Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns single stack vs double stack 9mm

This past weekend, my fiancé and I went out to an indoor shooting range. She tried a few different single stack 9mm's. Up until then she only had shoot doubt stack 9mm.

We tried the S&W shield, Walther PPS, and friends subcompact 9mm that was about same size.


I'm not sure how other's feel about them but I had some interesting thoughts/conclusion after shooting them.

In my honest opinion these small single stack defeat most of the reason for the 9mm. For me, the reasons for 9mm is high(er) capacity and softer recoiling with big side benefit of cheap practice ammo.


Have a single stack 9mm defeats the high(er) capacity of the 9mm and drastically increase the recoil. It was very snappy and my fiancé did not care for shooting it.

About the only reason I can see for the single stack 9mm is carry conceal and I'm not sure how much of benefit you get from that as oppose to something like a Glock19 or M&Pc in 9mm. Not to mention that single stack 9mm appear to become a fade now,



I'm also considering that if mag restriction start to become more common, I may just back to my 1911 45acp. Not sure if my logic or reasoning makes sense, but if I'm having magazine restriction, why not move up to larger cartridge as it already has limited capacity due to size.

The single stack, compact, 9mm first became popular when (in the 1990s) Kahr came out with the K9, which was the first semi auto handgun in 9mm that matched the size of what had been a popular size of .380 ACP for concealed carry (it was roughly the size of the Walther PPK). So the purpose they serve is to replace what had been popular CCW models of .380 ACP handguns with a more potent round, i.e., 9mm. That's where it still stands today, which remains perfectly legit.



Before that, if you wanted a handgun the size of a PPK, you were generally stuck with .380 ACP. If you wanted 9mm, you had to go with a roughly service sized gun, typically double stack, e.g., Browning High Power, S&W 59, Beretta 92, etc..

After the K9, and other brands to follow the same concept, took hold of the market, manufacturers, in order to sell .380 ACP handguns, were pressured into downsizing them to what had previously been more the norm (size-wise) for auto-pistols chambered in .32 ACP, which resulted in guns coming out along the lines of the Kel-Tec P3AT and the Ruger LCP.

Smaller guns are snappy. I suspect that the OP's fiance' is within the targeted demographic for the Glock 48. It should be easier for many to grip while offering more heft than a mini-gun. (It weighs about 3 ounces less than the 19 unloaded.) Similarly, the 43X is for a person who wants all fingers on the gun and is willing to take a little more recoil. I thought the 48 felt good in the hand.

Even my .45 is a double stack and a larger grip does mitigate some recoil, but a person needs a big enough paw to wrap around the thing. Smaller stature shooters and conceal ability, but the 9mm is a pretty snappy round in a small grip handgun. Your fiance' might like a single stack .380 better.

TRH, you missed the larger point. The primary driver in re-popularizing reduced capacity handguns was the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which included the 10-round magazine limit. The large, double stack, high capacity Wondernines no longer made any sense sold with a 10-round magazine. There's a reason why the 10-round sawed-off Glock 19, aka G26, made its debut in 1996. The magazine limit also caused a resurgence in large caliber, lower capacity handguns such as the 1911.

The niche created by the AWB has prospered and proves once again that the best marketer of firearms in the world is the US Government.

leomort---I understand your thinking but have come to drift away from that conclusion----as a born-again .45ACP junkie growing up, the 9mm was a hard pill for me to swallow as a carry cartridge (DocRocket from the Campfire changed my mind on that one) and I clung to the perk of higher capacity. As a concealed carrier with no legislated "sheepdog" responsibilities, any legitimate use of my firearm would be in a civilian-selfdefense scenario only. I have searched and searched and can find no documented case of any civilian shooting that included a needed reload (well, there was one, but the perpetrator was a mountain lion -- not a human). I'm comfortable with the "probability" that a speed reload in a civilian encounter due to the expenditure of ammo is statistically irrelevant. However, over the years I've had MANY magazine failures so I'm equally comfortable with the "probability" that a speed reload due to a magazine failure is a possibility. Rightly or wrongly I've deduced that a single stack with a spare magazine is better than a double stack without a spare---at least for me. Spare-carry-wise a 1911, 9mm magazine is a piece of cake compared to a Glock 19 mag. Even a Glock 43 mag is easier than a Sig 365 spare magazine which is only a 1 1/2-stack. JMO-YMMV


