View Full Version : G17 or G22
im undedcided between the two...maybe you guys can help me lean more towards one...
what makes the g17 better than the g22..it seems like more people prefer to go with the g17 more than the g22 (frm reading it here and elsewhere) y???
1 reason i know would be that 9mm is cheaper to shoot, but is it a huge difference
http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=11788&highlight=glock+continue+problems
thanks for the link..i guess that kinda helps:cool:
Get the G17 bro. I love Glocks but I love 9mm Glocks even more!
The G17 is one of the most reliable and the original Glock and you absolutely can not go wrong buying one.
If you want something in .40 S&W get an M&P40.
Get the G17.
Cheaper ammo, more of it, less recoil, and 9mm works fine for social occasions should you need to use it.
G17s work with mounted lights, whereas G22s have issues (found this out firsthand).
bullitt5172
03-11-08, 21:07
No contest, get the G17.
Don Robison
03-11-08, 21:12
G17 for all the above reasons
I'd also recommend going with the G17. It's arguably the most tested and the most reliable of the entire Glock stable. Several years ago Glock also did a quiet product improvement step regarding the barrel/slide fit; my personal Generation 3 G17 (used for carry, IDPA, GSSF, and steel plate competitions) is very accurate and exceptionally reliable. With judicious ammunition selection and shot placement (which is probably the key for ANY handgun utilized, pretty much regardless of caliber), I'd argue that tactically it's a wash between the G17 and the G22. I don't have anything personally against the G22, but for all the reasons stated in the previous thread(s), I don't think that you'd be disappointed if you selected the G17.
Best, Jon
Robb Jensen
03-11-08, 22:20
Glock 17 for 9mm.
S&W M&P40 for 40S&W.
I would say - go for the G17.
The modern 9mm ammo available for defense is nothing to sneeze at. Also, shot placement is the key. :)
I vote for the G35 in .40 or the G17 in 9mm...
Just my .02
Buck
Go for the G17, but the G19 is also a great option. I carry a G35 on duty because my department only allows Glocks in .40 or .45, so I believe it is the best available option. However, if I had my choice I would take a 9mm Glock.
Justin
Another for the 17, for all the above reasons.
Also consider the 19 if this is for everyday carry. That's what I'm using.
Another for the 17, for all the above reasons.
Also consider the 19 if this is for everyday carry. That's what I'm using.
And then a G26 for summer carry! :D
I have both.
The G17 for practice.
The G22 for carry.
It's the best of both worlds. They're both set up the same, and they both work in the same holsters. I get to practice on the 9mm platform which is cheaper, and the 17 holds up better under the high volume round counts of practice or classes.
Spurholder
03-12-08, 08:42
Get a 17. And then get a 19.
Gutshot John
03-12-08, 09:58
17 or 19. Either makes a fine pistol.
I carry a 19.
Another option - buy a G17 and get the grip modified to a G19 length so it is easier to conceal. You can use G19 hi-cap mags or hi-cap G17 mags. :)
Glock 22's do have some known issues when running weapon mounted lights. Both Gotm4 and I just ran our Glock 17's through a Vickers 3 day pistol/carbine class with no problems. Both guns ran with Surefire lights attached since training day 1. If it matters to you, Larry Vickers feels that of all the Glocks, the 22 is the worst and the 17 is the best.
Hope this helps
....or...G22 with a conversion barrel from a good aftermarket source (or OEM). You could have three calibers on one frame. 357, 9mm & .40S&W. :p
MadcapMagician
03-12-08, 15:18
G17 and a G19.
As pretty much all people have beens saying, 9mm models are the way to go with the Glock platform.
....or...G22 with a conversion barrel from a good aftermarket source (or OEM). You could have three calibers on one frame. 357, 9mm & .40S&W. :p
That's not a bad idea unless you plan on carrying or using it for home defense in the 9mm configuration. If you really like the .40 S&W but want to occasionally go plinking with 9mm then this would be a good set up.
Glock 22's do have some known issues when running weapon mounted lights. Both Gotm4 and I just ran our Glock 17's through a Vickers 3 day pistol/carbine class with no problems. Both guns ran with Surefire lights attached since training day 1. If it matters to you, Larry Vickers feels that of all the Glocks, the 22 is the worst and the 17 is the best.
Hope this helps
I forgot about this. Good point. I don't run a pistol mounted light so it's not an issue for me, but it would be something to consider if the OP wants the light.
wicked_police
03-12-08, 18:44
Like most, go with the 17.
Many people with far more expertise have commented on the various issues with the 22.
And 9 is cheaper to train with, and easier/more fun to shoot.
wow ok...i just might go with the 17 then...cost wise it would be more afforded to shoot....and ture about the 9mm being a good defensive round nowadays..
but with the g22 and the conversion barrels....is there any major issue???
is it really a solid base to have 9, 40 and 357 capiability on one frame???
wow ok...i just might go with the 17 then...cost wise it would be more afforded to shoot....and ture about the 9mm being a good defensive round nowadays..
but with the g22 and the conversion barrels....is there any major issue???
is it really a solid base to have 9, 40 and 357 capiability on one frame???
There aren't any "major" issues but I don't know if any conversion barrel is recommended for carry. I know Lone Wolf does not recommend you use their conversion barrel for anything but practice or plinking because conversion barrels are not made to factory specifications.
The other issue is the ejector. The G22/31 ejector is different than the G17 because the cases are a different diameter. It is possible to change out the ejector by swapping out the trigger housing unit.
Again, it would be great for plinking and practicing but that's all I would trust it for. I have suffered a couple failures to eject in my G32 with a 9mm conversion barrel.
I'd also recommend going with the G17. It's arguably the most tested and the most reliable of the entire Glock stable.
Well, if the G17 is arguably the most tested, the next most tested is the G22. Or its the other way around. ;) And they've both proven themselves to be highly reliable pistols.
I personally don't find the .40 caliber Glocks to have reliability issues and there are a LOT of them in service. Some people seem to have found that certain bullets don't work that well, but that's not an across the board phenomenon.
To the original poster, consider your needs and pick the caliber you like.
Personally, I like the G22 over the G17. But I like the G19 over the G23. That's based on my personal preference on how these pistols handle when I handle them. I have no explanation other than that's what I feel.
Oh, and I just put 150 rounds downrange today with a 12 year old Glock 23 that's never hiccupped. I don't worry about running a rail mounted light on it because there's no rails on it. :D And to be fair, my 10 year old G19 hasn't hiccupped either. Both have seen A LOT of use.
I have both and like my G17 the best. I take it to all my GSSF matches.
Over the years I have seen very few problems with G22s. They work.
I personally prefer G19s, as I believe they are a better all around pistol, cheaper and easier to shoot.
A coworker using a ~9 yr old G22 with the original mags, springs, etc. recently installed an X300 (awesome light, BTW).
He is having about 5% fail to feed rate using 180 grn ball, 180 grn Hydrashocks, and 180 grn SXTs.
This same pistol has never had a stoppage, prior to using the X300.
We installed a new G22 recoil spring. No improvement.
Next on the list is 11 coil mag springs, and a heavier recoil spring.
The above is only a sample of 1 gun, but it's my experience with this issue thus far.
Re. aftermarket conversions/mods/etc.: If this is being considered as a carry gun, you may want to keep it entirely factory-original stock for liability reasons.
Another option - buy a G17 and get the grip modified to a G19 length so it is easier to conceal. You can use G19 hi-cap mags or hi-cap G17 mags. :)
That's me. I carry a Glock 17 w/ a G19 grip reduction and Ameriglo sights - courtesy of Bowie Tactical Concepts. You get the almost totally idiot proof G17 top end, w/ the smaller profile G19 grip, at the cost of two rounds. Money :D .
Matt Edwards
03-13-08, 08:50
I have both a 17 and a 22. However, I carry a 19. For me, the question is "moo".;)
One's use of deadly force will not be judged based on a what sights they changed, or a grip reduction they had done their blaster.
A different matter would be a "hair trigger", and then only if you had an ND.
Over the years I have seen very few problems with G22s. They work.
I personally prefer G19s, as I believe they are a better all around pistol, cheaper and easier to shoot.
A coworker using a ~9 yr old G22 with the original mags, springs, etc. recently installed an X300 (awesome light, BTW).
He is having about 5% fail to feed rate using 180 grn ball, 180 grn Hydrashocks, and 180 grn SXTs.
This same pistol has never had a stoppage, prior to using the X300.
We installed a new G22 recoil spring. No improvement.
Next on the list is 11 coil mag springs, and a heavier recoil spring.
The above is only a sample of 1 gun, but it's my experience with this issue thus far.
