Glock 26 vs Glock 27

[willmartin]

Hi all.

I'm interesting in buying one of the subcompact Glocks, as you can derive from the thread title it'd either be a 26 (9mm) or a 27 (.40 S&W). The question is - which one? Would 9mm be substantially cheaper than .40SW or are we talking about the same price? Is the recoil significantly less from a 9mm than a .40 or relatively the same? Would you trust 9mm for SD or is the .40 a better choice? Both guns cost around $500 so cost of gun is not much of an issue. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks!

 

[Racegunner]

I find the model 26 9mm recoils is significantly less than the 27. With modern bullet design (Federal HST for example) there is very little difference in performance to justify the added recoil if that's a concern.
Yes, of course 9mm is cheaper, by the simple additional materials it costs to manufacture.
Just to throw a monkey wrench into your decision process, consider the model 19. It really isn't much larger to carry, but gives you a nearly full handle for firing comfort and better mag changes.

 

[jc650]

I have shot both and to be honest I dont think the 27 has much more recoil. I ended up with the 26 for 2 reasons. Ammo prices and ammo prices. If you cant trust 9mm for self defense then you shouldnt carry any handgun because none are as good as a long gun. Dont get caught up in the magic bullet theories that people have about their favorite calibers most. Modern 9mm sd ammo is fine.

 

[JH225]

I don't think there is that much of a recoil difference between the two. Recoil on the G27 is very easy to deal with if the weapon is gripped and fired correctly.

I sold my G27 long ago though, as I just couldn't stand the crappy trigger and the bulk. Kind of reminded me of a brick.

 

[CTPistol]

I like the G26 far better....its a favorite amongst Glock fans.

I think its their best gun, by far.

 

[SeanMTX]

With my Lone Wolf barrel, 3.5lb trigger, polished internals, Scherer pinkie extensions and TruGlo sights, I love my G27.

I personally prefer the .40 round to the 9mm, but understand and agree with the ammo price argument. Even though I like the .40 better, I cannot stress enough shot placement. If you shoot the G26 better, by all means go for it.

 

[wyocarp]

With modern bullet design (Federal HST for example) there is very little difference in performance to justify the added recoil if that's a concern.

You have got to be joking.

I like the 26 and the 27, but I like the 29 much more if it is for SD. Either way, I like shooting them much more with a grip extension.

What good is a thread without a picture?

 

[NG VI]

the 27 was my first Glock, so I am biased, but I love that little gun. It sucked at first, but I quickly learned how to shoot it properly, and it doesn't bother me anymore. I also have a 9mm conversion barrel for versatility, I don't think 9mm costs all that much less anymore, it is cheaper, and always will be the cheapest centerfire round, I don't feel it is too weak for defensive use at all, but the .40 is in so many ways just like a buffed out 9mm. slightly wider, noticeably heavier bullets, and approximately the same velocities with bullets of the same sectional density, so it is certainly juicier than the 9mm. But two of my favorite carry guns are 9mms, so I guess you could call me pretty caliber blind.


Can't go wrong with either is my advice, I personally would go with the 27 so you can add .357 Sig and 9mm capability later on for cheap. Like having three guns for $200 more than the original.

 

[Racegunner]

With modern bullet design (Federal HST for example) there is very little difference in performance to justify the added recoil if that's a concern.

"You have got to be joking." - wyocarp

I stand by my previous statement. Do you really think there is a huge difference between 9mm and .40 when same bullet designs are used (i.e. HST)?
For sure 10mm is a big step up, but that wasn't the point here.

 

[Runningman]

Not sure how much experience you have? The recoil could be a factor if going to a 27 over a 26. I'm not a big 40 S&W fan mostly shoot 357 Sig and 9mm. But my main concealed pistol for the last 10+ years is a Glock 27. It is reliable, compact, light, and for some reason I shoot this 40 very well. If I did not already have my G27 I would also take a good look at the G33 357 Sig.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

The only difference is the caliber. I found the G27 I had to have excessive bark and bite and would get a G26 if I were to buy another.

 

[gb6491]

What good is a thread without a picture?

I prefer the .40 over 9mm, so the 27 was my choice. It is also a plus (for me) that I could change it to 357 if I were so inclined. I do have a 9mm conversion that works well in it.

I can even put some .22 down range with it:

Regards,
Greg

 

[Airman193SOS]

My first gun was a 27, and I still carry it regularly. I never noticed the heavier recoil/bark that others are mentioning here.

Still, the only way for you to know for sure is to shoot them yourself.

 

[John_galt]

My first Glock was a 26. I bought extra G19 mags and adapter sleeves. Its a very nice set up. Use the 10rnd mags in the warmer weather. and G19 mags when I can dress to conceal more. But you can do same thing with 27/23.

 

[Harold Mayo]

The 27 has more recoil than the 26 by a significant margin. Handgun rounds are handgun rounds, for the most part, and you're NOT going to see much difference in damage to a meat target between the two.

That said, the .40 retains more mass when passing through barriers so that may be something to take into account. Even though they are pretty much the same when hitting flesh unopposed, the difference may come if you have to shoot through a barrier or even through heavy clothing.

Oddly enough, though, I carry a G33 in .357 Sig part of the time just because I like velocity. I have an OEM G27 barrel that I sometimes run because .357 Sig ammo is just kinda difficult to find in small lots at a decent price and I don't shoot it enough to justify to myself the buying of it in cases.

The G33, btw, has less (or different) recoil than the G27 (or, I suppose I should say, the .357 Sig has different recoil than the .40).

You can't go wrong with any of them, though. Overall, if I were to do it again, I'd go back to my G26. I just picked up the G33 because a pawn shop had a used one sitting in the case for months and they gave me a good price on it.

 

[PedalBiker]

I'm seriously considering a 26, but I'm a recoil weenie.

Unless I'm just getting old it looks like the .40 has a pretty significant wound channel advantage over the 9mm.

 

[wyocarp]

I would agree pedal.

 

[Ken Rainey]

Don't let the temporary cavity in the pictures fool you, it's the permanent cavity that does the deed...shot placement with adequate penetration is what closes the deal. Between the two, I prefer the G26...if a larger bullet is wanted, I'd recommend the G30SF.....you're right, I don't care for the .40.....

 

[theotherwaldo]

I got the G-27 because I found it at a pawn shop LNIB for $300. I didn't have a .40 and wanted to try one. Added a Lasermax for those transitional light situation and some Pearce extensions for about half of my magazines. Pocket carries OK (I'm a BIG boy) and my accuracy with it is pretty good.

So I kept it because I like it.

 

[CPshooter]

Honestly, go with whatever caliber you are comfortable shooting.

I have owned both. I sold the 27 for a 26. I love the .40s&w for a lot of reasons, but for an 18oz gun it is a little bit much as far as recoil goes. I'm no recoil sissy, but follow-up shots on an 18oz gun with a 2-finger grip are tough when shooting .40s&w.

It's not like the .40 is impossible to shoot. It's still not a big deal but if you are talking crucial follow-up shots the 9mm shines over the .40 in the sub-compact glock platform.

My advice is go with the 26. It's easier to shoot and 9mm ammo will cost you easily 1/3 less to practice with. Not to mention it really isn't sacrificing any "stopping power." (Look at the bullet comparison pic Racegunner posted).

 

[wyocarp]

Don't let the temporary cavity in the pictures fool you, it's the permanent cavity that does the deed

That is an opinion, and I'm pretty sure I don't agree with it.

follow-up shots on an 18oz gun with a 2-finger grip are tough when shooting .40s&w

The grip extension makes a hugh difference to me. It's just enough to get the third finger on there and adds a lot to the controlability.
But then again, we are only talking about while at the range. When the chips are down, you don't hear the gun and you don't feel the recoil.

 

[Ken Rainey]

wyocarp, you don't have to agree with it, but it's been proven that the temporary cavity created by handgun ammunition doesn't do any meaningful damage such as happens with rifle rounds....check out some of the studies on handgun ammo effectivenss such as those by the FBI, etc....

They do look impressive in a block of gelatin but in live tissue, it's a different story....the tissue just don't stretch in a violent enough manner that it causes enough permanent damage to make a difference....it'd be great if it did, but that's just the way it is...

Bottom line is the handgun bullet has to hit it/go thru it to be able to count on it to do any damage to it...

 

[wyocarp]

Well Ken, no disrespect, but the FBI reports don't mean a lot to me.

 

[CountGlockula]

G27 all the way, why? Because it matches my G35 and G23 in caliber. Plus, my local Walmart just ran out of 9mm but have plenty of .40S&W! More for me. Go try it out.

 

[NG VI]

Funny you say that Count, I just picked up an OD 23 to go with my 27!


Love that little gun!