I have finally given up on Glocks! (Page 5 of 5)
Member
Joined:
Jul 2024
Posts:
1365
EE: 100% (1)
TX, USA
|
Originally Posted By BrandonP: "naturally pointing" isn't a thing if you are going to practice enough to develop a strong index. Most people have such a poor grip that trying to "naturally" accommodate it is counterproductive. These are the same people that complain about red dots by the way. I could absolutely buy some argument about presentation consistency or how the gun tracks under recoil but that's not what people are saying. They're saying "the gun just needs to fit my current index" which implies that they aren't thinking that their index is going to change with the ergonomics or additional practice that refines that index (it will). Came here to make this same point and you have done it far better than I could have. |
|
Originally Posted By BrandonP: "naturally pointing" isn't a thing if you are going to practice enough to develop a strong index. Most people have such a poor grip that trying to "naturally" accommodate it is counterproductive. These are the same people that complain about red dots by the way. I could absolutely buy some argument about presentation consistency or how the gun tracks under recoil but that's not what people are saying. They're saying "the gun just needs to fit my current index" which implies that they aren't thinking that their index is going to change with the ergonomics or additional practice that refines that index (it will). Originally Posted By BrandonP: "naturally pointing" isn't a thing if you are going to practice enough to develop a strong index. Most people have such a poor grip that trying to "naturally" accommodate it is counterproductive. These are the same people that complain about red dots by the way. I could absolutely buy some argument about presentation consistency or how the gun tracks under recoil but that's not what people are saying. They're saying "the gun just needs to fit my current index" which implies that they aren't thinking that their index is going to change with the ergonomics or additional practice that refines that index (it will). I feel like there's really two separate issues here. There's naturally pointing and there's consistent presentation. As I said before, it is common that many people find a 1911 to be naturally pointing and a common complaint with the Glock is the grip angle which may cause discomfort. With training and practice, someone can develop a good consistent presentation on a gun that they do not find to be naturally pointing or a gun that they find to be naturally pointing. At the end of the day, someone training to have consistent presentation with a gun that does not point naturally is training against what his/her body wants to do. And there could be additional benefits to that such as better split times or recoil control. If that's what someone prefers, it is certainly their right to own a Glock and they should. And the presentation consistency has been what we've been talking about to an extent: Originally Posted By NN300BLK: I’m not anti-Glock, I’ve even defended them to a point in this thread. But I do think pre-Gen 6 had less than ideal ergonomics that weren’t competing well with some of the alternatives. The grip angle still isn’t my cup of tea, with me being accustomed to the 1911 grip angle and owning multiple firearms with that grip angle. This is a personal preference. But even with the improvements in Gen 6, I simply don’t see them being better than other pistols’ ergonomics— rather I suspect they’re still playing catch up to an extent, especially in the world of FCU guns with interchangeable grip modules. Originally Posted By ShaggyNuckles: I am not sure naturally pointing is a stupid concept and most of the segment has moved from a very function over form design philosophy of central Europe of the 70's to a more user friendly interface. nobody that dry fires buys a non glock and comes to the conclusion that oh wow, this points nicely, i dont need to dry fire anymore. its something you do or dont do. its not platformed based. |
|
Originally Posted By NN300BLK: I feel like there's really two separate issues here. There's naturally pointing and there's consistent presentation. As I said before, it is common that many people find a 1911 to be naturally pointing and a common complaint with the Glock is the grip angle which may cause discomfort. With training and practice, someone can develop a good consistent presentation on a gun that they do not find to be naturally pointing or a gun that they find to be naturally pointing. At the end of the day, someone training to have consistent presentation with a gun that does not point naturally is training against what his/her body wants to do. And there could be additional benefits to that such as better split times or recoil control. If that's what someone prefers, it is certainly their right to own a Glock and they should. And the presentation consistency has been what we've been talking about to an extent: You're not understanding my point about "naturally pointing." If you are consistently doing productive dry fire, and testing yourself live with a timer in both static drills