Glock 22 vs 17 recoil difference?

[ronrob]

Having owned both ... yes a Big difference and I actually prefer shooting my Glock 10 MM guns over the 22 the heavier mass of the 10 mm slides helps absorb the force of a 40 cal better for me... I sold my Glock 22 and settled on a Glock small sized 29 for my favorite 10mm... I forgot to mention that I have shot 40 cal. thru some of my Glock 10mm guns as well as 10mm bullets .. If you want brutal recoil try a Glock 27 ... it really bites the hand I owned 1 for many years

 

[paul73]

But, doing it over again, I'd probably get a G19

and then realize that a p365 is much better for edc than g19, sell g19 with a good markup and stock on g17s. ditto.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

and then realize that a p365 is much better for edc than g19, sell g19 with a good markup and stock on g17s. ditto.

I don't care for Sig's attitude. If a G19 structurally fails after years of use, Glock will fix it. Ditto for S&W. Sig will use the term "acceptable service life".

Once club member had a Sig fail (alloy rails split), was told "acceptable service life but we will give you a great deal on a new one". He accepted, and received a well used one (never told used when the offer was made). When he called Sig he was told "Well, you certainly did not expect us to sell you a new one at that price did you?". The fact that the Sig rep was shocked that the customer actually thought he was getting a real discount because his frame failed tells me a lot about the corporate culture.

 

[ronrob]

Glad you posted that about Sig I still own a Glock G29 but sold all my others in favor for the 365

I don't care for Sig's attitude. If a G19 structurally fails after years of use, Glock will fix it. Ditto for S&W. Sig will use the term "acceptable service life".

Once club member had a Sig fail (alloy rails split), was told "acceptable service life but we will give you a great deal on a new one". He accepted, and received a well used one (never told used when the offer was made). When he called Sig he was told "Well, you certainly did not expect us to sell you a new one at that price did you?". The fact that the Sig rep was shocked that the customer actually thought he was getting a real discount because his frame failed tells me a lot about the corporate culture.

 

[puška m70]

The increase in muscle flip, recoil, wear and tear on the gun itself that was a 9 mm retrofitted for 40 cal, and minimal difference in ballistics compared to a modern 9 mil lead me to personally believe it's not worth getting a 40 cal.

I noticed a definite difference between shooting a Glock in 9 vs 40. The Recoil is really weird in the 40 as well, it's really tourqe-y and the muzzle flip is all over. I'm not a pro and don't have the best technique but it's what I noticed.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The increase in muscle flip, recoil, wear and tear on the gun itself that was a 9 mm retrofitted for 40 cal, and minimal difference in ballistics compared to a modern 9 mil lead me to personally believe it's not worth getting a 40 cal.

I noticed a definite difference between shooting a Glock in 9 vs 40. The Recoil is really weird in the 40 as well, it's really tourqe-y and the muzzle flip is all over. I'm not a pro and don't have the best technique but it's what I noticed.

Did you mean fotay retrofitted to a nine? A 40 won't work with a 9mm breechface, and most guns do not allow changing the breechface dimension without using another slide.

 

[puška m70]

Did you mean fotay retrofitted to a nine? A 40 won't work with a 9mm breechface, and most guns do not allow changing the breechface dimension without using another slide.

Perhaps I worded that poorly. I'm not talking about a conversion Barrel... I mean that the Glock 22 itself is really a Glock 17 that was reverse-engineered for 40 Smith & Wesson. It's not like it was its own design like the other larger caliber Glocks. Kind of like 40 was crammed in what was originally designed as a 9 mm gun.

This is why the Glock 22 allegedly wear out faster, like you generally don't see 50,000 round examples of a Glock chambered in a high-pressure cartridge

 

[drgrant]

The increase in muscle flip, recoil, wear and tear on the gun itself that was a 9 mm retrofitted for 40 cal, and minimal difference in ballistics compared to a modern 9 mil lead me to personally believe it's not worth getting a 40 cal.

I noticed a definite difference between shooting a Glock in 9 vs 40. The Recoil is really weird in the 40 as well, it's really tourqe-y and the muzzle flip is all over. I'm not a pro and don't have the best technique but it's what I noticed.

Lol I think 40 sucks but there's at least one big falsehood in this post. Particularly the first part.

Even in most .40s you will shoot like 50 times the cost in ammo vs the handguns cost before you "wear it out". Ages ago when I was a retard I pretty much carried nothing BUT .40s when
I started out. Somehow I managed to not wear them out.

For starters, a lot of the preeminent .40 S&W handguns were literally built around the cartridge. Guns like the Sig P229, and the HK USP were literally built around the .40 first before
other cartridges, not the other way around.

Glock on the other hand, did hackney their designs a bit to take 40, but even in that realm, they're not that bad. In the Gen5 models they've even apparently added some mass to the 40s.

I agree that for people who are novices it is not really a good caliber to start out with, especially if you don't have particularly large or strong hands.

 

[puška m70]

Lol I think 40 sucks but there's at least one big falsehood in this post. Particularly the first part.

Even in most .40s you will shoot like 50 times the cost in ammo vs the handguns cost before you "wear it out". Ages ago when I was a retard I pretty much carried nothing BUT .40s when
I started out. Somehow I managed to not wear them out.

For starters, a lot of the preeminent .40 S&W handguns were literally built around the cartridge. Guns like the Sig P229, and the HK USP were literally built around the .40 first before
other cartridges, not the other way around.

Glock on the other hand, did hackney their designs a bit to take 40, but even in that realm, they're not that bad. In the Gen5 models they've even apparently added some mass to the 40s.

I agree that for people who are novices it is not really a good caliber to start out with, especially if you don't have particularly large or strong hands.

this could apply about people who are training and doing multiple pistol classes. While I completely agree that it's not going to be an issue for the average person I'm just speaking on the design itself. A Glock 17 will last longer overall at a higher round count...if you are shooting tens of thousands of rounds. Not the average person but it is something to consider

 

[drgrant]

this could apply about people who are training and doing multiple pistol classes. While I completely agree that it's not going to be an issue for the average person I'm just speaking on the design itself. A Glock 17 will last longer overall at a higher round count...if you are shooting tens of thousands of rounds. Not the average person but it is something to consider

It's completely absurd to even care about service life in a modern pistol. The gun will become an irrelevant cost vs time.

Also have fun finding like, the handful of people who actually have been able to wear a gun out. If you get to that point you deserve to buy yourself a new gun.

That's how retarded it is.

 

[puška m70]

It's completely absurd to even care about service life in a modern pistol. The gun will become an irrelevant cost vs time.

Also have fun finding like, the handful of people who actually have been able to wear a gun out. If you get to that point you deserve to buy yourself a new gun.

That's how retarded it is.

Alright that's a fair point. I'm just quoting some trainers I've seen online who claim that is an issue they've seen, but yes it's likely a small demographic

 

[Rick O'Shea]

Buy both cause 'Merica!

 

[enbloc]

.
.
.
< Loves .40... not afraid to admit it.

 

[Mark from ?]

I have a Gen 5 G17 and a Gen 4 G22. There is a noticeable difference in recoil/snap whatever. Right now I could give a fxck less. I like the .40, and don't have a problem getting back on target.

And yes, as the perfect skinflint I have a 9mm conversion barrel for the G22. which works very nicely and I even got a deal on it used here making me even flintier. I only really bought it because I had the 9mm mags already.

I prefer my Canik over any of my auto pistols for accuracy and shootability.

 

[mac1911]

Is the recoil from a .40 cal Glock 22 really much of a difference between a 9mm G17? Spare me the ".40 sucks/is gay/is terrible" spiel for now.

Watched a few highly skilled/qualified YouTube performers, the like of Paul Harrell says it's not really a noticeable recoil difference, but then Yaeger says people can't shoot .40 well generally.

I dont even call it recoil , not in the energy sense anyway.
For me 9/40 are not terribly different weight for weight. What they do have is a sharper “hit” or “sting” vs a 45
My wife is not a shooter. I never told her about 9,45,40 or recoil non of that shit.
After a range trip shooting about 25 rounds through each gun I asked which gun did you like best. She points to my 9mm beretta and says. I dont like that one at all , it stings my hand. She points to the 45 acp and says that one is very load but It feels fine and I shot better with it.
The 4013tsw which I carry she said that ones just annoying , its load, and slips in my hands.