Personal "Platform" Selection

[warpedcamshaft]

My question is manifold and somewhat open ended, however... I am curious for some opinions and thoughts. I also realize that many do not get to choose their platform.

I have observed from experience that with a bit of dedication to many platforms, I can attain a similar level of performance. Some platforms will obviously have limiting factors for some individuals from an ergo standpoint, or potentially from a mechanical standpoint (accuracy, reliability,etc.)

I use a variety of timed drills, accuracy testing, etc... to determine my level of performance with a handgun. I focus exclusively on my performance while evaluating a handgun, and don't focus much on the "feel" or "look" of a weapon.

After that lengthy intro, here is a rundown of the direction of my line of questions:

1: What are the parameters that you use to select a handgun? (Some seem base decisions off of how it "feels", rather than honest assessment with a shot timer or 25 yard bull drills)

2: What attributes are you willing to sacrifice in order to gain another attribute?
(Examples: Sacrifice user-serviceability for ergonomics, Sacrifice accuracy for split time speed, Sacrifice accessory availability for trigger characteristics)

3: At what point are you willing to switch platforms.

4: At what point are you willing to settle for "good enough" and stick with a platform.

Feel free to expand...

[ericl]

This should be quite interesting to follow. I myself am interested in the "why" of opinions posted here. I think you have a great handle on how to pick a "platform" for yourself. Too many base their choice on what others say or use. There are many quality pistols on the market that serve the duty/service need. For every one of those pistols, there are horror stories passed at gunshops, ranges, and internet forums. Some first hand; however, many start with "I knew someone" or "I saw (insert catastrophe) happen". That said, credible sources should always be taken into consideration. Once one narrows it down to a few quality pistols, then it is personal preference.
For me:
#1-Reliablity/durablility (the thing needs to function)
#2-Fit to ME (I don't have large hands and a doublestack .45 feels like grabbing a box of cereal)
#3-How do I shoot/manipulate the pistol (emphasize the "I" part)
#4-Logistics (it may be a great pistol, but if I can't find/afford magazines, parts, aftermarket sights, holsters, etc. for it, NOGO)
As far as what would make me go to another platform, the first thing that would make me jump ship would be a failure in what I have. A new pistol comes out all the time, trying to find the next best thing will make one'e head spin. Too many people try to BUY better performance, ignoring their own ability as the main part of the equation. Now is something comes out that changes the world and I shoot it better than anything I have ever laid hands on, then I would consider it.

[Magic_Salad0892]

1: What are the parameters that you use to select a handgun? (Some seem base decisions off of how it "feels", rather than honest assessment with a shot timer or 25 yard bull drills)

Accuracy, Reliability, Size, Weight, Ergonomics, Accessory Availability, Cost/Benefit ratio, maintainability, service life, the company behind the design, and ability to run a suppressor.

2: What attributes are you willing to sacrifice in order to gain another attribute?
(Examples: Sacrifice user-serviceability for ergonomics, Sacrifice accuracy for split time speed, Sacrifice accessory availability for trigger characteristics)

I'm willing to sacrifice cost, and weight for everything else.

3: At what point are you willing to switch platforms.

When a pistol that is THAT good comes along, and/or durasticaly changes my shooting, or for logistics simplification.

4: At what point are you willing to settle for "good enough" and stick with a platform.

When the other option is BARELY better, but costs a lot more, or is a logistic nightmare.

Feel free to expand...

Mine in bold.

[Guinnessman]

My question is manifold and somewhat open ended, however... I am curious for some opinions and thoughts. I also realize that many do not get to choose their platform.

I have observed from experience that with a bit of dedication to many platforms, I can attain a similar level of performance. Some platforms will obviously have limiting factors for some individuals from an ergo standpoint, or potentially from a mechanical standpoint (accuracy, reliability,etc.)

I use a variety of timed drills, accuracy testing, etc... to determine my level of performance with a handgun. I focus exclusively on my performance while evaluating a handgun, and don't focus much on the "feel" or "look" of a weapon.

After that lengthy intro, here is a rundown of the direction of my line of questions:

1: What are the parameters that you use to select a handgun? (Some seem base decisions off of how it "feels", rather than honest assessment with a shot timer or 25 yard bull drills)

The gun must be reliable and durable. I prefer striker fired handguns over DA/SA. Having the ability to aquire and replace spare parts is a big plus in my book as well.

2: What attributes are you willing to sacrifice in order to gain another attribute?
(Examples: Sacrifice user-serviceability for ergonomics, Sacrifice accuracy for split time speed, Sacrifice accessory availability for trigger characteristics)

I am willing to sacrifice beauty (I.E. 1911, Hi-Power, etc) for absolute reliability, simplicity, and ease of maintenance. I like ugly, polymer pistols. :smile:

3: At what point are you willing to switch platforms.

