Glock 29 ?

[Demonvomit]

Ok about 5 week's ago i Traded my G30 fo a suped up Race Ready g22 with a gilmore sight and alot of other good stuff and my g30 had about 3500-4000 rounds through it but the guy just wanted a SubCompact Glock badly ...

So now im wanting to buy another Sub Glock and im looking at either another 30 or a 29 and i couldnt care less wich one it is since i love both rounds and i dont care about not being able to buy the 10mm rounds every place since i get them from a buddy that reloads them very cheap so either way.

More than likely i will just get the one that more people on the forum agree on

Later
DemonVomit

 

[juliet charley]

I believe there is a thread running over on glocktalk.com about the G30 vs. the G29. Most of the posts the last time I looked were mostly pro-G30. In fact, the G29 had some pretty negative postings (which is pretty unusual for any Glock on glocktalk) alleging it was finickly about ammo--not the first time I have heard this (a major issue for me), and that it really was pretty unpleasant to shoot compared to the G30 (at least for any extended periods).

I know in one of the Glock Annuals Walt Rauch did an article about the G20 and made remarks to effect it takes a lot of dedication to shoot it (and shoot it well). If he can say something like this about the full-size in magazine that is paying him to say nice things about Glocks, it would lend credence to the allegations that the G29 can get unpleasant to shoot real fast.

For the recond, I do not have a G29 or any serious experience with them (but I have sort of wanted one so I have researched them a little). Your best bet would be to pop over to glocktalk review the posts and ask the questions (on both forums--the "Big Dawgs (.45 ACP) and the Ten Ring (10 mm).

 

[blades67]

...Walt Rauch did an article about the G20 and made remarks to effect it takes a lot of dedication to shoot it (and shoot it well). If he can say something like this about the full-size in magazine that is paying him to say nice things about Glocks, it would lend credence to the allegations that the G29 can get unpleasant to shoot real fast.

All that means is that Walt Rauch can't shoot the G20, or shoot it well. Remember, he was in the fbi (and the secret service), the agency that dropped the 10mm because all the girlie-men they called agents couldn't learn how to shoot with it. Now these same girlie-men they call agents are complaining about the .40 Snivel & Whine being too difficult to master.

 

[OF]

The 29 is pretty snappy, it'll get your attention, I'll give you that. I don't have any experience shooting the 30, but it has a great reputation and it can't be as much of a handful as the 29 in such an inferior caliber (DUCK! ). I can tell you, though, the 29 just positively hums when it's stitting on the table. The little beast just begs for action. I absolutely love mine

- Gabe

 

[Tamara]

My G29 has been fussy about feeding...

...absolutely nothing!

100% reliable, with bullet weights ranging from 135gr to 200gr, and everything in between. As far as recoil goes, well, I have wrists like pipe-cleaners and my shootin' arm was badly broken at the wrist last summer; the G29 is easily managed by me, so it should be fine for most anyone.

 

[OJ]

I shoot both the Glock 20 and 29 at least once per week. Love them both but, I shoot the G 29 better than the G 20, mostly, I think, because the G 29 has a trigger that is a little smoother. I haven't found any ammo that doesn't feed or cause any malfunctions in either gun. If I had to choose only one centerfire caliber, it would be the 10 mm. However, I would have some trouble choosing between the G 20 and G29. True, the G20 holds more rounds but the G 29 is more concealable and both are a joy to shoot. Both will hit gallon milk cartons at 100 yards. Finding less expensive ammo just takes a little more looking around - well worth it!

 

[Carbon_15]

Glock 29

A good friend of mine bought one last year for his 21st birthday. He fell in love with my G20 and I guess my praise of the almighty 10mm payed off. In all honesty, i dont see where it go started that the 10mm kicks to hard. a full size .357 service revolver with full-house loads is much more disconserting. I am 6-1 and about 140 pound and am quite comfortable putting a days worth of warm to hot reloads through it. Whats more, His Glock 29 kicks remarkably less than my 20. Those double set recoil springs really soak up the sharpness. My wifes full size 1911 is less comfortable to shoot than either the 20 or 29, but the .45 1911 fits her hand better. My friends girlfriend had never fired a gun in her life and had no problem handeling the 29's recoil, and hitting pretty darn well too.
does the 10mm kick harder than a .38 or 9mm....yes. but it is still more than managable and not the least bit uncomfortable to anyone I have let shoot my 10mm's.

 

[blades67]

Just because of this thread, I called a couple of friends and managed to get a total of three Glocks (20, 29 and 30) together , and one other friend with today off, for a side by side comparison. We used PMC 180 grain FMJFP 10mm and 230 grain FMJ ammunition for this mornings highly subjective test. We both felt that the 30 recoiled differently than the 20 and 29. Not better or worse, just different. The decision between the 20 and 29 was split. I felt the 20 recoiled softer, he felt the 29 recoiled softer. We have determined that ownership bias may have influenced the others vote. (But he was still wrong. ) It really comes down to personal preference. Simple as that.

 

[juliet charley]

See DV. The absolute best way to get feedback about a weapon is to post something negative about it (especially any Glock).

All kidding aside, there is a G29 vs G30 thread running over of glocktalk that you need to check out (and do a search on the 29--there are absolutely to many hits to merit a search on the 30).

Tamara - Most of the posts I read about feeding problems with 180-grain rounds were brand specific (just particular brand doesn't work in my 29). I have experienced "brand-preference" in many pistols, but if there is a particular brand or bullet you want to carry, it can be a consideration. Again, I am just relaying impressions I picked up while researching the 29.

Blades - I'm too lazy to look it up, but isn't that PMC FMJFP a mid-range load (i.e., .40 S&W equivalent). If it is, the results of your impromtu testing might have been different

 

[agtman]

First of all, it would be helpful to accuracy-in-posting if people had actually read the articles they purport to quote or paraphrase from.

Over the years Walt Rauch has actually authored a number of articles on the Glock 10mms in the Glock Annual series, as have Charles Karwan, Mark Doneburgh, William Bell, Rob Adams, etc. I've got a stack of 'em sitting right here and have yet to find any alleged negative reference by any of these writers to the G-20 or the G-29. None of those reviewing the G-29 have stated that it is "unpleasant to shoot real fast." Nor, for that matter, is there such a claim made about the G-20. In the 1997 Annual, where both the G-29 & G-30 appeared together on the cover, the piece by Karwan states, in part:

"After shooting both the G-29 with full-power loads *** and the G-30 with service-type ammunition, our group was all amazed at the low recoil and the easy controllability. ***With hot ammo in both the G-29 and G-30, the shooter knows that he is shooting something pretty snappy. However, it's not punishing and recoil-recovery is quick."

After a little informal plinking, Karwan's group tested the "controllability" of both guns against sound-activated electronic timers. The test was to fire 2 or more shots as fast as possible "while keeping all shots on a torso-sized target at 7 yards." Result: all shooters "could fire with split times between shots of less than 0.20 of a second. That speed will deliver 6 shots in 1 second ***[.] *** [One shooter] was able to get his split times down to 0.14 second."

So much for being unable, after a little practice, to shoot the G-29 fast.

As for Rauch, in the 1998 Annual he praises the 10mm Glock 20 as a "serious gun" and finds there is "no more effective cartridge than the 10mm Auto" for defensive use. He specifically cites 10mm loadings in 180gn (or heavier) bullets doing in excess of 1000 fps as the "optimum for self-defense, balancing stopping power against controllability."

He does close the piece with a modest cautionary statement (which I actually agree with, there being so many nancy-boys and once-every-six-months-shooters out & about). And this is what probably confused less-careful readers:

"One last observation: the 10mm Auto isn't for everyone. To master the cartridge, serious practice is required. Furthermore, if you don't have a high level of commitment, you might be better served by the milder .40 cartridge ***[.] Only those who steadfastly believe in a fairly heavy bullet delivered at 1000+ fps should opt for a 10mm Auto pistol. Of these, the Glock 20 & 29 are arguably the best of the breed, with lots of big, fast bullets in a managable package."

Amen to that. If you want genuinely "heavy AND fast" (a "magnum autoloader"), get a 10mm but be prepared to practice to stay proficient. If you don't, stay safe with one of those *lesser* calibers (and some warm pink socks ).

By the way, guys, if Tamara, a self-described thin-wristed Southern girl, can enjoy regular shooting sessions with her G-29, I'm quite sure the rest of you would survive a work-out with one. In fact, you might be pleasantly surprised at just how much fun the 10mm can be.

 

[juliet charley]

agtman -

First of all, it would be helpful to accuracy-in-posting if people had actually read the articles they purport to quote or paraphrase from.

You quoted the article as follows:

"One last observation: the 10mm Auto isn't for everyone. To master the cartridge, serious practice is required. Furthermore, if you don't have a high level of commitment, you might be better served by the milder .40 cartridge.

I stated:

remarks to effect it takes a lot of dedication to shoot it (and shoot it well).

What's your beef?

I adequately summarized (not quoted, not paraphrased) his remarks. I obviously had read the article (and even remembered it). I don't really have the time go back and look-up every reference (paticularly those made in general and passing terms). I did point in the right direction (Glock Annual, Walt Rauch, G20 article) so that anyone (you certainly were able) could look it up, check my summary of his remarks ("paraphrase") and read the entire article.

Though you apparently have been at least slightly offended by my post, I can see nothing with which to get terribly upset. I did not recommend the 30 over the 29 (or the .45 over the 10 mm). There was nothing to even suggest the need for another "calibre war" or any other type of "war." I merely summarized my brief research on the 29 (with multiple caveats), pointed DV to glocktalk and recommended further research than just this forum--I guess you could even say I pointed him toward the Glock Annual as well.

I would have been more than comfortable with your post and your comments had you avoided your unfortunate remarks about "accuracy-in-posting," and suggesting I had not "actually read the article." I wouldn't even had minded if you suggested I totally misunderstood what Walt Rauch said though I think the quote you posted, agrees very weill with my summary. In fact, I was so accurate you were able to go to the exact quote I summarized. (It also clearly indicates that I made no formal effort "to quote or paraphrase from" the article.)

I stand by post. It is an accurate summary of what Walt Rauch said. Had I been error, I would be more than glad to acknowledge it and delete my post.

I am sorry that I offended you. It was not my intent by any means. But, I really believe if you go back and read my post and your quote, I think you will see the problem that of overreaction on your part.