Posted: 5/18/2010 7:22:51 PM EDT
| What are the pros and cons of the G19 and G23? I have no idea which one to decide on. I have a .40 XD subcompact but thinking that the Glock will be with me more than the springfield. Is one more reliable than the other? does the 19 have good stopping power if needed? I have no idea which one to decide on. Thanks for your help in advance! |
|
G23 Pros 40 S&W is more powerful than 9mm 40 was easier to find during the Obunghole ammo spree It's hard to find a bad choice in 40 caliber defense loads G23 Cons More recoil Less capacity 40 ammo is slightly more expensive, although JHP loads seem to be about the same Some people claim 40 caliber Glocks are less reliable than 9mm and more likely to Kb. I've been carrying a 23 for a while and am happy with it. |
|
To me, kb's don't even come to mind.
.40 caliber Glocks wear faster. Much more force is put on the locking block, locking block pin, slide rails, recoil spring, slide lock, and slide lock spring. People who work in the firearms industry, such as Todd Green and Larry Vickers, have warned of breakages with high round count weapons. Agencies have had problems with WMLs. Recoil is increased, resulting in slower follow up shots. This isn't a manliness issue, it's simply physics. http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=11788&highlight=verdict Bear in mind: Larry Vickers sees a LOT of high volume shooting. He is around shooting all the time. That is his life. If there is a problem, he will know about it. But what the hell does he know? I mean, there are a lot of guys on the internet that know a whole helluva lot more than he does. Does this mean that .40s&w Glocks suck? No. Not at all. The fact that they're everywhere attests to this. Does it, however, mean the 9mm's are more durable and reliable? Yes. The 9/40/357 guns were originally designed for 9mm. That's what I call a clue. 9mm works. Faster follow up shots are where it's at. Don't buy into the '9mm sucks' hype. That said, go with whatever you feel more comfortable with. If you shoot both side by side, chances are you'll end up choosing the Glock 19. None of this is intended to insult or injure anyone's pride. These are just some reasons why the 9mm wins me over. It doesn't mean these are absolute reasons or that .40s&w and Glocks chambered in .40s&w suck. Just some stuff to ponder, is all. |
|
Quoted:
They're both great. I'd say go G23, stay in same caliber as your other, .40. G23 is a great pistol, very versatile. Can go 9mm if you want.  (conversion barrel and 9mm extractor, like mine)
http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t100/littlemiss_014/0415100238b.jpg There is a good reason to go with the G23 that i completely neglected. As an aside: did you change out just the extractor, or the spring loaded bearing and ejector, as well? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: They're both great. I'd say go G23, stay in same caliber as your other, .40. G23 is a great pistol, very versatile. Can go 9mm if you want. (conversion barrel and 9mm extractor, like mine)http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t100/littlemiss_014/0415100238b.jpg There is a good reason to go with the G23 that i completely neglected. As an aside: did you change out just the extractor, or the spring loaded bearing and ejector, as well? Only used a Conversion barrel and 9mm extractor. Only changed the Spring Loaded Bearing, because I use a non-LCI 9mm extractor (to tell them apart easily), which requires the old Spring Loaded Bearing. Otherwise, wouldn't have changed that bearing. No change to the Ejector, remains the same, weapon operates 100% flawlessly. At least for the last 1,300 rnds of 9mm, anyway. Sorry for the hijack, OP.  |
|
you could get a 19 and pick up a g23 upper from the ee; i did but i don't carry that way!
you could get a 23 and a conversion barrel for range use also. as mentioned above, i bought into the '9 is weak' mindset for a while until i missed my long-gone g19 and bought another. i'm sure Larry Vickers and company see Lots of disaster as well as tons of rounds being fired but unless you or i get into the business he's in or buy horribly used guns, i don't think what he sees happening will impact us. i began to move away from xds after hearing lots of complaints about the lack of spare parts being available. my big buddy in the land of gar asked me how many rounds i put through my xd last year: 4-500. i guess i don't need to worry about spare parts! and i love this brand-but i'm not changing my screen name! |
|
Quoted:
you could get a 19 and pick up a g23 upper from the ee; i did but i don't carry that way! you could get a 23 and a conversion barrel for range use also. as mentioned above, i bought into the '9 is weak' mindset for a while until i missed my long-gone g19 and bought another. i'm sure Larry Vickers and company see Lots of disaster as well as tons of rounds being fired but unless you or i get into the business he's in or buy horribly used guns, i don't think what he sees happening will impact us. i began to move away from xds after hearing lots of complaints about the lack of spare parts being available. my big buddy in the land of gar asked me how many rounds i put through my xd last year: 4-500. i guess i don't need to worry about spare parts! and i love this brand-but i'm not changing my screen name! Yes, if you're not going to be putting thousands of rounds through your weapon, you shouldn't need to worry about high-round-count failures. You also shouldn't need to worry about mounting a light, because if it has a chance of making the weapon unreliable for home defense, I would simply not risk it. If you absolutely need a light, test it first. The newer mag springs and followers seem to have somewhat remedied some of the problems (from many reports). I still like the 9mm for it's lower recoil, which translates to faster follow-up shots. Not to mention slight capacity increase. I may need replacement parts, as well, as I've put 1k through my Glock 19 in a little over a month, not including the AA kit. The reduced need for extremely vigilant PMs is a plus, though PMs must still me performed on all weapons (yes, even on 9mm Glocks )
Again, go with whichever you feel more comfortable with. Meaning that you are put at ease because you use it, are proficient with it, and confident in it's (and your own) ability. |
| My first Glock was a g23 I then bought a G27 for summer carry, now I want to buy a newer G23 and have the grip cut down to a G27 so I have a longer sight radius of the G23 with the easier to conceal virtue of the G27. I like the .40 but the 9mm has came a long way when it comes to stopping power |
| My first Glock was a g23 I then bought a G27 for summer carry, now I want to buy a newer G23 and have the grip cut down to a G27 so I have a longer sight radius of the G23 with the easier to conceal virtue of the G27. I like the .40 but the 9mm has came a long way when it comes to stopping power The older glocks do not have the finger grooves but those can be fixed with a heat knife.if they do not fit your fingers . Lay a Glock down on top of a comparable sized xd and check out the size difference the xd seems like a bulky gun to me for concealed carry |
| My first Glock was a g23 I then bought a G27 for summer carry, now I want to buy a newer G23 and have the grip cut down to a G27 so I have a longer sight radius of the G23 with the easier to conceal virtue of the G27. I like the .40 but the 9mm has came a long way when it comes to stopping power The older glocks do not have the finger grooves but those can be fixed with a heat knife.if they do not fit your fingers . Lay a Glock down on top of a comparable sized xd and check out the size difference the xd seems like a bulky gun to me for concealed carry |
|
Quoted: Yes, if you're not going to be putting thousands of rounds through your weapon, you shouldn't need to worry about high-round-count failures. The failures your links discussed were a few cases of locking blocks/pins breaking at 20,000 fucking rounds.  Big deal. I always hear about the very, very few problems with .40 Glock's, but the same people never mention the metric fuckton of 22's and 23's that have no problems at all. The Glock is the first and most widely used .40 pistol on the planet for a reason. Why did you delete the other links BTW? |
|
Quoted: The 9/40/357 guns were originally designed for 9mm. That's what I call a clue. This is more internet bullshit. The modern Glock is specifically designed as a .40, look at the evolution of the frame since the GEN1 17. Redesigned locking block/third pin/steel frame reinforcement. All of these things phased out the original 9mm frames. |
|
I am aquainted w/ a customs officer who is also the head firearms trainer guy of his little group who operates out of NAS JAX. He was involved in procurement testing for 40 cal pistol. The 40 cal glocks exhibited predictable failures, not necessarily catastrophic failures, but somewhat regular stoppage issues after about 5 or 6k rounds.
