G26 vs g27 vs g33

[jwalker497]

G26 vs g27 vs g33
Need to make a decision for a subcompact Glock. I just cannot make decision on which model to go for and I am desperatley hoping someone can make some sense of it all.
My hangup for making a decision is concerning the trade-off as it relates to Recoil vs followup shots/accuracy. One one hand, I agree with all the 9mm fans that shot placement is king and that quicker more accurate shots is what counts. If you're going to shoot once, you might as well shoot several times! On the other hand, I also agree compeltely with those who favor the increased stopping power of the 40sw in a self defense situation, why not opt for as much punch as possible especially considering you need the ones that hit to count.

This is a debate is a perpetual see-saw as I seem to go back and forth as each of these arguments make total sense!! Please dont say get both, that's not an option for and I do not have the ability to test any of these at a range, so I need to make this decision with logic and other's firsthand experience. Also, I am not interested in the caliber conversion options as well. I would love to hear form those who have first hand experience with these models and can provide a real comparison.

So - Which would you prefer from a Recoil and Followup shot perspective??

Again, Removing all the typical factors that people bring-up in these comparisons, like ammo cost, availability, capacity - which model would you prefer and why from a power vs recoil perspective?

 

[LeontheProfessional]

Glock 27 because ammo is still relatively inexpensive and easy to find. Also, all you need is a quick barrel change and you got yourself a Glock 33.

 

[rockhound758]

The .40 is a more barky round but I like it, and I'd rather have that than the 9mm (and both are more viable choices for several reasons, IMO, than the G33). If you're looking for a subcompact, I'm assuming it's for CC, and at self-defense distances I certainly believe that with practice you'd be plenty accurate with either one, with no real appreciable difference in follow-up shot times. If it were me, I'd get the .40. But there are plenty of folks who will say just the opposite, and there are two basic truths here: 1) You can't go wrong with either gun, and 2) You should pick the one that YOU will like the best and feel best about. Which caliber resonates the most with you?

 

[Oldnoob]

Go with the popular choice of 40. Than get a 9mm conversion barrel from Lone Wolf (need G26 mag when shoot 9mm) and a stock Glock 33 barrel (G33 use the same mag as G27). Now you have a gun that can shoot all three caliber.

 

[Ken Rainey]

Based on my experience, I recommend the G26. Oldnoob's idea isn't a bad one but I'd rather have a dedicated 9mm and then later on, if desired, get a G27 with a G33 barrel for the optional cartridge if you just have to have those calibers in a subcompact pistol.

The snappier recoil is my major complaint with the other calibers, followed by reduced service life of the parts and/or pistol and the undesireable (for me, anyway) higher risk of pressure problems with bullet setback or maybe a weak brass, etc. with the .40 caliber cartridge. Yep, your right, I'm not a fan of the .40 S&W cartridge!

If you desired the very same same size pistol with a bigger bullet, then there is the G39 in 45GAP that is easier to shoot, only bad thing about it is the cost and/or availability of ammo for it ... so practically speaking, next in the Glock line would be the G30SF in .45 ACP. That would be the one I'd get if needing a Glock in .45 caliber for concealed carry if I hadn't already settled into 1911's for my .45 launchers and have a Kimber Ultra Eclipse for use when needing an easier to conceal "short stroker" .45 ... which is far and few between these days since I've been spoiled by the G26 with it's ease of carry and maintenance with it's superb reliability and surprising accuracy..

 

[REAPER4206969]

27...

 

[Full Metal Jacket]

g26

 

[harmon rabb]

if you buy a 27 (or 33 for that matter), you can have all 3 in the same gun with the purchase of additional barrels (and mags for 9mm). if you buy a 26, you can not.

i think that settles it right there.

the 27 and 33 are actually the same gun. the only difference is that the 27 comes with the .40 barrel, and the 33 comes with the .357sig barrel.

 

[Full Metal Jacket]

 

[jwalker497]

The conversion argument doesnt make any sense to me.

If you buy a 40/357 and then practice with it in 9mm but carry it in 40/357, aren't you putting yourself at a disadvantage by not carrying what you practice with???

Also, what happens when you realize your are more accurate with the 9mm and therefore want to carry it converted - now you are left with the reality of carrying a conversion barrel which would potentially lead to reliability issues when you need it most.

 

[96projectz24]

Hmm, my conversion barrel is and has been flawless and as reliable, if not even more so than stock. That argument holds no water, as long as the parts you put in the gun are QUALITY parts, should perform like it would from the factory. That being said, I shot 500 rds through my 9mm conversion barrel/mags before I carried it, just like I did when the gun was new as a 40 S&W. Gotta take the same precautions as you would with any other new firearm.

 

[jwalker497]

so 96, are you saying that you carry a converted 9mm?? I'm curious becuase there seemed to be an overwhelming consensus that it's not a good idea due to the fact that it's not OEM parts and could fail when you need it most.

Did you change the extractor/ejector as well or do you just use the barrel and 9mm mags?

 

[easyg]

The 9mm has the advantage of quicker follow-up shots (at least for myself).
But since it's an auto, there is always the possibility of a jam of some type (yes, even Glocks have been known to choke).
So, keeping in mind that I might only get off one shot before a malfunction, I would prefer than one shot to be a more effective caliber than the 9mm.
So it's either the .40S&W or the .357Sig.
Both have a little harder recoil than the 9mm in standard pressure, but they really aren't any worse than the recoil from 9mm in +P pressure.

Both the .40 and the .357 will work, but I prefer the .357Sig.

And, as mentioned above, if you get a .357 you can later get an aftermarket drop-in .40 barrel and have the advantage of ammo variety.

 

[LiveLife]

The conversion argument doesnt make any sense to me.

If you buy a 40/357 and then practice with it in 9mm but carry it in 40/357, aren't you putting yourself at a disadvantage by not carrying what you practice with???

Also, what happens when you realize your are more accurate with the 9mm, now you are left with the reality of carrying a conversion barrel which would potentially lead to reliability issues when you need it most.

It all comes down to trigger time - really helps you shoot better. Because 40/9mm availability/price is better, it will allow you to shoot more for the same money.

If you reload, 40-9 Lone Wolf conversion barrel has one more benefit. Many say 40 recoil is more snappy/barky - True. I used to work up lighter 40 loads for shooters new to shooting/G27 for practice and 40-9 conversion barrel did a great job of filling this role with MUCH cheaper 9mm reloads ($6/50 rnds). Also, you won't get bulged Glocked cases from the tight match grade LW barrels for safer reloading.

9mm loaded near max will give you a very good practice for 40S&W in G27. I have done match shooting with 9mm/40S&W and accuracy is very good for both rounds. I found with those I taught to shoot, they feel more comfortable with the lighter 9mm recoil, but end up shooting 40S&W just as well with more trigger time.

BTW, I use 9mm (G17) magazines for my G22 due to feeding issues, but found factory G27 magazines work well for shooting 9mm (of course, you can still use 9mm magazines). So, if you have G27 and use 40-9 conversion barrel, you may not need to buy additional magazine for practice.

YMMV

 

[jwalker497]

Easy, that's a really good point and had not considered that. In fact, becuase I was talking about glocks I kind of took for granted the fact that they can jam

Part of me thinks that in a SD situation, it would be very close ranges and I don't see how a few 1/10s of a second would make a difference or how the recoil could throw me off that bad at such close ranges so might as well go with the 40 or 357. And your point of you might only get one round off.

On the other hand, I think shot placement and if we have to shoot we are going to shoot more than once and provided it doesnt jam, you should have every advantage you can when it comes to making quick accurate shots so 9mm gets the nod.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

I had a G27, found its bark and bite to be unpleasant and sold it. The .357 SIG in the same size gun would no doubt give more of the same. The lower recoiling 9mm, IMO, would make up for its perceived lesser power with controllability, enabling one to place shots more rapidly and precisely, which is what wins gunfights.

