Thinking About Retiring the Glock 40s'

O

Old Bill Dibble

New member
Currently I have six different pistols that I regularly use for self defense.

Full size 1911/ Compact 1911

Glock 22/ Glock 27

S&W M&P9/ Shield 9

There are a few others but these have been my go to guns over the years. I noticed the Glocks have been coming out to play less and less often and this week when I was doing inventory I noticed that I had not had the full size out in over two years and the 27 hasn't been out for at least six month.

I use an M&P for work so it isn't going anywhere. The shield is the BUG. The big 1911 allows me to easily shoot suppressed so they aren't going anywhere. The compact 1911 is much easier to shoot than the 27 and way more accurate therefore I prefer to carry the compact 1911 over the 27.

So is their a good argument for NOT retiring them? By retire I mean give them away to the kids or whatever. I don't see the point in selling them as they are worth less than what I paid for them. I guess I could keep them as loaners or something but everyone I know well enough to lend a gun to already owns a gun.

Thoughts? I mean other than bury them in the yard with their evil "high capacity" magazines until well after the next election?
 
If you recall during the last ammo shortage the first ammo to go was 9mm & 45 so that right there is enough reason to keep a variety of calibers in my book.
 
Remember: The FBI did not go back to the 9mm because it's the best option as handguns go. They went back because it is the best option for them. I guarantee you after 18 to 20 years of hot 9mm ammo, The Glock Gen. 5's will be just as battered as the .40 caliber Glocks they have have now.

I am similar to you. I have a Gen. 3 23 that is on me at all times except in areas where licensed carry is forbidden. I also have a Gen. 4 22 and an M&P9. I would hang on to the 22 and 27 as a just in case measure for another run on ammo.

It's none of my business but you cannot be too specific in your will. Just make it clear who you want your firearms going to and have secondary beneficiaries should things change. That's my two cents worth take it with a grain of salt.
 
It's up to you obviously, but even if you dumped them at a dealer you could get $400 for the both of them. $400 is $400, at least to me. Or give them to friends or family who would appreciate them.

It's funny, I just bought my second Glock 22, a police trade-in, for $350. Good hiking gun, very light and still fits in Commander-sized packs. To each their own.......
 
I've fallen out of love with my full size .40's as well ( sig 226's ..)...

and I gave them to some of the adult kids / with sig .22 conversion kits...to build up their starter collections...

My full sized 1911's are my primary carry guns ( and lately I have been carrying the 9mm a lot ....it's a Wilson 5" gun and I shoot it well....)

I've kept a lot of s&w revolvers...but i'm done fooling with double stack semi autos....
--------------
I have an L1 model sig X5 in .40 that I'll keep because it's a unique SAO with an adjustable trigger ....and I still have a sig 239 ...as a small backup ..in .40 .../ but i'm not buying any more .40's...../ i'my happy with my 1911's and my revolvers....

I reload so ammo shortages are no issue to me....and I hope it doesn't happen again...
 
I'll take em! I carry a Glock 35 in the car with me daily. I was a 10MM fan all along but late to 40S&W. I keep my 10MM's at home and carry the 40's.
Why the big turnoff to 40 lately? Is it the FBI going 9MM? I hear a lot of folks say the 9 is just about as good or as good as a 40 well then why not just carry 40? Take away that little seed of doubt is 9 enough? As someone said about 40 "hits like a 45 and shoots like a 9"

I like carrying something that starts with a 4
 
Both of my G19 and G23 are my primary weapons of choice for all purposes (same holster, mag carrier, etc. ). With a .357sig/9mm/22lr conversions for the G23, I can use 4 different calibers in one gun. I highly recommend you keep at least one of the .40 pistol around just incase of another Ammo shortage.

Yg
 
I dumped my Glock .40s in the early 90's.

Today, all of my pistols are Glock 9mm, 10mm, and .45 AUTO.
 
I sold my Sig P250c 40sw because I got a Glock G29-4 10mm and bought an LWD 40sw barrel for it.

The 40 still has a place with me.

Oh, I sold my HK USP 9mm too. :D

The 10mm spoiled me. :p
 
I own around 50 guns.

I own 2 in 40

I own 2 Glocks

I own one because it was my agency issue, stamped with my agency and badge number, and was allowed to buy it when we changed.

I own the other because my wife is an LEO as well and her agency dictates that's what must be carried.

