Which should I choose?

[mdrd]

I am trying to decide between a M&P 2.0 Compact, Glock 19 Gen 5, Glock 19x or Sig P320.


One of the main things I want is accuracy. I read the Army was wanting a pistol that could shoot 2 inches at 50 yards. On Beretta's website they claim their 92 can do that but I can't verify if any of the guns on my list can. I emailed Glock and S&W and all they would say is some of their guns can shoot that good but that is not their "factory" standard. If that is the standard the Army wanted why would they submit a gun that couldn't shoot that good?


There are some things I like better about each gun such as, I like the thumb safety on the M&P and the XM17, I grew up shooting 1911's. On the M&P I like the stainless slide and grip angle. Of course everyone likes Glocks, but they keep switching their slide finish, the Gen 5 had the latest greatest but now I think the 19x has something different. Sigs are great but the bore axis is higher and I don't know if they have a thumb safety on the P 320?


I know these are not target guns but I still want to hit 5in plates at 25yrds off hand like I can with my old (non tuned) 1911 or Ruger Mark II 22.


I do have a Glock that has lots of vertical play at the breech of the barrel and I have a SW SD9ve that can out shoot it 10 to 1. I have seen other Glocks that are tight as a vault. So which gun would be the most likely to be accurate out of the box?

[sakata8242]

Unless you personally can shoot a 2" group at 50 yards, you will not notice much difference between the pistols you're looking at from a strictly mechanical accuracy standpoint. Barring a defect in the pistol, hitting 5" at 25 yards is going to be more dependent on the shooter than the pistol itself.

Therefore, the more important thing you should be looking at, in my opinion, is how each individual gun feels to you in hand and while shooting. Who cares if the Glock is mechanically 35% more accurate if it feels like a brick in your hand and you can't shoot it well as a result.

[1-DAB]

find one that fits your hand well, and that has a good trigger. everything else is after that.

[dave421]

Any of the guns you are looking at will be capable of hitting a 5” plate at 25 yards. Of the guns you specify, the 19X seems out of place. Compact M&P, compact 19, and (I’m assuming) compact P320. The 19X is basically a 19 slide on a 17 frame (plus a lanyard hole and an extended front strap to even it up to a 17 round mag). There’s no benefit to it over the 19 gen 5 unless you have to have that color.

Out of your list, the P320 is probably going to be your best bet. The Gen 5 Glock may or may not have issues with 147gr ammo (google search if you shoot a lot of 147gr). The M&P seems to be iffy on accuracy like the old ones. Some are great and some aren’t. The 19X is a solution looking for a problem. The P320 may shoot you if you drop it but it’ll shoot 147s without a problem and seems to be a little more mechanically accurate. Personally I sold mine to go back to Glock cause they’re a little too big IMO but they are great guns. If mechanical accuracy is your goal, it’s probably the best bet of your choices. You may also want to look at the HK VP9. Also too big but a great shooter


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Viper225]

I could live with any of the pistols on your list.
Like saakata8242 said check them out, and see what feels best to you. If you feel safer with a manual safety, you can take that into consideration.
I would also check out after market sights, as well as magazines. I normally like to have a minimum of 10 magazines for a pistol I carry. Carry ammo in 3 of them and 7 for Range/Match use. The price of magazines might tip the scale in favor of another pistol.
I had a hold of a buddy's Sig 320 a while back. I was fairly impressed with it.
I have had ahold of the new Gen V Glock 19, and I liked it better than my Gen IV. I have fired the S&W 2.0 and like it very well also.
I do not believe that you have any wrong choices on your initial list.

Bob R

[sigarms228]

My advice would be to go and rent them and see what you shoot best. There is probably not much difference between them in mechanical accuracy but the ones that fits you best and has a trigger that works best for you may make a noticeable difference in how you shoot them.

I tried the M&P 2.0 but could not shoot it as well as my Glock 19 but IMO that is because the M&P 2.0 does not fit my hand as well with the reach to the trigger being too short for me and the trigger breaking way far back. Other can shoot the M&P 2.0 very well.

[TunnelRat]

P320 can be had with a manual safety if you want.

Glock Gen 5 has their "marksman" barrel that supposedly will do 4" at 50 yds. I'm curious where you read the requirement was 2" at 50 yds. I don't know of a current manufacturer of a mass production service pistol that will guarantee 2" at 50 yds. What little results were released regarding the XM17 trials don't seem to indicate a big difference in performance for either pistol when it comes to accuracy http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...-released-gao/.

Having owned all of those except for the Glock 19X I am confident that all of them can hit 5" plates at 25 yds, in terms of mechanical accuracy. Whether the pistol and you interact in a way that allows you to achieve that accuracy is another question. This isn't me questioning your skills. I've met people that claim issues with the accuracy of just about any manufacturer. Some pistols just work better for some users.

[Jamas]

Yeah the mechanical accuracy of a gun and your ability to shoot said gun are probably not equal. So just shoot the guns on your list and see which fits you the best.

[otasan]

Two inches at 50 yards is hard to do with any handgun.

[mdrd]

My bad, 4 in at 50 is what I was thinking. I guess I need to find a store that has all of these so I can find out which feels best in my hand and check for sloppiness like my current Glock. I know my Glock 19 couldn't hit 5 in at 25, but my Hungarian FEG 380 and 1911 can.

[TunnelRat]

I’ve got older Glocks. I don’t think I’ve had one that couldn’t do say 4” at 25 yds and I’m not a great shooter. 5” at 25 yds is certainly possible for a Glock and when you consider a 5” group is typically 2.5” around point of aim there’s no reason you wouldn’t be able to hit a 5” plate. Again, what an individual shooter can do and what a pistol can do aren’t always the same.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MandolinMan]

Again, what an individual shooter can do and what a pistol can do aren’t always the same.

Exactly! I've lost count of how many times I've heard someone complain that their pistol had " terrible accuracy", when in reality the pistol was fine. They just couldn't shoot it worth a darn.

That said, some people find some pistols easier to make accurate hits with than others. Not that the pistol is necessarily more accurate, just that they shoot it better for one of any number of reasons ( trigger, sights, grip, etc).

OP, have you had a chance to shoot each of those pistols yet? If not, try and find a range that rents.

[wizzamen]

All your choices you are considering are good ones, it's a matter of personal preference. From your post it seems seems you are leaning towards the M&P 2.0, thats a great choice. Also look into a CZ 75b or a long slide pistol (Glock 34, Walther PPQ 5", Springfield XDM 5.25") if accuracy is your main goal.

[JDBerg]

If I’m trying to optimize accuracy for 25yd. targets, I’d argue for a pistol with a longer sight radius than the group of pistols under consideration. I can hit a 5” plate at 25 yds. with my Gen 3 19, but I’d rather use one of my longer barreled nines, such as my CZ 75B or my STI Trojan 9mm 1911. Even my Gen3 17 would be a better choice for 25 yd. plates.

[Nathan]

Of course everyone likes Glocks

Not everyone. They are fine, but for CCW, I much prefer a gun with a thumb safety.

M&P 2.0 looks like an excellent choice, but I have not ever handled one yet.....soon.

[Northof50]

MDRD,


How exactly will you be testing the 2 inch at 50 yards? Ransom rest, sandbags, scopes? Unfortunately, the ability to shoot a 2" group at 50 will have little impact on your ability to hit a 5" plate at 25. The 1911 is a special pistol, primarily because of the way it fits many shooters hands [not all]. There's a reason it's been around for a while.

I'm partial to the Glocks. I still carry my G19 [Gen2] and G20 [Gen1]. I believe, for their intended purpose, are brilliant [not to take away from anyone who has copied the design]. I shoot a G26 and 27. Admittedly, they are more difficult to shoot.

I would look at which fits your hand more than what a manufacturer will tell you about accuracy. The most accurate pistol in the world won't be worth much if it doesn't fit your hand or style of shooting.

Good luck

[Cheapshooter]

Just made that decision a couple weeks ago. Kinda. My list was down to the G19, Springer XDm Compact, CZ P07, and the 320.
Happened into the evil gun shop lady's place while at a friends cabin in Northern Mo. An often, and sometimes costly stop. She had a like new in box 320 Carry. After some gentle fondling I fell in love with the Sig. Even though I really like my XD 40 Sub Compact that the P320 will replace quite often because with some of the things happening now I decided to trade a little size for capacity. Haven't had a chance to get my new to me, and first ever Sig to the range yet. But really excited to give it a try.

[SDF880]

Why use handgun to shoot anything at 50yds? Time to grab your rifle!

[SCmasterblaster]

True. 50 yards is rifle-time.

[TunnelRat]

50 can be done with a pistol, but why is a good question. You can look up the Peach House RV Park shooting as an example of when log distance can come into play. The irony is the man who did make a shot had a rifle, and nearby too, but he got tunnel vision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Model12Win]

Keep in mind the Glock lost to the SIG SAUER M17 in the trials.

I'd go SIG SAUER.

[haiauphixu]

Just get one of each, all at once, or one a time at financially allowed.

[TunnelRat]

Keep in mind the Glock lost to the SIG SAUER M17 in the trials.

Did they? What limited information the GAO released about the testing itself indicated that they performed very similarly. The price, however, was quite different as was the ability to produce and license the cartridge to go with the pistol.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...-released-gao/

[sakata8242]

Originally Posted by Model12Win

Keep in mind the Glock lost to the SIG SAUER M17 in the trials.

I'd go SIG SAUER.

That really means absolutely nothing.

If you want a pistol solely for the reason that it got selected as the Army’s new sidearm (maybe for the historical or second kind of cool factor) then go for it.

But objectively it’s a piss poor criterion for picking a gun to buy. SIG won in large part due to cost; there are far better guns quality wise - just because “the military uses it” doesn’t mean it’s the best or even a quality piece of gear.

[gmoney]

I agree with your first responder...... every thing he said is true.......you cant go wrong with any gun on your list, just have to handle each one and see which feels right to you...!