So many new striker fired pistols, which to choose?

That CZ P10c has some amazing reviews going for it. CZ slapped Glock in the face with that gun. Fits in Glock holsters. Not sure if Glock did this in retaliation to the new P10c but Glock lowered the MSP on Glocks by $200. Id be interested in the CZ P10c if I was going striker fired route but its still not yet in Canada.
 
Last edited:
I had an FNS9-LS, and it was "interesting". Ignoring the fact that the trigger was so rough it felt like it was rotating over corn on the cob, not polished metal, the gun did not live up to my expectations. Everyone who shot the gun was amazed with its accuracy. I wasn't. If I took my time, controlled my breathing and the trigger squeeze, I could shoot it OK. (Not well, but OK.) Forget about trying to be fast AND accurate (like for IDPA for instance), it wasn't going to happen for me with this gun. For some reason, I was the only one who shot that gun who could not shoot it accurately so this is not about the gun. It is about how the gun and I functioned together. If there was ever an example of the importance of ergonomics, this was it.

Ultimately, I sold my FNS9-LS and bought a CZ SP01 Shadow and haven't looked back. (OK, maybe I looked back a little. I still wanted a striker fired 9mm, so I got a P320 and I am having much better results with it than I did with my FNS.)
 
Hoag said:
I had an FNS9-LS, and it was "interesting". Ignoring the fact that the trigger was so rough it felt like it was rotating over corn on the cob, not polished metal, the gun did not live up to my expectations. Everyone who shot the gun was amazed with its accuracy. I wasn't. If I took my time, controlled my breathing and the trigger squeeze, I could shoot it OK. (Not well, but OK.) Forget about trying to be fast AND accurate (like for IDPA for instance), it wasn't going to happen for me with this gun. For some reason, I was the only one who shot that gun who could not shoot it accurately so this is not about the gun. It is about how the gun and I functioned together. If there was ever an example of the importance of ergonomics, this was it.

Ultimately, I sold my FNS9-LS and bought a CZ SP01 Shadow and haven't looked back. (OK, maybe I looked back a little. I still wanted a striker fired 9mm, so I got a P320 and I am having much better results with it than I did with my FNS.)
Click to expand...
Perfect example of how personal handguns are to the individual, I am on the other end of the spectrum, I can shoot my FNS faster and more accurately than any other pistol I have shot. In the end, I guess the reality is that you never know until you actually shoot the pistol yourself :)
 
beltfed said:
It all comes down to personal preferences with grips and triggers, that is true.
However, don't forget about OEM and aftermarket support such as mags, sights, triggers, holsters, etc.
Not only reliability, availability and costs of the pistol, but all of the crap that goes with it, which will in a lot of cases, cost as much as the base model of the pistol.

Glock is still the standard to meet or beat, and quite frankly - there is still a large following, for a very good reason.
To suggest it's time has been eclipsed isn't really being honest with reality.
Love it or hate it, its design is iconic as is its service.
I have a few striker fired pistols, and the Glocks will always have a place in my gun lock up.
Click to expand...

Ummm most striker fired guns have far better triggers out of the box, and have sights that don't require changing to be useful than the Glock. Most if not all don't point skyward when you grip them and are not as susceptible to limp wristing due to a slide that is heavier than it needs to be. Those point aside the Glock design soldiers on with a large following no doubt. But other guns don't have those features to overcome and a lot of shooters are now opting for something different. Glock certainly is not the gun which all other polymer guns are compared to unless you are talking about a base comparison. I am not sure the latter is a good thing.

There is no denying the support Glock has for after market parts. Your point about support is important and some of the polymers fail big time in this regard but there are a lot now that don't. The days of relying on reliability and support are long gone as virtually all modern designs are utterly reliable as is the Glock BTW, and most but not all have excellent support. So when I say "time has passed it by", it simply has. Glock remains a ergonomic nightmare, with a bad trigger and cheap sights that has got a solid reputation by selling pistols cheap to law enforcement. It also has the benefit of being a bit of an after market suppliers dream, and the gun can certainly be made into a decent shooter. There are guns though, today, that are decent shooters out of the box, come with excellent triggers, excellent sights and far better ergonomics out of the box.The marketplace has moved on.

Watch what is about to happen in the LEO market in the US now the US Army has adopted the SIG 320 as their pistol. The civilian market has already made the move.

