Best combat handgun...

I dont know much about what's needed for a combat handgun but if i had to pick one in my stable, it would be my Glock G19 Gen 4 ( 106mm barrel ), it's just an awesome firearm... JP.
 
1911 in 38 Super. The reliability of a 1911 with higher mag. capacity than .45 but not girly like a 9mm.;)
 
And now questions for you: What do you mean by combat? If you're talking military it must be 9mm or .45 as it needs to be a NATO standard calibre. Your nature and duration of engagements will be intensified and lengthened over LE or CCW responses. You also have issues with ammo selection as soliders are issued ball ammo rather than modern defensive ammo. Your handgun is strictly a backup; carbines and long guns are heavily preferred for accuracy and potency.

The goalposts could change considerably if you're talking LE or CCW carry.

I own pretty much every one of the handguns listed in this thread. I run a PPQ in IDPA, but were I deployed my choice remains the Glock 17 9mm; Glock 19 if I was talking CCW.

Modern frangible ammunition has made the 9mm a potent defensive cartridge, and you are able to pack a lot of rounds into a compact package. The FBI has recognized this and is returning to 9mm from .40 S&W.

As others have said, you can find Glocks EVERYWHERE, and that could matter. I don't think it has much to do with price... I think it has more to do with the simple reliability of the ugly Austrian.

Weight makes a huge difference when you're lugging these things around all day... Back in the day I carried a 4" 686 for 12 hours a day and you felt it by the end of the shift. I was VERY happy when we switched over to Glock 22s. Every one of my friends with the VPD was glad to see the Beretta go in favor of the Glock for the same reason.

Some people knock the accuracy of the Glock... I admit I was more accurate the first time I picked up and shot pretty much EVERY other pistol, but it wasn't a significant difference. After a few days of training I could shoot the Glock as accurately as any of my other pistols. I think it had to do with the majority of my early handgun training being Army training on beat up old High Powers. I've seen many virgin pistol shooters quickly trained for excellent accuracy when the Glock was their first experience.

I find a striker pistol far easier to use: I don't have to mess with decockers or safeties, and the trigger pull is consistent. Just a few less things to train for or consider.

Occam's Razor dictates simpler is better!!!!!!!!!
 
Sig, Glock or HK, not necessarily in that order.

9 mm as it's available all over the world.

Rich

Ok after reading FrankeT's post I'm changing my mind, FN Fiveseven. Very accurate, very long effective range, 1/3 or more "less" recoil than a 9mm, Standard mag capacity is 20 + 1, penetrates body amour......now only if finding ammo is not an issue.
If in a far away place with no 5.7 x 28 ammo source, I'll revert back to my original choices.
 
Last edited:
I don't think that there is any one best combat handgun, but it isn't a Glock.

The Glock is simply a very bland and ordinary Browning-style pistol with a striker, which is cheap to make.

With the introduction of modular pistols with stronger steel and aluminum sub-frames, which also allow easy replacement of the grip frame as a non-serialized component without legal complications, the Glock and it's flimsy slide-retaining clips has become obsolete.

The U.S. military has specified a modular pistol for it's new sidearm because they are more durable, and because they permit installation of a variety of different grip frames.

Time marches on and Glocks have become old-school inferior.
 
Lonesome Donkey said:
I don't think that there is any one best combat handgun, but it isn't a Glock.

The Glock is simply a very bland and ordinary Browning-style pistol with a striker, which is cheap to make.

With the introduction of modular pistols with stronger steel and aluminum sub-frames, which also allow easy replacement of the grip frame as a non-serialized component without legal complications, the Glock and it's flimsy slide-retaining clips has become obsolete.

The U.S. military has specified a modular pistol for it's new sidearm because they are more durable, and because they permit installation of a variety of different grip frames.

Time marches on and Glocks have become old-school inferior.
Click to expand...

Can you explain why "bland and ordinary" makes a difference in performance or reliability? No one makes a pistol with fewer parts and Glocks run and run and run. The polymer is 86% lighter and some 30% stronger than steel by weight/thickness. The polymer in the frame keeps it light, thermally neutral, is impervious to environment and yes is cost effective to produce.

I'm not sure what you mean by "flimsy slide-retaining clip". If you're talking about the slide lock used for disassembly then I'm not sure where the flimsy comment comes in? I've had more than a dozen Glock pistols and have friends with another dozen Glock pistols and no one has yet broken their slide lock. All combined we have over a quarter million rounds through our pistols.

Not sure how you equate modular to being more durable? The US mil wants modular so they can inventory fewer items while having one pistol(with its accessories) serve all roles. Aside from changing the overall size of the pistol the grip size changes are a gimmick sold to untrained/unskilled people who don't know any better. The vast majority of handguns have nearly identical grip sizes and none of which plays any significant role in shooter performance. Length of pull can be a problem like that of the Beretta 92 series and legacy SIG pistols but the grip circumference is irrelevant.

Glock has taken the market in less than 30 years from inception and currently has a near 1 million pistol back log in production. I don't think they are obsolete and they surely aren't going anywhere anytime soon. Those who are permitted to choose their pistol as opposed to being issued their pistol have chosen Glock 19's. That would be the entire US SOF community.
 
Kidd X said:
Can you explain why "bland and ordinary" makes a difference in performance or reliability? No one makes a pistol with fewer parts and Glocks run and run and run. The polymer is 86% lighter and some 30% stronger than steel by weight/thickness. The polymer in the frame keeps it light, thermally neutral, is impervious to environment and yes is cost effective to produce.

I'm not sure what you mean by "flimsy slide-retaining clip". If you're talking about the slide lock used for disassembly then I'm not sure where the flimsy comment comes in? I've had more than a dozen Glock pistols and have friends with another dozen Glock pistols and no one has yet broken their slide lock. All combined we have over a quarter million rounds through our pistols.

Not sure how you equate modular to being more durable? The US mil wants modular so they can inventory fewer items while having one pistol(with its accessories) serve all roles. Aside from changing the overall size of the pistol the grip size changes are a gimmick sold to untrained/unskilled people who don't know any better. The vast majority of handguns have nearly identical grip sizes and none of which plays any significant role in shooter performance. Length of pull can be a problem like that of the Beretta 92 series and legacy SIG pistols but the grip circumference is irrelevant.

Glock has taken the market in less than 30 years from inception and currently has a near 1 million pistol back log in production. I don't think they are obsolete and they surely aren't going anywhere anytime soon. Those who are permitted to choose their pistol as opposed to being issued their pistol have chosen Glock 19's. That would be the entire US SOF community.
Click to expand...

TDC that has to be you.
 
Kidd X said:
I did some searching for this TDC person and I agree with a lot of what he says, but he seems like a bit of a douche. Can I say that if he isn't a member anymore?
Click to expand...

TDC was a legend here! He always came across as arrogant but I believe he was on point in a lot of his assessments. He annoyed a lot of people when he challenged their POVs but he would never agree to a meet and shoot to prove his " superiority".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom