I discuss firearms a bit under my Thoughts On Group Standard post, but want to explore why we specifically choose the Glock 22 in .40 Smith & Wesson as our sidearm of choice. To get it out of the way: Glocks are absolutely hideous to look at, and have as much design appeal as a sun-baked turd. If you want a pretty gun, buy a 1911.
To start, I want to say that there are ton’s of great handguns out there – Sig, HK, Colt, Beretta, S&W, Springfield Armory, and others all have great options. But we went with Glock for a multitude of reasons as follows:
Not all firearms are created equal – some designs are intrinsically more reliable than others. Being a secondary weapon, the backup to our main fighting arm, we wanted our sidearm to be utterly reliable as one of the main considerations. Both through personal experience, as well as many published reports on other’s experience led us to the Glock pattern of weapons as a viable option.
Not everyone in the world is a shooter. Not everyone has the time or inclination to spend the amount of effort needed to become highly proficient in a weapon system (I am speaking of a situation where you are thrust into the role of personal protection due to need – not those who have taken the responsibility of protection upon themselves, those individuals better know everything about their weapon) if it’s design is less than optimal. Being a Group Standard, the weapon must speak to all levels of operator, but still meet the other considerations. The Glock platform is simple; simple to field strip, and simple to use. It has the minimal amount of buttons,levers, and switches – yet still does everything you need.
I believe that the 9mm vs. .45 ACP debate will go well past the time we develop lasers, phasers, and plasma rifles (in the 40 watt range). My official position on this debate is 9mm’s are great. So are 45’s. So are .40’s. It comes down to what you like, and meets your needs – the developments in personal protection ammo in the last few decades are amazing, 9mm is not the “mouse gun” it was in the past. One of the greatest things I ever heard was “It’s better to hit with a .22 than miss with a .44” and I believe this is true.
All that being said, we had to come to an agreement to facilitate supply and common parts usage. Some of us live in California, and are limited to a 10-round capacity for magazines – so there was the thought “If we are only going to get 10 rounds, let’s make them the biggest possible”, which led us down the .45 road. But There are of course other considerations, such as what do most members currently have that meet the other criteria (therefore making the burden of buying new guns as impact-less as possible), what caliber is still considered effective, yet can be used by a broad-base of users, and If “standard capacity” magazines can be purchased in other states, what will provide the best benefit all around? This ultimately got us to the .40 S&W. I don’t believe this is a compromise that just fails to meet any requirement, I think it is a suitable round that is perfect for our purposes.
Yep, the world revolves around money (or an invisible axis if you believe all those teachers.) Cost is a consideration, what is the best VALUE (defined here as the best performance in relation to the lowest cost) for your money? We, obviously, once again selected Glock. If you are a person of lesser means, you can still get a police trade-in for under $300 bucks, more if you want upgrades or a newer-gen model. Glocks can run for a good long time, these trade-in’s normally have a lot of life still in them.
Brand new pistols are still on the lower end when compared to a decent 1911, (which is a beautiful work of art and a true gunfighters weapon) Sig, HK, or many other options. You can get vastly inferior pistol (in my opinion – go make your own) for the same cost, such as a S&W Sigma (which has the most god-awful trigger pull ever invented… and looks like a Glock.)
In deciding what should be relied on in a long-term situation, the prospect of repair and resupply comes up. You are pretty likely to find spare parts, magazines, and other accruements for Glocks (probably for the other reasons outlined above.)
That just about covers the thought process on why we chose the Glock 22 in .40 S&W. There are some other minor considerations (such as being able to use magazines from larger frame models in the the smaller varieties and the ability to switch calibers in others) that helped us in our choice, but I feel the above is a good representation.
What sidearm are ya’ll going with, and why did you choose it?
Just a quick question? The Glock seems to be an excellent choice, however in a real SHTF scenario, wouldn’t the 9mm be the better choice? After all, your not going to be able to pickup .40cal ammo off of the dead UN troops that will be littering the city’s and countryside. Bang is better than click. Thoughts?
Good input, but this is my thinking: Every individual or group must decide on what they feel is the most likely set of events to prepare for, and adjust accordingly.
Is an attempted takeover/occupation from a foreign entity on our list? Sure, but not as high as others. That being said, If this were to take place, and assuming that our significant stocks of .40 are depleted (it would take allot of gunfights and allot of training to do this) – I am sure there would be a number of quality 9mm pistols “laying around” to go with the newly acquired 9mm ammo.
To us, the Glock is a secondary weapon, I would be more interested in what caliber this invasion force is using in their long arms….
Thanks for your comment!
Our group standard is the Glock 17/19 in 9mm for simplicity and ease of logistics. I personally would have rather gone with a Sig 229, but cost was an issue as was a lot of us already had Glock 17 and 19s.
Thanks for your comment!
I think Glocks and Sig’s are both great choices – cost dropped the 229 out of the running for us as well.
I agree with the cost knocking the Sig out of the running. I would have liked to go with a 1911 but size (and weight) was an issue because many of our female members have small hands.
The thick grip on the 1911 is difficult for many shooters with small hands. My slimmer G19 (second generation) is easier for someone with smaller hands to operate.
I’ve had a number of handguns. XD, Sigs,HK compact, M&Ps, 1911s, CZ75s, Hi Power, FNP, and Glocks. Like you, they are all great handguns and I still have a handful of them but my carry piece and my go bag gun is a Glock for all the reasons you mentioned. I really like my 19 but the 22 is great choice.
That being said, the reason for my post and a point you mentioned is that one can pickup a slightly used PD trade-in Gen 4 Glock 22 WITH glowing Trijicons for right around $300 on GB as of time of this comment. I just picked one up. There is no other better value for a go-to handgun in the used market that I can find (aside from M&P 40s).
One other point is that even if you’re a die-hard 9mil, or 45 guy, it’s prudent to have 40 around due to 40 ammo availability and potential caliber options depending on future events. Also, for some reason, full grown men are worried about a little bit of “snappiness” and are dumping 40s like the plague. This means lots of available, affordable ammo and a surplus of exc used 40 cal combat pistols until the 40 is inevitably “rediscovered”.