Toughest Striker Fired 9mm

J

JJ45

New member
This question is important to me because a purchase may well depend on it.

I have several handguns but they are all hammer fired mechanisms and do not include a 9MM. The last 9MM I owned was a Ruger P89 (sold it) The first was an S&W M39 which I gave to my brother.

The bug has bitten for a state of the art 9MM.

My question is; are there any 9MM auto pistols that have excelled in so called "torture tests" that prove durability/reliability? Not subjective opinions of what the best pistol is.

I realize some of these tests can also reflect subjectivity but any opinions would be helpful....JJ
 
I have a Glock 17 that just past 85,000 rounds this week. I replace the RSA twice a year, and have replaced an extractor, but later came to realize, it was probably my reloads "wearing out" that was the issue, and not the extractor. Other than that, its like the energizer Bunny. :)
 
Thinking about the Glock but I have relatively small hands.

As a way of comparison the 1911 grip frame is perfect for me. I have, in addition Ruger P90 and P97 45s that are clubbier than 1911s but I don't find them uncomfortable.

For you guys that are familiar with the grips on the P90/P97 how do they compare with say the Glock 17?...Thanks, JJ
 
Most people, myself included seem to prefer the slightly smaller G-19. It is hard to describe, but the arched section on the back of the grip hits the palm of the hand slightly differently making it feel smaller than it is.
 
This has been great advice so far and just what I expected from this quality gun forum...Thanks Again...JJ
 
JJ45 said:
Thinking about the Glock but I have relatively small hands.
Click to expand...

JJ, I have small hands as well, but have no issues whatsoever with the current Gen 4 Glocks.

Here's several pictures of my Gen 4 Glock 19 grip against my Sig P250/320 Compact Small frame module, and then the stock Compact Medium frame module.

Compact Small:

e3cb80bae0b09e073329ebfc7605a4fc.jpg


763ffc2b72fb2f238005ec1ed1e34019.jpg


Compact Medium:

8ab34bcb774443e7f7db56d1f7a157e0.jpg


572df85395a38f31bc3dc6bf3194deff.jpg


ddbc41de163e37eeef04fa911d7edbca.jpg


Glock, Sig Compact Small, Sig Compact Medium:

d2905dbbd0ea47607445f455e79b3f5d.jpg
 
Last edited:
As for strikers, I currently have a Glock 19 (my old duty gun), and a Sig P320, and either one you can't go wrong. My Glock has over 25k without issues. The P320 has 300 rds thru, and no problems.
 
There are so many available today, many of which are fairly new to the market, that it's impossible to state which one is the toughest.

Add to that the fact that some of the old standbys have been recently changed/"updated"/"improved" and the question becomes even harder to answer.
 
Glock 19 or 17. Tough to beat in any way possible. Not to mention Gen 4 has those super awesome back straps for guys with big hands like mine. Since you have small hands, it's good for you too.


The gen 3 how you see it is the gen 4 with the medium back strap. So they made the actual frame a standard S all together.
 
I am no Glock fan (I own one and have no real desire for any more), but they have been the standard for decades and have passed grueling torture tests by police and military around the world. If you wanted another type pistol, say a 1911 type or a .22, a Glock would not suit, but in its class it is pretty much unbeatable unless one simply does not like Glocks.

Jim
 
There is ZERO discussion about which is toughest.
Google "Glock 21 torture test" for the quintessential handgun torture test of all time.
The 21 is a .45, but the only difference between it and the 9mm versions is parts dimensions. Find and read that test, and you'll know for yourself that there is ZERO discussion.
 
There is ZERO discussion about which is toughest.
Google "Glock 21 torture test" for the quintessential handgun torture test of all time.
The 21 is a .45, but the only difference between it and the 9mm versions is parts dimensions. Find and read that test, and you'll know for yourself that there is ZERO discussion.
Click to expand...

I find the idea that there is ZERO discussion about any topic on the planet to be relatively ludicrous.

I own, carry, and use as home defense pistols Glock 19s. I have no qualms about their "toughness". That said, my experience is Glock has made a concerted effort to prove their toughness through marketing and that far more people have conducted endurance tests with Glocks than a number of other pistols (I'd wager any other pistol). Not a lot of folks have the money to put tens of thousands of dollars worth of ammo through a pistol on their own and not too many manufacturers make a concerted effort to demonstrate that to the public. I don't argue that Glocks aren't "tough", just that more people have made the effort to prove them tough and it might skew our view.

I'd also wager that toughness starts to become relative. I use Craftsman tools. For me they're tough enough. Now that said, I know mechanics who use Snap-On tools because they can go through Craftsman tools like toilet paper and despite the free replacement they need the tools to work when they're on the job. Now if my tool breaks and I have to drive to Sears it's no big deal, but it's not my livelihood. This isn't me saying that toughness is unimportant. What I am saying is if Pistol A will go 60,000 rds before breaking and Pistol B will go 100,000 rds before breaking but I'll only ever put 20,000 rds through the pistol, is there a real noticeable difference? Now we obviously have people on this forum that will eclipse 20,000 rds in less than a year. But I often see "toughness" brought up and I wonder if people aren't getting ahead of themselves. Even a measly 20,000 rds at $0.20 a round is $4000. 60,000 rds is, you guessed it, $12000 dollars. I can buy a decent used car for that, and if you put $12,000 worth of ammo through your pistol, odds are you could buy a new pistol.

In my opinion if you do the recommended upkeep from the manufacturer just about any pistol will prove to be "tough". Be mindful of your own demands on the tool and be realistic about what you need from it.
 
Last edited:
If you're used to a Glock, get a Glock. If you're used to almost any other semi-auto, get a Springfield XD or XDm. If grip size is a big issue, look at the XDs. :cool:

Point is, Glocks have a different grip angle, and you'll have to overcome the difference before you can depend on it in a "serious social encounter." :eek:
 
Another vote for Glock.

Tough, accurate, shoot very well, very learnable trigger. All of the parts are on the market if they need to be fixed. Lots and lots of holster, mag, part, and accessory options.

You can also quickly transfer your skills from one Glock to another if you need to go up or down a size.
 
Point is, Glocks have a different grip angle, and you'll have to overcome the difference before you can depend on it in a "serious social encounter."
Click to expand...

It's a 2 degree difference from he 1911.


Most folks overcome the disparity in grip angle by aiming the gun instead of pointing it. The "hump" in the grip is usually more responsible for growing off the initial "feel" to shooters of other guns when they pick up a Glock. It's your hand telling you that they feel different, not that you can't shoot it, or hat your hand won't learn to recognize the form and feel "right" once you get used to it. IMO the hump is very effective for rapid fire, and you get used to it very quickly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top