Most reliable and shootable 9mm semi auto pistols

[Thegman]

That linked target prints on a standard sheet of 8 1/2 x 11, correct? I'll print some out.

I have zero doubt you're a better shooter than I am, but you weren't addressing my point at all, which is pretty simple, and pretty limited. My point was about the universal nature of the statements you made regarding using a laser to practice with. It didn't seem to correlate with my experience, and still doesn't. Maybe for everyone you've met, it does, I can't say. But telling me I'm having the experiences you describe below is gaslighting. I'm not saying using a laser is going to make you an IDPA champion, it's not, but it doesn't necessarily produce the habits you claim that it literally does for everyone.

Everyone that uses them does- there is no other way to see the laser dot- which means, you aren’t watching your sights on the pistol.

Not true at all, not with how I use it anyway (target focus - "soft sight focus") which is the same way you described many (successful - high level) shooters aim when you were arguing against using a red dot, which also makes sense, IMO.

Your sights/the red dot on the pistol tells you where the bullet went, that’s how you learn to “read the sights” through recoil to evaluate the shot, to make follow up shots. When you go “click” then immediately look for the dot on the wall or whatever, you are only teaching yourself to- pull trigger, then snap you head/eyes up to the target to see what happened. I.E.- away from the only thing that makes the bullets go where you want them to. So when you miss, and you will, you then have to try and shift your vision back to the sights and try again. Then the cycle repeats itself over and over. Doing so, you are out of the loop- you are constantly acting in the past.

Like I said above, this experience doesn't describe how I use a laser, not at all, not even remotely. To tell me this is what I'm doing, is gaslighting. I didn't post the target to show I'm a shooting phenom, I'm not. The point was to actually check what you were telling me, in good faith.

I don't think everyone that carries a pistol for bear defense needs to be an upper echelon shooter, and the data absolutely agrees with that, if not, pistols wouldn't be nearly as effective as they are. But yeah, I imagine when you're talking pistol shooting you certainly are talking about shooting at a different, and much higher level than I am, and that could certainly be where we're talking past each other.

And just for laughs, and full disclosure, I'll post this picture. I went back out right after posting my first "experiment" and shot at 7 yards again, slow on top target, bottom as fast as -I- can regain sights and target...no, it wasn’t timed. Top was ~30-40 seconds for 10 rounds, bottom was around 10 seconds, middle was first target. For my purposes, I was okay with that, at least with this pistol and Tula ammo anyway.

 

[Tacoland]

I'm not saying using a laser is going to make you an IDPA champion, it's not, but it doesn't necessarily produce the habits you claim that it literally does for everyone.

Gonna take a stab at this one, could be way off base. I'm pretty sure the issue @Formidilosus is talking about here isn't neccesarily isolated to accuracy, per se, more the habits/process of shooting that you've developing that fall apart at speed.

If you're relying on the laser pointer (or holes in paper for that matter) for feedback during a string of rapid fire, you're almost 100% not focusing on the process of controlling recoil and focusing on sight picture (regardless of what that sight focus is). Just like with rifle shooting, you should be able to call your shot as the trigger breaks.

The laser may work for initially building a consistent grip and trigger pull, but I think it falls apart when you start to progress in speed.

My two cents would be that dryfire without the laser is probably more effective for drilling aquisition of sight picture off the draw and consistency of grip. Some of the drills in Ben Stoegers' Dryfire:Reloaded are great for building the ability to aquire a consistent sight picture and then assess how you're breaking the shot based on your sights alone. It keeps you "in the loop" rather than relying on external feedback for every single trigger pull.

 

[justinspicher]

Whether a guy uses a laser or not for dry fires really doesn’t matter. The discipline to do each rep correctly is what matters. Otherwise you’re just wasting your time.

 

[HighUintas]

In case anyone has been thinking about getting a p365 xl.... $450

https://palmettostatearmory.com/sig...d&utm_term=04-13-2025&utm_content=51655131202

 

[Machingeaneer]

That's a really good deal.

One question that's been kicking around in my head is; like-for-like sizing, are the 365s inherently more "Shootable" than Glocks? Ex. 365XL vs G43X or G48, 365XMacro vs G48 or G19?

And if so, why? It sounds like everyone has excellent things to say about the 365s but unless they're on sale, Glock has an edge for the budget conscious

 

[HighUintas]

That's a really good deal.

One question that's been kicking around in my head is; like-for-like sizing, are the 365s inherently more "Shootable" than Glocks? Ex. 365XL vs G43X or G48, 365XMacro vs G48 or G19?

And if so, why? It sounds like everyone has excellent things to say about the 365s but unless they're on sale, Glock has an edge for the budget conscious

From what I've seen stated many times is the p365 has a very low bore axis height, which would help. If the grip angle of the Glock makes it less shootable, the p365 grip would be better in that regard as it's more vertical somewhat similar to a 1911.

I really like the Wilson combat grip on mine. It feels much more like a 2x4 and feels like it would be more repeatable than the stock grip.

 

[Formidilosus]

That linked target prints on a standard sheet of 8 1/2 x 11, correct? I'll print some out.

Yes sir.

I have zero doubt you're a better shooter than I am, but you weren't addressing my point at all, which is pretty simple, and pretty limited. My point was about the universal nature of the statements you made regarding using a laser to practice with. It didn't seem to correlate with my experience, and still doesn't. Maybe for everyone you've met, it does, I can't say. But telling me I'm having the experiences you describe below is gaslighting. I'm not saying using a laser is going to make you an IDPA champion, it's not, but it doesn't necessarily produce the habits you claim that it literally does for everyone.

It isn’t gaslighting. How do you know you don’t exhibit those habits? No one thinks they flinch with a pistol until they get a click instead of a bang when they expected one- and then nearly have a seizure behind the gun.

The most you could say is- “you can’t be positive that I exhibit those problems”. And that is true. There is no true 100%. If I have to state every caveat to every possible exception- no matter how remote, my already long replies will be ten times as long. Or, like normal humans we can understand common language use and understand that “every” probably means- “nearly everyone. As in 99% plus”.

Not true at all, not with how I use it anyway (target focus - "soft sight focus") which is the same way you described many (successful - high level) shooters aim when you were arguing against using a red dot, which also makes sense, IMO.

How do you know that is what is happening? That was the point of that long reply I last gave. The only way to know what is happening is to measure it.

Like I said above, this experience doesn't describe how I use a laser, not at all, not even remotely. To tell me this is what I'm doing, is gaslighting.

This is what I did/am doing?

gaslighting​

1 of 2

noun​

gas·light·ing ˈgas-ˌlī-tiŋ
-ˈlī-

1: psychological manipulation of a person usually over an extended period of time that causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and typically leads to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, uncertainty of one's emotional or mental stability, and a dependency on the perpetrator


2: the act or practice of grossly misleading someone especially for one's own advantage

I didn't post the target to show I'm a shooting phenom, I'm not. The point was to actually check what you were telling me, in good faith.

Doing what you did doesn’t check anything I said. I never said you couldn’t shoot a 2-3” groups at 7 yards slow fire.

I don't think everyone that carries a pistol for bear defense needs to be an upper echelon shooter, and the data absolutely agrees with that, if not, pistols wouldn't be nearly as effective as they are.

How many of those people got chewed on in the event? Did I ever state that bears aren’t, in general- wussies when they get attacked back?

But, this is the crutch of the argument I believe. Your statements in this thread seems to be the common position of people with lots of things- “I am good enough, I don’t need to do more”. Your position of “just shoot the bear” basically anywhere, may work- may work even most of the time. However, it isn’t one that I am going to train and practice for.

This is what can be stated with absolute certainty:

Shooting any living creature with non CNS shots, is a “hope”. Maybe it decides to stop, and then again maybe it doesn’t. Even if the majority decide to stop- there is one, somewhere that won’t. This would be psychological stops.

Shooting anything living in the CNS- makes it stop. Disrupt the CNS and it is done. This would be physiological stops.

Those are terminal facts.


Now, hitting the CNS is different matter. So too would be the difference between the probability of psychological stops from body shots, or shots to the face and head.

