Glock 26 or S&W Revolver?

i will just say, stainless and .357 mag-

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.

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.

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.

I carry a 442 everyday and love it. Tried the Glock and it was not for me.

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.

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.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

13 shots

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!

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

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). 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

hometheaterman said:

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?

Click to expand...

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...

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.

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.

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!)

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.

Ghost Walker said:

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!)

Click to expand...

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!

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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?