Most reliable and shootable 9mm semi auto pistols

[Skydog]

I always see this come up. I don't own a gun that doesn't have either an exposed hammer or a safety. Disengaging it is a totally subconscious action. I never have and never will be hindered by a safety.

I do however often handle loaded weapons, and a safety is great for that. The reality of it is that me handling it while loaded is a sure thing. Its going to happen, alot. Me using the weapon to save a life is exceedingly unlikely. I'm not going into Mogadishu, and if I was I'd just take the safety off before I got there.

Glock managed to convince the world that external safeties are a bad thing and I personally think it is ridiculous.

To each his own. If you want/need an external safety or an exposed hammer on all your guns, go for it. A Glock inside a good holster with the trigger covered is just as safe (maybe safer) as any of your guns. And a Glock outside of the holster won't fire until you pull the trigger...again, just as safe (or safer) than any of your guns. If you feel the need for external safeties/hammers that's your personal preference. The fact that lots of other folks don't need them doesn't make it "ridiculous". Some might say that requiring a safety or a hammer on a self-defense/carry gun is "ridiculous". Again, to each his own.

And you may say that you have never been hindered by a safety, but you can't say you never will be. I imagine a lot of unexpected s**t happens during a fast, close, violent attack when you pull a gun to defend your life. With Glocks its simple...pull and shoot. Less things to go wrong. Nothing ridiculous about that.

 

[doc holiday13]

I always see this come up. I don't own a gun that doesn't have either an exposed hammer or a safety. Disengaging it is a totally subconscious action. I never have and never will be hindered by a safety.

I do however often handle loaded weapons, and a safety is great for that. The reality of it is that me handling it while loaded is a sure thing. Its going to happen, alot. Me using the weapon to save a life is exceedingly unlikely. I'm not going into Mogadishu, and if I was I'd just take the safety off before I got there.

Glock managed to convince the world that external safeties are a bad thing and I personally think it is ridiculous.

Not everyone will read this post correctly.

The emphasis is that you need to be intimately familiar with your gun and intimately familiar with drawing and firing into a target. you will not get this with 1x year range visit. You need to shoot 1 or 2 IDPA/IPSC matches and do dry fire drills at home to turn the function into subconscious

I'm also going to add, that the first 2 times you pull a firearm in a real world stress situation, all gun safety you've ever learned will not be applied. Your finger will be on the trigger, you'll sweep yourself or others, you'll likely NOT have the safety turned off or not have a bullet in the chamber(if you're a empty chamber kinda guy). <<<These are "at best" . At worst, you'll fumble for 10 seconds trying to find your gun and accidentally shoot yourself or others

 

[Lawnboi]

To each his own. If you want/need an external safety or an exposed hammer on all your guns, go for it. A Glock inside a good holster with the trigger covered is just as safe (maybe safer) as any of your guns. And a Glock outside of the holster won't fire until you pull the trigger...again, just as safe (or safer) than any of your guns. If you feel the need for external safeties/hammers that's your personal preference. The fact that lots of other folks don't need them doesn't make it "ridiculous". Some might say that requiring a safety or a hammer on a self-defense/carry gun is "ridiculous". Again, to each his own.

And you may say that you have never been hindered by a safety, but you can't say you never will be. I imagine a lot of unexpected s**t happens during a fast, close, violent attack when you pull a gun to defend your life. With Glocks its simple...pull and shoot. Less things to go wrong. Nothing ridiculous about that.

And without you can’t say you won’t shoot yourself in the foot when you fail to Id the shirt that got stuck in your holster.

Both are valid arguments that can be trained on.

Iv carried glocks plenty too. An external safety so long as it’s designed properly isnt a hindrance.

 

[Skydog]

And without you can’t say you won’t shoot yourself in the foot when you fail to Id the shirt that got stuck in your holster.

Both are valid arguments that can be trained on.

Iv carried glocks plenty too. An external safety so long as it’s designed properly isnt a hindrance.

My shirt or any other loose garment is nowhere near my holster when I re-holster...I make sure of that.

I fully agree that there are pros and cons to both. It's personal preference. I prefer no safeties or hammers on my carry guns. Even my carry revolver doesn't have an exposed hammer.

But if folks prefer hammers/safeties, go for it.

 

[Lawnboi]

My shirt or any other loose garment is nowhere near my holster when I re-holster...I make sure of that.

I fully agree that there are pros and cons to both. It's personal preference. I prefer no safeties or hammers on my carry guns. Even my carry revolver doesn't have an exposed hammer.

But if folks prefer hammers/safeties, go for it.

It won't happen because you have trained yourself to check your holster each time. A risk you are willing to take as that's is where the majority of the liability of a ND would occur, during reholster. Plenty of videos of it happening out there. I can’t rip off any incidents where a safety on a firearm ended badly, but I know of ND of pistols happening even locally.


Some of the methods of carry discussed here make visualizing the holster difficult. Think under a Bino harness. Or transferring a loaded weapon from my edc holster to my pack belt holster while geared up.

Shit happens, I can train a safety into my process. Same as you can adjust for non safety firearms. Blindly saying one is better than the other for the average shooter who has never drawn or fired a pistol under pressure is not a reasonable argument.

 

[Skydog]

It won't happen because you have trained yourself to check your holster each time. A risk you are willing to take as that's is where the majority of the liability of a ND would occur, during reholster. Plenty of videos of it happening out there. I can’t rip off any incidents where a safety on a firearm ended badly, but I know of ND of pistols happening even locally.


Some of the methods of carry discussed here make visualizing the holster difficult. Think under a Bino harness. Or transferring a loaded weapon from my edc holster to my pack belt holster while geared up.

Shit happens, I can train a safety into my process. Same as you can adjust for safety non safety firearms. Blindly saying one is better than the other for the average shooter who has never drawn or fired a pistol under pressure is not a reasonable argument.

All valid points. I fully agree.

I said more than once that there are pros/cons to both, it's personal preference, etc. To each his own.

I think there may be an argument to be made that simpler (no hammers, no DA/SA, no external safeties, etc.) is better for a new shooter just starting out. But I'm not a firearms instructor so take that for what it's worth.

 

[Lawnboi]

I generally don’t carry with a light as I prefer slimmer overall inside carry, but do carry an olight quick attach for use at a destination at night.

View attachment 865348

I just took this quickly. My Glock 43x, XS post and dot with trillium sight and my headlamp is a fenix hmr 23, mid setting 150 lumens. If I’m in back country the headlamp is always on my head at night and I sleep with it, weighs nothing. I’ve always preferred the fenix hotspot with spill and although the pic shows some glare - without the phone the scene of the basket ball base at 8 yards is well light and pistol sight easily referenced without glare.

I’ve not shot this at night though, difficult where I live. But now I’ll make a point to test somehow.

Luckily I can shoot in the back yard in the dark. I don’t have much of an issue with a headlamp and open sights at sub 7 yards. Add a red dot and a raccoon 30 yards away and things get interesting.

I need to do more pistol training.

 

[Shraggs]

Lawnboi, nice I’ll try to swing by from Michigan and shoot some night drills!

 

[Fatcamp]

I would try to never reholster an IWB carry gun. I practice it but it's not a good idea. With an OWB offset holster I can do it without looking, but still do to be sure it's clear. The last thing I want is to shoot myself, that would be lame.

My current pack gun uses plates to move from my belt to my pack to my belt without removing the gun from the holster. It also has level two retention. I haven't practiced with it enough to be comfortable so it just sits for now. Great equipment, though.


The best thing about this conversation is that it's sparking an interest in people to reevaluate their carry methods and protocols. It's a good thing.

Long ago the mother of all forums had a self defense shooting thread that ran for years. I followed it for the longest time and was able to learn alot, and form some educated opinions on how I do what I do. Time well spent IMO.

 

[Remington92]

.

Now how about holster types? Not necessarily brands, but that would be helpful too I guess.

Let's say sole holster use is for hiking/backpacking with family and archery backpack hunting.

What is the best style to use?
- under bino harness
- body harness low and to the side of binos
- pack belt mounted
- leg mounted
- other I don't know about

Not saying its the best but currently I run a Kenai chest rig behind my kifaru bino harness. Right hand draw and I run the kenai harness across my right shoulder instead of my left as its designed to. Puts my glock 29 more horizontal behind my binos harness and easier to grab also makes it a bit more discrete on hikes.

