Women aren't the only ones who think, yea know, that the Glock is not an ideal weapon for people with smaller hands.
I've handled and shot Glocks of most every caliber, from 17's, to 36's; and they have the most un-ergonomic grip ever. They are uniformly uncomfortable. I don't have very small hands, but I could handle the fat end of a baseball bat with better results than a Glock. Even the single-stacks in .45 caliber is no great shakes.
The problem is the double stack magazine, and the Beretta M9/92/96 series frame, among others, is no better. The trouble is the diameter of the grip frame. It just doesn't lend its self to smaller-than-average hands.
And some are forgetting the sticking point of the lawsuit. If the "field" isn't level, as to qualifying by females with small hands, that becomes sexually discriminatory. That's what the regulations and laws have become. It's also the result of rigid purchasing specs and political decisions, that don't allow for any wiggle room as to individual needs.
What would have been the result, had the women been issued a 1911, in 9mm? I doubt that the grip would have been an issue.
Until the 1980's when everyone had to go to semi-autos, police departments regularly issued revolvers - Everything from N-frame S&W's N's, K's, L's, J's; to Colt J's, I's, D's; to Rugers. Now, if a person could qualify with a Colt better than a Smith, what is the problem?
If the Glock doesn't fit, get something that does. The officers have to be confident that they can defend themselves, their fellow officers, and civilians.
To my way of thinking John Browning gave us the perfect size grip over a hundred years ago. And then again with the Hi Power. I guess it just wasn't "perfect" enough for some people.
