Posted: 7/19/2013 9:27:57 PM EDT
|
Looking for a new carry gun for my wife and have been considering this as an option. Seems to fit the bill with her requirements. Small, manual safety, and quality manufacturer.
Anyone have one and can give me any input on how viable it is as a quality carry gun? |
| The mid-size compact model isn't that much bigger, so I'd go for that. It's got the rotating barrel and is more size efficient. The subcompact model is too thick and bulky for a subcompact. It also seems to be more problematic than the Compact and full-size models. Compared to a Glock 26, the PX4-SC looks like a Desert Eagle. |
|
Quoted:
I normally CCW a full size PX4... Quoted:
Quoted:
I concur that its too fat for CCW. I tried but was too damn uncomfortable. I'll keep it for fun. I normally CCW a full size PX4... Others CCW the compact just fine too. I think its because the slide is more in the waistband rather the slide and grip with the SC. |
|
Quoted:
I concur that its too fat for CCW. I tried but was too damn uncomfortable. I'll keep it for fun. It is a fat gun, but I carry it concealed every day of the week. No issues with it. It has been very reliable, but it is a boxy gun. I bought the compact and carried it a few times. I went back to the sub compact. If she can carry that size of a gun, then go for it. |
|
I just got one and had it out last Sunday for the first time. 100 flawless rounds through it. No magazines dropping out either. Good gun IMO. I agree with most others...too chunky for CCW. I CCW a Nano and like it a lot.
ETA: If your wife CCWs in a purse of normal size the PX4SC will work just fine. |
|
I don't own one... But if they aren't a LOT thinner than the standard size then it's probably pretty thick for a carry gun. Maybe if it's a purse / center console gun. The safety can be learned around, and they get easier if you work them a bit. The ONLY positive is that it's a 9 MM with a rotating locking barrel and you lose a little bit of the "snappy" aspect of 9 MM with it. My full size feels like shooting a .22. If the wife is recoil-phobic to the point she can't learn to cope with any other gun... then it's a good choice. (That is, if you don't want to go the Rhino route.) My full size PX4 has never had a flaw or failure to fire or feed that wasn't me limp wristing. Flawless function. Even with ammo my Keltec would choke on.
|
|
Quoted:
I don't own one... But if they aren't a LOT thinner than the standard size then it's probably pretty thick for a carry gun. Maybe if it's a purse / center console gun. The safety can be learned around, and they get easier if you work them a bit. The ONLY positive is that it's a 9 MM with a rotating locking barrel and you lose a little bit of the "snappy" aspect of 9 MM with it. My full size feels like shooting a .22. If the wife is recoil-phobic to the point she can't learn to cope with any other gun... then it's a good choice. (That is, if you don't want to go the Rhino route.) My full size PX4 has never had a flaw or failure to fire or feed that wasn't me limp wristing. Flawless function. Even with ammo my Keltec would choke on. They're actually thicker than the fullsize PX4 like how the XD Subcompact is thicker than the service or tactical models. It's like that so it reliably functions and the PX4 subcompact has a standard tilt barrel. |
|
Quoted:
The ONLY positive is that it's a 9 MM with a rotating locking barrel and you lose a little bit of the "snappy" aspect of 9 MM with it. My full size feels like shooting a .22. If the wife is recoil-phobic to the point she can't learn to cope with any other gun... then it's a good choice. (That is, if you don't want to go the Rhino route.) The subcompact does not have a rotating barrel. Only the compact and full size PX4s have the rotating barrel. |
|
Quoted:
They're actually thicker than the fullsize PX4 like how the XD Subcompact is thicker than the service or tactical models. It's like that so it reliably functions and the PX4 subcompact has a standard tilt barrel. Negative my friend. They're the same width. 
I'll bring a caliper home from work tomorrow and measure them to be sure. |
|
Good shooting gun, but bulky/clunky for a CCW. Far better choices exist to do the same job with vastly better ergonomics for CCW. Walther immediately comes to mind. The PPS specifically....which is light, highly reliable, very well made, and less than an inch wide.
