- 6,041
- Puget Sound
- Crash852
The full size does everything the Mk23 does, it's just a little smaller and I'm not a fan of target sights it has. The Mk23 I bought b/c of a price markdown and to complete my small collection. While it's a great gun, it's terribly impractical for anything other than being a collection piece.
I'm not sure I could CCW the compact .45 without some mild discomfort or bulges through my clothes. It's the same size as my old Sig 226, which is considered a full size gun.
Props for owning a Mk23. I don't ever hear about people owning that gun just because like you said, it's more of a museum piece and it's really expensive, even if though it shoots great. Do you CCW? Which one do you, or would you CCW?
The Sig 226 was an OK gun I guess. It felt great at the gun counter but the ergonomics went away after you fire a magazine or 2. My hand would quickly get tired and it just wasn't fun to shoot.
To compound things, it was a bitch to clean and there was some barrel wear. The HKs show no wear while you could feel the wear on the 226's barrel when you cleaned it. Not a bad gun, but not great either IMO. The .40 S&W caliber probably has the most to do with that though. I've shot a 229 in 9mm and it was night & day...but not good enough to buy one in place of an HK .45.
I shot the Sig 226 9mm at the range, and while it felt alright ergonomically, I didn't really like the trigger pull at all; I thought it was too long. You said that the 229 in 9mm caliber was night and day, how so?
At this point I'm considering purchasing a 9mm handgun in a few months. I want something that is reliable, easy to maintain, portable and fun to shoot. I was thinking of either a Glock or a HK USP; I've shot both and I really like them, but I worry that those are too big for CCW, but some people are saying that even the compact versions of those will print. I don't want it to be uncomfortable or to print when carrying.
Last edited: