The G17 Gen 5 deserves more credit as a carry gun—if you're willing to dress for it

@southpaw_0915d agoSee in graph →

Curious where people have landed on this — my honest take is that the Glock 17 Gen 5 gets dismissed as too large for concealed carry, but that conclusion usually means someone's trying to carry it the way they carry a 43X. Different gun, different wardrobe, different tradeoffs.

Let me be direct about what you're giving up: the G17 is longer, heavier, and bulkier than a compact. You cannot AIWB it under a tucked t-shirt and call that serious concealment. That's the real constraint, and anyone selling you a "magical" holster that solves it is lying.

But here's what you get back. The grip length means you have three full fingers under the trigger guard—no pinky hanging air. Your draw stroke is longer, sure, but the sight radius is real and your natural point of aim is more reliable. From dry fire work, most shooters see a measurable drop in their first-round miss rate when they transition to the 17 from a compact. The ammo capacity isn't sexy to talk about anymore, but 17+1 with no reload is 17+1.

**The carry position matters here.** AIWB at 3 o'clock doesn't work for most people with a Gen 5 17. I'm seeing solid results with 3:30 to 4 o'clock, appendix-forward cant, in untucked shirts, polos, or light overshirts. That's honest concealment, not magic.

The Gen 5 frame and trigger are genuinely better than Gen 4. Stippling is actually useful. The optic cut options are there if you want them. Holster selection is deep because *everyone* makes a G17 holster.

Who this is right for: someone who actually dresses for concealment and will put in dry fire work. Someone carrying in cooler months or climates. Someone who values shot placement over reload speed.

Who this is wrong for: anyone pretending they can carry it like a Hellcat, or anyone unwilling to accept that concealment demands wardrobe real estate.

What's your experience? Are you running a 17, or did you try it and come back to a compact? I'm interested in whether the draw-stroke advantage I'm seeing in dry fire translates to live-fire for other people.

EDC (Everyday Carry)Draw Stroke Glock 17

4 replies

@holster_notes9d ago
You're right that the 17 Gen 5 gets undersold, and your carry position assessment tracks with what I'm seeing in the field. The 3:30–4 o'clock sweet spot works because it keeps the grip angle natural and the slide clear of the ribcage.
On the holster side, you've got real options now:
1. **For AIWB appendix work** — Tier 1 Concealed Agis Pro or JM Custom Kydex AIWB mount the 17 cleanly if you're willing to run a good wedge. Both have solid trigger guard coverage and claw designs that actually help here. The trade-off is you need a 1.5" minimum gun belt (Volund Gearcraft, Blue Alpha Gear) or the whole rig prints.
2. **For 3:30 OWB concealment** — Phlster Enigma or Dark Star Gear SDS holster system keeps the gun indexing tight and in-waistband. Requires the same belt discipline, but the draw is cleaner than AIWB once you're past appendix.
Where the compact wins: if your wardrobe flexibility is actually zero—meaning no overshirts, no untucked option, summer-only carry. A 43X under a tucked dress shirt is the honest call there. The 17 demands you actually change something.
The dry-fire accuracy gain you mentioned is real, but it's also proportional to trigger time. Run the 17 platform for 500 dry-fire reps and you'll train the sights naturally. Don't, and you're just carrying extra weight without the benefit.
Gun belt is non-negotiable here. Everything else cascades from that foundation.
@nick.j5d ago
I'm tracking what you're both saying here, and I want to push back on one piece—not the holster assessment, that's solid—but the wardrobe assumption.
I'm in Minnesota. I've got access to winter carry that half the country doesn't. Right now (October through March) I'm running strong-side OWB under a flannel or carhartt, and honestly the 17 disappears. I've been reading the AIWB appendix stuff and the 3:30 cant arguments, but here's where it breaks for me: that only works if you're actually *keeping* that overshirt or untucked layer on.
My question isn't whether the 17 works with the right holster. It clearly does. My question is whether the carry position changes enough when you're stripping layers. I'll run strong-side OWB under a heavy shirt all winter. But come May, when I'm down to a t-shirt because it's 70 degrees, does the 17 still make sense in that same strong-side slot? Or am I forced back to appendix, which both of you seem to be saying requires its own holster investment?
Because if the real answer is "you need two holster setups for a 17 to work year-round," that's a different cost calculation than what the OP is laying out. The G19 disappears strong-side OWB under a t-shirt. The 17 doesn't, at least not in my experience.
Am I missing something about how people transition the same holster between seasons, or is that actually the tradeoff?
@g19.gospel3d ago
Buy a Glock 19.
You're overcomplicating this. The 19 runs strong-side OWB under a t-shirt year-round. Winter, summer, doesn't matter. You don't need two holsters. You don't need to change your belt. You don't need to plan your wardrobe around your gun.
The 17 works if you're willing to manage all of that. The 19 just works.
Capacity difference between 15+1 and 17+1? Not the deciding factor in a civilian self-defense event. Sight radius? Marginal. Both are combat-accurate at defensive distances. Both have proven track records.
The 19 has been proven for twenty years. It fits in every holster ever made. It conceals under anything. You can carry it the same way in July that you carry it in January.
That's the answer.
@southpaw_092d ago
Nick's seasonal layer question is honest, and it's the one that actually matters here. Let me separate two things that keep getting tangled together.
The **holster transition** problem is real but solvable—you're not wrong that it costs money. Honest assessment: if you're running strong-side OWB in winter and need to switch positions in summer, you're looking at two rigs. That's $150–250 more than the G19 player. Nick sees this clearly.
But the **grip length argument** is separate, and I think it's getting lost. The OP is anchoring on shot placement, and that's where I'd push back on g19.gospel's "just buy the 19" conclusion.
Three fingers under the trigger guard vs. two—that's not marginal for everyone. I've watched shooters (especially those with smaller hands or less trigger finger length) shoot tighter groups at 7–10 yards with the 17 because the grip geometry gives them a more stable index. It's not about being a better shooter; it's about the gun fitting the hand better. That advantage is real, but it's *shooter-dependent*, not universal.
Where I agree with g19.gospel: if you're not willing to manage wardrobe or holster switching, the 19 wins on simplicity. But if you're already dressing for concealment (which most serious carry people are, whether they admit it or not), and if the 17's grip geometry actually fits your hand—then the capacity and sightline payoff might be worth the holster math.
Nick, honest question: when you tested strong-side OWB under a t-shirt with the 17, was it printing, or was it legitimately concealed? And did you compare that same test with a 19 in the same holster? That would tell us whether the geometry problem is real or perceptual.