Glock 19 or Smith 637

[minirunner]

I want to buy a Glock 19 for home defense and the low cost of 9mm. I already own a .38 S&W 637. Which gun would you carry in the woods, if you had only these two to choose from? The animals in the area that I worry about are black bear, cougar, and wolves. Don't have to worry about grizzly or anything. Would you go for the capacity of the Glock, or the option to run Double Tap hardcast's in a reliable 5 shot revolver? I know they are not the first choices, but that's all I have to chose from.

 

[kurt1305]

The Glock. Higher capacity, more powerful round and less maintenance intensive. .

 

[Deanimator]

If you're worried about four legged predators, I'd go with the revolver and use a hot 158gr. LSWC load, like Buffalo Bore's. You want penetration, and in the woods, through and throughs are MUCH less of an issue than in settled areas.

 

[Autolycus]

I agree with Deanimator. The fact is that a .357 will be better to put down an animal than a 9mm would. If large animals were not a concern then I would carry the Glock 19.

 

[jon86]

Not to offend anyone, but a Smith and Wesson 637 is a 38 special.

I'd take the glock 19. More than 3 times as many chances to hit the target and faster reloads. Easier to make accurate shots as well.

Although many times I've gone hiking with just a 38 special as well.

Here, check this out:

http://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=225

 

[Autolycus]

No offense taken. And that changes my opinion. I would just carry a Glock 19. Better yet get yourself a Glock 20.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

Carry both...

 

[AK103K]

I have 19's, and just recently sold my 637. If I had to pick between the two, I'd go with the 19. The reason I sold the 637 is, Ive been replacing my J frames with 26's. Same basic size, but you end up with a gun that carries twice to seven times the ammo, with more powerful ammo, in a package thats a lot easier to shoot well with, and without pain.

Personally, while I have them, I really dont get the 19's place in the scheme of things, and prefer the 17's, as they are really not that much bigger, and you gain ammo and performance with the little extra.

 

[minirunner]

My thoughts on the Glock are the ability to make hits easier with it. And the ease of follow up shots as well. I may be wrong but I think 9mm and .38 +p are relatively close in stopping power. I really like the portability of the 637, but it takes a lot more to hit with it at any distance and follow up shots are not easy either. If I could I would carry a Marlin 1895GS but a handgun is so much easier. The Glock will serve double duty for home and woods. Thanks for the link to the Buffalo Bore ammo. I did not know that was out there, it makes one more plus for a Glock.

 

[dlee4697]

I would go with the Glock 19 with +p ammo.

 

[REAPER4206969]

19 IWB and 637 in pocket.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

19 IWB and 637 in pocket.

See!! Like I said in Post #7, "carry both"... lol

 

[GEM]

Having a G19 and a few SW snubbies, the former is easier to shoot. I shoot both decently. If I wanted a revolver to carry in the woods for big critters, it would be my SW 19 with the appropriate round.

 

[madwell]

I think either one should work fine for Southern Minnesota. I think I'd carry the glock for the extra capacity, but I do carry my 638 a lot when I'm in the woods.

 

[easyg]

I may be wrong but I think 9mm and .38 +p are relatively close in stopping power.

You're correct, they are close in stopping power.

But remember, you're shooting the 9mm from a 4" barrel (the Glock 19) vs shooting the .38+P from a 1.875" barrel (the S&W 637).

Shorter barrels generally equal less velocity and less stopping power.



I think that the Glock 19 would be the better choice for carrying in the woods than the S&W 637.
But if the size is just a tad too much to carry, get a Glock 26 or Glock 27.

They're not much larger than the J-frame and they offer greater capacity, and IMHO, they are easier to shoot accurately....especially when shooting rapid fire.