and movement, you will find that your index will develop over time. What you are saying with "naturally pointing" is that you don't like the way the gun indexes *right now*. I am saying that most peoples' "right now" index is not worth considering in the buying process because it isn't very developed to begin with. What you quoted about consistency has nothing to do with a consistent tracking. What I am saying is, when I fire predictive doubles with the gun for example, does the dot return to the same position every time? Does it track straight up and down like a bouncing ball? Does it dip past the target or does it not quite get all the way there? These may seem subtle but some guns just aren't spring the way you like them, which is why I traded my G34 (tracking too slow) for a g47 (snappier but dot returns to eye target line every time). By contrast presentation consistency would be, "how accurately and repeatably does the dot go to the same place relative to my eye target line on the draw." I'm hesitant to even consider this because to some degree it's still related to index, but let's say the dot is barely in the window because your index isn't "naturally pointing" for the gun, as long as it's consistently in the same place that would be consistent presentation. |
|
Originally Posted By BrandonP: You're not understanding my point about "naturally pointing." If you are consistently doing productive dry fire, and testing yourself live with a timer in both static drills and movement, you will find that your index will develop over time. What you are saying with "naturally pointing" is that you don't like the way the gun indexes *right now*. I am saying that most peoples' "right now" index is not worth considering in the buying process because it isn't very developed to begin with. What you quoted about consistency has nothing to do with a consistent tracking. What I am saying is, when I fire predictive doubles with the gun for example, does the dot return to the same position every time? Does it track straight up and down like a bouncing ball? Does it dip past the target or does it not quite get all the way there? These may seem subtle but some guns just aren't spring the way you like them, which is why I traded my G34 (tracking too slow) for a g47 (snappier but dot returns to eye target line every time). By contrast presentation consistency would be, "how accurately and repeatably does the dot go to the same place relative to my eye target line on the draw." I'm hesitant to even consider this because to some degree it's still related to index, but let's say the dot is barely in the window because your index isn't "naturally pointing" for the gun, as long as it's consistently in the same place that would be consistent presentation. Originally Posted By BrandonP: Originally Posted By NN300BLK: I feel like there's really two separate issues here. There's naturally pointing and there's consistent presentation. As I said before, it is common that many people find a 1911 to be naturally pointing and a common complaint with the Glock is the grip angle which may cause discomfort. With training and practice, someone can develop a good consistent presentation on a gun that they do not find to be naturally pointing or a gun that they find to be naturally pointing. At the end of the day, someone training to have consistent presentation with a gun that does not point naturally is training against what his/her body wants to do. And there could be additional benefits to that such as better split times or recoil control. If that's what someone prefers, it is certainly their right to own a Glock and they should. And the presentation consistency has been what we've been talking about to an extent: You're not understanding my point about "naturally pointing." If you are consistently doing productive dry fire, and testing yourself live with a timer in both static drills and movement, you will find that your index will develop over time. What you are saying with "naturally pointing" is that you don't like the way the gun indexes *right now*. I am saying that most peoples' "right now" index is not worth considering in the buying process because it isn't very developed to begin with. What you quoted about consistency has nothing to do with a consistent tracking. What I am saying is, when I fire predictive doubles with the gun for example, does the dot return to the same position every time? Does it track straight up and down like a bouncing ball? Does it dip past the target or does it not quite get all the way there? These may seem subtle but some guns just aren't spring the way you like them, which is why I traded my G34 (tracking too slow) for a g47 (snappier but dot returns to eye target line every time). By contrast presentation consistency would be, "how accurately and repeatably does the dot go to the same place relative to my eye target line on the draw." I'm hesitant to even consider this because to some degree it's still related to index, but let's say the dot is barely in the window because your index isn't "naturally pointing" for the gun, as long as it's consistently in the same place that would be consistent presentation. I agree. “Naturally pointing” matters for nothing if you plan to dryfire. I shot 1911s until I bought my first G19 and so I had to practice a bit. It very quickly became second nature as my index developed. Dryfire develops index and consistency which are keys to effortless shooting. Picking up a pistol, closing your eyes, and then presenting it to see if it “points naturally” is an inane “test” that really does nothing useful. It’s asking what your index may be with zero effort and is invalid once any training is conducted. I can consistently present the pistol where I’m aiming 1 ft in front of my feet and that’s still a consistent draw. It’s just that my index is doodoo so it’s not a good presentation. |
|
Originally Posted By King_Mud: I agree. “Naturally pointing” matters for nothing if you plan to dryfire. I shot 1911s until I bought my first G19 and so I had to practice a bit. It very quickly became second nature as my index developed. Dryfire develops index and consistency which are keys to effortless shooting. Picking up a pistol, closing your eyes, and then presenting it to see if it “points naturally” is an inane “test” that really does nothing useful. It’s asking what your index may be with zero effort and is invalid once any training is conducted. I can consistently present the pistol where I’m aiming 1 ft in front of my feet and that’s still a consistent draw. It’s just that my index is doodoo so it’s not a good presentation. Originally Posted By King_Mud: Originally Posted By BrandonP: Originally Posted By NN300BLK: I feel like there's really two separate issues here. There's naturally pointing and there's consistent presentation. As I said before, it is common that many people find a 1911 to be naturally pointing and a common complaint with the Glock is the grip angle which may cause discomfort. With training and practice, someone can develop a good consistent presentation on a gun that they do not find to be naturally pointing or a gun that they find to be naturally pointing. At the end of the day, someone training to have consistent presentation with a gun that does not point naturally is training against what his/her body wants to do. And there could be additional benefits to that such as better split times or recoil control. If that's what someone prefers, it is certainly their right to own a Glock and they should. And the presentation consistency has been what we've been talking about to an extent: You're not understanding my point about "naturally pointing." If you are consistently doing productive dry fire, and testing yourself live with a timer in both static drills and movement, you will find that your index will develop over time. What you are saying with "naturally pointing" is that you don't like the way the gun indexes *right now*. I am saying that most peoples' "right now" index is not worth considering in the buying process because it isn't very developed to begin with. What you quoted about consistency has nothing to do with a consistent tracking. What I am saying is, when I fire predictive doubles with the gun for example, does the dot return to the same position every time? Does it track straight up and down like a bouncing ball? Does it dip past the target or does it not quite get all the way there? These may seem subtle but some guns just aren't spring the way you like them, which is why I traded my G34 (tracking too slow) for a g47 (snappier but dot returns to eye target line every time). By contrast presentation consistency would be, "how accurately and repeatably does the dot go to the same place relative to my eye target line on the draw." I'm hesitant to even consider this because to some degree it's still related to index, but let's say the dot is barely in the window because your index isn't "naturally pointing" for the gun, as long as it's consistently in the same place that would be consistent presentation. I agree. “Naturally pointing” matters for nothing if you plan to dryfire. I shot 1911s until I bought my first G19 and so I had to practice a bit. It very quickly became second nature as my index developed. Dryfire develops index and consistency which are keys to effortless shooting. Picking up a pistol, closing your eyes, and then presenting it to see if it “points naturally” is an inane “test” that really does nothing useful. It’s asking what your index may be with zero effort and is invalid once any training is conducted. I can consistently present the pistol where I’m aiming 1 ft in front of my feet and that’s still a consistent draw. It’s just that my index is doodoo so it’s not a good presentation. This point is basically two parts: 1) that with practice and training, someone can train to be consistent in presentation and index with a firearm that is not naturally pointing for him/her; and 2) therefore, whether or not it is naturally pointing shouldn't matter. Is my understanding correct? I'm not disputing that first part and I agree. Someone can train to have a consistent presentation and index with the pistol if it is uncomfortable or not naturally pointing. The second I don't really agree with. Here's why. It doesn't change the fact that pistol is not naturally pointing for that person, and it is