Dimension changes question for carry

[bratch]

Kinda curious how much a small change in size makes in the "carriability" of a pistol.

For example the Glock 17 has a slide of 7.3 in and a height of 5.4 in, the 19 is 6.85 in and 5 in, and the 26 is 6.29 in and 4.17. So from the largest to smallest you have about 1 inch difference slide length and 1.2 inches in height.

In percentages these are relatively large changes but in actual numbers pretty small. How much easier is the 26 to conceal versus the 17? Is it the height or length that is the major determinant?

Thanks

 

[Masione]

It's not really so much the barrel size you want to look out for when concealing, it's the size of the grip. I think anyway, depends on your body and style of carry. But if carrying on your side in a ITW, the barrel length isn't much of a concern, but the grip/width is. If carrying OTW, then of course barrel length is more of an issue.

 

[Erich]

For me it's the width and the grip length. Barrel length is no big deal. The micro-Glocks (26/27/33) don't hide well for me, because they're too chunky. (Looks like I have a tumor.) The 19s, though bigger, spread the bulge out more, so they seem to hide better for me.

A J-frame is hard to beat, though.

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

thickness plays more of a role than most people would like to admit.

 

[Johnny Guest]

A very subjective preference - - -

I believe the step down in size from the G17 to the G19 is pretty significant in the convenience and "carryability" of the sidearm. For a uniformed peace officer or a soldier in field gear, I imagine the extra size of the '17 is no particular bother. For a plainclothes cop or private person carrying concealed, there's enough difference that the '19 really excels.

The loss of two rounds mag capacity doesn't seem significant to me, from a tactical standpoint. I do like the butt of the 19 being a little shorter, though. And the reduction of weight at the end (bottom) of the mag seems to allow the pistol to hang closer to my side than with the 17. The reduction of sight radius is there, but doesn't seem detrimental in MY useage.

It may be that my personal preference for the 19 has to do with it being so close to the size and "balance" of the Colt Commander.

The Glock 26, on the other hand, is just TOO much reduction of height and length, while retaining the same thickness. For me, the shortened sight radius becomes a factor with the 26. For carry in an outside holster, the slide is a bit too short to press against the hip and keep the chunky little butt pressed against the body. And, the few times I've tried the 26 and 27 inside the waistband, they seem like they're just looking for a chance to fall out, holster or no. (SAFETY NOTE: I think it is dangerous to carry a loaded chamber Glock IWB without a stiff holster, or, at least, a behind-the-trigger block.)

I've never tried ANY Glock in a shoulder holster, though. Perhaps this is where the 26 shines . . .

Best,
Johnny

 

[nemesis]

thickness plays more of a role than most people would like to admit.

How thick is the pistol and how fat is the butt? I'm not really interested in height and length.

You may love your Beretta 92 or your Desert Eagle but you can start now to refine your response for when people ask you what the giant lump on your hip is.

Or........you can buy a slim pistol with a concealable butt and deceive the masses. I have read lots of threads from newbies who have decided, after 3 days of carrying around home, that they have discovered the ultimate in carry guns. Six months later, there is often a change of heart.

Don't try to reinvent the wheel.

 

[Nick96]

I've found width & weight to be the most significant determining factors - of course within reason. No 6" large frame revolver or .44Mag Desert Eagle type auto is going to conceal well. You can hide most anything - but the question is how much do you want to alter dress and acquire specialized carry rigs. Most of us lazy dolts opt for small, compact & light - and as a practical matter for the average "Joe Six Pack" civilian - that's sufficient.

bratch,
In answer to your specific question - you are talking about the difference between a Glock 17 and a 26. With these particular pistols, the difference is in length and height (a few ounces of weight difference) - the width is essentailly the same. The real determining factor with Glocks though is the operating system. Personally, I consider the Glock to be a strictly holster pistol. To carry one otherwise (IMHO) is inviting disaster. So with regard to Glocks - I would consider the Glock 19 to be the best all around CCW 9MM package.

Concealed carry is really a question of necessity, comfort, safety, handling, accuracy and power. For most folks, a small, light, .38 revolver really fits most needs. If you choose or need to make special considerations in dress, carry rigs, training, practice & so forth - go on from there.

Bottom line - if you really need a powerful, high capacity handgun - then alter your dress & get the gear required to carry it. If you want something that will serve the basic purpose of saving your hide when TSHTF - your options are expanded.

 

[Preacherman]

I go with Johnny - the G19 seems rather easier to conceal, IWB or OWB, than the slightly longer G17, and it seems to balance better in my hands as well.

The G26/G27/G33 size is a PITA in a holster, though... that short barrel doesn't give much "grip" inside a holster, and I've personally seen several drop out of a holster during rapid movement or exertion. I'd be reluctant to carry one of these short-barrel versions in a holster without a retaining strap of some kind.

On the other hand, the shorty Glocks really shine in a pocket holster. They're no larger than a J-frame in overall dimensions, and I find I can drop one into a trouser pocket, in a DeSantis Nemesis holster, and have no trouble at all concealing it. It also gives me double the firepower of the J-frame. I think this is the best point of the little Glocks.

 

[bratch]

Thanks so far guys. Not really asking about the Glcoks in particular per say just had been looking at their website so I had all the numbers handy. Was trying to get a feel on important characteristics.

Is there a general rule of thumb for maximum thickness for the everyday jeans and thsirt or untucked button down shirt guy? I know its pretty subjective and not easy to identify.

 

[Erich]

No, no rule of thumb. It depends on you: how you wear your clothes (tight or looser), what type of clothing you wear (casual or dressy), how fat or thin you are, how tall you /are. All these variables change how a given gun will conceal for you. That's why everyone keeps saying it's subjective.

But everyone also seems to agree that the butt length and the width are more important in concealment than beginners realize.

Someone started a thread over at The Firing Line recently about choosing the carry method first and the gun second. It's an interesting thought. I really think you have to consider the two together - so many shooters only give consideration to the size of the gun, how many it carries, and what caliber bulllet it launches. Lord knows I've done that. But how are you going to conceal that 4506-1 (it can be done, I've done it)? And are you going to be happy and comfortable and relaxed while doing it (after some reflection, I decided I wasn't)? Or how about the Glock 36 in my SmartCarry holster? I'm a lefty, and I found that the magazine release was situated in such a way that it would often be inadvertently tripped, dropping my magazine out of lock within the pistol butt while still in the holster. (I figured out a way around this, but it was a problem that NEVER would have suggested itself before I actually carried the gun in this way.)

The nature of concealed carry is that it takes a while (at least a week of packing, perhaps a month) for any given carry method/handgun combination to make its benefits and its flaws evident to the user. So folks go through a lot of them (we've all heard the old and true saw about the box of unused holsters that every concealed carrier has in his closet). There's nothing wrong with that, because there's nothing wrong with trying to find a system that works better for you. Ideally, we'd all have systems that would allow us to carry reasonably powerful weapons with decent firepower all the time.

And it will by necessity evolve over time. When I was a thin college student in Indiana, an IWB 4" K-frame .357 worked for me. I had a permit, and it was legal to carry anywhere I went: if it printed, who cared? Then I moved to a state with no provision for legal CCW off one's property . . . if I had carried concealed, something else would have been in order. I got pretty chunky for a while. That would have affected what I could carry, and how (no more IWB for the fat guy!). Now, I'm a lawyer (thin again - thanks Dr. Atkins ) with a CCW permit, and I dress a lot differently than I did when I was in college. Again, different guns and carry modes are required.

Anyway, short answer is there's no rule of thumb. You've got to try it to see if it'll work. Best of luck with it.

 

[faustulus]

Something else to consider.
Attitude.
If you act like someone carrying a gun, you are a lot easier to spot.

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

You may love your Beretta 92 or your Desert Eagle but you can start now to refine your response for when people ask you what the giant lump on your hip is.

you'll notice both of those guns are thick.

I'm saying that instead of looking for a shorter butted piece, perhapes a thinner butted piece, like a kahr Tp9 would be acceptable. same sight radius and more concealable butt that's about the same length.

 

[dairycreek]

Kinda curious how much a small change in size makes in the "carriability" of a pistol.

It depends! If you address the differences in barrel length, weight, thickness, etc. with the right kind of effective approaches in dress, holster/belt selection, etc. then (within obvious limits) one gun can be made to carry pretty much like another gun. That is "carriability" is more a function of how one addresses carrying the gun than the gun per se. FWIW that's alwalys been my take on it. Good shooting