im thinking about replacing my glock 19 as my ccw. opinions welcome.

Do you really want to shoot a 10mm for selfdefence? what if it goes through?

Keep the G19, it's a good gun. I would never recommend a 5 shot revolver as a main gun. The more ammo the better.
 
Figure I may as well toss my two cents into the ring, too...

IMHO, good idea for the original poster to keep the Glock 19. He likes it, it has worked for him and he's familiar with it and likely has holsters, magazines, etc for it. I would recommend simply adding a Glock 26 for slightly greater ease of carry. It has the same manual of arms and identical operation to his original gun, and can even use the same mags. This also gives him the option of carrying both as a system - wear one on the hip, one on the ankle, (or one in a shoulder holster) with a reload or two in a carrier on the belt, offside. The more options, the better.

The LCR is a very nice gun, to be sure, but is it really THAT much smaller than a Glock?

Overall Length:

Glock 19 - 6.85"
LCR - 6.5"

Overall Height:

Glock 19 - 5"
LCR - 4.5"

Overall width:

Glock - 1.18"
LCR - 1.28"

Weight:

Glock 19 - 23.5oz (with empty mag)
LCR - 13.5oz (empty)

So, the only really significant advantage as I see it is the weight. Disadvantages include much lower capacity, greater recoil and decreased controlability in the LCR. The Glock has 50% greater barrel length, 300% the capacity and is comparable in size overall. No-brainer in my book. And, as I said, the Glock 26 is even smaller and closer to the LCR in weight, while still offering greater capacity.

Get an LCR if you want one, but for self-defense I'd stick with the Glock.
 
Statistics show that 80% of all shots fired in armed confrontations are misses.

With the 5 shot revolver you're wanting, you statistically will have 1 hit.
Click to expand...

What he said.
Also keep in mind that for every average, half scores better, half worse. It isn't too difficult to imagine where the Glock with it's 5 lb pull and light recoil would be in those statistics compared to a weapon with a 2" barrel, 14.8 lbs trigger and an terrible recoil.
 
Shoot a Glock 29 before you decide. My Glock 29 just outshot my CZ75 and Walther P99 for accuracy. Both of those were my favorites, but today at the range, the G29 was astounding, and clearly superior in power. Ten or eleven rounds of 10mm puts the rest of the cartridges you mention to shame. It is now my main carry gun.
 
Ten or eleven rounds of 10mm puts the rest of the cartridges you mention to shame.
Click to expand...

I use to carry the G-20 before the 29 was born. I was hung up on the power thing. Now that I have a better understanding of the order of importance for things in a shootout, mega power is no longer an extreme advantage. In fact once a minimum power level is set, higher power begins to become a liability.

One thing I am convinced of. The bad guy you just shot between the nipples will not be able to tell you whether it was a 9 or 10 millimeter that just killed him.

I can put multiples on target faster with the same accuracy with the 9mm than I can with the 45acp, 40s&w, or 10MM.

BTW I certainly hope you power guys aren't expecting your adversary to instantly stop after taking a single hit to COM.
 
Power and one shot stop crap aside, the 10mm still penetrates deeper in more things and gets to the target after other lesser rounds have been "deterred". That alone gives it an edge the others can only hope for. Even peripheral hits from a 10mm do more damage, for those times your target doesn't stand out in the middle of the street, offering himself up as a full silhouette. Faster, multiple hits? Most survivors in a gunfight would be happy with one good hit. To each their own, but then if the bad guy can dodge out of the way before I can crank the gun down into sighting again after the first shot, I guess I'll just have to wait for him to show himself again for subsequent shots.:)
 
I suppose it may seem silly to be thinking about one's eardrums if your life is on the line, but while a 9mm is quite loud without hearing protection, I think a .357 would cause a lot more hearing damage if fired without your ears on. Call me a dope, but the 9mm is more than adequate with the loads out today, and less likely to cause physical damage to oneself.
 
Faster, multiple hits? Most survivors in a gunfight would be happy with one good hit. To each their own, but then if the bad guy can dodge out of the way before I can crank the gun down into sighting again after the first shot, I guess I'll just have to wait for him to show himself again for subsequent shots.
Click to expand...

Seeing how the mighty 10MM is less than a 100 percent One Shot Stops according to Marshall & Sanow (if you are a believer). You will most likely need two hits or more just like the lowly 9MM. Why subject yourself to the extra recoil?

Power and one shot stop crap aside, the 10mm still penetrates deeper in more things and gets to the target after other lesser rounds have been "deterred". That alone gives it an edge the others can only hope for. Even peripheral hits from a 10mm do more damage, for those times your target doesn't stand out in the middle of the street, offering himself up as a full silhouette.
Click to expand...

Once ENOUGH penetration is achieved deeper equals exiting and becoming a danger to others. Except in the most rare of occasions the penetration from the 9MM is enough to get the job done.

Peripheral hits should only be expected to lessen your adversaries accuracy and decision making ability. There is very little advantage to a slightly larger diameter hole only slightly deeper into non vital or peripheral areas.

I don't expect my target to stand squared up for me either. I'm just perfectly fine with the 12 plus inches of penetration offered by the 9MM. There aren't many positions that 12 inches of penetration cannot reach the vitals.

