No 4" seems gen update proof in the immediate future...

[wild cat mccane]

Kinda feel like all the compact/4" guns are in immediate danger of future generation updates and am stuck wondering what's a good buy right now.

Examples:
-G19 gen5 might be least likely updated...but the G48 with a Glock mag like the S15 would make the G48 the better gun.
-Sig P320? Probably least likely to be updated, but also not the leader in any category.
-PDP is the leader of trigger but also fat slides. Clearly something will be updated about that in the future. P99 also seems to be more popular, so a P99/PDP mix? PDP is modular in the wrong direction of slide changes but not grip changes unless you get the compact grip and buy dust cover extension.
-APX was a flop. Beretta has said on their website it is at special pricing for 2 years now.
-TP9SF we know the TP9SFX gen2 is coming to the US, so it will mean the TP9SF will be updated too.
-M&P 2.0 excels at nothing but price, so you can imagine 3.0 is in the works.
-VP9/SPF9 HK probably doesn't want to become a one handgun seller. Wonder if their new single stack will be better than the VP9.

It just seems like a great time for enhancements when generation updates are worthwhile, but not a great time to buy for long term ownership.

[Carl the Floor Walker]

LOL, APX a flop? Sorry no way, and their own Website has many fan boys. Sorry, that is your opinion and welcome to it. But as many have said, the Price makes it one of the best buys out there. I know you love to put down the Kahr and the Beretta Nano and APX. But you say you owned a Kahr, but from your post you really know nothing of the Beretta's, But not all share your personal views. If I were interested in another firearm, I would most likely get another APX model. Thanks for your post. Good luck with your quest for a better firearm. Not sure any of the Present 4" you mentioned are "threatened" by a upgrade. I think the Sig 320 is the leader, but leader for whom? Many 320 fans for sure and the military obviously thinks so. They are great guns. Does the 19 even need a change. I would bet many would disagree with you.
Persoanlly I am surprised you are not talking up the Walther. Since you are a fan boy of that manufactuer. Have you dropped that interest?

[wild cat mccane]

Beretta announcement on new pricing due to low APX sells:
https://www.beretta.com/en-us/berett...yId=18&F_All=y

Beretta Holdings SA shows handgun decline year-over-year in US.

Eventually you'll listen to me without attacking me first.

I said the Walther PDP has the best trigger, but Walther made the slide larger. Not a great move in the world of smaller single/double stacks.

[Carl the Floor Walker]

At what a great promotion that was. I know many that took advantage of it, including myself. Lol, with all due respect I will not be listening to you for advice but thanks anyway. I do sinclerly hope you find contentment if the gun that you can actually like. As Far as Walthers trigger being the best? Best for whom? I find the Beretta and Kahr trigger to be the best. But that is best for myself, as many others hate any form of DAO. Regardless, I will stick with my own personal experience with my choice of firearms. Never have been into the most popular etc. With 6 Beretta's now and 15,000 rounds through one Nano alone I have found happiness. And same with 4 Kahrs. Sorry you do not approve.

By the way, When my son joined the Army National guard as a Combat Medic I wanted to get him a Sig 320. But the price tag was too much for my budget. I ended up getting the APX at half the cost with great quality and like in this video It is totally reliable. And He is extremely happy. And that is all that matters to me.

Honest Outlaw comparison.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66at...l=HonestOutlaw

[Pumpkin]

A little bit rough on the 2.0. Just what is the problem here?
Nice trigger reset, decent trigger pull
Well made steel mags and sights
Only 4 interchangeable grip inserts
Option of safety or not.....

[CDW4ME]

Seems difficult to go wrong with a Glock 19.
Good capacity, easy to shoot and conceal.

[Forte S+W]

Personally, if I were in need of a new carry gun, then I wouldn't be concerned over the possibility of a generational update in the near future.

