Jump to content

Glock 19 X


patriot1776

Recommended Posts

I saw the ad for it. It's a 19 slide on a 17 frame. It's a meh at best lol.

 

And without safety, so for the true fanboys it's not even the real thing. Sig is also selling their repro MHS pistols as overpriced limited editions without safeties as well. I get for an EDC you don't want the safety, but if you want authenticity it would be nice to have.

 

Not a Glock fan, but the compact slide on a full size frame is not a bad concept. It's usually the barrel/slide length that gets in the way CC'ing then the frame length (at least for me). So the extra rounds are always nice to have.

 

I assume beyond the Frankenstein mismatch on the frame and slide there's no further modularity like on the Sig? I thought that was a requirement of the RFP, but I never saw any other parts or configs. Is it the slide that's modified or the frame? I'm ignorant of Glocks so not sure if this makes sense, but I assume full sized frames are not compatible with compact slides out of the box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I saw the ad for it. It's a 19 slide on a 17 frame. It's a meh at best lol.

And without safety, so for the true fanboys it's not even the real thing. Sig is also selling their repro MHS pistols as overpriced limited editions without safeties as well. I get for an EDC you don't want the safety, but if you want authenticity it would be nice to have.

 

Not a Glock fan, but the compact slide on a full size frame is not a bad concept. It's usually the barrel/slide length that gets in the way CC'ing then the frame length (at least for me). So the extra rounds are always nice to have.

 

I assume beyond the Frankenstein mismatch on the frame and slide there's no further modularity like on the Sig? I thought that was a requirement of the RFP, but I never saw any other parts or configs. Is it the slide that's modified or the frame? I'm ignorant of Glocks so not sure if this makes sense, but I assume full sized frames are not compatible with compact slides out of the box.

 

 

So, essentially, this is the 9mm version of the G30S. . . ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I saw the ad for it. It's a 19 slide on a 17 frame. It's a meh at best lol.

And without safety, so for the true fanboys it's not even the real thing. Sig is also selling their repro MHS pistols as overpriced limited editions without safeties as well. I get for an EDC you don't want the safety, but if you want authenticity it would be nice to have.

Not a Glock fan, but the compact slide on a full size frame is not a bad concept. It's usually the barrel/slide length that gets in the way CC'ing then the frame length (at least for me). So the extra rounds are always nice to have.

I assume beyond the Frankenstein mismatch on the frame and slide there's no further modularity like on the Sig? I thought that was a requirement of the RFP, but I never saw any other parts or configs. Is it the slide that's modified or the frame? I'm ignorant of Glocks so not sure if this makes sense, but I assume full sized frames are not compatible with compact slides out of the box.

I’m not sure what you’ve seen of the 19x. All photos I’ve seen shows it with the standard trigger safety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I saw the ad for it. It's a 19 slide on a 17 frame. It's a meh at best lol.

And without safety, so for the true fanboys it's not even the real thing. Sig is also selling their repro MHS pistols as overpriced limited editions without safeties as well. I get for an EDC you don't want the safety, but if you want authenticity it would be nice to have.

Im not sure what youve seen of the 19x. All photos Ive seen shows it with the standard trigger safety.
This is the MHS submitted glock

https://assets.americanrifleman.org/media/2914743/glock_mhs_right.jpg

 

https://assets.americanrifleman.org/media/2914746/glock_mhs_19_left_w.jpg

 

Notice the ambi safety, this was part of the MHS RFP requirement. Both Glock and Sig have released civilian reproductions of their MHS entries at prices way higher then the guns they are based on without safeties. I think if you're upcharging for authenticity and collectiblity it would be a nice detail.

 

And I'm sure there are some people that would like the option to purchase a P320 with a safety based on the design flaw.

 

The Glock is somewhat more reasonable then the Sig at only $120 more then MSRP of a 19 or 17 since your getting a physical vapor deposition coating on the slide. But that still seems high since the tenifer coating is more durable then PVD. And, at the end of the day these are the guns they were going to sell to the government in the allegedly $400 range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t get it either, as a 17 slide on a 19 frame would’ve made a lot more sense, especially for people who carry the Glock 19. Only Springfield makes a short frame/long slide pistol, and I believe that’s a single stack model. I just can’t understand the idea of a short slide on a tall frame.

 

I also don’t entirely understand the logic of the Army on the MHS. I get the overal idea of a modular handgun, and have to admit that the serialized triggerpack of the P320 will likely become a new standard in the firearm industry (much like Glock did with polymer framed pistols), but why the Sig? The grip feels great in the hand, but the balance on the long slide model is too muzzle-heavy, and the bore axis is WAY too high. Why not the Beretta APX? Much lower bore axis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sig underbid everybody which is why they almost definitely won. But I'm guessing that modularity also played an important role, as they are the only one (that I'm aware) that followed the sprit of the RFP with a modular handgun. Everyone else just put a compact slide on a full sized frame and said look, no need for modularity, this fits the request.

 

I carry appendix, so I guess my preference is to short slide full frame guns (I carry a Walther P99C sometimes with the full size 15 round mag/frame spacer. But I get some people are worried about frames printing at 3/9 o'clock carry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw the ad for it. It's a 19 slide on a 17 frame. It's a meh at best lol.

And without safety, so for the true fanboys it's not even the real thing. Sig is also selling their repro MHS pistols as overpriced limited editions without safeties as well. I get for an EDC you don't want the safety, but if you want authenticity it would be nice to have.
Im not sure what youve seen of the 19x. All photos Ive seen shows it with the standard trigger safety.
This is the MHS submitted glockhttps://assets.americanrifleman.org/media/2914743/glock_mhs_right.jpghttps://assets.americanrifleman.org/media/2914746/glock_mhs_19_left_w.jpg

Notice the ambi safety, this was part of the MHS RFP requirement. Both Glock and Sig have released civilian reproductions of their MHS entries at prices way higher then the guns they are based on without safeties. I think if you're upcharging for authenticity and collectiblity it would be a nice detail.

And I'm sure there are some people that would like the option to purchase a P320 with a safety based on the design flaw.

The Glock is somewhat more reasonable then the Sig at only $120 more then MSRP of a 19 or 17 since your getting a physical vapor deposition coating on the slide. But that still seems high since the tenifer coating is more durable then PVD. And, at the end of the day these are the guns they were going to sell to the government in the allegedly $400 range.

 

I certainly did not see that configuration. Thanks for sharing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I saw the ad for it. It's a 19 slide on a 17 frame. It's a meh at best lol.

It's usually the barrel/slide length that gets in the way CC'ing then the frame length (at least for me). So the extra rounds are always nice to have.

 

 

 

 

For me, and almost everyone I know who carries, the only time the slide length is an issue is if you're appendix carrying. But the one thing that's consistent, is the slide isn't what's going to print, it's the length of the grip that prints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I saw the ad for it. It's a 19 slide on a 17 frame. It's a meh at best lol.

It's usually the barrel/slide length that gets in the way CC'ing then the frame length (at least for me). So the extra rounds are always nice to have.

 

 

 

 

For me, and almost everyone I know who carries, the only time the slide length is an issue is if you're appendix carrying. But the one thing that's consistent, is the slide isn't what's going to print, it's the length of the grip that prints.

 

 

It could be that, since it was geared for military use, concealment wasn't a priority. Sitting in a vehicle, the shorter barrel would be a plus (at least it would for me) and concealing the longer frame isn't a concern for a military/LE sidearm that would be open carry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason the configuration is what it is, is because that's exactly what the mil asked for in their requirements. It's irrelevant if anyone in the consumer market, or for that matter the manufacturer thinks it's useful or a good idea, it's what was demanded.

 

Same with many of the features on the Gen 5. People complain because of the cutout in the front of the grip, or lack of finger grooves, or the magwell flare and don't seem to grasp that all those things were requirements in the FBI solicitation that the M/Gen5 design was made to fulfill.

 

People will buy the 19X due to the novelty, or because it makes a good basis for modification. If you aren't familiar with the "Roland special" this would make an excellent base gun for one of those custom setups. It also makes a perfect candidate for a grip chop to either 19 or 26 length, for those who don't like the pronounced hump on the 19 frame. Depending on carry style and body shape it might even make a suitable carry pistol for some as-is.

 

It's not that far off the dimensions/proportions to the HK VP9 or some other Euro service pistols. Long slide lengths are a PITA in a holster in daily wear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t find this innovative or interesting at all. They just slapped together a gun that’s just like every other gun.

Also if they wanted to win the army contract the gun needed to fit everyone. The sig with s,m,l frames gives you a better chance to fit men and women with all size hands. A glock 17 frame without a back strap won’t fit everyone’s hand.

The gun wasn’t made to be a carry gun to conceal. It is military OWB. I still don’t see it as being a good answer to a problem.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They allowed manufacturers to submit both a full size and compact model or a compact model that met both requirements. If you were going to phone it in and not really make a modular pistol but one that coveres the single submission its bound to look goofy.

 

What I don't get is if the idea was to just make the single submission models for evaluation, then follow up with an actual modular model like the Sig. Or if they would've adopted the single submission models as is.

 

The other interesting thing is somewhere the RFP revisions they called out an optical mount which is totally absent on the Glock. Despite the fact that they have this on the MOA line.

 

https://www.all4shooters.com/en/Shooting/pistols/SIG-SAUER-awarded-the-US-Army-Contract-for-New-Modular-Handgun-System/Sig-Sauer-XM17-winner-right-side.JPG(notice the black plate where the back sight is)

 

The idea of a modular Glock would of been awesome. What Glock is selling to the civilian market is a basterdization of the basterdization they submitted to the RFP. It was clear how far ahead Sig was, the low price sealed the deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason the configuration is what it is, is because that's exactly what the mil asked for in their requirements. It's irrelevant if anyone in the consumer market, or for that matter the manufacturer thinks it's useful or a good idea, it's what was demanded.

 

Same with many of the features on the Gen 5. People complain because of the cutout in the front of the grip, or lack of finger grooves, or the magwell flare and don't seem to grasp that all those things were requirements in the FBI solicitation that the M/Gen5 design was made to fulfill.

 

People will buy the 19X due to the novelty, or because it makes a good basis for modification. If you aren't familiar with the "Roland special" this would make an excellent base gun for one of those custom setups. It also makes a perfect candidate for a grip chop to either 19 or 26 length, for those who don't like the pronounced hump on the 19 frame. Depending on carry style and body shape it might even make a suitable carry pistol for some as-is.

 

It's not that far off the dimensions/proportions to the HK VP9 or some other Euro service pistols. Long slide lengths are a PITA in a holster in daily wear.

As odd as it sounds, I much prefer the full-sized 17 Gen 5 frame over that of the 19. And while I initially thought of the 19X as gimmicky, I could see myself owning one. The shorter slide means greater modification potential (more aftermarket barrels) while perhaps shifting the balance of the gun more towards the rear of the weapon. In some ways it reminds me of the Jericho, which I believe has a similarly tall frame but relatively short slide.

 

I’m also very glad they got rid of the finger grooves, as that’s the only reason why I hated the 17/34 Gen 4 models: my hands didn’t go where they naturally wanted to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The reason the configuration is what it is, is because that's exactly what the mil asked for in their requirements. It's irrelevant if anyone in the consumer market, or for that matter the manufacturer thinks it's useful or a good idea, it's what was demanded.

 

Same with many of the features on the Gen 5. People complain because of the cutout in the front of the grip, or lack of finger grooves, or the magwell flare and don't seem to grasp that all those things were requirements in the FBI solicitation that the M/Gen5 design was made to fulfill.

 

People will buy the 19X due to the novelty, or because it makes a good basis for modification. If you aren't familiar with the "Roland special" this would make an excellent base gun for one of those custom setups. It also makes a perfect candidate for a grip chop to either 19 or 26 length, for those who don't like the pronounced hump on the 19 frame. Depending on carry style and body shape it might even make a suitable carry pistol for some as-is.

 

It's not that far off the dimensions/proportions to the HK VP9 or some other Euro service pistols. Long slide lengths are a PITA in a holster in daily wear.

As odd as it sounds, I much prefer the full-sized 17 Gen 5 frame over that of the 19. And while I initially thought of the 19X as gimmicky, I could see myself owning one. The shorter slide means greater modification potential (more aftermarket barrels) while perhaps shifting the balance of the gun more towards the rear of the weapon. In some ways it reminds me of the Jericho, which I believe has a similarly tall frame but relatively short slide.

 

I’m also very glad they got rid of the finger grooves, as that’s the only reason why I hated the 17/34 Gen 4 models: my hands didn’t go where they naturally wanted to go.

 

Shifting more weight to the rear will cause the gun to snap more. The goal to make a gun more neutral as far as recoil is lightening the reciprocating mass (the slide).....which is why you tend to see Glock's and other competition pistols with slide cuts and material removed from them.

 

But even then, you can remove all the material you want, but it's still tupperware and the weight of the frame itself factors into it.

 

A perfect example is the Springfield XDM 5.25 that I used for a whole year shooting USPSA and 3 gun. It's tuned, large framed, and has factory slide lightening cuts. Still snaps a bit, even with loads that just go over minor power factor. When I upgraded to an STI DVC Limited, people were questioning the loads I was shooting because the muzzle wasn't flipping at all, it would go straight back for the most part. I was gripping it exactly as hard as I was gripping that XDM so my recoil control combined with the weight of the gun was eliminating any muzzle rise.

 

If you really want to open up your possibilities for aftermarket mods, get a Glock 34. That model has far more possibilities for modification than any of the others due to it being used in competition. I personally don't like the grip angle of Glocks, and prefer the 1911 grip angle which is what Springfield uses. I still like my G23 and G29 so I won't be getting rid of them any time soon, but I have to alter my grip slightly to be able to draw them and have the slight be aligned on target by the time I'm done pressing out. The 1911 grip angle is second nature to me at this point, but that's due to thousands and thousands of draws with frames using that grip angle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The reason the configuration is what it is, is because that's exactly what the mil asked for in their requirements. It's irrelevant if anyone in the consumer market, or for that matter the manufacturer thinks it's useful or a good idea, it's what was demanded.

 

Same with many of the features on the Gen 5. People complain because of the cutout in the front of the grip, or lack of finger grooves, or the magwell flare and don't seem to grasp that all those things were requirements in the FBI solicitation that the M/Gen5 design was made to fulfill.

 

People will buy the 19X due to the novelty, or because it makes a good basis for modification. If you aren't familiar with the "Roland special" this would make an excellent base gun for one of those custom setups. It also makes a perfect candidate for a grip chop to either 19 or 26 length, for those who don't like the pronounced hump on the 19 frame. Depending on carry style and body shape it might even make a suitable carry pistol for some as-is.

 

It's not that far off the dimensions/proportions to the HK VP9 or some other Euro service pistols. Long slide lengths are a PITA in a holster in daily wear.

As odd as it sounds, I much prefer the full-sized 17 Gen 5 frame over that of the 19. And while I initially thought of the 19X as gimmicky, I could see myself owning one. The shorter slide means greater modification potential (more aftermarket barrels) while perhaps shifting the balance of the gun more towards the rear of the weapon. In some ways it reminds me of the Jericho, which I believe has a similarly tall frame but relatively short slide.

 

I’m also very glad they got rid of the finger grooves, as that’s the only reason why I hated the 17/34 Gen 4 models: my hands didn’t go where they naturally wanted to go.

 

Shifting more weight to the rear will cause the gun to snap more. The goal to make a gun more neutral as far as recoil is lightening the reciprocating mass (the slide).....which is why you tend to see Glock's and other competition pistols with slide cuts and material removed from them.

 

But even then, you can remove all the material you want, but it's still tupperware and the weight of the frame itself factors into it.

 

A perfect example is the Springfield XDM 5.25 that I used for a whole year shooting USPSA and 3 gun. It's tuned, large framed, and has factory slide lightening cuts. Still snaps a bit, even with loads that just go over minor power factor. When I upgraded to an STI DVC Limited, people were questioning the loads I was shooting because the muzzle wasn't flipping at all, it would go straight back for the most part. I was gripping it exactly as hard as I was gripping that XDM so my recoil control combined with the weight of the gun was eliminating any muzzle rise.

 

If you really want to open up your possibilities for aftermarket mods, get a Glock 34. That model has far more possibilities for modification than any of the others due to it being used in competition. I personally don't like the grip angle of Glocks, and prefer the 1911 grip angle which is what Springfield uses. I still like my G23 and G29 so I won't be getting rid of them any time soon, but I have to alter my grip slightly to be able to draw them and have the slight be aligned on target by the time I'm done pressing out. The 1911 grip angle is second nature to me at this point, but that's due to thousands and thousands of draws with frames using that grip angle.

 

 

You should try my G29/30 SF with a beavertail adapter, 460 Rowland® conversion and the Rowlanator weighted rear sight module. I also added a tungsten guide rod/recoil spring assembly to it, and combined with the compensator, that conversion is the softest shooting .45 caliber class firearm I have ever shot. I was shooting hot 230 grain .45 out of it and it was easier to handle than a 9 mm. One of my self-protection students, a tiny, 108-pound girl, said she liked shooting it better than anything other than the .22 caliber Advantage Arms conversion, and was knocking the center out of targets from 7 meters with no problem whatsoever.

 

The beavertail adapter alters the grip angle to obviate that issue with the Glocks that you described. It's literally point and shoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

The reason the configuration is what it is, is because that's exactly what the mil asked for in their requirements. It's irrelevant if anyone in the consumer market, or for that matter the manufacturer thinks it's useful or a good idea, it's what was demanded.

 

Same with many of the features on the Gen 5. People complain because of the cutout in the front of the grip, or lack of finger grooves, or the magwell flare and don't seem to grasp that all those things were requirements in the FBI solicitation that the M/Gen5 design was made to fulfill.

 

People will buy the 19X due to the novelty, or because it makes a good basis for modification. If you aren't familiar with the "Roland special" this would make an excellent base gun for one of those custom setups. It also makes a perfect candidate for a grip chop to either 19 or 26 length, for those who don't like the pronounced hump on the 19 frame. Depending on carry style and body shape it might even make a suitable carry pistol for some as-is.

 

It's not that far off the dimensions/proportions to the HK VP9 or some other Euro service pistols. Long slide lengths are a PITA in a holster in daily wear.

 

 

As odd as it sounds, I much prefer the full-sized 17 Gen 5 frame over that of the 19. And while I initially thought of the 19X as gimmicky, I could see myself owning one. The shorter slide means greater modification potential (more aftermarket barrels) while perhaps shifting the balance of the gun more towards the rear of the weapon. In some ways it reminds me of the Jericho, which I believe has a similarly tall frame but relatively short slide.

I’m also very glad they got rid of the finger grooves, as that’s the only reason why I hated the 17/34 Gen 4 models: my hands didn’t go where they naturally wanted to go.

