A “5” meant that the package was an absolutely outstanding deal. A “4” meant that the package offered more perceived value than the price. It meant to us that the consumer was getting a product worth every bit of the price. Also, while many of the pistols had optics cuts in the slides, some with optics actually installed, we only used the iron sights when possible to have a level playing field for the accuracy results.įinally, for the value/price point category we set “3” as the baseline. We avoided doing direct comparisons as much as possible and we didn’t grade on a curve. After that, the ratings submitted by all five evaluators were averaged to calculate a final score for each category.

We had a rating scale of 1 to 5 for each category using quarter-point increments, mainly to avoid any ties where possible. The nine criteria we used to evaluate each pistol included aesthetics, ergonomics, sights, trigger control, recoil control, reloading ease, accuracy, reliability, and value/price point. Both companies liked the idea of the extensive testing, wanting a part in informing our readers of the results from our shooting tests. They simply asked how much we needed and sent it out in quick fashion. There were no requests or demands made in trade. The reps from both companies excitedly supported the project. Sure, it’s good advertising, but both companies are already household names with shooters and a little plug from me isn’t going to move the needle much. Hornady and Remington both stepped up in a huge way and supplied a little over 10,000 rounds of 9mm ammunition for the two pistol articles. The only reason we were able to conduct this test so thoroughly was because of the generosity of Remington and Hornady. As the reader very well knows, ammo isn’t even close to cheap these days. I’ll tell you now we fired a lot more than that during the evaluation. If each of us only shot 50 rounds each from the 12 pistols, that would be 3,000 rounds fired for this article. The other trend for the day was that every pistol was chambered in 9mm. While there were standard compact offerings from companies like Walther, Lone Wolf and Wilson Combat, it was high-capacity, micro-compact pistols that dominated our landscape as the testing began. But this was the first year that almost every major manufacturer had a micro-compact of their own on the market. Sig Sauer mainstreamed the concept a few years back with the P365. I do believe that 2021 will go down as the year of the micro-compact pistol. After inspecting what they were going to shoot, it didn’t take long to notice the trend. Then we started off the testing with 12 compact pistols, the subject of this article, offered up by various manufacturers. But the first order of business was to set up the grill, bring out the coolers of drinks and survey the steaks, potato salad, corn on the cob, watermelon and, of course, the banana pudding. We’re all country boys and, despite the late summer heat, it doesn’t get much better than lots of guns and ammo to shoot.

Throw one blowhard into the mix (me) and we had five guys with varying perspectives on what’s most important in a quality pistol.Įveryone in the group beamed with excitement, ready to make a party of it. Jamie, David, Addison and Brad have backgrounds in law enforcement, military service, retail gun sales and gunsmithing. I was about to meet up with four fellas from different walks of life, with a good bit of gun knowledge and skill. The first of a couple of days range testing to evaluate 20 compact and full-size pistols for “Ballistic’s Best of 2021” issue had arrived. 5 of the Best Budget Concealed Carry Handgun Options Under $300 Best Concealed Carry Pistols

Compact 9mm pistols