I was a 10MM fan. I shrugged off the very argument I am making to you now. I have shot them against each other. The 10mm just recoils harder period. It takes a tad bit longer to get back on target.

For my personal order of importance speed of follow ups trumps ballistics*

*as long as an adequate minimum caliber used.
 
I sure wouldn't make that trade

Recoil out of a 357 LCR is going to be brutal, not to mention blast and flash. Also, with such a short barrel, you're not really getting much advantage from the 357 vs. the 38. Because of the recoil though, you won't be able to practice much, and you also are less likely to have time for follow-up shots as you would with the 19.

I'd stick with the 19.

If you just WANT to get into 357 Magnum, the minimum gun I would recommend would be a SP-101 w/3" barrel. Even on this gun, full house 357 loads are pretty brutal, but you get the longer barrel and heavier weight to tame things a bit.

Maybe a S&W J-frame in steel, 38 Special would be good. Nice guns, comparatively easy to shoot, but no ballistic advantage compared to 9mm.

Or a Ruger GP-100, which will allow you to handle 357 Magnum with no trouble at all. Kinda big and heavy to carry though, except maybe winter time in a shoulder holster.
 
I suppose it may seem silly to be thinking about one's eardrums if your life is on the line, but while a 9mm is quite loud without hearing protection, I think a .357 would cause a lot more hearing damage if fired without your ears on. Call me a dope, but the 9mm is more than adequate with the loads out today, and less likely to cause physical damage to oneself.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to profess to know whether my hearing was damaged after the following example but my ears didn't even ring.

I was deer hunting and fired 4 rounds of 3 inch magnum buckshot and didn't even hear the shots or have ringing.

This coincides with another occasion were I suffered an interruption in my hearing while preparing to fire on a suspected robber. Basically a man walked in and pulled what turned out to be a bb gun from under his arm ala shoulder holster area. He then pointed it at a coworker before asking to pawn it. He was trying to frighten us. I realized it was a bb gun and was able to hold fire in the nick of time.

My point is both pressure situations had me loosing hearing and possibly saving it from damage. I could be wrong about my ears not being injured internally. I do know they were not ringing as they do after a shot fired without pressure.
 
i have both a glock 29 and a 19, i love 10mm but i carry my glock 19 9mm for my everyday carry.definately a faster folow up with my 9mm.
 
If you don't feel like 9mm +P or +P+ is enough, I would think about the Glock 23 in .40 S&W or whatever the mid-size .357 SIG is.

My impression is that the "one shot stop" stuff has been pretty well debunked - and even if you still think it's good science/statistics, the data is all pretty old - there's been a fair amount of improvement in bullet design over the past couple of decades, and even within product lines tweaks have been made - so even if the .45 ACP 230 gr Hydrashock was the king of the hill in 1996, the .45 ACP 230 gr Hydrashock you buy today isn't the same round, and it wasn't tested versus everything else you can buy today.

I'm actually working on switching TO the G19 for CCW - to each his own.
 
generally the best formula for better stopping power is diameter x weight i believe

a slower larger and heavier bullet will generally knock someone down or knock them back better than a small faster bullet will

so going from a 9mm to a 357mag only gives you more penetration power with a little extra perifial tissue damage due to the higher velocity while a 45acp gives massive blunt trauma due to size and weight.....i know people who have used 45's and they said the perp hit ground instantly where as people hit by 9mm generally just flinch unless you hit heart or head
 
triumph666 said:
generally the best formula for better stopping power is diameter x weight i believe

a slower larger and heavier bullet will generally knock someone down or knock them back better than a small faster bullet will

so going from a 9mm to a 357mag only gives you more penetration power with a little extra perifial tissue damage due to the higher velocity while a 45acp gives massive blunt trauma due to size and weight.....i know people who have used 45's and they said the perp hit ground instantly where as people hit by 9mm generally just flinch unless you hit heart or head
Click to expand...


Knock down power of handguns rounds is total nonsense. In fact, even the most powerful RIFLE rounds exhibit next to zero "knock down" power in the sense of literally knocking you down.

It is proven, beyond any reasonable doubt. There is no knock down power in regard to defensive cartridges, period. None. Zero.

Pick a cartridge that you shoot well and use it. Hitting where you aim, repeatedly if necessary, is the only way to knock down an aggressor.
 
heh...

Well, there sure is a difference. No, it isn't 'knock-down' power literally, it is true that if it had the power to knock down the recipient that it would also knock down the shooter...

But hydrostatic shock is absolutely not the same and it really does matter. There is most certainly a difference in being hit in a non-instantly-fatal spot (not a heart shot, for example) between a .380 and a .308.
 
Hydrostatic shock requires impact speeds well beyond handgun velocities, somewhere around 1800 fps.

The only possible effect from one handgun round to another in temporary wound cavity. Even this is dubious as to effect, but it is enhanced by velocity.
 
I agree with the "keep the 19" crowd. The 9mm is by no means a slouch for personal defense, and the 19 is one of the top choices to carry it in. If you want the .357, add it to your collection, but hang onto the Glock.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top