Glock 23? What yall think? (in .40 S&W of course) This will mostly be used for home/office self defense.

i have the 22(full size) and it is my favorite to shoot. i imagine that the 23 is very similar.

I also have a Glock 22 for home defense.  The Glock 22 and 23 are both very nice pistols.  The Glock 22 is going to be a little more controlable, slightly (almost unnoticably) more accurate and have a higher muzzle velocity (bullet is thrown faster) due to it's longer barrel.  The Glock 23 is more compact and easier to conseal.  I'd say go down to the gun store, handle them both, see which one you like best.  If you are planning on consealed carrying it, you probably want the 23.  If not, 22 is probably your best bet.  Peace officers who use Glocks usually use the full size 22.  They aren't consealed carrying and they like the benefits of the 22.

Ok, excellent. What kind of ammo would yall recommend, I need something that will not over pentrate, but will definately take a guy down...(of coruse, .40 supposedly has very good stopping power, but not too much recoil, as I am rather recoil-sensitive. (doesnt really matter when adrenaline gets pumping, but for the thousands of rounds of practice, it will.))

THanks.

Magazine cap question:

The 23 can hold 10-12-15 correct? Do the 22 hi cap mags fit flush in the 23, or do you have to buy 23 specific hi-cap mags?

The .40S&w Glock's are the subject of all the KaBOOM's stories...


Let the flame wars begin.

A Glock 23 will accept a Glock 22's magazine, but the fit will not be flush.  A Glock 23 with standard capacity mags holds 13 rounds plus one in the chamber. The Glock .40s have had more than their fair share of ammo related kBs. It's not restricted to the forties, though.  Knowing this, I stay away from heavier bullets in the .40 Glocks.  The chamber isn't fully supported, but most of the time this is a good thing; even dirty ammo has no trouble finding the chamber (cause it has a larger entrance). If the ammo is okay, you shouldn't have to worry about a kB, but then again, factory ammo is mass produced. Even Federal has had problems with some of their FC stamped cartridges in .40. That being said, I've never had a problem with my Glock 23.

I wouldn't worry about KB!  There have been hundreds of thousands if not millions of glocks sold around the world and VERY FEW kaboom stories.  Probably 1 in 10,000.  Also, every single one of them I am aware of the person was shooting reloads.  Almost every single one of those was using 180gr.  So basically you can feel safe with any factory loads.  If you're going to reload use 165gr's and under.  That's my 2cents.

G23 is an excellent choice...as are several other handguns. The 180gr. JHP's tend to have less...yes, less...recoil than the 165gr. or 155gr. JHP loads, but none are really that difficult to control.

The majority of agencies using the .40 use the 180gr. stuff and it is doing an excellent job. Use something like the W/W SXT or CCI's Gold Dot and you will be fine.

gotta love the 23

I think it comes down to this.  Which ever one feels better to you is the one.  Controversies not withstanding, the .40 S&W is a supurb round (although I would strongly discourage ANYONE from depending on "One Shot Stops" from anyting that fits in a holster).

To me, the 22 feels better.  That's all it comes down to.  

Practically speaking, there is no real difference between the 22 and the 23 except a couple more rounds in the mag (unless you use a 22 mag in a 23).

Glock 23 is the only autopistol I shoot. I like the caliber and the weapon.

Ka-boom is possible with reloads made on brass that has been fired too many firings.  These stories hang around for a long time.  As Wyv3rn mentioned Glock 40's are in use EVERYWHERE by cops.

In regards to the .40 Glock KB issue, it's not just the unsupported chamber that's at fault. The Glock can also fire out of battery. Both of these factors together combined with the high pressure of the .40 load account for more of the Glock KB issues than many people think. I have heard of numerous Glock KB's in which ammo was not at fault, mostly from police officers who were using quality factory ammo, not reloads.

You also hear of this pretty commonly with the .357 Sig chambered Glocks, again, another high pressure load. On the other hand, the lower pressure 9mm and .45 ACP rarely cause any problems. Again, there are 3 factors involved here:

1. High pressure catridges
2. unsupported chambers
3. firing out of battery

That's why I sold my Glock 22 and bought a 17 instead. Used with proper ammo, there is honestly not that much difference in terminal performance anyway. So my advice, if you are going after a Glock, is to get the G17/19 9mm and load it up with either Winchester Ranger 147 gr, Winchester Ranger 127 gr +P+ or Speer 124 gr +P Gold Dot. It is my opinion (based on gel tests and actual shootings) that these are the 3 best loads on the market in 9mm for serious use. They will do the job.

I am not trying to knock the .40 caliber cartridge or the Glock, as I love them both. But I just don't like the two combined. If Glock addressed the KB issue I would gladly buy another G22/23. But again, my advice is to get the 9mm if you go with a Glock. I was given this advice prior to my purchase but I didn't listen. Then I ended up with a gun I wasn't fully at ease with and had to get rid of it. Don't make the same mistake I did, because the KB issue will one day get to you.

-Charging Handle

The full sized 17/22 feels better to me.
The crescent cutout on the front grip on the 19/23 ruins an otherwise good grip for my hand.
It feels sharp and like there's something missing when firing, but I can live with it.
Get a chance to "fondle" both, even though there is no real wrong choice, just one may fit your hand better than the other.

23 IS THE WAY TO GO!

I have mine, great size for accuracy and compact enough for concealed carry.

Excellent dropping power and a good capacity with high cap mags.

You go get that G23 today!

Collect them all! Buy one of each. Thats what i'm slowly doing. LOL

Charging Handle, with all due respect buddy, you've lost me.  For my own understanding, referencing the three factors you catalogued, what's different between ANY of those in a G-22 vs. a G-17?  Excepting the cartrige (we'll get to that) what' different in the construction of the two guns.

As for the the 9mm I'd seriously rethink that if I were you.  I haven't reloaded in a thousand years but if you say the chamber pressures are massively different between the 9mm and the .40 S&W (even though I don't remember that being right), I'll accept that.  

But believe me, as one who carred 9mm's extensively on the job both in hand guns and in MP-5's, 9mm's are the most unreliable, undependable round I know of.  Especially when you get into the heavier weigth bullets.  

When I carried the 9mm it was with the fastest lightest bullets I could find.  

Why I carried the 9mm was because I could hit like there was no tomorrow with it.  And if you don't hit the target, the whole stopping power debate becomes pretty much moot anyway.

It doesn't even perform reliably out of sub guns, but in handguns, forget it.  I used it anyway, but I also trained to fire at the target until I ran out of bullets or until "pieces started falling off" (or there wasn't one anymore).  That's not macho Clint Eastwood bullshit.  Anybody that depends on one shot stops, and trains for that to happen, is usng very poor judgment.  

That old "Draw the weapon, fire two rounds and holster a loaded weapon" line is archaic bullshit.  That's what gets cops killed (my big mouth is what gets me Letters of Reprimand).  Under stress you will definitely fight like you trained, I've experienced it.  If you train wrong, the bad guys will kill you (they train more than we do and they're always playing offense).

I'm not their (9mm's) biggest fan, but trust me.  It took the FBI over 15 years to find their way to the Glock-22 as an issue weapon.  There are some things the FBI does very well.  Their firearms training branch didn't flip a coin when they decided on the G-22.  Their endorsement was actually earned (which isn't usuall the case with the Federal Government).  

In fact, the shoot out in Miami in 1990 (?) contributed gretely to what ended the 9mm debate for their Agency, even though they had 9mm's issued in the field long after that.  I have a copy of (the book) their ballistic reports that contributed to their firearms transitions over the last 10 years.  

I'm not bashing your 9mm.  As I said, I carried one extensively.  But I totally trust my G-22 for one stop shots, and I NEVER even consider ANY ENCOUNTER over with a one shot anyway.  It COULD be, I just wouldn't stake my life on it.

Retired DEA Agent Frank White on the Whitness Stand (true legand):

Defense Attorney:

"Could you tell the Court, Agent White why you finally stopped shooting my client after you fired eight rounds into him?"

Agent White (back in the days when Gov't .45's were authorized for DEA):

"Because I ran out of bullets sir."

GOD, it used to be fun to do this job!
 

Yes, the G23 is a excellent weapon. My issued duty weapon is a G22, but, I carry my personal G23 when I'm going off with the family(easier to hide/doesn't print as much). As far as ammunition goes, take a look at the Winchester SXT. It comes in 165 and 180gr. Good expansion and ballistics from both.  

Quoted: Charging Handle, with all due respect buddy, you've lost me.  For my own understanding, referencing the three factors you catalogued, what's different between ANY of those in a G-22 vs. a G-17?  Excepting the cartrige (we'll get to that) what' different in the construction of the two guns.

Well, to start off with, there is no difference between guns. It's the cartridge. The 9mm is a relatively low pressure round. The .40 S&W is not. That's the difference. Therefore the Glock 17 is not subjected to the same pressures as the 22. I think that's pretty simple.

As for the the 9mm I'd seriously rethink that if I were you.  I haven't reloaded in a thousand years but if you say the chamber pressures are massively different between the 9mm and the .40 S&W (even though I don't remember that being right), I'll accept that.

They are significantly different. Enough so to make a serious difference when it comes to a routine discharge or a KB is some cases. That's why few people recommend reloading the .40 caliber. Just a minor mistake and you have problems. They are loaded hot and there isn't much room for error. The 9mm and .45 ACP while not KB immune are far more forgiving.

And just why should I reconsider the 9mm? Oh, nevermind, I see the next paragraph and will address that now.

But believe me, as one who carred 9mm's extensively on the job both in hand guns and in MP-5's, 9mm's are the most unreliable, undependable round I know of.  Especially when you get into the heavier weigth bullets.

Then obviously you had the wrong ammunition or were a very poor marksman. With the proper ammunition mentioned in my above post (Ranger and Gold Dot), police officers are having excellent results when it comes to stopping bad guys with 9mm. If they use an inferior round or can't hit their target, then yes, I would assume poor terminal performance. And regarding your heavy bullet statement, today's 147 gr Ranger is not your father's 147 gr subsonic. Big difference in fact. Unless you think a bullet that penetrates in excess of 12" and expands to .65" in diameter is a poor choice?

I also notice that you said you carried an MP5. Did you have access to an AR-15 carbine by any chance? Because when a situation calls for something better than a handgun I find a centerfire rifle/carbine much superior to a 9mm pistol or pistol caliber carbine. In fact, it's superior to the .40 or .45 as well. If you really know as much about guns and ammunition as you claim to, it would appear you would have known this. Does this mean the pistol is a bad thing? Nope. But again, it's just showing I am reasonable and unbiased toward anything. Because my 9mm Glock is adequate as a handgun does not mean my Colt 16" lightweight would not be a better choice. But it seems you are biased if someone else considers something other than what you own a better choice. Could this be the case?

When I carried the 9mm it was with the fastest lightest bullets I could find.

That probably explains your previous paragraph. Many of the lighter, faster bullets have horrible penetration. In order for the round to be effective, it must be capable of penetrating deep enough to reach something vital. Many of the lightweight, fast bullets are not. But really, it isn't bullet weight that matters. It's bullet contruction. There are properly designed 9mm bullets that range in weight from 105 gr all the way up to 147 gr. Each of these specific bullets are capable of performing the task. But that doesn't mean all other bullets of the same weight will perform in the same manner.

 

Why I carried the 9mm was because I could hit like there was no tomorrow with it.  And if you don't hit the target, the whole stopping power debate becomes pretty much moot anyway.

I thought you were arguing against my point? But it seems you are helping strengthen mine! I hadn't even yet mentioned recoil and accuracy, two other things that favor the 9mm vs. more powerful cartridges.

It doesn't even perform reliably out of sub guns, but in handguns, forget it.  I used it anyway, but I also trained to fire at the target until I ran out of bullets or until "pieces started falling off" (or there wasn't one anymore).  That's not macho Clint Eastwood bullshit.  Anybody that depends on one shot stops, and trains for that to happen, is usng very poor judgment.

What doesn't perform reliably? Be specific as you are making no sense. If you are talking about a particular type of 9mm ammo, what type are you making reference to? All 9mm ammo doesn't perform the same. I also find it interesting that you would carry such a "unreliable" and "ineffective" caliber if you had access to the wonderful .40 which you are claiming is so much better. I mean you belittle the 9mm to death, yet you chose it because you were more comfortable with it?  