An outstanding handgun that IMO, is a FAR superior choice for CCW than the Storm. Lighter, thinner, just flat out designed better for CCW.  |
|
Quoted:
Good shooting gun, but bulky/clunky for a CCW. Far better choices exist to do the same job with vastly better ergonomics for CCW. Walther immediately comes to mind. The PPS specifically....which is light, highly reliable, very well made, and less than an inch wide. An outstanding handgun that IMO, is a FAR superior choice for CCW than the Storm. Lighter, thinner, just flat out designed better for CCW. http://cdn.gunsamerica.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/walther-pps-ccw-9mm-striker-fired-pistol-in-hand-7rd-8rd-magazines.jpg There are several other options I have presented but she insists on a manual safety. I'd rather she was comfortable with the gun so she actually carried it than keep pressing the DA/DAO argument with her. So far the only options I have found suitable were the PX4 and Ruger LCP. |
|
Quoted: There are several other options I have presented but she insists on a manual safety. I'd rather she was comfortable with the gun so she actually carried it than keep pressing the DA/DAO argument with her. So far the only options I have found suitable were the PX4 and Ruger LCP. Quoted: Quoted: Good shooting gun, but bulky/clunky for a CCW. Far better choices exist to do the same job with vastly better ergonomics for CCW. Walther immediately comes to mind. The PPS specifically....which is light, highly reliable, very well made, and less than an inch wide. An outstanding handgun that IMO, is a FAR superior choice for CCW than the Storm. Lighter, thinner, just flat out designed better for CCW. http://cdn.gunsamerica.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/walther-pps-ccw-9mm-striker-fired-pistol-in-hand-7rd-8rd-magazines.jpg There are several other options I have presented but she insists on a manual safety. I'd rather she was comfortable with the gun so she actually carried it than keep pressing the DA/DAO argument with her. So far the only options I have found suitable were the PX4 and Ruger LCP. Understood. Doesn't the S&W M&P Shield have a manual safety? I'd have to check, but if so, that should be a strong contender too. I'd take the S&W over a Storm in a nanosecond. ETA: It does have a thumb safety. 
|
|
Quoted: Can you elaborate why? Quoted: Quoted: I'd take the S&W over a Storm in a nanosecond. Can you elaborate why? I've used both guns....and I carry all the time. The Storm is kind of thick feeling, kind of blocky in its ergonomics. It also has a rotating barrel locking mechanism, though well designed, its simply a different manual of arms, unlike almost all other common pistol designs. It serves no functional advantage, slightly more difficult to disassemble/get used to, and lacks commonality with the rest of the handgun industry for the most part. The primary reason I would prefer the S&W is 80% ergonomics (particularly for a smaller hands on a female shooter) and 20% operational design. "Uniqueness" of operation, IMO, is not an advantage for assembly/disassembly. Additionally, getting a new shooter acclimated to pistol function, I wouldn't select the most non-common of designs to accomplish that. For a 1-gun, new, female shooter who wants a carry gun that offers great ergonomics, simplicity/commonality of design, manual safety and high reliability, between the two, the Shield is the answer. The Storm is a very nice gun, but given the OP's reqs, it's no contest IMO....the S&W all the way. |
|
Quoted:
I've used both guns....and I carry all the time. The Storm is kind of thick feeling, kind of blocky in its ergonomics. It also has a rotating barrel locking mechanism, though well designed, its simply a different manual of arms, unlike almost all other common pistol designs. It serves no functional advantage, slightly more difficult to disassemble/get used to, and lacks commonality with the rest of the handgun industry for the most part. The primary reason I would prefer the S&W is 80% ergonomics (particularly for a smaller hands on a female shooter) and 20% operational design. "Uniqueness" of operation, IMO, is not an advantage for assembly/disassembly. Additionally, getting a new shooter acclimated to pistol function, I wouldn't select the most non-common of designs to accomplish that. For a 1-gun, new, female shooter who wants a carry gun that offers great ergonomics, simplicity/commonality of design, manual safety and high reliability, between the two, the Shield is the answer. The Storm is a very nice gun, but given the OP's reqs, it's no contest IMO....the S&W all the way. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'd take the S&W over a Storm in a nanosecond. Can you elaborate why? I've used both guns....and I carry all the time. The Storm is kind of thick feeling, kind of blocky in its ergonomics. It also has a rotating barrel locking mechanism, though well designed, its simply a different manual of arms, unlike almost all other common pistol designs. It serves no functional advantage, slightly more difficult to disassemble/get used to, and lacks commonality with the rest of the handgun industry for the most part. The primary reason I would prefer the S&W is 80% ergonomics (particularly for a smaller hands on a female shooter) and 20% operational design. "Uniqueness" of operation, IMO, is not an advantage for assembly/disassembly. Additionally, getting a new shooter acclimated to pistol function, I wouldn't select the most non-common of designs to accomplish that. For a 1-gun, new, female shooter who wants a carry gun that offers great ergonomics, simplicity/commonality of design, manual safety and high reliability, between the two, the Shield is the answer. The Storm is a very nice gun, but given the OP's reqs, it's no contest IMO....the S&W all the way. Fair enough. Not try to get into a Beretta/S&W pissing contest but a better comparison would be a M&P9c to the PX4SC and M&P Shield 9 to the Nano. I would say each are similar to each other with regards to size and operation. Only difference would be the lack of a manual safety on the Nano. I've shot them all and own both Berettas. I would be happy with any of them. |
