Tweet
I've had a Glock 29SF for several years and am very happy with it. For carrying outdoors, I think the 29SF is a much more convenient size than the much larger 20SF would be. Mine fits fine in my small size Blackhawk fanny pack, which also gives me room to carry my compact camera, wallet, cell phone, etc. when hiking, ATV riding, backpacking, fishing, etc.
While Glock classifies the 29SF as a "sub-compact," in reality, it is much closer in size to their mid-sized "compact" pistols in other calibers. I have installed Pearce finger extensions on my magazines, and with these, my 29SF is very similar in size to a Glock 19 or 23 (only a little thicker), and is significantly larger than the sub-compact Glock 9mm and .40 pistols.
I do like the fact that the 29SF's NORMAL magazines hold 10 rounds (we don't get blocked magazines because we live in CA - which would be the case with a G20). I have large hands, and the knuckle of my middle finger felt a little cramped until I used a dremmel-like tool to grind away a little material under the trigger guard. That was easy to do, is hardly noticeable visually, and makes the grip more comfortable for me.
I had a Wolf barrel that converted my 29SF to .40 S&W. It worked flawlessly. I say "had" because I sold it to a friend who really wanted it and didn't want to wait. I'll probably get another one. I haven't tried shooting .40 though the 10mm barrel, but I also know a couple of guys who do this without issue. It is nice to know that, in an emergency at least, it will almost certainly work fine. I'd still feel better having a dedicated .40 barrel, but maybe I'm overly cautious. Note that .40 S&W works fine in the 10mm magazines and with the stock 10mm spring.
I also have a Glock 36 compact, single-stack .45. The slide from it fits fine on my 29SF frame and lets me convert it to .45 ACP and have a .45 that is noticeably thinner than a G30, and weighs about 1/4 lb less, while still holding 10+1 rounds of .45 ACP (using G30 magazines). I prefer the 10mm for outdoor activities, but around town, I'd rather have a thinner, lighter .45. This is legally creating essentially a Glock 30s (which isn't approved for sale in CA). Do this at your own risk - I can't guarantee that it will work well or be safe for you - I can only say that so far it is working fine for me.
I also have a .22 Conversion unit for it which works pretty well and is fun to shoot. So I can shoot .22LR, .40, .45 ACP, and 10mm all from the same gun. With the exception of the .22, these all work very reliably with a variety of ammo. The .22 prefers 40 gr. round nose bullets, and has a few jams, but still works fine for practice and plinking.
I used to carry an ultralight S&W Scandium .357 with 3.25" barrel as my outdoor gun, but the Glock is similarly compact, still relatively light, but holds 11 rounds (vs. 5 in the revolver) of a slightly more powerful cartridge. If I were threatened by a bear or mountain lion, I would prefer to be able to shoot a round or two into the ground to try to frighten the animal away. With the revolver, that could be almost half my ammo. I know "bear defense" is not a very likely need, but I have been close to bears on a couple of occasions, and in both cases, the bears didn't seem very afraid of me. They didn't attack, but I felt better being armed.
One thing that confuses a lot of people is that the Glock 20 and 29 are both available as SF versions. SF just means that the grip frame is a little thinner from front to back. The length and side-to-side thickness are the same. They use the same magazines and slides, and look virtually identical. I think everyone I know who has held both the regular and SF frame has preferred the SF. Glocks (even SFs) don't have thin grips. Just because you have large hands or like large grips, don't assume you'll prefer the larger frame. I think almost everyone will prefer the SF version of either the 20 or 29 (though the difference is pretty small).
Doug
While Glock classifies the 29SF as a "sub-compact," in reality, it is much closer in size to their mid-sized "compact" pistols in other calibers. I have installed Pearce finger extensions on my magazines, and with these, my 29SF is very similar in size to a Glock 19 or 23 (only a little thicker), and is significantly larger than the sub-compact Glock 9mm and .40 pistols.
I do like the fact that the 29SF's NORMAL magazines hold 10 rounds (we don't get blocked magazines because we live in CA - which would be the case with a G20). I have large hands, and the knuckle of my middle finger felt a little cramped until I used a dremmel-like tool to grind away a little material under the trigger guard. That was easy to do, is hardly noticeable visually, and makes the grip more comfortable for me.
I had a Wolf barrel that converted my 29SF to .40 S&W. It worked flawlessly. I say "had" because I sold it to a friend who really wanted it and didn't want to wait. I'll probably get another one. I haven't tried shooting .40 though the 10mm barrel, but I also know a couple of guys who do this without issue. It is nice to know that, in an emergency at least, it will almost certainly work fine. I'd still feel better having a dedicated .40 barrel, but maybe I'm overly cautious. Note that .40 S&W works fine in the 10mm magazines and with the stock 10mm spring.
I also have a Glock 36 compact, single-stack .45. The slide from it fits fine on my 29SF frame and lets me convert it to .45 ACP and have a .45 that is noticeably thinner than a G30, and weighs about 1/4 lb less, while still holding 10+1 rounds of .45 ACP (using G30 magazines). I prefer the 10mm for outdoor activities, but around town, I'd rather have a thinner, lighter .45. This is legally creating essentially a Glock 30s (which isn't approved for sale in CA). Do this at your own risk - I can't guarantee that it will work well or be safe for you - I can only say that so far it is working fine for me.
I also have a .22 Conversion unit for it which works pretty well and is fun to shoot. So I can shoot .22LR, .40, .45 ACP, and 10mm all from the same gun. With the exception of the .22, these all work very reliably with a variety of ammo. The .22 prefers 40 gr. round nose bullets, and has a few jams, but still works fine for practice and plinking.
I used to carry an ultralight S&W Scandium .357 with 3.25" barrel as my outdoor gun, but the Glock is similarly compact, still relatively light, but holds 11 rounds (vs. 5 in the revolver) of a slightly more powerful cartridge. If I were threatened by a bear or mountain lion, I would prefer to be able to shoot a round or two into the ground to try to frighten the animal away. With the revolver, that could be almost half my ammo. I know "bear defense" is not a very likely need, but I have been close to bears on a couple of occasions, and in both cases, the bears didn't seem very afraid of me. They didn't attack, but I felt better being armed.
One thing that confuses a lot of people is that the Glock 20 and 29 are both available as SF versions. SF just means that the grip frame is a little thinner from front to back. The length and side-to-side thickness are the same. They use the same magazines and slides, and look virtually identical. I think everyone I know who has held both the regular and SF frame has preferred the SF. Glocks (even SFs) don't have thin grips. Just because you have large hands or like large grips, don't assume you'll prefer the larger frame. I think almost everyone will prefer the SF version of either the 20 or 29 (though the difference is pretty small).
Doug
Comment