Glock 20 vs 20SF

[Art Yeo]

Couple of questions:

1. Durability: is the SF version in any way less durable than the regular thick Glock 20? Would the slimmer frame mean less material and so lower the ability to take heavy pounding from full house 10mm loads?
   
2. Grip size: between the two, which one is closer in its grip size to the Beretta 92 series?
   

[Suicycle]

Both are tanks, cannot break them unless you try. The 92, well you are on your on there. I'd say the SF because it is shorter front to rear like the 9mm frame glocks. It should be wider than the 92 and in no way compare in feel or shape. My 21 was the softest 45 I have shot, and I have owned a bunch in the last 19 years.

[Biloxi23]

The SF is not really slimmer, it is shorter. If you have large hands and shoot a 20 or 21, yu will probably not notice it. If you are like me and have smallish hands, you immediately notice it feels easier to grip wtihout shifting you hand to get the sights aligned.

[cheezdog]

The SF frame is shorter from front to rear, it has a different configured trigger block, and the grip angle is more like the 92 than a standard G20.

[Art Yeo]

I have decided that with my long fingers and strong grip, the regular G20 will do just fine.

Just as a data point for others, the circumference of the G20 is the same as the Beretta 92A1. It's just the shape that's different --- the G20 is flatter and broader; especially, the bottom 25%.

Edited November 14, 2012 by Art Yeo