Glock 26 or S&W Revolver?


PDA






hometheaterman
February 10, 2010, 01:15 AM
So I've been researching pistols for a while now and thought I had narrowed it down to the G26. However, now I'm wondering if a revolver wouldn't be better. I really like the S&W 38 specials. It seems like with a revolver you don't have to worry about them jamming and it's nothing really to break. They only hold a few shots less at the same time since the G26 only holds 10 shots. Which is the better choice here? Which would be the pro's and cons of each?

If you enjoyed reading about "Glock 26 or S&W Revolver?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
cyclopsshooter
February 10, 2010, 01:19 AM
i will just say, stainless and .357 mag-

BMF500
February 10, 2010, 01:34 AM
Not a Glock fan but I do love S&W snubbies! Cyclops is right go .357, you can always run the .38's through it if you want.

Doug S
February 10, 2010, 01:35 AM
I like the G26 and S&W 642 for CCW

Pros of G26

1. Small size
2. adequate caliber
3. reliable
4. durable
5. firepower and quick reloads with even more firepower if you go with G17 mag reloads
6. easy recoil
7. easier to learn to shoot accurately
8. good sights
9. durable finish, rust resistant

Cons
1. is a bit wide

Pros of 642

1. small size
2. adequate caliber
3. reliable
4. durable
5. lightweight
6. better for pocket carry

Cons
1. less rounds
2. caliber less effectiveout of short 2in barrel
3. more recoil
4. harder to shoot accurately
5. doubt that it would handle the high round counts that a Glock does without an issue
7. finish less durable

My recommendation is go for the revolver for pocket carry, but for all other purposes the G26 is the better choice.

Oro
February 10, 2010, 02:26 AM
The older style "true" J-frame S&W's are smaller than the current .357 variants. And even in an all steel model, .357 is just not practical in that size gun. I like the all steel "classic" j-frames in 2" for cc - like the 36/60 or the bodyguard and centennial styles. Easy to carry, plenty of punch with .38 +p, and very easy to control and shoot accurately with just a little practice.

So I say, S&W 60, stainless, .38 Special. All you need and nothing you don't.

hicksdm
February 10, 2010, 06:46 AM
I carry a 442 everyday and love it. Tried the Glock and it was not for me.

joed
February 10, 2010, 06:46 AM
I have both and it depends on the use. For CCW, GLOCK 26 hands down. The 9mm is cheap to shoot compared to most other calibers too which means you'll shoot it more.

But I still like revolvers and own more of them then autos.

Jim PHL
February 10, 2010, 10:56 AM
Between your 2 choices, I think the G26 is equal or better for everything except pocket carry. I own and occasionally pocket carry a lightweight j-frame. When I belt-carry it's a 9mm auto, but not a Glock.

The Glock is a pretty good choice actually, as an all-around "only" handgun. Accurate and fun enough for the range; simple, basic manual of arms, and powerful enough and plenty of rounds as a carry gun or home/auto defense gun.

The j-frames, especially the non-lightweight, all-steel versions, pretty much meet all the same criteria. I think the lightweights are less pleasant/less fun to shoot a lot if it is to be a range gun. The all-steel versions are not unpleasant to shoot, especially with target loads and with practice can be shot as accurately as the G26 (or anything else for that matter).

Again, for me, a j-frame wins for pocket carry. (When I say pocket-carry, I specifically mean front pants pockets.) They just 'fit' better - even the steel ones are not too heavy for dropping into your pocket for a quick trip somewhere. (The airweights can be pocket-carried all day.)

Either/both are good choices. You just need to examine what you're going to be using it for.

W.E.G.
February 10, 2010, 11:12 AM
http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd7/rkba2da/pistol%20pics/G26-M60-P32comparisonhorizontal.jpg

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd7/rkba2da/pistol%20pics/Glock-G26SWM60.jpg

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

13 shots

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd7/rkba2da/pistol%20pics/Glock/G26withammoandpennies.jpg

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd7/rkba2da/pistol%20pics/Glock/kool_aidGlock.jpg

Onmilo
February 10, 2010, 11:34 AM
Do you intend to wildly fire five rounds from your pocket or are you going to draw the weapon and use it properly?

If the answer is yes to number two, do yourself a favor and step up to the modern era, Even two ten shot magazines full of +P 9mms and a G26 beats a five shot J frame and a couple speed strips for any number of reasons every time.

Make it two 12 shot magazines and one in the chamber and you have the modern equvilent to the Henry rifle of Civil War fame!

