Why Do Glocks Hold 2 More Rounds Than Comparable Sized Pistols?

I

Incursion

New member
I've always found it strange that Glocks hold 2 more rounds than other guns of comparable size. i.e. 17 rounds for the G17 as opposed to 15 for the USP, Beretta 92, SIG 226

Is it because of the grip angle? I've heard that the grip angle on a Glock is 107-110 degrees. This is the same as the grip angle on my HK P7M8.
 
The Glock 17 has been designed to hold 17 rounds, but the others were only designed to hold 15. Simple as that.
 
Blade 67 this seems to me a poor response. All things being equal any gun designer would endeavor to create a pistol with the highest capacity possible in a given size. Credit must be given to Glock in this case. I just call it bad design inthe case of the other pistols. I am not saying they are inferior pistols, not at all, but higher capacity is an asset.
 
My sw40v holds 15+1 rds of .40 which is more than any .40 glock so I guess that makes the S&W superior huh? Is there any other .40 that holds 16 rds?
 
For those entering the hobby/discussion late:

G17=17 rds
G19=15 rds
G20=15 rds
G21=13 rds
G22=15 rds
G23=13 rds
G24=15 rds

...and that was the scene in early '94.:(
 
I thought

Glocks are less accurate and therefore require more rounds to make up for it.





(Note for the humor impaired -> JOKE ALERT! :rolleyes: )
 
TheActor, a Para-Ord 16-40 holds 16+1 rounds and USP Expert .40 holds more (can't remember the number) with the mag funnel installed.
 
The full size Glocks have long, thick grips which can accommodate many rounds. The more compact Glocks have short, thick grips. Ruger 9MM pistols can accommodate a Mec-Gar mag which holds 17 rounds and fits flush with the butt. Back when mags holding more than 10 rounds were legal to make, several gunmakers, including Ruger, didn't know how to design a reliable, durable mag that would hold 17 rounds, or chose not to produce such mags.

Drakejake
 
It's possible to get a G22 or G35 to hold 30 rounds of .40 without any add-on mag extensions.:p

Anyway, it's all in the grip. The walls of the mag well are very thin, which allows a wider magazine. One that I never understood is why the Beretta 96 lost 4 rounds of capacity (holds 11 vs. 15 in the 92) while pistols of comparable size only lost 2 or 3 (HK USP has 15 in 9mm and 13 in .40; SIG 226 is 15 vs. 12). Anyone care to answer this?
 
losing rounds?

Seems to make sense that the 96 has fewer rounds based on several factors, all of which are common sense.

1) .40 aint 9x19
2) Frame size

The manufacture date of pistols also weighs heavily. If you are making a pistol today versus pre-ban, you really aren't going to be worrying about Full-cap very much. It would make no sense. Why then should a manufacturer make a frame capable of holding mags when you CAN NOT MAKE THE MAGS?

Is this another Anti-Beretta Troll dig?

:p
 
Actually with the 30 round glock mags they fit in EVERY .40 cal Glock 23,24,27 and 35.

Actor- I thought you would know this after being on GT. G-22 holds 15+1 of .40 and it is the most popular Law enforcement pistol in the US.
 
No, duck. Do a search and you will see that I stick up for Beretta every chance I get.

The manufacturing date has absolutely nothing to do with the pistol's designed capacity. Your magazine theory might be correct, if the only people buying these guns were non-LE, but many agencies across the country issue the Beretta 96 in its various configurations. That is a big drop from 15 9mm rounds to 11 .40 rounds.

As for frame size, the HK USP, SIG 226, and GLOCK .40s all have the same frames for their .40 and 9mm pistols. The Beretta is no different, but it still doesn't hold as many rounds.

I am still curious why this is so. Also, why is it that this question can be so easily interpreted as a "flame" on Berettas?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top