I don't care for the caliber or the gun, never have, never will.

I'm not adding anything to the post, but you asked for thoughts and opinions............getting rid of 40's and Glocks is a win, win.

Why the big turnoff to 40 lately? Is it the FBI going 9MM? I hear a lot of folks say the 9 is just about as good or as good as a 40 well then why not just carry 40? Take away that little seed of doubt is 9 enough? As someone said about 40 "hits like a 45 and shoots like a 9"
Click to expand...

I have never liked the 40, ever. When it came out and I shot one, I immediately disliked the round. They took a high pressure, semi heavy round and put in a guns that were designed around the 9mm. The round is overly abusive to the gun for not a lot of return. It's not like it was some groundbreaking achievement. It's a watered down 10mm. It doesn't "shoot like a 9". It recoils much more heavily than the 9, with a sharp "snap" that some shooters just can't get past to shoot it well. It doesn't "hit like a 45", it hits like a 40, which is nothing special. The 40 was a solution to a problem that never existed, and unfortunately, those in decision making roles bought into it, hook, line and sinker.
 
Last edited:
They took a high pressure, semi heavy round and put in a guns that were designed around the 9mm.
Click to expand...

Same operating pressure at the 9mm and actually less operating pressure than 9mm+P and 9mm Nato.
 
I have never liked the 40, ever. When it came out and I shot one, I immediately disliked the round. They took a high pressure, semi heavy round and put in a guns that were designed around the 9mm. The round is overly abusive to the gun for not a lot of return. It's not like it was some groundbreaking achievement. It's a watered down 10mm. It doesn't "shoot like a 9". It recoils much more heavily than the 9, with a sharp "snap" that some shooters just can't get past to shoot it well. It doesn't "hit like a 45", it hits like a 40, which is nothing special. The 40 was a solution to a problem that never existed, and unfortunately, those in decision making roles bought into it, hook, line and sinker.
Click to expand...


In the last 15 years or so there have been major improvements in handgun ammunition especially for 9mm. We now have very reliably opening bonded HP ammo in the super sonic range. A .40 made more sense 20 years ago then it does today.

The .40 was the answer between:

- smaller/ faster bullet 9mm
and
- larger/ slower bullet .45 ACP

So you get a bigger bullet then 9mm and faster than a .45ACP. This works well on full size pistols. You do get increased recoil but that is part of the deal.


When you shorten the barrel on a small carry piece you get a slower bullet into the subsonic range so I figure I may as well use an even bigger bullet. This is why I prefer the compact 45. A .40 allows you to get a bigger bullet too, just slightly faster than the .45. But most .40 bullets are like 9mm bullets and rely on velocity.


I imagine I could just convert the Glock 22 to run on 9mm and save the excess .40 caliber ammo in the rainy day fund until after the election. This would actually make a lot of sense. 9mm is by far the more versatile cartridge.
 
Same operating pressure at the 9mm and actually less operating pressure than 9mm+P and 9mm Nato.
Click to expand...

Yes, with a heavier bullet, therefore; more recoil in a gun designed for 9mm recoil...............

The .40 was the answer between:

- smaller/ faster bullet 9mm
and
- larger/ slower bullet .45 ACP
Click to expand...

I don't recall that being a question. Certainly not one that I ever asked. I relied, and still do, on shot placement, not magic calibers. In fact, there's someone on this forum who's signature reads something like "I would rather take a toe shot with a 50BMG that a head shot with a 22 Short"............

That said, I shoot well, and recoil doesn't so much bother me, but there are those who thought, and still think the 40 is the end all, be all, and go get one, even thought they can't shoot it.

Again, a solution in search of a problem.
 
I did the exact same thing. Dropped my Glock 40's a few years back and haven't missed them.

Until I wanted a gun I could convert into 357sig. Wish I had the 23 back so I could put a 357 barrel into it. Just for fun.

Maybe you could keep one just for flexibility's sake? Or if you want the money now, just sell them. That's the one nice thing about Glocks. If you decide you want one... you can buy one anywhere at any time.
 
All comes down to what works for YOU! I like 40 and 45 for carry handguns, 9MM as a sometimes carry and back-up and 380 emergency use only! Your mileage may vary!
 
I agree with smee , I would keep at least one of them in case of another ammo shortages . They are paid for and not eating any corn .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top