|
Quoted: Fair enough. Not try to get into a Beretta/S&W pissing contest but a better comparison would be a M&P9c to the PX4SC and M&P Shield 9 to the Nano. I would say each are similar to each other with regards to size and operation. Only difference would be the lack of a manual safety on the Nano. I've shot them all and own both Berettas. I would be happy with any of them. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'd take the S&W over a Storm in a nanosecond. Can you elaborate why? I've used both guns....and I carry all the time. The Storm is kind of thick feeling, kind of blocky in its ergonomics. It also has a rotating barrel locking mechanism, though well designed, its simply a different manual of arms, unlike almost all other common pistol designs. It serves no functional advantage, slightly more difficult to disassemble/get used to, and lacks commonality with the rest of the handgun industry for the most part. The primary reason I would prefer the S&W is 80% ergonomics (particularly for a smaller hands on a female shooter) and 20% operational design. "Uniqueness" of operation, IMO, is not an advantage for assembly/disassembly. Additionally, getting a new shooter acclimated to pistol function, I wouldn't select the most non-common of designs to accomplish that. For a 1-gun, new, female shooter who wants a carry gun that offers great ergonomics, simplicity/commonality of design, manual safety and high reliability, between the two, the Shield is the answer. The Storm is a very nice gun, but given the OP's reqs, it's no contest IMO....the S&W all the way. Fair enough. Not try to get into a Beretta/S&W pissing contest but a better comparison would be a M&P9c to the PX4SC and M&P Shield 9 to the Nano. I would say each are similar to each other with regards to size and operation. Only difference would be the lack of a manual safety on the Nano. I've shot them all and own both Berettas. I would be happy with any of them. No pissing contest, I actually really like the Berettas I own and have shot. One of my favorite Berettas was actually the Cougar 8045.....which I believe was the 1st .45 Beretta ever made. Excellent gun and I regret trading it. Given the OP's criteria, I just think the S&W would be a better choice, nothing more than that.
 |
|
Quoted:
I've used both guns....and I carry all the time. The Storm is kind of thick feeling, kind of blocky in its ergonomics. It also has a rotating barrel locking mechanism, though well designed, its simply a different manual of arms, unlike almost all other common pistol designs. It serves no functional advantage, slightly more difficult to disassemble/get used to, and lacks commonality with the rest of the handgun industry for the most part. The primary reason I would prefer the S&W is 80% ergonomics (particularly for a smaller hands on a female shooter) and 20% operational design. "Uniqueness" of operation, IMO, is not an advantage for assembly/disassembly. Additionally, getting a new shooter acclimated to pistol function, I wouldn't select the most non-common of designs to accomplish that. For a 1-gun, new, female shooter who wants a carry gun that offers great ergonomics, simplicity/commonality of design, manual safety and high reliability, between the two, the Shield is the answer. The Storm is a very nice gun, but given the OP's reqs, it's no contest IMO....the S&W all the way. Your statements shows you don't know what you are talking about. There is NO rotating barrel in the sub-compact version. The assembly/disassembly is very easy on the SC. Ergonomics-- well, my wife has fallen in love with the SC. Normal female hands and she has no issues. The backstraps are changeable too. The safety, well, not my favorite. It is slow to wear in too, which is good and bad. The other series wear in fairly fast and become smooth in operation. The shield is decent, but it is a user choice. I found the safety to be sticky. Maybe it will wear in, over time. |
|