I shot DA/SA guns for a long time, and later switched to Striker fired Glocks and M&P's. The striker fired triggers work for me.

4: At what point are you willing to settle for "good enough" and stick with a platform.

I owned a pre-2008 Glock 23 that was fantastic. I later decided that I wanted all 9mm and to ditch the .40's. A brand new 2010 Gen 4 G17 showed up with all of its problems. The gun ran fine on Speer 147 grain and 124 grain Gold Dots, but choked often on weaker practice loads. It has Warren Tactical Sevigny Carry sights and feels great in my hands. I could not bear the thought of selling it because it worked well for me. After a trip to Glock it came back with the new ejector and all has been well since. With the new ejector and Apex parts I am willing to deal with modern day Glock pistols.

Feel free to expand...

Here are the answers in bold.

[davidjinks]

My question is manifold and somewhat open ended, however... I am curious for some opinions and thoughts. I also realize that many do not get to choose their platform.

I have observed from experience that with a bit of dedication to many platforms, I can attain a similar level of performance. Some platforms will obviously have limiting factors for some individuals from an ergo standpoint, or potentially from a mechanical standpoint (accuracy, reliability,etc.)

I use a variety of timed drills, accuracy testing, etc... to determine my level of performance with a handgun. I focus exclusively on my performance while evaluating a handgun, and don't focus much on the "feel" or "look" of a weapon.

After that lengthy intro, here is a rundown of the direction of my line of questions:

1: What are the parameters that you use to select a handgun? (Some seem base decisions off of how it "feels", rather than honest assessment with a shot timer or 25 yard bull drills)

Accuracy, reliability, control (Recoil), end user maintenance/serviceability.

2: What attributes are you willing to sacrifice in order to gain another attribute?
(Examples: Sacrifice user-serviceability for ergonomics, Sacrifice accuracy for split time speed, Sacrifice accessory availability for trigger characteristics)

I will accept not being able to mount a light if that would give me 100% what I'm looking for my gun to do.

3: At what point are you willing to switch platforms.

If I've exhausted all options on making a gun work for me and my needs. Meaning; functioning, reliability, parts/maintenance.

4: At what point are you willing to settle for "good enough" and stick with a platform.

I won't settle for "Good enough". It either works or it doesn't. If it doesn't it goes. If my gun of choice can make it through a 1,000 rounds and never fail, then it's good to go.

Feel free to expand...

My answers in red.

[Psalms144.1]

I use my personal performance with the pistol(s) as a guideline. I test my performance through a combination of accuracy drills (qualifications, "Dot Torture" and "The Humbler" 25-yard drill) and speed work on a timer. For me, accuracy takes precedence.

To answer your specific questions:

1. For ME, the most important factors, in order, are: RELIABILITY, accuracy, "shootability" (the magic melding of accuracy and speed), and size efficiency. Ergonomics only matter if the pistol is GROSSLY misproportioned (which generally would keep me away before much shooting would be required).

2. The only factor that I'm willing to sacrafice on the list above is size efficiency. If there's a platform that is SIGNIFICANTLY more accurate or reliable or shootable than an alternative, but is a little larger or heavier or holds a few less rounds, I'll take it.

3. I switch platforms ONLY when one shows a DRAMATIC improvement in reliablilty, accuracy or shootability. As some of you may know, I was a dyed in the wool Glock fanboi for a decade, then, in 2010-2012 got CRUSHED by the reliability issues in a string of G19s (including the "hand picked" replacement pistols they were sending me). Frustration over this drove me into the willing but EXPENSIVE arms of H&K, where I rested for a year or more using a P30 and P2000. However, over the last several months, thanks to the advent of the Apex FRE in my Gen4 G19, I've made the switch back. Why? A number of reasons:

a. While I love the accuracy and reliability of the H&Ks, the LEM trigger was, FOR ME, harder to run at speed, than Glock's. When I put them side by side, I found less of an accuracy improvement with the HKs than the split time speed I had to give up due to the LEM trigger.
b. Economics - I'm a working LEO, and these platforms are all personal weapons for me, meaning I have to maintain the pistols, buy my own spares, holsters, magazines, and parts. While no magazines are easy to come by recently, HK mags are rarer than hen's teeth, and VERY pricey - so much so that I found myself "babying" them on the range, rather than training hard, like I need to. There's also a subliminal hesitation to burn through ammo with the HKs - a $10 replacement RSA for the Glock every 5K rounds is no problem - a $100 replacement RSA for the HK every 20K rounds is an issue! Plus the fact that, God forbid I have to use my weapon in the line of duty, replacing an HK with a similar pistol if my "duty" gun ends up in evidence is a major financial pain, more than twice the price of a similar replacement of a Glock
c. Maintenance - I'm a Glock armorer, and, now that sequestration means my agency isn't springing for re-training, I can attend the GAC as a refresher for $100 or so every couple of years. The HK armorers courses are A LOT more expensive, and harder to get into. I don't need any special tools (beyond the $5 Glock "tool" I already have) to work on Glocks - and detail stripping and rebuilding is a matter of minutes, versus hours for the H&K. Plus, as mentioned above, repair parts for the Glock are ENORMOUSLY more affordable than similiar parts for HK.

4. I "settle" for "good enough" when a competitor's offering doesn't provide a clear and significant improvement in performance. Honestly, my foray into HK aside, I'm a firm believer that people spend WAY too much time reading the internet and switching to the "flavor of the day" when they should be out shooting and training. Seriously, how much ammunition could you buy for the cost of that new pistol, spare magazines to feed it, night sights, and new holsters? I venture to guess that even with an "affordable" new platform like the Glock or S&W M&P, you could send yourself to a top-tier 3-day course for the same cost, or close to it. Which is going to do you more good on the two-way range, do you imagine?

Regards,

Kevin

[currahee]

My number one parameter is 1) reliability and durability, after that it is 2) "carry-ability" -if the greatest gun in the world was made of lead then I probably wouldn't carry it. Also factoring in are 3) parts and accesory availability, 4) combat accuracy, and 5) compatability with my friends.

I don't think I have ever needed to sacrificed anything given those parameters. Most modern, top of the line guns fit the bill, so I'm not gonna go for some wiz bang new gun (like a PPQ) for a slight increase in something like #4 because it loses in other catagories.

I'm a 9mm Glock guy. When I decided to chose a "platform" it was the only one that fit the bill- If I was making a decision now I might think M&P, but I would have to but several of them now, and it's not gonna happen.

[samuse]

9mm. All I shoot is 9mm.

I can run a DA/SA as well as a striker so I just shoot and/or carry whatever I want.

My old standby is a 3rd gen Glock 19, but I usually carry a P229. I shoot a Beretta M9 the most.

I have found that grip angle doesn't bother me. I have also found that practicing DA shots cleans up my Glock shooting nicely.

I don't have a single 'platform', I shoot what I want, I train on the fundamentals.

[Nephrology]

1. In order of importance -

I.Durability/reliability is king. This is the most important criteria for me, bar none.
II. After that, value per dollar - if a 400 dollar pistol will do what a 600 dollar pistol will do only slightly better, I'll save the 200 bucks and spend it on ammo or mags.
III. Third is trigger system. I prefer striker fired, SAO or DAO pistols. Any of those are fine.

IV. Fourth is size/weight/general ergonomics - if it's a carry gun, I want a compact to subcompact size. For HD or matches I want a full size. I also don't want something with complicated controls or ergos but if the gun is good otherwise I will learn around them. One thing I will never do - slide safeties. Also, if I am buying a carry gun for example, I want to be sure the company offers a mostly-identical larger gun for matches/HD. IE Glock 26 + Glock 17, M&P9 + M&P9c, etc.

V. Logistics. Can I get night sights? Holsters? Spare mags for reasonable prices? Is it easy to service/maintain on my own? How about small parts availability/pricing? How is their customer service? etc.

VI. If I-V are equal between two or more given pistols, I would then pick the one I "like" the most. This includes how a gun "fits" in my hand (something I don't really believe in) and aesthetics like finish, grips, whatever.

2. I will pay more money to get any of the above, and I am flexible on trigger systems too. However the above are listed in order of importance and so I will prioritize accordingly.

3. At this point, probably never. Unless my guns all explode or something. I do live in a 10 rd mag ban state (CT, recently). I am planning on moving but if I do not I will carefully consider moving to a native <10rd capacity firearm. Maybe a G36 to complement my G26 and my host of other other 9mm glocks.

4. This question is sort of vague. I think with infinite money and time, I could be proficient with any number of different modern service pistols. I shoot mostly 9mm glocks because my Glock 19 was the first (non stupid) handgun I purchased and I standardized on that platform as it's what I got my hands on first. I would probably be totally satisified with M&Ps, SRT or DAK equipped SIGs, H&Ks, etc, but I have what I have and I will run with it.

As a side note I have started carrying my 5-shot J frame more and more as the weather gets muggier, and I am starting to think about getting a 6 shot Smith as a compliment for IDPA. That is not in the immediate future, however, given the complications associated with procuring enough .38 SPL to practice with and freeing up the cash for a nice 686/586.... for now the J frame will have to be worked hard on its own.