Glock 19 vs. Glock 23. Which one would you take?

Since you are trying to select between two similar Glocks it is a question of ammo not weapon.

The .40 (M23) will be the way to go for CCW/LEO carry as long as you can handle shooting something larger than the 9mm. I have two M23s (one issue, one personal) and its a great firearm for these uses. Using the military example to select a defensive round is poor logic as the selection criteria for a general issue handgun round for the military is much different than that used for CCW/LEO purposes. Hense the movement away from 9mm towards the .40 S&W in the LEO community and even the military special ops folks have rejected the 9mm.

Go for the 9mm (M19) if you have trouble shooting the heavier round or if your interest is more towards punching paper.

However, if you decide you should go with the 9mm and will use it for a CCW. I would reject a Glock completely and instead go for a Kahr MK9 which would put the concealed back in CCW.
 
Get the Glock 19

Why?

Less recoil, better accuracy (the g23's main flaw in my experience is its inconsistent accuracy). Also, as a reloader (9mm and .45), I have never had any problems with reloaded 9mm ammo in Glocks.
 
I'd go for the 19. I've shot a 19 quite a bit and was very impressed with it and feel confident in my ability to use it if the SHTF, also factor in 9mm being cheap, pleantiful, and powerful enough (if you feed it right) and you've got pretty nice package there. I have never shot a 23 but I have shot a 22 and found the recoil to be a wee bit snappy for my tastes, and I can't imagine the smaller version being any better. My 2 cents:)
 
"ArmySon

Personally, I would take the G19. I already own a 23 and definitely do not care for it. It’s by far my most inaccurate gun. Wanna buy it?"


Yes I have 100 for that :D
 
Another vote for the 23. By getting the 23 one actually has 3 guns in one, for very little extra cost. By switching out the 40 barrel with a 357 SIG barrel gives you another caliber option.

To switch from .40 to 9mm one replaces the barrel, magazines, and ejector. I'm not sure but you might also have to change out the extractor. All in all converting the 23 to 9mm would probably cost less than $200. And if you're a really suave shopper it could be done for about $150.

I don't know why, but from my understanding the 19 can't be changed to 40 or 357 SIG.

Rob
 
I own a G19 and a G21 for one reason: military surplus ammo. I like to shoot, and it's VERY easy to find 9mm and .45 ACP in bulk for a lot less than .40 S&W. The 19 is my carry gun, and the 21 is my house gun.

I've seen the numbers, and the difference in stopping ability among most of the major calibers is pretty negligible, so that doesn't factor into it for me.

Same advice I give anyone else contemplating a similar purchase: Shoot them both, with various loadings of ammo if possible. See which one "fits" better. Buy that one with confidence.
 
Again, It Depends........

This is more like a caliber debate between the 9mm and the .40 than the guns themselves. Same gun, different caliber.

I chose the G23 because I don't shoot the G19 any better than the G23. So in my case I decided to get the caliber that gives more consistent performance across the broad spectrum of different loads and manufacturers. But with the right 9mm loads the G23 really has nothing over the G19.
 
Ian11,

When you say

"with the right 9mm loads the G23 really has nothing over the G19."

What exactly do you mean? Would you care to give us some of the better (right) 9mm loads that are as good as the better .40 SW loads, so that the G23 has nothing over the G19, if that's what you meant?

In my opinion what really matters of course is shot placement, caliber and bullet design are secondary. But even the best 9mm ammo can't compare with the best 40 ammo reference overall performance.

Don't get me wrong here. I like and use the 9mm in pistols like Beretta's 92FS. But I do not believe that the 9 and 40 are the same in performance.
 
Beowulf,

Oh dear, me, a staunch supporter of the .40 caliber has dishonored its good name.

IMHO, especially with +P or +P+ 9mm ammo, I think there is overlap with some .40 loads. The difference just isn't there for me in that case. But the better .40 loads will always "outperform" any 9mm. A .40 caliber shooter is far less liable to pick a bad load for defense over the 9mm shooter. The 9mm shooter really needs to pick and choose carefully.


Am I back in the club now?

[Edited by Ian11 on 02-21-2001 at 06:06 PM]
 
I've never fired the 23, but the 19 I've shot was a puddytat!!! It wasn't much more perceived recoil than a .22, I SWEAR! I have found myself wanting a 23, but keep hearing how inaccurate it is. I'm starting to lean in the other direction because of this.

As for the 26/27, I again have only fired one, but this time it was the 27. I bought one when they first came out, and were so hard to get it was unreal (kinda like a P32 is now :) ) It kicked a bit, and it was a fat bugger, but I liked it.

Where am I going with this? NOWHERE, I'm as undecided as you are!!! If recoil is any issue to you, I'd go 9mm. Ditto for ammo cost. Too bad our mags are gelded these days, :mad: or I could argue the 13 - 15 rounds thing... :D
 
Ian11,

Thanks for clearing that up.....that's what I thought you meant [:) You were never out of the club.

Onslaught, some G23's have been reported to have less than stellar accuracy. But I don't think any have been shown to not have at least combat accuracy. Now somebody is gonna say what is combat accuracy, well that definition means different things to different people.

To me combat accuracy is that accuracy which when a pistol is rapid fired (at least 1 round per second) off hand at a target, keeps 90%(+/-) off all rounds fired inside the vital zone of that target. So using a human silhouette as an example one has about an 8-10" vital zone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top