 

[Skydog]

The nice thing about reholstering is that it doesn't need to be done quickly, while under stress, when seconds count, etc. In a bear attack/self-defense situation, one typically would not reholster until the threat had been totally eliminated. Same at the range...you can take all the time you want to clear your shirt, look in the holster, and very carefully reholster (unless you are running some type of drill that requires you to reholster while being timed of course). So, I don't see reholstering as being an issue at all...at least not for my needs/preferences.

So, one doesn't necessarily need to rely on speed, muscle memory or "totally subconscious actions" when reholstering a weapon.

But one does need to rely on speed, muscle memory or totally subconscious actions when working a manual safety in a SHTF scenario.

I'm fine with taking my time and being very intentional about carefully reholstering after the event is over, but if I fail to disengage the safety (or if the safety malfunctions) in the heat of the moment, I won't have to worry about reholstering.

 

[AdvntrSeekr]

I didn't read through all the replies, but I really like my Sig P365. I previously owned a Hellcat, but it was very snappy to shoot. The Sig is much smoother shooting (to me anyway) and it is compact and lightweight. Of course the Glock 17 is hard to beat if you don't mind a full size. I also have a SDS Px9 Gen 3 with the 5.1" barrel. Got it online for around $320.... Literally one of my favorite shooters I have owned. Can't believe how good of a shooter it is for the money! I would highly recommend that pistol.

 

[HighUintas]

Not saying its the best but currently I run a Kenai chest rig behind my kifaru bino harness. Right hand draw and I run the kenai harness across my right shoulder instead of my left as its designed to. Puts my glock 29 more horizontal behind my binos harness and easier to grab also makes it a bit more discrete on hikes.

I've seen that as a popular option. I like the idea, as it would always be on and wouldn't have to move it around depending on whether I have my pack or binos on.

I just can't imagine it being comfortable or it being easy to draw quickly if it's behind the binos.

Another thought is that if I'm primarily using it archery hunting, I could probably figure out a different way to carry my binos and rangefinder. I typically still hunt a lot archery hunting and only use binos if I'm sitting glassing. That may change though depending on terrain and vegetation of where I end up hunting in a couple years

 

[Remington92]

I've seen that as a popular option. I like the idea, as it would always be on and wouldn't have to move it around depending on whether I have my pack or binos on.

I just can't imagine it being comfortable or it being easy to draw quickly if it's behind the binos.

Another thought is that if I'm primarily using it archery hunting, I could probably figure out a different way to carry my binos and rangefinder. I typically still hunt a lot archery hunting and only use binos if I'm sitting glassing. That may change though depending on terrain and vegetation of where I end up hunting in a couple years

I’m primarily a rifle hunter so can’t help you on the archery aspect but the few shoots I’ve done I don’t have issue with my bino harness getting in the way and I don’t think the pistol pushes it out that much further. As far as comfort I don’t notice any difference between wearing just my Binos or wearing the pistol and Binos and side exit is no issue on ease of drawing for me. I’ve looked at the options of dangling below the Binos but then it’s flapping when you walk and gets in the way bending over with the bit of a gut I have.

 

[HuntHarder]

Hanging below my marsupial harness was really comfortable and allowed quick access. I've never tried the Kenai behind the harness, but looking at pictures of other guys, it looks really uncomfortable. Lots of buckles in a small area.

 

[Formidilosus]

.

Now how about holster types? Not necessarily brands, but that would be helpful too I guess.

Let's say sole holster use is for hiking/backpacking with family and archery backpack hunting.

What is the best style to use?
- under bino harness
- body harness low and to the side of binos
- pack belt mounted
- leg mounted
- other I don't know about

Principles:

1). Always on body. It does no good if it ever comes off body unless sleeping.

2). Drawing speed/access must be very good.

3). Accessible with any/all gear, and no change in mechanics.

4). Safe and secure while going through brush.

5). Comfortable enough where you do not want to, or feel the need to remove it to “relax”. I.E.- not under a pack, not on a leg, etc.


The only method that satisfies all of those (and more) is a correct chest holster.

In conjunction with bino harnesses-





Bino harness removed-

 

[zdc1775]

I know I'm late to the party, but my choice is my normal carry gun, a Sig P320 X-Carry with RDS and WML. If I was starting over today, I would probably chose the P365 X-Macro Comp, but I am a bigger guy and can easily conceal a bigger gun than most people.

For either one, I would be using my normal carry ammo of 124 gr HSTs unless I was in grizzly country and then I would swap to either the Buffalo Bore 147 hardcast or their 124 gr Penetrator, but having shot both in the past they are a handful compared to the HSTs. And for practice ammo I normally run the Freedom Munition 124 HP remans since they have a similar bullet profile and shoot to almost the same POI with my guns.

.

Now how about holster types? Not necessarily brands, but that would be helpful too I guess.

Let's say sole holster use is for hiking/backpacking with family and archery backpack hunting.

What is the best style to use?
- under bino harness
- body harness low and to the side of binos
- pack belt mounted
- leg mounted
- other I don't know about

I would completely avoid a drop leg holster, but I do have a strong bias against them due to having one shift and bury itself under my kneecap while running during an incident in Iraq.

My preference when in the backcountry is for a kydex outside the waistband with level 2 or 3 retention on my belt with a quick detach system system. Right now I'm using a Tier 1 Concealed Centurion holster on a Safariland QLS

 

[Mountainrancher]

Despite people saying that Glocks are the Tikka’s of pistols- they are not. Not even close. Tikkas are extremely reliable, AND extremely high performing. Glocks are reliable, and mediocre performing. They can be used and shot to a very high level, but it takes significantly more skill and work to do so compared to other pistols.

Glocks are the Ruger M77’s of the pistol world. There is no Tikka equivalent in pistols when factoring in price- the closest would be a CZ Shadow 2.

What I write below is based upon actual shooting performance with scored targets and timers, under stress, and with relatively large amounts of people.





This is a good thought. But also eliminates Glock.




The single stack Glocks are harder to shoot well- significantly so. The G45 is an excellent pistol of the type. But no manual thumb safety and does demand more of the shooter to equal the same performance.





Despite media and hysteria, the M18 with thumb safety is a good pistol. 100% you will want to swap the grip module for the Brouwer M1811 module. The P365 with thumb safety is a very pistol as well. Even though it is smaller, it is quite shootable.





Very good guns. They are definitely the highest performing pistols on your list, by quite a margin. Reliability wise they are solid.





Yes, but maybe not noticed if you are just shooting cans in the backyard. You could say it like such- if you knew without a doubt you were going to be in a shooting, and you had any base skills at all- you would absolutely choose the Staccato’s.





The G45 yes. Functionally the G48 as well , but there have been more issues there.




Yes. Regardless of hand size (within reason).





This is a bit harder to address. The Gen 5 9mm Glocks are probably the “most reliable” pistols made. But that I mean- most mean rounds between stoppages (MRBS). However, functionally- there isn’t a real difference. It doesn’t really matter if it is 10,000 MRBS or 25,000 MRBS- both are beyond reliable enough.





Yes.




That isn’t going to do much for you. You stated you aren’t a pistol shooter, don’t really have skill, and aren’t knowledgeable about them. How a pistol “feels” has almost zero bearing on how well it can or will be shot, and any relevance it does have is almost always to the negative- feelings lie and “good feeling pistols” often perform worse in actual measured shooting.


Based on your stated goals/use, I would be narrowing it down to either-

The P365 with thumb safety if weight is a primary driver

Or

The Staccato C or CS if max shooting performance is the main driver.




Or…. Keltec PMR 30.

Where does a Springfield hellcat fall in terms of reliability and shoot ability?

 

[Lonewolf72]

Backcountry carry is an interesting topic. I never found a comfortable or convenient way to carry. I always belt-carried. But I never tried a chest rig back then...and that would be my vote if I wanted to do that now. This method seems to be the most comfortable/accessible. There seems to be drawbacks to everything else. Chest carry means you will always have your gun on you. Second choice for me would be carrying on your binocular harness, but I'm always taking my binoculars off, creating an availability issue. Waist/belt carry interferes with your pack's waistbelt and leads to chafing/discomfort. Carrying on your pack...this is inconvenient, as you will find yourself without your gun when you inevitably remove your pack, and you now have an unsecured firearm if you were to leave your pack. Leg rigs...no personal experience with these as it was strongly recommended by my contemporaries to avoid them due to chafing/discomfort after miles of hiking.

 

[Formidilosus]

Where does a Springfield hellcat fall in terms of reliability and shoot ability?

Well, my view may be tainted a bit. Springfield’s polymer pistols have never done well in legitimate large scale testing. Nothing I have seen in personal use has given reason to choose any.