Ok Guys…
I would love to get the opinions of some of you very well qualified shooters on here whose opinions I highly value.
I have a Colt LE6920 as my primary Katrina type gun and several hunting guns/shotguns but my Katrina sidearms are a pair of Glocks in .40S&W. Specifically a Gen 3 G22 and G23. (my everyday CCW weapon is a stainless Walther PPK in .380acp/9mmKurz).
I am in a quandry on the G22 & G23. I bought these a couple of years ago and don’t shoot a ton. I used to shoot a lot with a Browning HIPO 9mm.
I went with the Glocks for their utilitarianism & simplicity but also becasuse there was no safety which presented one less thing for my wife to worry about if I was away at hunting camp and she needed to defend against an intruder. I leave them in condition 3, full mag inserted, firing pin having been previously dry fired on an empty chamber. I have taught her to rack one and go. ( I don’t want to get into a debate about my choice on that:)) I went w/ a .40S&W because of the better ballstics over the 9mm.
My main concern is the renowned opinion of our very own Larry Vickers. An accomplished meat eater and brave patriot, who appears to think very lowly of Glocks in .40S&W and .45ACP.
I have bought extra hicap mags and stockpiled a few hundred rounds of ammo for the G23 & G22 and don’t want to really have to change out pistols or calibers, but having gone with a ‘top of the line’ type carbine, I hate to think that my sidearms of choice are questionable. I am thinking of going to a 9mm ( the price of the ammo is attractive), but I hate to have to go big loser on the Glocks, mags and ammo which I would. I also saw a lovely Colt 1911 that I’d love if funds were available (also the cost of ammo is high).
I hold any advice that Mr. Vickers’ gives in the highest of esteem, but just exactly how predominant are the shortcomings of the bigger caliber Glocks? After all the .40S&W Glock has to be about the most widely issued departmental gun in current use today. They can’t be that bad can they? A guy at the range says that Larry’s concerns are unsubstantiated and that they are coming from a guy who is a paid endorser for HK.
What do you guys think? Keep the .40S&W glocks or start over on the sidearms and take the $$$ losses incurred???
I’d enjoy watching that “guy at the range” say that to LAV’s face. That’s just me, though.
There is a big difference between saying “.40-cal Glocks don’t run nearly as well as 9mm Glocks” and saying “.40-cal Glocks suck and never work.” I don’t think anyone is saying the latter. Pretty much everyone with an objective view seems to agree – to varying degrees – with the former.
I think issues with the Glocks start at about 40-50 thousand rounds. Or you can get malfs if you mount the light to the pistol. I don’t like weapon mounted lights for pistol, so it’s no issue for me. You can also do what I did and add a Glock 17 for practice and keep the round count low on your 40s.
If you’re shooting a modest volume of ammo like you say, the 40s will last you a very long time. Think about how long it would take you to burn thru 40k of ammo. It’s not long for SWAT guys who don’t have to pay for training ammo. But for me, it’ll be another 10-20 years depending on ammo prices.
Ditto on keeping the .40’s. I owed a G23 since they first came out and it was a great shooter (It got traded it for the M&P40 a few months back). No malfunctions after thousands of rounds fired. It didn’t have a rail so I don’t have any experiences with malfunctions with a light being attached. You always have the option of trading it for the G19 for the wife if recoil concerns her and cheaper training ammo. The are quite a few great ammo choices for the 9mm that are as effective as the .40. Check out the ballistics forum for more info.https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887
I would stick with what you have. Yes, the 9mm Glocks last longer and have a lower rate of parts failures, but the .40’s aren’t the widow makers a lot of folks portray them as. Since you are a relatively low round count shooter, you probably won’t experience the failures that some of the high round count guys experience.
I would go to Lonewolf or Glockmeister and get a couple of trigger pins and a hand full of recoil springs for each gun. I’d change the recoil spring out more often, maybe 5000 rounds, and call it good. When I had a pair of G23’s, I think they used the same recoil spring as the G19, which didn’t seem right. So I switched them out more often, and I got about 10k rounds through my primary one before I traded in for a G17.
I understand that there is or has been a professional relationship between LAV and HK. I have read high praise from him (IIRC on this board) for 9mm Glocks and for properly-built 1911s, neither of which are built by HK. This makes it pretty clear to me that he is not simply a mouthpiece for HK.
I’ve known Larry for many years, going well back into his time in the military. Without a question in my mind or the mind of anyone who actually knows him:
[ul][li] Larry is not shy about sharing his opinion.
[/li][*] Larry’s opinion is not for sale.[/ul]
The sand test that got Larry in so much trouble with a lot of Glock guys was when he was still in the Army and not in any way affiliated with HK.
He’s always been very upfront with his connections to different companies, but he will absolutely tell you his opinion on something if asked, and that’s not motivated by sponsorship.
SloaneRanger asked a perfectly legitimate question about the suitability of .40-cal Glocks. Since the side-issue regarding LAV has been more than adequately addressed, let’s get back to the Glock discussion.
