TexasCHLforum.com

LTUME1978 wrote:I have the M&Ps because of the grip angle (among other things) as it is close to the 1911 and I shoot both. The Glock is a fine pistol, just did not care for the grip angle (even if I did not have 1911's). The triggers on the M&Ps can be improved and made to be very nice. You can also put a full size magazine in a compact M&P and there is an adapter that you can put on the full size magazine to fill the gap. That gives you a smaller package to conceal, no beavertail on the grip and the ability to bring more ammo with the full size magazine if you so desire.

That's cool about the M&P with the mags. I didn't know they were also like that.

I've carried Glocks for almost 12 years now. I started with the full size and subcompact .40's and switched to the full and subcompact .45's a couple years ago. I don't have and have never shot one of the 9mm's, but am thinking about getting either the 17 or 34 for competition for both me and my daughter when she's ready to move up from a .22. As an aside, she already shoots a full size 1911 in the form of the Colt 1911-22, so she's used to a full size grip. It is a tiny bit big, but she'll probably shoot only that handgun for another year or two before going up to anything else.

Anyway, with Glocks, I don't know why anyone would want to carry the mid size. I understand it is a little bit smaller, but unless your hands are too big for the subcompacts I'd just go with them for carry and carry one or two full size mags for spares. That's the cool thing about Glock mags. The larger ones will fit in the smaller ones of the same caliber. My vote is for the subcompact Glock 9mm for concealability with one or two full size mags for spare(s).