Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Forum at

Why should YOU join our forums?

  • Reason #1
  • Reason #2
  • Reason #3

Site Description

G27...What Recoil?

Discussion in 'General Glocking' started by GicleeOne, Mar 6, 2013.

  1. moonwilson


    Jan 22, 2013
    I had always heard about the "savage, brutal, snappy recoil" of the .40 cal round. I was always curious about it, finally broke down and got a P229 and took it to the range. I mustered up all of my courage and touched off the first round from that mighty cannon. "Bang." Oh. That wasn't so bad. "Bang bang bang bang bang etc.". Hmm. Meh. :yawn:

    Same thing with my 23. It recoils, sure. But it's no big deal. You know when the gun goes off, but it certainly isn't painful or an impediment to shooting in any way.

    You want recoil? Shoot some heavy .357 through a light J-frame and get back to me. That's some brutal business. After the first time I shot .357 through my 60 Pro-Series my hand was bleeding. A .40 through a Glock is nothing compared to that.
  2. tango44


    Jun 16, 2005
    Miami Florida
    A perfect Talon Grips candidate!

  3. NDCent

    NDCent Socially Inept

    Mar 19, 2010
    I shoot .40 a lot, the main thing I notice is the G27 is slower, for me, to do follow up shots with. Some folks have better grip techniques than others, but multiple shots come faster for me with any other .40 caliber Glock than with the G27.
  4. w4dov


    Feb 14, 2013
    Recoil is definitely in the eye of the beholder. I read a lot about recoil and the 27 before purchasing mine. However, when I took it to the range, I noticed no discernible difference between it and my 22.

    Of course, 180gr raised the front sight a little more than the 165gr but I shot 250 rounds of this mixture and found the recoil very manageable.
  5. cowboy1964


    Sep 4, 2009
    Yes, recoil is subjective AND comparative AND ammo dependent. Shoot a 26 and then a 27 and you'll know which is which.
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2013
  6. man.cave


    Mar 6, 2012
    U must be a beast, I have a 26 & 27. and often shoot both. U empty a mag in one and pick up the other, there is a difference. I carry the 27 my wife the 26.
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2013
  7. glockman99

    glockman99 Millennium Member

    Jul 1, 1999
    Hoquiam, WA USA
    Agrip is ALOT better...Trust me on this!
  8. Tazz10m

    Tazz10m Mod Aerator Moderator Millennium Member

    THANKS! :supergrin:
  9. There's a reason 9 is so easy to control. There's no POWER there! I'm mostly joking, but for those of us who can carry/control a .40, we like having a serious caliber that stands a better chance of putting down bad dudes. It's not worth having perfect controllability if I have to dump an entire magazine into him.
  10. FireInCairo


    Dec 30, 2012
    I think people who notice it most usually have spent a lot of time with .45's or G26's before trying the G27. There is more snap, and they can tell right away. I started my pistol experience on compact and subcompact .40 caliber pistols, so the only thing I notice is that 9mm pistols feel like peashooters. :wavey:
  11. drcotlar


    Feb 12, 2013
    I think your point would better be stated that the shooter's response or attitude to the recoil is subjective. The actual
    recoil is absolute and measurable, ie objective. Not trying to split hairs, but the difference is important in discussions.
  12. drcotlar


    Feb 12, 2013
    I am not surprised at the results of your test and would expect such a result in the hands of most . I bought a 40 over a 9 (27 instead of 26) for the larger, more powerful round. I see it as a trade off.
  13. drcotlar


    Feb 12, 2013
    Informative and interesting perspective.
  14. TTex

    TTex Cannon Fodder

    Jul 12, 2011
    I'm guessing this is sarcasm?
    I find the 9mm +P+ to be a little more on the ferocious side! The times I've shot 40 I didn't see what all the hype was about, but Federal 115gr 9mm +P+ turns that tame G19 into a whole nother animal!
    I generally prefer the 9 and 45, but I have no problem with the 40, it's just not my caliber of choice.
    And the 9mm +P+ makes me wonder if I'm pushing a G19 or G26 a little to far.
  15. janice6

    janice6 Silver Member

    Apr 4, 2006

    Naw. I do have a strong grip from a lot of "hammer and dolly" custom car work, but it's just a sweet shooting gun.

    I shot a .410 "pistol" my friend cut down from a full length shotgun and that is a beast.
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2013
  16. DannyB


    Sep 9, 2007
    The only 45's I have ever shot were full sized 1911's and a G21. Are you saying that a 40 sub-compact is snappier than a sub-compact 45?
  17. Z71bill


    Feb 19, 2007
    For SD - I use a quality HP in my 9MM - and do not feel that the round is lacking in power or performance.

    The slight difference in stopping power (if there even is one:whistling:) between the 9 and 40 is not that big of a deal.

    I will admit that part of my reasoning is because I have developed arthritus in my wrists and hands -

    If I go shoot 100 rounds of .40 the next day I have a hard time tying my shoes. Shooting the same number of 9MM or .45 ACP leaves my wrists a little swollen but not as bad.

    I also like the 2 extra rounds I can get in my M&P9c VS the M&P40c.

    The point I was making -

    It is not that the .40 recoil is so punishing that it is painful (for most) - but that extra recoil - even if you don't really feel it - increases the time between shots & or impacts your accuracy.

    Does a fraction of a second really matter?

    Most likely not - hope I never have to find out.
  18. Kimura


    Oct 17, 2011
    In a perfect world, I'm with you; bigger is better. But it's not a perfect world and it's irrelevant if you can't put rounds on target at speed. Personally, I very seldom see someone shooting a Glock 27 or even a 23 that can do this. Some handle it fine without time constraints, some don't. But once you put time and accuracy constraints on them, a lot don't shoot the guns well. The increased recoil starts to play a much larger role when you have to shoot faster at smaller targets. This is what many don't take into consideration. I understand it's a trade off, but it's only a trade off if your times and accuracy are close to each other. If not, it doesn't matter.
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2013
  19. scosgt


    May 25, 2011
    I find the recoil of my G27 and G23 to be LESS than my old service G19 and G26.
    The 9mm recoil is sharp, the .40 recoil is a push.

    Even my Kahr CM40 is not much worse to shoot than a Kahr MK9, which is steel and heavier.
  20. CrackerKen


    Oct 25, 2009
    Lakeland, FL
    I swear, there is probably someone out there who would gripe about the "harsh" recoil of a .22 LR. :supergrin:

    Seriously, I have no issues with .40S&W recoil in either my G27 or my new S&W M&P Shield .40. Instead of having a 9mm and using +p or +P+, I just use .40 S&W and cut to the chase. :cool:

    The last gun I used in law enforcement was a .357 mag S&W Model 19. We had to start qualifying with magnum ammo, and THAT hurt after about 180 rds in a day. With the .40 semi-auto's, no problem.