Glock 17 or S&W 686 ?

[bukijin]

I've started a new job (security) and have the choice of carrying either a revolver: S&W 686 4" (.357) or a semi-auto: glock 17 (9mm) at work.

I like the revolver because it is simple and high-powered though I am highly dubious about my ability to reload under combat conditions. The glock does offer more firepower and seems to be the logical choice. I think I shoot both reasonably well. Obviously it is my choice but I'm interested in some opinions from members of the highroad. Thanks in advance.

 

[valor1]

Given your familiarity and "shootability" with both guns, if I were you, I'll take the Glock. It carries more ammo (17 shots vs. 6 or 7 shots on revos). No matter how good am I with the shooting, I'm still comfortable with more ammo. Extra clips are not as bulky as revolver speed loaders. Finish is also durable even most of the time better than stainless. You can also do some easy tinkering with your Glocks if ever you get the itch to do so (easy to do a complete stripping) thus saving you dollars for gunsmithing costs.

 

[GEM]

Train - that's a better answer. If you have trained with both guns, then you can make a real choice. Have you trained in tactical situations? If not, then the question is premature.

 

[30 cal slob]

Hmmm, though choice as I like both.

I lean towards the Glock for its simplicity and reliability.

If you are permitted to get the trigger on your 686 stoned (will it be wearing .38's or .357 mags?) by a competent smith, then the 686 becomes even more compelling.

 

[bukijin]

Yes - have trained with both to at least a minimum standard - but your advice is well heeded ! We must use a gun provided by work so there is no option of modifications. We are allowed to use any factory made ammunition that is recommended by the manufacturer - so for me, the reason for carrying the revolver would be to use .357 ammo.
Planning on buying my own version for personal practice and familiarity once I have made a decision.

 

[Rinspeed]

I think the 686 is the best all around handgun money can buy and everyone should own at least one. The Glock is a good choice for all the obvious reasons. I guess it depends on what type of security work you are going to be doing and the risks/danger involved.

 

[30 cal slob]

Then I would choose the Glock.

Rationale: An out-of-the-box 686 double action trigger pull is about 11 lbs (?) vs. 5 +/- lbs. with the Glock.

 

[Universal]

Both are great guns but I would suggest you go with the GLOCK. It is much more comfortable to carry around all day at work. Also, I would not recommend using .357 magnum rounds for a duty gun. If you happen to work nights, that round will not serve you very well. When I first became a police officer, the old timers all told us to never carry .357 rounds on the night shift because the flash would blind you. If you carry the revolver, I would suggest using .38 spl. +p rounds.

I started out with a S&W model 67 and later carried a GLOCK 22. I prefer revolvers for home ues etc. but if I had to carry a gun at work again, I would pick a GLOCK anyday.

Good luck.

 

[Krag]

If I could only own two handguns, a 686 and G17 would be them!

If I had to carry one all day I'd go with the Glock. Lighter and more convenient.

 

[GlocksRock]

I would choose the glock.

 

[Bandit01]

If it were me, I'd say the 686. I have a 7 shot 686 and I have trained with it for some time. I've gotten to the point where I'm extremely confident in my accuracy. So, I'm more confident in my hitting a specific target with my 686 than my old Walther P99 (9mm). I always trained with heavier guns/heavy recoil so now, I'm pretty accurate with it. Put that P99 in my hand and heck, I can't shoot for sh.. well anyway, my advice is, carry the one that you're most comfortable with. Only you can make that decision.

 

[Old Dog]

Which do you shoot better?
Were I in your shoes, if I were not carrying in a real high-threat area, I might actually go with the 686, because (1) I shoot the 686 far better than any Glock (and I've owned both the 17 and the 23); and (2) there are so many effective loads in .357 (and I'd just feel better with .357 over 9mm, even with fewer rounds -- although with practice, one can reload surprisingly quickly with speedloaders).
And count me with the guys who believe the 686 is about the best all-around .357 Magnum ever ...
P.S. - I've yet to see a Glock 17 as accurate as the average 686 in the hands of skilled users.

 

[OH25shooter]

You've got a tough decision. For me, it would be easy. I hate any Glock. I have a 686, so I would load it with 357 and report to work.

 

[115grfmj]

depends on what scares ya most......

being found dead with an empty gun or hitting your target with out stopping
him. If its the former go with the glock if its the latter go with the 686.

Personally I'd go with the 686 (I already did ), here's my philosophy.
I know that most gun fights are settled with 5 shots or less., the
.357 mag is king of the hill in stopping power, my 686+ has the same
capacity as a 1911 (also an excellent choice), my reloads, while not blazing,
are pretty d*mn quick (the 6 shooter, can use safariland S.L. which are
lighting quick), the 686 is incredibly accurate, and It is the best all around
gun you can own.


Also don't let anyone tell you that you can't control full house .357's
in 125gr, It's truly no problem. Some loads like remingtons 125's are
flashy , but many manufacturers offer low flash versions.

 

[Super Trucker]

I will vote for the 686. In my opinion a .357 is a better caliber than 9mm. 2 Speed strips are still smaller than 1 spare mag. I guess unless you are planning on invading a small country, the extra capacity issue should not matter. I traded a G23 for an XD40 for those who think I haven't shot a Glock. BTW, Revolvers are less likely to malfunction. Good Luck with your decision.

 

[ACP]

Hi. I took a course at the S&W Academy once and one of the instructors told me the West German border guards at the time were using S&W 686's. It is one of the first guns I ever purchased and I still have it. Incredibly and boringly accurate, utterly reliable, simple operation, great range of ammo, slow to reload, a little heavy on the hip (depending on belt and holster). It is my bedroom gun; the wife loves it.

With that said, and without knowing what type of security work you do (stationary in a warehouse or facility? Outside in daylight moving lots of cash? Interact with people a lot? Solitary?) I would say IF you shoot both of them just as well, then get the Glock, load it with the best +P 9mm round you can shoot accurately and the gun functions perfectly with, and carry a few spare mags. Simple operation, high capacity, easy to reload, variety of loads, reputation for superb reliability, great finish, light on the hip.

Good luck.

 

[shooter1]

What kind of security job? In the outdoors the 686 might have an advantage in some circumstances. If you are working civilian security in a nuclear power plant or other sensitive or hight risk area, then I'd go with the 17 for sure. Hell, I'd go with the 17 anyway, if only for the normal ammo load of 52 rds. vs 18 for the 686.
str1

 

[Dr.Who]

Hard choice, but I like and shoot both. If you could and these are your first two I would buy both. To carry day in and out, my choice would be the G17. Very forgiving finish, you do not need to worry about sweat/moisture and rust on the Glock. Yes, you still need to clean and lube it, but it can take a bit more neglect. Round count is a plus for defense purpose, However 6 great placed shots are better than 17/10 bad ones.

I shoot a G17 in IDPA. Bought it used 4+ years ago, it has never had a miss-fire or falure to load. It is stock, except for the extended slide release.

 

[FotoTomas]

If I were limited to one gun at home it would be a S&W Model 19 4" barrel. The 686 would be a great option in lieu of the M19. That being said I would feel more comfortable with GLOCK 17 for security work. In the US most armed security have a handgun for show. The chance of it actually being needed is slim to none. In some jobs however such a courier work (Armored car) if needed lots'a'bullets would be the answer.

You can not go wrong with either and your personal opinion is the most important.

I liked the concept put forth by Bill Jordan in his book "No Second Place Winner". He opined that a Medium frame .357 magnum with "6 for sure" was the best option for Law enforcement but having that 9mm "Lots'a'bullets" launcher for backup would be a good thing!

 

[another okie]

Hard to make a bad choice. They're both great guns.

I do think the difference between 9mm and .357 is overstated sometimes. (Donning asbestos suit, he continued

Out of a six inch barrel hot .357 ammo at 1400 fps is far superior as a stopper to any 9mm, but out of a four inch barrel average .357 ammo is not all that much hotter than a warm 9mm. I mean, a .355 caliber 125 grain bullet out of a four inch revolver is probably only going to hit 1200 fps, and the same .355 caliber 125 bullet loaded as a 9mm +p can hit 1150. I think part of the .357s reputation is due to the loud blast and bright flash, which makes us think it must be really a great stopper. The .357 was designed for a six inch or longer barrel, and it loses a lot out of a shorter barrel.

 

[MR.G]

I personally would take the 686. The extra rounds do make the G17 appealing, but I never have been able to shoot a Glock very well. I have a pair of S&W 686 Plus 4" revolvers that I can hit what I am aiming at. They have both had trigger work done to them, but they were not bad out of the box. I would rather have less rounds, and be able to hit the target every time. Try both guns and see which one you shoot the best.

 

[ChristopherG]

I have had and shot both in competition, and I really enjoy both. If you were talking about just shooting this gun, I'd say the 686. But you're talking about carrying it all day every day; that 686 is gonna get heavy. I'd take the 17 just for weight savings and comfort.