 

 

 

Shifting more weight to the rear will cause the gun to snap more. The goal to make a gun more neutral as far as recoil is lightening the reciprocating mass (the slide).....which is why you tend to see Glock's and other competition pistols with slide cuts and material removed from them.

 

But even then, you can remove all the material you want, but it's still tupperware and the weight of the frame itself factors into it.

 

A perfect example is the Springfield XDM 5.25 that I used for a whole year shooting USPSA and 3 gun. It's tuned, large framed, and has factory slide lightening cuts. Still snaps a bit, even with loads that just go over minor power factor. When I upgraded to an STI DVC Limited, people were questioning the loads I was shooting because the muzzle wasn't flipping at all, it would go straight back for the most part. I was gripping it exactly as hard as I was gripping that XDM so my recoil control combined with the weight of the gun was eliminating any muzzle rise.

 

If you really want to open up your possibilities for aftermarket mods, get a Glock 34. That model has far more possibilities for modification than any of the others due to it being used in competition. I personally don't like the grip angle of Glocks, and prefer the 1911 grip angle which is what Springfield uses. I still like my G23 and G29 so I won't be getting rid of them any time soon, but I have to alter my grip slightly to be able to draw them and have the slight be aligned on target by the time I'm done pressing out. The 1911 grip angle is second nature to me at this point, but that's due to thousands and thousands of draws with frames using that grip angle.

 

 

 

 

You should try my G29/30 SF with a beavertail adapter, 460 Rowland® conversion and the Rowlanator weighted rear sight module. I also added a tungsten guide rod/recoil spring assembly to it, and combined with the compensator, that conversion is the softest shooting .45 caliber class firearm I have ever shot. I was shooting hot 230 grain .45 out of it and it was easier to handle than a 9 mm. One of my self-protection students, a tiny, 108-pound girl, said she liked shooting it better than anything other than the .22 caliber Advantage Arms conversion, and was knocking the center out of targets from 7 meters with no problem whatsoever.

 

The beavertail adapter alters the grip angle to obviate that issue with the Glocks that you described. It's literally point and shoot.

 

I’ve installed the beaver tail adaptors onto both of my Glocks. It doesn’t really change the grip angle as much as it gives you some measure of protection against slide bite. The angle of the grip remains relatively the same though. I’ll see if I can get a pick of my Glock with the beaver tail side by side with the XDM for comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

The reason the configuration is what it is, is because that's exactly what the mil asked for in their requirements. It's irrelevant if anyone in the consumer market, or for that matter the manufacturer thinks it's useful or a good idea, it's what was demanded.

 

Same with many of the features on the Gen 5. People complain because of the cutout in the front of the grip, or lack of finger grooves, or the magwell flare and don't seem to grasp that all those things were requirements in the FBI solicitation that the M/Gen5 design was made to fulfill.

 

People will buy the 19X due to the novelty, or because it makes a good basis for modification. If you aren't familiar with the "Roland special" this would make an excellent base gun for one of those custom setups. It also makes a perfect candidate for a grip chop to either 19 or 26 length, for those who don't like the pronounced hump on the 19 frame. Depending on carry style and body shape it might even make a suitable carry pistol for some as-is.

 

It's not that far off the dimensions/proportions to the HK VP9 or some other Euro service pistols. Long slide lengths are a PITA in a holster in daily wear.

 

 

As odd as it sounds, I much prefer the full-sized 17 Gen 5 frame over that of the 19. And while I initially thought of the 19X as gimmicky, I could see myself owning one. The shorter slide means greater modification potential (more aftermarket barrels) while perhaps shifting the balance of the gun more towards the rear of the weapon. In some ways it reminds me of the Jericho, which I believe has a similarly tall frame but relatively short slide.

I’m also very glad they got rid of the finger grooves, as that’s the only reason why I hated the 17/34 Gen 4 models: my hands didn’t go where they naturally wanted to go.

 

 

 

Shifting more weight to the rear will cause the gun to snap more. The goal to make a gun more neutral as far as recoil is lightening the reciprocating mass (the slide).....which is why you tend to see Glock's and other competition pistols with slide cuts and material removed from them.

 

But even then, you can remove all the material you want, but it's still tupperware and the weight of the frame itself factors into it.

 

A perfect example is the Springfield XDM 5.25 that I used for a whole year shooting USPSA and 3 gun. It's tuned, large framed, and has factory slide lightening cuts. Still snaps a bit, even with loads that just go over minor power factor. When I upgraded to an STI DVC Limited, people were questioning the loads I was shooting because the muzzle wasn't flipping at all, it would go straight back for the most part. I was gripping it exactly as hard as I was gripping that XDM so my recoil control combined with the weight of the gun was eliminating any muzzle rise.

