[Rob Longenecker]

I understand that this is a conversion that is easy to do. I've ordered the drop-in .357 barrel.
This weekend a Glock Armorer asked me if my model 23 had a newer "reinforced frame" that would take the extra slide/frame impact of the .357 Sig. If not, he didn't recommend the conversion.
He showed me a frame with a small amount of metal at the front of the frame rails half way up from the dust cover to the top of the frame rails when viewed dead on from the front. My second generation model 23 does not have this reinforcement.
Another Glock armorer said not a problem - go for it.
Any info, advice, discussion? I'm inclined to just try the conversion anyway.

 

[Randall_1611]

Several years ago I sent my G-23 back for a warranty upgrade and to replace the overhanging rear sight & front with night sigts. Glock - Smyrna said that .356 was not possible because it was a first generation frame. The only way I know is to upgrade the frame to a the stronger version. I hope this helps! Mike

 

[Rob Longenecker]

Mike,

Just had Dane do a grip reduction. Think I'll just keep shooting .40 caliber.

Thanks, Rob

 

[Guest]

I believe that your question should explain just how much shooting you will be doing with the .357 round?

Although the .357 is a step up in "power" from the .40 S&W you will not destroy your frame within a few hundred rounds now and again. 10k rounds yes, a few no.

 

[Rob Longenecker]

David, your comments make a lot of sense. Obviously the number of rounds I would plan to fire would be a critical factor. Initially, I planned a few hundred occasionally, which would have worked OK as you suggest.

Now, since I hit the momentary speed bump and had to slow down, I reconsidered a couple of priorities for my time and my money and decided to put off experimenting with the .357 Sig.

 

[Ironside]

If you are going from .40 to 357Sig. you better buy a .357 Mag. also.

I made the mistake of purchasing New 3rd,
Gen. FML Glock Factory drop frees from
Natchez in .40G23.... G32 Mags were not available. Every .357Sig round I
chamber with them nose dives and hits Feed ramp FTF..... The .40 caliber Mags are cut
just a little bit lower on the front edge than the .357 Mags........... Don't make the same mistake I did, order at least 1 >357 Mag.

 

[Rob Longenecker]

If I go 357. Sig I believe I'll buy the gun to go with the cartridge. Gotta save up.

Still gotta pay for my Valtro "Spaghetti Automatic" Italian .45 first in a few weeks."

 

[Georg from Germany]

On 2001-08-11 23:07, Ironside wrote:
If you are going from .40 to 357Sig. you better buy a .357 Mag. also.

I made the mistake of purchasing New 3rd,
Gen. FML Glock Factory drop frees from
Natchez in .40G23.... G32 Mags were not available. Every .357Sig round I
chamber with them nose dives and hits Feed ramp FTF..... The .40 caliber Mags are cut
just a little bit lower on the front edge than the .357 Mags........... Don't make the same mistake I did, order at least 1 >357 Mag.

But a 357mag is only stronger than a 357sig when your barrel is longer than 4"!!! if it is shorter the 357SSIG is the better choice.

 

[Jack Beauchamp]

I have 5 .40 cal mags, and they all feed .357 flawlessly.

Just make sure your follower has a "5" on it.

I have a 32C, and am going to caliber swap with a 23 barrel. I knew of the second gen problems with the frames, so I went with a 32 going in. You will love the .357 round.

 

[Rob Longenecker]

Thanks for the replies. Good info.

 

[GunslingerP16]

I installed a Federal .357 Sig barrel in my 2nd generation G23 over a year ago. I've run over 7,000 rounds through it since then with absolutely no problems at all. The .357 is inherently more accurate than the .40 and is capable of much higher levels of performance with the proper ammunition (I generally do not shoot factory ammo. I can load MUCH better ammo myself at a greatly reduced cost. I also can attain velocities that no factory loads can match -- for liability reasons). I Do run a heavier recoil spring when I am using the .357 barrel to reduce the possibility of frame battering. Overall, I think that barrel was one of the best expenditures I've made in a long time. I liked it so much that I decided I really NEEDED its big brother, so I installed a .400 CorBon barrel in my G21!!! Super accurate and it sure attracts a lot of attention at the range (a 135gr JHP running at 1600+ fps makes a hell of a boom :smile:!!!) Of course, you can't get that velocity with factory ammo and I'm not about to tell anyone what combination of components I use to get that.

BTW: Glock .40 mags and .357 mags are the EXACT same mag. If you have a nose-diving problem it is probably due to a weakened mag spring or a messed up follower.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: GunslingerP16 on 2001-09-07 01:41 ]</font>

 

[Rob Longenecker]

Great info. Thanks for the time it took to respond. Now if I could just find a .50 caliber barrel..... :lol:

 

[Tupperware]

On 2001-09-07 01:37, GunslingerP16 wrote:
BTW: Glock .40 mags and .357 mags are the EXACT same mag. If you have a nose-diving problem it is probably due to a weakened mag spring or a messed up follower.

I'm not sure this is true. The .357sig mags I looked at had internal "ribs" in the steel liner that were not present in the .40 mags. My guess is that they are present for the shoulder of the bottleneck cartridge to "ride" on. Try loading .40 ammo into your mags marked .357sig, you'll have trouble getting the last two rounds in (if you can at all).

 

[Guest]

TW is correct I just checked my "new" .357 mags for my G32 do indeed have a set of ribs inside the mag tube liner and the follower has a slightly increased angle as compared to several G22 mags I have that are preban and newer FML.

 

[Ted Murphy]

The .357 SIg Mags and .40 mags are exact. In fact, early .357 glocks came with the .40 magazines as they hadn't set up the molds for the newer mags yet. Follower and Magazine are identical.

Ted Murphy

 

[Guest]

Ted,
The older mags were in fact exact, the new mags are quite different and are a new part#.

 

[Ted Murphy]

On 2001-10-27 13:34, David DiFabio wrote:
Ted,
The older mags were in fact exact, the new mags are quite different and are a new part#.

FWIW, at a recent Glock Armorer's class the instructor told me they were indeed the same mags with only different caliber markings on the polymer, which is why the different part #'s.

 

[Chris Oslin]

You better be careful when you say that the .40 is not as inherently as acurate as the .357 Sig - or any other caliber, because Shootingbuff will go NUTS!

:grin:

 

[Tupperware]

On 2001-10-29 19:48, Ted Murphy wrote:
[quote:2fgtb4hg]
On 2001-10-27 13:34, David DiFabio wrote:
Ted,
The older mags were in fact exact, the new mags are quite different and are a new part#.

FWIW, at a recent Glock Armorer's class the instructor told me they were indeed the same mags with only different caliber markings on the polymer, which is why the different part #'s.
[/quote:2fgtb4hg]
You might want to ask this instructor to look at and compare some current production mags. They are most definitely different internally.

 

[Chris Oslin]

I have to agree with David and Tupperware that the new mags ARE different. I just saw the new mags at our IDPA match on Saturday, and the internal designs differ between the two calibers.

The shooter who uses the .357 barrel in his .40 gun for CCW said that he can't load all of the .357's in his .40 mags or they bind up and/or jam. He also said to by the .357 mags if you drop a barrel in a .40 gun.

And I don't care what Shooting buff says - I still don't like the .40's!