[ARCHIVED THREAD] - CCW...19 vs 23 (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 1/15/2011 1:11:11 PM EDT
| Probably something that has been discussed a lot on here, but which seems to be more popular on here? One of these two will be my next purchase, just not sure which one. Amount of rounds isn't an issue for this comparison (if you need more than a few to hit your target, you shouldn't be handling one). All opinions of both are appreciated...I'd rather do this than search archived folders. Thanks guys. |
|
Quoted:
Amount of rounds isn't an issue for this comparison (if you need more than a few to hit your target, you shouldn't be handling one). not to be an asshole, but i have a problem with this. you're kidding yourself if you think you'll be able to place 2 or 3 rounds into a BG's chest and stop the attack instantly. this is not hollywood. this deadly encounter will be a very stressful event. your body will be flooded with adrenaline. you'll be in fight-or-flight mode. even IF you are able to place several rapid shots to the center-of-mass area, there's no guarantee the bullets will perform as designed. forget what you see in the movies. you WILL miss and in most cases it WILL take "more than a few" to stop the threat. you don't have to take my word... after alll, i'm no expert. there have been countless studies and books written on this topic. |
| ok, back to the 19 vs. 23... i voted 19 because i'm not crazy about the way the 23 recoils. the compact .40 definitely has more "snap" to it. i have shot a 23 on several occasions so i'm speaking from experience. i own a 19 and love it. it's my dedicated CCW. the compact Glocks make for a great CCW. try to get out and shoot both and decide for yourself. nothing against the .40, but i'll take the 9mm. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Glock and 40 cal don't mix well. Go with the 19. Can you back that? A lot of 22/23/27 out there. And if you are going to referance the one issue with a light mounted then you have nothing. Also,all those popo's and federalis must all be in serious trouble carryin all those G22's and G23's...horseshit pal...Glocks and .40 SW go FINE together. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
I carry a 23 but also shoot the 19 a lot. I would feel fine with either. IF you are only going to buy one you are probably better served with the 19. Lower recoil, higher capacity and the ammo is cheaper so you can shoot more rounds in training for less money. I am issued a G23. I am selling my personal G27 for a G19 if that tells you anything. The recoil with the 23 is sharper than I prefer, and 9mm is less expensive than .40, so more shooting for the same money. ETA: Having daily carried the 27 previously, and the 23 currently, the larger 23 conceals just as well as the subcompact 27. I like the larger grip and longer sight radius of the 23, as well. With the 19 you also have 15+1 capacity. |
|
The claim against .40 Glocks is that the slide is too light and the recoil spring is too light, as both were designed for 9mm, so the weapon takes a beating, and may have a shortened service life.
The only time I can see this being a factor is if you are an agency making a large order, in which the warranty will expire after a certain amount of rounds. For personal weapons, the warranty never expires, and it will be very costly for anyone to actually get to a point in which they need the warranty. For personal weapons this is, to me, not too much of an issue. The .40 and 357 durability issue (perceived or otherwise; that is up to you) can be limited greatly by the user performing routine maintenance, such as replacing the recoil spring assembly every 2k rounds. That said, I still prefer the Glock 19 for several reasons: 9mm is less expensive, which can (should) lead to more practice. With modern hollow point offerings, 9mm is perfectly adequate, and long before HPs were widely available, 9mm was being widely used. While the .40 Glocks may be reliable, the 9mm Glocks are legendary for their durability and reliability. If I have a Glock, I prefer it in 9mm, as the original seems to be the best. The recoil is tame, and while .40 Glocks are certainly not unmanageable, I still prefer the recoil characteristics of 9mm Glocks to the .40sw variants. While there are other pistols I would prefer in .40s&w, if you desire a Glock, then either the 23 or 19 would be a good choice. But my vote is with the Glock 19. |
|
Quoted:
I've shot a .40 before...does the 23 feel superior in recoil to other manufacturer's or roughly the same. Mostly a personal preference question but still curious. Thanks for the posts so far guys. To me, the M&P 40 has more tame recoil compared to .40s&w Glocks. As you said, this is personal, and you'll have to try out different pistols for yourself in order to accurately assess the recoil characteristics. |
|
Quoted: My uncle put 3 in the chest of a BG and it didn't stop him (he was on pcp) , so more = betterQuoted: Amount of rounds isn't an issue for this comparison (if you need more than a few to hit your target, you shouldn't be handling one). not to be an asshole, but i have a problem with this. you're kidding yourself if you think you'll be able to place 2 or 3 rounds into a BG's chest and stop the attack instantly. this is not hollywood. this deadly encounter will be a very stressful event. your body will be flooded with adrenaline. you'll be in fight-or-flight mode. even IF you are able to place several rapid shots to the center-of-mass area, there's no guarantee the bullets will perform as designed. forget what you see in the movies. you WILL miss and in most cases it WILL take "more than a few" to stop the threat. you don't have to take my word... after alll, i'm no expert. there have been countless studies and books written on this topic. |
| I went through this same things a few months ago. I almost convinced myself to get a G23 and a 9mm conversion barrel but in the end I went for the G19. Ballistically speaking, they're about the same when you use quality HP. 9mm is several dollars per box cheaper which means more shooting for the same price and recoil is more manageable. I carry what I practice with so 9mm made more sense. Last thing I want it is to practice with 9mm and if I ever have to draw my CCW, I don't want anything that I'm not use to shooting. |
|
Quoted:
I've shot a .40 before...does the 23 feel superior in recoil to other manufacturer's or roughly the same. Mostly a personal preference question but still curious. Thanks for the posts so far guys. Out of the .40's I have shot, the HK for some reason was very "soft" feeling. It almost felt like a G21. The G23 and HK USP .40 feel nothing alike. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted: Quoted: I've shot a .40 before...does the 23 feel superior in recoil to other manufacturer's or roughly the same. Mostly a personal preference question but still curious. Thanks for the posts so far guys. Out of the .40's I have shot, the HK for some reason was very "soft" feeling. It almost felt like a G21. The G23 and HK USP .40 feel nothing alike. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Well I don't know which HK you are referring to but with HK weighing in at 4-8 oz.(depending on model) more might be part of it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I've shot a .40 before...does the 23 feel superior in recoil to other manufacturer's or roughly the same. Mostly a personal preference question but still curious. Thanks for the posts so far guys. Out of the .40's I have shot, the HK for some reason was very "soft" feeling. It almost felt like a G21. The G23 and HK USP .40 feel nothing alike. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Well I don't know which HK you are referring to but with HK weighing in at 4-8 oz.(depending on model) more might be part of it. The HK definately weigh's more than the G23.I think it also had to do with the recoil springs as well. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
either gun, w/ quality bonded HP ammo, buries slugs ca 12" in test media.
Is the hair increase in the bore of the wound channel the .40 offers worth the increased recoil, slower follow up shots and reduction ammo capacity and more expensive practice ammo. I really don't see .40 or 357 sig as offering any significant benefits over 9mm unless maybe for barrier penetration w/ certain ammo... I believe 45 and 10mm offer meaningful improvements in different respects, but 40/357 sig... If you want more power shoot nato spec ammo. |
|
You can't go wrong with either really:....comes down to preference. They are basically the exact same pistol size wise. I carry the Glock 23, I feel comfortable with it, I train with it, I am not bothered by the snap some people refer to. But you may be more comfortable with the 19. You should try and find a range that will rent both and shoot them. As far as the ammo price, around here .40 is only a couple bucks more than 9mm so that doesn't phase me. They are excellent pistols and would trust ether with my life. Just decide which one you are more likely to practice and train with and go with that. Good luck and have some fun with whatever you decide....