something that he/she has to train around. If he/she is training/practicing with a gun that is naturally pointing, he/she is still training/practicing his/her presentation and index. He/she is still developing muscle memory and skills. At the end of the day, the thread is about whether or not someone should stay with Glock if they don't like Glock and perhaps whether or not a new shooter should choose Glock over another brand. And now the majority of pistols (P320, M&P, Echelon, XD, etc.) have a more vertical grip angle than the Glock. Even Polymer 80 chose to use a 1911-ish grip angle on their serialized frames and on their kits. Ruger and Magpul split the difference with a 20.5 deg angle on the RXM. I would argue that for new shooters who like the 1911 grip angle over the Glock grip angle or people who have tried Glock and don't like Glock or haven't invested in that ecosystem, there's really no good reason to get a Glock. If someone likes Glock, then great! If someone likes another brand, then also great! |
|
The point about "naturally pointing" is it shouldn't be anywhere near a top priority when selecting a pistol. Yet for some reason, it's the #1 piece of advice given on the internet, "go find one that fits your hand." Lol, yeah disregard literally everything else...let's go by the feels of someone who has no idea what to look for. I have heard of people getting tendonitis with certain guns, but let's say that's not the usual. If you own any pistol for more than a week or so and it doesn't point naturally, you aren't practicing enough. Which makes sense because most people don't dry fire correctly ever. That is the point about "naturally pointing." It's mostly irrelevant. If I hear that it's important, I'm hearing a lot about that person's level of commitment and skill as well. |
|
Originally Posted By NN300BLK: This point is basically two parts: 1) that with practice and training, someone can train to be consistent in presentation and index with a firearm that is not naturally pointing for him/her; and 2) therefore, whether or not it is naturally pointing shouldn't matter. Is my understanding correct? I'm not disputing that first part and I agree. Someone can train to have a consistent presentation and index with the pistol if it is uncomfortable or not naturally pointing. The second I don't really agree with. Here's why. It doesn't change the fact that pistol is not naturally pointing for that person, and it is something that he/she has to train around. If he/she is training/practicing with a gun that is naturally pointing, he/she is still training/practicing his/her presentation and index. He/she is still developing muscle memory and skills. At the end of the day, the thread is about whether or not someone should stay with Glock if they don't like Glock and perhaps whether or not a new shooter should choose Glock over another brand. And now the majority of pistols (P320, M&P, Echelon, XD, etc.) have a more vertical grip angle than the Glock. Even Polymer 80 chose to use a 1911-ish grip angle on their serialized frames and on their kits. Ruger and Magpul split the difference with a 20.5 deg angle on the RXM. I would argue that for new shooters who like the 1911 grip angle over the Glock grip angle or people who have tried Glock and don't like Glock or haven't invested in that ecosystem, there's really no good reason to get a Glock. If someone likes Glock, then great! If someone likes another brand, then also great! Originally Posted By NN300BLK: Originally Posted By King_Mud: Originally Posted By BrandonP: Originally Posted By NN300BLK: I feel like there's really two separate issues here. There's naturally pointing and there's consistent presentation. As I said before, it is common that many people find a 1911 to be naturally pointing and a common complaint with the Glock is the grip angle which may cause discomfort. With training and practice, someone can develop a good consistent presentation on a gun that they do not find to be naturally pointing or a gun that they find to be naturally pointing. At the end of the day, someone training to have consistent presentation with a gun that does not point naturally is training against what his/her body wants to do. And there could be additional benefits to that such as better split times or recoil control. If that's what someone prefers, it is certainly their right to own a Glock and they should. And the presentation consistency has been what we've been talking about to an extent: You're not understanding my point about "naturally pointing." If you are consistently doing productive dry fire, and testing yourself live with a timer in both static drills and movement, you will find that your index will develop over time. What you are saying with "naturally pointing" is that you don't like the way the gun indexes *right now*. I am saying that most peoples' "right now" index is not worth considering in the buying process because it isn't very developed to begin with. What you quoted about consistency has nothing to do with a consistent tracking. What I am saying is, when I fire predictive doubles with the gun for example, does the dot return to the same position every time? Does it