Which SHTF Pistol: Glock or 1911?


PDA






Pages : [1] 2

Beethoven
November 18, 2005, 02:36 PM
First: NO, I'm not trying to troll.

I own many Glocks and 1911's and love each style of pistol dearly.

I'm honestly trying to decide which would be the better SHTF sidearm and why.

Which would you grab as a SHTF sidearm (in addition to a rifle, of course) and why?


Thanks!

If you enjoyed reading about "Which SHTF Pistol: Glock or 1911?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
nero45acp
November 18, 2005, 02:48 PM
My SHTF pistol is a FN BDAO (DAO Hi-Power), but if I had to choose between a 1911 and a Glock, it would definitely be the Glock. I've owned seven 1911s (four chambered in .45acp and three in 9mm), and they all had varying degrees of reliability problems.



nero

farscott
November 18, 2005, 02:54 PM
My choice would be a pair of my Precision Gunworks 1911 pistols built on Colt frames and slides. Why? Because they work, because they are what I carry, and because they are what I am used to using.

Rob1035
November 18, 2005, 03:08 PM
I go with glocks, simply for the lighter weight, and assumed reduced need for maintenence/cleaning/spares.

garrettwc
November 18, 2005, 03:24 PM
In a SHTF situation I would take into consideration the following:

Is it reliable?
Both are.

Is ammo commonly available?
Both are.

Are parts available and can I install them myself?
Both are.

These assumptions are based on a mostly stock Glock 9mm, or a plain jane 1911. Of the two I would pick the 1911. But only because I am most familiar with it. Either will work in a pinch though.

Old Dog
November 18, 2005, 03:44 PM
Never one to bash a thread idea, but, uh, haven't we had this thread before (at least a couple times in the last six months or so) in one form or another? But that doesn't mean I won't play ... I'd go with the 1911 for a long-term scenario; my reasoning is primarily that it's a highly effective combat platform and what I use best.

But also -- polymer will melt and warp. How would you deal with that? Even if you lose the grips for your 1911, duct tape or medical tape will suffice or you could carve your own stocks. The all-steel construction will last a few lifetimes ... Not to mention that for someone experienced in the 1911 platform, it might be easier in the long run to machine and standardize small replacement parts and the parts would be much easier to procure, since the 1911 is such a common do-it-yourself gunsmithing platform and parts are so easily obtainable (and -- most of us and most gunshops stock a lot of the parts) right now... I'm a bit sceptical of the Glock's innards as far as what I could produce in my shop to replace anything, especially if there was any damage to the polymer frame or grip, and it seems to me that there might be fewer options for obtaining replacing parts, since Glocks are mainly production pistols with much fewer aftermarket products ...

middy
November 18, 2005, 03:51 PM
polymer will melt and warp
Not if it's on your hip... unless you're on fire or something. :confused:

I mean really, melt and warp? How is that going to happen?

I'd be happy with either, but would probably go with the Glock as drop-in replacement parts are more likely to work properly without a lot of filing and cussing.

Dr.Rob
November 18, 2005, 03:59 PM
More bullets is a good thing when you really really need them. As much as I like my 1911s I'd bet my BHP clone would be my shtf sidearm.

Which one do you have more confidence in? Which do you shoot better? That's about all that matters.

AZ Jeff
November 18, 2005, 03:59 PM
Never one to bash a thread idea, but, uh, haven't we had this thread before (at least a couple times in the last six months or so) in one form or another? But that doesn't mean I won't play ... I'd go with the 1911 for a long-term scenario; my reasoning is primarily that it's a highly effective combat platform and what I use best.

But also -- polymer will melt and warp. How would you deal with that? Even if you lose the grips for your 1911, duct tape or medical tape will suffice or you could carve your own stocks. The all-steel construction will last a few lifetimes ... Not to mention that for someone experienced in the 1911 platform, it might be easier in the long run to machine and standardize small replacement parts and the parts would be much easier to procure, since the 1911 is such a common do-it-yourself gunsmithing platform and parts are so easily obtainable (and -- most of us and most gunshops stock a lot of the parts) right now... I'm a bit sceptical of the Glock's innards as far as what I could produce in my shop to replace anything, especially if there was any damage to the polymer frame or grip, and it seems to me that there might be fewer options for obtaining replacing parts, since Glocks are mainly production pistols with much fewer aftermarket products ...
Don't get me wrong with the comment to follow, as I own several Colt Gov't Models, but by your comments about Glocks, I can tell you are not familar with their innards in the slightest.

If I had to resort to MAKING parts for one of my pistols, I would MUCH rather be making Glock parts than M1911 parts. I say this purely because the Glock design is MUCH more tolerant of parts with mass produced tolerances, and does NOT require the hand-fitting that MANY M1911 parts need to function correctly.

TimboKhan
November 18, 2005, 04:03 PM
Old Dog,

you said But also -- polymer will melt and warp.
I hate to be a jerk, but unless your doing battle while standing in magma, that old song and dance is nothing but an old wives tail. I don't know if you were being sarcastic or not, and if you were, then shame on me for not having a sense of humor. If not, the fact is that Steel will not last a lifetime if not cared for properly. It is likely that moisture will be more of an issue than lava, and all things being equal, a steel gun will fall victim to corrosion a whole lot faster than a polymer. I am not referring to brands or styles here, simnply materials, and at this point in the evolution of handguns, can't we just agree that polymers have had enough time in the real world to prove that they aren't VCR tapes? In a pinch, either platform would likely serve me well, although as it happens, neither platform would be my first choice.

Beethoven
November 18, 2005, 04:32 PM
Don't get me wrong with the comment to follow, as I own several Colt Gov't Models, but by your comments about Glocks, I can tell you are not familar with their innards in the slightest.

If I had to resort to MAKING parts for one of my pistols, I would MUCH rather be making Glock parts than M1911 parts. I say this purely because the Glock design is MUCH more tolerant of parts with mass produced tolerances, and does NOT require the hand-fitting that MANY M1911 parts need to function correctly.


I agree with this.

