Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/13/2002 1:05:35 PM EDT
The only pistol I own is a .22 and have recently decided to buy a 9 mm Glock - just haven't decided on the 17, 19, 34, etc. Any advice?
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 1:09:25 PM EDT
I like my 19.
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 1:13:22 PM EDT
What will you be using it for? Target, Carry, Home Protection?
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 1:17:14 PM EDT
Use is for target (non competitive), protection.
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 1:23:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/13/2002 1:26:35 PM EDT by Minuteman419]
I've owned a 17 and liked it along with its high capacity.
When I had it I wanted the size of the 19, good chice Dig-Dug.
The 34 is for mostly target/competition I think.
Personally I would go with the 19, as all are 10 shot unless you have $$$$. The 19 is what I would choose, because it can be concealed and is idiot proof. Not intended to offend anyone, if you pull the trigger and it's one in the pipe... BOOM! Theyre tough too. I have three, a 20, a 29 and a 33. Best of luck with whatever you go with. MM419

www.glockmeister.com/
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 5:03:16 PM EDT
I vote 34. My all time favorite is the 35, but you want a 9mm. Best trigger out of the box, extended slide lever (easier to thumb UP to lock the slide back), higer velocities, longer sight radius. G17 mags (which th 34 takes) are more plentiful and cheaper than the G19 mags in standard configuration.
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 5:04:32 PM EDT
34
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 5:37:17 PM EDT
I currently have a 17,19,27,34 & 35. As well as an Advantage Arms .22 LR converion. I strongly suggest a 17 as your first Glock unless you plan on carrying it concealed, then go for the 19.
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 6:16:22 PM EDT
I purchased a new Glock 34 a couple of months back. The pistol has adjustable sites, is very balanced and is incredibly accurate. It's maybe $80-$100 more expensive than a Glock 17 and you couldn't hardly go wrong with either gun. I grew frustrated with my various Ruger and 1911 model automatics than didn't have adjustable sites so this, combined with great accuracy, was something I was looking for in a pistol.

I've also got a .40 caliber Glock 23 that I use for concealed carry and defense purposes. That gun is also very accurate, balanced and fun to shoot.

Both of my Glocks consume Wolf ammunition flawlessly, in case you are looking for some cheap plinking ammunition. Not sure if I would trust my life on it, probably wouldn't, and you do sacrifice a bit of consistency and accuracy, but it is cheap, fun ammo.
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 6:28:41 PM EDT
I have a Glock 26...10 rounds is plenty and the concealment option is awesome. Accuracy is great, internal laser to boot.
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 6:40:43 PM EDT
After being a owner of a Glock 30 for sometime, I traded in my Beretta 92fs friday for a glock 17. Got tired of lugging that heavy sucker around. Both Glocks shoot great, I perfer the 17 over the 19, fits my hand better. Could not go wrong with either one. The 30 is a real shooter!!!
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 9:09:49 PM EDT
I like my G19, but I really like the G36 for a concealed weapon.

Jamie
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 9:54:24 PM EDT
I have owned a G26 G19 G17 G34 G21

I started with the G19 and still have it. I sold my G26 carry my G17 and sometimes my G21 and never use my G34. I still live my heavily customized G19 and will never part with it, but I shoot better with my G17. I bought mag extensions for all of my G19 mags because I liked the feel of a full grip then I bought my G17 and never looked back. The G26 was just too small for my hands and it wasn’t very controllable with +P+ ammo for quick follow up shots.

I bought my G34 to scope it. I scoped it and found that I shoot better without a scope.

My G34 has less than 100rds through it with a cool scope mount from Glockmeister and a nice 2X6 power 3200 Elite Bushnell scope and I will likely sell it at the next Cross Roads of the West gun show.

Any offers?

I would recommend the G17 with NY trigger and night sights for defense and the G34 for competition.

THISISME
Link Posted: 10/14/2002 5:33:50 AM EDT
Part of me wants to get an M6 Streamlight for the rail of a Glock....that'd be a nice set up there!
Link Posted: 10/14/2002 9:55:29 AM EDT
Get a 26 and a 17
Link Posted: 10/14/2002 11:28:27 AM EDT
THANK YOU ALL!!

First blush, based on your feedback - I'll probably start with the 17 vs. the 26 - I have large hands plus concealment is not a present need.

Now, do I go to a Gander Mountain or Galyans or a local gun shop (like the Gun Stop in Excelsior MN)? I've got my permit to purchase, just where do you recommend I buy?

Thanks!

