is this new class of carry pistols even necessary?

H

hammer_jockey_91

New member
i come, to ask a question, no disrespect intended here.
what is with this new class of micro pistols? i mean, the glock 43, ruger max 9, sig 365, ect.

let me explain.

lets take the glock 26 vs glock 43.
the dimensions are almost exactly the same. aside from a little bit of legnth, (which....nobody in exsistance probably ever argued a 26 is too long) and the width.
but the differences in the two are not enough to constitute a whole new system in my opinion.

the 26 is about .1 inches thicker than the 43, and comes standard with 10 rounds vs 6?

and with that gripe, you get someone who has alot of glock mags laying around, rmr cut glocks and red dots to go on them, and now the next big thing means you have to start back from square one? you even have to buy a special red dot to fit on that slide.

im not complaining, im just trying to understand, is there something im missing here? the .1 difference in width makes that big of a difference? is the .1 inches in width is enough to sacrafice the most redeeming feature of glocks, the after market support?

more options are better but i cant help but feel this one is grasping at straws for new ideas
 
Specs don't mean a thing. Go shoot them, then see how they carry.

I have a G26 & G43. I haven't carried the 26 since I got the 43. It is WAY more suitable, for me, for EDC.

The 26 goes in the glove box when necessary.

We also have a Shield - my daughter carries that. It's indistinguishable from the 43, but she prefers it because of the thumb safety, makes her more comfortable with a round chambered. I've never worried about it on my Glocks.

.. and who the heck is putting a red dot on a carry? :rolleyes:
 
eflyguy said:
Specs don't mean a thing. Go shoot them, then see how they carry.

I have a G26 & G43. I haven't carried the 26 since I got the 43. It is WAY more suitable, for me, for EDC.

The 26 goes in the glove box when necessary.

We also have a Shield - my daughter carries that. It's indistinguishable from the 43, but she prefers it because of the thumb safety, makes her more comfortable with a round chambered. I've never worried about it on my Glocks.

.. and who the heck is putting a red dot on a carry? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
my better half for one lol shes a bit new to all this and she wanted all the gadgets to help her be as effective as possible.
its also the new fad. to add red dots to absolutely everything. i personally dont. i added a red dot to my ar15 because...a long gun, why not? but my carry gun, nah. i tried carrying glass once. got pizza sauce on it at a kids birthday party. dont ask..

i digress...
now ill admit, ive never shot one of these micro 9s but i couldnt imagine it would be anymore or any less than a slightly thicker counterpart
 
I suspect the slight size difference is helpful for some people. However, from a business perspective this is about identifying new markets and developing a product for that market. It seems a lot of people want to buy these guns and manufactures are in the gun selling business.
 
hammer_jockey_91 said:
i come, to ask a question, no disrespect intended here.
what is with this new class of micro pistols? i mean, the glock 43, ruger max 9, sig 365, ect.

let me explain.

lets take the glock 26 vs glock 43.
the dimensions are almost exactly the same. aside from a little bit of legnth, (which....nobody in exsistance probably ever argued a 26 is too long) and the width.
but the differences in the two are not enough to constitute a whole new system in my opinion.

the 26 is about .1 inches thicker than the 43, and comes standard with 10 rounds vs 6?

and with that gripe, you get someone who has alot of glock mags laying around, rmr cut glocks and red dots to go on them, and now the next big thing means you have to start back from square one? you even have to buy a special red dot to fit on that slide.

im not complaining, im just trying to understand, is there something im missing here? the .1 difference in width makes that big of a difference? is the .1 inches in width is enough to sacrafice the most redeeming feature of glocks, the after market support?

more options are better but i cant help but feel this one is grasping at straws for new ideas
Click to expand...
I don’t understand the problem, you don’t ‘have’ to buy anything.
 
It makes a difference. The only person who can tell if it makes enough difference to be worthwhile for you is you. ;)
 
For me? No, a thicker 26 conceals just as well on the belt and all of them micros are too big for my pockets. I shoot a thicker grip much better so they are pointless.

For others? Sure seems to make a big difference, nice that we can all get something we like these days.
 
I have mixed feelings about it. Basically, I'm fine with micro pistols as long as they're chambered in .380 ACP or less. Micro 9mm Luger pistols don't interest me at all because between the recoil and the way that micro pistols fit my hands, I already find the Ruger LCP difficult to shoot, ergo a slightly larger pistol such as the SIG P365 doesn't appeal to me.

That being said, I'm okay with single stack subcompacts such as the Ruger LC9 or M&P Shield. I know S&W calls the Shield a "Micro Compact" but to me it's large enough to fit my hand and be shot well. In fact, I own an M&P40 Shield which is in my seasonal carry rotation.

To me, the silliest part of these new Micro 9s is the fact that they come Optics ready... It just strikes me as completely superfluous as well as counterproductive to have an extremely small pistol that's really not suited for long-range shooting, then add weight to it by mounting a optic to it, which is unlikely to be of any practical use in self-defense.
But whatever, if folks can honestly foresee a scenario in which the absolute smallest pistol concealed carry pistol with an optic on the slide, or it just makes them more confident, then more power to them.
 
The point is that self-defense is typically at close-range and often happens very fast. Also, it's not so much about added weight as it is about added size, as even a small optic is going to going to add quite a bit of size to the top of the slide.

But whatever, if you like optics on your CCW then more power to you. You don't have to waste time trying to convince me that they're practical. Self-defense is all about personal choices, so if it works for you then that's all the justification anyone needs. I don't subscribe to arrogant beliefs like that there exists some ultimate, one-size-fits-all platform for self-defense.
 
I’m really not trying to convince you, I’m simply pointing out facts as I see them. The optics just don’t weigh much. They do add some height to the pistol, but many don’t seem to find it a problem depending on where on your body you carry (I find they actually break up the typical slide profile). An optic isn’t just about long range shooting. It’s about being able to maintain a target focus rather than having to manage multiple sight planes (this can be a bigger issue depending on your eyesight). If you’re close enough that you want to shoot reflexively you can still do that with an optic.

If you don’t want an optic that’s your call. I never said everyone should have one nor did I say it was a one size fits all solution. I tried to address two negatives you had brought up with respect to why someone would want an optic on such a small pistol. When someone comments about optic weight and suggests a usage for them that ignores other benefits, I respond not just for that person but for other people reading, which was in part why I didn’t quote you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Nothing wrong with having choices. I have a new S7W 9mm EZ I'm checking out, only problem so far is it shoots low and no replacement sights available for it. Too bad S&W never quite gets their guns right these days.
 
wild cat mccane said:
And yet, I bet the LCP is the most carried gun that actually is carried by people who carry for their employment.
Click to expand...


Really, even compared to the duty pistols carried by law enforcement? I only bring this up because you mention a function of their employment. Is the LCP a really popular backup gun for law enforcement?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
For me, the G43 was a replacement/alternative to my S&W 642 revolver used as a BUG (backup gun); worn either on my ankle or on my body armor (underneath my uniform shirt).
Either firearm was on my department's pre-approved list for BUGs, at that time.

My G26 was used more for off-duty or plainclothes work and was just too large for me when worn as a BUG, even though I tried it for a couple of years before switching.

As a replacement to my 642 revolver, I had more capacity and, with the G43, I was able to hit faster and more accurately, at a longer distance. Others may have done better with a 642 than me, however. I will still occasionally carry the 642 as it can be a bit more comfortable due to shape, the holsters I've got for it, and weight, particularly if pocket carrying.

https://www.smith-wesson.com/product/model-642?sku=103810
https://us.glock.com/en/pistols/g43

It's all academic. Anybody should buy whatever they want to carry. Nobody should really care what someone else buys to use. Usually, I'm generally glad to hear: (a) they own a gun; (b) they normally conceal carry a gun. So many folks just don't (carry) even if legally able to do so or bother to make the effort to become legal to do so.
 
The G43 w/ techna clip is simply the most concealable pistol I have. Even compared to smaller, "true" pocket pistols (pocket carry doesn't disappear as effectively).

Absolutely necessary? Probably not. I don't carry it a whole lot, mainly because of the firepower limitation -- the same reason I don't carry pocket pistols much. But it's an option I like to have, when concealment is a top priority.
 
Forte S+W said:
...Micro 9mm Luger pistols don't interest me at all ... I'm okay with single stack subcompacts such as the Ruger LC9 or M&P Shield.
Click to expand...

Funny. Here is our Shield next to the G43.
attachment.php

They are virtually identical in the hand and when shooting. The only difference in the hand is the trigger reach, which is minimal.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_8518.jpg
    IMG_8518.jpg
    477.4 KB · Views: 775
Are we talking "pocket guns" or sub-compacts with nearly the capacity of a Glock 19? The P365, Hellcat, and Glock 43x are small but almost as capable as much larger pistols from 15-20 years ago. To me, that's a big improvement.

Personally, I want the smallest handgun I can still shoot well, with the most capacity. With my hands, that's about Glock 43x size, and with 15+1, I won't complain. I don't see the reduction to something like the G43 or Shield as quite so attractive (slightly smaller, but 6 or 7+1). There are arguments to be made for them, but if I was going to pick one for "general use," it would be a hair larger and double the capacity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top