Fiv3r
February 10, 2010, 11:38 AM
For pocket carry, I really like my 36. Plenty of oomph at point blank with JHP .38 special. Slips nicely into a jacket and is very much a point and click interface:D

I carry a small Glock as my EDC. Mine's a G36 (heh, never thought about both my EDC guns being a "36" until now:neener:). Unless it's holstered, I never carry a Glock cocked. That means, no Mexican carry, no pocket carry, no point and shoot. The Glock rides in a nice thin pancake holster at about 11 o'clock (i'm a lefty). I might experiment with one of those trigger block things or something to make it more non-holster friendly, but until then if it's pocket carry the S&W gets the nod.

S&Wfan
February 10, 2010, 01:17 PM
I trust my life to a J frame as my always gun.

It isn't how many rounds you spray around . . . for you will be held legally responsible for each and every one of them. I'd rather send less rounds out the tube, and make darn sure they are going to hit where I aim. Years of competitions have honed my movements and rapid shooting skills

I'm not a cop, so I do NOT have to immediately engage in a situation out in the mean world unless I choose. Not wearing a cop's "shoot me first" uniform, I just look like any cowering sheep until the right moment comes.

I get to pick when and how if it ever comes down to it, and this is a huge tactical difference!

However, if one wishes to tote 45 extra rounds around in extra magazines for a Block, more power to ya. Odds are so slim that any of us will even fire a round in self defense anyway.

hometheaterman
February 10, 2010, 02:26 PM
Thanks guys I had my mind pretty much made up on a G26 I thought until I started wondering about revolvers. After reading this thread I think the G26 is more what I want.

The huge advantage to me for the G26 is that I'd like to shoot it at the range a decent amount. Well, not a lot by the means of most guys on here but 100 or 200 rounds every couple months. I noticed 9mm is a lot cheaper than any others.

possum
February 10, 2010, 03:07 PM
i am a fan of the glocks (prefer teh xd's more however that is not the question here. ) i own a model 23. however i am not a fan of the mini glocks. if it was your one and only carry gun i would say go with the 26 for capacity. if this was gonna be a back up gun to one that you already carry i would say go with a wheel gun. I carry an xd or 23 depending on when and where etc, the s&w 442 will be my bug.

MCgunner
February 10, 2010, 05:29 PM
I'd pick a 642 over a G26 any day. The 9x19 and the firepower are better, but the 642 melts away in a pocket. I will not pocket carry a Glock, nope, no way, no how. Only way I'd do it is condition 3. The 642 is safe to pocket in a flimsy pocket holster, not a problem.

W.E.G.
February 10, 2010, 05:37 PM
I don't feel UNDER-equipped with a revolver I shoot well.

I feel BETTER-equipped with a semi-auto with more rounds on board.

Its all good.
Train with your equipment.

Develop your confidence and skills.

ByAnyMeans
February 10, 2010, 07:04 PM
I am not much of a revolver fan so my choice is a Glock26. I think of a five shot revolver more along the lines of my P3AT. What I had would dictate my decisions and "tactics" if you will in any situation.

Why I think of the pocket revolver more along the lines of a personal defense pocket gun has been covered above. I am not hating on revovlers. If we talk a full size seven shot .357 with speedloaders it's another story.

Personally I love the Glock 26 because of it's feel and fit to my hand as well as it's accuracy, dependability and ease of use. It goes from ten round to fifteen or seventeen rounds with a mag change. One gun to learn poa/poi, sights and trigger.

StarDust1
February 10, 2010, 07:17 PM
So I've been researching pistols for a while now and thought I had narrowed it down to the G26. However, now I'm wondering if a revolver wouldn't be better. I really like the S&W 38 specials. It seems like with a revolver you don't have to worry about them jamming and it's nothing really to break. They only hold a few shots less at the same time since the G26 only holds 10 shots. Which is the better choice here? Which would be the pro's and cons of each?
You've not indicated the intended purpose of the two choices, however I can assure you that 10-12 rounds of +p or +p+ 9mm from a 3.5" tube decisively trounces any .357 offering from the 1.8" S&W J-frame mini-mag.
Of further significance is the fact that the little wheel-gun is virtually worthless at ranges exceeding 7-10 yards, where as the G-26 is widely celebrated for it's remarkable accuracy at the 25-yard line and beyond!
However, as a pocket gun, the J-frame is an outstanding option, keeping in mind it's very real limitations...

harmon rabb
February 10, 2010, 07:41 PM
why would you get a 26 over a 27? you sacrifice 1 round to go from 9mm to .40. not to mention, you can drop in a .357sig barrel, or a 9mm barrel, and get 3 calibers in one gun.

i have my g27 in a iwb holster as i type this, waiting for my fiancee to get out of the shower so we can to dinner. it's comfy. barely notice it anymore. 10 rounds of .40 in the gun + 9 in a spare mag in my pocket = i feel very well equipped should some **** go down while i'm out.

i can shoot it much better than my 442, and can reload it a lot quicker as well.

shockwave
February 10, 2010, 07:52 PM
For CCW, we are usually imagining a situation of such extreme danger that the only recourse is to pull your weapon and fire. Police shooting statistics indicate that the most likely distance you will be at is somewhere between 3 to 9 feet. That's on average.

Maybe your situation won't be average. Might be you really want to be laying down a field of fire, with 16 shots fast as you can pull the trigger. My basic plan is to pull and fire and make that first shot count and if it misses there will be 5 more where that came from. In IDPA shooting I've had no trouble putting two into the score zone on my targets.

If you're on the fence, I'd try to test both Glock and Smith&Wesson in combat practice and see which delivers for you. Most likely, there will be no time to aim so evaluate both platforms in terms of point-and-shoot and make your decision from that.

Ghost Walker
February 10, 2010, 08:01 PM
Pretty much a, 'no-brainer'. The G-26 is, far and away, the better carry pistol. If there's a, 'con' to carrying the Glock it's that you really have to know what you're doing with such an inherently unsafe EDC pistol.

By the way, there's plenty that can go wrong with a revolver. The part I'll agree with is that a typical double-action revolver does, indeed, tend to be safer than any Glock to both carry and use.

(Please spare me the usual Glock, 'safe action' pistol crap; and don't anybody post a remark to the effect that Glock's trigger mechanism is, for all practical purposes, already a double action - OK!) ;)

atblis
February 10, 2010, 08:18 PM
10 rounds of of 9mm +p = 125 gr at 1250 fps (out of a Glock 26)
or
5 rounds of 38 special +p = 125 gr at 900 fps (out of a 1 7/8" barrel)

Glock 26 is a lot of fire power in a small package.

StarDust1
February 10, 2010, 11:16 PM
Pretty much a, 'no-brainer'. The G-26 is, far and away, the better carry pistol. If there's a, 'con' to carrying the Glock it's that you really have to know what you're doing with such an inherently unsafe EDC pistol.

By the way, there's plenty that can go wrong with a revolver. The part I'll agree with is that a typical double-action revolver does, indeed, tend to be safer than any Glock to both carry and use.

(Please spare me the usual Glock, 'safe action' pistol crap; and don't anybody post a remark to the effect that Glock's trigger mechanism is, for all practical purposes, already a double action - OK!) ;)
If you're so undisciplined that you're simply unable to keep your little finger off of the trigger, then you shouldn't be carrying a gun of any kind, thats right, the Glocks not unsafe, you are!

mikemx5
February 11, 2010, 01:44 AM
A G26 and 642 have similar dimensions on paper, however the Glock is blockier and better suited for holster duty. The shape of the 642 makes it easier to slide in and out of a pocket. Both are good choices. The Glock is easier to shoot, the 642 is easier to carry. Reliability should not be an issue for either one.

harmon rabb
February 11, 2010, 06:09 AM
If there's a, 'con' to carrying the Glock it's that you really have to know what you're doing with such an inherently unsafe EDC pistol.

what's inherently unsafe about a glock? don't pull the trigger unless you want it to go bang. simple as that. i can see a very real argument that a 1911 is more safe as a carry gun... but why a revolver over a glock? simply because the trigger is heavier?

Ghost Walker
February 11, 2010, 07:28 AM
Originally posted by StarDust1>
If you're so undisciplined that you're simply unable to keep your little finger off of the trigger, then you shouldn't be carrying a gun of any kind, thats (SIC) right, the Glocks not unsafe, you are!

:rolleyes: Hey, didn’t I ask you to spare me the Glock, ‘safe action’ crap! First, if you’re having trouble keeping your, ‘little finger’ off the trigger then more than your thinking is upside down. Second, there are hundreds – if not thousands – of (former?) Glock shooters who have more than sufficient reason to disagree with you.

Third, after you’ve carried weapons without untoward incident for more than 50 years and in the same way I have THEN – and only then – will you be able to honestly state what is or isn’t safe. Everything else is just advertising hype and your opinion. What’s your opinion actually worth? Only time will tell. ;)





Harmon, never mind! :)

harmon rabb
February 11, 2010, 08:47 AM
oh. i get it. you're a 1911 and j-frame guy. nothing else will do. got it. ;)

woad_yurt
February 11, 2010, 10:19 AM
If you go with a 4" K-frame (I hope you do,) get one with a pencil barrel. At least handle one before you buy.

hometheaterman
February 11, 2010, 10:44 AM
why would you get a 26 over a 27? you sacrifice 1 round to go from 9mm to .40. not to mention, you can drop in a .357sig barrel, or a 9mm barrel, and get 3 calibers in one gun.

i have my g27 in a iwb holster as i type this, waiting for my fiancee to get out of the shower so we can to dinner. it's comfy. barely notice it anymore. 10 rounds of .40 in the gun + 9 in a spare mag in my pocket = i feel very well equipped should some **** go down while i'm out.

i can shoot it much better than my 442, and can reload it a lot quicker as well. Honestly I thought about the G27 too but I think I'd just rather have the 9mm. One big factor to the G26 I like is that you can get 33 round magazines. These just sound like a ton of fun at the range. The other big reason is 9mm ammo is $10 for a box of 50 here where as .40 ammo is quite a few dollars more.

Doug S
February 11, 2010, 10:55 AM
Hey, didn’t I ask you to spare me the Glock, ‘safe action’ crap! First, if you’re having trouble keeping your, ‘little finger’ off the trigger then more than your thinking is upside down. Second, there are hundreds – if not thousands – of (former?) Glock shooters who have more than sufficient reason to disagree with you.

Third, after you’ve carried weapons without untoward incident for more than 50 years and in the same way I have THEN – and only then – will you be able to honestly state what is or isn’t safe. Everything else is just advertising hype and your opinion. What’s your opinion actually worth? Only time will tell.

Not trying to argue here, I just would really like to hear why you think the Glock is unsafe. Is there some reason other than the Glock has a lighter trigger pull and no external safety? I'd like to know if there is anything inherently unsafe about the Glock, or if they go off when dropped, or fire in someones pocket without the trigger actually being pulled. Like I said I'm not looking to argue, I just want to know if I'm overlooking something.

easyg
February 11, 2010, 11:32 AM
Of further significance is the fact that the little wheel-gun is virtually worthless at ranges exceeding 7-10 yards,
Where did you get this silly notion?

If you can't hit a human sized target beyond 30 feet with a snub-nose revolver then you seriously need to spend more time at the range.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFyQEISE__Y&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_b3dAbKoJ0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tied-t1fFsk&feature=related



Not trying to argue here, I just would really like to hear why you think the Glock is unsafe.
Glock are 100% safe so long as the trigger is guarded from something pulling it....just like a revolver.
But unlike the revolver, the Glock has a short travel trigger of only 5.5 lbs.

Does this make the Glock unsafe?

Yes and no.
It does make the Glock unsafe in certain carry modes....

I have no qualms about carrying a revolver loose in my pocket, without a holster.
I have no qualms about carrying a revolver tucked in my waistband (Mexican carry).
But I would never do either of those things with a Glock.
In my opinion, only a fool would.

A Glock demands a holster that makes the trigger inaccessible.



Easy

tackstrp
February 11, 2010, 12:00 PM
i vote for teh Kel Tec PF 9 .

StarDust1
February 11, 2010, 12:06 PM
:rolleyes: Hey, didn’t I ask you to spare me the Glock, ‘safe action’ crap! First, if you’re having trouble keeping your, ‘little finger’ off the trigger then more than your thinking is upside down. Second, there are hundreds – if not thousands – of (former?) Glock shooters who have more than sufficient reason to disagree with you.

Third, after you’ve carried weapons without untoward incident for more than 50 years and in the same way I have THEN – and only then – will you be able to honestly state what is or isn’t safe. Everything else is just advertising hype and your opinion. What’s your opinion actually worth? Only time will tell. ;)





Harmon, never mind! :)
It's clear that you're flaming & trolling, you've made a silly comment, backed by an even sillier demand that we in effect "SHUT-UP" and get out of your way!
In my "very great experience," I've found that the loudest, most obnoxious detractors of the Glock design, almost always are the most "INHERENTLY" unsafe owner/operators of any firearm....

harmon rabb
February 11, 2010, 12:10 PM
Honestly I thought about the G27 too but I think I'd just rather have the 9mm. One big factor to the G26 I like is that you can get 33 round magazines. These just sound like a ton of fun at the range. The other big reason is 9mm ammo is $10 for a box of 50 here where as .40 ammo is quite a few dollars more.

you can do all that with the g27, and have all 3 calibers available to you if you want. :D

Doug S
February 11, 2010, 02:20 PM
why would you get a 26 over a 27?

I didn't respond to this in my most recent post because I didn't want to start anything, but an honest answer to this question would be...

1...that the G26 is the more reliable of the two, especially with full capacity magazines.

2. Although recoil is similar with practice loads, when you move into good self-defense rounds the G26 is easier to handle in rapid fire, and accurate follow up shots than the G27.

3. Althouth some don't like to hear it, the Glock was designed around the 9mm. The G27 exhibits more wear and tear with lots of rounds than does the G26, which I think is the more durable of the two guns. Peening is not an issue with G26. G26 is also not known to break it's frame pins.

4. And dare I say...the G26 is not know to go "Kaboom", as seems to be the case with some of the Glock 40 calibers.

Okay, I said it. To each his own, though. I don't have anything against the G27, I've owned one. Traded it off for a second G26. Based on that experience, I am confident in points 1, 2, and 3 above, although I can't speak directly about #4 because my G27 never went "kaboom". I just didn't like the idea of less case support with the 40 caliber round. I think setback can be an issue with 40 caliber and Glock pistols also, and although they have plenty of fans, I just don't think Glock is at it's best in the 40 calibers. I answered the above just to provide more "food for thought" for those choosing between these two Glock models, not to disparage 40 caliber Glocks. Hope no one takes it that way.

dom1104
February 11, 2010, 03:03 PM
For me, 5"10 220 lbs, the glock is NOT a pocket gun. Not even close. The J-Frame is tho.

For a belt gun I would go Glock all the way <although probably something more 19 sized.> for a pocket gun, of all the guns mentioned here the only one that will actually be "drawable" from my pockets are the j-frame.

Firepower doesnt matter if you leave it at home.

dom1104
February 11, 2010, 03:07 PM
Also I gotta laugh at how honking HUGE the grips are in that comparison pic :) lol

There are smaller grips available for a j-frame for all you glock cool aid drinkers :)

Doug S
February 11, 2010, 04:05 PM
There are smaller grips available for a j-frame for all you glock cool aid drinkers

Also available, and preferable IMO are factory, flush fitting Glock magazines instead of the extended one pictured in the comparison picture.

Actually the Glock and S&W factory grips are almost exactly the same size.
The differences are

1. The S&W factory Uncle Mikes boot grips on my stock 642 is actually wider and longer than the Glock grip.
2. The S&W factory grip is more rounded, whereas the Glock is more square, which is true of the gun as a whole, and it is this that accounts for why the S&W tends to conceal a little better (not grip size).

That said the differences are not in the size of the S&W factory, boot grips and the Glock grip, they are more in shape.

Like I've said, I own, carry, and like both, so it's not a matter of drinking kool-aid. In fact my S&W is in my pocket as I type this. Later when I leave for the evening, it will be switched out for my Glock 26, though. My comments in this thread are just a matter of offering facts about these two guns, not emotion and subjective opinion.

Now if I were to offer an opinion, I'd say that the S&W 642 is the best of breed in a concelaed carry revolver (and I've owned Scandium models and other makes to compare with), and the G26 is likewise the best of breed in subcompact semi-autos. They may not as thin or as light weight as some, but they tend to work as good or better than anything out there (and they do it in very "shootable" platforms). I guess it's just a matter of weighing the pros and cons of each (Glock subcompacts and S&W J-frames), and picking which one best serves your needs. They are both excellent firearms.

Motownfire
February 11, 2010, 04:42 PM
My everyday carry is the Glock 27 and really like it. My fiances everyday carry is the Glock 26 and she really likes it and shoots it well. I have always wanted to get my hands on a S&W 642 to go out back and shoot with to see how they do. I have a couple of friends that have the 642 and they have nothing but good things to say about them. It's all about what works for you.

holysmoke
February 11, 2010, 06:45 PM
Why not carry one of each--then you have no need of an extra mag.

If you enjoyed reading about "Glock 26 or S&W Revolver?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!