Quoted: Your statements shows you don't know what you are talking about. There is NO rotating barrel in the sub-compact version. The assembly/disassembly is very easy on the SC. Ergonomics-- well, my wife has fallen in love with the SC . Normal female hands and she has no issues. The backstraps are changeable too. The safety, well, not my favorite. It is slow to wear in too, which is good and bad. The other series wear in fairly fast and become smooth in operation. The shield is decent, but it is a user choice. I found the safety to be sticky. Maybe it will wear in, over time. Quoted: Quoted: I've used both guns....and I carry all the time. The Storm is kind of thick feeling, kind of blocky in its ergonomics. It also has a rotating barrel locking mechanism, though well designed, its simply a different manual of arms, unlike almost all other common pistol designs. It serves no functional advantage, slightly more difficult to disassemble/get used to, and lacks commonality with the rest of the handgun industry for the most part. The primary reason I would prefer the S&W is 80% ergonomics (particularly for a smaller hands on a female shooter) and 20% operational design. "Uniqueness" of operation, IMO, is not an advantage for assembly/disassembly. Additionally, getting a new shooter acclimated to pistol function, I wouldn't select the most non-common of designs to accomplish that. For a 1-gun, new, female shooter who wants a carry gun that offers great ergonomics, simplicity/commonality of design, manual safety and high reliability, between the two, the Shield is the answer. The Storm is a very nice gun, but given the OP's reqs, it's no contest IMO....the S&W all the way. Your statements shows you don't know what you are talking about. There is NO rotating barrel in the sub-compact version. The assembly/disassembly is very easy on the SC. Ergonomics-- well, my wife has fallen in love with the SC . Normal female hands and she has no issues. The backstraps are changeable too. The safety, well, not my favorite. It is slow to wear in too, which is good and bad. The other series wear in fairly fast and become smooth in operation. The shield is decent, but it is a user choice. I found the safety to be sticky. Maybe it will wear in, over time. Gee whiz, my bad! All PX Storms have the rotating barrel, however, you're correct, not the micro/Nano/mini-brick...whatever its called. For that, they chose wisely and used the JMB system. The gun is a non-traditional design that offers zero advantage. Its ergonomics are nowhere near as good as the Shield, as an example (nor the Walther PPS, but that has no manual safety)....as the OP's wife prefers. Ergonomics are subjective to an extent.....but not to THIS extent. Thrilled your wife is happy with her gun! It's a reliable gun, better choices exist however. |
|
Quoted:
All PX Storms have the rotating barrel, however, you're correct, not the micro/Nano/mini-brick...whatever its called. For that, they chose wisely and used the JMB system. The gun is a non-traditional design that offers zero advantage. Its ergonomics are nowhere near as good as the Shield, as an example (nor the Walther PPS, but that has no manual safety)....as the OP's wife prefers. Ergonomics are subjective to an extent.....but not to THIS extent. Thrilled your wife is happy with her gun! It's a reliable gun, better choices exist however. M4, As an owner of a full size, compact, and sub compact PX4s, I can assure you the sub compact does NOT have a rotating barrel. It has a tilt barrel very similar to the Nano. The full size and compact PX4s have rotating barrels. -Slim |
| I have owned mine for quite sometime and love it. Although I originally bought it for CCW that quickly changed due to the thickness of it. Could I have carried it everyday? Yes. But for my needs I figured there were better options for myself. I bought a Walther PPS and haven't looked back. With that said the Storm has happily become my bedside gun with the light mounted and such. I know I can rely on it to work every time. If its staying in a car or purse and she is comfortable with the way it shoots and handles I say go for it. |
|
Quoted:
I have owned mine for quite sometime and love it. Although I originally bought it for CCW that quickly changed due to the thickness of it. Could I have carried it everyday? Yes. But for my needs I figured there were better options for myself. I bought a Walther PPS and haven't looked back. With that said the Storm has happily become my bedside gun with the light mounted and such. I know I can rely on it to work every time. If its staying in a car or purse and she is comfortable with the way it shoots and handles I say go for it. What light do you have on your PX4? |
|
I also have a full size PX4 Storm .40 S&W as my bedside on the ready. I did install a Laserspeed with light and green laser on the single piccatinny rail.
I have probably shot about 100 rds. But like I said on another thread......Berettas do not like to shoot reloads. Very finicky on reloads. |
|
Quoted: M4, As an owner of a full size, compact, and sub compact PX4s, I can assure you the sub compact does NOT have a rotating barrel. It has a tilt barrel very similar to the Nano. The full size and compact PX4s have rotating barrels. -Slim Quoted: Quoted: All PX Storms have the rotating barrel, however, you're correct, not the micro/Nano/mini-brick...whatever its called. For that, they chose wisely and used the JMB system. The gun is a non-traditional design that offers zero advantage. Its ergonomics are nowhere near as good as the Shield, as an example (nor the Walther PPS, but that has no manual safety)....as the OP's wife prefers. Ergonomics are subjective to an extent.....but not to THIS extent. Thrilled your wife is happy with her gun! It's a reliable gun, better choices exist however. M4, As an owner of a full size, compact, and sub compact PX4s, I can assure you the sub compact does NOT have a rotating barrel. It has a tilt barrel very similar to the Nano. The full size and compact PX4s have rotating barrels. -Slim I have the subcompact, compact and full size so this is from experience. |