Younger slimer faster model
- Thread starter mrt949
- Start date
Kreyzhorse
New member
Better in what way?
FloridaVeteran
New member
No, but they are lighter and slimmer and faster, so it is logical to see them selling better for concealed/pocket carry. If I were in weather and dress that allowed me to wear a beefier holster and a bulky enough jacket to conceal properly, the less I'd be willing to give up my heavier old warhorses.
Lighter, slimmer and faster are not necessarily the same as more fun to shoot, so you might see a different set of guns at the range, at least for the majority of the shooting.
Lighter, slimmer and faster are not necessarily the same as more fun to shoot, so you might see a different set of guns at the range, at least for the majority of the shooting.
They certainly can be lighter with all the polymer. Each material has it's own strength or weakness. Polymer won't rust but could melt chemically and by heat. Slim is nice for carrying on your person but offers a less secure grip (a home defense gun you're not as concerned about carrying long periods).
I will say that manufacturers now are offering these cheaper alternatives (options are good) which usually have less individual hand fitting of parts. Hand fitted is still available but usually costs more and we get sticker shock since we're so used to looking for that $300 - $600 service pistol / pocket pistol range.
Great guns aren't cheap but good enough guns can be. I have mostly good guns, with a couple great ones thrown in
. Good enough means reliable and safe as the bare minimum criteria - which it's nice to have lots of brands offering reliable guns. I suspect Internet media has pushed that along as folks can complain publicly otherwise.
I will say that manufacturers now are offering these cheaper alternatives (options are good) which usually have less individual hand fitting of parts. Hand fitted is still available but usually costs more and we get sticker shock since we're so used to looking for that $300 - $600 service pistol / pocket pistol range.
Great guns aren't cheap but good enough guns can be. I have mostly good guns, with a couple great ones thrown in
. Good enough means reliable and safe as the bare minimum criteria - which it's nice to have lots of brands offering reliable guns. I suspect Internet media has pushed that along as folks can complain publicly otherwise.I prefer to look at it as having more options now. "Best" depends on the situation and use. For example, increased weight in a pistol is bad when you are lugging it around on your belt, but good when it is absorbing recoil energy. Almost every choice you make in the features of a pistol have advantages and disadvantages in some way. Viva la diference.
orionengnr
New member
"Slimer?"
Ewwww....
Did you mean, "slimmer"?
Ewwww....
Did you mean, "slimmer"?
Technosavant
New member
Well, the plastic fantastics really started coming out in the late 70s/early 80s.
But I understand your question being are these new designs better than the older steel or alloy designs?
To that, I'd say "better" is really a judgment call. The newer polymer designs are lighter, less expensive, and quite reliable. However, the older metal designs are easy to shoot, generally well made, and quite reliable. Now, even as a 1911 fan, I'll admit that any Glock, M&P, XD, etc. is more likely to be more reliable out of the box than the average 1911 costing twice as much. Those same guns are also likely to be every bit as accurate and reliable as the Sig P-series alloy guns, S&W third gen autos, Beretta 92 series, and so on, often costing a fair amount more than the plastic guns.
But is that better? Well, it depends on what you shoot well. I can shoot either well. I would not consider somebody armed with either to be poorly armed. I would consider someone who rejects one or other kind out of hand or considers that other type of handgun to be "junk" to be poorly informed and small minded. A well rounded collection will likely have examples of all kinds of things, although it's up to the shooter to find and select something that he/she can shoot well.
But I understand your question being are these new designs better than the older steel or alloy designs?
To that, I'd say "better" is really a judgment call. The newer polymer designs are lighter, less expensive, and quite reliable. However, the older metal designs are easy to shoot, generally well made, and quite reliable. Now, even as a 1911 fan, I'll admit that any Glock, M&P, XD, etc. is more likely to be more reliable out of the box than the average 1911 costing twice as much. Those same guns are also likely to be every bit as accurate and reliable as the Sig P-series alloy guns, S&W third gen autos, Beretta 92 series, and so on, often costing a fair amount more than the plastic guns.
But is that better? Well, it depends on what you shoot well. I can shoot either well. I would not consider somebody armed with either to be poorly armed. I would consider someone who rejects one or other kind out of hand or considers that other type of handgun to be "junk" to be poorly informed and small minded. A well rounded collection will likely have examples of all kinds of things, although it's up to the shooter to find and select something that he/she can shoot well.
My wife got mad at me one time and said .You can a get a younger slimmer faster model any time you want .BUY YOU WILL PAY DEARLY 
Kreyzhorse
New member
Perhaps cheaper, but I wouldn't call them overall as better.
Just as an example, a lighter pistol is easier to conceal carry but will generally recoil more than its all steel brother. Not sure that trade off is "better."
Just as an example, a lighter pistol is easier to conceal carry but will generally recoil more than its all steel brother. Not sure that trade off is "better."
I have a 70s era S&W model 49 "Bodyguard" all-steel, J-frame, shrouded hammer. I also have a new, lighter, alloy-framed 642 DAO J-frame.
The new gun is lighter, has better sights, and is rated for +P ammo while the older one is not. The 642 is comfortable for pocket carry while the 49 is a noticeably heavier chunk of iron.
So you define "better". The 49 sits at home, the 642 goes with me.
Regarding autos - I used to carry a S&W 5649 DAO all-stainless steel double-stack 9mm as a duty weapon. It was OK in a service holster on a full-size 2 1/2" duty belt, balanced as it was with the ammo pouches, handcuffs, and radio on the same belt.
However, these days (as civilian) I'd sure rather be carrying something like the M&P or Shield. There's probably a reason that police departments switched over to the newer, lighter-weight guns. And don't claim cost - I know of several departments that traded in those S&W 5946s and now carry Sigs.
So yes, in some cases the newer, slimmer, lighter models ARE better than the old ones.
That being said, I have a fondness for 70s-era S&W revolvers and would prefer to carry a Model 66 4" over everything else, if I could figure out a way to conceal it well.
The new gun is lighter, has better sights, and is rated for +P ammo while the older one is not. The 642 is comfortable for pocket carry while the 49 is a noticeably heavier chunk of iron.
So you define "better". The 49 sits at home, the 642 goes with me.
Regarding autos - I used to carry a S&W 5649 DAO all-stainless steel double-stack 9mm as a duty weapon. It was OK in a service holster on a full-size 2 1/2" duty belt, balanced as it was with the ammo pouches, handcuffs, and radio on the same belt.
However, these days (as civilian) I'd sure rather be carrying something like the M&P or Shield. There's probably a reason that police departments switched over to the newer, lighter-weight guns. And don't claim cost - I know of several departments that traded in those S&W 5946s and now carry Sigs.
So yes, in some cases the newer, slimmer, lighter models ARE better than the old ones.
That being said, I have a fondness for 70s-era S&W revolvers and would prefer to carry a Model 66 4" over everything else, if I could figure out a way to conceal it well.