Glock 22

standard skeet shot.. 7 1/2 or 8 would work, & give you a wider spread. Of course, your effective range would be limited.. less than 50 yds, i am sure. Maybe with buck or #4 you could extend it, some. But if they are flying overhead, the regular birdshot should work perfectly.

 

Yup. My favorite. Out-friggin-standing pistol.

Accurate, super reliable and rugged, and, like all Glocks, easy to fix if it ever needs it.

 

Not exactly topical, but an interesting read, about using revolvers in a SWAT setting.

The worst thing that can happen to any law enforcement officer is to have your pistol jam when you need to use it to protect life and property. As the story goes, a police SWAT team reportedly contacted Smith & Wesson to discuss the need to arm the lead penetrator who carries the ballistic shield during tactical operations with a revolver instead of a semi-automatic pistol. The rationale behind this request was to provide a handgun to certain SWAT personnel that would not jam or malfunction, especially if the firearm made contact with the ballistic shield or any other obstruction when it was fired. In response, the Smith & Wesson Performance Center developed the Model 327 Tactical Rail Revolver in .357 Magnum with an eight-shot capacity.

In my opinion, the S&W 327 TRR8 is the premier tactical (SWAT) revolver for the 21st Century. Even though any armed professional or legally armed citizen can use a Smith & Wesson TRR8 for personal protection or home defense, this revolver is the ideal sidearm for certain law enforcement officers who participate in tactical operations. In particular, the S&W 327 Tactical Rail Revolver is best suited to be used by the lead penetrator of a SWAT team, especially since this revolver carries as many rounds of ammunition as the average .45 ACP 1911.

When a SWAT team enters a location to search and secure, the lead penetrator is assigned the job of holding the ballistic shield that the team funnels in behind. When this shield is carried the lead penetrator only has one hand free to hold a weapon for personal protection. This means that the tactical officer in the number one position on a SWAT team is generally restricted to using a handgun as a primary weapon.

source

 

Revolvers don't seem really common with most SWAT teams.

What many people love about the Glock is the low bore axis meaning less muzzle rise. Glock has one of the lowest bore-axis of all polymer handguns and least muzzle rise.

One of the handguns that seem to beat the Glock in this is the Russian Strike One, however the video does not take in consideration that the Strike Zero has no muzzle tilt when locked back, so when muzzle tilt is considered, the Glock recoils probably similar to the Strike One.

Interesting the Glock has less recoil than the M9 in the video however it weighs less.

9mm vs. .45, I'd take 9mm most of the time. Most semi auto pistol rounds are fairly low velocity and all they do is punch straight holes through opponents for FMJ rounds. So a 2mm difference isn't going to make a huge difference between increase of chance of hitting a bunch of flesh vs an artery or bone or heart, the shockwave effect with such low velocity isn't going to damage any flesh unlike rifles due to such a low velocity. Shot placement is key with pistols. Also 9mm although it is less thick so it won't touch as many organs, is still faster, and more aerodynamic so it pierces better which is better against bone like a ripcage. 45 is good suppressed since you can use low velocity ammo and pack more punch(why Spec Ops use HK45 primary for suppressed missions).

 

With the Glock 22 I have found that the complex double spring somehow lowers the recoil.

I did not notice that it is about 10% more M/E than the 45ACP.

In fact it seemed less powerful.

 

I did not have any problems with the grip.

If anything the Glock 22 grip seems a little small for my hands.

 

Well I was required to take the 40 cal plunge and it seems fine to me.

I prefer my 45ACP and will continue to carry it while off duty.

This just gives me 2 guns with a practice requirement at least every month.

My bullet cost just doubled.

 

I agree that the Glock's and the Glock clones (by Smith & Wesson etc) are the future.

Eventually all the Old School guys like me and some others here will all die off and then only the Glock people will be left.

The 45ACPs will then be relegated to revolver status -- essentially obsolete collectors items.

I think you hit the nail on the head with your prediction. I don't like your prediction but I believe you are right.

 

I suspect that the FBI is making the 40 cal very popular.

Everyone wants to imitate the FBI apparently.

 

For a drone you will need an extremely accurate high power rifle with a scope.

Then you need to set the scope to shoot straight up -- no bullet drop.

I would go with a 6.5 :

https://www.eabco.com/6.5_mm_cartridges.html

 

That's why I recommend a 6.5 instead.

 

Shoot down drones I recommend Patriot PAC-3.

 

It has a decent track record on the street. Yes, the recoil springs in modern Glocks dampen the recoil much better than in earlier models. I still love the shootability of the .21 more than an other Glock, but your 22 will serve you well. It's just going to take a little getting used to given your comfort level with the .45.

 

Ah, but there is evidence of the effectiveness of a shotgun!



Of course, water works well, too.



It depends on how close they get. If they are hovering overhead, nearby, then a scoped rifle would not be as effective. But, if they are 100+ yards out, then the shotgun would not be as effective.

That is why we need multiple firearms, in multiple calibers, in multiple configurations.. that's my justification, anyway..

 

There is a lot to be said for the 40 cal cartridge. it is nearly as powerful (and can be loaded so) as the 10mm, & uses the same projectile. 10 mm is just '40 cal magnum', anyway. With just a barrel change, you can shoot the 10mm in the 22.. iirc. or maybe it is the other way around. Some people shoot 40's in their 10mm, i do know that.

If i wasn't already inundated with calibers, cartridges, reloading equipt, & dwindling time, i might go for the 40.. it would be fun to put together loads for it. And, from what i have read, the FBI has 'diluted' the original power of the 40cal, to make it more universal.. so smaller women or men can shoot them with more comfort. I don't know why they didn't just let those types use the 9mm. But govt politics rears its ugly head in every human endeavor.. even crime prevention.

But the nice thing about the 40 cal, is it can handle pretty high pressures, so you can get pretty powerful loads in it.. big grain slugs, driven at supersonic velocities. You can do that some, with 45acp, but it takes a bit more tweaking.

 

I bet those are all 40s.

There's a lot less room for error with 40 cal, and the effects can be catastrophic.

 

I'm "Old Corps" so that would make me "Old Schooled."

Cold hard steel that has been milled not stamped steel. No plastics but hard wood like walnut or mahogany. But I do like the laminated plywood stocks found on a Kar-98 Mauser. (You can use the rifle stock as a sludge hammer.)

The problem with polymer frames, how long will they last before they deteriorate and get brittle ???

All plastics deteriorate over time.

Can you put that Glock in a closet and forget about it and a 100 years later one of your grand kids finds the Glock will he be able to shoot it ??? I doubt it. There are tens of thousands of M-1911's that are hundred years old and they still shoot.

I have a 138 year old Rolling-Block rifle chambered for the 45-70 and I take it out occasionally and at almost $1.50 per round I'll go through twenty rounds.

 

According to what I've read 100 years should be nothing for these polymers. Even PVC drain pipes that take constant element abuse have a very conservative lifespan of 100 years.

The failures above are probably reloading screwups that don't have anything to do with plastic being a substandard component, or maybe manufacturing defects. .40 cal puts a LOT of stress on the frame.

 

Here's my take on 'Paper or Plastic?'

err.. i mean steel vs polymer

1. if the polymer guns last 100 years, i am fine with that. I will not likely live that long, anyway.
2. More than likely a 100 yr old gun will be a collectors item, not a daily shooter.
3. Modern polymers are projected to last even longer, & probably will.
4. Steel breaks, cracks, & blows up, too.
5. The critical areas, that take the pressures are almost always steel or some alloy.
6. If polymers make a handgun lighter, cheaper, & more accessible to the common man, i am all for it. 'God made man. Sam Colt made them equal'.
7. I have heard of too many failures of steel revolvers, 1911s, & other such weapons. Close tolerance engineered steel is more likely to fail than over engineered polymer.
8. Why not both? 'a wise man brings from his treasure both new & old'.
9. Use the technology. It will likely get better, & who knows what will come up next.
10. Today's 'modern!' firearm will be tomorrow's antique.

You can take my plastic gun, & my old steel revolver, when you pry them from my cold, dead, fingers..

 

Plastic is better for our troops. Lighter.

 

If I carried auto I would carry a glock .40

Glock is the most reliable auto, .40 is the best all-around auto caliber.

But Im a revolver guy, so .38/.357mag for me.

 

Nah. In FBI testing the 9mm did as well or better than the .40 or .45, and had higher hit rates to boot.

http://soldiersystems.net/2014/09/25/fbi-9mm-justification-fbi-training-division/

 

I think 5.7 is underrated. Probably the reason it hasn't replaced the 9mm yet, is because it is so expensive. I wouldn't mind if all troops to use FN 57.

 

Whats 'better'? Accuracy, range, penetration, energy transfer to target...? A bit more specificity plz

(i became a bit less lazy and read through the the link some)

It looks like 9mm is 'better' for LE because it has a lower skill curve, ie- its easier to handle proficiently. Thats an excellent reason for large groups of people (depts) to stick with it if they need a uniform weapon and have to accept that some members will not maintain rigorous skill training... but not a very good reason for the individual. The .40 does have more ET@T with comparable accuracy per round (recoil compensation is simply a matter of practice) which makes it more *potentially* versatile. The 9mm would be more recommended for the novice... but being a novice is not recommended. Get the better round and become proficient with it- maximize your own potential -would be my advice.

 

For handguns? The ability to get more shots on target more accurately, then secondly penetration when it comes to handgun calibers, finally magazine capacity.

Something the 9mm excels at according to FBI testing at multiple skill levels.

There are no real world advantages of a .40 over a 9mm. They both penetrate to the require depth, and the wound channels of comparable ammo is negligible in variation.