{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
4/15/2013 5:07:56 PM
9
I'm really partial to the .40 Glocks myself. I have a full size (Model 22) and a sub-compact (Model 27). For me they were the "sweet spot" between a 9mm and the .45ACP.
As to women shooting better? Get used to it. I think that it is due to a combination of factors, but I suspect that a major one is that they have no need at all to feel masculine while shooting, and so, are able to better focus on following instruction and controlling their aim. Many men I see on the ranger are more concerned with either rapid fire and/or making loud noises, and others? Are just self-impressed with "look at how big a gun I am shooting and how well I handle the recoil". Women aren't really interested in that, and so, they probably put more thought and effort into simply hitting the target.
English
-
would you say you believe in leaving them stock, or upgrading the internals to "match grade" parts?
-
My Model 22 did KB on me (overpressured Federal rounds). Other than tritium sights, extended mag release and slide release, they are stock. Since they are carry/defensive, I would only consider replacing the barrel or other internals if I noticed wear or damage. I've owned a few 1911's and those (in addition to trying them as common carry, which didn't work for me) got some match-grade components when they didn't work out as carry pistols. In the end though, I sold them. My instinctive aim point is much more natural with the Glock's grip angle than with the 1911. It's a shame really. I adore the 1911's. Their design, construction and operation are works of art, especially when they are made by a high-end manufacturer and then tuned. But I can't justify the expense off having something that I am afraid to sweat on. Even if I love the look/feel of them.
-
That's the combo I have as well, the G22 and G27. Fine choice. - Der
-
[quote]I'm really partial to the .40 Glocks myself. I have a full size (Model 22) and a sub-compact (Model 27). For me they were the "sweet spot" between a 9mm and the .45ACP.[/quote] Us too! My husband uses the 27 for his concealed carry. The 22 stays in his bed side table most nights.
-
Very similar use and experience here. The nice thing is that I don't have to carry a small spare mag with the 27. While the 27 isn't really "ultra-compact", I can pretty much carry it with any kind of clothes. Even shorts and t-shirt, and did for years with hospital scrubs. [url=http://www.thunderwearholsters.com/v/vspfiles/assets/images/cluster_1.jpg]Thunderwear[/url] might not be my preferred holster (I have a leather IWB that is my most preferred), but when I can't go traditional, it's been a remarkable holster system.
-
My husband has several holsters he can wear, but most of the time, he's got his work bag over his shoulder and he just places it in there. When we go out, he's got a couple of holster choices to fit what he's wearing. On a side note, my mom carries her revolver in a [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8r6CY5UZyw]Flash Bang[/url] which is ridiculously comfortable and convenient for her. This is a very nice little product for women.
-
Makes sense. Was a fun experience for all of us. Defiantly missed the experience. 5 years was too long lol. Might go to a local one and try out the .45. See how much a difference it is. Kick was not too bad with the .40 .
-
.45 to me doesn't really kick. 9mm felt similar, very similar. My brother is a .45 man, and it looks like I am too. Though I prefer my long guns.
-
The .45 Glock has a larger receiver/grip, due to it still being a double-stack magazine holding the larger cartridge. If my hands were slightly larger, I would have either gone with the .45 or the 10mm, but my grip was not as sure/comfortable and as solid with the slightly larger framed Glocks.
