Most reliable and shootable 9mm semi auto pistols

RadialJett said:
Tangential to the thread, so I’m going for it…

Without arguing about which gun I should have in what cartridge…

CA graciously lets you carry concealed while hunting, anybody have a good CCW while hunting solution?

IWB excluded for comfort and usability with a pack.
Click to expand...
The Razco ROMR setup lets me easily move it from bino harness/chest, to pack waist belt, to outside waistband whenever I want.

He’s also a Rokslide sponsor and will give 10% at checkout with code Rokslide.
 
Formidilosus said:
No, not a strawman. One can not guarantee to stop any living creature with anything other than a CNS hit. Very often it doesn’t require a CNS to stop or divert an action, however that is a hope- not a on demand known event. If I want know what will happen, then CNS is required.

That’s the first step in effects.





Yes, of course. However that is second order effects after acknowledging what is actually required terminally.
Click to expand...
This must be new? Heard anything about this?

www.keltecweapons.com

PR57 | 5.7mm Rotary Barrel Pistol | 20 Round Capacity

Unique & light. The PR57 is our 1st rotating barrel firearm and the lightest 5.7 pistol on the market. Its slim, streamlined design make it perfect for edc, and turning heads at the range.
www.keltecweapons.com www.keltecweapons.com
 
Thegman said:
Was thinking about your thoughts on the laser cartridge. These two views don't seem to square with each other. What am I missing?
Click to expand...

If you are aiming through the sights even with a soft or “target focus”, you won’t see the laser dot. So even with a soft sight focus you are watching for a dot to appear on the target and very quickly that becomes looking for the dot before the trigger has broke. Then it becomes “prairie dogging” (raising your head, or just straight looking over the sight not even aiming at all) well before the trigger has broke. Laser trainers work against what you need to train/practice to hit things. d


Bluntly- for almost all uses, laser trainers only seem good to people that have no idea how to shoot, and therefore have no idea what to practice, or how to do it.
 
Formidilosus said:
If you are aiming through the sights even with a soft or “target focus”, you won’t see the laser dot. So even with a soft sight focus you are watching for a dot to appear on the target and very quickly that becomes looking for the dot before the trigger has broke. Then it becomes “prairie dogging” (raising your head, or just straight looking over the sight not even aiming at all) well before the trigger has broke. Laser trainers work against what you need to train/practice to hit things. d


Bluntly- for almost all uses, laser trainers only seem good to people that have no idea how to shoot, and therefore have no idea what to practice, or how to do it.
Click to expand...
Interesting take. I haven't run into any of those issues. Maybe some others do, idk.
 
Thegman said:
Interesting take. I haven't run into any of those issues. Maybe some others do, idk.
Click to expand...

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. 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.
 
Formidilosus said:
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. 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.
Click to expand...
Yup. You’re right. That’s why I quit doing it. It works for trigger control, but not together with managing your grip and sight picture.
 
Went yesterday and held a bunch of pistols. Staccato and Shadow are too big, I just can't reach the controls without shifting my grip. P320 felt the best but later I went to a different place and shot that, a P226, and an FN509. By far shot the 509 best, but also shot it last.

That P365 is a cool pistol. I didn't shoot it but it's sure feels nice.

Went home and spent time with my Glock. Boring, bad angle Glock. Got my belt squared away for the summer and drew 100 times. Dry fired a bunch. For a Glock it sure is nice to me.
 
I dont remember seeing anything on barrel length related to shootability, carry comfort and accuracy. Is there a barrel length that is usually the sweat spot for most people?
 
light upgrade today...
c9e44904-3414-47d9-b314-e78b2ef61dad.jpeg

608de91c-2d9c-4abb-9644-f183b46a2fd0.jpeg
 
Formidilosus said:
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. 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.
Click to expand...
This is interesting to me. It doesn't seem to apply to how a laser works for me, at all, but had me second guessing....so...

I put the laser cartridge into one of my pistols, did a bunch of dry fire practice exactly the way that I always do with the laser cartridge. Stepped outside and shot a target with some Tula ammo (never shot this ammo in this pistol before), at 7 yards, using exactly the technique I was just using in the house with the laser cartridge. Not racing, but not slow fire by any means.

No Jerry Miculek shooting, but adequate for my purposes. This is 10 rounds. 4 in the center, 6 around the perimeter.
20250415_115527.jpg

Just not seeing what you're saying I should, at all. "Everyone", "No one", "Always" and "Never" usually have exceptions. Maybe I'm one in this case.

FWIW, I'm using the laser roughly how you described pages earlier as an effective way of shooting iron sights. Soft focus on sights, focus on target and at least with these pistols, actual impact is right on top of the sight picture so laser is very visible indoors with no "prairie dogging" or any head movement whatsoever.

I can teach how to use a laser properly you if you want. 😅...joking
 
Thegman said:
Just not seeing what you're saying I should, at all. "Everyone", "No one", "Always" and "Never" usually have exceptions. Maybe I'm one in this case.
Click to expand...


We have been speaking past each other the entire thread. The reason you aren’t seeing what I am saying is in all probability because we aren’t even talking about the same thing.


Short version: we are speaking past each other because in all likelihood we aren’t even having the same conversation, combined with this subject being a skill based one- and neither of us have any idea about the knowledge, skill or ability of the other.



Full version:

I am loathe to get into this but unfortunately I commented in this thread. The reason I do not generally engage in these discussions is because it is about skill- skill can be measured, and in discussing skill everyone must know where everyone else stands otherwise it’s just a he-said, she-said thing.

For an analogy-

Let’s say this thread is about strength and by proxy- training for strength. 20 different people are giving 20 different answers about how to train for strength, nutrition, recovery, etc. There are widely differing views on what “strong” is, how to train it, etc.

The catch, is the baseline of knowing whether someone’s information should be taken seriously is what their current or even past performance in lifting is. If someone is giving advice about nutrition for instance- and that advice is against demonstrable results of the other person who is a high level nutritionist- what is someone supposed to think?
Without knowing the performance and knowledge level of the people engaged in the discussions you could be listening to the experience of a world class S&C coach who also is/was a world class powerlifter; or you could be listening to someone that has been morbidly obese their whole life and can’t squat 100lbs.

I’m saying this so it doesn’t get confused as in any way an appeal to authority- it is not. It is about figuring out the reason for the different positions.





I am speaking about shooting performance. That is real, measured, comparative performance. Lots of people do lots of things that “work for them”. Yet when put in a situation that requires them to perform on demand they utterly fail- because they were never actually measuring anything.
Without a target and a timer almost no information can be gleaned about shooting a pistol. It requires known, vetted standards that people can compare. Without that information people are saying:

“I’m real strong”.

Ok, how strong

“I don’t know, but I’m strong”

Ok, how much do you squat, deadlift, bench, etc?

“I don’t know, but it’s a lot!”

How many times do you lift it?

“I don’t know, but it’s a lot”


Etc etc. It is meaningless.


With pistol shooting there are known target sizes, distances, and times that have proven to repeatedly show competency AND result in expected performance under stress. When I am speaking about pistol shooting- that is what I am talking about. Not shooting tin cans in the backyard, or a few holes in paper (even if the group is fine). I could post something about my shooting ability with a pistol that anyone that is even remotely serious about pistol skill would know what it means- but I’m trying not to.


You and I are talking past each other because we both do not know if we are talking to someone skilled and knowledgeable, or the 450lb obese person giving nutrition advice.
It is very difficult, if not impossible to have a technical conversation about skill or technique, if one does not know what skill or level the other person is at.


This is a simple 30 round test that has known and correlated performance metrics to it. If you want to shoot it and post your target- then I know how to respond. Otherwise it’s “you’re wrong”, “no I’m not”, “yes you are”, on and on.

Target can be download and printed here-



Directions are-

Start with pistol in the holster, loaded. You can use timer on your phone for the times- any shot that is on or after the timer goes off is scored as a 0- that is you take your highest point shot on the target off.

The course is as follows. All shots are standing, freestyle.

25-yards, 10 rounds, 4 minutes.

15-yards, 5 rounds, 15 seconds. Do this twice.

15-yards, 5 rounds, 10 seconds. Do this twice.

Total possible score, 300 pts




This is the last score of mine that I can find a target for on my phone. I can shoot it tomorrow.

IMG_6195.jpeg
 
Formidilosus said:
We have been speaking past each other the entire thread. The reason you aren’t seeing what I am saying is in all probability because we aren’t even talking about the same thing.


Short version: we are speaking past each other because in all likelihood we aren’t even having the same conversation, combined with this subject being a skill based one- and neither of us have any idea about the knowledge, skill or ability of the other.



Full version:

I am loathe to get into this but unfortunately I commented in this thread. The reason I do not generally engage in these discussions is because it is about skill- skill can be measured, and in discussing skill everyone must know where everyone else stands otherwise it’s just a he-said, she-said thing.

For an analogy-

Let’s say this thread is about strength and by proxy- training for strength. 20 different people are giving 20 different answers about how to train for strength, nutrition, recovery, etc. There are widely differing views on what “strong” is, how to train it, etc.

The catch, is the baseline of knowing whether someone’s information should be taken seriously is what their current or even past performance in lifting is. If someone is giving advice about nutrition for instance- and that advice is against demonstrable results of the other person who is a high level nutritionist- what is someone supposed to think?
Without knowing the performance and knowledge level of the people engaged in the discussions you could be listening to the experience of a world class S&C coach who also is/was a world class powerlifter; or you could be listening to someone that has been morbidly obese their whole life and can’t squat 100lbs.

