A short review, but either way, the G32c is Pimpier.
Once again, neither of these were mine.
Well, let's start with fps levels.
The G32c averaged out at 232fps.. which seems crazy. A high of 245 was shot. Using .2s.
the G23 averaged out at 242, which also seems low. A high of 259 was achieved. Also using .2s
I don't know if this was me, or the Chronograph though.
The shots fired from each magazine (total) were 62 rounds each, however there are cycling issues with the G23, owing to a metal barrel with threads on the end, for a silencer to be attached. I feel it still needs polishing/grinding/chamfering at the front of the chamber for that model.
They both are classified as 'Compact', (according to Glock's website) and while I don't feel comfortable with them just sitting around, holding, pointing, shooting, aiming.. etc, they are not bad when you are actually out in the field. Still a fraction small for my hand.
Targeting.
I was going for consistency rather than accuracy. Bear too, in mind, that I had not fired these before testing at all, so I know that I can get the groups closer, because my hands are not familiar with the system.
The G23 had a group of 60mmx28mm, with the most of them being within 45mmx28mm.
The G32C had a group of 70mmx22mm, with most of them being within 47mmx22mm.
Range was 5m and .2s used.
Sighting.
There is a slight difference to them... the G23 has a 3-dot arrangement, (like a Novak or a 92f), whereas the G32C uses the standard Glock style of a 'U' sight at the rear, and dot on the front post.
Otherwise, they are pretty much the same. Get one, get the other.. get it for the looks. My choice still is the OD version. I would also drill a hole at the rear of the grip (near the magazine well base) and have a lanyard attachment point.
The reason for lack of pics... I cannot find them on my HDD!
You might want to know that tap water contains dihydrogen monoxide, which has been shown to aid the growth of cancerous cells. Just a warning.
May 2007. Wege