Firearm BS thread

On the the Glock 23. Don't do it. Stay away from high pressure rounds, .40 cal, 45Gap, 357 Sig., go with 9mm, or .45ACP. Go with a 26, or a 30s. Any Glock questions you may have , send them my way.

 

Not a fan of having to unscrew it to take it down. Which is why I'm not looking at Buckmarks.

 

Why is that??? Why do you recommend avoiding the .40? I'm planning on picking up a 27 in the am.

 

Multiple reasons. First and foremost not a fan of the high pressure rounds. People can argue the fact all they want. Follow up shots are more difficult. Cost of the round itself is greater. High pressure rounds will decrease the life of parts. Lots of police departments use them so a lot of people think the .40 is the way to go. Just not a superior round.

 

I like the 40 in a gun that was designed for it. The sigs that I have used in 40 all handled nicely. The 40 glocks may or may not blow more often, but I wouldn't want to take the chance.

 

I don't really know what that means? The .40 was developed by Smith and Wesson in coordination with the FBI to cover their asses after FBI agents were killed carrying 9mm pistols in the late 80's. They basically developed the .40 which in essence is a short 9mm. I've shot a lit of SIG .40s. I just don't think that the amount of recoil in relation to the terminal ballistics justifies itself. With today's modern ammunition, all the rounds are pretty much even across the board. Shot placement is where it's at.

 

My thinking would be that if you do decide to go .40, go with a Glock 22. Just something to think about. Good luck, no matter what you decide, Glock is to guns what Toyota is to trucks. The Best!!!

 

What I mean is I'm not a fan of putting a 40 in a lightweight 9, changing the spring, and having at it. Much the same as I prefer a full size pistol in a 45. Shootability is more than just the cartridge. A cartridge that has a faster recoil velocity needs a different weight and grip than one with slower/less recoil. You make a gun too light and too small and even the 9 is hard to control. Your complaint is about recoil. Recoil is different based on design of the pistol as much as the cartridge, as well as the shooters ability.

As far as avoiding glocks in 40, there is just too much circumstantial evidence to say they may blow up more than other glocks. May or may not be true, but I don't intend to find out.

 

Copy that. I understand what your saying. That's why I followed up with the suggestion to go with a 22 and not a 27. Which in my opinion, and it's just " my opinion" was designed more to handle the .40, being full size. No matter what is said, again, just in my opinion, the amount of recoil produced by the "modern" .40 round, in any gun, just doesn't seem to justify itself. For all that pressure coming back to you, you just don't get that much of an increase on what is being put out in front of you.

 

My G23 has been flawless for 10 years. Plus I love being able to run other barrels for other caliber options

Hopefully Kimber revolvers perform better than their 1911s. In for hate replies...

 

Many of those failures were direct results of reloading gone bad...

 

What happens when you inbreed Rugers...


+



=

 

No, the .40 was developed after the FBI decided that 10 mm was too much recoil. .40 is a short 10mm

 

I definitely want one. Beats taking down my mark 3 22/45.

 

Ugly Kimber

 

Yes. Ruger sp101s are a beauty.

 

It was some years back but I think it was ADCO that threaded a MkIII and profiled the bull barrel with the rear collar angle, so an Ops Inc 5.56 suppressor could be used.

 

Only Glock I've had firsthand experience with a kaboom, and not due to reloads, was a .357 Sig.

 

FTFY

edit: And then I saw the comment correctly referring to the 10mm. Oops.