what's the best single stack 9mm?

>>34752491
Ive been a fan of my m&p shield

Put at least a thousand rounds through it without a single issue

>>34752491
Why would you want one? The chief reason why people buy 9mm guns is for capacity. If you get one that's single stack, you're defeating the very purpose of 9mm. If you want a 1911, just get one in the cartridge that it was designed for: 45 ACP.

>>34752548
I'm cuckifornian

>>34752580
Why not get a single stack .40 then.

It has more impact energy and velocity than 9 and .45

>>34752617
I already bought a shitload of 9mm ammo

File: IMG_20170729_145912.jpg (1MB, 2529x1336px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2529x1336px

Smith 39s are pretty fucking great.

File: 1451848638691.jpg (3MB, 3008x2000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3008x2000px

tough to beat this for target shooting

File: 1475297232616.jpg (2MB, 3970x2497px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3970x2497px

>>34752491
>>34752491

File: 1472483548652.jpg (2MB, 2254x2085px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2254x2085px

and finally the OG, the namesake of the cartridge itself

File: f1glk19ngen3F.jpg (136KB, 800x520px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 800x520px

Glock 1911. It uses an advanced zigzag single stack that allows for more rounds.

>>34752869
god damn that's a sexy gun

>>34752548
>If you get one that's single stack, you're defeating the very purpose of 9mm.
Not OP, but single stacks are nice if you are a handlet. The Kahr CT9 is almost a great single stack 9mm, except for the fact that Kahrs are garbage.
I vaguely remember about some new American designed pistol being developed currently that uses a single stack magazine for this very reason. I can't remember what it's called, though. It will probably be shit, but who knows.
>>34752617
>Why not get a single stack .40 then.
Same reason to get a 9mm double stack over a .40 double stack. It's easier and cheaper to shoot.