Link Posted: 10/17/2002 9:16:47 AM EDT
The Compact Glocks (G19/G23/G32) are the most versatile, for range, carry, and home defense. I would never want to be without a G19. My most favorite handgun in the world.
Link Posted: 10/25/2002 11:26:38 PM EDT
I Carry all three of my glocks at different times, G17, G23, G34. Even the 34 is not outrageous to carry in normal everyday attire. I will say any of these guns gain weight quickly when you add the Hi-Cap mags.

I jog with my 23 and a 10 + 1 config, just because of the weight difference of those last 3 rounds.

Lastly I don't think you can go wrong with a glock. You aim and pull the trigger they fire everytime.

Link Posted: 10/26/2002 5:01:23 AM EDT
My Glock 17 was bought before "combat tupperware" was cool. Heck, even before they put grooves on the backstrap of the plastic handle. It has seen tens of thousands of rounds go through it without any problems whatsoever. If you don't need to carry concealed, go for the 17.
Link Posted: 10/26/2002 5:28:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Minuteman419:
What will you be using it for? Target, Carry, Home Protection?



Just want to give Minuteman a virtual pat on the back for asking the appropriate question.

I assume that you've compared the G19 with the USP Compact and the Sig P239, and maybe the Walther, and have decided on the Glock? I'll support the thoughts of those who feel that the 19 is the best first choice, but will also suggest that you research the purchase of a used G19. Tough pistols, and if you're on a tight budget, you'll find a bargain if you've got the time to look around for Police trade-in handguns. They may appear to be worn, but the tough Tennifer finish is still on the slide. Accessorize with night sights only (or spring for a couple o' hi-caps), and find a solid holster that covers the trigger. Practice. Get your permit if you're going to carry. (Man, does that sound preachy?) Be safe.

Link Posted: 10/26/2002 5:39:04 AM EDT
Easy one.........buy a Ruger and save some money!
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 6:57:00 AM EDT
I prefer my .40 cal glocks to my 9mm Glock, but the sizes are the same. I find that the mid size Glock (19) is the best for my application. It is large enough for Range Shooting while small enough to carry, even concealed. The full Size (17) is a bit bulky, and can hinger some grip styles. The ultra compact, I have found, is actually easier to handle, but only the application of a grip extension. But with the ultra compact you also sacrifice campacity; if you are willing to pay for HiCaps. The 34 is Glock's competetion model, designed more to be built for range shooting than carrying or protection.
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 7:04:13 AM EDT
I would also recommend you explore the advatanges of .40 to 9mm before you commit to a glock. The .40 has more take down power and less likely hood of overpenetration. And unless you pay for the Hi-Cap Mags you still only get 10 rounds (unless you decide on the unltra compact, but even then you can increase to 10 with an extension). The only downside is paying an extra $2 or 3 for ammo. So what you need to ask yourself is how much do you really plan on going to the range?
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 7:19:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/28/2002 7:43:13 AM EDT by Lumpy196]

Originally Posted By DallmannTodd:
I would also recommend you explore the advatanges of .40 to 9mm before you commit to a glock. The .40 has more take down power and >> less likely hood of overpenetration.<<



um....ok.

average penetration of 135-180gr .40S&W in 10% geletan = 9.8 - 15 inches

average penetration of 115-124gr 9mm in 10% geletan = 8.0 - 14.5 inches

pretty similar
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 7:26:18 AM EDT
Well, for most people, target shooting and concealed carry handguns have two entirely different selection criteria. If you're big enough that you can conceal a full sized handgun in comfort, then the job is made a little easier in that you can then use one gun for both jobs. But for the average person, the Glock 17 is good for target shooting or OPEN carry, but is a bit large for concealed carry.

You say you have large hands and don't need to carry concealed yet...so get one of the larger frame Glocks. I have medium-large hands (I'm 6 feet tall, about 200 pounds) and the compact size Glocks are marginal for me. The 'baby Glocks', like the 26, are almost useless to me.

I've got to say that while I have a 17 and have become quite happy with it as a casual target pistol, it took me a while to adjust to its different 'feel' as compared to conventional guns. It's VERY sensitive to shooting technique.
I also just DON'T trust 9mm as a defensive caliber, not unless you're delivering whole flocks of them at once!

You're probably big enough that you will find yourself preferring something bigger than 9mm, like a .40, 10mm, or .45.

