TexasCHLforum.com

AdioSS wrote:Don't you agree that it would have been REALLY nice if Beretta would have designed the PX4 series to accept the same magazines as the 9X series.

A-R wrote:

Apothix wrote:I believe the problem I have with my glock is the grip and caliber. The recoil on it is crazy and I have to squeeze the life out of it in order to keep it from going all over the place when I shoot it. Also the feel of the grip or I guess shape/style of grip it has just is not very comfortable for me.

In this case, try a Springfield XD/XDM and a Smith & Wesson M&P. Both similar designs to Glock, but with much better grip ergonomics. And you might even try both in .40-cal (simply the change in grip may make the .40 more tolerable, but as always YMMV). I recently unloaded both of my .40 Glocks in favor of a 9mm M&P and a .45 M&P and love both guns (though I do miss the slightly more compact form factor of my Glock 23).

You may still like the Beretta better than either of the above, but you should at least try them because their weight should be significantly less than the Beretta 92. If you really like Beretta's action better, also look into the Beretta PX4 - which uses a polymer frame and a unique rotating barrel action that supposedly reduces recoil (I have not fired one myself). See a lot of these selling used in Houston area for around $400 on TexasGunTrader.com

A-R wrote:

Apothix wrote:I was mainly drawn to the easy of firing and my accuracy of the Five Seven and 92FS compared to the other weapons I have shot, would any of you have some recommendations that may be better geared toward CCW that have the accuracy and low recoil of the two that may be a better fit. example: My Glock32 is fitted with a .40 cal barrel but I am a terrible shot with it, so it really doesn't do me much good.

Thanks.

Recommendations would depend on WHY you think you're a "bad shot" with the Glock and why you think you're a better shot with the others. I'll briefly examine a few possibilities:

BARREL LENGTH: FN & 92FS both have longer barrels and longer sight radius than the mid-size Glock. Generally speaking, longer = more accurate in both cases. I am a slightly better shot with longer barrel than shorter barrel, but it's not a huge difference in accuracy especially when the difference in barrel or sight radius length is an inch or less - meaning difference between a full-size and mid-size Glock (4.5-inch vs. 4-inch) or even between Government and Commander 1911 (5-inch vs. 4.25-inch) shouldn't make a night and day difference. But the subcompacts - 3.8-inch barrel or less CAN make a difference. Any gun - even a full-size Glock, with longer barrel could help if this is the problem - but I suspect it's something more.

CALIBER: Does the recoil of .357 Sig or .40 S&W bother you? Especially on a smaller/lighter frame like a Glock 23/32? If this is the case, simply switching to a Glock or similar in 9mm should help a bunch. Both .40 & .357 are snappy rounds compared to a standard-pressure 9mm.

GRIP: this one could be the real key, IMHO. Do the other guns just "feel better" in your hands? Grip ergonomics plays a huge part in shootability of one pistol vs. another within the confines of each individual's own hands. And Glocks simply DO NOT fit everyone. This could be because of grip size, shape, angle, beavertail, or even backstrap to trigger distance. If you like the basic Glock design - polymer frame, striker-fired action, then try one of the many similar pistols that have emulated Glock in the last decade or so - Springfield XD/XDM, Smith & Wesson M&P, Ruger SR9/SR40, etc. You could also have your Glock's grip altered either by a professional or DIY if you're brave enough - involves reshaping the polymer with heat guns, soldering irons, and/or even adding polymer to form new shapes like an extended beaver tail. Lastly, if you really like Glock best for some reason perhaps investigate an "improved" Glock frame from a company like Lone Wolf

TRIGGER/ACTION: this one I would suspect the least because most people I've met can shoot a stock Glock trigger just fine, but perhaps you don't like the feel of that trigger/action - which can at times be a bit "mushy" and can stack upon before the final break. perhaps you would prefer a single-action-only like a 1911 or Browning HiPower where you must first thumb off the safety then engage a short, crisp single-action trigger that just drops an already cocked hammer. Or perhaps you'd prefer double-action/single-action like a Beretta or Sig Sauer. Perhaps even a double-action-only like found on some Sigs and others.

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:

koolaid wrote:I think the FiveseveN makes for a pretty horrible carry gun. It is both large, and fires an underwhelming round that was designed for a task that you are extremely unlikely to encounter in a self defense situation and ammunition that you can't actually get.

Unless you have penetrator ammo and expect to have to fire large volumes at people wearing body armor and have some expectation that you'll need to be able to share ammo with your P90, almost anything else is a better choice.

Ruger's P90 is a .45 caliber single stack pistol. I'm not sure to which gun maker you are referring.

SIA