Is A Full Size Pistol Even Necessary?

Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
5,670
Likes
2,349
Location
Not Mass
Feedback: 66 / 1 / 0
I recently added a Sig P365 as my daily carry in place of a first generation S.A. XDS 9mm and a S.A. 911.

Between the Sig P365 and P365XL and the 10,12,and 15 round capacity options it had me wondering why I need a full size pistol anymore?

I have owned and shot 10s of thousands of rounds through 9mm Glocks and M&Ps over the years but never loved a 19 or 9c as daily carry because of the bulk. In a free state, maybe it makes sense for the 15 rounds, but in ban states that’s a big gun for 10 rounds.

I’m not ready to abandon my 5” M&P 2.0 yet but the new breed of super compact, 10+ round capacity, optic ready pistols really has me wondering if I really need a “full size” pistol anymore?
 
Two things:

(1) Define "full size." Is a pistol with a 4.5" or 4 5/8" barrel full sized? Is 5" the dividing line?

(2) You've mentioned carrying primarily. What about shooting?
 
No.

SEVERAL full-size pistols are necessary.

In all seriousness? Shoot what you feel comfortable shooting until you're accurate with it. Once you trust it with your life, figure out how to carry it. There's always a way.
 
Two things:

(1) Define "full size." Is a pistol with a 4.5" or 4 5/8" barrel full sized? Is 5" the dividing line?

(2) You've mentioned carrying primarily. What about shooting?

I shoot what I carry 10x more than anything else. I don’t shoot USPSA anymore, and if I did it would likely be carry optics division with something on the smaller side.

The “question” posed here isn’t a knock on what anyone else carries or likes, was more intended to be a question in change if direction for the industry and gun size in general. It was once you had to have a Glock 19 size or bigger to get 15 rounds of capacity - you don’t anymore.
 
I shoot what I carry 10x more than anything else. I don’t shoot USPSA anymore, and if I did it would likely be carry optics division with something on the smaller side.

The “question” posed here isn’t a knock on what anyone else carries or likes, was more intended to be a question in change if direction for the industry and gun size in general. It was once you had to have a Glock 19 size or bigger to get 15 rounds of capacity - you don’t anymore.

The main purposes of a full sized pistol are competition and military/police use. If you're not doing those things, or are doing those things with concealment in mind (competing with a smaller gun, plain clothes, etc.), then no, a 4.5-5" handgun is unnecessary.

One thing to keep in mind is muzzle velocity. A 3" barrel generates substantially less muzzle velocity than a 5" barrel. Muzzle velocity impacts foot pounds of energy on target because energy is the result of bullet weight and muzzle velocity. Also, muzzle velocity impacts bullet expansion. Paul Harrell on YouTube has a bunch of videos where he compares barrel sizes, bullet weights, muzzle velocity, and expansion. If you're getting good enough muzzle velocity to aid in bullet expansion, you're fine.

What we're seeing in the gun industry is an era of great reliability for semi-auto handguns combined with a surge in concealed carry nationwide. More people are carrying and those people want mid-sized semi-autos rather than revolvers or classic pocket pistols like say the PPK or a Colt 1908.

We're not seeing the end of the full sized handgun. The SIG M17 has a 4.7" barrel, which is pretty normal when compared to classic military handguns like the BHP (4 5/8"), 1911 (5"), P38 (4.9"), etc. We're seeing the growth of unexplored other markets.
 
The main purposes of a full sized pistol are competition and military/police use. If you're not doing those things, or are doing those things with concealment in mind (competing with a smaller gun, plain clothes, etc.), then no, a 4.5-5" handgun is unnecessary.

So home defense, personal preference, casual range shooting, carrying bigger handguns, and non-cop/military gunfighting aren’t legitimate needs? It’s not “necessary” to have more than one pistol (that you can carry) by that logic.

I enjoy shooting my full sized handguns significantly more than I like shooting the compacts and subcompacts.
 
I shoot what I carry 10x more than anything else. I don’t shoot USPSA anymore, and if I did it would likely be carry optics division with something on the smaller side.

The “question” posed here isn’t a knock on what anyone else carries or likes, was more intended to be a question in change if direction for the industry and gun size in general. It was once you had to have a Glock 19 size or bigger to get 15 rounds of capacity - you don’t anymore.
Lol except that end result is nothing like a G19, its still a small shitty, ill proportioned compromise gun with a big magazine on it. Things like the 365, 43, etc are all compromise guns and carrying them is perfectly fine, but the idea of actually replacing a normal duty grade pistol with one is an insane joke on a good day.

RDS on a 365? The gun marketers have gotten into your head.. that's basically full blown aids. If a guy puts a flashlight and rds on a 365 simultaneously these guys should come out....



View: https://youtu.be/ORwfm2s6JeY



I realize people are really into this gun but at some point the mindless fapping will stop. [rofl]
 
So home defense, personal preference, casual range shooting, carrying bigger handguns, and non-cop/military gunfighting aren’t legitimate needs? It’s not “necessary” to have more than one pistol (that you can carry) by that logic.

