Glock 22 vs 23 - recoil?


PDA






goon
April 5, 2007, 10:57 PM
I just got a Glock 22 police trade in from CDNN a few months ago. One thing I noticed about the .40 is that the recoil had some snap to it. It stung my hand pretty bad so I switched to a steel guide rod and a 19lb Wolff recoil spring. That has helped but it is still enough to get your attention. I am afraid to go any heavier on the spring because it may adversely affect reliability.

The first .40 I shot was a Glock 23. It was actually pretty pleasant to shoot - not really much more snap than a 9mm and just a little more jump. This is what prompted me to try a .40 of my own in the first place. I thought that the 22, being a little bigger, would be even more controllable. Apparently I was wrong.
For those who own or have shot both, am I missing something here?
I know where there is a 23 that is comparable to what I have now right down to the night sights that I could potentially trade for. I even like the smaller size - makes it a more convenient gun to own.
Thoughts or comments?

If you enjoyed reading about "Glock 22 vs 23 - recoil?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
1KPerDay
April 5, 2007, 11:21 PM
Let's get the dumb questions out of the way:

I assume you're shooting similar ammo?

I assume the G23 wasn't a G23C (Compensated)?

The .40 has quite a bit more snap than any 9mm I've ever fired... it's a pretty powerful, high-pressure round. the 9mm is a pussycat by comparison.

goon
April 6, 2007, 12:01 AM
I was shooting an uncompensated 23 with ammo comparable to what I am shooting out of my 22.
I remember the recoil being pretty manageable. My brother shot the first half of the magazine and I shot the second half (with the gun being lighter). I didn't think the recoil was bad at all but I could tell that I was shooting something a little bigger than a 9mm.
At least it didn't seem that bad. It has been a couple years though.

Don Lu
April 6, 2007, 12:11 AM
I've shot both (own a 23) and If anything the 23 had more felt recoil using the same ammo than the 22. Maybe you can be more accurate in your comparison by using the same exact ammo in both. All .40 ammo does not feel and sound the same. For example, Hornady TAP and Pow'r ball has alot more felt recoil and noise to me than WWB. just maybe you were shooting the 20 instead of 22. I dunno.:confused:

mb419
April 6, 2007, 02:54 AM
I have both a 22 and a 27 and I can hardly tell any significant difference between the two, recoil-wise.

How high is your grip on the frame? With the larger frame of the 22, you may not be holding as high or tight as you would on the 23, thus you would feel a more pronounced tendency of the pistol to rotate, or kick back. Try really snugging your hand up tight and high on the backstrap and see if that makes any kind of a difference. Good luck.

jlh26oo
April 6, 2007, 04:42 AM
The first .40 I shot was a Glock 23. It was actually pretty pleasant to shoot - not really much more snap than a 9mm and just a little more jump. This is what prompted me to try a .40 of my own in the first place. I thought that the 22, being a little bigger, would be even more controllable. Apparently I was wrong.
For those who own or have shot both, am I missing something here?
I know where there is a 23 that is comparable to what I have now right down to the night sights that I could potentially trade for. I even like the smaller size - makes it a more convenient gun to own.
Thoughts or comments?

I completely understand where you're coming from, and I know why it was this way- for me at least, ymmv:

I've found I like how the shorter (even if lighter) vs the longer (&heavier) GLOCKS handle, because despite the recoil being greater in the lighter gun, the distance the front site moves upward at the end of a longer radius is a bigger slowdown for me in rapid shooting. This is so pronounced for me that I can give this most extreme example- my 34's (9mm) 5.3" barrel flips more (=poa back on target slower) than my 36's 3.8" barrel does... and the latter is a .45acp! No way in hell the total force is less from a 20oz .45 than that of a 9mm, but to some extent it boils down to how a given pistol responds in the individual's grip, and how they shoot/ These are always a subjective experiences.

goon
April 6, 2007, 02:20 PM
I am using a pretty high grip. My first automatic was a 1911 and that is just sort of how I learned to hold them.
Guess it is a subjective thing.
I have been thinking and I am pretty sure that the 23 I shot had the finger groove grips. I didn't think it would make a difference but maybe it does. The place where the problem seems to show itself is on the middle finger of my shooting hand. Something hits it and makes it sting. I have found that with the G20 45 ACP (?) my friend owns that the recoil isn't at all hard to handle. I think this is because of the big, fat grip and the way I get my hold on it.
Changing the spring and the guide rod did cut a lot of this out but I don't really think it was the recoil per se that is causing the problem. I think it is how the force is getting transferred to my hand. Too bad there isn't any way to know this stuff until I have already paid for something.