If anyone wants to discuss Larry’s ethics and integrity, he’s an IP here. Send him a PM.
.40 cal Glocks are not known to be as durable as the 9mm and 10mm Glocks.
Glock basically just did the bare minimum to modify the 17 into the 22 back in the rush to beat S&W to market with a pistol. They did so, but without really beefing up the slide.
Glocks also do not have supported chambers, and you are more likely to run into a problem using higher pressure loads because of it.
As others have stated, if you’re comfortable with it, and it works for you, then with the round count that it looks like you’ll have with it, as long as it feeds and functions with the defense ammo you’ve chosen, keep them.
If it were me, I would sell them and stick with 9mm and .45 ACP.
Templer hit it on the head. Glock took a G17/19 and put a different barrel in it and said “We’re first! We’re first!” If they did their homework they would have realized that the .40 runs at higher pressure and batters guns pretty hard. Other makers took their time and released guns that were more robust (HK USP, SIG P229, etc.) Since the .40 came out most makers have designed their platform to withstand the beating the .40 dishes out. As a result, the 9mm version of most newer guns are overbuilt.
The 9mm Glocks aren’t perfect either, despite what Gaston claims. NYPD had some pretty serious problems with their G19’s a few years back. I haven’t heard about it lately, so maybe that’s fixed. But nobody and nothing is immune to problems completely.
But for the most part, 9mm’s are much easier on a gun than a larger caliber. Just about anyone can make a 9mm last, simply because it’s a pretty tame round overall.
In the end however, I’d also rotate out of them like Templer suggested (in fact, that is exactly what I did; two G23’s were swapped for a G17 and G19). If you want to stick with .40 or .45 I’d look at the M&P line. If you want to stay with Glocks, I’d go to a pair of G17s or G19s. An added advantage is that the 9’s are cheaper to feed and practice with.
I’ll shear what I “believe/remember” he stated in a conversation I had with him down in Altha FL. I’ll give the highlights as I remember them.
The Glock 22 has known issues with mounted lights.
The Glock 22 is essentialy a “9mm pistol” that has been loaded with .40 cal. There are some issues with this.
Since we live in an age where the gap between the 9mm, .40 cal and .45 is closer then ever in performance, why use a pistol that is less reliable with a light that fires a bullet that increase wear and decreases service life?
Todd said it well when he stated that the Glock in .40 dosen’t run as well as one in 9mm. That is very far from calling it a POS.
I have a 22. I like it. I have carried it and will carry it again. I shoot it well for a layman.
My best friend has carried one employed by DOE for over 8 years. He has been in sub units that do a lot of shooting. He also likes it. However, he and his organization has had confirmed and documented issues with mounting a light. To his chagrin, they are not authorized to mount them anymore. Like many others, he would rather have a 9mm that he can mount a light to, then have “the bigger bullet” that he can’t.
Just food for thought.
In the end, I’d keep it. Just get a 9mm also.
Thanks Guys…Keep it coming, All good info. It is why I love this site. Real shooters, real experience and a notable absence of internet rambos who shoot more 6mm bbs than anything. Unlike many other boards that I no longer frequent:cool:
I called and am going to the gun club tomorrow. They will only give me $325 per Glock but I have $100 worth of mags they’ll take back. (I may try to sell privately as I could get more like $425 for each pistol). I may get a 9mm HK USP or a sig 2** series (depends what they have) or that used Colt 1911 ($750) which I am in love with but I hate the cost of .45 acp ammo:eek:
Ok. I did. I was wrong, the 9 and .40 operate in the same pressure range, 33,000 psi. I knew .45 was lower (about 21,000) and erroneously thought that 9 operated at the same pressure.
wow. neither of those two pistols you mentioned would be my first choice coming from a Glock. not a thing wrong with either but for some reason your choice caused me to perk my ears up.
Have you checked out the S&W M&Ps. very durable, great shooting guns. highly thought of by people I think highly of.
You know, unless you have a really good reason to switch calibers and pistols, I think you’re overreacting. Glock .40s have served tens of thousands of LEOs for almost 2 decades with great success. If they have an achilles heel, its durability over the long haul and unless you’re in the very small percentage of shooters who really put a lot of rounds downrange, you’re a long ways away from worrying about the durability of a .40 Glock versus a 9mm Glock. And since you already said that you don’t shoot a ton, in my opinion, I don’t see a real need for you to switch out your .40s.
If you have a choice, and many people do not, I can’t for the life of me see why anyone would choose a .40 Glock over a 9mm one - the G17 and 19 are excellent guns and have a fantastic track record and with the availability of inexpensive 9mm practice ammo (as compared to other calibers) as well as some very lethal 9mm JHP loadings for carry use I fail to see a down side to a 9mm flavored Glock
I have said it many times and nothing I have seen or heard has made me change my mind - if you want a Glock go with a 9mm version and stay away from the others calibers if you have that option open to you
