Which would you carry?

[Trey Veston]

I was getting a couple of my Glocks ready for a range trip and was surprised by how close they were in size.

One is my G29 and the other is my Gen 5 G23.

The G29 holds 10 rounds of 10mm while the G23 holds 13 rounds of .40 S&W.

The G29 is about a 1/4" shorter in length, height, and is tiny bit wider.

So, we all know the debate regarding how .40 S&W is not more effective enough than 9mm to put up with the increased recoil and reduced capacity. But what about 10mm?

Is it substantially more effective than 9mm to warrant diminished capacity and increased recoil?

I use my G29 for protection in the woods against wolves, cougars, and black bears. Never considered it as a CCW gun.

Don't want to start a debate, but I thought the idea of one gun for carry in both the woods and in town was intriguing.

 

[LeftyRed]

I have personally carried both, well a Gen4 G23. And if I carried either today, I would carry the G29 with 180gr 40SW ammo. That’s what I did back then. Sweet soft shooter. Faster follow up shots than with most 9mms!

I like what Glock did with the Gen5 40SWs, but doubt I will have one. Maybe the G27. I’m too deep in the Gen3/4 universe with extra parts, holster, and such. However, if I was just starting out again……might be tempted to get a Gen5 40SW. I really like the caliber and the platform. Just don’t like having different calibers with like magazines and the pistols able to take either one. But always like the G23.

Lefty

 

[FL-NC]

I carry a 23 in the woods because that is what I have. I am confident that 13 rounds of 40 HP will address anything I may have to deal with in the woods. Also cheaper to fire than the 10mm I don't have.

 

[1KPerDay]

Which one do you shoot better?

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

Of those two, I would pick the one with the complete grip.

The pinky hold as part of the magazine is not something I enjoy.

 

[film495]

carry the one you like more and shoot better, and are faster with, and prefer the sights ... etc. IMHO

 

[1942bull]

Assuming I was proficient with the selection I would choose more capacity in 9mm over less in 10mm. 10mm is more powerful it, but power is not the only factor in such a decision. Speed and accuracy are more critical in a gunfight than power. A 22LR in the eye is more effective than .40 in the arm. Both 10 and 9 can incapacitate if the shot is well placed. However 9mm has less recoil allowing faster reacquisition of the target. Split seconds count so speed in important. Lower recoil can result in better accuracy, which is the second critical component after speed. Capacity is the third. Regardless of the likelihood of needing only 2 or 3 rounds in an encounter you might need more, especially if you are trying to get to cover or extricate yourself from the scene.

 

[JR24]

I'm not sure about any terminal advantage between the two, but I'd carry the 23 myself.

We know it's effective for CCW and I find it much easier to control over the 10mm, especially in the small Glock 29 package. I figure I want more controllability and speed, not to mention more ammo, in any kind of dynamic CCW situation. At least I value that more than a possible ballistic advantage.

Plus, the fatter grip of the 29 is a smidge more challenging to conceal, for me, over the 23 grip. At least those were my observations between concealing a 30S and a 19.

 

[Rexster]

I carried a Gen3 G29 concealed, for a relatively short time, around 2002 to 2004, when my duty pistol was a G22. I did not find it difficult to conceal, and comfort was good. When I heard that the Short Frame would be introduced, I went ahead and sold or traded the G29, as it was just a bit large for my hands. When I finally did get a Short Frame, however, it was a G30s, and I only bought it recently, so have yet to function-test it.

I seem to remember handling the G29 and a G23, side-by-side, and deciding to buy the G29. I also remember that I liked the G29 better than a G27 that I owned, and I sold the nearly-new, barely-used G27 to a colleague, who already had a G27, and wanted to have a second one. (He worked undercover narcotics, and wanted to have two sub-compact pistols.)

 

[Hugger-4641]

If I could conceal it, I'd cary the 23.

 

[Phaedrus/69]

I supposed I'd carry the 23 if forced to choose between just those. My regular EDC is an HK P2000 which is probably slightly larger than the larger of those Glocks.

 

[Barry the Bear]

carry both

 

[CDW4ME]

I have both.
No 10 round limit, Glock 23
10 round mag limit, Glock 29

Even if I shot the 23 better, nausea from carrying a 10 round mag in a gun designed for a 13 round mag would make it hard to shoot accurately.

 

[Rexster]

Is it substantially more effective than 9mm to warrant diminished capacity and increased recoil?

Historically, ammunition capacity has not been a significant problem, for private citizen defensive situations, in the USA. Ten rounds has always seemed to have been enough, for me to feel comfortable. The 7+1 in a 1911 or P220 magazine did not produce anxiety, even in a police patrol context. I do believe in carrying a spare magazine, regardless of capacity.

 

[bikerdoc]

Don't have either one. So I'll say 45 and warn myself for thread drift

 

[murf]

don't let the stigma of a woods gun limit your carry choice. if capacity is the limiting factor, carry a reload. both are adequate for ccw.

luck,

murf

 

[Charlie Martinez]

Both are suitable for personal protection against two legged assailants so unless you have a personal preference for one in particular the smaller and higher capacity 23 is the obvious choice.

 

[edwardware]

Which would you carry?

Not a Glock, but. . . whichever I could get all four fingers on (and the magazine pinky shelf doesn't count).

In my opinion, if it won't fit inside your pocket, then it should be big enough to get your entire hand onto. I don't see the value proposition of anything in between.

 

[Buzznrose]

I’ll echo both are great choices. I’d probably carry the 23. In the boonies, I’m carrying Underwood hard cast ammo.

https://www.underwoodammo.com/40-s-w-200-grain-hard-cast-flat-nose.html

 

[Kleanbore]

if capacity is the limiting factor, carry a reload. both are adequate for ccw.

Do you really believe that violent criminal actors will afford you the opportunity to reload your gun in the midst of an attack?

 

[Zerodefect]

Make those 10 rounds count, before you reload.

It's also worth noting that in many cities, the bad guys have the guts to stand in a fight now. No more fleeing at the first sight or sound of another gun. Gangs have more combat experience than most of the militaries on this planet. You may have already seen them at your range. It's not safe to assume that they're inept anymore.

I'd go with the 23 due to larger grip. The G23 is still the best ccw out there.

 

[WrongHanded]

Having recently acquired a G33 (which I have been carrying conceal every day since), I really don't think the difference in width would be an issue for me (I have owned a G30 in the past so I know they are a little wider). But the extra butt on the G23 is really the hardest thing for me to conceal, making the G29 a better choice for concealment in my case.

However, the reduced real estate of the G29 grip, coupled with the increased recoil over .40 (or in my case mostly .357 Sig, but also some .40), might push it over the edge as far as being controllable enough to be practical for SD. And that is also something to seriously consider.

As far as capacity goes? Non-issue for me. I finally managed to squeeze all 9 in the mag of my G33 and get it into the gun without needing a vice. So that's what I carry most of the time, and 10 rounds is a big enough number for me to feel confident. Though I have begun to regular practice reloading drills and carry an extra (extended) mag, because you never know.

For the woods? I'd rather the G29 with an extended mag and grip sleeve/mag collar thing, for the extra stability it would provide. But it's easy to switch out a magazine.

 

[LeftyRed]

Not a Glock, but. . . whichever I could get all four fingers on (and the magazine pinky shelf doesn't count).

In my opinion, if it won't fit inside your pocket, then it should be big enough to get your entire hand onto. I don't see the value proposition of anything in between.

Lots of people are like that. I’m able to shoot with my pinky tucked, learned on sub compacts Glocks. The G36, 30, 29, and 26/27/33 I’m able to tuck my pinky and shoot. Don’t know if it’s a blessing or curse. But does open up options.

 

[edwardware]

I’m able to shoot with my pinky tucked, learned on sub compacts Glocks.

I can shoot my pocket-sized sub-compacts and 642 acceptably, but not nearly so easily as a full size. There's the downside.

And the upside of the gap-sized (too big for pockets, smaller than full-size) pistols is. . . I'm not sure. If I'm going to put on a holster and cover garment, it's not noticeably easier to do so for a 642, LC9, XDS9, M&P Shield, etc than for a 4.25" Commander or M&P9.

I also introduce and train new shooters regularly, and they ALL leave the first range session relieved of the tragic gun counter notion that "smaller is easier to shoot".

 

[LeftyRed]

@edwardware, always good to have more hand on a pistol when you really need it!