# The best fighting handgun you can own and carry



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

A few first offs are in order here.

Number one. I am not a fanboy or bootlick for any firearms manufacturer. I will freely admit that I have some favorites but being of an analytical and technical mind, I believe I can separate facts from opinions, mine and others.

Number two. I will also freely admit that what I write here is largely a matter of opinion but if one thinks about what is written, one can see the position taken.

Number three. I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, an expert nor do I wish to set myself up as such. Doing so would only prove me to be a fool.

Now with the ground work laid...

What makes any handgun a fighting or combat handgun? I would suggest; reliability, simplicity, ease of maintenance, and practical accuracy. Reliability should always be the most important factor in the selection and use of a fighting handgun. And of all of the really fine handguns out there, which one is the best of the lot when all factors are considered?

Glock. Specifically the models 19, 23, 17, and 22 in no particular order. So why Glock. Why not a fine 1911? Take a 1911 and time yourself as you do a field strip of the gun. Then do the same thing with a Glock. I can field strip a Glock, using no special tools, in 6.4 seconds. No way can I do this with my 1911. And I can detail strip the frame in under one minute, which includes the field strip. With only 34 parts, simplicity rules. I can tune my Glock, change the sights, and do other gunsmithing things with ease.

Glocks are very simple and easy to clean. Their polygonal rifling makes cleaning the barrel very easy. But most importantly, they work. They're like that rather ugly hammer in your toolbox you've had for decades that is near perfect and you are never likely to discard. Try as you might, that which works, and works well, perfectly fits the adage.. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Lastly they really carry well, especially their compact versions like the model 19 and model 23. One well known gun writer wrote that the Glock 23 is the finest combat handgun you can carry. I believe he's pretty much dead on with that statement.

Now admittedly I also very much like Smith and Wesson's line of their M&P pistols. I have a number of them and do carry them when I feel they would be the better choice. Really fine products. but they are not as simple to field strip and even less simple to detail strip for repairs, detailed cleaning, or modifications.

So I am just someone who admires and respects things that work the way they were designed. The architectural truism of "Form follows function" seems to have been ingrained in the Glock design. So if a 1911, a Beretta 92FS, an XD series Springfield Armory, a Sig Sauer, and a Glock 23 are sitting on a table waiting for me as I leave my home. Which one do I pick up? Without question, the Glock 23. Others would pickup something else and that's fine. But for me, the choice between these listed guns is simple. A light, efficient, reliable, and high capacity pistol will ride on my hip.

Once more, I am not a fanboy. I just like things that work and fit my wants, needs, and requirements.


----------



## jtguns (Sep 25, 2011)

Southern, I hear you and for your purpose and reasons. But I don't like Glocks, its not that Glock isn't worthy firearm, they just don't sit in my hand right. My personal a opinion nothing about the gun other than that. For me it would be the Browning Hi-power. But like everything else, everybody is different, with different wants and needs.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

I don't know SB? I've got so many God damn guns. For me it all depends on what I feel like carrying on any particular day. If it's a Glock? My G30 only because it's a .45. I have both a G23 and G27, I prefer the G27 because it's compact and can use the higher capacity magazines from the G23 if I want. It's more versatile in that respect. I also have a 50 round drum that work's for both.

Strikers have the advantage of a consistent trigger pull over DA/SA semi auto's. The polymer versions tend to be more compact yet hold more rounds as there are no grip panels adding to the thickness of the gun. For example: my G30 is a lot more compact than my Sig P227 SAS yet they both hold almost the same amount of rounds depending on the magazine. The grip on the Sig is about an inch longer and a quarter of an inch wider. For arguments sake using the shortest magazine for both. The G30 holds nine rounds and the Sig ten.

Overall though I really like my Springfield XDM .45 Compact 3.8 over the G30. It's a very well made gun and there are fewer stamped steel parts if any. It comes in a fitted case along with more accessories including a paddle holster and magazine loader. It also has a loaded chamber indicator and a grip safety. It's more ergonomic than the Glock and the fit and finish are more refined. Springfield did a really good job on this one! 

As for polymer guns? I'd have to say that HK's are probably the best. I've got an HK45C .45, a USP .45 Compact and a P2000SK .40. All DA/SA's. I recently bought an FNX .45 15+1 but have yet to fire it.

If I had to get rid of 'em all and only keep one brand of semi auto it would probably be Sig. I've got a few Kimber 1911's a Detonics, and a Colt 1911 and am a big fan of CZ's. I've got a Beretta 92FS, nice gun, but it's too God damn big for a .9mm. If you're gonna' lug something around that big it's gotta' be at least a .45. Sig's in my opinion have the highest quality production all metal semi auto's on the market today.

For revolvers? I'd have to go with S&W and Ruger. S&W's are probably better made at least in the finishing department. While Ruger's are built like a bank vault and have no side plates to weaken their frames. I've got a 2 3/4 inch Redhawk Talo, 7 1/2 inch Redhawk and a Super Blackhawk "Bisley" all .44 Magnums which can handle 340 grain +P+ "Buffalo Bore" ammunition whereas my S&W Models 29 and 629 could not. They will chamber okay but the ammunition manufacturer specifically warns against it. 

I've got others too, but they really aren't that practical. Two Bond Arms .410 derringers and a couple of those NAA mini .22 Magnums. There's just something about those .410 Derringers? I've also got a MAC 10 .45 with 32 round magazines. If for no other reason I just hadda' have one.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

jtguns said:


> Southern, I hear you and for your purpose and reasons. But I don't like Glocks, its not that Glock isn't worthy firearm, they just don't sit in my hand right.


And in the end, that's all that really matters... what works best for you. If you can't make the gun work well in your hand, then everything else is a moot point.



jtguns said:


> For me it would be the Browning Hi-power. But like everything else, everybody is different, with different wants and needs.


The classic Browning Hi-Power and its later Mark III-S are extremely fine handling and feeling guns. I have a Mark III-S, which just happens to be the first centerfire semi-auto I ever purchased. That was in 1989. I took that gun to a gunsmith who specialized in tuning work on a select collection of handguns. He did a wonderful job on it and it remains in my collection, never to be sold.


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)




----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

I will stick to the 1911a1 because if not for one I carried a long time ago I would have slept under a sod blanket.


----------



## pblanc (Mar 3, 2015)

The Glock is a fine combat handgun if you can shoot them quickly and accurately, and you are sold on the notion that a striker-fired pistol sans external safety is the best option. Certainly the Glock 19 has a very attractive size and capacity for a 9mm pistol, a history of reliability, and a simple and robust design.

But Glocks do not work particularly well for me. The grip angle and the large palm swell low on the backstrap ("Glock hump") make the pistol point unnaturally for me. Yes, I can compensate for this tendency and shoot Glocks tolerably well, but in a critical situation I am sure my tendency would be to shoot high. The 2 x 4 like grip is not particularly comfortable in my hand and the finger grooves are too closely spaced to fit my fingers. The SIG P320 compact while very similar in overall dimensions is slightly less sleek than the G19, but much more comfortable in my hand, points naturally, and has a better trigger. Design, size, and even reliability become secondary considerations if you can't shoot the pistol well.

I am also not convinced that a striker-fired pistol without an external safety is the safest choice for many people. I prefer the margin of safety against an unintentional discharge that a double action only, or traditional double action (DA/SA) pistol provides, although I do feel that these types often require a greater period of training to shoot well, due to the longer trigger press of the DAO or first shot of the DA/SA, and the need to master the DA to SA trigger pull transition.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

A _fighting_ gun? Not an all purpose concealed carry gun that I'm more likely to wear out practicing with than actually using to defend my life? I'm assuming that you mean the gun I would take if I knew I was about to be in a fight for my life and I did not have a rifle or shotgun, and concealment was not an issue.

My answer, unequivocally, would be the Glock G-20. Why? Because I shoot it pretty well from 0-75 yards, it has more power than a .45 ACP or a .357 magnum, and it has never jammed. The recoil doesn't faze me, and it holds 15+1.


----------



## CW (Mar 20, 2015)

SB, A very good post which brings up what I consider the most important quality of a fighting handgun choice: Confidence.

You have expressed such confidence that for you to carry any other pistol would seem a violation of that very confidence.
Confidence is what keeps you efficient: The pistol WILL Work. It will function. It will be accurate. 
And even if the ammo fails,
the pistol will clear efficiently and return to its expected performance level.

