Walther PPS or Glock subcompact?
Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 12:00 am
OK, so this is my first big question post. Would really appreciate any and all help for a newbie to this forum (but not to shooting or CHL).
For my next pistol purchase, I am trying to decide between a Walther PPS or a Glock subcompact. I am leaning toward either the PPS (likely 9mm but maybe .40) or the Glock 27 .40 cal.
I already own a Glock 23 and love it. Also own and carry a S&W J-frame and a Ruger LCP, both of which I pocket carry often. I have a tuckable IWB holster for the S&W, but when carrying in this manner would prefer a semi-auto. I used to carry the G23 IWB all day long. But with my ever-expanding midsection, this is becoming less and less comfortable. Plus my more "professional" career comes with requirements of more "professional" dress - no more covering up my Glock with an untucked Hawaiian shirt during the business week. My fear is the Baby Glock won't be much more comfortable because it is the same width. I would certainly buy the G27 (not G26) because I already have a .40 Glock and can share mags and even some holsters. A LEO friend of mine does this with a G27 & G22.
I have fired the G27 and shoot it better than the S&W or Ruger, but not as well as my G23 (obviously). I have not fired the Walther PPS, but have held them and dry fired them at gun shows and gun stores and like the feel of the gun.
So here is my pro/con list. Y'all help me decide:
Glock 27
PROS:
1. Interchangeable with existing Glock 23 mags and holsters - plus same calibre ammo which I already know well (what I like and what I don't)
2. Familiarity with Glocks; would be no new gun "learning curve" at all. Fire a few rounds down the pipe to make sure it functions, and start carrying it. Would be plenty accurate enough and fully understand the battery of arms from day one.
3. Higher capacity magazine (9 rds vs. 6 in a PPS?)
CONS:
1. Thicker - this is my #1 complaint with my G23 (and even in some ways the S&W J-frame) is the thickness of the gun when carried IWB (remember, I have a some extra gut hanging over my belt line).
2. Semi redundant? Already own the G23 - would the G27 really be that much different?
3. May not easily slide into the pocket of tighter jeans/slacks in a pinch like I'm assuming the PPS would.
Walther PPS
PROS
1. THINNER - this is a HUGE factor - this is the one aspect both of my other IWB guns are missing
2. Adjustable backstraps & ambidextrous mag release are nice features that Glock does not offer.
3. Would give me a gun in 9mm which I don't currently own (buying a Glock 26 in 9mm would negate one of the major benefits to me personally of buying another Glock, so not really an option I'm considering).
4. Fills a niche need in my "arsenal" - more accurate (it would seem) than either of my "mouse guns" but easier to carry than my Glock 23 and easier to carry than a Glock 27, IMHO, because thin size allows easier tuckable IWB use.
CONS:
1. Another new gun, new brand, new caliber?, new holsters to buy (few even available), new ammo to buy, learning curve to become comfortable and proficient with the gun and try out different ammo (probably not long - but not a one-day thing like another Glock .40).
2. Lower capacity magazine - only 6 rounds (or 7 or 8, I'm confused) - is this really much improvement over my existing .38 wheel gun (5 rounds) or .380 auto (6 rounds), especially the 9mm version?
3. New guns only come with one magazine and additional mags are selling for $40 to $50 each OUCH!
4. Still a "new" gun design without the stellar track record of the Glock 27 - I'm still smarting a bit from my recall adventure with Elsie Pea. Seems holsters and possibly even night sights etc will still be hard to come by for a while.
For my next pistol purchase, I am trying to decide between a Walther PPS or a Glock subcompact. I am leaning toward either the PPS (likely 9mm but maybe .40) or the Glock 27 .40 cal.
I already own a Glock 23 and love it. Also own and carry a S&W J-frame and a Ruger LCP, both of which I pocket carry often. I have a tuckable IWB holster for the S&W, but when carrying in this manner would prefer a semi-auto. I used to carry the G23 IWB all day long. But with my ever-expanding midsection, this is becoming less and less comfortable. Plus my more "professional" career comes with requirements of more "professional" dress - no more covering up my Glock with an untucked Hawaiian shirt during the business week. My fear is the Baby Glock won't be much more comfortable because it is the same width. I would certainly buy the G27 (not G26) because I already have a .40 Glock and can share mags and even some holsters. A LEO friend of mine does this with a G27 & G22.
I have fired the G27 and shoot it better than the S&W or Ruger, but not as well as my G23 (obviously). I have not fired the Walther PPS, but have held them and dry fired them at gun shows and gun stores and like the feel of the gun.
So here is my pro/con list. Y'all help me decide:
Glock 27
PROS:
1. Interchangeable with existing Glock 23 mags and holsters - plus same calibre ammo which I already know well (what I like and what I don't)
2. Familiarity with Glocks; would be no new gun "learning curve" at all. Fire a few rounds down the pipe to make sure it functions, and start carrying it. Would be plenty accurate enough and fully understand the battery of arms from day one.
3. Higher capacity magazine (9 rds vs. 6 in a PPS?)
CONS:
1. Thicker - this is my #1 complaint with my G23 (and even in some ways the S&W J-frame) is the thickness of the gun when carried IWB (remember, I have a some extra gut hanging over my belt line).
2. Semi redundant? Already own the G23 - would the G27 really be that much different?
3. May not easily slide into the pocket of tighter jeans/slacks in a pinch like I'm assuming the PPS would.
Walther PPS
PROS
1. THINNER - this is a HUGE factor - this is the one aspect both of my other IWB guns are missing
2. Adjustable backstraps & ambidextrous mag release are nice features that Glock does not offer.
3. Would give me a gun in 9mm which I don't currently own (buying a Glock 26 in 9mm would negate one of the major benefits to me personally of buying another Glock, so not really an option I'm considering).
4. Fills a niche need in my "arsenal" - more accurate (it would seem) than either of my "mouse guns" but easier to carry than my Glock 23 and easier to carry than a Glock 27, IMHO, because thin size allows easier tuckable IWB use.
CONS:
1. Another new gun, new brand, new caliber?, new holsters to buy (few even available), new ammo to buy, learning curve to become comfortable and proficient with the gun and try out different ammo (probably not long - but not a one-day thing like another Glock .40).
2. Lower capacity magazine - only 6 rounds (or 7 or 8, I'm confused) - is this really much improvement over my existing .38 wheel gun (5 rounds) or .380 auto (6 rounds), especially the 9mm version?
3. New guns only come with one magazine and additional mags are selling for $40 to $50 each OUCH!
4. Still a "new" gun design without the stellar track record of the Glock 27 - I'm still smarting a bit from my recall adventure with Elsie Pea. Seems holsters and possibly even night sights etc will still be hard to come by for a while.