And who said anything about depending on one shot stops? It wasn't me. All I suggested was that a 9mm with proper ammo can be used as effectively as the .40 caliber without the same level of KB concerns in Glock pistols. I didn't even say that the .40 was a bad round. In fact, I own a Sig-Sauer P229 chambered in .40 S&W. Yet you attack my post and treat me as if I am some sort of idiot for saying that the Glock .40's have a higher tendency to KB than Glock 9mm's? That is rather common knowledge among Glock users.  

That old "Draw the weapon, fire two rounds and holster a loaded weapon" line is archaic bullshit.  That's what gets cops killed (my big mouth is what gets me Letters of Reprimand).  Under stress you will definitely fight like you trained, I've experienced it.  If you train wrong, the bad guys will kill you (they train more than we do and they're always playing offense).

What does any of that have to do with this discussion? We are dicussing weapons and ammo, not tactics.

I'm not their (9mm's) biggest fan, but trust me.  It took the FBI over 15 years to find their way to the Glock-22 as an issue weapon.  There are some things the FBI does very well.  Their firearms training branch didn't flip a coin when they decided on the G-22.  Their endorsement was actually earned (which isn't usuall the case with the Federal Government).

I will trust you when you provide something that instills trust. So far you haven't done anything to accomplish that. In fact, some of your comments have done quite the opposite.

Would you go jump off a bridge if the FBI did so? Hey, I respect the FBI too, but I also respect other federal agencies as well when it comes to firearms. Because the FBI picked the Glock, does that mean the DEA, Secret Service, and the US Air Marshals have no clue about weaponry? I have no problem if someone chooses something based upon testing and careful consideration. But just recommending something because someone else uses it is foolish. I must test it also to make sure it suits my needs first. Besides, the issues with the Glock 22/23 had not become fully understood until recently anyway. How long has it been since the FBI approved it's use? Had this information been available back then, they might have done things a little differently.

......continued below......

In fact, the shoot out in Miami in 1990 (?) contributed gretely to what ended the 9mm debate for their Agency, even though they had 9mm's issued in the field long after that.  I have a copy of (the book) their ballistic reports that contributed to their firearms transitions over the last 10 years.

The shootout was in April 1986. However, I don't really see it as ending the 9mm debate. What it did was lead to extensive testing of ammo before approving it for duty use. The cause of the failure to stop was not the caliber. It was the ammunition selected (as well as some other things that get sort of  tactical in nature and irrelevent to this discussion). The Winchester 115 gr Silvertip is often inadequate in terms of penetration. That is the 9mm load the FBI was using that day. In fact, in this shooting, had the bullet continued forward another 1-2" (a feat that could have been achieved with better ammo), the aorta of the target would have been hit. The guy would have bled out in about 15-20 seconds and the fight would have likely been over. Instead, it continued over a period that may have been 2 minutes or so more. Much can happen in that timeframe.

Again, this shooting caused the FBI to take a look at ammo. What they came up with were standards that future duty ammo must be capable of meeting. Those standards were basically a minimum penetration of 12" in 10% ballistic gel along with robust expansion. It didn't specify that .40 is the best. It was just a test to determine which ammo types were the most capable and which were not. There are several 9mm rounds that meet FBI requirements. I happen to agree with this standard because in many cases 12" of penetration is needed to reach the deep internal blood structures and organs that will take an attacker out of the fight, regardless of the angle of the shot. There were also tests performed on various barriers as well.

Today, we have several very good 9mm loads that will meet the FBI's own standards. The Winchester 147 gr Ranger, Winchester 127 gr Ranger +P+ and the Speer Gold Dot 147 gr and 124 gr +P are just a few of the most common and popular ones. I don't know when you were using a 9mm weapon, but ammo has come a long way recently. Back in the 1980's and the first half of the 1990's, there were many crappy loads for the 9mm that didn't perform well. That much I will agree with you about. In fact, there are still many bad ones. But again, it's not the caliber, it's the ammunition to blame. That's why we must wisely choose what we carry for defensive purposes. But I can assure you, the Rangers and Gold Dots have performed extremely well in controlled gel tests as well as on the streets. And in all honesty, with quality modern ammo, there is very little actual difference in terminal performance between the 9mm, .40 caliber and the .45 ACP. Am I saying one caliber is better than another? No! I am saying that either with proper ammuntion and shot placement will get the job done. If you don't believe me, ask a ballistics expert.  

I'm not bashing your 9mm.  As I said, I carried one extensively.  But I totally trust my G-22 for one stop shots, and I NEVER even consider ANY ENCOUNTER over with a one shot anyway.  It COULD be, I just wouldn't stake my life on it.

Just as I was not bashing your .40 caliber. But for me (hey, I have a right to my opinion the same as you don't I?) feel the .40 caliber Glocks are more susceptble to KB's than their 9mm's and .45 ACP's. And I base that opinion on numerous reports from people who I would call "high-speed, low-drag" who have enough experience with these matters to know. I felt my opinion and information was very important to the topic. I am sorry that because you own a G22 that my post ticked you off. That was not my intent. As I said earlier, I use to own a G22 myself. But because I happened to have one didn't automatically make it the best weapon ever built. I wasn't biased and simply chose to trade it for a G17 because to me, it was the better gun. And again, the reasons for doing so wasn't because it was a 9mm instead of a .40 cal. It was because I felt that the G17 was less likely to blow up in my face. Yet the 9mm is still a very effective caliber and plenty adequate for self-defense.

Again, if you feel comfortable carrying your .40, then by all means do so. We all have to feel comfortable and at ease with our choices of weaponry. It is interesting that you say you feel 100% comfortable your .40 will provide one shot stops, yet you train to fire more? That sounds like a bit of a contradiction to me. But a wise one since no caliber can guarantee 100% satisfactory performance always. But this was a discussion that asked an honest question and I was just giving a reasonable answer. In the end, the orginal poster can decide for himself what information he feels is important. But I feel the info I provided is correct. If you still dispute it, IM me and I will point you toward my sources of information. I think based on who they are and what they do that they are pretty solid.

-Charging Handle

Some interesting points were raised about the Glock .40 kB issue.  The only thing that I'm going to disagree with is calling the 9mm a low pressure round.  The 9mm (~30kpsi)is not a low pressure round.  It is very similar to the .40 in terms of pressure. The .45 Auto (~20kpsi) is a low pressure round.  

Quoted: As for the the 9mm I'd seriously rethink that if I were you.  I haven't reloaded in a thousand years but if you say the chamber pressures are massively different between the 9mm and the .40 S&W (even though I don't remember that being right), I'll accept that.   But believe me, as one who carred 9mm's extensively on the job both in hand guns and in MP-5's, 9mm's are the most unreliable, undependable round I know of.  Especially when you get into the heavier weigth bullets.   When I carried the 9mm it was with the fastest lightest bullets I could find.

Well, this was part of the problem.  These lighter zip bullets (115 grain etc.) are just not good performers.  There simply isn't enough mass in the equation to do the tissue damage needed to disable an aggressor.

Why I carried the 9mm was because I could hit like there was no tomorrow with it.  And if you don't hit the target, the whole stopping power debate becomes pretty much moot anyway.

100% agree.

It doesn't even perform reliably out of sub guns, but in handguns, forget it.

Sub guns are actually MORE finicky about rounds than most semis.  You also cannot use +p or +p+ rounds in the HK systems and expect to have no problems.  This means that "light and fast" is increasingly a subgun mistake.  It also means that you are generally using "light and slower" rounds in subguns.  That's bad.  (Not to mention that even JHP rounds in handgun calibers have worse overpenetration issues indoors than .223 or 5.56- but then I have to mention that in every post no matter what the subject).  Also, it took most manufacturers a while to realize that they had to modify their hollow point nose designs to feed properly in subguns.

I used it anyway, but I also trained to fire at the target until I ran out of bullets or until "pieces started falling off" (or there wasn't one anymore).  That's not macho Clint Eastwood bullshit.  Anybody that depends on one shot stops, and trains for that to happen, is usng very poor judgment.

100% agree.  Clearly you have good experience here.  I share it.