Personal preference and casual range plinking aren't driving factors in the handgun industry. One, because personal preference is inherently subjective. Gun companies don't develop a gun based on their CEO's or head engineer's personal preferences. Or, they might, but their personal preferences are probably not going to be your personal preferences. That's an inherently subjective factor that plays into why to buy a gun. OP's asking about the gun industry, not individual gun buyers. Two, name a full sized handgun developed specifically for plinking that can be also used for carrying. Are you carrying a match pistol around?

Home defense is a good market share, but how often are handguns specifically developed for home defense? This isn't Rhodesia in 1976, we're not seeing a rash of "Lady's Home Defender" or whatever handguns. Again, OP is looking at this from the developer's point of view, not the buyer's. People who buy full sized handguns for home defense normally buy guns developed for other purposes.

I'm not sure what you mean by "non-cop/military gunfighting." Paul Harrell is instructive here again - he often mentions that private citizen DGUs typically result in no more than five to six shots fired by the person acting in self-defense. Someone doesn't "need" a full sized handgun for that.

You also ignored my caveat of "the main purposes." There are exceptions to these rules but OP's asking about generalities.
 
Driving factors in the handgun industry? The question is ultimately (and was originally) about personal “need,” which is more often than not “really want.” How do you separate what the developers/sellers want to sell from what the buyers want to buy?
 
So home defense, personal preference, casual range shooting, carrying bigger handguns, and non-cop/military gunfighting aren’t legitimate needs? It’s not “necessary” to have more than one pistol (that you can carry) by that logic.

I enjoy shooting my full sized handguns significantly more than I like shooting the compacts and subcompacts.

This nailed it!
 
Driving factors in the handgun industry? I thought the question was about personal “need,” which is more often than not “really want.”

Personally, I don't think about buying guns based on "needs." I buy guns that I want. If I want a gun, I'll buy it. Maybe today, maybe tomorrow, maybe next year.

OP said that he's thinking about this from the industry's point of view in post no. 7. He's not talking about why we buy guns. He's talking about why companies develop guns.
 
They develop guns to sell to people who want to buy them. Plenty of people like full sized guns over compacts. Where’s the disconnect?
 
They develop guns to sell to people who want to buy them. Where’s the disconnect?

The disconnect is that you're suggesting that gun companies sit around and develop handguns based on things like "personal preference", plinking, private citizen DGUs, and home defense. When you look at the big gun companies selling wide product lines, those guns weren't developed for the reasons you're suggesting. SIG, Beretta, Glock, HK, and CZ aren't sitting around and thinking about those sales. They're thinking of selling thousands of guns to countries and police forces.

Name a full-sized centerfire handgun in production today that wasn't developed to win military or police contracts.
 
The disconnect is that you're suggesting that gun companies sit around and develop handguns based on things like "personal preference", plinking, private citizen DGUs, and home defense. When you look at the big gun companies selling wide product lines, those guns weren't developed for the reasons you're suggesting. SIG, Beretta, Glock, HK, and CZ aren't sitting around and thinking about those sales. They're thinking of selling thousands of guns to countries and police forces.

Name a full-sized centerfire handgun in production today that wasn't developed to win military or police contracts.

Are you seriously suggesting that there aren’t any? You seriously think the manufacturers completely disregard civilian sales of full sized pistols?
 
Are you seriously suggesting that there aren’t any? You seriously think the manufacturers completely disregard civilian sales of full sized pistols?

No. What I'm saying is consumer sales are secondary concerns.
 
The only driving factor in the handgun industry is making more money. People will buy every new gadget and size/caliber that comes out just because, so they keep making things up when purchases slow down so joe bag of donuts can “run” some new toy online and be the popular kid for a week. 🤷‍♂️🤪

As for needing 15rds in your roscoe everywhere you go? Don’t know, how many times are you planning on missing?

Cranky old guys like me who used to carry a full size 1911 IWB daily for years, get tired as we get older, care less about dying, and want more comfort, so the 43 suits my needs and I’m confident it will serve its purpose when and where it’s needed.

Hell sometimes I’m so cranky I only carry a .380 in my back pocket. I know it won’t have the same effect as a .45, I take that into consideration when I leave the house, and remind myself that combined with experience and tactics it’ll do to get my old ass out of where I don’t need to be any longer.
 
I've gotten out of compacts.

For me, it's full size or subcompact/micro/pocket, and the small ones are just a compromise or necessity due to weather/clothing, etc.

Whenever possible, I prefer to carry a full size. I started out carrying a P226 IWB.
 
I think that’s wrong for plenty of manufacturers, maybe most.

I disagree. When you read or watch into the history of handgun development, the guns were designed to meet a military contract. Each individual part has a reason. Most of the time, the reason is because a military wants a specific feature.

