MINI-GLOCK...9mm. or .40 ????????


September 27, 2006, 09:54 PM
i'm really beginning to feel the need for one of these, and i've got a buyer for one of my other pistols that'll break me about even on the glock,so i may jump soon. i'd planned on the model 26 in 9mm. (lighter,less recoil) but the guy buying my other gun is trying to convince me to go .40 ( ballistically superior ) ,and as he is more experienced and knowledgable than i am, i'm kind of wavering. as always, any useful info and advice much appreciated.......m.r.

If you enjoyed reading about "MINI-GLOCK...9mm. or .40 ????????" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
September 27, 2006, 10:07 PM
Well, what are your other auto pistols chambered in? Would the lower cost of 9mm ammo be a factor for you? Does choosing one caliber or the other fit in ammo compatibility wise with your other autos? Do you have a larger Glock in either caliber for magazine compatability? Glock also did a great job on the dual recoil spring assembly which makes the G27 (40 cal) quite controllable. I personally wouldn't feel undergunned with either caliber using good defensive JHP ammo as both a proven defensive rounds. Consider those factors toward your decision.

September 27, 2006, 10:08 PM
cheaper, easier to control and just as lethal in +P+ configuration. Good practice ammo in 9mm is around $6 bucks a box! Just my opinion...

September 27, 2006, 10:40 PM
thanks guys, that was quick ! my other autos are .40, 9x19, and .22. yes, i already have a glock 17, so if i understand corrctly, i could stick one of those mags in a model 26 if necessary, another small plus,no doubt. ammo cost (40 vs 9,not a huge difference really ) isn't much of a factor, but i do have a pretty large stash of georgia arms 9 mil ball rounds for general blasting, but i wouldn't expect to do a lot of shooting with a tiny glock, it would be a car/carry piece ( got my toters licence ). i had been carrying ( when i bothered) a walther P-22 (oh,stop laughing) so even the much maligned niner is a substantial upgrade. please, keep it coming......:confused:

September 27, 2006, 10:53 PM
I've owned all the baby Glocks. 26, 27 and 33. Imho, the 26 is the best of the three for accuracy, controllability and cost of ammo. Not to mention being just plain fun to shoot.
The 27 is a snappy little dude and the 33, well, 357 Sig in a pocket sized gun is like having the proverbial tiger by the tail. Currently, I have just the 26 and no desire to get another 27 or 33.

September 27, 2006, 10:58 PM
Personally, the only reason I would buy a compact Glock would be for carry. For carry, I wouldn't trust a 9mm. I should rephrase that... it's not that I wouldn't trust it to do the job, eventually it would... I'm just of the big and slow camp.

I would get the Glock 27 if made to choose. You're not losing much in controllability, at least in my experience. I'd take 165gr gold dots over +P9mm... especially if you plan on shooting that plasticy thing often. You already have the G17 for plinking/fun.

It seems everyone has at least one glock... and three opinions... pay attention at the range or check the rental counter.. I bet you could shoot them both before you buy.

September 27, 2006, 11:13 PM
I suggest the 9mm, if you go with the .40 though...why not go ahead and get the glock 29 10mm? Just a suggestion from a G29 owner.

September 27, 2006, 11:46 PM
I love my G26, its flawless, easy to shoot, and best of all, takes 33rd factory magazines....

September 27, 2006, 11:55 PM
Out of your choices, I'd go for the 9mm Glock 26. Like you said you have a Glock 17 and the magazines would be compatible.

Or you could step up to the Glock 29 or 30, but they are considerably bigger.


September 28, 2006, 12:19 AM
Unlike my RAMI, the G26 always felt like it was going to fly outta many hands.
I can imagine that a .40 would be worse. Unless you want a G for deep carry or an ankle holster.. A G29 would be my pick..larger frame to hold onto.

If not a CZ, then a Glock will do:)

September 28, 2006, 01:03 AM
If you want the 26, get the 26! ;) Being so small, the added snap from the 27 might not be what you're looking for....get & enjoy the 26 :D

September 28, 2006, 09:30 AM
Whichever sub-compact that you get, you may want to consider replacing the mag floorplates with this product:

For most people, the grip on the sub-compacts is improved with some type of pinky support.

Off topic: Why is the little finger called a "pinky"?

Doug S
September 28, 2006, 10:04 AM
In casting my vote for the G26, I'm going to go out of a limb here and say, that I think the G26 is more reliable than the G27. The difference might be small, but I think that if you do your research, you will find that at least a few G27 owners have had issues with reliability. This seems especially true when using Hi(full) cap magazines. In contrast, reliability issues with the G26 are few and far between. I'm also speaking from experience, Ive owned both. Although my G27 was almost 100% reliable, it had a few malfunctions. Most all were with the G22 magazines (even with Wolfe + power springs installed). This may also be related to bullet design. The 40 is usually flat and stubby, whereas I think the rounded 9mm feeds more reliably. I liked my G26 so much, that I traded in the G27 on a second G26. My G26 handles G17 and G18 mags without an issue. It is also nicer to shoot with self-defense ammo.

Cousin Mike
September 28, 2006, 10:23 AM
I've never met a .40 or a .357SIG that I couldn't handle. I won't even comment on the inability to handle 9mm from a G26. Someone needs a hand exerciser. :neener:

I'm also heavily considering a G27 just because I like the platform and the .40S&W round is starting to grow on me. For clarity, I'm a recovering Glock-hater. ;) I had the opportunity to fire a G27 this weekend, and while it was a snappy little bugger, it was beyond controllable. That tiny little Glock handled .40 S&W just as well as my SIG Pro does. It's also about half the size of my current carry gun (the SIG Pro). The only downside is the 2 rounds I have to give up to get it in such a small package.

The .40 is, IMHO, a superior round to the 9mm . There's a show called "First 48" - a homicide investigation show that comes on A&E - since I started watching it, I've seen more bullet wounds than I care to... The .40 leaves devastating wounds - we're talking the size of a quarter. The after-effect on humans is some pretty nasty stuff.

The 9mm will do it's job just fine, but I feel comfortable with something a little bigger with a little more 'oomph' for personal defense. However if 9mm is the way you want to go, my only advice would be to buy the best personal-defense ammo possible. The G27 is the friendliest platform I've shot .40S&W from so far, and nothing to be scared of IMHO.

September 28, 2006, 10:35 AM
I've had a 27 for about 10 years. It shoots fine. I recently purchased a 26, two weeks later I sold the 27. The 26 is a real shooter. IMO bullet placement is more important when aurguing these calibers than diameter.

September 28, 2006, 11:58 AM
for cheapest shooting, most bang for your buck, i think you should go with 9mm, but since it will probally be a carry gun which is what I am assuming, i would go with .40 cal all the way. but .40 is my favorite caliber, and i am striving to keep as many handguns in the same caliber as possible. just my way of thinking!

Dollar An Hour
September 28, 2006, 12:05 PM
The 27 is noticeably more of a handful.

The 9mm 26 posesses a seldom found balance of handling and firepower - very shootable. Many folks are turned off by the 27 if they've tried both, and 9mm Glocks are the best of the breed.

If you can handle a 27 and would like the power of .40 then it'll serve you well, but you may be able to get more shots on target, in less time with the 9mm. ;)

September 28, 2006, 12:27 PM
Has anyone fired 147 gr JHP through their G-26?

September 28, 2006, 12:58 PM
Once I became a Glock armorer, I decided I should probably own a Glock at some point.

After having spent many years shooting different Glocks, I decided the only Glock that really interested me ... considering I was only interested in getting one for occasional off-duty usage ... was the G26. I decided if I was only going to own one, it was going to be a G26.

I bought a G26 and was very pleased with it.

As things would go, I later came across an excellent deal on a slightly used G27, and since I owned a 4013TSW & SW99 chambered in .40 S&W, and was issued a .40 S&W pistol, I thought I'd go ahead and pick it up.

I've fired at least 5,000 rounds through both my G26 & G27.

If I had to make the same choice again ... only planning to own ONE Glock ... I'd still pick the G26. Other folks might easily choose a larger Glock, but I only wanted a smaller one for my working off-duty collection, and the smaller one suited my personal needs better.

My G27 has been a fine little pistol, and I do own 3 other pistols chambered in .40 S&W, as well as carry an issued compact chambered in .40 S&W (not a Glock) ... but if I had to again choose between the G26 & G27, I wouldn't hesitate to choose the G26 all over again.

My G27 has experienced a small number of functioning issues ... I'd estimate less than a dozen over the course of the 5,000-odd rounds I've fired through it. While a couple can be directly related to ammunition problems, and perhaps a couple to my failing to provide sufficient grip/wrist support during some different shooting drills and situations, I have experienced some other feeding failures using both standard 9-rd magazines, and a couple of factory +2 LE magazines. I've observed a couple of other guys experience repeated feeding issues when using G23 magazines in their G27's, and I personally won't use extended magazines intended for other models in my G27, since I carry it as an off-duty weapon.

I do still carry my G27 occasionally. Like I said, it's a fine little pistol ... accurate, compact for the caliber, and while it's a subjective opinion, reasonably controllable from the perspective of being a small, lightweight .40 S&W pistol. I've fired a Kahr MK40 which I felt exhibited more felt recoil and muzzle rise/snap, even though it's a steel-framed pistol and heavier. It's even a bit milder recoiling than my new 4040PD.

I just happen to prefer the G26.

I've fired various ammunition through my G26 ... 115gr JHP & FMJ, 115gr JHP +P+, 124gr +P, 127gr +P+ & 147gr JHP, just off the top of my head. It's fed and functioned fine with all of them, although the lower recoil impulse of the standard pressure 115gr loads seemed to exhibit the occasional tendency for an empty case to come back toward my face. Well, lower recoil force and slide velocity can cause such things, sometimes. The last round of 147gr in a magazine can occasionally do the same thing, when there's no round under the empty case being extracted to hold it high during extraction, as the ejector kicks the case out. The higher pressure loads seem to eject the empty cases with more authority, which makes sense if faster slide velocities help with ejection patterns. Of course, the use of higher pressure ammunition can also present other service-related issues, such as potentially reducing magazine & recoil spring service life, and perhaps some other accelerated wear considerations.

Everything's a compromise ... ;)

I have no desire to get rid of my G27. Like I said, nice little pistol. I tend to like my 4013TSW a bit more, and my full-size SW99 chambered in .40 S&W is a bit better when it comes to felt recoil and controllability. I'm still working with my new 4040PD compact. Excellent little pistol, but it has some noticeably increased felt recoil compared to my similarly sized 3913.;)

You likely really need to shoot a couple boxes of ammunition through examples of both pistols before making a decision, since recoil & controllability can be pretty subjective issues for different folks.

September 28, 2006, 01:07 PM
Do I own a G27? Yes, my opinion is buy the G27. Why? If you buy a 357 Sig barrel you have two handguns; if you also buy a 9mm barrel and magazines you have three handguns. If I eliminate the versatility of the G27 I would go with the G26. Why? 9mm ammo is cheaper and I am not convinced a 40 S&W is that much better than a 9mm with good loads. Regards, Richard :D

September 28, 2006, 01:23 PM
I have a 26, and have shot a 27. 26 is, IMHO, more controllable and back on target quicker. The 27 wasn't unpleasant, but the 26 was simply easier to shoot well and longer. As noted, ammo is cheap and plentiful, which facilitates more practice and greater proficiency.

As a point of interest.. when I bought my 26, I had exactly the same experience. The gun store owner emphatically recommended the 27 due to its greater knock down power. He went on to describe the 9mm as underpowered, and inadequate for self defense. Several minutes later, as we were chatting about other unrelated issues, he showed me a beautiful Inglis Hi-Power that had come in on a trade. He described it as "...the best combination of engineering and ballistics ever issued to a military".

I guess soldiers have no need for adequate self-defense. One has to wonder.

September 28, 2006, 02:15 PM
Personally, I'm packing a .40 S&W XD subcompact these days. However, both the mini's Glocks in either the 9 mm, or the .40 S&W would be good selections. I would shoot them both and determine which one you can control the best. Everyone in this tread has made some good points about the ammo costs related to the 9 mm .vs. the .40 S&W. Most public indoor firing ranges will let you shoot difference handguns to determine which one you like the best.

I can tell you from my own the experience firing the .40 S&W it's has a little more recoil than the 9 mm but like mentioned earlier it's controlable and it would certainly meet your self defense needs. I guess it's become a personal perference thing on your part to make the final choice.


September 28, 2006, 02:24 PM
My advice: Go to a range. Rent a G27 and a G26. Shoot both, then decide.
I shoot the 9mm Glocks much better than I do the .40's, so I chose 9mm. If I shot .40 nearly as well, I'd go with it for the added power. Since I don't, its 9mm for me.

September 28, 2006, 03:44 PM
Let's not turn this into another 9mm vs. 40S&W caliber debate, but in my view the only real benefit to a .40S&W Glock over a 9mm Glock is 1) if you MUST shoot ball ammo, then pick the bigger caliber, and 2) if you already own .40S&Ws then it's beneficial to buy only one caliber. Otherwise, they feel the same to hold and the 9mm will recoil less (and hold an extra round or two if my memory serves me right), the ammo is slightly cheaper and you have a few more types of ammo available. Buy some good 9mm hollows and they'll expand plenty :cool: But there are absolutely zero serious downsides to one over the other... unless you're overseas and need to score .40S&W ammo, then you're screwed.

I have owned one G26 and two G27s and honeslty, I preferred the G26, but you win with either one. If one is cheaper than another, go with the cheaper one. And as always, try to shoot both beforehand if you can, but the .40S&W does jump noticabely more. Neither one are, in my experience, "hard" to handle. Both are primo defense weapons but I was never fond of either of them for just plinking at the range.


September 28, 2006, 04:00 PM
well,damn !! thanks guys, that's what i call a wealth of informative responses !! i knew i came to the right place.
now i'm leaning even more heavily toward the 9 mil. this afternoon i went to the other local shop i do buisness with and played with a 26 for a few minutes. they've got it going for $499, $40 cheaper than the other guys, and i can probably get him to come off a couple more bucks.
thanks again, one and all.....m.r.

P.S. thanks for that link "dglockster" , i'll definately get a couple of those new mag plates.

September 28, 2006, 04:02 PM
Buy the G-27 and then get a after market 9mm conversion barrel and a Glock 9mm mag. You now have 2-guns in 1. Carry G-27 barrel when you need the more powerful 40 S&W round. Switch to the 9mm conversion barrel when you want to go to range and shoot cheaper 9mm rounds. If you buy a G-26 you can not convert it into 40 S&W. Something to think about.

September 28, 2006, 08:28 PM
I would go with the Glock 26. If you decide to carry your Glock 17 you can carry the Glock as backup gun. You also can carry the 17 round magazines as reloars as well.

I personally believe that Glocks are best in 9mm.

If I had to get a gun I would look at the HK P2000sk. I think it is a fine gun and cannot but sing its praises.

September 29, 2006, 01:05 AM
It was said that a Glock 26 cannot be convered to .40 but a Glock 27 can be converted to 9mm?

My understanding is that the 9mms and .40s are completely interchangable with new barrels and mags. Is this not true? I'd almost bet the farm you can...


September 29, 2006, 01:18 AM
I've never fired the G26, so I can't directly compare, but I can tell you that I wholeheartedly love my Glock 27. I have never, ever had any malfunctions of any kind. I agree that it is snappy, but you when you fire that thing you can feel that it is kicking out some serious stopping power.

I was also debating between the G26 and G27, and I discussed it with my narcotic agent pal. He talked up the virtues of .40 over 9mm, but that's not an issue for this thread. The one advantage that I think is clear of the G26 is that it can hold one more round, but as my narc friend said, if you can't neutralize a threat in 9 shots, you probably can't in 10 shots either.

Getting a floorplate grip extender for a mag is a good idea, I have one for one of my mags. I have gotten quite used to the short grip, however, and have come to almost prefer it. Choosing between the 2 guns is a tough decision, I went with the 27, and I'm very happy with it. I don't think you can really go wrong with either.

the naked prophet
September 29, 2006, 01:37 PM
I absolutely cannot handle the .40 in the Glock 27. Just too much for me. And I like PGO shotguns, in 12 gauge. The 9mm is quite pleasant. With the DoubleTap 9mm+P it's not exactly underpowered.

September 29, 2006, 01:43 PM
I have rented and shot Glock 40's before but I always purchased 9mm. I currently own a 19 and a 26. Both great handguns for CCW.

September 29, 2006, 05:29 PM
I just bought the SF_XD_9mm. But before I did, I was really interested in the Glock 26. So I went to my local shooters club and I asked if I could try the Glock 26 and the Spring Field XD sub-compact. They did not have the XD sub but they did have the compact which is a 4inch. So I took the Glock 26 and the SF compact and test fired them. Both Guns are great but at 12 yards the Spring Field XD 9mm was awesome. I placed 9 shots with the XD in circumference of a hand spread. Now the Glock did real well but not that close (for me any way).

September 29, 2006, 07:52 PM
I own both the G26 and G33 and I have to say that the G26 is a pussycat compared to shooting the G33. Also, a big +1 on the GAP finger rest extensions from

September 29, 2006, 08:24 PM

You cant interchange the barrels of a G26 and a G27. The barrel for the G26 is a little bit smaller. However if you bought an aftermarket 9mm barrel for the G27 it will be a little thicker than a stock G26 barrel. Everything else is pretty much interchangeable.

The Lone Haranguer
September 30, 2006, 10:31 AM
I got a used G27 (.40) a couple of months ago because it was a smoking deal (used but in excellent condition for $299). I like the gun but -- as I feared initially -- not the caliber in that small gun. I'm thinking of trading it in on a 26 ... for which I will wind up spending at least as much as if I had bought the 26 in the first place. ;)

September 30, 2006, 11:12 AM
.40 ( ballistically superior )

Not by enough to spit at. I'd take the 9mm G26 over the .40 for control, added capacity, mag interchangability with the 17, accuracy, and cost of ammo. The 9mm is not the pip squeak the .45 guys make it out to be. I don't see 'em lining up to get in a gun fight with a good shooter armed with a G17, do you? The "plastic" comments should tell you where such folks are coming from, worshippers of JMB, the god of the firearm.:rolleyes: It's fine to have a 1911 fetish, but I swear it clouds their minds and forces 'em to give up logical thinking in persuit of the justification of carrying a 40+ ounce antique. If you're looking at carrying a G26/27, its obvious you are a little more progressive in you thinking. Logically the 9 +P or +P+ is about as effective as the .40 or any other self defense caliber, especially in a shorter barrel. Logically the 9 is cheaper to shoot. Logically the 9 carries a round or two more in the magazine. Logically the G26 (according to some comments here, I don't know) is a little more accurate. Logically you can shoot a 9mm subcompact a lot quicker and with less snap and recovery than a .40. You do the math.

September 30, 2006, 04:48 PM
"Lone Haranguer" why sell the Glock 27 and spend hundreds to buy a Glock 26? Just go to and buy one of the Lone wolf brand Glock 27 9mm conversion barrels($89.00) and a G-26 mag ($20.00) and now you have 2-guns for about $120.00.

September 30, 2006, 05:19 PM
I don't see 'em lining up to get in a gun fight with a good shooter armed with a G17, do you? DUHHH!
I don't see them lining up to get in gun fights with folks armed with .22 shorts either, do you? That proves what?

An old design that works as well as a new one is not an antique. There are plenty of modern designs in the same size and weight range as a 1911. Some people choose larger guns to suite their needs. Peoples needs vary, and so do their firearm choices and preferences.

If you enjoyed reading about "MINI-GLOCK...9mm. or .40 ????????" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!