 

If you really want to open up your possibilities for aftermarket mods, get a Glock 34. That model has far more possibilities for modification than any of the others due to it being used in competition. I personally don't like the grip angle of Glocks, and prefer the 1911 grip angle which is what Springfield uses. I still like my G23 and G29 so I won't be getting rid of them any time soon, but I have to alter my grip slightly to be able to draw them and have the slight be aligned on target by the time I'm done pressing out. The 1911 grip angle is second nature to me at this point, but that's due to thousands and thousands of draws with frames using that grip angle.

 

 

 

 

You should try my G29/30 SF with a beavertail adapter, 460 Rowland® conversion and the Rowlanator weighted rear sight module. I also added a tungsten guide rod/recoil spring assembly to it, and combined with the compensator, that conversion is the softest shooting .45 caliber class firearm I have ever shot. I was shooting hot 230 grain .45 out of it and it was easier to handle than a 9 mm. One of my self-protection students, a tiny, 108-pound girl, said she liked shooting it better than anything other than the .22 caliber Advantage Arms conversion, and was knocking the center out of targets from 7 meters with no problem whatsoever.

 

The beavertail adapter alters the grip angle to obviate that issue with the Glocks that you described. It's literally point and shoot.

I’ve installed the beaver tail adaptors onto both of my Glocks. It doesn’t really change the grip angle as much as it gives you some measure of protection against slide bite. The angle of the grip remains relatively the same though. I’ll see if I can get a pick of my Glock with the beaver tail side by side with the XDM for comparison.

 

 

I think it must make me hold it differently, and definitely a lot higher up on the axis of the slide. It definitely "fills up" the spot at the top of the backstrap in my hand for me. As well, a Glock grip seems to be the angle closer to how I punch out with a fist, and the beavertail adapter makes it feel perfect. I've compared how I hold mine alongside how I hold a 1911 and the Glock with the beavertail is the best, followed by the 1911, and then the bare Glock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The reason the configuration is what it is, is because that's exactly what the mil asked for in their requirements. It's irrelevant if anyone in the consumer market, or for that matter the manufacturer thinks it's useful or a good idea, it's what was demanded.

 

Same with many of the features on the Gen 5. People complain because of the cutout in the front of the grip, or lack of finger grooves, or the magwell flare and don't seem to grasp that all those things were requirements in the FBI solicitation that the M/Gen5 design was made to fulfill.

 

People will buy the 19X due to the novelty, or because it makes a good basis for modification. If you aren't familiar with the "Roland special" this would make an excellent base gun for one of those custom setups. It also makes a perfect candidate for a grip chop to either 19 or 26 length, for those who don't like the pronounced hump on the 19 frame. Depending on carry style and body shape it might even make a suitable carry pistol for some as-is.

 

It's not that far off the dimensions/proportions to the HK VP9 or some other Euro service pistols. Long slide lengths are a PITA in a holster in daily wear.

 

 

As odd as it sounds, I much prefer the full-sized 17 Gen 5 frame over that of the 19. And while I initially thought of the 19X as gimmicky, I could see myself owning one. The shorter slide means greater modification potential (more aftermarket barrels) while perhaps shifting the balance of the gun more towards the rear of the weapon. In some ways it reminds me of the Jericho, which I believe has a similarly tall frame but relatively short slide.

I’m also very glad they got rid of the finger grooves, as that’s the only reason why I hated the 17/34 Gen 4 models: my hands didn’t go where they naturally wanted to go.

 

 

 

Shifting more weight to the rear will cause the gun to snap more. The goal to make a gun more neutral as far as recoil is lightening the reciprocating mass (the slide).....which is why you tend to see Glock's and other competition pistols with slide cuts and material removed from them.

 

But even then, you can remove all the material you want, but it's still tupperware and the weight of the frame itself factors into it.

 

A perfect example is the Springfield XDM 5.25 that I used for a whole year shooting USPSA and 3 gun. It's tuned, large framed, and has factory slide lightening cuts. Still snaps a bit, even with loads that just go over minor power factor. When I upgraded to an STI DVC Limited, people were questioning the loads I was shooting because the muzzle wasn't flipping at all, it would go straight back for the most part. I was gripping it exactly as hard as I was gripping that XDM so my recoil control combined with the weight of the gun was eliminating any muzzle rise.

 

If you really want to open up your possibilities for aftermarket mods, get a Glock 34. That model has far more possibilities for modification than any of the others due to it being used in competition. I personally don't like the grip angle of Glocks, and prefer the 1911 grip angle which is what Springfield uses. I still like my G23 and G29 so I won't be getting rid of them any time soon, but I have to alter my grip slightly to be able to draw them and have the slight be aligned on target by the time I'm done pressing out. The 1911 grip angle is second nature to me at this point, but that's due to thousands and thousands of draws with frames using that grip angle.

