Glock 30 as a feasible combat sidearm?


PDA






HMMurdock
March 27, 2007, 04:03 PM
I currently own the new Glock 21SF. Great piece of machinery, although I'll admit I liked the original Glock 21 just fine. Anyway, in my time I have owned two Glock 30 compact .45s. I have found both to be nearly if not just as accurate as the Glock 21s.

I have a personal taste for smaller firearms (compacts) and am debating the feasibility of using a Glock 30 as a combat sidearm instead or in addition to the Glock 21. Not merely as backup, but as a primary sidearm (as primary as any handgun gets to your rifle).

I intend to take some tactical pistol courses with Tactical Response and the like, and I am curious what my fellow gun-lovers think about one using a compact Glock 30 in lieu of a full sized Glock .45? Does anyone have any experience with this?

I am currently employed as a Fugitive Recovery Agent, although I'll admit I aspire to move into the private security sector, be it overseas contractor work or domestic personal protection. Does anyone see any particular benefits or negatives of the Glock 30?

One part of me think if I perform fine with it, what's it matter? Another part notes that there is a reason why the full size Glock is so popular in these roles over the G30. Fellow High Roaders, please chime in with your two cents...

And please no suggestions as to other brands or calibers. Yes, Hk USPs and Glock 9's are fine. I'm soley interested in Glock .45's for the purposes of this post.

If you enjoyed reading about "Glock 30 as a feasible combat sidearm?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
longeyes
March 27, 2007, 06:30 PM
I own a Glock 30, not a Glock 21. My G30, with nightsights, is my primary home sidearm. I've had no malfs in about 2500 rounds. Accuracy is excellent.

You tell me: what can the heavier and less conceable G21 do that the G30 cannot? The G30 can even use the G21 mags. I can accept the fact that the G21 may be--may be--marginally more accurate, but we're talking about a backup weapon here, aren't we?

CZ.22
March 27, 2007, 07:13 PM
I really don't know about your job, but as a Fugitive Recovery Agent you might be facing harsh conditions in places like the South wher you would not be able to conceal a big gun like the G21. If the pistol floats your boat, it'll work. However. 10+1 rounds of .45 ACP JHP is nothing to sneeze at.

Ringer
March 27, 2007, 08:55 PM
I have pondered this myself recently. My concern is with velocity lost with the (aprox 1") shorter barrel.

Curious to hear what others have to say as well.

denfoote
March 27, 2007, 08:58 PM
Nothing wrong with the G30!!

CountGlockula
March 27, 2007, 09:25 PM
And please no suggestions as to other brands or calibers. Yes, Hk USPs and Glock 9's are fine. I'm soley interested in Glock .45's for the purposes of this post.

I think you'll feel much better with a Glock 39 in .45GAP. Since it's a ".45".

Geronimo45
March 27, 2007, 09:49 PM
A full-sized gun is more popular in positions where you can open carry. An undercover cop will probably carry a smaller (dimensionally speaking) weapon than the average cop in a patrol car. Somebody who can open carry - security folk on the homeland side, pretty sure contractors, too - no need to have a smaller handgun for concealment issues.
Long handguns give you a bigger gripping surface, longer sight radius, a tad more velocity, lesser recoil (more weight generally means less recoil). Easier to learn to shoot better for a beginner.
Don't see a thing wrong with a smaller gun in the same caliber. If you're a good shot with it, go with it.

CZF
March 27, 2007, 11:43 PM
The G30 should not take a backseat to a G21 or any Glock model. Compact and superbly accurate for a Glock. They are also soft shooting for a .45 acp!

HMMurdock
March 28, 2007, 11:03 PM
You guys have been great. Even though I posed the question, I voted for the G30 being a viable combat sidearm. I think of it as being to .45's what the G19 is to 9mm... It'll just fit some hands better. For me, namely, the palm swell fits my hand perfectly which aligns me to a natural point right off the back. And who can argue with 10rd mags with the options of 13rd-ers, if though a bit uncomfortable.

Anyway, that's my two cents. I still own the G21SF and I love it. It's just rare to read literature on the G30 in a role other than an alternative back-up sidearm.

Thanks again, and feel free to continue to agree or disagree! I enjoy the input!

psyopspec
March 29, 2007, 11:36 AM
I intend to take some tactical pistol courses with Tactical Response and the like, and I am curious what my fellow gun-lovers think about one using a compact Glock 30 in lieu of a full sized Glock .45?

This and your later mention about popularity seem to have too much influence. If it fits your hand and it's accurate for you, who cares about what other people think or how popular the gun is?

HMMurdock
March 29, 2007, 12:00 PM
Very true, I am just afraid I'd get out in the midst of training and realize something I hadn't thought of before (lack of gripping surface to pull it from a holster, accuracy after sustained fire). But you're entirely correct, if I can stomp @$$ with it then why not?

Lonestar.45
March 29, 2007, 12:03 PM
If you are open carrying, then there is no reason to go to the G30. Less capacity, shorter barrel. Why handicap yourself if you don't have to. If the G21 fits your hand and you can open carry, then that's what I'd carry. If your situation calls for concealment, then the G30 is a no brainer.

ChristopherG
March 29, 2007, 12:50 PM
Does anyone see any particular benefits or negatives of the Glock 30?

Mainly reduced sight radius and increased recoil. But you already know that.

