Glock 26 or 27?

Been looking for a smaller carry weapon as mentioned in a thread in a separate section. I've narrowed it down to the Glock 26 or 27. Obviously basically the same weapon just different caliber. I've talked to several people about it, some (like my mom who has considerably more experience than me with handguns) recommend the 9mm, while others (also with considerably more experience than me just not named Mom lol) recommend the 40. I really like the feel of the weapons and I think I'd be very comfortable carrying them on a regular basis. Small enough to easily conceal but big enough that I'd be able to handle it effectively w/o it trying to jump out of my hands. I've leaned towards the .40 as I would then only have to buy one type of ammo (already have a S&W Sigma in .40) but it's not a dealbreaker either. I've tried not to be terribly biased against 9mm as I know civilian rounds are much better than the military rounds I'm not too fond of. I'm sure I'll probably get differing opinions on here as well but as long as those opinions give out plenty of info that'll work for me. Thanks in advance.

Other than your Mom's advice, what make would make you want the 9mm over the .40?

From a features standpoint, the 26 offers one round extra in the magazine than the 27. But is it worth much? From what I was told during my CHL class, most civilian self-defense shootings are over in just a few shots, so the one extra round in the 26 may not be worth much. But then again, there are plenty of people who will take as many rounds as they can.

As for the "stopping power" of the 9mm vs. .40, you should really take some time to read over the material and research that's been done. You'll likely find that "stopping power" is basically a myth. And there is a lot more to the question of effectiveness of a given caliber than the caliber itself: bullet design, loading (i.e. +P, +P+), etc, come into play.

Personally, I carry a 9mm Glock and am comfortable with both the pistol and the round. And my wife may possibly be looking at getting a Glock 26 after she gets her CHL later this year as she wants a pistol and round that she can comfortably handle.

Good luck to you in your search.

Go with model 26... shot placement trumps "stopping power"... trigger time on the range, of course, is what will get you there... out of the box my Glock 26 will throw 4 out of 5 rounds into a 3 inch group at 50 feet ... that's 8 hits from 1 magazine of 9mm into a target smaller than your average bad guy's heart at a distance far greater than most handgun defense situations... you'll live to tell about it...

I've read a lot on the myth of "stopping power". There's really not a whole lot to pick one way or another with. I'm trying not to be biased agains 9mm and keeping an open mind either way (I've had some not so good experiences with military 9mm rounds not being as effective as they could be) since I know available civilian rounds are much better. I'm a fairly decent pistol shot as I typically shoot expert on military ranges with targets from 15 to 25 meters. Good enough with both rifle and pistol at close and long range that I've spent time as a military instructor for everything short of snipers. It sounds like it's more or less going to come down to personal preference between the two though. I just didn't want to automatically pick the .40 just because I don't like the military 9mm round and then wonder later if I should have chosen the 9

I have both 9mm and .40 calibers in larger Glocks, but my only sub-compact Glock is a 9mm G26.

Good shot placement should be a high priority with any handgun, but it is especially critical with smaller/shorter guns that have less velocity for the bullet to work with, a short sight radius, and possibly other features that make them more difficult to shoot well. The tie-breaker here is ammo cost. You can buy 9mm ammo for 25 to 50 percent less than .40 ammo, and that translates to a lot more practice time for the same expenditure; more bang(s)-for-the-buck, you might say. The lighter recoil impulse and extra shot in the magazine are nice bonuses for the 9mm, but the less expensive practice costs are what will keep your shooting skills high and improve your survival possibilities in a bad situation -- IF you actually seize this advantage and make the most of it.

Go with the G27. With a conversion 40 to 9mm barrel for $100 and a 9mm mag you can have 2 guns.
You can't do the same with a 26.

either would be a good choice but it's up to you. i would go with the 27 if you already have a .40 so you wouldn't have to buy 9mm and .40 rounds. i have the 26 and it is very easy to conceal in a t-shirt and shorts.

are you set on the 26 or 27? I own a 27 but prefer my M&P 40 compact to the 27.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsmith15

are you set on the 26 or 27? I own a 27 but prefer my M&P 40 compact to the 27.

---

So newbie here! I am having the same dilemma! I would like to hear your thoughts on the 27 vs. M&P 40C. The M&P feels a little better in my hand, but love my 23 and the glock performance.

If you're happy with your G23s performance, then I'd stick with the same family of weapons. You can also use your G23 13-shot mags as spares for the G27; they will hang-out a bit, but will work just fine.

Most similar-action modern weapon systems simply don't have enough quantifiable differences between them to justify crossing to a new platform just because you like the way it sits in your hand. Whatever you MIGHT gain in the area of subjective "feel", you'll probably lose more in areas like different trigger control, pointability, possible minor differences in control placement slowing down your reloading, etc.

If you want to get REALLY GOOD with your weapons, I'd suggest sticking with one system almost exclusively.
If "pretty good" is good enough, then mix-N-match to your heart's desire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Packer Backer

So newbie here! I am having the same dilemma! I would like to hear your thoughts on the 27 vs. M&P 40C. The M&P feels a little better in my hand, but love my 23 and the glock performance.

---

I have shot another 27 besides mine. Mine is still NIB, but the M&Pc feels SO comfortable in my hand, and has accuracy compared to a fullsize model. The 27 feels a little wider than M&Pc.

I am actually going to sell my NIB 27 OD green.

I had the same delama but what salved it was cos the lager boring of the out side of the barel you can buy converson barels to meke the 27 a 9mm and a 357sig. Just swap the barel in and a mag of the same calber

Just go to rockyourglock.com
Glockstore.com
Glockmister.com
Thers a bunch of upgrades at all 3 websights

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Packer Backer

So newbie here! I am having the same dilemma! I would like to hear your thoughts on the 27 vs. M&P 40C. The M&P feels a little better in my hand, but love my 23 and the glock performance.

---

ME, ME, ME...pick ME!!!

Having shot the Glock 26, Glock 27, M&P 9mmc, M&P .40c. The M&Ps are alot better ergonomically, even my friends that are die hard glocks love the feel of the M&Ps. Even though some people say the trigger is "gritty" on the M&P you really don't notice it and I think it feels a ton better than the Glock triggers. For me I can easily shoot the M&P 9mm and .40. With the Glock I really liked the G26, shot good, felt pretty good. The G27 was sort of a let down. I could definitely feel the more snappier round in the G27 than I could in the M&P .40c. I think it is because of the grip angle and the way the glock feels.

The Huge benefit you have picking up a G27 is the ability to use the G23 mags for it. From personal experien ce just with the Glocks get the G26. It might mean you having to buy 9mm and .40, but I honestly feel you would be happier with the G26. If, however, you want to keep .40s jus tot buy one type of round. Go with the M&P .40c.