...

[Steve_In_29]

Coming from a guy who loves to shoot .45, simply because I have a lot og 1911's, if it were me buying my first handgun for range and also possible HD I would go with Glock 17 or 19, whichever fits your hand better.

Great first gun and more than adequate for HD w modern JHP rounds. Just my opinion thinking if I were in your position right now.

Care to elaborate since you gave no reasoning behind the recommendation. Based on what you posted then if the OP has big hands and the 21 fits best he should go with it?

[Bananajacksonthe 3rd]

My suggestion willbe the 17, I have a bias to it of course. One other considerations why not buy the g22 in .40, from that point you can also purchase a .357 sig barrel and 9mm barrel and essentially have three different weapons and begin a variety of caliber collections. that is the route in somewhat headed with a g23.

[Paltik]

When considering caliber for home defense, keep in mind that much of the data compares military-style ball ammo. Modern home defense ammo of any caliber is designed for maximum effect, and with identical placement a good defense round from a 9mm will penetrate about as far and do about as much damage as a good defense round from a .45.

I'm not saying there's no difference, but rather that the difference is not nearly as great as FMJ 9mm vs. FMJ .45. Any generally recognized service caliber in a modern home defense design will have a roughly equivalent effect in general (that is, in this situation or that a specific caliber may rise above the field).

[Rob7.62]

Personally I wouldn't be without either caliber as I think they are both essentials. However on the Glock platform I have a 30sf and do enjoy it personally I try to stay in the compact zone as they tend to be best of both worlds being fun to shoot still and easy to conceal especially since we're only limited to 10rds in CA I kinda see full size as a bit of bulk I don't need.

[bubbagump]

My first Glock was a 21. Accurate. Reliable.

My hands were too small. Plain and simple. If I put on gloves, I could not reach the trigger.

Otherwise, they are both great. I would rather have 10 rounds of .45 than 10 rounds of 9mm. If cost of .45 is no problem for you...then that helps too.

[Grumpyoldretiredcop]

Shoot both and then decide.

[Libertarian71]

Get both!! Really, it depends on what caliber you prefer. You cannot go wrong with either. They are reliable, durable, have a low bore axis, and an outstanding trigger reset. (If you decide on a Glock 21, look for the SF model, unless you have really big hands.)

As for Glock 26 vs. 30: both are outstanding, and it depends again on what caliber you prefer. I prefer the Glock 19 to the 26, but both are excellent. (As with the 21, if you decide on a Glock 30, look at the SF model).

[bsg]

9 vs 45 = apples vs oranges.

As others have already said, it's a matter of personal choice. The "stopping power" debate aside, fully loaded the G17 is lighter, carries more rounds if you've got hi caps and is easier for most to shoot than the 21. 9mm ammo is also much cheaper than 45; not as much of an issue if you reload.

Same applies generally to the G26 & 30. However, in OEM form, the smaller size of the G26 actually makes it more difficult to grip than the relatively larger G30 but the recoil of the G30 is more difficult to control than that of the G26. You can make both more comfortable to grip, easier to handle and also increase their capacity by using G19/G21 msgs respectively w/grip extenders but that somewhat negates the benefit of carrying a compact 9/45. However, in STOCK configuration, I prefer the G30 over the G26 in terms of size & ergonomics.

FWIW, I own them all -- 17, 26, 21SF (had a 21 but the SF fits my hand better) & 30. My "go to" gun is the G17 -- it was my duty gun, fits my hand best, shoot it best & use it for action pistol shooting events. However, my carry gun is the a G26 w/a G19 15rd mag & grip extender which has the same profile/feel of one of my all time favorite guns -- the HK P7. The G21 & G30 get little use but I still like having them around. I use to carry the G30 w/G21 mags and a grip extender but decided that it was better to carry it w/stock G30 10 round mags because the increased size w/the G21 mags in it just made it larger/heavier w/o a significant round capacity advantage and it's large enough w/o the grip extender to hold and control well.

If undecided, you should rent and/or borrow each of the guns and shoot them before deciding which to buy. Good luck!

^^^ good post with good info.

[thorium]

Coming from a guy who loves to shoot .45, simply because I have a lot og 1911's, if it were me buying my first handgun for range and also possible HD I would go with Glock 17 or 19, whichever fits your hand better.

Great first gun and more than adequate for HD w modern JHP rounds. Just my opinion thinking if I were in your position right now.

This.

Federal HST rounds have arguably nullified the 9 vs 40 vs 45 debate in terms of terminal ballistics/performance.

If it's your first pistol then you should lean 9mm, it's the the most popular service pistol cartridge in the world for a reason. However as others have said, you should ideally try both (9, 45) out at the range because here in CA chances are you'll have 10 rounds with either. That is an argument for the 45, and 45 is less less reliant on you using tier 1 self defense ammo because it was a proven stopper before the latest generation of hollow points came out (mid 2000s), which can't be said of the 9.

[HiveDR.]

So you are saying that Glocks are less reliable in calibers other then 9mm? Not a fanboi but I find this pretty hard to believe. Examples please.

Don't see how you read "Glocks were designed first and for most as 9mm. They perform at their best as a 9mm" as "less reliable". The first sentence is historical FACT. The second comes from 25years of teaching LEOs and civilian shooters on Glocks and is mirrored by many of the top firearms instructors in America. All Glocks are equally reliable, but the 9mm is the most "shootable" for the vast majority of new shooter assuming the OP is. Not to snappy in recoil (40), not to big of frame size (45).

Maybe you are just taking offense to my recommending a 9mm over a 45. Seems from your posts on this tread you are a 45 guy. I am, but it does not stop me from recommending a 9mm.

[jdigi101]

Glock 26

[RGERBER]

You may want to consider a Glock in .40 cal.
Use the .40 for home defense then slip in a Wolf Barrel conversion for $ 110.00 and shoot 9mm all day at range. No need to buy mags or anything else the springs and the .40 mags work just fine with the 9mm ammo. And reloads are not a problem.

[ElDub1950]

You may want to consider a Glock in .40 cal.
Use the .40 for home defense then slip in a Wolf Barrel conversion for $ 110.00 and shoot 9mm all day at range. No need to buy mags or anything else the springs and the .40 mags work just fine with the 9mm ammo. And reloads are not a problem.

That doesn't seem to be most peoples' experience. I have 40-9 conversion barrels in a Glock 23 and a Glock 27. I tried using the .40 mags with 9mm and they're extremely unreliable. Typically 2-3 FTFs every mag. They run perfectly with 9mm mags.

[RGERBER]

Really,
I have had 4 conversions two –in G35’s one in a G22 and one in a G-23 gave the G-23 to a friend works perfect in his also.
The mag shouldn’t know what bullet is in the mag until it hits the follower. Then I could see it not lock the slide but mine all have.
Again the complete stock .40 was for home defense and 9mm was just for training at the range to save money on ammo, having to clear a malfunction now and again could be considered a plus if you practice your three type of malfunction drills. But as stated I have been having success with mine.

[CK_32]

Better yet, 23 or 19.


As much a Glock guy I am, I never liked by any means the 45 double stacks. Just too dam big. 9mm all the way. 40 cal if you want the best of both worlds for 1/2 the price (conversaion Kit)