My first handgun purchase.

You're 100% wrong. A full size gun is more accurate than a subcompact for many reasons. The longer barrel in the full size allows the bullet to stablize more than in a short barrel. Plus, the longer sight radius is easier for your eyes to pick up on. Plus, having the smaller light weight gun the gun won't absorb the recoil as much as a full size causing more issues to happen. Look at any research anywhere and you will find that you are wrong. If you're shooting better with the compact good for you but the gun isn't as easy to shoot as a full size. I carry subcompact guns myself but can shoot my full size guns MUCH better for the above stated reasons.

You make good points. The longer barrel will inevitably stabilize the bullet more... which equals better accuracy at longer ranges. However a Glock 30's purpose is more of the "personal", up-close kind rather than the longer range that, say, a Glock 34 is made for. I think it'd be silly to say that he should have gotten a larger gun for his first gun. I believe Vic uses his Glock 30 for concealed carry. So his choice of a subcompact pistol is a very good choice. And the Glock 30 is more than accurate enough for self defense. Even in saying that I don't feel like I'm giving the Glock 30 the credit it deserves regarding it's accuracy. It's VERY accurate.

You're right...Longer sight radius does aid in better accuracy. But that's only in terms of helping one keep their sights better aimed. That doesn't speak to the inherent accuracy of the gun...say... when it's bench rested. I know of some Glock 30 owners that swear it is more accurate than its bigger brother. All I know is that mine was exceptionally accurate. I'll also admit I've never fired the Glock 21... so I haven't compared.

As for recoil... the Glock 30 is the lightest shooting .45 auto I've ever shot. And I've shot full size steel and scandium 1911's, as well as the commander, and officer 1911's. Again, that's my experience... I did not scientifically measure the recoil. I don't know if you've ever shot a Glock 30... but many who have will tell you the same thing regarding it's surprising ability to dampen the recoil... and to be one of the softest shooting .45's out there. A quick search on GlockTalk and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Anyway... I don't mean to be argumentative at all... I guess we're just coming from two different perspectives. You seem to be coming from a very general, blanket perspective... A+B+C always = D... and I seem to be coming from a subjective one. A+B+C doesn't always = D. It depends on the shooter. And it depends on the gun.

Either way... we're off topic... but at least we're both happy for Vic? Hehe...[grin]
 
Last edited:
My first topic was meant if a new shooter is looking at getting into "shooting" then a subcompact is not a good choice. However, if the only purpose is for self defense and the occasional range trip then the gun is perfect. It truly depends on what the OP intends to use the gun for. If he plans on getting into shooting then he should consider buying a gun such as a full size for that application. Didn't mean to start a pissing contest. Like I said in my original post it is a nice gun and congrats!!!

Pete
 
It's for self defense and I have no problem with it. I take it to the range weekly and have put over 1000 rounds through it so far and it shows in my groups. This is my first handgun purchase but not the first handgun/firearm I have ever fired ans I was in the military. I find the recoil less punishing than that of a S&W40 and I am using 230grain loads.

I will be buying another Glock soon - something in 9mm or maybe the G36.

I dislike the blanket statement that it's too much gun for a beginner. Beginner what? Beginner handgun owner? Shooter? CCW'er? Beginner handgun owner but not beginner shooter? To each his own and YMMV. It's perfect for me which is all I care about.

As for the camera used. It was a Nikon D200. I used a 17-55mm f/2.8 lens - nice piece of glass that is.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom