Most reliable and shootable 9mm semi auto pistols

[PredatorSlayer]

P320, P365, Xdm, or M&P.

Glock is wildly over rated.

I am not sure Glock is overrated, it was the OG and others manufacturers finally caught up. They are awesome firearms, extremely reliable with a grip angle that some love or hate and they are ugly as hell. It’s just not better or more reliable than other options any longer.

 

[HighUintas]

I misspoke at the beginning of the thread, I bought my wife the Fuse not the Legion. Only a few hundred rounds through it so far. The slide release was unbearably difficult out of the box, but is already tolerable. I like it, the grip is very good imo. Not sure they have a safety option for the Fuse

How do you and your wife like the irons that are on the fuse vs others? I'm not sure why they didn't put the night sights on it and went with fiber optic

 

[jkoehle1]

I am not sure Glock is overrated, it was the OG and others manufacturers finally caught up. They are awesome firearms, extremely reliable with a grip angle that some love or hate and they are ugly as hell. It’s just not better or more reliable than other options any longer.

They are good at working. They have weak ergonomic features. A polymer trigger system thats mushy as fresh dohg shit. No options for a manual safety. Many models without optics plates. Most models come with polymer sights.

They have a huge fan base - users of whatever brand become "loyalists" on reputation and the fact they own one.

Not saying they are the worst pistol made - but when it comes to value they are very lacking. They are the pinnacle of marketing.

 

[Fatcamp]

Form lost me on this one…PMR 30’s and rimfires aren’t known for their reliability. I owned a PMR 30 for a few days and thought it was garbage, my BIL owns it now. To say that is the best field pistol for bear country is a stupid statement. I am not in the camp of you need a 460 S&W, but a 22 mag is pretty funny. It was one of those statements that made me wonder if the cult leader was testing the faithfulness of his followers

Pretty sure that was sarcasm, but at this point who knows.

 

[Bluumoon]

How do you and your wife like the irons that are on the fuse vs others? I'm not sure why they didn't put the night sights on it and went with fiber optic

I "like" the sights better than what's on my Glocks and FN-P (basic factory sights), but what that means in shoot-ability I'm the wrong guy to ask. The Sig has more room around the front sight when looking through rear, vs the Glock and FN the front sight fills the rear. I don't have any night sights.

Just went and grabbed the three to compare. I "feel" like I can pick up a good sight picture quicker with the Sig in daylight, dark room with gun light I 'd say the opposite is true.

Grabbing the three, I'd instantly pick the Sig, but again that's totally anecdotal and not backed by experience.

This thread is likely to cost me some $ this week.

 

[Stache Attack]

I’d push towards a double stack Glock, 19 or 45. The 48 is nice I just want the stock mag volume. Had a 320 sold it I just am not a fan of high over bore

 

[Skydog]

Another vote for Glock.

@HighUintas - you'll get a lot of varying opinions on Glocks. I wouldn't dismiss Glocks simply because of claims of "bad grip angles", "mushy triggers", "they're hard to shoot", etc. The grip angle and triggers don't bother me at all, and I find them very easy to shoot (even with the crappy polymer sights). So do millions of other Glock owners. All you can do is try them for yourself. You may hate the grip angle, hate the trigger and find them hard to shoot...but you may not...you'll never know unless you try one.

Me personally, I don't want a manual safety on my carry guns.

And as for them being ugly...compared to what? Compared to a nice 1911 or S&W revolver? Yes, they are ugly as sin. But compared to other striker fired, polymer pistols...I actually prefer the look of the Glock's simplicity. I don't care for a lot of designs cut into the slide or different colors, etc. And, the nice thing about Glocks is that they all look pretty much the same...so the wife doesn't even notice when you add another one to the collection.

They're not perfect (despite their marketing logo) and yes, there are a lot of annoying Glock fan boys, but in my opinion if you are looking for a "reliable and shootable 9mm semi auto pistol" you should at least consider a Glock.

 

[RockAndSage]

How do you and your wife like the irons that are on the fuse vs others? I'm not sure why they didn't put the night sights on it and went with fiber optic

Do not go irons-only if you can afford a quality red-dot.

I've competed nationally with iron-sight guns, and cumulatively over my life at least 95% of my shooting has been done with irons.

While there is no substitute in becoming a better, more fundamentally sound shooter than mastering irons before moving on to optics of any kind, on any gun, relying on them over a red-dot is like relying on a cap-and-ball revolver. Just because you can doesn't mean you should, or that it's an advantage of any kind.

Here's why:

1) Red-dots go with the flow of human nature to focus on the threat - you literally look at the target and bring the dot to it, then press the trigger. Irons require front-sight focus, which is absolutely unnatural in a lethal threat encounter. "In a fight, front-sight" is something the requires extensive training to master with an adrenaline dump caused by something or someone trying to kill you. Any disregard for this reality is fantasy.

2) Red-dots allow for far better precision, especially at distance.

3) Red-dots allow for better precision without glasses, and especially in oxygen-starved bodies dealing with combat, fight-or-flight, or just the physical exertion of combat. People without experience have zero idea just how fast your eyes get robbed of oxygen in these scenarios, and just how poor their precise-vision is in terms of keeping that front sight "even height, even light". You think you are being precise with that sight picture, and don't even notice how $h*t your vision becomes for that front sight - you just don't shoot as well and attribute it to "adrenaline" with hands, trigger press, etc. Change that one factor of adding an RDS, and hit rates go up substantially.

4) Red-dots are a "night-sight" by default.

5) Red-dots reveal crap trigger-control faster than anything short of a laser. You have no idea how crap your trigger squeeze really is, until you try to do dry-fires with a red-dot the first time. If you can't press the trigger without that red-dot moving at all, your grip and trigger-control are crap.

6) Red-dots are faster on-target at any range beyond room distances, and are faster there too if you practice. But at those distances, especially short of 15 feet, there are other sighting and aiming techniques that can be faster, but that's a separate subject.

Listen, range-bros, chairborne commandos, and tactical timmys can come up with exceptions and what-ifs to any of these points, and any other comment on the internet, but the bottom line is that relying on irons handicaps the hell out of someone in virtually every reality.

You're not building a gun to survive an apocalypse, EMP, solar flare, battery shortage, trench-warfare, or survive 500-1000 rounds of daily practice for years that will, eventually, break anything on the gun.

The only difficulty with red-dots is teaching yourself how to pick up the dot fast and consistently, and that's 100% a matter of repetition and just knowing a technique or two. You can teach it to yourself in a weekend, or just by attending a competent class.

 

[Formidilosus]

With the discussion about the PMR 30, and in light of the posts about 1911's, grip ergonomics etc.. I handled one of these today in a local shop. Holy hell.. the grip on those are absolutely the worst thing I have ever put in my hand. Super skinny and about twice as deep as any 1911 I've handled. I felt like a fat girl with an iphone max in her hand. The freaking thing needs a Pop Socket on it to be able to hold on to.

Sure. However being a 22mag with a very good trigger for the type, the grip compromises do not cause issues that those same compromises cause with 9mm + cartridges. It takes 100+/- hours of focused training to consistently shoot a sub 3 second clean bill drill on demand with 9mm’s. In contrast it takes an only few days to do so with the PMR30 and the same focused training.


Bill Drill: 7 yards, 8” circle, from the holster, arms relaxed at sides- draw and fire 6 rounds. All in the 8” circle.

 

[gbflyer]

I have a G48 and it’s taken a lot of work to get it to feed reliably. Not a Glock trait. I should send it back but I’m too stubborn. I like the way it feels, it’s the only Glock I’ve picked up I can say that about.

 

[rileybassman]

I’d push towards a double stack Glock, 19 or 45. The 48 is nice I just want the stock mag volume. Had a 320 sold it I just am not a fan of high over bore

Shield arm mags will get you 15 and have extended capabilities for the Glock 48. Stick to the recent gens as the first gen reliability was a little lower.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

 

[ShootOkHuntWorse]

I have a G48 and it’s taken a lot of work to get it to feed reliably. Not a Glock trait. I should send it back but I’m too stubborn. I like the way it feels, it’s the only Glock I’ve picked up I can say that about.

That’s weird. I have two and never have problems.

 

[Hnthrdr]

Own a G19, kel tec pmr, sig365xl, m&p shield sig 938 and a bunch of full frame 9mm, until I’m confident in the pmr, I think the sig365xl gets my vote for ease to carry, shoot ability ect. Love my G19, would not be my first choice with all the full size grip compacts that are available today. Pmr is stupid light and .22 mags are easy to shoot, plus 30 rounds is pretty damn cool

 

[Formidilosus]

Form lost me on this one…PMR 30’s and rimfires aren’t known for their reliability.

Early PMR30’s had lots of issues. I’ve used and seen used probably 15 new ones in the last 4’ish years, all have been problem free with high quality ammo.


As for rimfires- 22 WMR is not 22LR. And certain 22 WMR ammo has every single case checked for priming compound consistency around the rim.

I owned a PMR 30 for a few days and thought it was garbage, my BIL owns it now. To say that is the best field pistol for bear country is a stupid statement.

Stupid sure. Much like I consistently do with controversial subjects- I am sure that I stated that offhand with little understanding, knowledge, thoughtfulness.

I am not in the camp of you need a 460 S&W, but a 22 mag is pretty funny. It was one of those statements that made me wonder if the cult leader was testing the faithfulness of his followers

The only way to stop a living creature on demand is to disrupt the CNS. It does not take a large diameter bullet to do so. How many inches of penetration does it take to reach a bears brain?

 

[PredatorSlayer]

Early PMR30’s had lots of issues. I’ve used and seen used probably 15 new ones in the last 4’ish years, all have been problem free with high quality ammo.


As for rimfires- 22 WMR is not 22LR. And certain 22 WMR ammo has every single case checked for priming compound consistency around the rim.




Stupid sure. Much like I consistently do with controversial subjects- I am sure that I stated that offhand with little understanding, knowledge, thoughtfulness.






The only way to stop a living creature on demand is to disrupt the CNS. It does not take a large diameter bullet to do so. How many inches of penetration does it take to reach a bears brain?

I get it…you have more experience and are better than everybody else. Message received.

 

[HighUintas]

Do not go irons-only if you can afford a quality red-dot.

I've competed nationally with iron-sight guns, and cumulatively over my life at least 95% of my shooting has been done with irons.

While there is no substitute in becoming a better, more fundamentally sound shooter than mastering irons before moving on to optics of any kind, on any gun, relying on them over a red-dot is like relying on a cap-and-ball revolver. Just because you can doesn't mean you should, or that it's an advantage of any kind.

Here's why:

1) Red-dots go with the flow of human nature to focus on the threat - you literally look at the target and bring the dot to it, then press the trigger. Irons require front-sight focus, which is absolutely unnatural in a lethal threat encounter. "In a fight, front-sight" is something the requires extensive training to master with an adrenaline dump caused by something or someone trying to kill you. Any disregard for this reality is fantasy.

2) Red-dots allow for far better precision, especially at distance.

3) Red-dots allow for better precision without glasses, and especially in oxygen-starved bodies dealing with combat, fight-or-flight, or just the physical exertion of combat. People without experience have zero idea just how fast your eyes get robbed of oxygen in these scenarios, and just how poor their precise-vision is in terms of keeping that front sight "even height, even light". You think you are being precise with that sight picture, and don't even notice how $h*t your vision becomes for that front sight - you just don't shoot as well and attribute it to "adrenaline" with hands, trigger press, etc. Change that one factor of adding an RDS, and hit rates go up substantially.

4) Red-dots are a "night-sight" by default.

5) Red-dots reveal crap trigger-control faster than anything short of a laser. You have no idea how crap your trigger squeeze really is, until you try to do dry-fires with a red-dot the first time. If you can't press the trigger without that red-dot moving at all, your grip and trigger-control are crap.

6) Red-dots are faster on-target at any range beyond room distances, and are faster there too if you practice. But at those distances, especially short of 15 feet, there are other sighting and aiming techniques that can be faster, but that's a separate subject.

Listen, range-bros, chairborne commandos, and tactical timmys can come up with exceptions and what-ifs to any of these points, and any other comment on the internet, but the bottom line is that relying on irons handicaps the hell out of someone in virtually every reality.

You're not building a gun to survive an apocalypse, EMP, solar flare, battery shortage, trench-warfare, or survive 500-1000 rounds of daily practice for years that will, eventually, break anything on the gun.

The only difficulty with red-dots is teaching yourself how to pick up the dot fast and consistently, and that's 100% a matter of repetition and just knowing a technique or two. You can teach it to yourself in a weekend, or just by attending a competent class.

Yes I like the idea of a red dot, but want to get the most reliable option, which if it is an aimpoint acro, that may be a bit before it's added due to cost.

I wonder about the weather being a consideration though. Someone mentioned that when in snow or rain their optic lens consistently gathered snow and fogged up and was unusable.

 

[PredatorSlayer]

Pretty sure that was sarcasm, but at this point who knows.

The cult thing? Nah. Seriously, if Form told this forum that a 22 mag was the best big game cartridge several would start hunting big game with them. Having said that, I will always appreciate him for the scope drop evals. The dude is all over the place, he convinces everybody to buy and hunt with tikka 223s and pay $1000 for one of the ugliest stocks you will ever see in your life. And then comes out and claims he put 8000 rounds down range with magnums and he loves magnums. I think he is seriously just Fing with people at this point

 

[Formidilosus]

I get it…you have more experience and are better than everybody else. Message received.

That’s usually the response when someone can’t engage with logical conversation. People can either have some emotional reaction to life, or they can lay out the actual requirements and facts, and unemotionally look at them.


The facts are that:

1). High quality, modern 22 WMR ammunition (think Gold Dot and Federal Punch) go through as many or more QC steps as duty centerfire ammo. Those loads easily surpass MRBS standards required for non-plinking use.

2). There are multiple 22 WMR loads that consistently penetrate deeper than 14” in calibrated gel. It takes 10-12” to reach the brain from any angle.

3). Everyone, everywhere shoots 22 WMR to a ridiculously higher level than they do a 9mm plus. And the less skilled they are, the bigger the delta between them. The more stress the person is under, the larger the delta. The more tired, injured or weak the person is, the larger the delta between them.

4). People suck with pistols. SUCK. Just about zero people that don’t compete regularly have any functional ability with pistols when time, accuracy and stress are in play. People suck way less with 22WMR than they do with 9mm plus cartridges.


Even with that, I know and shoot with very high skill level people that acknowledge and understand all of those points, yet admittedly are emotionally uncomfortable with the idea and chose to use larger cartridges. But at the same time, they do not try to argue nonsense.

 

[RockAndSage]

Yes I like the idea of a red dot, but want to get the most reliable option, which if it is an aimpoint acro, that may be a bit before it's added due to cost.

I wonder about the weather being a consideration though. Someone mentioned that when in snow or rain their optic lens consistently gathered snow and fogged up and was unusable.

If you were going to Ukraine and expected to be in muddy trenches, I'd say get the Aimpoint. I personally shoot Trijicons. You'd be absolutely fine with a Holosun EPS.

Closed emitter is far less prone to problems, but open-emitters aren't as much of a problem as some try to make it out to be. Holster options solve some of those problems, but just being cognizant of the possibility of junk getting into the emitter is often enough for people to mitigate the issue. Including just checking occasionally. If you're concealed-carrying, obviously, weather is a non-issue. Just check occasionally to make sure no lint has gotten in.

I've never had an RDS fog up on me, and I shoot multiple times a week in snow and sub-zero weather every winter, and year-round. Quality optics generally have anti-fog coatings on them. In theory, the biggest chance of it happening is going from a warm car to the first few moments of stepping into extreme cold, with open-carry like a duty belt or the gun in your hand. If it happens to your glasses it may happen to an RDS, but last less long as it will cool off faster than your face. I've never personally seen it happen with my Trijicons though, and they get regularly exposed to situations where, in theory, they might. In reality, it's as close to a non-issue as it gets, with the benefits being far greater than any potential drawbacks.

 

[Formidilosus]

Do not go irons-only if you can afford a quality red-dot.

I've competed nationally with iron-sight guns, and cumulatively over my life at least 95% of my shooting has been done with irons.

While there is no substitute in becoming a better, more fundamentally sound shooter than mastering irons before moving on to optics of any kind, on any gun, relying on them over a red-dot is like relying on a cap-and-ball revolver. Just because you can doesn't mean you should, or that it's an advantage of any kind.

Here's why:

1) Red-dots go with the flow of human nature to focus on the threat - you literally look at the target and bring the dot to it, then press the trigger. Irons require front-sight focus, which is absolutely unnatural in a lethal threat encounter. "In a fight, front-sight" is something the requires extensive training to master with an adrenaline dump caused by something or someone trying to kill you. Any disregard for this reality is fantasy.

While dots do have an advantage here- Irons do not require front sight focus. Soft focus or full on target focus works just fine for the vast majority of shots. Quite a few top action competitors use and teach only target focus with irons.

2) Red-dots allow for far better precision, especially at distance.

Yes.

3) Red-dots allow for better precision without glasses, and especially in oxygen-starved bodies dealing with combat, fight-or-flight, or just the physical exertion of combat. People without experience have zero idea just how fast your eyes get robbed of oxygen in these scenarios, and just how poor their precise-vision is in terms of keeping that front sight "even height, even light". You think you are being precise with that sight picture, and don't even notice how $h*t your vision becomes for that front sight - you just don't shoot as well and attribute it to "adrenaline" with hands, trigger press, etc. Change that one factor of adding an RDS, and hit rates go up substantially.

There is a lot there. I am not going to nitpick it, just say that some is correct, some may not be.

4) Red-dots are a "night-sight" by default.

They rule for no light shooting.

5) Red-dots reveal crap trigger-control faster than anything short of a laser. You have no idea how crap your trigger squeeze really is, until you try to do dry-fires with a red-dot the first time. If you can't press the trigger without that red-dot moving at all, your grip and trigger-control are crap.

This is what dots are better at than anything else.

6) Red-dots are faster on-target at any range beyond room distances, and are faster there too if you practice. But at those distances, especially short of 15 feet, there are other sighting and aiming techniques that can be faster, but that's a separate subject.

Faster “IF” someone catches the dot (this is the problem with dots overall, and especially the tiny window versions that most carry.

Listen, range-bros, chairborne commandos, and tactical timmys can come up with exceptions and what-ifs to any of these points, and any other comment on the internet, but the bottom line is that relying on irons handicaps the hell out of someone in virtually every reality. You're not building a gun to survive an apocalypse, EMP, solar flare, battery shortage, trench-warfare, or survive 500-1000 rounds of daily practice for years that will, eventually, break anything on the gun.

I might be a range-bro, however ignoring the stated use for the OP is a mistake. It is one thing to talk dots for CCW and for dedicated users; it is another to talk dots for an exposed, probably chest mounted, thrashing through the woods pistol where it will be covered in grass, leaves, dust, debris, snow, ice, fog, rain, water, etc.


I am not anti dot. I was using a red dot on “serious” pistols in 2007 with everyone telling me it was gamer nonsense. I use a dot on pistols for lots of things, for tens of thousands of rounds a year. Those I’m around use dots nearly every day. BUT they have serious drawbacks or things that must be understood and accounted for; and very few dots are designed correctly for all around use, nor are very many all that reliable.

The only difficulty with red-dots is teaching yourself how to pick up the dot fast and consistently, and that's 100% a matter of repetition and just knowing a technique or two. You can teach it to yourself in a weekend, or just by attending a competent class.

And you believe the vast majority of people using and carrying red dot equipped pistols- check the battery, check the brightness, clean the lens and emitter every single day when they out the pistol on; check screw tightness, check zero, and and practice very unconventional positions with dots?

Because I see a lot of people with dots- almost all that aren’t competitors, that nearly every time it is anything but stand still and shoot a target with no stress- cannot/do not pick up the dot, and either end up hunting for it, or straight blasting while staring at the target- missing entire IPSC targets at 5+ yards.

Dots have advantages, but they also have some pretty severe disadvantages too, and people way underplay those.