How comfortable does a gun have to be?
This thread is the product of some YouTubing and reading on some forums and other sites where people were complaining about the Glock 27. The main complaint I heard was that the grip is too short, it's hard to control, and the bottom of the grip frame was bulged out too much. My question is how much does that matter to you? I'm not harping, and I'm not mad at anyone for having a different opinion, but my Glock 27 is a concealed carry weapon and I believe it was designed with that in mind. All of the above complaints and more would be perfectly applicable if you were shooting at a shooting match or plinking for fun, but with a carry weapon, isn't it better to make a few ergonomic sacrifices for a supremely concealable weapon? It certainly seems to me that it would be better to carry a small gun that can be a bit uncomfortable to shoot rather than a tiny gun that is comfortable to shoot (like the Taurus PT-22, for example) or simply have no gun at all!
I guess I'm just griping, but is there anyone else out there who gets tired of hearing people complain about compromises designed to make a weapon better for a particular purpose? I don't complain about a Glock 35 being hard to conceal because it's designed with competition in mind, and I think it's a bit unfair to complain about the two-fingered grip and such on a sub-compact concealed carry weapon. Thanks to all who took the time to read my rant, and I'd love to hear some thoughts, supporting comments, and objections!!
By the way, I carry my Glock 27 in a Comp-Tac MTAC holster and I would HIGHLY recommend this to anyone looking into an IWB-style holster. It's very easy to tuck a shirt in, but it's completely comfortable to draw from no matter how you wear it. Happy shooting!