Which "back" design do you prefer on a pistol

[simonrichter]

I noticed that actually there are two different design traits as far as the "back" of a pistol is concerned, either

a) the back of the slide ends right above the gripping point, with a more or less protruding beavertail to separate the grip and the slide's recoiling area (examples are mostly hammer-fired models like the 1911s, but also some striker-fired like the M&P) or

b) The back of the slide goes farther backwards and ends flush with the backward curve of the grip piece (e.g. in most Striker-fired and some concealed or flush-fitting hammer-fired, e.g. the Glocks or the LC9).

Are there any differences other than the aesthetic point of view?

 

[Chuck Dye]

Very low slides or high grip capability can lead to slide bite. The Walther PPK is notorious for it, others are just as bad.

 

[9x19]

The slides on striker-fired guns are longer because they completely enclose the striker and its spring and generally need the extra length to have room for the striker to compress the spring.

The slides on hammer-fired guns can be shorter since the energy for the firing pin comes from the hammer, which is powered by a spring located in the frame.

The length of the slide has never been a focus as to which pistols I like, so i don't have a favorite design.

 

[Slimjim9]

I like the medium beavertail backstrap on my Glock 19.

 

[lee n. field]

The length of the slide has never been a focus as to which pistols I like, so i don't have a favorite design.

That. "Whatever works".

 

[Skeets]

Never thought about it until now.I have and like both types. At last,something I don't have to worry about!

 

[DanTSX]

I like the feel of the straight backstop, but I shoot those guns terribly.

I hate the feel of humped grips, or curved backstraps, but I shoot them very well.

Ergo: "Feel" of a gun is often misleading to how they actually perform in your hands.