Glock 40cal question

U

uduman

Joined
May 28, 2006
Messages
80
I am interested in purchasing a 40 caliber glock--either a compact model 23 (bl-4.02in.) or a subcompact model 27 (bl.-3.46). I wanted to know whether the shorter barrel length would impact the range of the gun? I figured someone out there would be able to quickly answer my query.

I have large hands so I know the extra finger groove would make a difference as far as grip is concerned---but the 27 does look a lot easier to carry in one's pocket. Has anyone out there tried out both of these pistols and can comment on them?

Thanks--
 
There is a noticeable velocity and accuracy loss as barrel length shrinks. I only carry full size Glocks if I am going to carry a Glock so I cant help you with the size difference. I carry only full size auto's or a Ruger sp101 snubby revolver if I need something compact. I have large hands so I don't buy subcompact guns as they are to uncomfortable. Even some of the compacts are uncomfortable.
 
uduman said:
I am interested in purchasing a 40 caliber glock--either a compact model 23 (bl-4.02in.) or a subcompact model 27 (bl.-3.46). I wanted to know whether the shorter barrel length would impact the range of the gun? I figured someone out there would be able to quickly answer my query.

I have large hands so I know the extra finger groove would make a difference as far as grip is concerned---but the 27 does look a lot easier to carry in one's pocket. Has anyone out there tried out both of these pistols and can comment on them?

Thanks--
Click to expand...

i have shot the 23 and 27, and carry the 22 on duty. i dont know the muzzle velocities off hand, but there will be a decrease in energy.

though i suspect not substantial enough to make a difference in a cqb situation.

i dont care for the 27, particularly for the short boxy grip. i find it difficult to conceal any glock because of their thick frames and slides.

excellent guns though.
 
I have a 27. I added an extended ported barrel and a grip extension. I have medium sized hands but I still need the grip extension to be comfortable. Nice gun, but I would prefer something a little bigger.

Valorknife011.jpg
 
Colog said:
Thats the theory. I can't honestly say that I've noticed a big difference.
Click to expand...

ive shot the factory ported glocks, and cant say i noticed a significant difference either.

the biggest difference i can see is in the dark the muzzle flash coming from the top of the slide is slightly blinding and the inside of the slide sure gets dirty.
 
(I own, love and carry a Glock 27 without a grip extension. I've shot my Glock 27 with a grip extension and I've also shot a friend's Glock 23.)

I think that 40 S&W Glocks carry like bricks, and the Glock 27 carries like a smaller brick. In my opinion, the Glock 27 sacrifices a good bit of shootbility for its increased concealability.

I'm normally a decent shot, but I had to put in a ton of range time before I felt comfortably proficient with my Glock 27, and I don't even have large hands. My unscientific results indicate that the Glock 23 is MUCH easier to shoot well than the Glock 27, with the increased grip length of the Glock 23 accounting for most of its increased shootability.

Many people eventually add a grip extension (e.g., Pearce Grip) to a subcompact Glock's mgazine. The grip extender basically increases the grip length to that of a compact Glock. This increase in grip length makes it much easier to shoot a subcompact Glock well, while sacrificing some concealability.

I can't comment directly on the concealability of the Glock 23, but my experience carrying other guns leads me to believe that the extra half-inch of barrel would not make it much more difficult to conceal than a Glock 27 with a grip extension.

For most people, the Glock 23 is simply a far more practical choice than the Glock 27. I think that you have to be stubborn to carry a Glock 27 -either too stubborn to admit that you should trade your Glock 27 with grip extension for a Glock 23, or stubborn enough to shoot the hell out your Glock 27 until you're comfortably proficient with its short factory grip.
 
Colog said:
Valorknife011.jpg
Click to expand...

spunkyruss said:
(e.g., Pearce Grip) to a subcompact Glock's mgazine. The grip extender basically increases the grip length to that of a compact Glock. This increase in grip length makes it much easier to shoot a subcompact Glock well, while sacrificing some concealability.

.
Click to expand...

glockman99 said:
Get the Glock model 23. Trust me on this.:).
Click to expand...

These posts should help summarize it. Most people add extenders of the baby to help in shooting...which really just makes it the midsized pistol. At that point, you might as well just get the midsized and enjoy the easier "shootability" it provides. :)
 
I have a 27 and a 23, along with 9 other Glocks. The 0.5" difference in barrel length will be of negligible difference in velocity and accuracy. The more prominent differences are in size and capacity.

Some folks can carry a 27 in a pocket, but you would have to have giant pockets. I routinely carry a Kahr PM9 in my right front pocket, but there is no way a 27 will fit in there.

For giggles, you can stick a 23 barrel in a 27, as I have done here with their 9mm equivalents (a 19 barrel in a 26):

fc3d9280.jpg


Also a 34 barrel in a 17:

f9e14af1.jpg


f82e0833.jpg

Size comparo: left to right - Kahr PM9, Keltec 9mm, Glock 27.

cheers
 
i have several glocks (ie 17C, 26,33, 32C and a 19) and the smaller ones (ie the 26 and 33) while being easier to conceal are more difficult to shoot and control, i have a glock +2 floorplate on both of them which does help, but they are more difficult to use than the 17 or 32. i have always liked the glock brand +2 vs pearce/etc grip extensions,

the 17 or 32 will work "ok" for edc but are more difficult to conceal, ya will need a good IWB holster and belt to do it and make it work.

if i was gonna edc them i would get the smaller one myself FWIW, or get a poly frame kahr P9, PM9 or P40.

but the glocks are good guns too, just a little bulky thick and hard to conceal.

i cant tell any diff either with the comp models i have, of course ya dont REALLY need a comp on a 9MM lol, i know the .357SIG with the comp makes a helluva blast at nite.
 
Our department has been issuing the M23 for about 12 years now. I consider it to be a superb combat weapon. We have had essentially zero problems with these weapons, all of a minor nature. (some aftermarket night-sights had problems coming loose, and occasionally a magazine will let the slide go forward on the last shot)
As to accuracy, I wouldn't call this a target pistol, but it's surprisingly good out to anything most would consider a combat range.

Funny incident: Our firearms instructor set up bowling pins at 50 yards. The idea is we'd fire a few rounds at that range, then keep progressively moving forward till someone actually knocked one down.
First shot from me.....I got rather dirty looks.
 
When I carry, it's 27 IWB, with a 23 in my pack for backup. I ain't likely to ever have to use it as I'm simply a citizen, but it's nice to know it's there when I'm at an ATM or simply walking around. And while I don't have large hands, I do have the grip extension on it... And I don't think anyone can tell I'm packing unless you are a really astute individual and KNOW what to look for. As to shootability... well, out to 30 yards, I can hit what I point it at...

I may be a better shot with my 1911, but it's phreaking huge on me and way difficult to conceal. And I find the weight of my Commander, as well as it's grip length, too much to try to conceal except during the winter...
 
First the .5 inch difference in barrel length will effect velocity so that theoretically it will effect range. HOWEVER, we are talking whether that round will travel 6oo yards or 650 yards for example in ultimate distance, NOT in practical combat range. The .5 inch shorter slide will shorten sight radius or aiming ability a smidge, but we are talking about a defensive handgun here and we should all consider 50 yards to be the OUTSIDE of any likely range we might need to engage. Far more likely is that the range at which it is actually used it just a few yards, less than 10 in most cases according to the FBI.

Second. pocket carry of a gun which has no means of locking the sear is asking for getting something important shot off, unless a proper in-the-pocket holster is used. You forget and drop your keys in the same pocket and sit down right, and it's no more Mr Happy.

With a good holster, its pretty easy to hide a 23 on the average person, I own and have used a blackhawk OWB holster,
http://www.buygunholsters.com/lecoslwmagpo.html that I like very much.

If you are not completely sold on the Glock 23, try either the S&W M&P or the SA XD platform, I prefer the XD to the Glock as far as fitting my hand.
 
Delighted with this question Uduman.

I am a little guy at 5'10 & 175lbs. My clenched fist measures 4.25" wide.
Since 1993 my notable pistol purchases have been
92fs
Sig 229
Sig 232(?) -little 380 and Kahr 380 both of which are too small to shoot straight

Before settling on the Glock 27 .40 with pierce extension that is a pleaseure to carry iwb in an uncle Mike's, and almost as easy to shoot as the Sig 229 .40.

I have been itching to buy another Glock 40, wondering about the 23, and after this thread might just stick with the 27 and maybe get a nine for variety.

Is the 23 is more fun to shoot than the 27?

I would love to hear additional specific pros and cons btwn the two.

thanks
 
For those who haven't tried it much (if any), there is a lot more involved in carrying a gun in your pocket efficiently than barrel and grip lengths. Regardless of what you decide to carry, I strongly suggest you get a DeSantis "Nemesis" pocket holster to fit it. They are cheap and very effective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top