[man.cave]

IR

Originally Posted by janice6

I swap: 9mm, .357 Sig and .40 cal. in my G27 at each range session and I cannot perceive any difference.

It is a great pistol.

U must be a beast, I have a 26 & 27. and often shoot both. U empty a mag in one and pick up the other, there is a difference. I carry the 27 my wife the 26.

[glockman99]

Originally Posted by tango44

A perfect Talon Grips candidate!
Congrats!

Agrip is ALOT better...Trust me on this!

[Tazz10m]

Originally Posted by glockman99

Agrip is ALOT better...Trust me on this!

THANKS!

[Opie 1 Kenopie]

Originally Posted by Z71bill

I don't have a G26 or G27 -- I assume my M&P9c and M&P40c are similar in recoil difference.

IMHO most of you are missing the point --

Sure almost anyone that can shoot a G26 can shoot a G27 - it is not like the recoil is going to break your arm.

I did not think the recoil of my M&P40c was bad at all - then one day I did a test --

I took a few large targets and put 10 circles on each - some small - some larger - then numbered them 1-10 in a random way.

I then did a timed test with a stop watch -

Shoot the circles - in number order - from about 10 feet - as fast as I could do so - and hit inside the circles.

After a few times it became OBVIOUS that my total times shooting my 9MM M&P9c were faster than my .40 caliber M&P40c.

I can't recall my exact numbers - but accumulating all my times - on average - it was taking me about 2 seconds longer to shoot 10 rounds of .40 than 10 rounds of 9MM.

This is a significant difference - it surprised me - after all I never thought the recoil of the .40 was bad at all.

I am sure some guys can shoot both calibers just as fast - and just as accurately - I can't.

I still have all 3 of my .40 caliber guns - still shoot them - still like them - but it is just a fact - I can't shoot them as well as I can a 9MM.

Next time you are at the range prove it to yourself.

There's a reason 9 is so easy to control. There's no POWER there! I'm mostly joking, but for those of us who can carry/control a .40, we like having a serious caliber that stands a better chance of putting down bad dudes. It's not worth having perfect controllability if I have to dump an entire magazine into him.

[FireInCairo]

I think people who notice it most usually have spent a lot of time with .45's or G26's before trying the G27. There is more snap, and they can tell right away. I started my pistol experience on compact and subcompact .40 caliber pistols, so the only thing I notice is that 9mm pistols feel like peashooters.

[drcotlar]

Originally Posted by RyanNREMTP

To me recoil has always been subjective to the individual person.

I think your point would better be stated that the shooter's response or attitude to the recoil is subjective. The actual
recoil is absolute and measurable, ie objective. Not trying to split hairs, but the difference is important in discussions.

[drcotlar]

Originally Posted by Z71bill

I don't have a G26 or G27 -- I assume my M&P9c and M&P40c are similar in recoil difference.

IMHO most of you are missing the point --

Sure almost anyone that can shoot a G26 can shoot a G27 - it is not like the recoil is going to break your arm.

I did not think the recoil of my M&P40c was bad at all - then one day I did a test --

I took a few large targets and put 10 circles on each - some small - some larger - then numbered them 1-10 in a random way.

I then did a timed test with a stop watch -

Shoot the circles - in number order - from about 10 feet - as fast as I could do so - and hit inside the circles.

After a few times it became OBVIOUS that my total times shooting my 9MM M&P9c were faster than my .40 caliber M&P40c.

I can't recall my exact numbers - but accumulating all my times - on average - it was taking me about 2 seconds longer to shoot 10 rounds of .40 than 10 rounds of 9MM.

This is a significant difference - it surprised me - after all I never thought the recoil of the .40 was bad at all.

I am sure some guys can shoot both calibers just as fast - and just as accurately - I can't.

I still have all 3 of my .40 caliber guns - still shoot them - still like them - but it is just a fact - I can't shoot them as well as I can a 9MM.

Next time you are at the range prove it to yourself.

I am not surprised at the results of your test and would expect such a result in the hands of most . I bought a 40 over a 9 (27 instead of 26) for the larger, more powerful round. I see it as a trade off.

[drcotlar]

Originally Posted by FireInCairo

I think people who notice it most usually have spent a lot of time with .45's or G26's before trying the G27. There is more snap, and they can tell right away. I started my pistol experience on compact and subcompact .40 caliber pistols, so the only thing I notice is that 9mm pistols feel like peashooters.

Informative and interesting perspective.

[TTex]

Originally Posted by 9mm +p+

You guys are high, the 27 is ferocious, period. My 23 is a real kicker as well, if you want a soft shooting 40 get a SIG P229. But the 27 is just plain nasty.

I'm guessing this is sarcasm?
I find the 9mm +P+ to be a little more on the ferocious side! The times I've shot 40 I didn't see what all the hype was about, but Federal 115gr 9mm +P+ turns that tame G19 into a whole nother animal!
I generally prefer the 9 and 45, but I have no problem with the 40, it's just not my caliber of choice.
And the 9mm +P+ makes me wonder if I'm pushing a G19 or G26 a little to far.

[janice6]

Originally Posted by man.cave

IR

U must be a beast, I have a 26 & 27. and often shoot both. U empty a mag in one and pick up the other, there is a difference. I carry the 27 my wife the 26.

Naw. I do have a strong grip from a lot of "hammer and dolly" custom car work, but it's just a sweet shooting gun.

I shot a .410 "pistol" my friend cut down from a full length shotgun and that is a beast.

[DannyB]

Originally Posted by FireInCairo

I think people who notice it most usually have spent a lot of time with .45's or G26's before trying the G27. There is more snap, and they can tell right away. I started my pistol experience on compact and subcompact .40 caliber pistols, so the only thing I notice is that 9mm pistols feel like peashooters.

The only 45's I have ever shot were full sized 1911's and a G21. Are you saying that a 40 sub-compact is snappier than a sub-compact 45?

[Z71bill]

Originally Posted by Opie 1 Kenopie

There's a reason 9 is so easy to control. There's no POWER there! I'm mostly joking, but for those of us who can carry/control a .40, we like having a serious caliber that stands a better chance of putting down bad dudes. It's not worth having perfect controllability if I have to dump an entire magazine into him.

Originally Posted by drcotlar

I am not surprised at the results of your test and would expect such a result in the hands of most . I bought a 40 over a 9 (27 instead of 26) for the larger, more powerful round. I see it as a trade off.

For SD - I use a quality HP in my 9MM - and do not feel that the round is lacking in power or performance.

The slight difference in stopping power (if there even is one) between the 9 and 40 is not that big of a deal.

I will admit that part of my reasoning is because I have developed arthritus in my wrists and hands -

If I go shoot 100 rounds of .40 the next day I have a hard time tying my shoes. Shooting the same number of 9MM or .45 ACP leaves my wrists a little swollen but not as bad.

I also like the 2 extra rounds I can get in my M&P9c VS the M&P40c.

The point I was making -

It is not that the .40 recoil is so punishing that it is painful (for most) - but that extra recoil - even if you don't really feel it - increases the time between shots & or impacts your accuracy.

Does a fraction of a second really matter?

Most likely not - hope I never have to find out.

[Kimura]

Originally Posted by Opie 1 Kenopie

There's a reason 9 is so easy to control. There's no POWER there! I'm mostly joking, but for those of us who can carry/control a .40, we like having a serious caliber that stands a better chance of putting down bad dudes. It's not worth having perfect controllability if I have to dump an entire magazine into him.

In a perfect world, I'm with you; bigger is better. But it's not a perfect world and it's irrelevant if you can't put rounds on target at speed. Personally, I very seldom see someone shooting a Glock 27 or even a 23 that can do this. Some handle it fine without time constraints, some don't. But once you put time and accuracy constraints on them, a lot don't shoot the guns well. The increased recoil starts to play a much larger role when you have to shoot faster at smaller targets. This is what many don't take into consideration. I understand it's a trade off, but it's only a trade off if your times and accuracy are close to each other. If not, it doesn't matter.

[scosgt]

I find the recoil of my G27 and G23 to be LESS than my old service G19 and G26.
The 9mm recoil is sharp, the .40 recoil is a push.

Even my Kahr CM40 is not much worse to shoot than a Kahr MK9, which is steel and heavier.

[CrackerKen]

I swear, there is probably someone out there who would gripe about the "harsh" recoil of a .22 LR.

Seriously, I have no issues with .40S&W recoil in either my G27 or my new S&W M&P Shield .40. Instead of having a 9mm and using +p or +P+, I just use .40 S&W and cut to the chase.

