Gen 5 23 MOS field pistol project

[Navin Johnson]

I think the 147 is slightly higher....but close.....9 is more shootable 40 is bigger.....that is why I asked.

Now if a peep wants a new blaster then amen. But In real life I don't know if one is gaining much with the 40.

Seems placement (shootability) would be an important factor with a service pistol and a 500lb + critter

[GJM]

I think the 147 is slightly higher....but close.....9 is more shootable 40 is bigger.....that is why I asked.

Now if a peep wants a new blaster then amen. But In real life I don't know if one is gaining much with the 40.

Seems placement (shootability) would be an important factor with a service pistol and a 500lb + critter

Do you have any experience shooting a Gen 5 Glock .40, so you can quantify the difference in shootability that you get in exchange for about 15 percent more diameter and bullet weight, with the relevant Lehigh penetrator bullets?

[mmc45414]

Whenever the discussion is about 40 it tends to be described as only slightly larger because the diameter is only 1mm more, but the frontal area ends up being about a forth greater.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

[coldcase1984]

When/If GLOCK drops the Gen5 32 MOS would that 115 Underwood .357 SIG load rated at 1450 be suitable for field pistol duty?

[Navin Johnson]

Do you have any experience shooting a Gen 5 Glock .40, so you can quantify the difference in shootability that you get in exchange for about 15 percent more diameter and bullet weight, with the relevant Lehigh penetrator bullets?

Have not shot a Gen 5 23.

Shot a number of platforms designed around the 40 that make it reasonably shootable.

Without getting into the minutia of service caliber cartridges I know the 40 is superior to the nine in every measurable parameter.

I know earlier in the thread you stated that the Gen 5 g23 shoots like a 19 with plus p cartridges.

I'm looking at it mostly from my perspective and trying to understand if it's worth adding another caliber as I am quite invested in the nine for service pistols.

Round nose 40 vs 9 is not a game changer in my opinion.but bigger is better.

I appreciate your input.

[Navin Johnson]

Whenever the discussion is about 40 it tends to be described as only slightly larger because the diameter is only 1mm more, but the frontal area ends up being about a forth greater.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

Correct

And the crush cavity from round nose projectiles is about .65 (if that) of the diameter of the projectile.

Neither the nine nor the 40 are really impressive in this aspect.

In the case of round nose I think placement is the critical part.

[HeavyDuty]

Have not shot a Gen 5 23.

Shot a number of platforms designed around the 40 that make it reasonably shootable.

Without getting into the minutia of service caliber cartridges I know the 40 is superior to the nine in every measurable parameter.

I know earlier in the thread you stated that the Gen 5 g23 shoots like a 19 with plus p cartridges.

I'm looking at it mostly from my perspective and trying to understand if it's worth adding another caliber as I am quite invested in the nine for service pistols.

Round nose 40 vs 9 is not a game changer in my opinion.but bigger is better.

I appreciate your input.

I’m not GJM, nor do I have anywhere near the practical experience that he has - but I do have a Gen4 33 with a second factory 27 barrel, a 26.5 and a 27.5. The 27.5 shoots much softer than the 33 with 27 barrel, and about the same as the 26 with plus P - a little less abrupt if anything. The extra slide mass really seems to help the Gen5 40s.

[HCM]

When/If GLOCK drops the Gen5 32 MOS would that 115 Underwood .357 SIG load rated at 1450 be suitable for field pistol duty?

I wouldn’t hold my breath for a GEN 532. You are much more likely to find an aftermarket 357 barrel for a Gen 5 G23.

[steve]

Have not shot a Gen 5 23.

Shot a number of platforms designed around the 40 that make it reasonably shootable.

Without getting into the minutia of service caliber cartridges I know the 40 is superior to the nine in every measurable parameter.

I know earlier in the thread you stated that the Gen 5 g23 shoots like a 19 with plus p cartridges.

I'm looking at it mostly from my perspective and trying to understand if it's worth adding another caliber as I am quite invested in the nine for service pistols.

Round nose 40 vs 9 is not a game changer in my opinion.but bigger is better.

I appreciate your input.

I also am not GJM, but I own both the 23Gen5 and 22Gen5. I shot the 22Gen5 in USPSA in limited better than my 35Gen4. My times were faster and my classifier scores improved. I have owned all the Gen 3 40's and Gen4 40's and the heavier slide mass makes the Gen5's a game changer. I am eagerly awaiting the 35Gen5's. As far as adding another caliber, .40 ammo is almost in line with 9mm pricing and you can find it easier during panic times.

I think the 23Gen5 as a field gun makes excellent sense. 13 rounds of .40 in a compact package. I am a 9mm junkie but when something works you have to embrace it and get the most out of it.

[GJM]

Have not shot a Gen 5 23.

Shot a number of platforms designed around the 40 that make it reasonably shootable.

Without getting into the minutia of service caliber cartridges I know the 40 is superior to the nine in every measurable parameter.

I know earlier in the thread you stated that the Gen 5 g23 shoots like a 19 with plus p cartridges.

I'm looking at it mostly from my perspective and trying to understand if it's worth adding another caliber as I am quite invested in the nine for service pistols.

Round nose 40 vs 9 is not a game changer in my opinion.but bigger is better.

I appreciate your input.

My interest in the .40 MOS was motivated by the field pistol niche, and how small I feel whenever I get close to a grizzly bear. But for that, I probably wouldn't be messing with these. However now that I have them, I find myself frequently carrying a G23 MOS .40 for regular EDC.