Take Care

Bob
 
Canuck44 said:
Ummm most striker fired guns have far better triggers out of the box, and have sights that don't require changing to be useful than the Glock. Most if not all don't point skyward when you grip them and are not as susceptible to limp wristing due to a slide that is heavier than it needs to be. Those point aside the Glock design soldiers on with a large following no doubt. But other guns don't have those features to overcome and a lot of shooters are now opting for something different. Glock certainly is not the gun which all other polymer guns are compared to unless you are talking about a base comparison. I am not sure the latter is a good thing.

There is no denying the support Glock has for after market parts. Your point about support is important and some of the polymers fail big time in this regard but there are a lot now that don't. The days of relying on reliability and support are long gone as virtually all modern designs are utterly reliable as is the Glock BTW, and most but not all have excellent support. So when I say "time has passed it by", it simply has. Glock remains a ergonomic nightmare, with a bad trigger and cheap sights that has got a solid reputation by selling pistols cheap to law enforcement. It also has the benefit of being a bit of an after market suppliers dream, and the gun can certainly be made into a decent shooter. There are guns though, today, that are decent shooters out of the box, come with excellent triggers, excellent sights and far better ergonomics out of the box.The marketplace has moved on.

Watch what is about to happen in the LEO market in the US now the US Army has adopted the SIG 320 as their pistol. The civilian market has already made the move.

Take Care

Bob
Click to expand...

FWIW, a crappy trigger means as little to a new shooter as bad sights do. Ergonomics are extremely subjective. Last weekend myself and 3 other shooters were out with a Glock 34 and P320. All 4 of us shot the 34 considerably better. The owner of the 320 is actually planning to ditch his in favor of a Glock after shooting them side by side.
 
rkm456 said:
FWIW, a crappy trigger means as little to a new shooter as bad sights do. Ergonomics are extremely subjective. Last weekend myself and 3 other shooters were out with a Glock 34 and P320. All 4 of us shot the 34 considerably better. The owner of the 320 is actually planning to ditch his in favor of a Glock after shooting them side by side.
Click to expand...

And that proves what? Four shooters shoot the 34 better which means...????? The owner of the 320 is going to ditch his gun for a Glock based your one day outing.. Tell him I will give him $500 for his 320 just to help him out.

I have to admit your post is a unique point of view.

Take Care

Bob
 
Canuck44 said:
And that proves what? Four shooters shoot the 34 better which means...????? The owner of the 320 is going to ditch his gun for a Glock based your one day outing.. Tell him I will give him $500 for his 320 just to help him out.

I have to admit your post is a unique point of view.

Take Care

Bob
Click to expand...

What does it prove? Nothing at all, just an anecdote. But your post that I quoted went on about terrible triggers, useless sights and bad ergonomics resulting in "The marketplace moving on" It appears that in at least some cases, that hasn't happened.
 
Perhaps but the marketplace is more than one person and in fact it has moved on as witnessed by the plethora of new entrants in the striker fired market. There are some excellent pistols out there vying for your disposable funds. One almost has to pull one out of the hat, gear up for it and live with the decision. All are capable of accuracy beyond the capabilities of the owners, virtually all are dead nuts reliable and with few exceptions are well supported by after market do dads, few of which make much difference in how the gun performs.

Take care

Bob
 
Canuck44, you are all over the forums and threads trying to prove yourself and others how good this p320 is and why all of us are 'confused' for not buying one. You love what the military uses and if they use it, they must be right and that is the only truth?

I am sorry, but I am still not seeing any P320 winning competitions anywhere, read competitions not contracts.
I do not see world class shooters bragging about the 0,2 split times with this design nor I see this platform thriving in high volume shooting as IPSC.

Contracts are awarded to the lowest bidder and more often than not, the people deciding what gun they take are not gun operators but paper pushers (ask the CBSA and their horrible and stupid Beretta).

It is sad to see that other better combat guns lost to the P320. I find the design dated, bulky, high bore axis, bad ergos, sheeees, not sure why people like this gun so much. It has all the things you do not want in a polymer.

Only good thing about it is the modularity of the design on how easy is it to swap frames, other than that, the Glock still wins and beats any other current polymer in the market for simplicity, repairability and reliability. This and the fact that is being used by more than 80% of armed agencies is a good indication that they can also win contracts.

People assume that because guns won contracts now they are THE BEST GUNS out there and if you do not drink the coolaid you are out to lunch! for thinking different.

What the heck? last time I checked HK had invented the polymer platform and Glock has governed and owned the industry since the 80 and everybody and their gramma is playing catchup copying every ounce of their design, trying to accomplish the same (and supposedly better).