The last gun I used in law enforcement was a .357 mag S&W Model 19. We had to start qualifying with magnum ammo, and THAT hurt after about 180 rds in a day. With the .40 semi-auto's, no problem.

[INEEDMILK]

Originally Posted by Opie 1 Kenopie

There's a reason 9 is so easy to control. There's no POWER there! I'm mostly joking, but for those of us who can carry/control a .40, we like having a serious caliber that stands a better chance of putting down bad dudes. It's not worth having perfect controllability if I have to dump an entire magazine into him.

If you knew the slightest bit about terminal ballistics then you'd know that ALL pistol calibers are terrible at "putting down bad dudes".

The only shots that matter are shots that hit the brain or central nervous system. The diameter of the wound cavity is irrelevant as long as it is penetrating 12 inches.

[Indy_Tim]

I just picked up my G27 about a week ago and I find it to be very manageable. I had it out last Friday with my G20 and found the G27 to definitely be snappier than the 20, but not so much so that it presented a problem. I've run about 200 rounds through it and am very comfortable shooting it, so it is getting carried as an EDC gun now. I have not shot it side by side with my G29, but expect it to be no different than that.

I have to admit, sometimes I do like to carry the CZ 75 Compact because that thing has almost no recoil by comparison. My shot to shot times are much faster with the CZ than with the G20, 27 or 29. But, it is a bit heavier and that does dampen the recoil a bunch.

[BUSHfire]

To each his own, I like to shot my G27 and have no issues. I have a friend that bought a s&w .500 with the 3-4" shorter barrel, and he is about 220lbs 6'2" and built (sissy gym muscles, HA). I am far from that size, so I grabbed the gun and was holding it one handed while aiming and he went nutz saying how it would break my wrist! HA I said hush and let one rip and it wasn't that bad at all, he couldnt believe it, so he took his gun back while acting half pissed at me.
The most harsh recoil I have ever experienced was with a S&W airlite Scandium alloy framed .357 mag, 5 shots as fast as I could pull the trigger and my wrist hurt for a day and hand stung for about a hour. That was fun!! and I still got all 5 shots on target..

Shoot the 27 and keep enjoying it, I know I always will.

[CigarandScotch]

I have to admit to being a recoil junkie. The more the better, when it comes to having fun at the range. For better and quicker followup shots I prefer more manageable defensive weapons/calibers...but I generally love guns that have both bark and bite!

For what it's worth, I don't find any Glocks to have an objectionable amount of recoil for defensive purposes, even the mighty 10mm.

[vactor]

shot mine today at an indoor competition, for the first time EVER. First shot i have fired with it was at the sound of the 'beep'. i thought something had gone wrong because while i was shooting it, i could not really tell it was recoiling. i thought it had somewhat slipped out of my hand and that it was not giving me felt recoil because i had pretty much lost my hand hold of it. how wrong i was. it just shot so SOFTLY! it's the way the 'hump' fits right in the pocket of the hand in the palm. MUCH 'softer' shooting than my gen4 G35. i am amazed. this has instantly transformed itself into my favorite shooting gun. simply amazing! (at least in my hands). i am all the way home from the range!!

[Pro]

I recently bought a Glock 27. I love it. It's my first .40 of any kind, and I've put a bit less than 200 flawless rounds through it. Over the years I've shot mostly 9mm, and while there is more "snap" with the 27, I don't mind it at all!

[Opie 1 Kenopie]

Originally Posted by INEEDMILK

If you knew the slightest bit about terminal ballistics then you'd know that ALL pistol calibers are terrible at "putting down bad dudes".

The only shots that matter are shots that hit the brain or central nervous system. The diameter of the wound cavity is irrelevant as long as it is penetrating 12 inches.

Milk, as a rangemaster for this states largest LE agency, and a student of the gun for over 30 years, I know a thing or two about terminal ballistics. I'm aware that pistol calibers are weak. All of them. For you to say that the only shots that matter are to the CNS or the brain is simply uneducated and juvenile. I guess the bad guys I've seen on a slab around here didn't get your memo. Very few were hit there. Check that, I can't recall ONE that took a brain shot. Since I don't think I'm such a bad*** that I'll be making head shots on a moving bad guy, I'll just rely on hitting my BGs with a serious bullet. If you think that diameter is irrelevant, you're naive about guns my friend. Show me a cop or soldier that carries a .17 WMR. It's a needle thin bullet but "it penetrates 12 inches" so it must be good to go right? Maybe somebody should tell fans of the .45 or the 12 gauge slug that size doesn't matter.

I've carried a 9mm many times for SD Milk. My current on-duty BUG is a Ruger LC9. I carry it in hot weather under light clothes every once in a while. I don't hate your favorite round. I simply pointed out that the recoil from the .40 round is CAUSED by something. That something is more power. If I can control the .40 as fast and accurately as a 9, why shouldn't I carry the bigger, more powerful caliber?!?! Do some more google work on ballistics Milk. Then you can make comments here and sound educated, not get clowned on by experienced shooters.

[firstg19]

Shoot a 27 and a 26 side by side and you will see the difference. If you practice with the 27 you will be plenty efficient with it. For a newb, the 26 is the way to go. The 26 is also the way to go if you are comfortable with 9mm hp's and if you want more rounds.

[Zero808]

Originally Posted by DannyB

The only 45's I have ever shot were full sized 1911's and a G21. Are you saying that a 40 sub-compact is snappier than a sub-compact 45?

The Glock 27 is more "snappier" than a Glock 30. I have both the 27 & 30 and I love the 30 more than the 27. Both guns are classified as "sub compact"

[INEEDMILK]

Originally Posted by Opie 1 Kenopie

as a rangemaster for this states largest LE agency, and a student of the gun for over 30 years, I know a think or two about terminal ballistics.

I'm not really concerned about your so-called "qualifications" concerning terminal ballistics. Facts are facts.

Being a range master does not make you any more knowledgeable than any other individual who spends a lot of time around firearms. Watching bullets fly down range and sweeping up brass doesn't mean you understand how projectiles interact with human flesh. That's like saying that a guy who works at a movie theater knows how to make movies. Now, if you said you were a forensic pathologist your opinion would carry a bit more weight......but you didn't......and you aren't.

Originally Posted by Opie 1 Kenopie

For you to say that the only shots that matter are to the CNS or the brain is simply uneducated and juvenile. I guess the bad guys I've seen on a slab around here didn't get your memo. Very few were hit there.

I'm sure you're referring to someone who was shot in a secondary region and bled out or otherwise died of complications resulting from the gunshot?

That's not what I'm talking about. Not at all.

I'm talking about stopping a threat instantly, as should be your goal in any defensive scenario. Sure a guy shot in the stomach with a .40 or a a 12 gauge slug will have a bigger wound cavity, and thus will bleed out faster than the same guy shot with a 9mm, but that is meaningless if he still possesses the ability to raise his arm and fire a round at you. Now if that same guy gets his brain or CNS perforated by a bullet, it doesn't matter what size the bullet is because he will be instantly incapacitated.

Sorry, but as much as this might shock you, you don't stand a better chance of hitting the BS or CNS because you shoot a bigger caliber. In fact, you have a lower chance because you have a) less rounds at your disposal, and b) more recoil to adjust for in regards to lining up your secondary and tertiary shots.

Originally Posted by Opie 1 Kenopie

Check that, I can't recall ONE that took a brain shot. Since I don't think I'm such a bad*** that I'll be making head shots on a moving bad guy, I'll just rely on hitting my BGs with a serious bullet. If you think that diameter is irrelevant, you're naive about guns my friend

Oh, a "serious" bullet. I see what this is about now.

Funny. I see a lot of conjecture here and not a lot of substance. You can make stuff up all you want but you can't argue with that fact that study after study finds that there is no discernible difference between the use of modern, expanding .40 and 9mm rounds in a defensive scenario, including this definitive FBI/DOJ collaboration:

http://concealedcarryholsters.org/wp...e-Shootout.pdf

Or this aggregate report of a decade of police shootings:
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/handgun-stopping-power

Many more studies go on to say precisely what I said above, which is "caliber is irrelevant as long as the projectile is penetrating an average of 12 inches in human ballistics medium" and that you should aim to carry the smallest projectile that accomplishes this task because you have that many more shots with which to strike the CNS.

As I said above, and will now say again because you don't seem to understand despite all of your "experience", putting a "bigger hole" in an assailant is meaningless if he still has the capacity to harm you.