I always thought that the reason they lightened the slide was to make the pistol cycle faster. I've known quite a few shooters who could double tap faster than their Glocks could. By reducing the mass of the slide, it takes less force to overcome inertia, allowing the slide to reciprocate faster.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The reason the configuration is what it is, is because that's exactly what the mil asked for in their requirements. It's irrelevant if anyone in the consumer market, or for that matter the manufacturer thinks it's useful or a good idea, it's what was demanded.

 

Same with many of the features on the Gen 5. People complain because of the cutout in the front of the grip, or lack of finger grooves, or the magwell flare and don't seem to grasp that all those things were requirements in the FBI solicitation that the M/Gen5 design was made to fulfill.

 

People will buy the 19X due to the novelty, or because it makes a good basis for modification. If you aren't familiar with the "Roland special" this would make an excellent base gun for one of those custom setups. It also makes a perfect candidate for a grip chop to either 19 or 26 length, for those who don't like the pronounced hump on the 19 frame. Depending on carry style and body shape it might even make a suitable carry pistol for some as-is.

 

It's not that far off the dimensions/proportions to the HK VP9 or some other Euro service pistols. Long slide lengths are a PITA in a holster in daily wear.

 

 

As odd as it sounds, I much prefer the full-sized 17 Gen 5 frame over that of the 19. And while I initially thought of the 19X as gimmicky, I could see myself owning one. The shorter slide means greater modification potential (more aftermarket barrels) while perhaps shifting the balance of the gun more towards the rear of the weapon. In some ways it reminds me of the Jericho, which I believe has a similarly tall frame but relatively short slide.

I’m also very glad they got rid of the finger grooves, as that’s the only reason why I hated the 17/34 Gen 4 models: my hands didn’t go where they naturally wanted to go.

 

 

 

Shifting more weight to the rear will cause the gun to snap more. The goal to make a gun more neutral as far as recoil is lightening the reciprocating mass (the slide).....which is why you tend to see Glock's and other competition pistols with slide cuts and material removed from them.

 

But even then, you can remove all the material you want, but it's still tupperware and the weight of the frame itself factors into it.

 

A perfect example is the Springfield XDM 5.25 that I used for a whole year shooting USPSA and 3 gun. It's tuned, large framed, and has factory slide lightening cuts. Still snaps a bit, even with loads that just go over minor power factor. When I upgraded to an STI DVC Limited, people were questioning the loads I was shooting because the muzzle wasn't flipping at all, it would go straight back for the most part. I was gripping it exactly as hard as I was gripping that XDM so my recoil control combined with the weight of the gun was eliminating any muzzle rise.

 

If you really want to open up your possibilities for aftermarket mods, get a Glock 34. That model has far more possibilities for modification than any of the others due to it being used in competition. I personally don't like the grip angle of Glocks, and prefer the 1911 grip angle which is what Springfield uses. I still like my G23 and G29 so I won't be getting rid of them any time soon, but I have to alter my grip slightly to be able to draw them and have the slight be aligned on target by the time I'm done pressing out. The 1911 grip angle is second nature to me at this point, but that's due to thousands and thousands of draws with frames using that grip angle.

I always thought that the reason they lightened the slide was to make the pistol cycle faster. I've known quite a few shooters who could double tap faster than their Glocks could. By reducing the mass of the slide, it takes less force to overcome inertia, allowing the slide to reciprocate faster.

 

That's the second benefit of lightening a slide. Didn't mention that since it plays a very small part in reducing muzzle rise.

 

The problem most see with a heavy slide is that the reciprocating mass goes rearward, causing the muzzle to rise a bit in reaction to the small explosion that just happened. Then when the slide comes forward, it'll dip. The lightening of slides reduces that weight so it eliminates the rise and dip to a certain extent. The other benefit is that you can see increased slide speed, but you have to use a recoil spring weight that works with it.

 

There are a ton of ways to mitigate the effects of the slide going back and forth, one was mentioned earlier....a tungsten guide rod, but even with one of those, you'd need to counteract the effects with a different weight spring. Let's say that you didn't change your spring, but added a tungsten guide rod....what would happen is that your first shot would be where you aimed, and your second shot would be considerably lower if you pulled the trigger relatively quickly....( .20 split). That's due to the dip.

 

You also have to take into account the type of load you're shooting. 115's tend to snap, 124's tend to snap less, and 147's tend to snap the least. It takes a while of fooling around to get the gun tuned to where you have a good balance of recoil/snap mitigation.

 

The XDM I shot, when I first bought it the very first thing I changed was the guide rod to a stainless steel one since it was heavier, and I could find a tungsten guide rod....the inserts were available but not a whole guide rod. I was shooting 124's at about 134 power factor. The gun was manageable, but when I switched to 147's, I noticed that the second shots were always lower so I started playing with spring weights until I had one that didn't dip when the slide went into battery. A good test is to put the gun into slide lock, take your normal grip as if you were shooting, then release the slide lock as you watch the sights. How far did the sights drop? Put in a different weight spring and try again. You obviously won't get zero dip, but you can get it to where it barely dips. The STI I have dips, but it's incredibly hard to see it, since it seems like it shakes side to side more than dipping down.