 

[grimjaw]

I had a G26 for awhile. If I was going to go with a subcompact Glock again, it'd be a G27 or G33 with conversion barrels. Few guns give you as many available accessory choices as the subcompact Glocks. A G27 with the right combination of barrels can shoot up to three different calibers, and use magazines from any of the larger series of Glocks.

jm

 

[Warhawk83]

G27,I bought one two days ago and took it to the range yesterday. Excellent gun,go with the 27 because of the ammo availability, and recoil really isn't that bad.

 

[harmon rabb]

G27,I bought one two days ago and took it to the range yesterday. Excellent gun,go with the 27 because of the ammo availability, and recoil really isn't that bad.

i'm with you. i don't find the recoil to be bad at all. yeah, it's not like 9mm out of a full size, but it's nowhere near as bad as a 380 mouse gun. i could comfortably shoot a couple hundred rounds out of it in a range outing.

 

[denfoote]

Oh I dunno.
I'm probably going to be not much help in this.
I received a G26 as a gift in '98 or '99 and never had any inclination to consider the other two, except for the forgotten red headed stepchild, the G36, which I also have a copy. I will say this, I did have a chance to shoot the G27 at some point and remember disliking the recoil. Based on that, I'd get the 26.

 

[Full Metal Jacket]

The conversion argument doesnt make any sense to me.

If you buy a 40/357 and then practice with it in 9mm but carry it in 40/357, aren't you putting yourself at a disadvantage by not carrying what you practice with???

Also, what happens when you realize your are more accurate with the 9mm and therefore want to carry it converted - now you are left with the reality of carrying a conversion barrel which would potentially lead to reliability issues when you need it most.

+1 not to mention the fact that even if you change the barrel, extractor, mags, and ejector--the breech face of the 9mm and 40cal are machined differently. conversions are reliable enough for the range, but i certainly wouldn't use one for defense.

 

[NG VI]

I love my 27, but it is very easy to overthink the differences, when you could just buy whichever one you can find the best deal on and get to the range.

Just buy one and be done with it, 9mm is not in a different class than .40, .357, or .45, not to any realistic degree anyway, no matter how much you may hear otherwise. Yes the 27 throws a wider, heavier chunk of lead at the same speeds as 9mm bullets, and the .357 throws the same bullets a bit faster, and the .45 throws the widest and heaviest bits somewhat slower, but they really are all close enough.

I do really like the 27 though.

 

[LiveLife]

One issue I believe we need to remind ourselves with compacts/subcompacts is the shorter barrels that result in reduced muzzle velocity/energy compared to full size versions. I for one recommend the G27 because the reduced velocity/energy of 40S&W is greater than the 9mm. I am not knocking 357 Sig, but 40S&W ammunition is not only more readily available and cheaper than 357 Sig, but easier/cheaper to reload.

+1 not to mention the fact that even if you change the barrel, extractor, mags, and ejector--the breech face of the 9mm and 40cal are machined differently. conversions are reliable enough for the range, but i certainly wouldn't use one for defense.

For G27 Lone Wolf 40-9 conversion, you only need to exchange the barrel (for me, the G27 mag works for 9mm too). I can't speak for other conversion barrels, but the LW barrel works fine with the stock G27 extractor. Diameter of 9mm case bottom is smaller than 40, but the G27 extractor has enough grip to reliably extract the 9mm cases.

The primary function of the conversion barrel is allowing you to practice with the cheaper 9mm ammunition. Besides, why would you carry the 9mm barrel when you can carry the 40S&W that has greater terminal energy (remember the reduction in velocity/energy due to shorter barrel)?

As to one being able to shoot 9mm more accurately than 40S&W, many here will argue that they can shoot the larger 1911 45ACP more accurately than any other caliber.

I believe with good training and practice (a lot of trigger time), one can learn to shoot better.

 

[Nasty]

G27 with a Wolf 9m/m for me. I will add a .22 kit next, and eventually, a 33 barrel.

It only makes sense...same grip and trigger and 3 of them even the same sights.

I'll shoot whatever ammo I can get at the time.

 

[Quiet]

Glock 39