FN 509 for an Everyday Concealed Carry?

[7relos]

Anybody have experience with this gun? Looking at Hickok45's video and it looks like handle length is just a bit longer than the "compact" g19's handle, and just shy of the full-size g17's handle.

So maybe somebody with experience concealing a G17 would be able to chime in here?

I am also a sort of a tall & thin guy, about 6' @ 140 lbs or so. I'm not sure if that's better for CC a larger framed pistol like this or not.

I like the 509 because of the more aggressive stippling and longer grip length but I will concede the grip seems a tad long. I'm primarily considering the FNS-9C however I would love the newer 509.

I do not intend to wait for FN to release a new compact version of the 509 because I would probably be waiting a year or more. Something I was curious about though, due to the fact this gun was designed for the MHS contract, does that mean it would have a similar modularity to the Sig P320 in the sense that I would only need to buy a new receiver in the future?

Thanks for the reply, I'm having an impossible time finding any information pertaining to concealment of the 509 pistol.

 

[bofh]

You won't get much feedback for a gun that is on the market for just 3 months. Read TTAG | Gun Review: FN 509 Striker-Fired 9mm Semi-Automatic Pistol to get some insight.

The FN 509 is slightly shorter, slightly higher and slightly thicker than the Glock 17. Its grip is about half an inch longer than the grip of a Glock 19. I am 5'7" and 140 lbs. I normally carry the Glock 19, but sometimes the Glock 20. Concealment is not only about grip length, but also about the right holster, belt, and carry position.

As for the modularity of the FN 509, look at the design of the FN 509, then look at the design of the Sig P320. The frame is the handgun for the FN 509, while the trigger group is the handgun for the Sig P320. The Glock 19 was in the MHS program too and it is also not as modular as the Sig P320.

Why FN and not the Glock 19 or Sig P320? Watch this: