The “best” 9mm handgun discussion got me thinking we should have shooters define what makes newer pistols better than more traditional designs with long histories of successful service. What criteria must be considered?

1) Advances in design?

There have certainly been some watershed moments in pistol design:

- The Luger in its 1901, 1902, 1906, and 1908 forms along with the 9mm Luger round were arguably the first truly practical and effective semi auto military pistol and cartridge.

The pistols ran like well oiled sewing machines but still lacked practicality. The cartridge itself was fine by military standards but hasn’t really come into its own until the 21st and the effectiveness of modern hollow points.

- The 1911 introduced a combination of features that have made it a practical combat, defensive, competition and plinking handgun. And have kept it popular for 113 years.

- The Walther PP in 1929, became the first practical DA/SA self defense pistol, and is still produced in its PPK (1931) and PPK/S (1968) versions. The DA trigger in a pistol was revolutionary for self defense purposes and the PP was a standard police pistol in many European countries for over 50 years.

- The Browning Hi Power in 1935 became the first successful double stack, high capacity magazine pistol. It was in many respects a refinement of the 1911 design, adding things it needed and deleting things it didn’t. Like the 1911 it is one of the most successful designs in history, and is still in production by multiple manufacturers.

- The Wonder Nines beginning with the HK VP70 in 1970 and the S&W Model 59 in 1971. The CZ-75 in 1975 and the Beretta 92 in 1976 are arguably the longest lasting and most successful of the original wonder nine pistols. Both are still produced and still have a loyal following. The Luger, 1911, PP, and Hi Power were all by themselves revolutionary. The Wonder Nines just combined the various positive attributes of each into a single handgun.

- The Glock 17 introduced in 1982 was certainly innovative. It has spawned legions of striker fired pistols that tie their safety devices to the trigger, and have trigger pulls somewhere in between long, heavy DA triggers and short, light SA triggers. The Glock was designed as a military handgun, but whether used in military service or police service it was a response to a need for simple operation and limited training. The Glock has certainly become popular due to its widespread law enforcement use, and shooters in the US like to use what law enforcement agencies use, even if the needs and specific purposes are apples to oranges comparisons.


2) Purpose?

Purpose often gets lost in the discussion. For example, many shooters looking for a concealed carry pistol are often influenced by the duty pistols law enforcement officers carry and continue to persist with the idea that it should offer high magazine capacity, even though that capacity is almost never required in an armed citizen self defense shoot - let alone the two spare magazines some of those folks insist on carrying.

Striker fired pistols like the Glock are also popular for concealed carry. That’s the case even though a design that ties all the safeties to the trigger and was intended for use in an OWB duty holster is a poor choice for IWB carry, unless it’s used in conjunction with a very carefully thought out and designed holster.


3) Fit

This one is glossed over all the time. Shooters will often choose a handgun because of authoritarian based arguments. Someone famous or someone they respect will says a particular handgun is “the best” and will buy it, even though it might not be the best fit for either their needs or their hands.

For example the Sig P365 series pistols are very popular concealed carry handguns and are arguably the best selling defensive handguns sold in the US currently. Yet none of them fit my hand properly. If I place my hand on the pistol properly and draw it the front sight will be hidden behind the left rear sight ear every time. I have to adjust my grip or move my wrist to align the sights every single time.

A properly fitting pistol will come up into your line of sight with the sights aligned or nearly aligned naturally. Over time and with some muscle memory those sights will be aligned near perfectly and sight alignment then takes care of itself learning you with jus the task of placing the front sight on target and completing the trigger pull without disturbing those sights.

Fit is far more important than brand or model number, but it’s something way too few shooters consider. And they throw lead all over and/or around the target because of it, especially under stress.

——-

In individual terms “best” will come down to your needs and intended use (which may well be shaped by, early on, authoritarian arguments, and as you mature and gain experience by a shooter by observation, experience, logic, and even philosophy. Fit also matters, and when shooting under extreme stress is arguably the single most important factor in getting rapid hits on target, although some shooters may never realize it.

In terms of a general issue pistol, those factors have to be met as well. The needs and intended use will be based on policy decisions. But for general issue the pistol has to be at least an acceptable fit for a wide range of hand sizes and proportions.

The 1911 and Hi Power both met that fit requirement really well as did the CZ-75 and the S&W 39. The Beretta 92 was a failure in that regard, and the Glock 17 was less than ideal.

Your thoughts?

Good points. Who said modern pistols are better, and why does it matter what he said?

BTW, for many, fit includes disengaging a safety. For me, the 1911 works and the P-35 doesn't. YMMV.

__________________
Formerly Model520Fan

Good thinking! Great minds think alike! Larry

To address the original thread title - what makes a modern pistol "better" - in the simplest terms possible, it really comes down to this: consistent reliability with a wide variety of ammunition, including effective defensive types.

__________________
Ain't This Fun Though?

Making an old or new pistol better......is in the hands of the beholder.

I don't think modern firearms are any "better". Materials and manufacturing have become better..and there has been some innovation, but do they do their "job" better? Not really..pull trigger..BANG.

__________________
My Daddy was a pistol..

The typical "modern" safetyless polystriker is a retrograde in development.

That would take you back to the S&W 645

Or a revolver

__________________
Kind regards, Heinz

Variety is the spice of life. I like old and new, with a bias toward pre 1998, but none that have locks or look like Easter eggs.

__________________
213th FBINA

Maybe more modern metallurgy would make a modern gun better than an old one in terms of durability, but I see no improvement in new designs since the 1911 and BHP were new, in terms of accuracy and performance.

"Traditional DA/SA" pistol is vastly improved with a decocker over a safety. I trained almost 50 years ago on revolvers, I need a hammer to put my thumb on to reholster, a decocker to drop the hammer before doing so. DA 1st shot, SA for the rest. Perfection. Joe

__________________
Wisdom chases me; I'm faster

Small striker fired autos were common prior to WWII, fell out of favor until the Glock was introduced.

As someone noted the Wonder 9s of the 1980s combined many of the best features on several guns.

Many guns evolve over the decades...... 5 Gens of Glocks, 3 Gens of S&W 1955 design of their first "9mm", about 8 Generations of the Beretta 92 ,
92S, 92SB, 92F, Brigadier, M, 92FS,92X with several variations like the D and G models.

As a civilian concealed carrier I appreciate the DA first shot as a "final safety feature" and the "de-cocker only" feature you find on the Sig P-series many Beretta's [G models and the retrofit kits]. S&W PC added the feature to their DPA 5906.
I wish it was more common.

It certainly is but many concealed carry people and shooters are not gun people and have had limited or no exposure to designs other than striker fired handguns. Hard to beat traditional DA/SA and its safety aspects.

The often-criticized double-action first shot is no disadvantage in any way to the shooter who has practiced/trained sufficiently to become accustomed to this worthwhile feature.

What makes "modern" pistols "better"?

I would have thought that was obvious... The more of those modern pistols people out there buy, the more of the classic 3rd Gen S&W semi-autos there are for me!

Only my opinion counts.......To me.

__________________
S&W Accumulator

Examine a 40’s or 50’s vintage S&W or Colt revolver next to a Taurus or Ruger revolver today. The quality, fitting, finish is so much better on the old stuff. Do the same with a 1908 Colt auto loader vs today’s Glock. Quality is just 1000% better back then.

Never fiddled much with Lugers, HP's, etc. Have had excellent results w/ PPK/S, Glocks, Sigs. Settled on Sig 226 Legion about six years ago. While no pistol is ever going to be 100% precisely perfect all the time for me or anyone else, I have found the 226 Legion to be about ideal. Truth is, it's not a big deal to use a 1911 or a Glock or a Sig. They all are easy to use. Ideal? No. But one can easily adapt to any one of the three, or for that matter Berettas. JMHO. Sincerely. bruce.

__________________
<><

Replace fit with ergonomics, add serviceability/ maintenance , & cost. Above all else: dependability.

By that definition, for shooting at nothing else but man size silhouettes at 7-12yds, I guess I’d have to go Glock. Personally I prefer Sigs, but acknowledge the utilitarian benefits of Glock.

My HP bit me a couple times on the web of my thumb, not very ergonomic imo. Too bad, it was a birth year T series in the leather pouch, and sold.

I've said it before and I'll say it whenever the subject is raised, I do not subscribe to the belief that there exists an ideal, one-size-fits-all firearm for self-defense, and as such the pursuit of such is a fool's errand because for as many folks might swear by the ergonomics of a particular firearm, there will always be those who just don't fit the mold, and for them the so-called ergonomics only serve to make it less viable.

I myself have frequently found myself on the wrong side of ergonomics, from car seats to pistol grips, so when I hear about how great the ergonomics are on anything, I'm more apt to avoid it like the plague out of the aforementioned experiences of finding these ergonomic designs just don't fit me personally.

As far as fit goes, I think that modularity is key. Manufacturers should shot trying to find a one-size-fits-all grip angle and instead focus on designing a bunch of different grip inserts to suit a wider range of people with all different sizes of hands.

I think that one of the better designed firearms in this regard is the AR-15. Not only do modern iterations come standard with 6-position adjustable stocks, but there exists a plethora of aftermarket accessories/peripherals which the end user can make use of to tailor their rifle, carbine, or pistol to their specific needs, personal preferences, and to fit them well.

__________________
Shooting Comfort is bilateral.

What makes a modern pistol better?

In fact, not a whole hell of a lot. Realistically, pre WWII stuff has impeccable fit & finish.

My newest Smith & Wesson revolver dates from 1937. Most are pre 1899.

Weight or lack there of, if you commit to daly carry a three pound gun can literally be a pain.

A two pound gun with higher capacity seems to be a no brainer unless you’re dealing with emotions


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Marketing.

__________________
Forum consigliere

Striker fired pistols like the Glock are also popular for concealed carry. That’s the case even though a design that ties all the safeties to the trigger and was intended for use in an OWB duty holster is a poor choice for IWB carry, unless it’s used in conjunction with a very carefully thought out and designed holster.


Wow. That's a whole lot to unpack for me. I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion.

I agree completely. I would also prefer easy / drop-in parts fitting if I was maintaining a whole armory of pistols. Heck, I might prefer that if my pistol was the only one I had to maintain.

Lets be honest in our assessment, compare a vintage Colt or S&W with a new Colt or S&W.

__________________
- Change it back -

There was some pretty aggressive marketing back in the day. Smith & Wesson, and to some degree Colt, had the law enforcement market sowed up well before Glock ever came along. Sure, Glock was innovative with their product and their marketing for law enforcement, but Ruger also tried at the time and they couldn't pull it off.

Attached Images

	Colt's 05.jpg (105.3 KB, 88 views)
	Iver Johnson 01.jpg (203.9 KB, 89 views)
	Colt's 03.jpg (113.6 KB, 88 views)

__________________
- Change it back -

I was caretaker of a beautiful Colt 1903 that was made in 1921. The fit and finish was like a piece of fine jewelry. Then it was a pair of ivory grips and an antique hand carved holster. The perfect gentlemen's carry pistol.

Then I found out that they are not drop safe.

Heat treating methods are better. For Smith and Wesson this started in the late 50's. Which is why they say any all steel S&W with a model number can take +P loads.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

I think for the most part being able to injection mold
frames and use a CNC mill makes for a pistol that
works fine and lasts a long time........... i.e. Better.

But in reality you don't worry about the arrow,
You worry about the Indian.

__________________
never get out of the boat

Older designs all fit my hands better, and have better triggers. 1911, 3913, 6906 all fit with standard grips, and point naturally. I do have a couple of striker-fired, a Ruger American .45, and a P385XL, but I made sure I bought the ones with safeties. The American came with changeable back straps, and I fitted the P365XL with a Hogue grip sleeve to make it more comfortable. I've grown used to striker pistols, but never without a decocker or a safety.

__________________
Heavily armed old man.

One of my wife's friends is a real gun nut. She was over one day and had just purchased a Sig Rose (sp?) in 380. I showed her the Browning model 1922, 32 ACP, that I had that was manufactured around 1942. She loved it and kept saying what a well-balanced pistol it was.

__________________
Why duck?? It's a 9mm!

I like older guns and that is generally what I carry. But I am not the market new guns are aimed at.

I recently bought a SigP210 Carry. In researching why the gun was not a success (its already out of the catalog) I learned it sucks because:

- its a single stack
- its a single action
- the safety is only on one side
- it has a hammer
- it is all metal
- it has no provision to mount a flashlight
- there is no way to mount an optic
- it is not silencer ready

It doesn’t matter that it has a nice trigger and is wonderfully accurate and unfailingly reliable. According to the naysayers the only thing it got right was the caliber.

I know shooters who will only consider a striker-fired, threaded barrel, 18 shot, polymer framed pistol with a red dot and flashlight as suitable for carry.

Show them something else and you get the dreaded “But but but ……. there are better choices….”

Attached Images

IMG_5007.jpg (80.9 KB, 10 views)

__________________
“What you got, ain’t new.”

Examine modern 1911's and you'll find they are better than vintage Colt 1911's and much less costly.

__________________
Live long and prosper

I carried a BHP for 40+ years and still to this day have not really seen anything that would make me replace it were I not retired. The fit that we speak of is a personal choice and while the BHP is not to me a perfect fit it is good enough. The only shooting sport I did where fit is really crucial was trap shooting.

Absolutely nothing except parts and accessories should be easier to come by.

I've enjoyed shooting and owning 1911's, S&W autos, HP's, Sig's', Beretta's, Walther's and Glock's.

For carry Beretta's are too big, HP's are uber expensive and SA only plus I don't feel comfortable carrying a striker fired pistol.

The Sig's, HP's and Walther's feel the best, but Walther's are plastic and I tend to feel better with metal frames.