 

With all that being said, regardless of mods one makes, if they're not gripping the gun hard enough with their weak hand, the muzzle will flip. Until I started shooting competitively, I wasn't gripping the gun strong enough with my weak hand, nor was I gripping it with that hand correctly. thobart and I were at ASC the day before my first 3 gun match, took one look at my left hand and told me what I had been doing wrong for almost the entire time I've been shooting guns. Once I made that change, it really didn't matter what type of gun I was shooting, even if the gun wasn't a race gun, I could control them way better with a far stronger weak hand grip than I ever used. Even my G29 using my stout 10mm handloads felt far easier to control than they did when I first bought the gun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

With all that being said, regardless of mods one makes, if they're not gripping the gun hard enough with their weak hand, the muzzle will flip. Until I started shooting competitively, I wasn't gripping the gun strong enough with my weak hand, nor was I gripping it with that hand correctly. thobart and I were at ASC the day before my first 3 gun match, took one look at my left hand and told me what I had been doing wrong for almost the entire time I've been shooting guns. Once I made that change, it really didn't matter what type of gun I was shooting, even if the gun wasn't a race gun, I could control them way better with a far stronger weak hand grip than I ever used. Even my G29 using my stout 10mm handloads felt far easier to control than they did when I first bought the gun.

 

 

This is how I've gripped my firearm instinctively, with rolling my hand forward to "load" the forearm and grip, and it absolutely prevents any muzzle drop regardless of what firearm I am using or what kind of ammunition I am shooting. I always thought it was a natural consequence of how I present the firearm when I push it out to shooting extension, and it seems perfectly natural to me. When I teach a new shooter, it's what I show them, so that it "imprints" on their clean slate for shooting and that is their default. It makes a world of difference, I have found.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

With all that being said, regardless of mods one makes, if they're not gripping the gun hard enough with their weak hand, the muzzle will flip. Until I started shooting competitively, I wasn't gripping the gun strong enough with my weak hand, nor was I gripping it with that hand correctly. thobart and I were at ASC the day before my first 3 gun match, took one look at my left hand and told me what I had been doing wrong for almost the entire time I've been shooting guns. Once I made that change, it really didn't matter what type of gun I was shooting, even if the gun wasn't a race gun, I could control them way better with a far stronger weak hand grip than I ever used. Even my G29 using my stout 10mm handloads felt far easier to control than they did when I first bought the gun.

 

 

This is how I've gripped my firearm instinctively, with rolling my hand forward to "load" the forearm and grip, and it absolutely prevents any muzzle drop regardless of what firearm I am using or what kind of ammunition I am shooting. I always thought it was a natural consequence of how I present the firearm when I push it out to shooting extension, and it seems perfectly natural to me. When I teach a new shooter, it's what I show them, so that it "imprints" on their clean slate for shooting and that is their default. It makes a world of difference, I have found.

 

 

Yep, like night and day. I shot thumbs forward, but I didn't have my weak hand wrist rolled forward enough, and didn't exert as much hand pressure with that hand. Once I learned about how the left hand should squeeze the hardest, it was like a lightbulb turned on and I could shoot WAY faster with control and accuracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. I don't shoot competition very much at all any more, but when I did, it was PPC or USPSA. Before each stage in a match when I was waiting for the buzzer, or waiting for the target to turn, I would make a tight fist with my support hand to remind me to SQUEEZE with that hand. I would relax and stretch out the fingers of my shooting hand to remind me that this hand's job is to manipulate the trigger, and nothing else. It seemed to help me focus on that fundamental.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. I don't shoot competition very much at all any more, but when I did, it was PPC or USPSA. Before each stage in a match when I was waiting for the buzzer, or waiting for the target to turn, I would make a tight fist with my support hand to remind me to SQUEEZE with that hand. I would relax and stretch out the fingers of my shooting hand to remind me that this hand's job is to manipulate the trigger, and nothing else. It seemed to help me focus on that fundamental.

When you first learned that, I bet you had the same reaction I did....holy crap I can't believe I've been doing it wrong the whole time!

 

I'd watch those pro shooters shooting crazy fast splits on youtube, and just couldn't figure out how the heck they were able to shoot that fast and with accuracy. Only when I learned about how a proper grip should be applied was when the lightbulb came on.

 

My biggest problem is relaxing my strong hand. I consciously do my best to loosen it up a bit, but years of relying mostly on my strong hand is taking a while to unlearn. The cure to that is dry fire, and hitting the range and doing Bill Drills which I try to do as much as I can, but unfortunately shooting outdoors right now kind of sucks lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...