I’m saying this so it doesn’t get confused as in any way an appeal to authority- it is not. It is about figuring out the reason for the different positions.





I am speaking about shooting performance. That is real, measured, comparative performance. Lots of people do lots of things that “work for them”. Yet when out in a situation that requires them to performs in demand they utterly fail. Because they aren’t actually measuring anything.
Without a target and a timer almost no information can be gleaned about shooting a pistol. It requires known, vetted stabdards that people can compare. Without that information people are saying

“I’m real strong”.

Ok, how strong

“I don’t know, but I’m strong”

Ok, how much do you squat, deadlift, bench, etc?

“I don’t know, but it’s a lot!”

How many times do you lift it?

“I don’t know, but it’s a lot”


Etc etc. It is meaningless.


With pistol shooting there are known target sizes, distances, and times that have proven to repeatedly show competency AND result in expected performance under stress. When I am speaking about pistol shooting- that is what I am talking about. Not shooting tin cans in the backyard, or a few holes in paper (even if the group is fine). I could post something about my shooting ability with a pistol that anyone that is even remotely serious about pistol skill would know what it means- but I’m trying not to.


You and I are talking past each other because we both do not know if we are talking to someone skilled and knowledgeable, or the 450lb obese person giving nutrition advice.
It is very difficult, if not impossible to have a technical conversation about skill or technique, if one does not know what skill or level the other person is at.


This is a simple 30 round test that has known and correlated performance metrics to it. If you want to shoot it and post your target- then I know how to respond. Otherwise it’s “you’re wrong”, “no I’m not”, “yes you are”, on and on.

Target can be download and printed here-



Directions are-

Start with pistol in the holster, loaded. You can use timer on your phone for the times- any shot that is on or after the timer goes off is scored as a 0- that is you take your highest point shot on the target off.

The course is as follows. All shots are standing, freestyle.

25-yards, 10 rounds, 4 minutes.

15-yards, 5 rounds, 15 seconds. Do this twice.

15-yards, 5 rounds, 10 seconds. Do this twice.

Total possible score, 300 pts




This is the last score of mine that I can find a target for on my phone. I can shoot it tomorrow.

View attachment 867945
Click to expand...


Great drill.

The points you made...they sum up internet gun forums perfectly.
 
I'll skip participating in this one. I need to make sure I can keep them all in the black from 7 yards first ;)

@Formidilosus , for field use, you mentioned you prefer a fiber optic or an ameriglo tritium sight.

What front blade height and width is generally sturdy enough to use and what rear notch width (relative to front... thinking of air gap on each side of front post) generally gives best sight picture acquisition in stressed/times settings with good accuracy?

I am sort of wanting to try a fiber optic front that has anything blade so it obscures the target a bit less. I see Dawson has one that is 0.090 wide, but wonder if that would be too delicate for reliability.
 
HighUintas said:
I'll skip participating in this one. I need to make sure I can keep them all in the black from 7 yards first ;)

@Formidilosus , for field use, you mentioned you prefer a fiber optic or an ameriglo tritium sight.

What front blade height and width is generally sturdy enough to use and what rear notch width (relative to front... thinking of air gap on each side of front post) generally gives best sight picture acquisition in stressed/times settings with good accuracy?
Click to expand...

I do not like wide front sights, nor very large air gaps around the front sight. Dawson Precision adjustable rear and FO front set are about right. About a .100 to .115 front, and a .125 or so rear notch.


The Ameriglo front that I have on one pistol (posted above) is .145 I believe? It’s thicker than I usually like, however the very bright orange ring around the tritium vial acts like a large FO, and is visually the same size as a 5-6” target at 25 yards. The rear sight is a Dawson Precision fixed sight- combined there is very little air gap around the front sight. Not the best for true bullseye shooting, but really good for speed precision.

HighUintas said:
I am sort of wanting to try a fiber optic front that has anything blade so it obscures the target a bit less. I see Dawson has one that is 0.090 wide, but wonder if that would be too delicate for reliability.
Click to expand...

Can’t remember if I’ve used one of theirs that’s .09”. I have the .100”- I think there are a couple of pictures of some of them that I listed earlier that I posted in the thread- no issues through heinous use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B_Reynolds_AK
Stiker vs Hammer Fired Handguns, Reliability
Replies
16
Views
907
jonpall
J
thinhorn_AK
22 pistols
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
ShortMagFan
S
D
Which side arm makes most sence
2 3
Replies
47
Views
2K
DMTJAGER
D
JBradley500
What is your favorite TO carry pistol?
3 4 5
Replies
82
Views
3K
njons
N
kpk
Do I want a Staccato?
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
Gettincloser
G

Latest posts

Featured Video

Latest Articles

Back
Top