That old "Draw the weapon, fire two rounds and holster a loaded weapon" line is archaic bullshit.  That's what gets cops killed (my big mouth is what gets me Letters of Reprimand).  Under stress you will definitely fight like you trained, I've experienced it. If you train wrong, the bad guys will kill you (they train more than we do and they're always playing offense).

Absolutely 100% correct.  This is gospel.  Everyone needs to take notes here.

I'm not their (9mm's) biggest fan, but trust me.  It took the FBI over 15 years to find their way to the Glock-22 as an issue weapon.  There are some things the FBI does very well.  Their firearms training branch didn't flip a coin when they decided on the G-22.  Their endorsement was actually earned (which isn't usuall the case with the Federal Government).

I have a ton of respect for the FBI, and particularly their firearms labs.  I was, however, surprised at this particular decision.  They have had some reported KB problems with glocks, but I have no idea if they are greater or lesser than with other weapons.

In fact, the shoot out in Miami in 1990 (?) contributed gretely to what ended the 9mm debate for their Agency, even though they had 9mm's issued in the field long after that.  I have a copy of (the book) their ballistic reports that contributed to their firearms transitions over the last 10 years.

But in the case of the Platt shootout the 9mms in use were of the "fast and light" variety from primarily S&W M459s.  In particular, 115 grain Silvertip JHPs, which are just a bad idea waiting for a gun to deliver them.  They are among the worst performing but best marketed 9mm rounds.  FBI is not at all the only LEO to have problems.  In 1989 the San Diego Sheriff's Department Tactical Unit had to shoot a man 27 times with silvertips, including many solid torso hits, before a superficial grazing shot severed his jugular vein by pure luck.

Today the best 9mm rounds (particularly 124 grain gold dot, 127 grain +p+ Ranger T, 147 grain Ranger T) are nearly indistinct from the performance of the best .40SW in gel.  The problem was only partially that the FBI was issuing 9mm at the time (since bad 9mm rounds are almost always worse than bad .40SW rounds typically) but rather that terminal performance was not a science that was paid much attention to.

What really happened after the Miami shootout was not just a blind selection of .40SW because it is "more powerful" which is a meaningless phrase, but rather the articulation of what we consider necessary terminal performace today from any projectile weapon.  At least 12" of penetration in calibrated 10% ballistic gel (with a preference for 15") and something like a .50" permanent cavity or expansion.

The problem was that at the time no one was manufacturing 9mm rounds to these standards because no one had paid attention to this stuff.

Originally, FBI adopted the 10mm based on this and dropped it in favor of the .40SW.

Take a look at this section of the AR15.com Ammo Oracle for a good primer on terminal ballistics, incapication and the FBI testing that emerged from the Miami shootout.

I'm not bashing your 9mm.  As I said, I carried one extensively.  But I totally trust my G-22 for one stop shots, and I NEVER even consider ANY ENCOUNTER over with a one shot anyway.  It COULD be, I just wouldn't stake my life on it.

Bingo.  My handgun is to fight my way to my rifle.

Good ammunition from 9mm to .40SW and even .45ACP doesn't look much different after its encounter with tissue.  Accordingly, everyone should select the round they can reliably put controlled pairs with "failure to stop" drills on target quickly and until they are out of ammo and purchase a weapon that will deliver those rounds reliably.

In my case that weapon is the H&K P7M8 and those rounds are 127 Grain Ranger SXT +p+ 9mm.

Superb handgun !! Reliability that is second to none. Extensive practice is needed to get used to the sharp recoil of the 40 S&W in a lightweight gun.

Charging_Handle, I was going to respond, but at the end it seems like you get my point.  Tatajana does.  I'm not bashing 9mm's at all.  I'm telling you how I feel about them and why.  If you want to use them, go for it - I DID!

I'd never recommend chosing a handgun over a rifle (Tatajana pickede that up instatntly) in a fight.  I'd say use whatever you need to, but know there are limitations and trade off's.

I will tell you one thing about the FBI's Ballistic Report.  I say this as one who witnessed both the assassinations of JFK and Oswald.  

And, who has also read the Warren Report.

Remember (if you even can) the climate of firearms especially in the FBI at the time period of the Miami shoot out.  If you can't remember, or weren't there, trust me - I was.

Our offices were very small and adjacent to each other in the same building at the time.  What's more, we had an incredible rapport with them (it only works in small cities).