Hence, they went w/ a HK pistol. Don't know if this was before or after the designe improvements mention earlier in the thread of extra pins etc. I think the IL state patrol, or maybe IN, went from glock 40 back to 9mm b/c of similar problems. |
| I don't know about the whole deal with Glock 40's being unreliable. I had a 22 and ran my fair share of rounds through it no prob. I recently sold it to buy a 19. I love Glocks and I love 9mm Glocks the best. That's just my opinion. I still have my 27 for carry but I really don't enjoy shooting 40 as much as I do 9mm. |
|
This opened my eyes a little. This is winchester's site for LE ammo, and you can compare results from different winchester rounds:
Winchester Ranger Performance Look at 9mm 147 gr vs 40 S&W: The expansion and penetration are very similar. These are the two factors which determine effectiveness for pistol ammunition. I decided that the minimal differences in terminal perfomance are not important to me. I would rather shoot the easier to control round, and hopefully be more accurate. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The 9/40/357 guns were originally designed for 9mm. That's what I call a clue. This is more internet bullshit. The modern Glock is specifically designed as a .40, look at the evolution of the frame since the GEN1 17. Redesigned locking block/third pin/steel frame reinforcement. All of these things phased out the original 9mm frames. I'm sorry, but guys like Vickers and Hackathorn, many of the guys who lodge the complaints (LEOs that see high volumes of shooting), and even large agencies who switched to other weapons (even from G22's to G17's) are going to see the main problems that are inherent in ANY weapon. When they speak, I tend to listen. These guys are not internet bullshit-ers. The majority of Glocks in any caliber do, in fact, run. But gauging issues by looking at high round counts, and the experience of those who work with the weapons in high volumes, is a perfectly valid way to ascertain an overall judgment on the weapon. The release of the 4th Gen Glock is a testament to the fact that the .40s&w generated a bit too much slide velocity, which would indeed cause these problems. If they didn't exist, why would Glock make a 4th Gen? Just for the hell of improving perfection? Does this mean that the weapons are not good to go? No. But this one thing, however small, is one thing that the 9mm Glock has over the others. Is it a life threatening, weapon-platform destroying flaw? Hell no. But it is a fault, however minor, and it is something that the 9mm Glocks are not effected by. If it makes you feel better, the M&P also has issues. It still has weak mag springs that wear out too quickly, has problems with false reset, and sometimes does not reset at all. Strikers tend to break before they should, the trigger spring breaks and is harder to get to for replacement than the Glock, and the trigger still remains sub-par in terms of reset. I wouldn't be surprised if even the M&P40 couldn't make it much past 25k-30k rounds without cracking something vital. And that was DESIGNED to be a .40s&w. Bigger rounds, even with the same pressure as a 9mm, still have more powder and cause more wear and tear than smaller rounds will. There are issues with every weapon out there. The HK P30 and HK45 seem to exhibit less issues than most, but those are the only ones I can think of that don't have some problematic apples in the bunch. Even then, the HKs aren't as widely distributed, so issues may still pop up. When I point out a problem with a weapon, I do not intend to injure pride or insult anyone. I simply state what is known about it, even if the problem is small or insignificant to the average shooter. I also said for him (the OP) to get what he felt was better and was more confident with. I don't recall why I deleted the other links. Probably because they had less relevance than the one I left, and provided unnecessary clutter. If they were relevant, I apologize for getting rid of them. Feel free to post them. I'd have to search to find them, as I didn't save them. |
|
Many wise old sages recommend that you choose the largest caliber you can shoot effectively. I just feel under gunned with a 9mm so I went with a G23 and don't regret it for a minute. Recoil? Please. The Glock frame flexes and distributes the recoil much, much better than a 1911 style pistol. The only centerfire pistol I own that starts with a '3' is a .357Mag SAA. |