Two shooting buddies and I took my new Glock 27, the subcompact .40 S&W, out to the range for a workout on Saturday, 21 Oct. For comparison purposes, we also fired a Glock 22, the full-size .40, and a Browning Hi-Power in .40. Here's a summary of our findings, which assumes the reader is familiar with the general operation of Glocks:
The Glock 27 functions just like its larger brethren, and has only a few cosmetic differences (well described in the current American Rifleman and also in the current Shooting Times). The only apparent mechanical difference is the recoil spring assembly, which uses dual springs, one inside the other.
The gun handles surprisingly well. With its shortened slide and barrel (3.5 inches) and stubby grip, it looks a bit awkward at first, but I got used to it quickly. The short grip really does not afford any space at all for the shooter's little finger; I doubt that even someone with small hands will be able to keep the little finger on the grip when the gun fires.
Recoil, however, is quite manageable; in fact, I would judge it as only very slightly more than that of the Browning HP in .40. Both the other shooters with me -- one a Glock owner, one not -- agreed the gun was not a problem to control with factory loads (Winchester 180-grain). I can see no reason why experienced handgun shooters would find the gun a problem, and I am confident that novices could learn to handle it with some practice. The fact that the shooter's little finger doesn't hold the grip is slightly disconcerting at first, but after firing the first few magazines, I didn't even notice any more.
I am not usually a fan of finger grooves on semiauto handguns, and the Glock 27 has one (only one, since your little finger doesn't wrap around the grip). However, for my hands, the groove was positioned in the right place, and was quite comfortable.
The new adjustable sight is an enormous improvement over the old flimsy adjustable version that Glock used to offer. Elevation and windage are adjusted by the use of two screws in the right side of the sight base. They are not click adjustable, and their range of adjustment is not large, but I had no problem getting the gun zeroed in for the ammo we were shooting. I strongly suggest that Glock adopt this sight for other models in their line to replace the abysmal adjustable sight they have made in the past.
The gun shot quite well, and after it was zeroed, performed quite well at shooting steel plates at 25 yards (a much greater distance than that of the social situations in which such a gun might be used).
We fired the gun a little more than 100 times, using the Winchester 180-grain round, some Speer Gold Dot 180s, and some 175 grain lead handloads (Yeah, yeah, I know. Save your e-mail.) Aside from one failure to feed (Winchester 180) in the third magazine, the gun performed flawlessly. During early firing, several ejected cases hit me in the head; this lessened as the session went on.
Our shooting was cut short when we expended all the factory ammo and I discovered that a batch of handloads I had made up using 180-grain Hornadys did not have enough taper crimp for the slide to go into battery on the Glocks. These loads had been originally made up for the Browning, which cycled them flawlessly, but neither the Glock 27 nor the 22 would close the slide on them without some thumb pressure from the shooter, so testing of the 27 ceased.
I was very impressed with this gun. Regular rec.guns readers may recall that I have previously said positive things about the Star Firestar in .40 S&W, and while I stand by those remarks, I believe the Glock 27 is far superior (as it should be, since it cost about $160 more -- Central NC prices). If it holds up as well as this during the next few test sessions, it will unquestionably be my choice for concealed carry (legal in NC as of 1 Dec, thanks to our new General Assembly).