Looking for a hiking gun, was originally going to get the Glock 20, then the 29, and then I was flirting with the idea of a revolver, but I want something that can be easily concealed, yet have enough power to do the job on smaller 4 legged threats, wild dog, coyote, hog, possibly a black bear but not likely, etc. I was at a LGS yesterday and tried a Glock 26 in the pocket, didn't think about trying the 27. But from what I can acsertain, they are the same size, everything, the 27 is marginally heavier than the 26. The 26 felt good in the pocket, a bit big, but good. I was thinking about 9mm for a hiking gun but my thinking that 9mm is a bit light, but better than nothing. So why not a 27 in 40? I won't carry a lightweight 357 revolver, just not into punishing myself, don't want to, for personal reasons, open carry a larger firearm, and I want a caliber that's easy to find and relatively inexpensive because my thinking is I'll likely never run into a situation where I'll need to pull the trigger on a wild animal to protect myself, so why get a hard to find and expensive caliber, but I want something heavy and hard hitting enough that it'll kill or injure a wild animal enough to stop its train of thought/attacking me. Do you think that a Glock 27 carried in a pocket holster, loaded with Buffalo Bore's 200gr hard cast that runs roughly 950ft/sec and outputs roughly 400ft/lbs of energy would be good enough for woods carry?