....choosing a 1911 in 45 is probably NEVER a bad decision! If draconian restrictions like the 5-shot one in Oregon actually sees the light-of-day, even revolvers will be restricted except J-frames and Freedom Arms big-bores, etc.

+1

I can't agree with any of that.

I think the single stack, polymer frame guns are the greatest thing since defense attorney's. They're infinitely more easy to conceal and that's the whole point of most of them. They're not designed around the idea of being attached to a duty belt.

Their smaller design and reduced profile may produce a snappier gun and increase felt recoil to your palm, but I'd wager most people that struggle with that have a hard time with double stacked guns to begin with.

That says it all, for me the single stack allows easy concealment in lighter clothing...and helps eliminate printing without having to buy a new wardrobe to do it. It's better to carry a gun with a 7/8 capacity, than carry no gun at all...if I can't do the job with 7 shots, I should have brought the AR.

Walther PPS M1 for me most days, SIG P239 some days.

They're all a compromise but I think the single stack, polymer, striker fired 9mm's are about perfect for shootability and concealment.

Stats say a single stack nine carries more rounds than you would need. The wife has a strong attachment to her PPS M1. I don't see the snappy part. A P3AT is snappy. Maybe shoot one of the tiny .380s and then the PPS. The 9mm will seem soft after that.

If a Shield is too much, maybe a .327 LCR loaded with 85gr .32H&Rs would suit. Do not shoot the LCR with full-house .327. Do not.

I agree, my only disappointment is most of the triggers blow pretty bad,,,,but with some simple tuning and lubrication points they are acceptable. Even my Q5 Match is crappy, though touted to be the best striker trigger on the market.

For a minute there, I mistook that we were talking about mini .40 pistols. Snappy? Bah!

Now it's "bad triggers".....


We are spoiled lightweights.

For concealment, 100% in agreement, but what do you think of a Colt Officer's model in 45 ACP. (6+1)...

I can see the value of the sub compact single stack 9's for concealed carry more controllable for some that may find the 40 or 45 a bit much in a small pistol. I'm a 45 ACP fan and usually carry a 45 S&W Shield if I'm going to end up with the same magazine capacity or within a round I don't see the reason to choose the 9. In the 1911 platform I cant see a reason to choose the 9 over the 45

There is that, too.

No thanks.

I’m a fan, myself. I could live with just a Glock 43 if I had to, extra mag in pocket. I shoot it fine, and it carries and conceals great.

Yes if we're talking about slow fire. Not so much if we're talking about more realistic defensive drills.

I post on another site for hardcore pistol shooters--cops and soldiers who shoot tens of thousands of rounds a year and who measure performance using timers and scorable targets on a standard set of recognized drills. They're starting to work seriously with the Glock 48 and 43x. They report that these guns are as accurate in slow fire as larger Glocks, but that the sharper recoil affects their times and scores when working at speed. Most of these guys can shoot 2-300 rounds in a double-stack 9mm pistol before times and scores start dropping, and they're reporting performance degradation much sooner with the smaller guns. I'm not quite at that level--I’m usually good for a hundred rounds in a G19 before accuracy starts to drop and another hundred before the wheels really come off, but my hands aren’t sore when I’m done. I’m done at 30-40 with a G43 and my hands ache afterwards.

Here's one of them talking about the G48


Also these



If you have trouble with a double-stack polymer 9mm pistol or if you're borderline with one, then going to the single-stack version of the same gun will be like putting MiracleGro on your problems when the flag flies.


Okie John