At the time, (mid 80's) it was abundantly clear that revolvers had seen their day.  Sorry kids - That did NOT happen over night.  Agencies fought it.  Administrators fought it.  "Old timer's" fought it.  It was gradual.

AND, there wasn't a lot to choose from.  There was the .45 and the 9mm (that's how old I am - we're not counting crap like .25's and .380's).

Now the fact of the matter is, a 3" S&W Model 19/66 loaded with hot JHP's is a pretty damned effective tool.  And not that horrible to carry either.  But it's day was over.

During that time period, the FBI phased in (initially, it appeared, through their local Office SWAT Teams.  They were 9mm S&W's.  Pretty soon, some of the 10mm's started showing up.  About the same time, FBI put in a sizeable order for H&K MP-5's in 10MM and some in .40 S&W.

When things started changing it was rapid and constant.  Bullet selection, for example became a prime consideration.  Now it not only had to expand, but it had to feed.  Full sized S&W Automatics were HUGE compared to the little Chief's Special's the "old timers" had to find whenever it was time to qualify.

This sounds to ridiculous to be true, but it is.  Economically, after conceedng that the 9mm was an impotent round the FBI issued an EDICT for the S&W Model 1006 to be built.  And a bunch were (most of them are still in a vault at Quantico).

As soon as they received and started testing the 1006's they realized they had their hands on a bullet that kicked ass.  Unfortunately it was WAY too powerful for the ordinary schmuck to handle, so THAT wasn't going to work.

Whoever did that was NOT granted absolution.  So they scrapped the 1006, kept the 10mm to feed the H&K's and went back out looking for something.

When and how they got to the Glock was late 90's and I was leaving anyway.  Think of that small window.  All of a sudden from the 9mm and the .45 we went to the 10mm, the .40 S&W, the .357 Sig, - what else?  Help me.

Secret Service, ATF, Customs, Border Patrol, etc., are very different entities from the FBI.  For one thing, they never had their own T.V. Shows?  And until the Patriot Act, they were part of the Department of Treasury (excepting the Border Patrol).

That meant they were small and independent little clubs.  They paid humbridge to the FBI (Hoover requires it - even in death, it's remarkable), but they are small, their boss is a nobody (quick - whose the Secretary of the Treasury for Enforcement?) and their autonimous.  Nobody ever even hears about them.  On the news, their not "THE FBI," their just "federal agents."  

Customs (until former NYPD Police Chief was appointed Commissioner by Bill Clinton before Hilari ran for Senate) was the ONLY Treasury Agency who carried American Made Guns.  This caused a HUGE flip in the Agency.  Why wasn't everybody else buying American?  The answer was because they liked Sig's.

When the FBI wrote that Ballistics Testing Report novel, they had some "splaining to do!"  Like why they bought a shit house full of guns that most Agent's couldn't shoot.  And if they dissed the 9mm, they damned well better have come up with something better.  

So if you enjoyed THAT Report, let me suggest the Warren Commission Report for your next novel.  It's kind of like one of those books you can use to cite from to prove whatever you want.

I don't think I'd even take the position that any one bullet is automatically better than any one other bullet.  I'd have to say it would depend on the circumstances.

And with that, I'm off to law school (LOL).

Goldilocks said it best "not too big or too small - just right!" Love my 23, though i have 4 other Glocks in all sizes.

I LOVE MIne my favorite handgun

19 or 23...   appples or oranges  ...


9mm will be on most of the dead soildiers on todays battlefield.  thats why i say gl 19

Although I have to admit that there are actual glock KB stories we all have to put them in context.  Those stories that have actually happened have spread so far and wide that It sounds as if there are more occurances than there are.  For as many Glocks as there are currently the failure ratio is less than one tenth of one percent. this is one step above nonexhistant and to wine like this as if it were a real problem is like saying that john brownings design of the 1911 is absolutely worthless.  Millions of Glocks are in use worldwide and there is absolutely no reason to declare the .40S&W glocks as unsafe.  Don't slander without specifics...no opinion is worth it's weight without it.
By the way my 23 is an excellent firearm and has functioned admirably for 10000 rounds and counting; samething goes for the 27.