are a better fit. Yep, what he said. As a police officer my duty weapon is full sized. When I work details where a rifle is my primary, I run a Glock 19 which is also one of my off duty carries. I also carry a 19 for court, plain clothes, etc. So for CCW or secondary weapon I like a compact. When it's most likely to be a primary weapon system, I will take every advantage a full size offers even though it is very slight (capacity, sight radius, etc.) |
|
Midsize.
Glock 19 is my standard for ideal pistol dimensions. After I get a another one, I am also going to add a CZ 75 compact as that has similar dimensions and will go nicely with my SP01s. If I get another 45, it will be a USP Compact, or 45C, also because of the dimensions. |
| I personally like the mid-size for concealed carry, specifically my G19. It's small enough, for me anyway, that I can conceal it easily even under just a Tshirt without printing, but it's large enough that there's plenty of real estate for my fairly large hands to get ahold of when I draw and shoot. I can't see myself carrying anything small, and may even go larger when the weather gets cooler and clothing allows. |
|
"From a duty gun perspective where concealability isn't a concern then a full size, or larger (I.E. G34/35/41), are still relevant and a better choice due to increased capacity and one can argue a longer sight radius."
-- Capacity might be an argument, though most mids can carry a full size mag (and some, like the P320, have a mid-slide and a full-grip option). However, I'm wondering if the 0.5"-1.25" in sight radius REALLY helps much. It SEEMS like it would, but some of the best shooters I know say they draw AND transition faster with the mid (and even shorter) slides. I even remember a guy on here who ran his 26, 19, and 17 (34?), and was surprised that he did as good or better with the 26 (in accuracy and speed). I'm not a super duper miculek shooter, but I don't see any difference between my 19 and my 17 in accuracy (*), which is why I've been THINKING about trying a 34. I also didn't see any difference between my P320 Compact and my P320 FS. * -- I had no problem ringing 10x12 steel at 50Y with the 19 or the 17 (though, oddly, my POA for the 19 needed to be low, at the base of the plate). -- The only advantages that pop to mind as obvious are in FPS of the round, and (I assume) the extra weight of a FS helps control the gun if you're shooting the same target multiple times. |
|
Mid size for me hits the sweet spot. I carry either a G19 or G30s and find them to be the right blend of capacity and concealability. I shoot them better than the 26 or 17 size, and they take all the larger capacity mags if you need them to.
With modern handgun and holster systems, I can comfortably and discreetly carry a G19 w/spare 17rd mag every day with no issues. |
|
Quoted:
Mid size for me hits the sweet spot. I carry either a G19 or G30s and find them to be the right blend of capacity and concealability. I shoot them better than the 26 or 17 size, and they take all the larger capacity mags if you need them to. With modern handgun and holster systems, I can comfortably and discreetly carry a G19 w/spare 17rd mag every day with no issues. One gun cannot do it all everyday. |
|
I carry either a G19 or G17 depending on weather, season, clothing, etc. I have 2 G19s, and 2 G19 magazines. Every extra mag i own is a G17 mag. the only place i want a 15 round mag is in the gun for concealed carry, after that, there is zero benefit to having a "standard" G19 magazine in my opinion. I'm planning on some ETS 22 rounders to serve as backup mags for carry.
For most shooting i do (IDPA) i prefer the full size G17 for a few reasons: 1) I actually do shoot it better -- i think this is largely because it always has a TLR1 on it and that allows my support and thumb a very positive shelf to hold to (big hands, more on that next) 2) the G19 (Gen 2) with the size of my hands (big, not fat, but big) ends up allowing the meat of my hand to press over the side of the magazine base plate, often times preventing it form dropping free. I regularly have to strip the G19 mag from the G19. This is not an issue when running G17 mags in the G19. The only place I like the G19, is its slightly increased conceal-ability. I carry Appendix and am a pretty slim frame guy -- 6'3'' 180 lbs, athletic build. I'm looking at swapping my Gen 2 frame at Glock for a Gen 3 so i can carry with a weapon light all the time, or getting another Gen 3 17 and trimming the grip down to G19 length. All that to say, it's not an either or discussion to me. I like having both. But if i had to choose, I'd go with a G19 with a rail. |
|
Quoted:
FIFY Quoted:
Quoted:
I prefer full size, or at least ones that I can get my whole hand onto. My main carry guns are M&P 9mm service models. It's practically the same size as a G19G17 but I don't hate shooting them like I did my G19. FIFY It's within a half inch of the dimensions of either but the M&P feels and carries like a much smaller gun than the G17 for some reason. |
| I think the slide is shorter on the M&P 9 than the 17. More like a 19. But the grip is closer to the 17. The grip is what gets me when carrying. It just sticks out so far when I'm not standing up perfectly straight. And if I'm sitting in the car it digs into my back. Anyways.... I always thought the M&P was kind of a funky set up. But the grip is so much rounder it might feel smaller. |
I'm a 1911 guy and prefer the 45ACP Commander size in the LW versions. I have a bad back and when it won't let me carry that much weight I carry a Ruger 9mm LW Commander. When that's too much weight then I carry a S&W 9mm Shield. With good shot placement the 9mm will do just fine. But I do prefer the 45ACPs!! 
|
|
Quoted:
There is nothing modern about appendix carry, it's been done since the days of black powder one shots. A modern gun has nothing to do with it. Either it works or it doesn't. Some it does, for others like me, it will never. One gun cannot do it all everyday. Quoted:
Quoted:
Mid size for me hits the sweet spot. I carry either a G19 or G30s and find them to be the right blend of capacity and concealability. I shoot them better than the 26 or 17 size, and they take all the larger capacity mags if you need them to. With modern handgun and holster systems, I can comfortably and discreetly carry a G19 w/spare 17rd mag every day with no issues. One gun cannot do it all everyday. Not to be nit-picky, but I never mentioned appendix carry. I assume you've seen me mention it other threads, and yes it is how i carry 98% of the time, but here I never said anything about appendix being for everybody or better than any other position. You are also correct about a modern gun having nothing to do with it, my father in law carries a full size 1911 and spare mag everyday in a run of the mill kydex holster and mag carrier. My statement about todays gun & holster systems was more about advancements in making the whole package more concealable than anything else. |
| Full size is the best size, anything else is a compromise in order to conceal. If you can comfortably conceal a full size, then I would say go with that. But generally speaking most don't feel they can conceal a full size with ease. So the full size is used for home defense and target shooting and duty pistols and roles like that. While the compacts are used for conceal carry. The smaller you go, the less grip you have, the less velocity you have, the lower capacity, more felt recoil and muzzle flip. Basically all negatives for the single sole positive of easier conceal carry. So I always say carry the largest gun you feel comfortable with. For many it's the little single stack 9mm or 380acp pistols on the market. For me it's something like a Glock 19 or Commander 1911. I still carry little pocket guns when going on dates and trying to be more discreet. But yeah know your millage may vary ;) |