Glock has done some significant "tweaking' to their G22 40 cal pistols in the last 9 + / - years... It may be time for a new pistol... The G35 is the only Glock that from the get go was designed as a .40, as opposed to a 9mm that was simply bored out... If you are going to use a Glock, and you are going to shoot .40, the G35 LE model is your best all around choice...
My .02
Buck
One's use of deadly force will not be judged based on a what sights they changed, or a grip reduction they had done their blaster.
A different matter would be a "hair trigger", and then only if you had an ND.
Perhaps this is true in your world... But in mine it would lead to a wrongful death lawsuit, administrative disapproval of deadly force, and some time in the penalty box without pay to drive the point home...
The G35 is the only Glock that from the get go was designed as a .40, as opposed to a 9mm that was simply bored out... If you are going to use a Glock, and you are going to shoot .40, the G35 LE model is your best all around choice...
Hey Buck, can you point me to any references that state the G35 was designed as as .40 S&W and how it is different from the G22 in that regards?
IIRC the G34 and G35 were released at the same time and shares the same parts as the G22 with the exception of the slide and barrel. I'm not understanding how it was designed as a .40 S&W if it's identidal to the G22 and shares the same frame as the G17/22/31. I must be overlooking something. Thanks.
Forget the Glock..... Go with a 1911.
One's use of deadly force will not be judged based on a what sights they changed, or a grip reduction they had done their blaster.
A different matter would be a "hair trigger", and then only if you had an ND.
Since one's use of deadly force is very likely to be judged by a jury rather than our friends on m4carbine.net, it is dangerous to assume that these things will not be a factor.
How much of a factor will depend primarily on how questionable the shooting was to begin with. If there is videotape of the Huns coming over the wall and you begging them to stop, offering them your car, and they all open up on you before you pull out your gun ... it won't matter if you're using a hair-trigger mondo-custom uber race gun. Mods to your gun won't change whether or not you acted in self-defense. Mods to your gun may color the opinion of jurors, however, as to whether you acted in self-defense.
Every hurdle you put in your own way, no matter how small, is a hurdle you may trip over (worst case) or at least have to pay an attorney to jump for you (best case).
I'm not saying it's wrong to put better sights, etc. on your pistol. My carry gun has an action job and will get Warren sights as soon as his prototype 2-dot night sights are finished. But like most things that get debated online, we have to keep in mind the difference between "it's a non-issue" and "it's not a big issue."
How much of a factor will depend primarily on how questionable the shooting was to begin with.
This is VERY true as seen in the Harold Fisch case here in AZ.
His shoot was borderline at best. He was criticized by the procecution for using a 10mm pistol which is "more powerful than what the police use".
Had his shooting been a more clear cut case of Self Defense I'm certain this would have never been an issue.
Forget the Glock..... Go with a 1911.
Then the prosecution couldn't go after you for having a better gun than the police use. A shooter's lawyer could argue that his client was only armed with this old Legacy Pistol.
I'm not understanding how it was designed as a .40 S&W if it's identidal to the G22 and shares the same frame as the G17/22/31. I must be overlooking something. Thanks.
Sure…
In the beginning there was Gaston Glock who spent several years and lots of money designing a entire manufacturing process to build pistols to meet the needs of the Austrian Army…
This pistol became the Golck 17 generation 1... It was a 9mm pistol that met or exceeded all of their specs…
In the United States we took this pistol that was designed for the Austrian Army and pressed it into service with American Law Enforcement, a roll that it was not designed for…
As time went on Glock attempted to take its original design and fit it to other calibers… The first 40 cal Glocks all had the original G17 9mm frame, but this was way too much cartridge for them and they had a bad habit of experiencing catastrophic failures…
The Glock 21 was simply a Glock 17 that was stretched on a CAD system to fit the longer 45 ACP round, and this sucked so bad, that later Glock spent huge $$$ to float a 45 round that was 9mm/.40 cal length to fit in their standard frame.. AKA the 45 GAP
Glock redesigned the frame twice, dramatically increasing the amount of metal and plastic reinforcement in it to withstand the 40 cal cartridge… So now all Glocks use the newer 40 cal frame which will easily withstand the lesser stress of the 9mm cartridge but will also withstand the .357 sig… This way Glock only has to make one frame, not two… Commonality of parts is very important when designing a mass manufacturing process…
The next problem was the excessive slide speed and muzzle flip of the 40 cal cartridge in a slide that was originally designed for the 9mm cartridge… To address this Glock changed the external diameter of the 40 cal barrel and lengthened the entire barrel and slide assembly putting more weight near the muzzle… Glock then removed metal (weight) from the top of the slide in a effort to lighten the slide to the optimum weight to give the desired slide speed for the 40 cal cartridge…
They then wanted to give it more American user friendly controls, so they put the longer glock 21 magazine release and the extended slide release on it, all of this was combined with the other internal part upgrades that Glock had done over the years with the 40 cal cartridge in mind…
In the end you have a Glock that has a frame specifically designed for the 40 cal cartridge, with barrel and slide assembly also specifically designed for the 40 cal… The Glock 34 is that pistol with a 9mm barrel and a lot more metal removed from the slide in an effort to speed the slide up to the optimum 9mm range…
My duty gun is a G35 with Heine straight 8 slant pro sights, a Vickers magazine release, a 5 ˝ pound disconnecter, and a grip plug. I regularly use a tac light and shoot issued full power 180 grain Winchester LE ammo with no issues…
Just my .02
Buck
:confused:
Buck, you never answered the question about how the G35 was designed as a .40 S&W as you've stated multiple times.
I'm well aware of the history and the timeline of the Glock models. In fact, Glock has only redisgned the frame once since the .40 S&W have been around (1990). That's why there are no first generation G22/23s. Only Gen II & IIIs.
In addition the G22/23/27 were all available before the G35 (1998) so I still don't understand how it was developed as a .40 S&W. What makes it different than the other .40 models since all the G35 frames would be third generation with three pins?
Ok let me try again...
If you take a frame that was specifically designed as a .40 from the beginning, and add a slide and barrel that was specifically designed as a .40 from the beginning... What you end up with is a pistol that was specifically designed as a .40 from the beginning...
Ok let me try again...
If you take a frame that was specifically designed as a .40 from the beginning, and add a slide and barrel that was specifically designed as a .40 from the beginning... What you end up with is a pistol that was specifically designed as a .40 from the beginning...
Just because the G35 was the last .40 S&W model that Glock sent to market hardly makes your statement true.
If anything the only true statement that could be made about any of the .40 S&W and .357 SIG models is that the three pin design was brought about because of those calibers but to say they were specifically designed as a .40 from the beginning is misleading.
Granted, Glock did make significant improvements but I wouldn't classify it as being "specifically designed as a .40 from the beginning" just because they made a few improvements and slapped a new slide on it.
Matt Edwards
03-13-08, 21:01
Ok Buck, you have peaked our interest. I'm inclined to agree with M4arc unless you can elaberate on the DIFFERANCE in the frame and slide. (other then being longer with the "cut out" like the 34)
I'm not saying your statments are not true (I don't know, "I just ride them, I don't know what makes them work.")...I'd just like more real poop.
Matt
Robb Jensen
03-13-08, 21:36
Just because the G35 was the last .40 S&W model that Glock sent to market hardly makes your statement true.
If anything the only true statement that could be made about any of the .40 S&W and .357 SIG models is that the three pin design was brought about because of those calibers but to say they were specifically designed as a .40 from the beginning is misleading.
Granted, Glock did make significant improvements but I wouldn't classify it as being "specifically designed as a .40 from the beginning" just because they made a few improvements and slapped a new slide on it.
Longer barrel, heavier slide.......= slower cyclic rate.................slower is better with a light mounted (hint: the mag can keep up!). G35s run better than G22s with lights mounted just as G17s run better than G19s with a light mounted. In the case of a Glock a slower slide velocity is good...YMMV. ;)
......Every hurdle you put in your own way, no matter how small, is a hurdle you may trip over (worst case) or at least have to pay an attorney to jump for you (best case).......
+1.
Selection of self-defense tools should not be entirely held hostage to courtroom what-if scenarios, but each person who decides to go legally armed needs to fully think through every possible aspect of their decision. A problem is less of a problem if it can be seen coming.
Also keep in mind the many difference between criminal proceedings versus a civil suit, which anyone who has had to resort to deadly force -- however justified legally -- can count on also facing.
I thought the 21 was a slightly altered 20 frame, not a stretched 17 frame.
Robb Jensen
03-15-08, 07:00
I thought the 21 was a slightly altered 20 frame, not a stretched 17 frame.
The G21s frame is the same thing as a G20 frame both even use the same ejectors. Both lowers are 100% the same. The G20 was designed to be a 10mm.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.