Why does the 1911 have a grip safety? The cavalry wanted one. Why .45 caliber? The Army wanted a .45. What input did casual shooters have on the development of the actual Colt M1911? Probably none.
 
It’s 2020. You’re relying on the fact that manufacturers haven’t reinvented the wheel to support the argument that most gun manufacturers are focused on police and military contracts, with the civilian market being an afterthought. How many gun manufacturers can say that the majority of their sales are to cops and soldiers? I can think of a couple who might, but the vast majority can’t. In any case this thread seems to be more a question around production than it is around design, so...
 
It’s 2020. You’re relying on the fact that manufacturers haven’t reinvented the wheel to support the argument that most gun manufacturers are focused on police and military contracts, with the civilian market being an afterthought. How many gun manufacturers can say that the majority of their sales are to cops and soldiers? I can think of a couple who might, but the vast majority can’t.

HK, CZ, SIG, Beretta, FN, Steyr to a lesser extent. All the healthy major gun companies.
 
OP said that he's thinking about this from the industry's point of view in post no. 7. He's not talking about why we buy guns. He's talking about why companies develop guns.

Because they want to make money, and most of the new wave of crap is really oriented towards getting existing gun owners to think/believe they need something else. If Sig sells a P365XL to a new gun owner, great, but that really isn't the target market for these types of guns. Newbs that want a gun badly enough are going to spend their money on something, it wasn't as if there was a lack of choices. Rather they want guys like us, some of whom may have an urge to set a tax refund on fire, etc, to buy shit we probably don't need based on interest....

Sig Sales Director: "The post 2013 panics are gone and the market is sort of in a slump now, stable, but not really thriving. What should we do? New gun owners are buying stuff but 80% of those are mostly one and dones... and the rate isn't high enough to get us huge growth. "

Sig Marketing Guy: "We need to make a few new products we can peddle to the existing gun enthusiast base, make something different enough with enough hype that it will make consumers wonder what all the hype is about, so they'll have to buy it, even if they don't really need it. Also it would be a big boon for us if we can "beat" the competitors to this market of people
setting cash on fire, because we were late to the striker fired market to begin with. We'll even offer a model with an RDS on it because Glock and others are starting to get into that crap
now and it's becoming an enthusiast fad, if we can put pistols like this right into the market, the enthusiast base will suck for this and we'll sell at least a pretty good chunk of them. "

I'm not just singling out Sig either here, Glock and others are doing the same damned thing. That's why in the past 4-5 years you're seeing all this squirrely shit get released, because they're
basically trying to court people like US more than anything else. It's "new" shit to put on gunrags, youtube, etc in an attempt to get people to buy new stuff. It's another way of getting
people to turn their cash into gun buys. Say for example you have a guy that has a few school bus P series sigs, well, now the P365 gives him a couple new guns to buy now that he might jump in on, etc.

let me put this one out there..... these companies know there are a bunch of people like us, that already have a bunch of stuff. And most of these buyers, don't have dupes in their collection unless they're nuts over a particular model of gun or something. But you can get those guys to buy a DIFFERENT new gun.... [rofl]

-Mike
 
HK, CZ, SIG, Beretta, FN, Steyr to a lesser extent. All the healthy major gun companies.

Lol you're smoking serious crack if you think that CZ, Beretta, and Steyr are selling substantial amounts of guns to LE/Mil in the US at this
point. Those three are almost entirely kept alive (and thriving, in the case of CZ and Beretta) by joe and jane citizen shooting enthusiast, at least in america. Also
look at CZ and Beretta's product lines, most of the stuff they make/sell is firmly in the commercial realm.

HK's DOD/mil sales in the US are pretty overstated as well at this point. If joe and jane had abandoned HK 10 or so years ago I bet they would have been f***ed by
now and out of the market. It's not like HK was selling the DOD 48 trucks full of M4 carbines, SAWs, M240, MK48, etc, like FN does every year. HK isn't
selling tons of LE guns, either.

One could also argue the same thing for Sig before they hit the M17 contract for the handgun. Their LE sales were dying because they were late to
the market with the P320, by like 5 years, and they had a lot of bad PR disasters with LE customers.

A lot of these companies jerk off over mil/LE sales but the US commercial market is what keeps them actually alive over the test of time.

-Mike
 
I never said "in the US."

Lol but we're talking about the US gun market, through, right? And those guys wouldn't be in this market if it wasn't for the success they have in the commercial market. Also if you look at
the portfolios of companies like CZ and Beretta most of the products they make are commercial/sporting arms.

I also find it hard to believe that even globally either of those guys are making more revenue off LE/Mil stuff at this point. You could make the argument for HK outside of the US, sure, but not those two. This isn't a knock against these companies hardly.. Also look at their product portfolios- CZ and Beretta have an impressive line of sporting guns across the board. Beretta wouldn't bother making 48 versions of the Concussive Ascending Silver Pigeon no 48 12 gauge shotgun or whatever if it didn't make them good money.

-Mike
 
Back
Top Bottom