I just recently (in the past week) got to borrow a relative's Glock 21 (.45 ACP, full size) and I am tremendously impressed with it. I shot the tightest groups with that gun that I've ever shot with a handgun larger than .22 caliber. I love my 1911 and always will, but there IS a place in my gun safe that will have a Glock 21 in it at some point in the near future.

For me, given that I'm big enough to conceal most any handgun, I'd buy the 21 or the slimmer 36.

CJ

Link Posted: 10/28/2002 9:48:13 AM EDT
To Lumpy:

Geletain is one thing, operational use another. Part of my job is aircraft anti-hijacking, and I know airlines prefer .40 hollow point to 9mm for the sole purpose of less overpenetration. In an airplane a bullet going through a target will hit something it shouldn't, either the skin of the aircraft or another passenger.

I think anyone with a wife, kids, pets or valuables wouldn't want to risk overpenetration of an assailant in the home, either.

Link Posted: 10/28/2002 10:18:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/28/2002 10:32:36 AM EDT by Lumpy196]

Originally Posted By DallmannTodd:
To Lumpy:

Geletain is one thing, operational use another. Part of my job is aircraft anti-hijacking, and I know airlines prefer .40 hollow point to 9mm for the sole purpose of less overpenetration. In an airplane a bullet going through a target will hit something it shouldn't, either the skin of the aircraft or another passenger.

I think anyone with a wife, kids, pets or valuables wouldn't want to risk overpenetration of an assailant in the home, either.




The airlines have armed employees? Do they do ammo testing and then make recommendations to the Federal Sky Marshals? I was under the impressed they were ISSUED their gun and ammo by the Federal agency that oversees them. So a 155 to 180 grain bullet at nearly the same velocity (lets assume std police loads: 147gr 9mm at 950fps and 180gr .40S&W at 950fps)penetrates LESS plastic,steel and seat foam than a 115 to 147 grain bullet when they are .045" apart in diameter?

Sorry everyone, changed the course of this thread. Im done.
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 10:25:23 AM EDT
I love my G27...w/a plus one add a round.
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 10:33:10 AM EDT
get a .40 and pay the extra 20.00 and support your local gunshop!
Link Posted: 10/28/2002 11:05:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:


The airlines have armed employees? Do they do ammo testing and then make recommendations to the Federal Sky Marshals? I was under the impressed they were ISSUED their gun and ammo by the Federal agency that oversees them. So a 155 to 180 grain bullet at nearly the same velocity (lets assume std police loads: 147gr 9mm at 950fps and 180gr .40S&W at 950fps)penetrates LESS plastic,steel and seat foam than a 115 to 147 grain bullet when they are .045" apart in diameter?

Sorry everyone, changed the course of this thread. Im done.



Lumpy:

You are overlooking the fact that hollow points EXPAND, increasing their diameter, and making them penetrate less. And although a 9mm hollow point will expand as well, it does not expand as much as a .40 cal. Besides the weight, size, and velocity of a bullet, look at the shape. 9mm is pointed whereas the .40 is flattened. Anyone who has ever tried to cut a steak with a dull knife knows that I am saying!

And since you mentioned it, you are right. Besides Airlines, Law Enforcement also prefers the .40 cal for the same reasons: more take down, less over penetration. Law enforcement officers are highly liable for anything their rounds strike, even after passing through a perp.


I am not mocking the 9mm, it has it applications, although I dont like having to carry it on duty and I prefer carrying my Glock 23 off duty. But my personal preference does has no bearing on the actual operational ballistics of the respective calibers.


Link Posted: 10/28/2002 4:54:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DallmannTodd:
Lumpy:

You are overlooking the fact that hollow points EXPAND, increasing their diameter, and making them penetrate less. And although a 9mm hollow point will expand as well, it does not expand as much as a .40 cal. Besides the weight, size, and velocity of a bullet, look at the shape. 9mm is pointed whereas the .40 is flattened. Anyone who has ever tried to cut a steak with a dull knife knows that I am saying!

And since you mentioned it, you are right. Besides Airlines, Law Enforcement also prefers the .40 cal for the same reasons: more take down, less over penetration. Law enforcement officers are highly liable for anything their rounds strike, even after passing through a perp.

I am not mocking the 9mm, it has it applications, although I dont like having to carry it on duty and I prefer carrying my Glock 23 off duty. But my personal preference does has no bearing on the actual operational ballistics of the respective calibers.



