[David]

Maybe I'm missing something.

I was just looking through the Glock catalog and I noticed that although the Glock 27 and 33 have a possible mag capacity of 11 rounds (i.e. with LEO mag), the non-LEO mag is limited to just 9 nine rounds.

Why not 10 rounds?

:uhoh: :what: :scrutiny:

Thanks...

[forcefed]

The standard compact mag can only hold 9 rounds of .40 auto. 11 can be had with a pearce +2 extension, legal to only LEOs

[forcefed]

sorry, hit reply to soon.

You can add a +1 extension to your G27 to make it 10, but not to your other postban mags.

[Handy]

David,

All Glock .40s are afterthoughts built on 9mm platforms. The G26 mag holds 10 rounds. The 27 uses the same frame and baseplate, so it only holds 9.

But I see your point, because they did extend the mag on the Glock 30 so it holds what the 29 does.

[Tamara]

"Afterthought" is an odd choice of words when one of the then-new .40 S&W's biggest selling points (heck, one of its design criteria) was that it could be chambered in existing 9mm frames.

Incidentally,I've often wondered why Glock includes two ten-rounders with the G30, then sells the 9-rounders as an aftermarket item, when more normal practice (USPc's, f'rinstance) seems to be to include one "flush-fit" and one "pinkie-rest" mag.

[Handy]

That is not a selling point. That is an ease of manufacturing cost saver.

The "selling point" was that the overall size of the weapon and grip are the same as 9mm. I don't think the public is necessarily pleased that the maker saved money on designing a gun for a new powerful cartridge by using the parts from a less powerful gun.

And, in the end, the guns weren't all merely rechambered (but the frames may be reused). Browning and Sig made a ton of changes to accomodate the round. HK started with the .40, and went down to 9mm, not up. And where did all the Ruger 91s go?

Glock just machined a sloppier chamber and cut the feed ramp deeper. As a result, the Glock .40s aren't nearly as accurate as their 9mm counterparts, and also OCCASIONALLY blow up.

Selling point?:uhoh:

[Tamara]

I meant mostly as a selling point to the manufacturers (if they don't buy into the cartridge and chamber guns for it, not many people will wind up using it). The idea that they could launch a new double-stack medium-bore pistol with minimal or few changes to an existing product, was appealingly cost-effective, unlike the earlier 10mm, which would have required most companies to design a whole new gun for it (a la the G20).

And yes, it was a selling point to the general public, too. This was before the mag ban, when folks wanted capacity. The only way to get a double-stack 10mm or .45 was with a monster horse-pistol like the G20/21 or the MegaStar, so when folks suddenly had the option of snagging a double-stack gun with a caliber that started with "4", yet was no larger in the grip than a 9mm, it was a big selling point.

HK started with the .40

Of course they did; the cartridge was already extant when they designed the gun.

[Handy]

Of course they did; the cartridge was already extant when they designed the gun.

Oh, just like Walther!


Tamara, afterthought is an excellent description of the minimal reverse engineering some companies did to get a .40 on the market quickly. It bit most companies in the butt, and seems to still be biting Glock, but everyone likes to pretend it doesn't.

The most accurate .40 pistols are the ones built with the cartridge in mind, rather than just opening the breech and dropping a new barrel in. The 229 was a very early .40, yet is a complete departure from previous 22X guns, because they did it right. Not as an afterthought.