Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Does size matter? Excellent info here...

He shot that plenty fast enough in my opinion and accurately

Hickok is quite good with handguns, a huge man at like 6'7" with tons of hours on the Glock 22 and 23. But even he admits it's easier to shoot the 19 fast and accurate than it is with pre-Gen 5 Model 23. He states that the Gen 5 Model 23 closes the gap to a noticeable degree, however, due to three extra ounces of weight in the slide. Makes me think seriously about getting one.

I thought the reason folks hot rodded 38 super for the games was because they could make major, and have a double stack rig that holds 20 plus rounds.

I do know folks of shooting experience/ history that are mediocre at best w a 9mm and flat out suck w a .40 or .45.

Maybe thats the avg pistolero.

I dunno, but my time at a couple ranges would support such a view.

However, having grown up shooting handguns, I dont see a
45 acp as anything requiring effort to shoot well. Even w +P.

Do think some folks are just too sensitive and or lazy.

And I bet going to a 9mm doesnt help them as much as they think.

But confidence is not to be ignored. If they think a 9mm helps em and they do OK with it ( not great, just OK ), maybe thats good enough.

And make the compensator work more efficiently

IIRC my buds Para held 27?
Clark comp...... nasty blasty.

I can shoot the Glock 22 just fine. It's just that I'd rather not have to place a death grip on my handgun to keep from having to reacquire a proper two-handed hold after each shot. I get that with 9mm and .45 ACP Glocks, but not with .40 S&W (at least not with the Gen 4 Glock 22). To me, I need to put a death grip on the Glock 22 Gen 4 with my support hand to keep from needing to reacquire a proper hold from round to round. I can do it, but, like I said, I need to focus on maintaining a death grip with my support hand, and I'd rather not have to do that. That's why I prefer 9mm and .45 ACP over the .40 S&W Glocks.

But, with the new, heavy slide, Gen 5 Glock 22 and 23, I might have to reconsider. I may well give one or the other a shot.

This is the same conversation gun guys have been having for the last 50 years and continues to be supported with irrelevant BS..

Modern practice for self defense shooting as taught by the BTDT professionals universally concentrates on 3 priorities. Surgical accuracy, discrimination and speed...ON DEMAND. Rifle or pistol, the goal is to be able to stop multiple aggressors w/out endangering innocents in as short a time as possible.

Our best people have been winning bigly since 9/11 w/ poodle shooters and mouse guns favoring platforms that are consistently reliable, and training hard and constantly. Modern ammo has ended the handgun argument in regards to ammo and shifted it to proven reliability in the weapon.

9mm Glocks and 5.56 ARs have the most tested track records of success.


ymmv, ptl


mike r

If you can't maintain a perfect grip through fast and accurate mag dump the problem may be with the shooter. Or you can try different tools to replace training and practice. Buying new guns is fun but training is more effective if you are serious. You live in Florida, maybe you could get Deflave to help you out.


mike r

Amigos, just buy .40 S&W. You do not to worry about +P ammo (like 9x19) or high price of ammo (like .45ACP). The pistol can be same size as 9x19 (example double stack Glocks through Gen 4). This should help you.

The importance of ergonomics to new and moderately experienced handgun shooters is vastly underemphasized. Note: ergonomics is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as "the study of people's efficiency in their working environment"... so in the matter of shooting handguns, it means nothing more or less than "how well does the gun work for you individually"?

Factors that come into play in ergonomics for each shooter are, in no particular order, the shape of the grip, the location/size/shape/articulation mechanism of the trigger, the trigger "reach", the height of the bore axis above the shooter's hand, the weight/center of gravity of the gun, the shape/color/size of the sights, and many more factors. All of these affect how the shooter experiences the firing sequence and the reaction of the gun in recoil. ALL of these factors are relevant.

I have spent many hours on the range teaching shooters from rank newbies to moderately advanced shooters. The moderate to advanced people are far less prone to negative effects of ergonomics than more experienced shooters. Newbies need a gun that is ergonomically good for them.