Generational updates to firearms are typically minor between two iterations, typically things which aren't even straight upgrades like changes in grip texture, finish, or aesthetics, maybe at best a marginally improved trigger pull that you'd have to shoot side by side to actually appreciate, and often making all the difference of an adequate trigger to a still adequate trigger with a slightly shorter, more audible reset.

Besides, you can typically make accurate guesses of what a generational update may include based on current trends, since most of the time firearms companies would rather play it safe by following said trends rather than risk losing money on innovations which may not catch on.
So yeah, unless you're interested in mounting an optic on your pistol or the possibility of it holding a couple more rounds in the magazine with no significant increase in length or thickness which could most likely just as well be achieved on current models with a Magguts kit, you can probably buy a new gun now and forget about a potential generational update offering new features you'd be interested in.

[TunnelRat]

Just because a new version of a pistol comes out doesn’t mean the previous generation is automatically obsolete. In many cases, admittedly not all, the manufacturer will continue support of previous pistols for some time (assuming that pistol was moderately successful). I know you felt compelled to sell your PPQ when the PDP came out, but I continue to think that was unnecessary. If someone was particularly interested in something on the market currently I don’t think they necessarily have to wait for fear of a new model.

A question would be what changes are foreseen in this category that would warrant selling an existing firearm. I honestly don’t know what those improvements would be. Most pistols now have factory options for optic cuts, rails for lights and lasers, and triggers have improved to the point where in owning most current production pistols (with the exception of the Ruger American and FN 509) I feel like they none are particularly difficult to shoot. Ergonomics seem to be subjective and there are a number of options that seem more popular in that category in terms of customization or layout. Modularity is something I think we’ll see continue to be incorporated in newer designs, though I continue to wonder what percentage of end users actually use that feature (I do occasionally with my P320).

Lastly, pointing out that the Beretta APX hasn’t been particularly successful commercially is not the same as saying it’s a bad pistol. We shouldn’t be wearing our hearts on our sleeves (nor should sales data seem personal). There are a number of firearms that I’ve owned (including the APX) that seemed decent but aren’t seen that often in the civilian market. It happens sometimes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sigarms228]

Wow, I better get with the program. I still CCW My Gen 2 Glock 19 and original PPS that I both bought new.

IMHO hard to beat a Glock for resale value, if that is the concern, if you can get one at a good price and prices and availability are improving on firearms as of late from my monitoring on Grabagun and Buds. I don't expect we will see another generation of Glocks for a good while. The Gen 5 has an excellent reputation and has been adopted by a lot of high profile agencies such as FBI (after extensive testing), Special Forces, Secret Service, Border Patrol, and Air Marshalls I believe.

I think the M&P 2.0 is a pretty good line of pistols too but I think we might see another update as people and reviewers are raving about the "updated" trigger on the Shield Plus.

I am sure a new slim single stack HK will be a big seller but doubt the full size VP9 will me impacted much, if at all, though the VP9SK would be. HK prices are still pretty high these days though compared to a couple years ago

Good luck in your quest.

[44 AMP]

I just can't help but wonder, why would you buy a "new generation" if you're happy with what you have. And, if you aren't happy with what you have, why do you have it??

If some change to the next gen gun makes you happier, well, isn't that always the case with about everything?? Changes get made to enhance the appeal to the buying public, so to sell the product.

Car makers do it every year, and have for a long time. Gunmakers do it when they find an actual improvement, or when market demand makes it worthwhile.

Sometimes the changes are small and sometimes they amount to a whole new model.

If you're worried that what you buy today will be replaced by a newer model, don't worry, eventually, it will be.

[lll Otto lll]

Just because a new version of a pistol comes out doesn’t mean the previous generation is automatically obsolete.

Yep, I'd sooner buy a Gen3 G19 than the newer Gen5.
Is one generation better than the other? Not really, just different.
However, older generations of guns don't always share the same parts with it's successors so keeping a supply of spare parts might be required.

I just can't help but wonder, why would you buy a "new generation" if you're happy with what you have?

Good question...I'm guessing some people are never happy with what they have.