The only real way to determine which is a better choice for you is to run timed, pressure-situation trials in which you shoot identical target arrays/scenarios with both guns, and stack up your accuracy and times in an objective comparison. On average, for most people, the longer & heavier gun would no doubt win in this comparison.

I'm not trying to dis you here, and I don't know your level of experience, so please don't feel insulted; but lots of people think a smaller gun 'feels' better in their hands--but when it comes to objective measures of shooting, weight and sight radius make a difference.

My dept. carries .40 caliber Glocks, and most officers choose the 22, because it feels good. I choose the 35, though I like the feel of the 22 better, and the 35 pokes and prods me in the side sometimes; and I shoot a little better than the 22's with it. In a situation where shooting really matters, I want every advantage I can get, and sight radius is an advantage.

mljdeckard
March 29, 2007, 12:54 PM
Not only am I with Lonestar, I'll go one better.

I cringe when I hear people complain about concealability. Comfort is relative. Use the gun that fits the mission. If you take a guy who isn't used to carrying at all, and have him put a sub-compact Glock in the ankle or waistband, he will obviously know it's there, and wouldn't call it comfortable. If you take a kid with Freudian leanings who has been drooling all over the idea of carrying his whole life, you could hang a Desert Eagle under his left arm, and he would swear he doesn't feel it at all. I am 5-10, 165 lbs. I get annoyed every time I read in a gun magazine that I shouldn't be carrying a full-size 1911 concealed. I carried a Para-Ord P-12, and there was no discernible difference in comfort. Just a shorter sight radius and less weight to dampen recoil.

Now as far as combat is concerned, it depends on how broadly you define combat. If it is actual war, law enforcement, or personal defense, or all of the above. Carrying a gun to war, it doesn't need to be concealed. (Mine is on a drop-down thigh holster.) And yes, while it is backup, remember that if you are ever in a position where you actually have to use it, your rifle and all support are either unavailable, inappropriate, or inoperative. This is the time when you must have every possible advantage, because everything else has failed. (Which of course, is why our soldiers carry 115 gr fmj in their 9mms.) :barf:

GunNut
March 29, 2007, 03:36 PM
For combat i'll take the full size gun any day over a smaller CCW type weapon.

If i'm running and gunning I want something that I can get a grip on and not be afraid of dropping accidentally.

The G30 is a great gun, but does not fit my hand as well as my G21.

Steve

shark3-1
March 29, 2007, 04:49 PM
I have owned a G21,30, and 36. I sold the 30.

I think the G30 is too wide to carry concealed, unless you are built like Jabba the Hut. If I'm not carrying concealed, why go with the shorter barrel and shorter grip?

I think that the G21 is a great open carry gun and the G36 is a great CCW gun. The G30 to me is a red-headed stepchild.

If you want a do-all, get a 23 or 19, my preference is the 19.


If you like it because the grip fits you better, why not make the 21 fit you better?

G21 and 36:
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m182/shark31/guns025.jpg

Greg8098
March 30, 2007, 07:48 AM
I'm totally comfortable with my G30. Very accurate, powerful, and easy to control. There isn't as much velocity loss as some may believe. After all, the .45's bullet is pretty large so it holds most of its momentum anyway.

Lobotomy Boy
March 30, 2007, 05:55 PM
I'd trust either over almost any handgun on the market today. I own a 21 and have shot several 30s, and I find I shoot the borrowed 30s as well as my 21 despite its smaller size. Since I already have a 21, I see no reason to buy a 30. (I use a 26 for concealed carry.)

In an open carry, SHTF situation, I wouldn't choose either; I'd take my Kel-Tec PLR-16. I can shoot that gun as accurately at 30-plus yards (even with the crappy open sights) than I can shoot any other handgun I own at 15 yards. I plan to mount a red-dot sight, which should make the gun even more accurate. That is the only handgun I'd grab in any sort of emergency where I wasn't worried about carrying openly.

Seven For Sure
March 30, 2007, 07:53 PM
I shoot my 29 better than my 20. I'd get the 30 and use the 21SF loaded with 230 gr. FMJ's for a truck gun. I'd also carry that 30 with the 9 rd. mag and the pearce +0 grip extensions made for the 29. Sweet setup.

sb350hp
March 30, 2007, 08:04 PM
Why not! They will let the serive men carry the beretta. Glocks gotta be better.

Talking with a 20yr old Marine going back to Iraq in the LGS last week. Cannot stand his issue sidearm. Cool thing was his dad was putting on order (will be waiting for him when he gets home in 12mo) a new Kimber (TLE i think).

Washington has a 7 day cool off period so he does not get to handle it before he ships out again.

Was pretty cool to talk with the kid though. Dad was taking it kinda hard. 2nd tour for his son..

TomN
March 30, 2007, 10:59 PM
I've always loved the 30... however, I would take the G21 if the poo hit the ventilator. I just like the larger sized pistols if I don't need to conceal them.

But as a combat sidearm the G30 would work just fine, and better than most.

Geno
March 30, 2007, 11:08 PM
The old G21 was too large for most people's hands. I haven't seen the new G21. Re: the G30, more rounds is never a negative. Re: the comment about the GAP, I still can't get my mind wrapped around the .45 GAP. Just me.

lesjones
March 30, 2007, 11:28 PM
I'd pick the Glock 30 over the 21. It shoots better for me. That bull barrel soaks up the recoil nicely, and concealability comes in handy a lot of times.

The 30 is my favorite Glock by far.

If you enjoyed reading about "Glock 30 as a feasible combat sidearm?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!