Mock away on the 9mm. It's not my choice in calibers either. The point is hollow points DONT expand into a mushroom-shape in hard material. The usually deform to a degree, but more often the hollow point remains perfectly intact or collapses to a degree. And there is no way a heavier bullet at a similar velocity penetrates LESS. I stated previously that the 9mm and the .40 have similar penetration in geletin designed to simulate flesh. Then you mentioned the materials a plane is made out of as the explanation. Now we're back to flesh again. Which is it? And hollow points, whether they are .40 or 9mm dont cut flesh like a knife. They may part it or rip it, but there isnt a "cutting" action per se, so the steak knife analogy hardly works.
Link Posted: 10/29/2002 4:21:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:



Mock away on the 9mm. It's not my choice in calibers either. The point is hollow points DONT expand into a mushroom-shape in hard material. The usually deform to a degree, but more often the hollow point remains perfectly intact or collapses to a degree. And there is no way a heavier bullet at a similar velocity penetrates LESS. I stated previously that the 9mm and the .40 have similar penetration in geletin designed to simulate flesh. Then you mentioned the materials a plane is made out of as the explanation. Now we're back to flesh again. Which is it? And hollow points, whether they are .40 or 9mm dont cut flesh like a knife. They may part it or rip it, but there isnt a "cutting" action per se, so the steak knife analogy hardly works.

Careful, Lumpy, you are beginnning you to show your ignorance. Heavier bullets do penetrate less. If you need another example to compliment the 9mm/.40 controversy then take the time to find out why ploice sharp shooters use the heavier .308 over .223 in hostage situations.

Also, this Geletain you are so fond of was designed to match the consistancy of Pig Fat, not human muscule, which is more dense. and lets not forget about the presence of even denser entities such as bone and cartilage, which offer a higher level of resistance.

And I only mentioned the hull of the plane to demostrate that, if after passing through a hijacker, the bullet can have disasterous results. It is the body of the hijacker that causes the bullet to msuhroom, not the skin of the aircraft. Skin of an aircraft is thinner than a quarter, the average person could break through with a rock hammer. A bullet, mushroomed or not, will easily cut through there.

As for my steak knife analogy, if you honestly believe that the shape of a bullet, devoid of weight or velocity has no effect on penetration, That a pointed bullet will not enter anything (even gelatin) any more than a flattened or mushroomed bullet, than maybe you should reconsider posting again, pending further ballistic education.
Link Posted: 10/29/2002 4:55:32 AM EDT
.308 penetrates less than .223....Oooookay.

You're 100% right. I give.

I'm headed back out to my planet now.

It's been real.
Link Posted: 10/29/2002 5:49:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DallmannTodd:

And I only mentioned the hull of the plane to demostrate that, if after passing through a hijacker, the bullet can have disasterous results. It is the body of the hijacker that causes the bullet to msuhroom, not the skin of the aircraft. Skin of an aircraft is thinner than a quarter, the average person could break through with a rock hammer. A bullet, mushroomed or not, will easily cut through there.





I think I should point out that you are overstating the dangers involved with penetrating the skin of an aircraft with a bullet.

In actuality, a bullet hole in the skin of an aircraft is not a big deal. It's probably going to be a source of some noise but there is practically ZERO chance of a mere bullet hole causing a catastrophic failure or explosive decompression event. In terms of relative pressure levels, it's quite comparable to a hole in a muffler. Not much more than an annoyance,
and one that can be dealt with with a piece of cardboard and some duct tape...or even a good sized wad of chewing gum!

If something larger, like a window, were to be blown out, then yes, that would be a big enough hole to cause a real explosive decompression event but even in that case, the aircraft is not likely to suffer structural damage. Generally it would take a bomb to cause structural damage, not a mere bullet hole.

The greatest danger that a bullet presents to a modern aircraft is that it might damage critical electrical wiring, control cables, or hydraulic lines. And most of those systems have redundant backups anyway, at least in airliners, so in actual practice the danger of a plane being dropped out of the sky by a single bullet is VERY minimal.

Bullet-induced structural failure to an aircraft is one of the worst myths you'll encounter, as long as you're not talking about aerial warfare.

Back in 1988, an Aloha Airlines Boeing 737 experienced a metal fatigue-related failure that caused almost 20 feet of the plane's roof to completely separate from the plane while in flight. One stewardess was ejected and died, but the plane landed safely despite the damage and no passengers were killed though some received injuries from flying debris.

A bullet hole in an airplane is trivial for
the most part.

CJ

Link Posted: 10/29/2002 6:06:29 AM EDT
Johnson,

I was going to mention this, but I've already taxed myself testing his superior knowledge.

Dont bother backing it up with anymore fact.
Top Top