Glock 23?

[Nephrology]

So, I carry 9mm Glocks, but recently made a leap into .40 when I picked up a Gen 4 G35 for competition use. I also keep seeing used (often po-surp) Gen 3 glock 23s out there to be had for a song. I've shot one before but can't say I have substantial experience with them, but I don't recall the dreaded .40 recoil being that awful.

So, question: would a Gen 3 G23 be a decent backup/complement to my G19? or should I just hold out to buy another 9mm? I keep seeing them like new with night sights for $350-375 and can't help but wonder if I should just snatch one up...

[El Cid]

I don't see any reason to buy any gun in 40 unless I have access to an endless supply of free 40 ammo.

[Sero Sed Serio]

Unless you have one of the specific, narrow needs for .40 (intermediate barriers, maybe woods gun), I would put the money towards another 19. If you do have a strong need for .40, then I would use a USPc or SIG 229 to launch it. If you have a strong need for .40 and really want to stick with the Glock, I would get a Gen. 4, as it is better designed to handle the caliber.

[Nephrology]

Unless you have one of the specific, narrow needs for .40 (intermediate barriers, maybe woods gun), I would put the money towards another 19. If you do have a strong need for .40, then I would use a USPc or SIG 229 to launch it. If you have a strong need for .40 and really want to stick with the Glock, I would get a Gen. 4, as it is better designed to handle the caliber.

Definitely would be sticking with Glock - have far too much support gear/trigger time to want to invest in another platform at this point in time.

[DiscipulusArmorum]

Isn't the 23 kind of the red-headed stepchild of the Glock .40 family? Seems like I recall hearing from one or more of our LE members that the 23 has presented more problems as a duty weapon compared to the 22. No attribution on that, but I did recall DocGKR has been down on them in the past. With the aid of Google I found his post from 2012 that I was thinking of:

Link to M4C topic

In a timely coincidence, a very experienced senior SOF NCO who has slayed many of our Nation's foes and who has the distinction of having used 9mm, .40, and .45 ACP pistols in combat during various phases of his career wrote the following superb analysis discussing this very topic today:

"Not getting into the weapons transition issues from frame design to frame design (it's the reason I love to hate the Glock), the fact of the matter is that the recoil on the 23 crosses the magic line of running the shit out of your pistol.

Allow me to explain...

Most of the guys on the G19 thread mentioned that they can handle the reduced size of the 19 and the recoil increase over the 17 is acceptable. Most of us have also determined that this does NOT cross over to the .40 cartridge. Guys with a firm handle on recoil manipulation can use the 22 and 35 with acceptable results. However when you go down to 26's and 23's, the juice is not worth the squeeze. The recoil is now noticably effecting times and it's measurable. If you can't effectively control recoil and are wasting time allowing your pistol to settle between shots then this is all a wash and means nothing to you, but if you can apply the fundamentals effectively you will quickly see that you can't run a sub compact 9 or a compact .40 worth a shit. So a decision to accept a larger pistol in order to have an acceptable recoil impulse based upon caliber must be made. The smallest 9mm Glock recoil that I will accept is the G19 and I will not go below the G22 when bumping up to .40."

[jh9]

Unless you have one of the specific, narrow needs for .40 (intermediate barriers, maybe woods gun), I would put the money towards another 19. If you do have a strong need for .40, then I would use a USPc or SIG 229 to launch it. If you have a strong need for .40 and really want to stick with the Glock, I would get a Gen. 4, as it is better designed to handle the caliber.

If OP got the 35 for USPSA Limited and he reloads it makes sense. I would dump 9mm for .40 across the board.

.40 minor isn't bad in terms of recoil, the caliber can be loaded up or down as needed, and gives you a lot of flexibilty for Limited major and Production/SSP minor. In that case I would consider moving to .40 en masse just to simplify things. Not that having 2 calibers is burdensome, but only loading one cal for practice/competition, only having to stock one type of components, buying ammo for defense, having one set of magazines, etc. is convenient.

I don't, however, do more than play in Limited so to hell with that beastly little thing.

[Nephrology]

If OP got the 35 for USPSA Limited and he reloads it makes sense. I would dump 9mm for .40 across the board.

.40 minor isn't bad in terms of recoil, the caliber can be loaded up or down as needed, and gives you a lot of flexibilty for Limited major and Production/SSP minor. In that case I would consider moving to .40 en masse just to simplify things. Not that having 2 calibers is burdensome, but only loading one cal for practice/competition, only having to stock one type of components, buying ammo for defense, having one set of magazines, etc. is convenient.

I don't, however, do more than play in Limited so to hell with that beastly little thing.

Unfortunately I do not reload (hence why the 35 is my only .40). I will say that one reason I went with the 35 (beyond being able to cheaply make major with factory ammo) is that I reckoned that when election season rolls around next Fall, I will still be able to find .40 on the shelf. I don't plan on making this g23 a terribly high round count pistol (if I get one at all), but the appeal of .40 availability is there.

[Leroy]

I would rent one and try it out SHO and WHO, that is where the .40 Glocks get interesting. Do it with hotter 165 grain ammo as well.

[Nephrology]

I would rent one and try it out SHO and WHO, that is where the .40 Glocks get interesting. Do it with hotter 165 grain ammo as well.

I'd definitely carry 180gr loads were I to get the pistol. No interest in hotter .40 JHPs, my life is already interesting enough as it is... :P

[jh9]

Unfortunately I do not reload (hence why the 35 is my only .40). I will say that one reason I went with the 35 (beyond being able to cheaply make major with factory ammo) is that I reckoned that when election season rolls around next Fall, I will still be able to find .40 on the shelf. I don't plan on making this g23 a terribly high round count pistol (if I get one at all), but the appeal of .40 availability is there.

I have a friend that uses the same logic. I don't think I get it, though. Rather than spend $300 on a pistol you *might* be able to get ammo for why not just buy a case of 9mm and put it in a box under a "in case of ammo drought break seal" sticker?