Who uses a compact .40 similar to the S&W Shield?

[CPshooter]

It is a fat little beast, however, but I like it.

That literally made me laugh out loud for some reason. Just funny words to read I guess. The real funny thing is, Glocks actually aren't that fat at all. At least not the 9/40/357 models. They are thinner overall (both the slide and grip) than a XD, H&K, or Sig, despite what the specs might say online. They are also very size efficient in overall length and height. When comparing the Glock pistol to other brand in any given class of size or with a similar round count, you might be able to find a pistol that has it tied or beat in 1 of the 3 dimensions, but it will be darn tough to find one that has it beat in 2 or more. *edit* Forgot to mention this before, but you also get a longer barrel for any given class/size of pistol. Slightly better ballistic performance is never a bad thing, right?

 

[The_Armed_Therapist]

Glocks actually aren't that fat at all. At least not the 9/40/357 models. They are thinner overall (both the slide and grip) than a XD, H&K, or Sig, despite what the specs might say online. They are also very size efficient in overall length and height. When comparing the Glock pistol to other brand in any given class of size or with a similar round count, you might be able to find a pistol that has it tied or beat in 1 of the 3 dimensions, but it will be darn tough to find one that has it beat in 2 or more.

I've never said anything when the "fatness" or "blockiness" of Glocks comes up, but I've always had the same thoughts. I don't get the "fat" criticism. LOL... I tried CZ, Beretta, Taurus, S&W, XD, SR, etc, when I was shopping for my primary carry gun and most of them felt fatter to me than the Glock; thus, I bought the Glock. If you don't like it, then you don't like it; no reason to make up stuff about fatness. HAHA

 

[jskibs]

I wasn't really criticizing the G27 by calling it a fat little beast. I just think given the short double stack grip with the lowish slide, it looks kind of bottom heavy. It probably comes from comparison with its recently departed safe mate, a 4.5 inch XDM with its long grip and large slide. Whatever, I like my new G27. Fat guns need love too.

 

[breacher]

remember the rules-

 

[The_Armed_Therapist]

LOL @ the rules. HAHA... I don't think anyone was arguing for Glock superiority in this case, though.

 

[JustinJ]

They are thinner overall (both the slide and grip) than a XD, H&K, or Sig,

I can't say for sure but i'm fairly confident the Glock 23 is not thinner than my HK P2000sk. I'll double check next time i go shooting with my father.

My P2000 is in .357 sig/40 and neither are too terrible although much easier with extended mags and grip insert. I have fairly large hands though so this probably helps.

 

[CPshooter]

I can't say for sure but i'm fairly confident the Glock 23 is not thinner than my HK P2000sk. I'll double check next time i go shooting with my father.

My P2000 is in .357 sig/40 and neither are too terrible although much easier with extended mags and grip insert. I have fairly large hands though so this probably helps.

No need to check. I have a Glock 26 (same width as 19 or 23) and a P2000sk on me right now. The H&K slide tapers from thicker to thinner towards the top, but it is fatter than a Glock slide at its widest point without a doubt. Then you have the right-side slide release lever on the P2000sk creating additional width.

The grips are EXACTLY the same width at their widest point. If there is a difference, it's < 1mm. The edges of the Glock's thumb swells actually stick out a hair further than the rest of the grip, but it's so negligible that it is hard to even notice when looking at the gun. Overall, the P2000sk is fatter across more of its surface area than the Glock 9/40/357 models are.