Glock 26 vs 36

[Michael777]

[ScottyBnNC]

I would go with a 30sf frame and 36 slide and have 11 rounds of .45acp.

have it and it works! 30s is not on the roster

[Che762x39]

Try a few rental guns out. I shot a G36 and a G26 and ended up buying a Glock 19 Gen 3. That is my EDC

[floogy]

[Quiet]

Can you even get an on roster 36 anymore?

AFAIK, Glock added a light rail to the 36, which took it off roster.

Two versions of the Glock 36 are still listed on the Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale.

The Glock Gen 1, 2, 2.5, and 3 are all considered to be on-Roster.

The Glock 36 Gen 2.5 is the non-rail variant.
The Glock 36 Gen 3 is the rail variant.

Currently, the only Glock 36 variants that CA DOJ BOF does not consider to be on-Roster are the Glock 36 that are made in the USA.

[elSquid]

Two versions of the Glock 36 are still listed on the Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale.

Yup, black and OD.

The Glock Gen 1, 2, 2.5, and 3 are all considered to be on-Roster.

The Glock 36 Gen 2.5 is the non-rail variant.
The Glock 36 Gen 3 is the rail variant.

Currently, the only Glock 36 variants that CA DOJ BOF does not consider to be on-Roster are the Glock 36 that are made in the USA.

Why would the newish ( 2016? ) railed G36 ( aka FGR suffix ) be considered still on roster when the most minor of changes results in DOJ pulling guns from the roster? And that when certain minor changes are allowed, the manufacturer must add a new roster entry? ( example: Department of corrections Glock 22 )

As another data point, Riflegear will not sell the railed G36 to the average joe in CA.

https://www.riflegear.com/p-2590-glock-36.aspx

-- Michael

[Quiet]

Why would the newish ( 2016? ) railed G36 ( aka FGR suffix ) be considered still on roster when the most minor of changes results in DOJ pulling guns from the roster? And that when certain minor changes are allowed, the manufacturer must add a new roster entry? ( example: Department of corrections Glock 22 )

Because, CA DOJ BOF hasn't caught on to the fact that there is a Glock 36 Gen 3.
Currently, DES allows the both rail and non-rail to be DROS using the Glock 36 Roster listing.

Why does DES allow "FDE" Glock models to be DROS'd as on-Roster Glock models when there is no listing for them on the Roster?
^Select on-Roster Glock model. Color is default black, but click on it and allows selection to tan.

So, why question it, if the system allows for it.
Not on the CA FFL dealer or the transferee, if the system is messed up.

[Lonestargrizzly]

That glock 36 is pretty sweet.

[fawndog]

G26 w/G17 mags

[FeuerFrei]

G26 w/G17 mags

Yup. My backup g26 mag is a g19/10 rd. Easier for me to grab the mag[emoji106]

Sent using a long string and 2 Dixie cups

[lplover]

Have both. Like both. Prefer the 45

[W.R.Buchanan]

That's not "logic", that's wishful thinking in a perfect scenario....that may, or may not, be true.

Just because it makes a bigger hole doesn't mean one bullet ends that fight. Obviously location means the most. It may end up taking 2-3, or more, of ANY caliber to end a given fight.

Then, there's also the case of possibly having two or more guys to deal with....

There's some cases where only one bullet was needed....and some where 10 wasn't enough.

Your assertion is true from your viewpoint. Mine is also true from mine.

The .45 ACP has been dealing with threats in a decisive manner for over 100 years in every theater of conflict both Civilian and Military.

The ARMY rejected the 9MM first in 1905 for the very reasons which I put forward.

The reason they are using it now is to suck up to NATO and because it is significantly cheaper to supply than the other rounds.

The 9MM is not a more effective round and as such, over a broad view of "Number of Rounds Fired versus Number of Men Dead," the .45 wins every time.

The Army did autopsies on thousands of victims during WW1 and WW2 to assess effectiveness of the ammo being used, and they knew exactly what to expect from everyone's weapons. Don't think for one second that if the 9MM Para Round had been more effective that they wouldn't have used it.

The only reason they changed was Politics,,, which currently I am getting pretty sick of.

With respect to your point about multiple adversaries, the accepted method is to put one round on each one before follow up shots are taken. Any hit by a 230 gr slug is going to be more effective than a hit in the same place with a 125 gr 9MM slug.

That's logical isn't it?

Randy

[Over It]

1. It is disingenuous to claim .45ACP is one shot man stopper, it just isn't. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...topping-power/ I don't think I would be confident giving the criminal in that story one .45ACP and calling it good.


2. Multiple opponents means whorehouse rules, "Everyone gets one before anybody gets seconds"

3. Murphy laughs in the face of logic!

[Erion929]

That's logical isn't it?

Randy

[floogy]

Your assertion is true from your viewpoint. Mine is also true from mine.

The .45 ACP has been dealing with threats in a decisive manner for over 100 years in every theater of conflict both Civilian and Military.

The ARMY rejected the 9MM first in 1905 for the very reasons which I put forward.

The reason they are using it now is to suck up to NATO and because it is significantly cheaper to supply than the other rounds.

The 9MM is not a more effective round and as such, over a broad view of "Number of Rounds Fired versus Number of Men Dead," the .45 wins every time.

The Army did autopsies on thousands of victims during WW1 and WW2 to assess effectiveness of the ammo being used, and they knew exactly what to expect from everyone's weapons. Don't think for one second that if the 9MM Para Round had been more effective that they wouldn't have used it.

The only reason they changed was Politics,,, which currently I am getting pretty sick of.

With respect to your point about multiple adversaries, the accepted method is to put one round on each one before follow up shots are taken. Any hit by a 230 gr slug is going to be more effective than a hit in the same place with a 125 gr 9MM slug.

That's logical isn't it?

Randy

http://www.hendonpub.com/resources/article_archive/results/details?id=4593

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk