[SafariSam]

I had a Glock model 20 but sold it and now i'm planning on buying another one because it was actually one of my favorite handguns to carry in my car. checking out Glock's website i saw the model 20 SF which i think stand for ''short frame''. i've heard a lot of people complain that the Glock's grip was too big but it never really bothered me but at the same time i thought it might be nice if they had one that was a bit smaller. what do you think of the standard model 20 compared to the SF model 20s? i'm thinking i might give the SF model 20 a try this time.

[mountainman13]

It's gonna have more felt recoil. Be easier to conceal. I want one.

[SafariSam]

Originally Posted by mountainman13

It's gonna have more felt recoil. Be easier to conceal. I want one.

one of the things about the standard model 20 that i liked was that even when firing full powered or close to full powered 10mm loads the recoil didn't seem that bad at all. i hope their wouldn't be that much of a difference in felt recoil with the SF models. i'm just guessing that the recoil would be more but still wouldn't be much.

[mountainman13]

I'm sure its still manageable.

[big shrek]

I can't tell the diff, I had an OD green 20 which I NEVER should have let go...now I've got a Gen3-20SF...
the difference you feel is that the grip is thinner from front to back...and feels pretty nice
I did add a slipcover of bicycle innertube for better grip for my long monkey-fingers...

Recoil feels about the same...not too bad for such a potent round!!
Altho I didn't have Buffalo Bore 220-grain before, that stuff is a little Stiff, no matter what you fire it out of!!
But OH what it does to a wild hog!!

[robocop10mm]

I believe SF stands for Slim Frame, not Short Frame

[willfully armed]

Originally Posted by robocop10mm

I believe SF stands for Slim Frame, not Short Frame

10mm novice you are grasshopper.


Short frame.

[RecklessRegard]

Originally Posted by willfully armed

10mm novice you are grasshopper.

Short frame.

Someday I'll own a 10mm...

Anyways, according to the GLOCK site, "The SF model reduces the circumference of the receiver at the rear, or "backstrap," offering increased comfort and control—especially to shooters with smaller hands." This doesn't mention shortening the frame, but seems to refer to "slimming" it down.

Am I understanding incorrectly?

Or is it a GLOCKish acronym, standing for what is, not necessarily what seems commen sense?

[robocop10mm]

Originally Posted by willfully armed

10mm novice you are grasshopper.


Short frame.

Really. Why would you want a Short Frame? The barrel/slide is the same. Kind of silly if you ask me.

Or is it "short" in the dimension from grip to trigger rather than short from the base to the slide?

[ryguy00]

It is SHORT frame. As in the distance from the front of the grip (where your fingers go) to the rear of the grip (where the heel of your hand goes) remember that hole at the rear of the glock frame behind the magwell? You know, the one that they make an aftermarket plug for to keep dust and dirt out of it? Yeah that, they shortened that. In effect, it shortens the reach to the trigger. Supposedly helpful to shooters with smaller hands as they attempt to shoot a caliber with a longer than most overall length. Recoil from a physics standpoint is unaffected. However, if you can grip one model more comfortably than the other, PERCEIVED recoil can feel different. It does nothing to enhance or detract from concealibility. The height of the frame does not change. The frame height is what pokes out of your shirt if its too long. The frame width also does not change.

If you go to glocks website, look at the dimensions diagrams and the differences between regular and sf models and you will see exactly where the change was made.