track straight up and down like a bouncing ball? Does it dip past the target or does it not quite get all the way there? These may seem subtle but some guns just aren't spring the way you like them, which is why I traded my G34 (tracking too slow) for a g47 (snappier but dot returns to eye target line every time). By contrast presentation consistency would be, "how accurately and repeatably does the dot go to the same place relative to my eye target line on the draw." I'm hesitant to even consider this because to some degree it's still related to index, but let's say the dot is barely in the window because your index isn't "naturally pointing" for the gun, as long as it's consistently in the same place that would be consistent presentation. I agree. “Naturally pointing” matters for nothing if you plan to dryfire. I shot 1911s until I bought my first G19 and so I had to practice a bit. It very quickly became second nature as my index developed. Dryfire develops index and consistency which are keys to effortless shooting. Picking up a pistol, closing your eyes, and then presenting it to see if it “points naturally” is an inane “test” that really does nothing useful. It’s asking what your index may be with zero effort and is invalid once any training is conducted. I can consistently present the pistol where I’m aiming 1 ft in front of my feet and that’s still a consistent draw. It’s just that my index is doodoo so it’s not a good presentation. This point is basically two parts: 1) that with practice and training, someone can train to be consistent in presentation and index with a firearm that is not naturally pointing for him/her; and 2) therefore, whether or not it is naturally pointing shouldn't matter. Is my understanding correct? I'm not disputing that first part and I agree. Someone can train to have a consistent presentation and index with the pistol if it is uncomfortable or not naturally pointing. The second I don't really agree with. Here's why. It doesn't change the fact that pistol is not naturally pointing for that person, and it is something that he/she has to train around. If he/she is training/practicing with a gun that is naturally pointing, he/she is still training/practicing his/her presentation and index. He/she is still developing muscle memory and skills. At the end of the day, the thread is about whether or not someone should stay with Glock if they don't like Glock and perhaps whether or not a new shooter should choose Glock over another brand. And now the majority of pistols (P320, M&P, Echelon, XD, etc.) have a more vertical grip angle than the Glock. Even Polymer 80 chose to use a 1911-ish grip angle on their serialized frames and on their kits. Ruger and Magpul split the difference with a 20.5 deg angle on the RXM. I would argue that for new shooters who like the 1911 grip angle over the Glock grip angle or people who have tried Glock and don't like Glock or haven't invested in that ecosystem, there's really no good reason to get a Glock. If someone likes Glock, then great! If someone likes another brand, then also great! My point is that "naturally pointing" is as important as coming in a color that matches your handbag that day. You CAN select for that but that criteria is entirely invalid once any amount of training is done. It's right up there with "Give the lady a 38 Airweight. That's what women need" as far as advice that should go away UNLESS this will be a pistol that is purchased and fired maybe once a year at the family Thanksgiving dirtclod shoot or something. I'm not trying to be rude but index develops very quickly and "naturally pointing" will be rapidly eclipsed by 5 minutes of dryfire a day (probably per week) and any perceived advantage of that selection will be completely overshadowed by a modicum of effort. I don't really care what anyone buys but "naturally pointing" shouldn't be a part of the conversation. ETA: Just don't buy a P320. 
|
|
I don't believe that ergonomics are trivial. Can people work with or train around sub-optimal ergonomics? Of course, I've never disputed that. But why do so? It's not 2000 anymore; there are a lot of good pistol choices on the market. So, what really separates a Glock from all of the other choices anymore? Cheap mags? Okay, Glock mostly wins there. But AMAGs for the P320 and P365 are pretty reasonably priced. XD mags are pretty cheap. And how much cheaper are factory Glock magazines at the end of the day from a place like GunMag Warehouse than other major brands? Maybe 10-15 bucks. And it's not like Glock mags are inherently better than the other brands more traditional designs. The Hellcat and P365 still offer more capacity in smaller packages than the Glock slim-lines. Holsters? Yeah, there are more Glock holsters available than there are for other brands. But I've never had significant trouble finding a holster from one of my favorite holster makers for any of the popular handguns that I've owned. Reliability? I think it's pretty well known that Glock is not the only reliable choice out there. The major competitors (P10, Echelon, P320, M&P, even the XD) all have/had military and/or police use as well. Cost? Glock is not the cheapest option on the block anymore. Ergonomics and features? I think most people will agree that Glock ergonomics and features (grip shape, grip angle-- naturally pointing and comfort, textures, optics mounting, slide serrations, controls, etc.) aren't necessarily better for most people than the competition. Out of the above list of factors, I think the biggest difference lies in ergonomics and features from a practical standpoint. I would not argue that that (including the grip angle) is a trivial consideration for someone who simply does not like Glock ergonomics even if they are highly experienced. That's what the OP of the thread was about-- someone who doesn't really like Glock switching away from Glock. |