Other than winning a military contract, the P320 has accomplished nothing and the fact that won does not mean anything other that it complies to a check list that is probably also dated to current fighting standards/training situations.
The p320 went through 2 different generations in less than 10 years and still has teething problems (bad ergos, bad magazine release, two different slide releases).

Won a contract, great. Let's talk again in 30 years to see if this design is still relevant like a other polymers.

In the meantime, if I am going to pick a pistol based on what an agency is using, I am not going to look at the army but maybe an agency that it is more specialized (special forces, etc).
 
Canuck44 said:
Perhaps but the marketplace is more than one person and in fact it has moved on as witnessed by the plethora of new entrants in the striker fired market. There are some excellent pistols out there vying for your disposable funds. One almost has to pull one out of the hat, gear up for it and live with the decision. All are capable of accuracy beyond the capabilities of the owners, virtually all are dead nuts reliable and with few exceptions are well supported by after market do dads, few of which make much difference in how the gun performs.

Take care

Bob
Click to expand...

The marketplace is definitely bigger than a single consumer. Having said that, this forum wasn't filling up with members talking up the P320 6 months ago if you catch my drift.
 
The Sig P320 is my recommendation. I fired mine for the first time last night and the grouping is amazing. A little bit of a high hold at five yards but I haven't been shooting for a while so my skills may play a part. It's well balanced with a light DAO trigger and little muzzle flip. It performed beyond my expectations and it's a great price for a Sig. I'll post a review thread on the M17 when I have more time.
-Brett
 
rkm456 said:
The marketplace is definitely bigger than a single consumer. Having said that, this forum wasn't filling up with members talking up the P320 6 months ago if you catch my drift.
Click to expand...

Of course. The pistol wins the US Army contract and we all discover how great the pistol is. Same thing happened to the Glock. Glock throws their pistol out of a helicopter and we all go and buy one. CZ Shadow wins IPSC Production regularly and the Shadow is the only gun for Joe Scmuck to ever want to buy cuz it will make them a) a better shooter, and b) a recognized member of the group. Show up with something else and you get reminded how much better you would shoot with a Shadow. Hoyman the local boy in da hood runs a Glock and.....

That aside the gun does have some nice features I am told. For me, if I buy one, is the attraction of the SIG designed Romeo Optic and the fact it is a SIG. No worries about support and whether they would stand behind their gun. The other side of the coin is I have a Venom optic and quite a stable of M&P mags so the Smith CORE has some attraction.

Take Care

Bob
 
I hate Sig.
I hate polymer.
I hate striker fired.

Considering your list of choices, take the P320. I don't personnaly want one, but it's the best one from your list imho.
 
B.H.B said:
The Sig P320 is my recommendation. I fired mine for the first time last night and the grouping is amazing. A little bit of a high hold at five yards but I haven't been shooting for a while so my skills may play a part. It's well balanced with a light DAO trigger and little muzzle flip. It performed beyond my expectations and it's a great price for a Sig. I'll post a review thread on the M17 when I have more time.
-Brett
Click to expand...

2 things. 1) Where'd you get a M17 from? 2) It's not Sig, it's SIG.
 
Correction: Should read: "Where'd you get an (not a) M17".
M17 is Sig P320 without a (not an) safety. Plus, if you don't know the difference between an and a you probably can't differentiate between popular vernacular, acronyms, and hypocrisy.
 
B.H.B said:
Correction: Should read: "Where'd you get an (not a) M17".
M17 is Sig P320 without a (not an) safety. Plus, if you don't know the difference between an and a you probably can't differentiate between popular vernacular, acronyms, and hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that the "M" of "M17" was an abbreviation for something (military, modular, etc.) In which case its "a" M17 as the M represents a word that does not start with a vowel. Ie, "I bought a Military17 today." If you abbreviate the word the determiner doesn't change. In the case the M doesn't represent anything, they yes it would be "an M17"

On a more firearm related note, I believe the M17 pistol has an external safety where the civilian version P320 does not. You can see the military specified manual safety at the rear of the slide in this picture:

sig-sauer-M17jpg.jpg
 
B.H.B said:
M17 is a designation not a word. Therefore, grammatically it starts with a vowel as in: embarrassed or eM17. Hence an M17.
Click to expand...

Are you sure the "M" doesn't represent a word? Model perhaps? It seems odd to me that the military would arbitrarily select a letter to put before every weapon system they use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom