Assuming you were going back to the drawing board regarding your full sized defensive handgun selection . . .

And assuming a strong affinity for the Glock 26, and knowing - without fail - that model will be your primary carry gun . . .

Would you go back to the Glock 17 for your full-sized bedside/range gun, or would you get the Glock 34?

Something else will not be a consideration. I want my carry and HD pistol to have the same manual of arms and a similar trigger feel. I am a big believer in the value of muscle memory. I do not have a carry 'rotation'. Variety may indeed be the spice of life, but I have no interest in variety or spice when it comes to self-preservation.

Bottom line, minus the philosophy, I will be buying another larger 9mm Glock in the next few months. The only question, is should I go with another 17 which I have historically enjoyed, or is it time to change it up and go with a 34?

Thanks.

34!

I can't for the life of me (despite a zillion+ rounds using a 34 competitively) why you would not use a 17. I honestly can't think of a single downside to it. the differences are minor for sure. There is not a chance that the barrel length difference will matter in your stated use.

I have Hobbit hands. A 19 is 'full sized' to me.

G17 is a great pistol. That being said, I wouldn't trust my life to any pistol when the option of a rifle is available. AR15 for HD, pistol for carry.

quote:

There is not a chance that the barrel length difference will matter in your stated use.

I agree with that. The only thing I could think of was more room for a light and a slight advantage in sight radius.

On the other side of the coin, if you get those two 'benefits' why would you not choose the 34?

Price is a legitimate factor too. Is the extra 50-100 worth a little more real estate on the rail and a (very slight) advantage in sight radius?

Thanks for the input so far.

Go G17. It can really do it all and seems more durable. Hard to beat a G26/19/17. Hell I don’t even really like Glocks.....and I have em.

quote:

Originally posted by bionic218:

quote:

There is not a chance that the barrel length difference will matter in your stated use.

I agree with that. The only thing I could think of was more room for a light and a slight advantage in sight radius.

On the other side of the coin, if you get those two 'benefits' why would you not choose the 34?

Price is a legitimate factor too. Is the extra 50-100 worth a little more real estate on the rail and a (very slight) advantage in sight radius?
T
Thanks for the input so far.

There's no difference in the frame size or rail between the 34 and 17. Only difference is slide/barrel length, lighter trigger and extended controls on the 34. I went with the 34 for me because it's a bit more shootable for me. I even carry it on a fairly regular basis.
If I want something smaller, I move down to a g19.

quote:

There's no difference in the frame size or rail between the 34 and 17.

That's a good point. I should have been more clear. The 34 has more room for a longer light without the light sticking out past the muzzle. I realize that condition isn't a 'real' problem, and people can buy a smaller light. It's only a perception issue - but I perceive it to be ugly.

And I hear you guys on the 19 as well. Wonderful pistol, and I've had a ton. But it sits funny to me in hand. I shoot a 19 well enough, but I just prefer the 26 in a carry and if I don't need to hide it (home/range) I prefer a full-sized gun. I've had a bunch of 17s too. Never had an issue with any of them. (gen 3s or 4s). Nothing against the original or gen 2 guns either, just never owned a 17 in one.

I hear the AR argument too, and it would be my first choice. But it's further away than the nightstand, and I may or may not have first choice.

If I lived alone in a man-cave, I'd have one ready to rock right next to the bed, but my wife tells me that's not done in polite company.

I came upon this question after having to sell some stuff recently. And when explaining to a friend that when I rearmed after the first of the year, I was probably going to go back to the 26/17 combo. And he said why not 26/34? I couldn't come up with a good reason why not, and it got me thinking is all. (Usually not good when I do that).

You may also want to consider the WML extending past the barrel to be a good thing. While it may look odd, it could act as a stand off device that could prevent the slide from being pushed out of battery if pressed against an assailant in a struggle. Without the light, the slide could be pushed back very slightly and prevent the firearm from firing.

I prefer the balance of the G17 to the G34.

What about a 26 with a 19 Mag and a XGRIP “spacer”. FABULOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

For some reason, the 34 seems better balanced to me. I'm having my 34 milled for an RMR to match my carry 26L. Then it will become my nightstand gun.

For me it would be a G34.

Up to the Gen4s the G19 is my ideal Glock nine, while the G17 has always been something of the odd one out. With Gen5 I tend to favor the G17 over the latest generation of compact; between the two it actually feels more 'right' to me. Kinda unexpected. No Gen5 G34 exists at this time but if it did I would likely choose that version of the full size frame based on my past. In Gen4 I own a G34 but not a G17, and I've not had any desire to buy one. I do own a Gen4 G26 however. Fact is that the only G17 I have is an original Gen3 RTF2. But that's more about the collectable nature of those fish gills than how I shoot that one over a comparable gilled and RTF2'd G34 had such a beast ever come into being, which of course only exists in my dreams. The so-called 'practical tactical' size is just the place where I'd prefer to be with the full size Glock frame.

Gen4 G34 is the answer.

As many know, I am a long time fan of the 34/35. I've carried at 35 at work for a number of years and have a lot of rounds through them.

However.

For a range gun/bedside gun, flip a coin. You really won't see any difference of performance inside a house between the two, and doubtful you'll see a lot of difference at the range. The 34 will cost you a bit more coin, but all in all for the uses you are talking, flip a coin.

Anything anyone else tells you is preference.

If you do plan on carrying the gun some, the 34 is a bit more challenging to find a good mix of holsters for. 17 holsters are everywhere.

If you want a gun that you don't have to tinker with out of the box, I'd venture to say that the Gen5 17 is for you. I was sorta critical in Glock winning the FBI contract with a gun that didn't exist. Then when the Gen5 hit my hands, I figured out what they did. They took their product, figured out what modifications that experienced end users make, and they tried to do that from the factory. And across the hundred or so that have hit my hands so far, they got it right. The barrel is much more accurate. (Not a huge fan of the Ameriglos, but we went Trijicon HD anyways for all sworn personnel) The trigger is 100 times better than the Gen4 or earlier. I've read some reviews where people will say that they can't really tell a big difference in the generations of the trigger. I have to respectfully say that they either got a bad sample, or they don't know much about fine styles of trigger control. I didn't know that I would be such a huge fan of the no finger grooves thing. But I am. It lets my hand get so much higher on the gun. So much so, that I am thinking about grinding off the finger groves on my Gen3 and Gen4 guns.

Will the Gen5's develop fleas at 5k rounds? 10k rounds? Don't know right now because none of us have a round count that high yet. But, in a year I will be able to say across a pretty good sample size.

So, there's my preference seasoned with a little logic and reason.

No matter what you pick, you won't go wrong.

Glock 17 hands down, unless that tiny extra bit of sight radius helps you that much (i doubt it)

You find find plenty of holsters and options for a 17, can conceal carry the 17 with a lot more ease than a 34 (i appendix carry a 17 with a Surefire x300 and RMR) with a good holster (gcode) and good gun belt this is very doable

17L

The only downside to just sticking with the 26 ( perhaps with a larger mag in place) is the lack of ability to attach a light. While we got along fine for many years without an attached light,having one one the gun is a great advantage (it should supplement not replace a hand held for searching and identifying however) so any length glock that allows a light attached that feels right to you should be fine

quote:

The only downside to just sticking with the 26 ( perhaps with a larger mag in place) is the lack of ability to attach a light.

We agree on that, Captain. I am a believer in right tool for the job, and while a G26 is perfect for carry - and I wouldn't feel at a huge disadvantage with it on the nightstand - the go-to HD pistol in my house requirements include large capacity and a good light.