Try to imagine carrying a pistol that you have doubts about.... Will it jam? Will it hit? Will it even stop an assailant?
Ok maybe drifting into the cartridge selecting argument....but why even bother to carry let alone own such a thing?

But even a .22 that is dead on accurate and reliable is far better that a 9mm that jams frequently and has lousy groups.

Confidence. 

And there are plenty who have the same confidence in the same pistol, and that, I believe, really bolsters the opinion that Glocks are a fantastic choice for a handgun.

For me confidence includes a hammer, metal, and CZ. But then if everybody wanted the same gun, this would be a very boring forum.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

pblanc said:


> The Glock is a fine combat handgun if you can shoot them quickly and accurately, and you are sold on the notion that a striker-fired pistol sans external safety is the best option. Certainly the Glock 19 has a very attractive size and capacity for a 9mm pistol, a history of reliability, and a simple and robust design.
> 
> But Glocks do not work particularly well for me. The grip angle and the large palm swell low on the backstrap ("Glock hump") make the pistol point unnaturally for me. Yes, I can compensate for this tendency and shoot Glocks tolerably well, but in a critical situation I am sure my tendency would be to shoot high. The 2 x 4 like grip is not particularly comfortable in my hand and the finger grooves are too closely spaced to fit my fingers. The SIG P320 compact while very similar in overall dimensions is slightly less sleek than the G19, but much more comfortable in my hand, points naturally, and has a better trigger. Design, size, and even reliability become secondary considerations if you can't shoot the pistol well.
> 
> I am also not convinced that a striker-fired pistol without an external safety is the safest choice for many people. I prefer the margin of safety against an unintentional discharge that a double action only, or traditional double action (DA/SA) pistol provides, although I do feel that these types often require a greater period of training to shoot well, due to the longer trigger press of the DAO or first shot of the DA/SA, and the need to master the DA to SA trigger pull transition.


The Glock trigger is DAO by design.


----------



## rustygun (Apr 8, 2013)

Glock is my choice. Sitting by my nightstand is a G21 with 15+1 rounds of .45 Acp. For carry either G30 or G19. They have earned my confidence though expirence I have shooting them.


----------



## pblanc (Mar 3, 2015)

SouthernBoy said:


> The Glock trigger is DAO by design.


I disagree with the classification of striker-fired pistols as DAO. The terms single and double action originated with hammer-fired revolvers, and were later applied to hammer-fired pistols. To "trigger cock" a hammer in double action requires a relatively long trigger pull to swing the hammer through its arc. When the Glock was introduced, they managed to get the BATF to categorize the pistol as DAO rather than apply a new designation which would have made more sense. They had a lot at stake since many law enforcement agencies had at that time mandated DAO handguns. Since then, the term DAO has been applied to quite a few other striker-action pistols, even those in which the striker is essentially completely tensioned through the slide cycling. But no striker-action pistol I have shot requires as deliberate a trigger press as the double-action pull of a DA/SA or DAO hammer-fired pistol, or a double action or DAO revolver. So the term has been perverted from its original meaning.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

pblanc said:


> I disagree with the classification of striker-fired pistols as DAO. The terms single and double action originated with hammer-fired revolvers, and were later applied to hammer-fired pistols. To "trigger cock" a hammer in double action requires a relatively long trigger pull to swing the hammer through its arc. When the Glock was introduced, they managed to get the BATF to categorize the pistol as DAO rather than apply a new designation which would have made more sense. They had a lot at stake since many law enforcement agencies had at that time mandated DAO handguns. Since then, the term DAO has been applied to quite a few other striker-action pistols, even those in which the striker is essentially completely tensioned through the slide cycling. But no striker-action pistol I have shot requires as deliberate a trigger press as the double-action pull of a DA/SA or DAO hammer-fired pistol, or a double action or DAO revolver. So the term has been perverted from its original meaning.


I disagree with your assessment and here's why. The designation of a trigger's action type always relates to the task(s) the trigger performs in firing the gun. Just the trigger. What you're describing with a hammer fired DAO is one in which the gun has a second strike capability. A prime example of this is the Kel-Tec P-11. But even though the Glock does not have a second strike capability, its trigger still does perform two defined tasks with each and every pull. It completes the cocking of the striker and then releases that striker to fire a cartridge. The Glock trigger is a two stage unit because of this. That is the action of a DAO pistol. There are also hybrids of a sort, best described as SAO. The Smith and Wesson M&P series exemplify this in that the striker is held in a fully cocked position and all the trigger does is to release it.

There are other pistols which are striker fired and more closely resemble the action and feel of a DA revolver. The Kahr line comes to mind. But when thinking about what type of action label a trigger has, always consider only what that trigger does in the sequence of events that occur when firing a gun.


----------



## pblanc (Mar 3, 2015)

SouthernBoy said:


> I disagree with your assessment and here's why. The designation of a trigger's action type always relates to the task(s) the trigger performs in firing the gun. Just the trigger. What you're describing with a hammer fired DAO is one in which the gun has a second strike capability. A prime example of this is the Kel-Tec P-11. But even though the Glock does not have a second strike capability, its trigger still does perform two defined tasks with each and every pull. It completes the cocking of the striker and then releases that striker to fire a cartridge. The Glock trigger is a two stage unit because of this. That is the action of a DAO pistol. There are also hybrids of a sort, best described as SAO. The Smith and Wesson M&P series exemplify this in that the striker is held in a fully cocked position and all the trigger does is to release it.
> 
> There are other pistols which are striker fired and more closely resemble the action and feel of a DA revolver. The Kahr line comes to mind. But when thinking about what type of action label a trigger has, always consider only what that trigger does in the sequence of events that occur when firing a gun.


Yes, yes, yes, I understand the basis on which the BATF designated the Glock DAO. I have shot quite a few striker-action pistols: multiple versions of the SIG P320, M&Ps, Springfield XDs, Heckler and Koch VP9, FN FNS, various Rugers, Kahrs, Walther PPQ and P99, and others I am sure I have forgotten.

I have also shot a bunch of double action revolvers, own a GP100, own 5 different varieties of DA/SA hammer-fired pistols, and own two different DAO hammer-fired pistols. No striker-action pistol I have ever shot, whether it calls itself DAO or not, requires anywhere near as long and deliberate a trigger press as that of the DA trigger press of any DA/SA pistol, or that of any DAO pistol I have shot. Kahrs and the DA trigger pull of the Walther P99 would come the closest, but even the trigger pull on those is still considerably shorter than that of any hammer-fired DA or DAO pistol or revolver I have shot. And fans of double action or DAO revolvers and DA/SA or DAO pistols usually like them because they feel that the long, deliberate trigger press adds an element of safety against an accidental or premature discharge in a tense situation. Striker-fired pistols do vary in the degree of trigger take-up, weight of pull, length of reset, etc, but as a group they do not require nearly as deliberate or long a trigger press.

And I have seen the classification of striker-action pistols as DAO lead to considerable confusion. I know of individuals who had never shot anything other than striker-action pistols who bought a DAO hammer-fired pistol such as the SIG P250 who thought they knew all about DAO pistols because their striker gun was so classified. They were then appalled at the length of trigger pull required to break the hammer. Striker-action pistols are now being categorized as DAO even though the striker is virtually completely tensioned by slide reciprocation. An example is the SIG P320. So now when applied to striker-action pistols, the term has little real meaning. In my mind it would have been better if the BATF had just applied the designation striker-action and then broke the class down by pull weight, length of pull, etc. It is how the trigger works and feels that is of more importance to many or most shooters than exactly what is going on inside the slide.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

What if you found yourself in a skirmish, and not a full-fledged fight? 

Would that require a completely different kind of handgun? :watching:


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

There is no such thing as a skirmish when your backside is on the line it is a fight.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

The point I was making on 'fighting gun' versus concealed carry gun is that my concealed carry gun is a compromise based on many things. I don't expect to ever use my carry weapon, but I do want something sufficient if I do need it. So I am willing to compromise a little bit to make it easier to carry and conceal. If the odds were greater that I would actually use it, I would go with the most powerful, accurate, and reliable gun and just find a way to deal with the other issues.


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

I solved the problem of Conceal carry gun or fighting gun, mine is the same a 1911a1.


----------



## andymidplains (Nov 30, 2012)

I'm with Tony. I slept with a 1911A1 many nights. It just jumps into my hand. Where I point it shoots. I admit I never needed lots of bullets, but one time I got it out and pointed in time (and used no bullets) to keep a young woman from pitching a old pineapple grenade into our 6x6.


----------