[Carl the Floor Walker]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

I just can't help but wonder, why would you buy a "new generation" if you're happy with what you have. And, if you aren't happy with what you have, why do you have it??

If some change to the next gen gun makes you happier, well, isn't that always the case with about everything?? Changes get made to enhance the appeal to the buying public, so to sell the product.

Car makers do it every year, and have for a long time. Gunmakers do it when they find an actual improvement, or when market demand makes it worthwhile.

Sometimes the changes are small and sometimes they amount to a whole new model.

If you're worried that what you buy today will be replaced by a newer model, don't worry, eventually, it will be.

So true. Especially when you find the right gun, one of the reasons you bought it in the first place was not only the way it shoots, but also a gun you knew would last a life time from the quality build etc.
Each to his own. The guns I have will out live me. I made good choices along the way and have never looked back. Actually have invested in more spare parts for the future rather than any new guns.

[eflyguy]

Ditto. If you aren't happy with current choices, don't buy any.

Suggest you don't buy a car or computer either. They'll always be "better" next year.

[wild cat mccane]

I don't think it's even a question that the Gen5 is more accurate than the Gen4 Glock.

So why would anyone stick with the Gen4 given this non question upgrade?

As mentioned that I didn't, the Shield 2.0 had a better trigger than the M&P 2.0. So M&P 2.0 owners, year or two away. Just seems a little like we're being fleeced for upgrades.

Meh. I just would be surprised if in one year, all current guns don't have a new generation out except for the P320 and the Gen5 Glock. Kinda lame.

[reddog81]

In 2 or 3 years your “next gen” will be outdated by the next new thing….

I don’t really worry about it. If you buy a quality firearm, it’ll still be a quality firearm a few years from now. Don’t get wrapped up in marketing. Half the time the manufacturers just find a way to make something cheaper and call it an upgrade.

[44 AMP]

I don't think it's even a question that the Gen5 is more accurate than the Gen4 Glock.

while there may be no doubt in your mind, what so ever, the rest of us, those of us not familiar with BOTH the pistols you mention, don't have a barking clue.

And this makes it difficult to understand your point, and what you mean. HOW is Gen 5 more accurate than Gen 4??

Do you mean it shoots smaller groups? HOW MUCH SMALLER?? and is it enough to matter? Is it a systemic thing, every gen 5 is more accurate than every gen 4?? Or is it just your gen 5 is more accurate than your gen 4?

OR do you mean "more accurate" in the sense that YOU are more accurate shooting a Gen 5 than a Gen 4? There is a difference between the accuracy of the gun and how well an individual can shoot it. Because you do well with something doesn't mean everyone will.

So, if you don't mind, give us some details, results, explanations about what you mean by "no question Gen 5 is more accurate than Gen 4.."

[wild cat mccane]

"Marksman barrel" makes the Gen5 more accurate than any other generation according to Glock themselves. From Glock https://us.glock.com/en/learn/glock-pistols/gen5:
"GLOCK Marksman Barrel (GMB) features a more aggressive polygonal rifling with a target-style crown and tighter chamber specs, which delivers improved accuracy."

Any google search seems to confirm by all makers (alienwear, bravo concealment, guns.com, etc)

Here is the Brian Enos forum asking the same question:
https://forums.brianenos.com/topic/2...more-accurate/

[Carl the Floor Walker]

Personally I do not sand bag target shoot my EDC so investing in a new firearm that may give a slight improvement for target shooting at 25 to 50yds would not even be a consideration to invest in a new firearm especially one that I already shoot well for practical EDC. Mine are not target guns. I saw the post on Brian Enos, and a number of owners say there is not much difference in groups to begin with. That said, It is your money and I am not telling you how to spend it. Perhaps if I was a Target Marksmen competitive shooter it might be something I would spend money on. And I have no desire to become a Target shooter. Good luck, let us know how it works out for you. Personally I would spend the cash on Ammo and do more training/Practice.

[dakota.potts]

"Marksman barrel" makes the Gen5 more accurate than any other generation according to Glock themselves.

From someone who carries the Gen 5 19 myself (when not carrying my BRNO PSD) and received Glock armorer training at the time they were rolling out the marksman barrel,

I've heard the claims of better accuracy but never seen them quantified. I always thought it was an odd sort of tactic to market. How many human beings are capable of discerning a difference in accuracy between a Gen 4 and Gen 5 from anything other than a bench rest in optimal conditions even if one does exist?

I'm not saying Glock is lying or incorrect, just that it's a really odd selling point to focus on for me. I don't know anybody that buys a Glock because of the accuracy. I know plenty who buy them because they're dead simple to operate, they work, and maintenance is about as simple as could possibly be.

I'm also not sure I buy the argument that a G48 with an S15 magazine is a better gun. First you have the reports of failures on the S15 magazines, while I've encountered (within the last 2 years) Glock magazines that still had MIL/LEO only language on them from the '94 AWB and had been in use for training continually and still worked, occasionally needing a new spring or baseplate. Then you have no accessory rail, limited RDS mounting capabilities, your magazines aren't compatible with many PCCs/subguns if you're somebody who likes that redundancy, fewer holster options, thinner grip (more recoil).

In my opinion, if Glock is smart, the next generation will finally do away with non-MOS slides and every factory gun will be cut for an optic mount and use a decent mounting plate which is not cast. But, innovation hasn't exactly been their game for a few decades now.

[sevt_chevelle]

The pdp took aim at the duty gun market and the glock 19.
Not everyone is knocking down doors to get in line for a P365. I had one, hated the thing, sold it.
For me it was a difficult gun to shoot and even harder to shoot at any kind of stress.
I've watched and listened to a few P365 owners, it's a great carry gun, but yet have trouble running the pistol.

I have the first gen shield and MP compact, am not running out to get the new ones. Besides, a lot of MP owners think the M 2.0 was a downgrade.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by sevt_chevelle

Besides, a lot of MP owners think the M 2.0 was a downgrade.

I’ve owned probably a dozen M&Ps, equally split among 1.0 and 2.0. To me the 2.0 is an improvement in any way I can think of. Before this I’ve never met an M&P owner that thinks the 2.0 was a downgrade. That doesn’t mean the 1.0 is a bad pistol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TunnelRat]

I’ve owned Glocks from Gens 3-5, at least a half dozen from each generation. I shoot the Gen 5 Glocks noticeably better than Gens 3 and 4, at distances closer than 25 yd as well. Now is this solely due to the Marksman barrel? There are other mechanical differences between Gens 3/4 and Gen 5, notably in the trigger. Practically speaking the Gen 5 has more of a rolling break that I tend to prefer (the trigger return spring is different as is the shape of the striker block). I’m not sure if the differences I see while shooting are due solely to the new barrel, the trigger, or some combination.

There have been some people that did ransom rest testing with Glock barrels from different generations (I think Omaha Outdoors is one). However, I don’t know of anyone that has tested say a half dozen barrels from each generation at the same time. I’m not sure one sample of each barrel is particularly conclusive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sevt_chevelle]

The loss of beaver tail and loss of auto close slide.

[TunnelRat]

I’ve never suffered from slide bite from an M&P and I don’t find I was able to get my hand higher on the grip with the beaver tail than without it, so it didn’t offer me any noticeable advantage. I did find the beaver tail made the pistol print a bit more depending on where on my body I was carrying.

I also don’t consider the slide closing automatically a feature. If I want to release the slide I’ll use the slide release or retract the slide. My concern is that the the slide closing automatically might induce a malfunction. Another possibility is the slide might get bumped forward inadvertently and not actually chamber a round, but because I assumed the pistol worked when the slide went forward without my input I wouldn’t recognize a problem and would end up with a pistol with an empty chamber. I have talked with one shooter that did have a handful of failures to feed with a pistol that would auto forward. Now in fairness he was a competition shooter and was putting in very high round counts (and he may have been using larger bullets for his loading), but it seemed like a chance I didn’t want to take with a defensive firearm.

All of this goes to a point, however, that many people have made by now. Successive generations may not be considered improvements by one shooter or another, or the changes aren’t dramatic enough to warrant replacing the pistol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by dakota.potts

I'm also not sure I buy the argument that a G48 with an S15 magazine is a better gun. First you have the reports of failures on the S15 magazines, while I've encountered (within the last 2 years) Glock magazines that still had MIL/LEO only language on them from the '94 AWB and had been in use for training continually and still worked, occasionally needing a new spring or baseplate. Then you have no accessory rail, limited RDS mounting capabilities, your magazines aren't compatible with many PCCs/subguns if you're somebody who likes that redundancy, fewer holster options, thinner grip (more recoil).

In my opinion, if Glock is smart, the next generation will finally do away with non-MOS slides and every factory gun will be cut for an optic mount and use a decent mounting plate which is not cast. But, innovation hasn't exactly been their game for a few decades now.

I debated going with a Glock 48 and Shield Arms magazines a few times. If you look at the reviews on Brownells for the Shield Arms magazines you see people that are very happy with their purchase as well as a number of people that have terrible experiences with them. The reviews are still mostly favorable. I suppose one positive note is in the cases where the magazines don’t work that seems to be the case early on, so as long as you test the magazines before using them for carry you should be okay (as in the magazines don’t start off working and then stop working many rounds later). However, I don’t think you can say the Shield Arms magazines are as reliable as standard Glock magazines. I think that to an extent many of us, myself included, have been spoiled by reliable factory magazines for many pistols for decades. A semiautomatic with unreliable magazines is a bad day. I think a factory solution for higher capacity like with the SIG P365, Springfield Hellcat, etc is a better option. As a note Glock does have Glock 43X and 48 models that have a rail, but you need nonstandard lights to mount on that rail.

While I agree with you to an extent about the optics cuts becoming standard, it’s still about a $70 additional cost with a Glock. Now I’ll pay it because I am going to use it, but if I’ve learned anything in recent years it’s that people don’t like to spend money if they can avoid it, even if I think the added cost is small in terms of “future proofing”. I think that’s why you will still see non optic cut options with Glocks. I think Walther went all optic cuts with the PDP to reduce production line variations. Given Walther isn’t on the same scale as Glock in terms of pure production numbers I think this makes sense for them.

I have two MOS Glocks. I’ve used both the factory plates and aftermarket options from Forward Controls Design. I put about 1300 rd through one MOS Glock with the factory plate and 400 rd through the other MOS Glock with its factory plate. The factory cast plates were fine. Now while it’s true you can end up with casting issues that will affect fitment, that wasn’t the case with me (I know people like Aaron Cowan of Sage Dynamics have mentioned seeing it). I do think some of the aftermarket solutions are more solid and that’s why I now use FCD plates (in the case of the FCD plates the fencing built into the plate requires a press fit of the optic onto the plate and theoretically reduces the load on the fasteners).

To me the bigger issue is needing the correct length fasteners. The fasteners that come with the MOS plates are short for say an RMR with a sealing plate, but the factory RMR fasteners are too long. You can get the sealing plate kit from Trijicon that includes the proper length screws or call Trijicon and order the screws directly , but not everyone does this. People also don’t always torque the screws properly or use Loctite. All of this combines to create a mess for a person that doesn’t do some research ahead of time. I think the fasteners may be a bigger problem than the plates themselves.

CZ and Walther don’t include any plates with their “optics ready” pistols, nor does HK IIRC. That’s not optics ready to me. To CZ’s credit their mounting system is tolerant of screws that are slightly too long and when you do order the plate you get screws to mount both the plate and the optic. Walther let’s you get one plate for free after filling out a request form online. However, they leave you to source the screws to secure the optic to the plate and in the case of the RMR this means calling or emailing Trijicon and asking for screws.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk