Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 1/3/2003 10:15:28 PM EST
I have been primarily focused on my Browning Hi-Power and my 1911 Kimber, but recently have been curious about getting a .40 S&W Glock as well. The model 23 fits my hands well and I actually got to shoot a model 23C (with compensator) last week. The Glock shot well, but I know that I'll be wanting to get a trigger job done and put some night sights on it as well. What I am not sure about is whether or not to get the standard Glock 23 or to get the Glock 23C. The 23C shot fine, but the flames out of the top of the pistol were a bit distracting. Could you folks give me some direction on this decision? Right now I am leaning towards getting the Glock 23 and not the 23C.
Link Posted: 1/3/2003 11:35:08 PM EST
I have the standard Glock 23. I've shot it quite a bit over the past 4 years using mild to wild loads. Ie..Corbon's hot 135 gr.

As far as I'm concerned, the recoil was minimual. The Glock in .40 SW does not have as much recoil as your Kimber .45. Yes, a little more than your 9mm but not enough to justify the compensator for me.

If the Glock was going to be used for compition, say as a Race gun, 3 gun tactical matchs, I would have the full size .40 and probably the compensator. It depends on the main purpose you're going to use the Glock for. (??)

If I was still in law enforcement I would not have anything that could possibly ruin my night vision.

Rambosky

Link Posted: 1/4/2003 2:59:27 AM EST
Ditto what Rammosky stated.
Art in KY
Link Posted: 1/4/2003 3:29:31 AM EST
Get the 23c. the "flames" out the top are significanty reduced- (eliminated) with the correct Tac ammo, and the additional control yeilded is significant-(enough to cause GSSF to ban them in standard class comp!). For another $125-150 or so you can get a non-comped barrel and have a 'regular' 23, but replacing the slide and barrel to make a 'C' is much more costly.
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 12:33:51 PM EST
Unless your getting a Glock 18, (full auto version), don't get a comensated Glock. If you have to shoot close to your body, or at night, your screwed. And the recoil of a .40 really isn't that bad. If it's too bad, get a 9mm, and if that's too much, just put a big bullseye on your head, and carry a sign around that says "MARK!"
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 12:58:25 PM EST
If you plan on carrying it for self defense avoid the C model.
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 6:18:53 PM EST
I want to thank everyone for their feedback on this issue. The issues that you've mentioned are in line with several concerns that I have about the 23C model. The recoil from the .40 S&W is not a concern of mine, as I regularly shoot a .45 ACP Kimber. I plan to get the Glock 23, without the compensation. Any further comments are greatly appreciated.
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 9:35:26 PM EST
I find the recoil from my Kimbers to be much more pleasant than that of my G23. That said, recoil of the 23 is not that bad. I guess it depends on what you want to do with it. They don't recommend compensators for defensive pistols as the flash can be blinding at night and if you have to fire close in you can burn your clothing. I'd go with the regular 23. I did.
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 9:46:59 PM EST

Originally Posted By Ratters:
I find the recoil from my Kimbers to be much more pleasant than that of my G23.



I'll second that! I shot both a week ago and I still think that my G23 had more of a *SNAP* to it.

Glocktalk.com is another good place to get information on Glocks.

Good luck,
marm0t
Top Top