Long Grips and Short Slides: What Am I Missing?

Herk

Newbie
I've been wanting to ask this for a while now: what's with the trend with current pistol manufacturers to put a compact-length slide on a full-sized frame? SIG offers a model of the P320 called the "Carry" model but they also have the "Compact" model (which has a shorter grip that allows for a wider variety of magazines to be used, shorter for compactness and longer for increased capacity) and the "Full Size" model (which offers a longer sight radius and barrel length). I can understand making a pistol that has a shorter grip and a longer slide, but gun companies seem to be going the opposite direction... and I can't figure out what the advantage is supposed to be.

I started watching the pre-show of the Modcast on Youtube tonight and folks in the comments were talking about a gun whose existence I was unaware of: the Glock 19X.

http://19x.glock.us/

This is basically Glock's entry into the MHS trials, soon to be commercially-available. It is essentially a Glock 19 but with the longer grip of the Glock 17 (and with a grip safety, tan coloration, and probably other things that really aren't germane to this topic). In the Modcast comments, I opined that the G19 would make more sense than the G19X as a shorter grip would have made more sense for concealment. The retort to this was that the MHS trails were not looking for a concealable pistol; fair enough, but then why not just adopt the G17? I get that the muzzle velocity increase of the G17 vs. the G19 is negligible, as is the increase in sight radius, but aren't sight radius and muzzle velocity two things that "you can't have too much of"? Also, why not adopt a proven, existing pistol model instead of a "snowflake" like the G19X? Finally, if the "short slide/long grip" thing is really that great for the .mil (for whatever reason), then why didn't SIG offer their "Carry" version of the P320 to the MHS trial in lieu of the Full Size and Compact models, both of which are now adopted as the M17 and M18 respectively?

Someone in the Modcast comments alluded to a Kyle DeFoor article where DeFoor wrote of shortening sight radius on a carbine to achieve an optimal balance of speed and accuracy (i.e.: he shortened sight radius and found that he and many of his students became faster than with a longer sight radius) which I had never heard of, but then searched for and found here:

http://kyledefoor.tumblr.com/post/42282097574/some-new-discoveries-with-irons-first-some

Does this apply to pistols too? If it does, then why have competitive shooters flocked for so long to the G34 instead of the G19 (or, better yet, the G26)? Indeed, why does the G34 and G17L even exist; shouldn't the G17 (and now, the G19X) be better in every way? Why aren't custom shops cutting dovetails farther back on pistol slides for the front sight to correct the "too long" sight radius?

Even if this is just something that nobody else has clued into yet and the proof that the G19 barrel length and sight radius really is the future for pistols, I still struggle to see the advantage of a longer grip; maybe Steve Fisher's hands are "too big" for a G19's grip (I've been shooting my G26 too long to really believe that the comfort of my right pinky finger ties into the fundamentals of shooting) but are we really, as a community of shooters, inclined towards being Yeti-sized? Did SIG introduce a verison of the P320 especially for that untapped market that is abnormally-large shooters ("let's make a different SKU just for them; there must be tens of potential customers!")? Some would argue that there's no harm in a longer grip so why not, but wasn't the G19, with its shortened grip, initially produced for greater concealment? Was the G26 not intended to be even more so? Also on the .mil side of the house this flies in the face of SEALs and MARSOC adopting the G19 instead of the G17, to say nothing of not insisting on Glock inventing and then supplying them with the G19X instead... right?

The argument that "it's the government so of course it doesn't make sense" is the closest one to satisfying me, but Glock, SIG, et al aren't the .gov, the .gov is merely one of their customers. Glock has come up with some goofy models in the past (.45 GAP, anyone?) so is the G19X simply another example of that? If so, why are more and more companies making the same gaffe this time around? I get that they'll sell anything that we'll buy, but how did the concept gain so much traction in the first place?

Meanwhile, how many of us who have been wishing for a G19L for years and years are sadly shaking our heads?
 

Dr. Cornwallis

Regular Member
You’re not missing anything, the short slide long grip thing is retarded; it’s the complete opposite of what they should have done (19L like you pointed out) but an overwhelming majority of gun owners are profoundly autistic, and they’re who buy most of the guns, and that’s what sells, so that’s what manufacturers make.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Asr34

Amateur
Personally, I'm intrigued by the 19x, and kinda wish it was available in black. I carry a gun for a living. My current duty pistol is gen 4 19. I chose a 19, because it's a bit smaller (the whole ounces become pounds thing), but is still an appropriate bbl length and size to be a duty pistol. Another upside is, since the bbl is a tad shorter, so is my holster, and the less it digs into a car seat. I know...whaaa, but I notice. Also, the 19 fits a few different roles if I'm in a plain clothes or training capacity, because it conceals and carries well. Before, I had to carry at G21 gen 4. That's a huge pistol. So, whenever I wasn't in uniform, I carried a 30s, because the 21 was just too big and heavy.

You might ask, what does this have to do with 19x? Well, it addresses the one thing I wish I could change. While my hand "fits", the smaller grip and finger grooves are just noticeable enough to annoy me. A longer grip would be great. So, last time I checked, I'm not autistic (although if I paid better attention in high school, I wouldn't have ended up a criminal justice major), and the concept peaked my interest. Commander length 1911's are nothing new, so this isn't unprecedented. To dismiss the whole thing out of hand, just because you don't any benefit, is a little silly. I'm not saying that this is the answer to everyone's needs, or even that it's some brilliant advancement, because it's not. What it is, is an option, a choice; one that I might be willing to throw at the wall and see if it sticks.
 

Caomhin

Member
Look at the dimensions of the Sig Carry, M&P, VP9, P30, FN 509. They are similarly proportioned.

Full grip on pistol: everybody does not have the same sized hands.

The slide length will allow the pistol to clear Kydex SLIGHTLY faster as well as cycle slightly faster.

If a suppressor is used the pistol will balance A LITTLE better; of course, he shorter barreled pistol will balance better anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Caomhin

Member
The reverse (17 slide on 19 fresnel) makes not one iota of sense to me. It offers nothing over a 19.

Sight radius? How far are you shooting where sight radius becomes an issue. Most can't shoot a pistol well as it is at 10 yards.

Yet you add a longer slide that takes more effort/time to clear the holster.

It will cycle slower with the longer slide.

And for me I'm less consistent acquiring a proper grip when drawing the pistol against the clock.

So I think many manufacturers are on the right track. Whether they are merely copying the HK P30 or they've hypothesized and quantified it in their does not matter.

I wish to try it and quantify it for myself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

krax

Regular Member
This was pretty well explained on the most recent modcast. The short answer was that Glock made it to compete on two different contracts and this gun met the requirements of those contracts. It didn't win, but the gun was already developed.

Just because something doesn't fit your needs doesn't mean it's retarded.

If you're skeptical, that's understandable. Attempt to understand why it exists, let the product mature is see how others use and develop it, and save your money.

Why is it good? Well, a 19X with a comp is basically a 34 with less recoil, and that's attractive to some folks. Add a red dot and sight radius is a non issue. Also those that will shoot it suppressed will likely find that it balances a little better.

Will I buy one? Probably not. I like the slightly shorter grip of the 19 for concealment. I use 17's for other stuff and I appreciate the longer grip for that. I'll treat the 19X like every other pistol that isn't a Glock 19, 17, or 34 and quietly not buy it while maintaining an open mind. Try that on for size; you may like the secondary effect it has on your blood pressure.
 

Herk

Newbie
If you're skeptical, that's understandable. Attempt to understand why it exists

That's exactly what I'm trying to do here: attempting to understand why the 19X exists. I hope my post didn't come across as bombastic or snide; I just am at a bit of a loss as to what kludging some extra plastic onto a G19's grip frame offers to the end user. If there's a valid reason then I'm very open to learning what that is but I'm struggling pretty hard to figure out what that might be.

Thanks for all the replies!
 

ggammell

Does not pass up an opportunity to criticize P&S.
A lot of people are looking at the from the CCW aspect. And it doesn’t make much sense for that.

However, for the duty holster it was designed for, what difference does barrel length mean anyway? It’s already in a holster OWB. This was a very purpose built firearm. It was to compete for government contracts, not to be in every CCWs armory. Because it’s a government contract spec gun, there happens to be a lot of interest from civilian buyers and the MSRP reflects that. These guns will sell.

Personally, I’d prefer the longer length grip and my KKM barrel and Comp on the 19 length slide. That would be one bitchin Roland Special.
 

Herk

Newbie
Personally, I’d prefer the longer length grip

I've heard this quite a bit where the G19X is concerned; I am a little flummoxed about this since I've never heard anyone complain about the G19's grip length before the G19X was introduced, which was within the last month or so. I'm 6'3" and about 205lbs so I'm above-average in the size department and I certainly have never gripped a G19 and wished for the grip to be longer (then again, I would probably say the same about the G26; perhaps I'm weird). I imagine that if I were to have such a thought, I would solve the issue by simply loading a G17 magazine into the G19.

To me, the long grip takes away options for the average-sized human being, nothing more. If you only want to use 17 round magazines in a G19 then you can do that. Should you ever want to effectively shorten the grip then you just swap over to a 15-round mag. By going from a G19 to a G19X you lose this option and gain... a bit of plastic on your grip for an extra hundred bucks?

I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer but I feel like if there is more than that to get, then I should have gotten it by now. Normally when a product comes out that isn't for me, I just ignore it but with so many people whose opinions I respect gushing over the G19X, I really want to understand why I'm having the opposite reaction. In this respect, the G19X is one of the most bizarre guns that has been introduced in my lifetime.
 

krax

Regular Member
I've got pretty big mitts, so I like the extra 1/2" of the 17/34 if I'm not trying to hide it. That said, I can also add a magwell to a 19 and be pretty happy.

You're not wrong for no wanting the 19X. Once they're shipping, it may be worth renting one at a range just to get a feel for the balance.
 

Caomhin

Member
Does everyone not realize that this is simply releasing a variant of what was entered into the MHS Trials?

Everything is not for everyone. Example: you can keep the models 26, 34, ... all but the 17, 19 and 20. Some of you adore models I don't particularly care for.

Cool. You won't hear me whining about it.

Some fit me, some don't; some make more sense than others.

It should be no issue "getting" the potential advantages: just THINK about it. And it STILL may not benefit you much.

So be it.

Get over it.

Glock fans on FB, YouTube and in many forums are losing their collective minds over this pistol which befuddles the Hades out of me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Joe _K

Established
This is truly a case of use what works best, but within that frame of reference use the particular model of “best” that fits your requirements for your mission. The 19X/ MHS Glock 1917 was not designed for civilian concealed carry. Military folks have been concealing M9’s, M11’s, and 1911’s for decades. The Glock 17’s grip length is a piece of cake to conceal compared to any of those.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Herk

Newbie
It should be no issue "getting" the potential advantages

Not trying to drag out this discussion, but here's something I'll leave here: if the advantages are no issue to "get", then they should be less of an issue to clearly explain. When someone explains what a new, longer frame can do that a G17 magazine cannot, then I'll "get" it.
 

SCSU74

Regular Member
I can only speak to the 320 carry, which is the same size as the 19x, but the carry allows use of the compact slide which has a dual recoil spring vs single in the full size slide.

The full size grip also allows for 21 rd mags to sit flush without a gap, using a compact or smaller grip there is a gap between the grip and base pad. The compact slide shoots flatter for me and transitions easier as a result.

IMHO the only reason to use the full size slide would be for the longer sight radius with irons. I don't notice a difference, but I rarely shoot further than 25 yds with a pistol.

Also, buying the compact 320 slide allows you to convert to all three frame sizes (full/carry, compact and SC) which gives you a lot of options.
 

krax

Regular Member
Not trying to drag out this discussion, but here's something I'll leave here: if the advantages are no issue to "get", then they should be less of an issue to clearly explain. When someone explains what a new, longer frame can do that a G17 magazine cannot, then I'll "get" it.
I'll try.

What can a longer frame do that a G17 magazine cannot? It can provide more grip area for guys with larger hands.

What does the longer frame of the 19X offer over the 17? Nothing. It's the same frame length.

What does the longer frame of the 19X offer over the 19? Well, it's longer so guys with larger hands will have more frame to grip.

What does the shorter slide of the 19X offer over the 19? Nothing. It's the same slide.

What does the shorter frame of the 19X offer over the 17? In theory (for me and everyone else who hasn't touched one yet), better balance, particularly with a comp or suppressor attached.

What does else does the 19X offer that the 17 and 19 don't? It's brown.
 

Caomhin

Member
Not trying to drag out this discussion, but here's something I'll leave here: if the advantages are no issue to "get", then they should be less of an issue to clearly explain. When someone explains what a new, longer frame can do that a G17 magazine cannot, then I'll "get" it.

It's been explained numerous times on numerous forums; perhaps several times here, too.

If you have large hands it's obvious. Many do.

I find the 17 frame more comfortable and when drawing the pistol at speed I am more consistent obtaining a proper grip. I may be unique here but I doubt it.

You have more real estate to secure the pistol under recook (if you require it), the shorter slide will cycle quicker but it should be no more difficult to control than a 17.

Go shoot a P30 vs a P30L. I HS both; sold the "L". It was obvious which was the better design...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Fatboy

Established
My opinion, with the more main stream use of optics on pistols the sight radius issue goes away because it becomes irrelevant. I no longer need to align front and rears, I simply put the dot on it and go. So shorter is acceptable in that regard.

In addition, shorter slides make it easier to add longer barrels for cans or comps with out the need to create all new holster systems. Similar to someone running a Roland Special built on a G19 and using a G34 holster.
 

Herk

Newbie
What can a longer frame do that a G17 magazine cannot? It can provide more grip area for guys with larger hands.

Why can't you grip the magazine itself? I've done that for years with my G26. If the problem is that it looks funny, then why not a +2 extension on a G19 mag? Both would provide extra grip area, both would be cheaper solutions than creating a new frame type (i.e.: the G19X), and neither would create a new pistol that is incompatible with G19s that are already in the .mil supply system.
 
Top