CountGlockula
April 6, 2007, 02:37 PM
I own the G35 and have shot the G22. I'm actually accurate with both and the recoil doesn't really bother me as long as I have a good grip on the gun; with my strong arm firmly straight. Both are with factory springs.

Both the G35 and G22 provide excellent groupings for me. For both, the ammo I've used are Winchester white boxes grains 165 and 180.

Not sure what to tell you but have a firmer grip on the gun.

tostada
April 6, 2007, 02:46 PM
I always thought the G34 had more kick than the G17, and the G17 had a little bit more kick than the G19.

I guess other people don't notice the same thing. I'm probably just crazy, but I had attributed it to the fact that the G34 has a 0.83" longer barrel (18.5% longer) and is only 0.88 oz. heavier (2.76% heavier) than the G17, so the added velocity of the barrel is more of a factor in adding recoil than the added weight is in reducing recoil.

Likewise (but to a lesser degree), the G17 has a 0.47" longer barrel (11.7% longer) and is only 1.05 oz. heavier (5.00% heavier) than the G19, so the added velocity might be more of a factor than the added weight, especially since some of the extra weight in the G17 is in the longer grip which doesn't reduce muzzle rise or recoil nearly as much as weight in the front.

And obviously the exact same comparison can be made between the G22/G23 as between the G17/G19.

Deanimator
April 6, 2007, 04:24 PM
I have been thinking and I am pretty sure that the 23 I shot had the finger groove grips. I didn't think it would make a difference but maybe it does.
I have a Glock 22, which I find hard to control with the 180gr. Blazers. I bought a Hogue Handall for the gun and that helped quite a bit, so I can imagine that the finger groove DID help you.

My experience with the Glock 22 and the Blazers influenced my recent decision to buy a Glock 19 instead of a Glock 23.

fattsgalore
April 6, 2007, 06:00 PM
Rapid fire drills. What the hell am I talking about?
Dumping(which is my technical term for pulling the trigger like a mad man till the mags empty) a magazine into the silhouettes chest with the 40 is some what of a chore.(to be honest it's not happening) I remember dumping my friends Taurus PT92 into the silhouette and most of my rounds until I got lazy peppered the bullseye, but with either the G23 or the XD40 it ain't happening I mean laying into the bullseye like I'm handling a BB gun ain't in the cards.
I'm no longer in love with the 40, it's all hype to me now.

I'll stick to 45 for big bore and 9mm for everything else. But to be honest my G23 after long mental debate(I contemplated trading it) ain't going anywhere it'll stay on my hip till I get something better and even then it'll proabbly be rotated daily.

goon
April 6, 2007, 07:35 PM
Well I made the switch today.
I had to put a little cash to it to get the 23 but I figured as much. Gun dealers are in business after all and they gave me $30 off the price of the 23 in addition to the trade so I got no complaints.
Anyhow, it turns out I was correct. The 23 does jump more but it doesn't hurt my hand like the 22 did. It is what it is.
Now I have to figure out if I can adjust night sights with a hammer and a punch...

C-grunt
April 6, 2007, 10:11 PM
from my experience the finger grooves can make a big difference. I got rid of an old 23 because I couldnt control well enough. But firing a 27 with the grooves is easier for me.

countryrebel
April 6, 2007, 11:35 PM
I had a 22 and now own a 23c.I think the 22 might have recoiled more with the longer barrel and maybe the shorter one was more controlled.

If you enjoyed reading about "Glock 22 vs 23 - recoil?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!