Only after you adjust for ergonomics differences can you start comparing the way different calibers affect these shooters.

My wife shot her first defensive pistol course about 3 years ago using a S&W Shield 9mm, and was unable to pass the Qualification at the end of the class. After some discussion, we let her try it again with a Glock 48 9mm and she was able to pass it easily. Some day, same course of fire, just a pistol that fit her better. I've seen similar results with many other new shooters over the years.

Pistol fit/ergonomics is absolutely the most important factor in handgun shooting success for beginners.




My on-the-job and competition experience includes all of the above calibers, although pretty minimal 10mm time and a lot more 357 SIG time. I would have to agree generally with your statement in bold above.

This doesn't necessarily apply however. I recall one State Match where I shot a multi-target stage, a "shoot house", on the day of the match, with a S&W 686 using 38 Special +P loads (158 gr JRN bullets at 890 fps). One of the ammo companies that was sponsoring the match, IIRC Federal, wanted to videotape some of us shooting the shoot house the next day before we tore the match setup down.

As one of the match champions, I was invited to shoot the course for the video. As LE at the time, after the match was done I had reloaded my firearm "for the street", which meant I loaded my revolver with 357 Magnum ammo (158 gr JHP at about 1250 fps), which my agency had authorized as an off-duty load. Because I hardly ever carried my 686 off-duty, and always carried/used it in matches in that time period, it never occurred to me as I stepped up to the starting line to switch out my carry ammo for my much lighter-recoiling match ammo. As it happened, I ran the course of fire about 2 seconds faster than I had done the day before (time included points down for misses outside the A zone, too).

In this instance, the heavier-recoiling load (and we are not talking about a minor difference in recoil energy!) was not a factor in my speed or accuracy. Would it have mattered over the course of a10-stage match? I suspect it would, but I don't know, as I've never been curious enough to shoot full power 357 Mag ammo at a sanctioned match.


I have had similar results in other matches where I was shooting 2 different chamberings of the same handgun: I shot a Glock 19 and a Glock 23 in several matches, competing in Stock Service Pistol with the 19 and Enhanced Service pistol with the 23. My scores at the end of each match were very close each time. On the other hand, I shot one match with a box stock Kimber 1911 45 ACP and Glock 19, and shot faster and more accurately with the 1911. Caliber and recoil considerations were trumped by better (for me) ergonomics of the 1911.

Agreed. In my years of shooting competitively in IDPA and USPSA my impression was that most people in the middle of the pack tended to shoot minor power factor calibers because it helped them achieve better scores. They proved it to themselves, and to the rest of us, so who am I to argue? Cowboy action shooters take it to an absurd degree... shooting mousefart loads in highly modified pistols extremely quickly. No question you can't shoot that fast with anything even close to a real fighting pistol load.

They certainly were/are.

I think most of the better performing handgun ammo we have today is because of the FBI handgun ammo test protocols.

Fackler and MacPherson are responsible for those protocols

No....not correct. Fackler and MacPherson studied and wrote about bullet wounds and the affects of bullets on the human body.

The FBI ran a series of tests designed to test hollow point handgun bullets by shooting them through barriers such as wallboard, steel, and auto glass before penetrating ballistic gelatin. The test ammunition was also tested for velocity and accuracy.

The more efficient bullets and accurate ammo we have today is the result of the FBI's testing.

Yes it does, a simple matter of physics, Mike Tyson is going to hurt me a hell of a lot more every time he hits me over being flyswatted by Sugar Ray Leonard.

If not fir Fackler and MacPherson at the FBI workshop after the Miami shootout laying out what mattered is how the FBI came up with the protocols

The FBI began the testing because they were looking at barrier penetration. Their tests and the resulting recommendations were about barrier penetration. The better bullet designs we use today are the results of the FBI tests.

All because of Fackler and MacPherson, whom taught the FBI the importance of a minimum amount of penetration.

You don't seem to know the history