Makes me think I ought to sell the LEO trade-in 2nd gen G22 I bought because it was $300 and buy an LEO trade-in M&P .40. Actually I should buy another PX4.
Makes me think I ought to sell the LEO trade-in 2nd gen G22 I bought because it was $300 and buy an LEO trade-in M&P .40. Actually I should buy another PX4.
I had a duty HK USPc .40 that had over an honest 50k of 165gr GoldDot and 180 HST run thru it. It finally got swapped out after repeated breakage of the flatspring. (For whatever the reason.) Even then, being a LEM, it still fired abeit with the heavy pull.
I have the upmost confidence in any such HK pistol.
If you have GJM's mindset, "everything/all calibers", you probably wouldn't. But if you're a one type of gun guy and your edc is a Glock, you might also want your "woods" gun to be a Glock. Or if you don't like any of those other pistols, not a lot of choices left.Originally Posted by Jeep
The one thing I haven't seen mentioned, though maybe I just missed it, why not try a 29 or 20 with a .40 conversion barrel? It would be fairly inexpensive to try. And I like the .45 GAP idea just because of the size of the pistol, but I don't think I've ever seen a .40 conversion barrel for it.
Just a Hairy Special Snowflake supply clerk with no field experience, shooting an Asymetric carbine as a Try Hard. Snarky and easily butt hurt. Favorite animal is the Cape Buffalo....likely indicative of a personality disorder.
"If I had a grandpa, he would look like Delbert Belton".
My experience is a Glock in .40 may (or may not) function reliably, but an HK in .40/45 will function reliably.
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
The diameter difference between .45 GAP rim is ~44 percent greater than the difference between 9mm and .40, where many find they obtain acceptable function on the range but few claim the confidence to rely on it for defense. Does a .45 GAP slide and extractor run .40 cases sufficiently reliably for defense?
.
-----------------------------------------
Not another dime.
Or you could just keep things boring and get a brand new H&K online for roughly the same price as Glock's commonly sell for new...
That 45 gap to 40 sw conversion barrel comes with a magazine follower and an extractor. Mag follower is because the Glock 22/23/27 mag will not hold slide open on empty in a 37/38/39 -- hence the follower tweak. Extractor is for the 40sw rim.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
FWIW, the only caliber conversion that is an OK idea with Glock's... or really ANY semiauto pistol is .40 to .357 Sig or vice versa. Even then, you can still have problems if the pistol wasn't designed/tested for this.
Case in point, H&K never got the .357 Sig to work well enough in the USP Full Size to warrant releasing... yet the USP Compact was sold factory .357 Sig. You can still drop in factory .357 Sig barrels for USPC, so that is one conversion I can get behind given H&K parts consistency.
The Glocksmith recommends only .40<.357, yet the .357 Sig in Glock platform has been alleged by Buffalo Bore to be dangerous regarding bullet set back due to the magazine sitting low in the frame vs Sig's pistol's which the cartridge was designed to work in. Maybe not a problem if you don't repeatedly chamber the same cartridge, but... kinda sorta.
I understand the desire to 'easily' have more than one caliber to a gun, but the reality is technology just really doesn't support this well yet... at least if you want something to work as it should/safely (and keep working as it should, safely). IF your name is Bubba and you like to drink while slapping/tickling shotgun triggers... this probably doesn't apply.
Last edited by Thy.Will.Be.Done; 08-26-2017 at 05:37 PM.
This may or may not be of concern, but one area where Glock absolutely shines pretty much over anything else is in terms of the ease of detailed disassembly/reassembly. For the vast, vast majority of shooters, field-stripping will fully suffice for all routine cleaning and lubing. However (and this is a potentially huge "however," at least for me situationally) is that should I a dump a gun into a muddy, silty or salty water (or for that matter, accidentally totally immerse it in any media that could intrusively gum up the action, either immediately or eventually if not expeditiously addressed), only a Glock is easily and quickly able to be partially or totally disassembled to clean, dry minimally lube, easily reassemble and move on.
Owning both Glocks and HKs (amongst others), I don't contest that, component-for-component an HK is of higher quality (and probably stronger steels). It will probably be at least slightly more accurate. I concur that there's a greater chance of an average .40 HK running with zero operational issues than much, if not most competitors. But while field-stripping, and even detail-disassembling an HK slide is no big deal, going down into the receiver is much more demanding, and more tool-intensive, and much more likely needing to be performed in an administrative, well-lit environment.
I think that it's worthy of note that some well-respected, vetted p-f members have reservations about .40 Glocks. I totally get that. Their individual and cumulative round counts on their .40 Glocks (and other platforms) is significantly greater than mine. I personally would be at least somewhat, if not extremely wary of running high-pressure loads through any pre-Gen4 .40 Glock. If I have a choice in choosing between Glock and HK, what I'd personally choose would significantly depend on the perceived potentially necessity of needing to perform a detail disassembly in the environment that I was in. If I'm doing a day hike, my choices are significantly larger than if I were on a protracted wilderness trip.
Another factor to consider in the selection process is if you genuinely need the higher pressure/greater penetration cartridges that have been discussed in the thread. In the lower 48 states, my feeling is that for black bear, cougar, mountain lions DocGKR-vetted duty ammo will probably suffice, but against an enraged moose, elk, brown/grizzly bear or similar, the higher-pressure, greater penetrative cartridges are more desirable. If you don't need the higher-pressure cartridges, I'm personally comfortable with a Gen4 G22 (or, to be totally fair and objective, a Gen4 G22 that has sufficiently proven itself as reliable). For the higher-pressure stuff, I'd be more inclined (with caveats as mentioned above) to go with an HK .40.
Regarding SIG P229s, I'd be wary of the component quality of post-Cohen era guns-post 2005 pieces. Intrinsically the SIGS are exceptionally well designed, but their durability may be questionable, given SIG's predilection to start with exceptionally high quality components, and then shift to lower cost/quality offshore alternative components over time in the manufacturing cycle. And a detailed disassembly/reassembly of a SIG is certainly more difficult that that of a Glock, but probably on par or marginally easier than that of an HK. The Smith & Wesson M&P .40s seem to have acquired a good reputation, but I'm afraid that my perception of M&Ps in general has been probably irrevocably tainted by their issues and S&W's wack-a-mole solution towards their fixes (or the perceived necessity to substitute aftermarket components for the OEM ones), when it's easy enough simply to default to other alternative platforms.
Regardless, one of the key take-outs out of this discussion for me is the viability of the .40 cartridge/platform as a wilderness selection.
Best, Jon
Last edited by JonInWA; 08-26-2017 at 06:30 PM.
Reply With Quote