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:
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?
