Sorry I'm kind of confused on how me not liking a gun doesn't "add up"..... I have never shot or carried a 26, so I have no comparison to base that off of, nor did I ever make such comparison. I personally prefer 9mm over .40 due to price, availability, and manageability. I think the majority of my dislike towards the 27 is that being as small as it was, and as heavy as it is, still having the amount of recoil that it had. The recoil from the 27 was manageable, but I would expect a little less being as heavy as it is. Being that the 9mm is not much lighter, I would imagine the decreased recoil would make it better for easier and faster target re-acquisition. Just my guess, as I said I have never fired nor carried a 26, just a 27. I guess I also didn't take into consideration that I am about 20 lbs heavier now than I was when I had my 27, so carrying it now may be more comfortable. Seeing as I EDC a G19, I could see a 26 or 27 being better for carrying now than before. The man asked for OPINIONS, that's all I gave, was my personal opinion on the subject. Sorry if anyone got butthurt.
Sorry, but you're confusing me a little as well. I'll start by saying I've been shooting handguns for almost 50 years. I'm 67 and am 6' 220lbs., which is slightly bigger than others in this discussion.
First of all let me say your ammo cost and availability statement is totally wrong. I've bought plenty of .40 ammo and never had any trouble with availability. My last box at Walmart was $18. Certainly not a budget breaker. I have had a little problem with 9's, but no big deal. As far as price I've found the .40's to be either the same and sometimes even cheaper where the fmj ammo is concerned. So price and availability is of no concern in reality. Manageability I guess is an individual thing, but when shooting an anything .40 caliber man stopper what do you expect? Heck you can punch paper with .22's, so why go bigger. The .40 is a .40 and a .44 and .45 are what they are. I know women who have no complaints and many depts near me are in fact changing over to the .40 from the 9mm and that'll be used by both men and women. I guess you have to live with whatever you can handle and it's your business.
Now, the Kel-Tec PF-9 that you preferred over the Glock really stumps me. How much experience with firearms do you actually have? Being retired LE I can't understand how anyone would choose that Kel-Tec over any Glock regardless of caliber. Dependability is priority number one where SD is concerned. You'd be hard pressed to find any dept in the country that would authorize that weapon for service use, or anyone wanting to chose that for a service weapon. Their reputation for dependability is less than desirable. Play with them at a range, but don't bet your life on one. By the way, how did you like shooting it? Since it's way lighter at a hair under 15 oz. loaded, which is a big difference form the G26, how was that recoil with 9mm ammo. I'd expect it'd have, like those describing the .40S&W, a bit of a snap.
Since you put on 20lbs. you're considering a G26. Maybe it would be a good idea if you found one to try out first, cause in the hand it may feel like a brick. But you wouldn't be alone. The biggest complaint I hear about Glocks is that they feel uncomfortable. If someone feels that way after picking one up then I'd recommend they don't buy it, just like if they didn't like the .40. But at least buy something instead that's considered quality like a Sig, just as an example.
No one should get offended because someone doesn't like a particular gun, or a particular caliber and most don't. Just don't confuse offense with someone who can dispute the reasons for a particular dislike. After all, it's the right of the person who will be a carrying a particular gun to have his, or her own point of view, whether right, or wrong.