Is this CCW setup totally crazy? (Glock 27)

I wouldn't carry that gun, holster, or belt. I only carry OWB, the extra velocity would not be worth the 3" of barrel sticking out of the holster.

No way I'd carry that - or any other significantly modded handgun.

"Coyboybebop wanted to kill my client SO MUCH that he felt it necessary to make a .40 caliber Glock even deadlier! Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, please award my client's heirs damages for this willful, deliberate, callous act!"

If it's that big a deal, just carry a G22.

Yep just carry a 22

One of the advantqges of the 40 is that it doesnt lose much velocity from a short barrel.

I agree with jon86, the difference in velocity between my Glock 27 and 22 isn't that much, usually in the 50fps. range.

I'd be interested in the chrono results between the two barrels with your typical carry ammunition.

Time your draws with that barrel vs a normal one. Velocity don't mean anything when you failed to skin that smokewagon...

Cowboybebop said:

LWD 5.3" barrel. Wearing IWB I barely notice the extra length, but feel comforted knowing I am getting more velocity out of the 40.

What do you guys think? Would you rock this?

Click to expand...

No. I wouldn't carry such a modified G27.

Once you start modifying firearms from stock condition, you get away from how the firearm was designed and exhaustively tested for normal functioning & operation during R&D and subsequent manufacturing.

Then, there's the potential risk of such modification becoming a potential disadvantage during any criminal and/or civil legal proceeding following a shooting incident.

Bear in mind that the .40 S&W was originally designed to use an old-style cup & core JHP fired from a 4" barrel (S&W M4006).

We have the advantage of a wider range of improved ammunition choices available nowadays, and the loss of approx half an inch of barrel length (4" M4006/4006TSW or 4.01" G23), or even an inch of barrel length (4.48" G22) wouldn't keep me awake at night.

FWIW, I own, use & carry .40 S&W pistols with 4.1", 3.46" (G27) & 3.5" barrels, and I've used the same ammunition in all of them. It's varied from time to time, especially depending on whatever's being issued at the moment, or authorized for personal purchase.

I can't imagine that you'd ever need that "extra" velocity for s.d. purposes. The downside of a protruding barrel, at least one that protrudes that much, far outweighs, in my opinion, any plus of a little added velocity.

I carry a G26 daily and don't feel that I need more velocity. I am carrying it with a threaded barrel now. It'll do nightstand duty when the suppressor comes in. Will use the G17 suppressed for nightstand duty most of the time.

And NO, I have no qualms about the use of a suppressed weapon for home defense.

I wouldn't do it. I'd take the money spent on the barrel and use it on a new set of sights, can't stand the stock Glock sights

Not a ssnowball's chance you know where. Ridiculous IMHO

The long barrel negates one of the primary reasons to use the Glock 27: the short barrel and overall short length. Get a Glock 23 or 22 and chop the grip to accept G27 mags.

I don't buy into the whole "it could be used by a prosecutor" thing. Especially if they find out you spend any amount of time on a gun forum asking "should I get X or Y for home defense," or even the fact you have a gun, a lawyer is going to have all the ammunition (pun intended) he needs if he wants to make a case against you.

That said, I wouldn't carry with that setup. If the G22 grip is too big, you can have it cut down to G27 length and just carry G27 magazines in it. I also think that for practical application, the best advantage of a longer barrel+slide is the longer sight radius, which you don't get with this setup.

If it works for you, then it works for you. But I think you'd be better served with just a stock G27 or a chopped G22.

There is no way I would "rock this" configuration you display here. As others have recommended, if you're looking for a solution to your situation, have a G23 frame chopped to the G27 grip size. Cold Bore Customs is the top dog in the business of modifying Glock frames. Otherwise, no way on that extended barrel.

At least here in Texas, there's no legal reason (no prosecutorial reason either, deadly force is deadly force period there's no aggravating factors to deadly force) not to carry it.

I second all the votes to just get a G22 and cut down the grip. Much easier in my opinion, plus I'd be a lot less worried about reliability.

-Jernick

I'd keep a carry gun as close to "stock" configuration as possible. The only modifications I would make would be night sights. Any other money spent on it would go towards a good quality holster, some extra mags, some snap caps, plenty of ammo and consistent range time. If you're a new gun owner, I would also suggest investing in a good quality cleaning kit, some cleaning solution/chemical and some sort of lube.

If it was mine I'd cut down the barrel and polish it up.

Longer barrel but without the longer sight radius seems missing the mark literally.

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/40sw.html

Going from 3" to 5" looks to be a very small difference in most cases. How much FPS will make a difference depends on a number of factors. It could make the expansion more violent, resulting in a wider bullet and less penetration, or it could help the bullet punch through further. I would say that you would probably be fine with the 3.5" barrel.

Skribs said:

I don't buy into the whole "it could be used by a prosecutor" thing. Especially if they find out you spend any amount of time on a gun forum asking "should I get X or Y for home defense," or even the fact you have a gun, a lawyer is going to have all the ammunition (pun intended) he needs if he wants to make a case against you.

Click to expand...

It factors very little into prosecution, in most cases. Where it bites you is the civil lawsuit - especially if you either overpenetrate or miss entirely and injure a bystander.

Civil suits are all about money, and the plaintiff's lawyer will follow the money. Carry a stock handgun, and the money is with the manufacturer. Modify the same handgun, and the manufacturer will claim that the liability is shifted to the gun owner who made the firearm modification.

You can be found not guilty of any crime and still loose everything you own in a civil suit. There doesn't even have to be a criminal charge brought.

Civil suits can hinge on emotion, and juries generally don't know much about guns. The OP's G27 is obviously visibly different than a stock pistol, and that can affect perceptions - and perceptions matter.

No, I wouldn't. Less because of the overhyped legal concerns and more because it A. Doesn't provide a meaningful gain in ballistic performance, B. Can conceivably slow or interrupt my draw stroke, C. Seems like it might be more uncomfortable to me- I can conceal a G19 just fine, but that barrel poking out through the holster would dig in my side something fierce, and D. Just looks goofy IMHO.

I wouldn't carry it, but if it works for you, go for it.

Looks silly. Not needed for self defense really, or for self defense ranges. Harder to carry. I hate Glocks, and well, I just don't see where that would be a benefit to you at all. I guess added velocity, but do you really need that?