Joined:
Nov 2022
Posts:
1377
EE: 100% (7)
MI, USA
|
Originally Posted By NN300BLK: I don't believe that ergonomics are trivial. Can people work with or train around sub-optimal ergonomics? Of course, I've never disputed that. But why do so? It's not 2000 anymore; there are a lot of good pistol choices on the market. So, what really separates a Glock from all of the other choices anymore? Cheap mags? Okay, Glock mostly wins there. But AMAGs for the P320 and P365 are pretty reasonably priced. XD mags are pretty cheap. And how much cheaper are factory Glock magazines at the end of the day from a place like GunMag Warehouse than other major brands? Maybe 10-15 bucks. And it's not like Glock mags are inherently better than the other brands more traditional designs. The Hellcat and P365 still offer more capacity in smaller packages than the Glock slim-lines. Holsters? Yeah, there are more Glock holsters available than there are for other brands. But I've never had significant trouble finding a holster from one of my favorite holster makers for any of the popular handguns that I've owned. Reliability? I think it's pretty well known that Glock is not the only reliable choice out there. The major competitors (P10, Echelon, P320, M&P, even the XD) all have/had military and/or police use as well. Cost? Glock is not the cheapest option on the block anymore. Ergonomics and features? I think most people will agree that Glock ergonomics and features (grip shape, grip angle-- naturally pointing and comfort, textures, optics mounting, slide serrations, controls, etc.) aren't necessarily better for most people than the competition. Out of the above list of factors, I think the biggest difference lies in ergonomics and features from a practical standpoint. I would not argue that that (including the grip angle) is a trivial consideration for someone who simply does not like Glock ergonomics even if they are highly experienced. That's what the OP of the thread was about-- someone who doesn't really like Glock switching away from Glock. This is AR15.COM where hive mind dominates and everyone else is missing the boat or a loser. It's a shame it's like that here still but it is. There are many guns with equal reliability, equal availability, equal mag prices, and come far better equipped in the box, sometimes even with a pretty decent holster included as well. But, they aren't Glocks...so...blah blah junk blah blah |
| You can certainly live a Glock-free life in 2026 and not be missing out on anything. Conversely, if you like Glocks, there’s never been a better time for you. Very few pistols have reached the point of being 100% cloned in the aftermarket, which makes variations nearly infinite and speaks well to the overall design philosophy Glock brought to the table. |
https://www.guntechtips.com
|
Almost all of my guns are Gen 3 or Gen 5 glocks. But I’ll tell you this, moving forward, I think I’ll have more M&P’s than Glocks. Ergonomics are important, especially as you get older. I’m starting to get arthritis in my wrists and while I have trained myself to the Glock grip very well, I can feel it in my wrists after a day at the range. When I got my wife into shooting, she shoots M&P’s better than Glocks. Could she get used to it and be more proficient with a Glock over time? Sure, but she doesn’t want nor have the time to dedicate to something like that. She likes her Shield just fine and I gotta say I like it too. Let me ask you this, if ergonomics aren’t important then why are grip angles in AR’s getting straighter and straighter? |
|
Originally Posted By jollyg83: Almost all of my guns are Gen 3 or Gen 5 glocks. But I’ll tell you this, moving forward, I think I’ll have more M&P’s than Glocks. Ergonomics are important, especially as you get older. I’m starting to get arthritis in my wrists and while I have trained myself to the Glock grip very well, I can feel it in my wrists after a day at the range. When I got my wife into shooting, she shoots M&P’s better than Glocks. Could she get used to it and be more proficient with a Glock over time? Sure, but she doesn’t want nor have the time to dedicate to something like that. She likes her Shield just fine and I gotta say I like it too. Let me ask you this, if ergonomics aren’t important then why are grip angles in AR’s getting straighter and straighter? Rapid Engineering does a nice job fixing the grip angle at a reasonable price. Changes the angle from 22 degree to 18. |
Doesn't mean that much to me to mean that much to you.
|
Originally Posted By swampvol: Rapid Engineering does a nice job fixing the grip angle at a reasonable price. Changes the angle from 22 degree to 18. Originally Posted By swampvol: Originally Posted By jollyg83: Almost all of my guns are Gen 3 or Gen 5 glocks. But I’ll tell you this, moving forward, I think I’ll have more M&P’s than Glocks. Ergonomics are important, especially as you get older. I’m starting to get arthritis in my wrists and while I have trained myself to the Glock grip very well, I can feel it in my wrists after a day at the range. When I got my wife into shooting, she shoots M&P’s better than Glocks. Could she get used to it and be more proficient with a Glock over time? Sure, but she doesn’t want nor have the time to dedicate to something like that. She likes her Shield just fine and I gotta say I like it too. Let me ask you this, if ergonomics aren’t important then why are grip angles in AR’s getting straighter and straighter? Rapid Engineering does a nice job fixing the grip angle at a reasonable price. Changes the angle from 22 degree to 18. Thank you, I’ll look into them. To clarify I’m not getting rid of my Glocks, they just might collect a little more dust, and the S&W’s may get a little more shoot time. |
|
Honestly kind of fed up with the pistol market. I don’t want a full size grip with a compact slide. That’s the direction Glock is going. That’s the direction the aftermarket frames for the RXM are going. It’s stupid. Now when I put a light on it, it’s as long as a G34 anyway, but now I have less sight radius, less velocity, and get to cook the shit out of my light. For what? Social media props? Glock and the underwhelming M&P are about the only modern striker pistols that aren’t using a female focused slide stop location these days. I want to hit the slide stop with the pad of my thumb, not curl it up or use my knuckle. I also want my thumb on the frame. Not sure where things are headed but it’s not a good direction. Guess I should be buying a bunch of Gen 3/4/5 trade ins. |
|
Originally Posted By -OdieGreen-: Honestly kind of fed up with the pistol market. I don’t want a full size grip with a compact slide. That’s the direction Glock is going. That’s the direction the aftermarket frames for the RXM are going. It’s stupid. Now when I put a light on it, it’s as long as a G34 anyway, but now I have less sight radius, less velocity, and get to cook the shit out of my light. For what? Social media props? Yeah, concur. I always liked the CCO for a compact 1911 (commander slide on officers frame)-- this is my preference for all semi-auto pistols and the opposite of the current market trend. |
Joined:
Nov 2022
Posts:
1415
EE: 100% (7)
MI, USA
|
Originally Posted By -OdieGreen-: Honestly kind of fed up with the pistol market. I don’t want a full size grip with a compact slide. That’s the direction Glock is going. That’s the direction the aftermarket frames for the RXM are going. It’s stupid. Now when I put a light on it, it’s as long as a G34 anyway, but now I have less sight radius, less velocity, and get to cook the shit out of my light. For what? Social media props? Glock and the underwhelming M&P are about the only modern striker pistols that aren’t using a female focused slide stop location these days. I want to hit the slide stop with the pad of my thumb, not curl it up or use my knuckle. I also want my thumb on the frame. Not sure where things are headed but it’s not a good direction. Guess I should be buying a bunch of Gen 3/4/5 trade ins. The Glock 49 is what you seek. It was a commercial flop |
|
Originally Posted By EncoreGolf: The Glock 49 is what you seek. It was a commercial flop Originally Posted By EncoreGolf: Originally Posted By -OdieGreen-: Honestly kind of fed up with the pistol market. I don’t want a full size grip with a compact slide. That’s the direction Glock is going. That’s the direction the aftermarket frames for the RXM are going. It’s stupid. Now when I put a light on it, it’s as long as a G34 anyway, but now I have less sight radius, less velocity, and get to cook the shit out of my light. For what? Social media props? Glock and the underwhelming M&P are about the only modern striker pistols that aren’t using a female focused slide stop location these days. I want to hit the slide stop with the pad of my thumb, not curl it up or use my knuckle. I also want my thumb on the frame. Not sure where things are headed but it’s not a good direction. Guess I should be buying a bunch of Gen 3/4/5 trade ins. The Glock 49 is what you seek. It was a commercial flop One thing I'm seeing is the clone world introducing different options. PSA has a long barrel/slide that will fit the compact frame. That could give someone the ability to make a homemade G49. Maybe another company will do it if it catches on, since the G19 frame is the one everyone is cloning. |
Of all men’s miseries the bitterest is this: to know so much and to have control over nothing.
- Herodotus
- Herodotus
|
Originally Posted By -OdieGreen-: Honestly kind of fed up with the pistol market. I don’t want a full size grip with a compact slide. That’s the direction Glock is going. That’s the direction the aftermarket frames for the RXM are going. It’s stupid. Now when I put a light on it, it’s as long as a G34 anyway, but now I have less sight radius, less velocity, and get to cook the shit out of my light. For what? Social media props? Glock and the underwhelming M&P are about the only modern striker pistols that aren’t using a female focused slide stop location these days. I want to hit the slide stop with the pad of my thumb, not curl it up or use my knuckle. I also want my thumb on the frame. Not sure where things are headed but it’s not a good direction. Guess I should be buying a bunch of Gen 3/4/5 trade ins. Im kinda agnostic on this but there are some benefits. -A grip that fits bigger hands -A shorter slide is less likely to interfere with sitting in a car(with no wml). -With a wml the light protects the slide from getting pushed out of battery. -Faster slide for faster splits. -rds makes sight radius a moot point. |
Do Good
Be Dangerous
Live Free
Be Dangerous
Live Free