Ps.... You might as well buy both. Everyone knows you can't just own 1 Glock.... |
|
Quoted: Glock and 40 cal don't mix well. Go with the 19. Horsefeathers!!!!!!!!! The G23 is best combination of size, weight, concealability, capacity, and lethality available today, bar none. The myth that Glocks have a problem with 40 s&w because of poor case support isn't 'supported' by the facts. All semi auto's with barrel ramps have some degree of lessened support at the 6 o'clock but actual field use by millions of shooters says that the Glock 40s are just fine. A G23 and TruGlo TFOs is a fantastic CCW combination.  180grn Speer GDs are a great choice in the 40 and it has less recoil snap than the lighter weight 155grn and 165grn defensive loading. Further, many 9mm owners aren't satisfied with the lower performance of the smaller dia, lighter weight loadings so they opt for +P and +P+ level loading. The issue there is that they then have a 9mm Glock with more recoil snap than the 40 cal Glock (negating their 'faster followup shot' claims) while still shooting smaller, lighter bullets. |
|
I carry a 19 for the same reasons everyone has mentioned -
1. mag capacity 2. cheaper ammo 3. softer shooting than .40 with no significant decrease in terminal performance. otherwise the two are identical, pick whichever one you enjoy shooting more. you won't go wrong with either. |
|
I have a 19 and I had a 23.
Possible very longterm durability questions aside (my 23 cracked its locking block), I can hit faster and more accurately with my 19. It's all about location, location, and location. With quality, modern-design bullets, 9mm vs 40 is practically a non-issue. I load it with 147gr Speer Gold Dot. My second choice would be 124gr +P Speer Gold Dot. FWIW. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Glock and 40 cal don't mix well. Go with the 19. Horsefeathers!!!!!!!!! The G23 is best combination of size, weight, concealability, capacity, and lethality available today, bar none. The myth that Glocks have a problem with 40 s&w because of poor case support isn't 'supported' by the facts. All semi auto's with barrel ramps have some degree of lessened support at the 6 o'clock but actual field use by millions of shooters says that the Glock 40s are just fine. A G23 and TruGlo TFOs is a fantastic CCW combination. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v726/Coloradoglocker/ChamberSupport-1.jpg 180grn Speer GDs are a great choice in the 40 and it has less recoil snap than the lighter weight 155grn and 165grn defensive loading. Further, many 9mm owners aren't satisfied with the lower performance of the smaller dia, lighter weight loadings so they opt for +P and +P+ level loading. The issue there is that they then have a 9mm Glock with more recoil snap than the 40 cal Glock (negating their 'faster followup shot' claims) while still shooting smaller, lighter bullets. 
Just sayin' 
|
| I recently had the opportunity to participate in, or at least be present for, a total of 47 G23s firing over 140,000 rounds of .40 S&W ammunition. All factory loaded HPs. There were no KBs. I don't know statistics well enough to know whether that is a statistically significant sample or not. Just throwing in my firsthand experience. |
|
Quoted:
Thanks guys. To be honest, I know I WILL own a G17 eventually, so to be simplistic I suppose a G19 would be the way to go. Same ammo, feel, G17 mags can fit into G19 (right?). I too am trying to consolidate calibers. Appreciate all the wisdom guys. James correct... even factory 33rd. Glock mags will function in both the 17 and 19. 
ETA: that is, IF they're legal in your jurisdiction. |
|
Quoted:
Further, many 9mm owners aren't satisfied with the lower performance of the smaller dia, lighter weight loadings so they opt for +P and +P+ level loading. The issue there is that they then have a 9mm Glock with more recoil snap than the 40 cal Glock (negating their 'faster followup shot' claims) while still shooting smaller, lighter bullets. i agree... a lot of people negate one of the greatest advantages of the 9m with +P and +P+ loadings. for me, 147gr. is my choice. still, i'm completely satisfied with what the 9mm brings to the table. after all, i think the most popular semi-auto pistol rounds (9mm, .40, 45) are closer in performance than many would have you believe. penetration is the single most important factor. does it penetrate a minimum of 12 inches? check. good enough for me. get what you like; get what you can afford; get what's readily available in your area; get what you're comfortable with... then get out and shoot! |
|
I've been thinking about a 22 with a grip reduction and the frame chopped to take 23 mags. I prefer to carry IWB so length is much easier to hide than height. I've owned several .40 Glocks over the years and they all worked great! Now that I reload, an aftermarket barrel would allow the use of lead reloads for practice and be easier on the brass. For carry, factory-loaded Gold Dots FTW, especially of the Double Tap variety...
|