Now I’m paraphrasing: you say-

“I don’t need to be all that good, shoot a bear anywhere and ‘data’ says I will live”.

I say- “the only way to know the outcome is to disrupt the CNS- I.E. the brain. The brain is a relatively small target. Bears move quickly, though generally straight at you. I need to train to hit 4-6” targets at high speed, on demand, under stress. Even if I do not hit the brain directly- though it is a much higher probability shooting at the head/face than the body; things shot in the face/head on average react much more than things shot in the chest”.


Which one of those can you genuinely reason will have a higher success rate across 1,000 shootings- the “I don’t need to be very good”? Or the “I need to be very good and shoot things in the head”?


With your position you are hoping it works and working on probability (maybe). With my position- I am doing the things in my power to actualize the outcome I desire.

But yeah, I imagine when you're talking pistol shooting you certainly are talking about shooting at a different, and much higher level than I am, and that could certainly be where we're talking past each other.

If that’s the case- then how are you positive that my statements that lasers trainers aren’t the best training tool isn’t true?

And just for laughs, and full disclosure, I'll post this picture. I went back out right after posting my first "experiment" and shot at 7 yards again, slow on top target, bottom as fast as -I- can regain sights and target...no, it wasn’t timed.

We are back to- “I’m real strong”. Ok, how much did you lift? “I don’t know, but it was a a lot”.

I never stated that someone couldn’t shoot slow (and 1 shot per second is slow) and shoot a 4+ inch groups at 7 yards. I believe I stated- at speed under stress (or some version of that). I’ll say it again- laser trainers are not the best tool for training. Maybe not good at all for most. Everything about them tries to pull your attention away from everything that helps you hit at speed under stress, and put that attention into the past- that no longer matters.

 

[Formidilosus]

Gonna take a stab at this one, could be way off base. I'm pretty sure the issue @Formidilosus is talking about here isn't neccesarily isolated to accuracy, per se, more the habits/process of shooting that you've developing that fall apart at speed.

Thank you- yes.

 

[Formidilosus]

That's a really good deal.

One question that's been kicking around in my head is; like-for-like sizing, are the 365s inherently more "Shootable" than Glocks? Ex. 365XL vs G43X or G48, 365XMacro vs G48 or G19?

And if so, why? It sounds like everyone has excellent things to say about the 365s but unless they're on sale, Glock has an edge for the budget conscious

Yes. The trigger. P365’s and P320’s for that matter- start at 6lbs say, and end at 6lbs. It is a consistent, smooth trigger from start to finish (relatively). Glocks on the other hand stack badly. They start at 0lbs and move to about 2lbs, hit a wall, then continually to build trigger weight while creeping until they break ant 6lbs and slam into the back of the frame.

A P365 is like pulling a rubber band. A Glock is like squeezing a frog until it pops.


Edit to add: It’s mostly the trigger. Grip shape exaggerates the issues- the palm swell/hump amplifies any torque or tension.

 

[Machingeaneer]

Yes. The trigger. P365’s and P320’s for that matter- start at 6lbs say, and end at 6lbs. It is a consistent, smooth trigger from start to finish (relatively). Glocks on the other hand stack badly. They start at 0lbs and move to about 2lbs, hit a wall, then continually to build trigger weight while creeping until they break ant 6lbs and slam into the back of the frame.

A P365 is like pulling a rubber band. A Glock is like squeezing a frog until it pops.


Edit to add: It’s mostly the trigger. Grip shape exaggerates the issues- the palm swell/hump amplifies any torque or tension.

Glock performance trigger a worthwhile upgrade?

 

[Formidilosus]

Glock performance trigger a worthwhile upgrade?

Nah not really. The Gen 5 Glocks are the best commercial Glocks that have ever been made- including the triggers.

 

[Nine Banger]

Glock performance trigger a worthwhile upgrade?

I enjoy mine. I swapped some parts to make one work in our G44 too.

I get some front sight post wiggle with the regular trigger. Wiggle is imperceptible with the upgrade.

 

[Fatcamp]

Man, that TPC stuff Form talked about is good. This is one I'm really working on.