Gimme.50
November 18, 2005, 04:44 PM
Talk about your tough questions! :uhoh: I own one Glock 19 and about a half dozen .45s. I believe Dr. Rob was on the money when he said "Which one do you have more confidence in? Which do you shoot better? That's about all that matters." While I enjoy being able to slap a 33 round magazine in the 19, I'm more accurate with the biggest POS .45 I own (which is a Llama) than I am with the Glock. If SHTF knocks, or splatters, on the front door, I'm grabbing a .45 (hopefully the Kimber) on the way out the back. Not to menion, as with any firearm that has been in current or previous issue in the military, there's gotta be a ton of parts, mags, and ammo out there for the "scavenging". Finally, as I read somewhere else in the forum, I believe as someone's sig..."there's no need to double-tap when you're shooting a .45".

Old Dog
November 18, 2005, 04:53 PM
Well, ya know, TimboKhan, throw your Glock on the grill and I'll throw my 1911 up there next to it ... and we'll see which gun is easier to salvage and restore to operability. Were there ever an apocolyptic event and I needed one handgun to last the rest of my life as no more guns would ever be produced in my lifetime ... I'm thinking I'd want one that might survive exposure to high heat or fire. Sure, Glocks are low maintenance and quite durable ... But, it's easy to dry parts off and clean off rust and corrosion, but reshaping melted plastic? Anyway, the question was merely about personal preference, and I've explained mine ... By the way, I've seen Glocks recovered from both house and car fires, and guess what? Not a lot left ...

asiparks
November 18, 2005, 05:06 PM
Well, if the SHTF involves BBQing my weapon for the hell of it then I'm with you Old dog, but in the more likely scenarios we've seen of late involving natural disasters and the like, I'd go for all round durability and reliability in moisture and dirt and for that I think I'd leave my 1911's in their waterproof and fire proof safe and pick up my G 21.

Rob1035
November 18, 2005, 05:08 PM
I love it when people 'tailor' their SHTF scenarios to their preferred weapons.:cool:

AR15 guy: "well, what if you have to engage multiple rabid woodchucks at 150m?"
AK guy: "what if brain eating zombies are standing still 75 feet from me?"
Milsurp guy: "well i'll get one shot off then get busy with the bayonet"

:p

MTMilitiaman
November 18, 2005, 05:20 PM
Well, ya know, TimboKhan, throw your Glock on the grill and I'll throw my 1911 up there next to it ... and we'll see which gun is easier to salvage and restore to operability.
Ummm :uhoh: Do we have to get on the grill with it? If not, what's the point? To see which one tastes better with BBQ sauce? So in the hypothetical situation "so there I was in the apocolypse grilling up some steaks when I accidentially threw my pistol on the grill all slathered up in Bullseye and forgot about it..." Okay, you might have a point then. Until then, if it is hot enough for either pistol to melt or warp, you got bigger problems than what the heat is doing to your handgun. In the meantime, the Glock is lighter, has a higher magazine capacity, can also be had in .45 or 10mm as well as just about every other defensive autopistol caliber of any noteable popularity and is about as simple, reliable, and durable as they come. For a SHTF scenerio, I might wish for something a little more popular than the 10mm Auto, but I'd still want my pistol to be a Glock, even if it isn't my Glock 20.

Beethoven
November 18, 2005, 05:21 PM
Speaking of temperature extremes, how well does/would polymer hold up in extreme cold?

Black Majik
November 18, 2005, 05:32 PM
Well...

Glocks vs. 1911s.

This is actually a debate I'm in the mood for. Which would I CCW? a 1911. Which would I rather have at the range with me? a 1911. Which would I always go for if an intruder entered my house? a 1911. Which is the only one still in my stable? The 1911s. Which can I shoot MUCH better with? The 1911. Which would I want in a SHTF situation? The GLOCK.

Why oh why, would a 1911 advocate, who hates shooting Glocks, how they point, how they look, how they shoot want a Glock over a 1911 ya say?

Reliability and durability.

Glocks for the most part dont require all that much maintenance. They can be ran dry, and preferred to run dry. 6 drops only if you do oil :D Theres one thread that just absolutely convinced me, that if I need a gun, one I can abuse, carry in the rain, and not have to worry about it.... its of course the Glock.

Check out the thread over at AR15.com. What Bigbore does to his G21 is absolutely astounding to what most of us would do to our guns. Freeze it, leave it in salt water, run it over with a truck (but but... wont that polymer frame CRACK?!), THROW IT OUT OF AN AIRPLANE!, and all he does is shake off all the dirt and mud, check the bore and fire the gun! He hasn't oiled the damn thing since page 12 :D

Honestly, if it came down to it, 1911s require maintenance. They serve great as a house gun, shoot beautifully at the range. But, the 1911 is the Prom queen you want while the Glock is the reliable date you'll settle for.

I would hate to carry a 1911 in SHTF situations in the rain, when I'd almost be sure my 1911 would start to rust. Hey face it, that tennifer finish is as tough as it gets for gun finishes. The polymer, while uncomfortable as opposed to real ivory or checked aluminum, it'll not MELT, scratch, rust, nick, or rust like the 1911s would.

The guns are both easy to detail strip. It just takes practice. The 1911 was designed to detail strip without any tools, only using the parts of the 1911. But, the Glock is much easier to detail strip, field strip, and clean.

I've tried the Glock route, I sold it, but... damn they do make one damn reliable and durable gun.

In SHTF situations, give me the Glock. :what:

carolinaman
November 18, 2005, 05:32 PM
Hi there,

Given a choice based on pure function and reliability, it would be my Glock M-23.

I shoot it well enough and keep a large supply of .40 S&W ammunition on hand.

Chris

Rob1035
November 18, 2005, 05:33 PM
I remember reading official glock information that said the polymer frames were good from -30 to 140 degrees (F i assume). What that really means, I have no idea...

psyopspec
November 18, 2005, 05:51 PM
Speaking of temperature extremes, how well does/would polymer hold up in extreme cold?

I carried mine through a winter of record lows. In the winter of 2003-2004 we had record lows; I remember two weeks where the high was in the teens to twenties below zero, farenheit. I left it in the car overnight several times. Never affected function or appearance. On days when it was warm enough (AKA when I got desperate enough) to brave the weather and hit the range, I was glad I had a polymer pistol since it didn't stick to my hand after popping off a mag.

As for throwing it on the barby, or otherwise lighting a pistol on fire, I've never tried it and never would with Glock, 1911, or otherwise.

All that said I sold the Glock the get a 1911. Hated the trigger.

And with that, my answer to the thread; I take the Glock for reliability, durability, and capacity.

middy
November 18, 2005, 06:23 PM
Here's Bigbore's Glock 21 torture thread at AR15.com (http://ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=5&f=4&t=13658)

:what:

JeepDriver
November 18, 2005, 06:31 PM
Glock 34 (if I can't take my 226 that is)

With plenty of 124+P Gold Dot's or 127+P+ Rangers

I have plenty of 17rd mags a a few 33rd mags. I have several thousand rounds through it w/o a problem.

jame
November 18, 2005, 07:48 PM
I've owned a couple of Glocks and hate 'em. I'm a 1911 guy anymore. That said......

SHTF, I'd take the Glock.

Now if we're flame broiling with a little butter, garlic, and parmesan, Sigs are obviously superior......(I like mine with a side of steamed asparagus and hollandaise....)

MadMercS55
November 18, 2005, 08:28 PM
I'd take My Glock 17 in a heartbeat. Reason being, it just works better for me. Never had a problem or anything with it, I am extremely accurate with it, and I know how to repair it if something would happen. I just never warmed up to the 1911 platform in general over the years.

TexAg
November 19, 2005, 01:47 AM
Ditto Glock.
Man if my frame is melting good chance my skin is too!:fire: <- me on fire, ticked that my Glock melted.

MachIVshooter
November 19, 2005, 02:19 AM
Well...


Honestly, if it came down to it, 1911s require maintenance. They serve great as a house gun, shoot beautifully at the range. But, the 1911 is the Prom queen you want while the Glock is the reliable date you'll settle for.

I would hate to carry a 1911 in SHTF situations in the rain, when I'd almost be sure my 1911 would start to rust. Hey face it, that tennifer finish is as tough as it gets for gun finishes. The polymer, while uncomfortable as opposed to real ivory or checked aluminum, it'll not MELT, scratch, rust, nick, or rust like the 1911s would.



Yes, clearly the 1911 is not a reliable gun, which is why the US army carried it through 2 world wars, Korea and Vietnam and continues to use it in special op's. Can you think of a more harsh environment for a gun than the jungles of Southern Asia or the salt water of the South Pacific?

All of my 1911's, except for my Colt Mk IV, have been exemplory. I am not suggesting that a Glock is not a reliable gun. Of course, how many 1911's have Ka-Boomed using correct factory ammo in a gun from a decent manufacturer?

Now that I'm done arguing this point, I would take my S&W 1006 over all the rest of my autos in a do-or-die situation. Reliable, Durable, Accurate, Powerful. 'Nuff said

For SHTF or TEOTWAWKI, my AR-10 ;) .

jlh26oo
November 19, 2005, 02:30 AM
I love it when people 'tailor' their SHTF scenarios to their preferred weapons.

If you do not "tailor" your preparations for every, and I mean every possible scenario, you are NOT prepared.

Well, ya know, TimboKhan, throw your Glock on the grill and I'll throw my 1911 up there next to it ... and we'll see which gun is easier to salvage and restore to operability.

glockamolee
November 19, 2005, 02:32 AM
My SFS Hi power. I can conceal it as well as use it in the role of an offensive handgun similiar to the H&K developed for our Special Op units.

Caliber is adequete and, with a barrel/magazine swap, can shoot 9mm out of it.

I would prefer a 10mm but ammo might be a tad difficult to find.

torpid
November 19, 2005, 02:44 AM
Laugh if y'all want, but when the nuclear blast hits you, that melted glock on your charcoal-skeletal hip will be useless junk, and your final thought as the remorseful tear evaporates on your bony cheek will be of the 1911 you should've brought...

;)

boots
November 19, 2005, 04:31 AM
if someone dropped bombs on the usa, there would be fire. maybe lots of it. it could be possible that your house would catch fire, from the fires caused by the bombs. it could be possible that your guns are in a place in your house that happened to catch on fire. and if your guns were plastic, they would melt faster than if your guns were made of steel.

all those barbequeing answers are very funny, but when you think about it, plastics guns could melt in a SHTF scenario, and it wouldn't be from putting them on a grill.

nrmcolt
November 19, 2005, 04:39 AM
Laugh if y'all want, but when the nuclear blast hits you, that melted glock on your charcoal-skeletal hip will be useless junk, and your final thought as the remorseful tear evaporates on your bony cheek will be of the 1911 you should've brought...

;)
:D

Gary H
November 19, 2005, 04:40 AM
I'd grab my shotgun, or AR.

I presently own two Glocks, but I don't trust myself to suddenly awaken and avoid a ND when reaching for the gun.

The only gun that I keep loaded, outside of my safe, is a 4" S&W .357 magnum revolver. It never fails to go bang. My wife and I can accurately shoot it. That said, my shotgun is only ten feet from where I sleep. It is always ready. A 1911 is loaded in the safe... I'm not sure what that is about, but there you go. Many SHTF police and military sorts rely upon the 1911. So, unlike this thread's posts, some choose the 1911 over Glock.

The-Fly
November 19, 2005, 04:45 AM
based on my experiences, a glock. Which is why i use a glock 26 for my carry gun. Yes the triggers on a glock take a bit of getting used to, but thats why 3.5 # connectors were made for :D

Rob1035
November 19, 2005, 07:45 AM
If you do not "tailor" your preparations for every, and I mean every possible scenario, you are NOT prepared.


is that even practically possible? save for living in a highly stocked and armed former missile silo?

jlh26oo
November 19, 2005, 07:51 AM
is that even practically possible? save for living in a highly stocked and armed former missile silo?

Lol, even then I would say no, not possible. I forgot to drop an emoticon.

pinetree64
November 19, 2005, 08:40 AM
I'd take whatever you shoot best. IMHO, a pistol is last resort in a shtf. I'd opt for a high cap rifle or shotgun in an urban environment and have a pistol as backup.

For those of you in the NRA there is an article in the latest American Rifleman regarding New Orleans. I guy who works at the D-Day Museum, which is awesome, went through some real life shtf stuff. If I had to chase away a group of thugs I want a hi-cap rifle or shotgun and a 1911 on my waist.

One last note, I'd carry a Kimber Compact. Eventhough it may be crazy out there you still might want to conceal it in some circumstances, e.g. NG troops going by... I wouldn't risk having it confiscated.

tjg

albanian
November 19, 2005, 12:19 PM
The big things to consider in a SHTF type situation are the following:
1. Reliability
2. Capacity
3. Ease of use
4. Ease of maint.
5. Ammo available?
6. Power
7. Reliabilty.

The Glock 17 has the edge in ALL these factors period. Some may try to argue that a .45acp is more powerful than a 9mm and that may be true but a .45acp is not more powerful than TWO 9mms and that is what you get with the Glock 17.

Reliabilty, everyone knows that an average Glock is far more reliable than the average 1911. That is fact.

Capacity, Glock of course.

Ease of use, Glock has a trigger that you pull to make it go bang. 1911 has a SA trigger that you need to cock or a safety that you need to make sure is on/off. Unless you are some die hard 1911 fan, ease of use goes with the design of the Glock.

ease of maint. Glocks don't need much maint and most things can be fixed by the average shooter. 1911s shouldn't need much maint unless people start messing with them. This one is a draw.

Ammo available? I am pretty sure that 9mm is more popular than .45acp but if a place sells 9mm they will also probably sell .45acp so I will call that a draw as well.

I am not a fan of the Glocks but I think this debate as been settled. The only debate is from Glock heads and 1911 cult members now. What you like is not the issue, the issue is, what is a better platform for the SHTF situation.

hank327
November 19, 2005, 01:59 PM
I have two 5" Colts, a 45 & a 38 Super. I have a Colt Lightweight Commander in .45. During my service in the US Army, the 1911 was my issued personal weapon for two years. I often carry one of my Colts as my CCW. I love my 1911s. I also have a Glock G19 & G23. I like them well enough. They go "BANG" just about every time I pull the trigger and they are tough as a hammer. I like the Glock trigger much better than any DA/SA or DAO trigger, and less than SA of my Colts and High Power.

All that said, if I were going to be dropped into Iraq or Somalia and had my choice of a handgun, I would unhesitatenly choose a Glock 17. For me, when you add up all the pluses and minus' of both designs, the Glock comes out as the better platform.

Biker
November 19, 2005, 02:11 PM
My G23 has never failed to go bang (and I rarely clean it) and holds 13 rounds.
My Colt LWC is reliable with *most* ammo and holds slightly more than half as much.
If either gets hot enough to melt, I will too.
I'll go with my Glock.
Biker

Marshall
November 19, 2005, 02:46 PM
I'll take a BHP first.

Second a Glock or Springfield XD, always go bang.

If it's going to get so hot your plastic gun is going to melt you're going to have more to worry about than your gun melting.

bearmgc
November 19, 2005, 03:19 PM
1911. My Colt Commander.

TomN
November 19, 2005, 04:04 PM
if someone dropped bombs on the usa, there would be fire. maybe lots of it. it could be possible that your house would catch fire, from the fires caused by the bombs. it could be possible that your guns are in a place in your house that happened to catch on fire. and if your guns were plastic, they would melt faster than if your guns were made of steel.

all those barbequeing answers are very funny, but when you think about it, plastics guns could melt in a SHTF scenario, and it wouldn't be from putting them on a grill.

:rolleyes:

Hot brass
November 19, 2005, 04:14 PM
My Para P14 Limited/45acp. A no bull gun.

jkswiss
November 19, 2005, 04:19 PM
If it's going to get so hot your plastic gun is going to melt you're going to have more to worry about than your gun melting.


Thank you. I was hoping that someone would point that out.

420Stainless
November 19, 2005, 05:48 PM
The worry about heat is not nearly as irrational as some make it out to be. The Glock website shows the operating range for the weapon to be up to 158 degrees F. While it may be possible to expose it to higher temperatures and still function fine when it cools down, the trunk of a car can get to 170 degrees on a hot summer day. Also, one doesn't actually need to be on fire to acheive destructive temperatures. If you keep your guns in a fire-proof safe and your house catches fire in an earthquake or bombing or etc., the temperature inside the safe may get high enough to destroy the polymer but not the steel. You come back after the fire to get your survival tools (New Orleans without the water) and even though the safe may be intact, the polymers inside it probably won't be. Now you not only need to find ammo, but a reliable weapon to boot.

I admit it is all pretty silly, but I can't see jumping all over someone for pointing out the potential weakness in a survival tool.

Old Dog
November 19, 2005, 07:33 PM
About par for the course from the Glock defenders. As I pointed out earlier, I've seen firearms recovered from both vehicle and house fires. As a matter of fact, a buddy (who regrettably lost his home) retrieved his Wal-Mart special (non-fireproof) gun cabinet from the remains of his home. His Series 70 Colt and a Para-Ordnance are still shooting great these days (he did have the Colt refinished); he's now got a nice collection of Glock barrels and a new fireproof gunsafe ...

One has to admit, some of the statements get kinda amusing:
The Glock 17 has the edge in ALL these factors period. Some may try to argue that a .45acp is more powerful than a 9mm and that may be true but a .45acp is not more powerful than TWO 9mms and that is what you get with the Glock 17. While I'd prefer not to get shot by one .45 or TWO 9mms, some would give the edge in stopping power to the .45 ...

Reliabilty, everyone knows that an average Glock is far more reliable than the average 1911. That is fact.Huh? All righty, then ...

1911 has a SA trigger that you need to cock or a safety that you need to make sure is on/off. Unless you are some die hard 1911 fan, ease of use goes with the design of the Glock.And here I thought one cocked a Glock the same way one cocked a 1911 - by racking the slide and chambering a round ... Ease of use? I suppose there are those who can't master flicking a 1911's safety on or off ... Hmm; I'll concede the "ease of use" factor to Glocks, as I have met a few people who are too lazy to train with their chosen handguns ...

Capacity, Glock of course.Aside from the fact that there are some wonderful hi-cap 1911s produced (even in -- gasp -- 9mm), real experts understand that magazine capacity is not the issue. Training, mindset and shot placement render the question of mag capacity pretty much moot ... Of course, having seen the Glockmeisters at my local IDPA matches fumble tactical reloads, I can understand why some prefer to have a few more rounds in their magazines...

I am not a fan of the Glocks but I think this debate as been settled. Gee, it was a debate? I thought it was just one guy asking what we'd all prefer, and why ...

What you like is not the issue, the issue is, what is a better platform for the SHTF situation.The best platform is the one that one is most familiar with and uses most effectively. For me, with a large stockpile of 1911 parts in my kit and being somewhat proficient with the platform, my SHTF gun is a 1911. For someone else, perhaps someone who's never learned the art of the reload and who is capable of fashioning a new extractor for his Glock 17 with some tinsnips and an old pie pan, the Glock might just be the ticket ...

The_Shootist
November 19, 2005, 07:55 PM
Well, as a recent real world example I carried 2 guns with me in last summer's Rita evacuation from Galveston. One was my SP 101....the other was my Glock 19.

I could have chosen my 1911, which I consider reliable and easy to shoot. Just that in my mind the G19 was MORE reliable, having experienced virtually NO FTE/FTF etc over almost 2000 rounds.

This was no Internet academic exercise and when the chips were down, I grabbed my Glock. The fact all three mags were "standard" cap 15 rounders also probably influenced my decision. :evil:

gulogulo1970
November 19, 2005, 08:40 PM
I'd have to go with the Glock, just because I have yet to own a 1911 I'd trust my life with.

Nail Shooter
November 19, 2005, 08:44 PM
by nero45acp:

".... it would definitely be the Glock. I've owned seven 1911s (four chambered in .45acp and three in 9mm), and they all had varying degrees of reliability problems."

I'm w/ nero on this one. Also hard to argue w/ the capacity advantage of the Glocks.

NS

newfalguy101
November 19, 2005, 09:10 PM
YES!

drf
November 19, 2005, 09:21 PM
drf

dsk
November 19, 2005, 09:33 PM
The problem I have with this thread is, what exactly would constitute SHTF? A nuclear war? Breakdown of society? Simply being caught in the middle of a riot? All the above? I can think of many scenarios where a well-tuned 1911 would have the edge if I needed rifle-type accuracy and also needed a platform I could also use .22LR ammo for small game hunting (survivalist scenario). But if caught in the middle of total urban chaos I'd want as high a magazine capacity as I could get, so I'd want a Glock 19/17 with 33-round magazines! But as can be seen, neither a 1911 nor a Glock is really ideal, nor are any other handguns. If you're caught in the middle of a true SHTF scenario and all you have on you is a pistol, you're still in big trouble.

MachIVshooter
November 19, 2005, 09:35 PM
Also hard to argue w/ the capacity advantage of the Glocks.



Funny, I could've sworn double-column 1911's hold 14 .45's, 16 .40/10mm and 18 9mm (Glocks are 13, 15 and 17 respectively). And that does not include extended mags. The capacity debate is a non-issue these days when you're talking full-size guns.

As to folks going with ease of operation, the manual of arms for a 1911 is very simple. And if you really believe DAO is the way to go, there are 1911's for you as well.

Face it, there is a 1911 variant for just about every purpose, and they do their job well. You think special op's guys and SWAT members go with 1911's because they don't know about Glocks? One of the reasons many LE agancies moved away from 1911's was because uniformed officers carrying C&L has become un-PC. It is not because the 1911 suddenly became obsolete in the face of tactical tupperware.

dsk
November 19, 2005, 09:43 PM
Glocks have two advantages over most other pistols: light weight and high ammunition capacity. 1911's have the advantage of excellent durability, quick-resetting trigger to make accurate repeat shots, and weight that makes the powerful .45ACP manageable.

Take your choice.

thealien
November 19, 2005, 09:44 PM
Here's Bigbore's Glock 21 torture thread at AR15.com (http://ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=5&f=4&t=13658)

:what:

Regardless of your thoughts, you've got to read this thread!!!

glocker1911
November 19, 2005, 10:51 PM
Here's a case of putting "my money where my vote is". I traded my GI Springer and a new Glock G22 for a Sig GSR Revolution today. It is my new ccw, which means it would be my SHTF go to also. As nice as Glocks are, and I am a big fan of their pistols, I have the utmost confidence in this new 1911, and will never look back on mychoice. Good luck with your choice.

one45auto
November 19, 2005, 11:25 PM
Although I love my Colt Series 80, if the SHTF I'd grab my Glock 19 without a moments hesitation. Why, you ask?

Reason #1

My Glock 19 fires reliably even when absolutely filthy. I cannot say the same for the Colt.

Reason #2

The Glock 19 fires any 9mm round I care to chamber, whereas the Colt is a finnicky eater. If I have to scrouge for ammo, what are the odds I'll find something it likes? :uhoh:

Black Majik
November 19, 2005, 11:48 PM
Yes, clearly the 1911 is not a reliable gun, which is why the US army carried it through 2 world wars, Korea and Vietnam and continues to use it in special op's. Can you think of a more harsh environment for a gun than the jungles of Southern Asia or the salt water of the South Pacific?

All of my 1911's, except for my Colt Mk IV, have been exemplory. I am not suggesting that a Glock is not a reliable gun. Of course, how many 1911's have Ka-Boomed using correct factory ammo in a gun from a decent manufacturer?

Now that I'm done arguing this point, I would take my S&W 1006 over all the rest of my autos in a do-or-die situation. Reliable, Durable, Accurate, Powerful. 'Nuff said

For SHTF or TEOTWAWKI, my AR-10 ;) .

I'm not saying the 1911 isn't reliable. I just feel that in the long run, the Glock will be more reliable without the maintenance required. Just my opinion, but I feel the 1911 is a pretty high maintenance gun. If it gets dirty, I feel the 1911 has more of a chance to malfunction than a dirty 1911.

But for the record, I have more of 1911s in my collection than any other gun I own. I love and praise the 1911. I have no Glocks in my possession, yet I still feel that while under range conditions (shoot few hundred rounds, go home and clean) a 1911 is very reliable. But once the constant carrying starts, little or no maintenance begins, the Glock would be able to function more reliably with outside elements better than the 1911.

Both are, or can be VERY reliable firearms, but in super TEOTWAWKI/SHTF conditions, raining midgets, dragons hovering above conditions, I'd still rather have a Glock over a 1911, because I personally feel that a Glock can take more abuse than the average CURRENT PRODUCTION 1911s.

:)

GILROY
November 20, 2005, 12:07 AM
Neither, My SIG 226 9mm in my belt and AK in my hand. SIG holds a bunch of rounds, plus I can hit well with it. AK keeps bad crowds at bay. Plenty of ammo out there for both. I probably would have my Wilson KZ-45 and my HK USPF strapped on somewhere as well. Too nice to leave behind. Sell a Glock
(since you have plenty) and buy a SIG or HK. You will be surprised how well you can shoot! Don't get me wrong, I respect Glocks highly. I have owned at least 10 in the past. But, last count, I don't own any at the moment. :rolleyes:

boots
November 20, 2005, 02:16 AM
you know how to use the smilies. besides quoting me, and using that silly little smilie, you have any thoughts you want to contribute to this thread? i guess your guns being near extreme heat in a SHTF scenario is an impossibility for you. wow, lucky you. for me, i try to think about all possible scenarios. :rolleyes:

SACOLT
November 20, 2005, 02:23 AM
Well it looks like for me, 1911 or Ruger revolvers and a S&W model 19 because that's what I own right now.

Big Mike
November 20, 2005, 03:22 AM
Glock. Mike

TomN
November 20, 2005, 03:27 AM
you know how to use the smilies. besides quoting me, and using that silly little smilie, you have any thoughts you want to contribute to this thread? i guess your guns being near extreme heat in a SHTF scenario is an impossibility for you. wow, lucky you. for me, i try to think about all possible scenarios. :rolleyes:

If your house was going to be bombed I would think ANY firearm would be ruined, not just plastic ones. And of course in that kinda heat your ammo would burn off too. I think you'd have worse things to worry about than melted plastic.

Oh and I would still choose the Glock.

boots
November 20, 2005, 04:22 AM
i said that if there were bombs, there could be fires. these fires could then spread to your home. i never said that your house would be bombed. don't start putting words in my post. if your house was bombed, you'd have bigger worries than plastic vs. steel. however, even if a house was bombed directly i think steel might have a better chance at surviving than plastic. finding your steel pistol through all the ruble would be difficult though.

TimboKhan
November 20, 2005, 04:31 AM
Old Dog,

Well, ya know, TimboKhan, throw your Glock on the grill

First off, I don't own a Glock, nor will I ever own a Glock as I personally find them uncomfortable. As it happens, I do in fact own a Taurus 24/7, but if you really want to know what my current SHTF gun is, its my Ruger P90. Sure, I suppose that if I take to testing guns by throwing them on a grill, the 1911 would probably fare better. However, if I really had to have a SHTF gun, it wouldn't be an auto, period. It would be a revolver, with a 4 inch barrel, in .357. The pros and cons for carrying a revolver are well documented, and I feel the pros outweigh the cons by a large margin. However, when it comes to Autos, I personally wouldn't choose either of those two models. Each are perfectly fine, and if either are your bag, well, then good for you. For me, I will take a P90 over either any day of the week. Your point about the house/car fire is excellent, however. Can anyone tell me how the extreme heat that either would generate would effect a steel gun (ANY steel gun), if at all?

real experts understand that magazine capacity is not the issue. Training, mindset and shot placement render the question of mag capacity pretty much moot

To show that I am not intentionally zeroing in on Old Dog, I agree with this sentiment 100%. Also, for the chap (and anyone else that uses this argument) that earlier pointed out that the military used 1911's through 2 World Wars, Vietnam, etc... Please people, for the love of god, keep in mind that the military used a 1911 that is WORLDS apart from your average Kimber, or Wilson or whatever. The military gun was built loose and is thus considerably more tolerant under a wide variety of conditions. Your new 1911's, while not necessarily bad guns (like anything, some are, some aren't), are not particularly representative of the long and storied history of the 1911, at least as I see it. If I were to choose a 1911 for any purpose, SHTF or otherwise, I would want my gun to be a whole lot closer to the loosey-goosey military issue standard. The only exception would be a better set of sights. I don't care who won what and when with those rinky-dink old sights: They are awful, and no one will ever convince me otherwise (although, to date, no one has really ever disagreed with that sentiment). In conclusion, gentlemen, we are all partial to particular guns, and for the most part, no one is gonna budge us off our particular tree. At least those of us who participate in this discussion are aware that we need to be prepared, and in the end, thats all that really matters. Old Dog, I formally pass the peace pipe to you. We obviously disagree, but at least if you and I are in the same neck of the woods when the SHTF, we will both prepared, which is more than can be said of the average guy.

jlh26oo
November 20, 2005, 05:54 AM
For me, I will take a P90 over either any day of the week.


Massad? Is that you?

hube1236
November 20, 2005, 02:12 PM
I did not engage any of the bad guys, but I did have my 1911 on my hip and my Socom 16 in my arms while I did nightly walks thorough my neighborhood when I was the only one here, and I did it under the auspice of the Guard and cops. One less neighborhood to babysit, I guess.

That being said, I did have coffee multiple times with the Airborn guys that were sent down here- amazing how much slack you are cut when you give the patrol a cup of coffee and some doughnuts when they are walking the streets.

I am a 1911 fan, and I have torutured tested each one I carry and I got in excess of 1200 rounds through my Springer before I have extraction problems with my reloads. A tooth pick to clean the residue out was all it took. I do not think that a person who chooses a gun for its reputed reliability without testing it is just plain stupid. If you Glockers have not shot 1000s of rounds in between cleaning, or have buried your gun in the sand, then don't cloud the discussion with the stories of freezing a gun in ice for 5000 years and defrosting it and then going with the Nuge to hunt boar in Africa. It is about your guns; you may pick a brand based on rep, but I would no sooner take your Glock over my 1911 if I have not tested it.

I used the NOLA thing at the beginning not to say that I am an expert at something, but anyone in a shtf scenario is not going to to be shooting a 1000 continuous rounds in an engagement, just wear a target if you are IPSC through the crowd and looking for targets. Your job is to get away and fight tomorrow. If it is your last stand, then you are going down against a crowd of determined people. Somalia Rangers were better trained than most of us, and a few good guys still went down, and it was not because they had short barrelled M-4 or barrettas with slides that hit you in the teeth. The job is to get a way and live to see another day. In between those fights, regardless of your shtf scenario, you are just plain deserving of a painful and greusome death if you do not care for your weapon. Every downtime is preparing your choice for the next engagement, so even if you exhaust your 30x33rnd mags for your glock while you are standing in the middle of a street shooting a ring of death around you, and your glock can go another 1000 rounds in between cleanings, you would clean your weapon.

I agree that there is problem with SHTF scenario, some of us are talking an hour of shooting, some are talking doomsday. I am taking what I can carry and my choice is rifle ammo and my 1911 to fight a little bit before I take that last one for myself (little John Waynish).

Regardless of what you take, know it. And be real with the engagement, most of us would be cowering in the shadows until it was clear to move. Or at least wait until the crown is not 1000 heineken drinkers, but a little more realistic in survivability.

Good luck with your glock / 1911. Stay alive until tomorrow.

Beethoven
November 20, 2005, 03:16 PM
I'm not saying the 1911 isn't reliable. I just feel that in the long run, the Glock will be more reliable without the maintenance required. Just my opinion, but I feel the 1911 is a pretty high maintenance gun. If it gets dirty, I feel the 1911 has more of a chance to malfunction than a dirty 1911.

But for the record, I have more of 1911s in my collection than any other gun I own. I love and praise the 1911. I have no Glocks in my possession, yet I still feel that while under range conditions (shoot few hundred rounds, go home and clean) a 1911 is very reliable. But once the constant carrying starts, little or no maintenance begins, the Glock would be able to function more reliably with outside elements better than the 1911.

Both are, or can be VERY reliable firearms, but in super TEOTWAWKI/SHTF conditions, raining midgets, dragons hovering above conditions, I'd still rather have a Glock over a 1911, because I personally feel that a Glock can take more abuse than the average CURRENT PRODUCTION 1911s.

:)


Thanks for your post, but if you don't even OWN a Glock, how can you comment on this?

Further, have you even tested your 1911 to see how it will perform when dirty?

Like even firing several hundred rounds through it without cleaning and seeing how it does?

Beethoven
November 20, 2005, 03:24 PM
I am a 1911 fan, and I have torutured tested each one I carry and I got in excess of 1200 rounds through my Springer before I have extraction problems with my reloads. A tooth pick to clean the residue out was all it took. I do not think that a person who chooses a gun for its reputed reliability without testing it is just plain stupid. If you Glockers have not shot 1000s of rounds in between cleaning, or have buried your gun in the sand, then don't cloud the discussion with the stories of freezing a gun in ice for 5000 years and defrosting it and then going with the Nuge to hunt boar in Africa. It is about your guns; you may pick a brand based on rep, but I would no sooner take your Glock over my 1911 if I have not tested it.

I used the NOLA thing at the beginning not to say that I am an expert at something, but anyone in a shtf scenario is not going to to be shooting a 1000 continuous rounds in an engagement, just wear a target if you are IPSC through the crowd and looking for targets. Your job is to get away and fight tomorrow. If it is your last stand, then you are going down against a crowd of determined people. Somalia Rangers were better trained than most of us, and a few good guys still went down, and it was not because they had short barrelled M-4 or barrettas with slides that hit you in the teeth. The job is to get a way and live to see another day. In between those fights, regardless of your shtf scenario, you are just plain deserving of a painful and greusome death if you do not care for your weapon. Every downtime is preparing your choice for the next engagement, so even if you exhaust your 30x33rnd mags for your glock while you are standing in the middle of a street shooting a ring of death around you, and your glock can go another 1000 rounds in between cleanings, you would clean your weapon.

I agree that there is problem with SHTF scenario, some of us are talking an hour of shooting, some are talking doomsday. I am taking what I can carry and my choice is rifle ammo and my 1911 to fight a little bit before I take that last one for myself (little John Waynish).

Regardless of what you take, know it. And be real with the engagement, most of us would be cowering in the shadows until it was clear to move. Or at least wait until the crown is not 1000 heineken drinkers, but a little more realistic in survivability.

Good luck with your glock / 1911. Stay alive until tomorrow.


This man brings up two great points that, up until now, haven't been touched upon:

1) The fact that most people who are posting in this thread (myself included) have not tested their guns to see what they are capable of. Heck, some people posting in this thread don't even OWN a Glock or 1911! :rolleyes:

2) The assumption that a SHTF scenario consists of nothing but firing thousands and thousands of rounds, pausing only to bury your gun in the dirt/mud.

In reality, we will have at least SOME downtime, and the FIRST priority during that downtime, even above eating, should be weapons maintenance, right?

Isn't that how it works in the military? Maintain your weapon religiously?

Well, I fail to see how or why it should be different for the rest of us.

MachIVshooter
November 20, 2005, 05:36 PM
Somebody with a lot more money than me should buy a G21 and a Springer Mil-Spec, a few dozen Quality mags for each, a few crates of ammo and hire a handful of folks to load magazines. Then they should go shoot each gun until it fails. (I'll volunteer for the shooting position:D )

I'm betting either gun could fire tens of thousands of rounds with virtually no maintenance and have only a handful of hiccups.

I have yet to take a side in this discussion and have only mentioned that Glocks have a higher failure rate than quality 1911's (meaning Ka-Booms). The G-22 I had was 100% reliable, as is my Kimber Stainless target II 10mm. I personally prefer my Kimber by a wide margin. That said, I would rather carry a Glock than my Kimber because I would not feel bad if it got sratched/dinged/otherwise damaged or confiscated. I dropped my Kimber one time and nearly went into cardiac arrest for fear that I had marred the finish. It is a range queen. But in a life or death situation, this would not be a concern. I would have taken my Kimber or one of my other 1911's over the Glock for many reasons, reliability not one of them.

In reality, a SHTF scenario for most of us will be a case of self defense with 1-3 opponents. In this case, our SHTF weapon is our CCW, whatever it may be. That makes mine a Witness Compact 10mm or Taurus PT145MP, depending on weather (clothing). Anything more grave than this will likely have ample warning and a handgun would not be my first choice.

dsk
November 20, 2005, 07:07 PM
Also, for the chap (and anyone else that uses this argument) that earlier pointed out that the military used 1911's through 2 World Wars, Vietnam, etc... Please people, for the love of god, keep in mind that the military used a 1911 that is WORLDS apart from your average Kimber, or Wilson or whatever. The military gun was built loose and is thus considerably more tolerant under a wide variety of conditions. Your new 1911's, while not necessarily bad guns (like anything, some are, some aren't), are not particularly representative of the long and storied history of the 1911, at least as I see it. If I were to choose a 1911 for any purpose, SHTF or otherwise, I would want my gun to be a whole lot closer to the loosey-goosey military issue standard.

I think at this point it's worth saying that we as a group need to come to terms what what we really want or need in this market. The reason why new 1911's are made so tight is because everybody WANTS them that way. We all want a pistol that shoots 1" groups at 50 yards, and the manufacturers aim to please. I swear, the next poster on 1911 Forum who goes and sneers at Colts for being "too loose" or "not as tight as their Kimber" is going to be personally b****-slapped by me the moment I find out their address. New Colts often have cosmetic anomalies or other minor issues, but almost nobody complains about their reliability. I wonder why?

Old Dog
November 20, 2005, 08:26 PM
Good point. During the past fifteen years or so (pretty much since the military transitioned from the 1911 to the M-9), and since the advent of the "semi-custom" production 1911 (i.e., Kimbers Custom, Springfield Loaded, et al), I've become thoroughly amused by the fact that there's now a generation of gun-owners and shooters out there who believe in their hearts that 1911s simply aren't as reliable as other platforms (I won't mention the G-word again).

When I was coming up as a new shooter (in my teens, circa mid-70s) and shortly thereafter being trained by my esteemed USMC colleagues in the art of the pistol, we were trained to expect malfunctions while shooting firearms. This was never taught as "fact" that any one type of gun more commonly experienced problems than any other, simply an acceptance that, as with all things mechanical, there may be malfunctions from time to time.

Hence, we were taught the proper way to clear jams and those us of who lived with our 1911s were taught a few tricks of the trade as far as improving performance. The bottom line is, in the old days, we were taught that we could deal with any problems with our firearms. Now, it seems the new generation expects out-of-the-box perfection, and will routinely bash any platform that they do not deem worthy. Frankly, to me, this is just the lazy shooter's way of accepting the fact that if he has problems with his equipment, it's his equipment's fault, and therefore, he is helpless.

Sigh.

ranger7
November 20, 2005, 09:29 PM
I've owned several Glocks and 1911s. I currently own one of each and shoot them both well (for me).

In a SHTF scenario, I wouldn't hesitate to grab my G21 before the Sringfield 1911A1. I consider them both to accuate and reliable. Just the 13+1 mag capacity over 7+1 or 8+1 is enough to sell it for me. In a SHTF scenario I have to prepare for worst case which to me is multiple perps and possibly no other guns available.

Borachon
November 20, 2005, 10:17 PM
polymer will melt and warp

How bad did the SHTF? By that, I mean...are cars still running or did EMP fry everything?

I understand that in the Warsaw ghetto uprising, it was common to hide your firearms inside a stove, up a chimney or buried at the base of a chimney. That way, if the house was destroyed or burned out, the weapon might survive and the chimney would serve as a location marker for where the weapon was at.

Also, one of the classic methods of smuggling items is to put them under your car hood...secreted under some oily and dirty part of the motor (or hot part of the motor). In a survival situation, you might actually NEED to store your gun in a hot place. The trunk and all the other parts of the car can be searched easily. Thieves...or others....might hesitate to take off the air filter cover or push their hands on top of the oil pan in order to search. So I'll ask now...do you feel confident laying your Glock on a part of the engine for 3 hours? (I've been at some checkpoints that lasted longer) If you ain't 100% confident....well, just think on it.


I guess what I'm saying is that the materials that go into the construction of my weapon are important, and I'd rather err on the side of proven durability versus more modern, but with less track history.

I'd vote 1911.

CAPTAIN MIKE
November 20, 2005, 11:24 PM
In my Humble Opinion --- Go with "BOTH" if the SHTF.
P.S. Take extra ammo.
P.S.S Don't forget your AR-15 and Home Defense Shotgun.

Black Majik
November 21, 2005, 01:35 AM
Thanks for your post, but if you don't even OWN a Glock, how can you comment on this?

Further, have you even tested your 1911 to see how it will perform when dirty?

Like even firing several hundred rounds through it without cleaning and seeing how it does?

Hi Beethoven.

I currently dont own any Glocks :D

I used to be a Glock owner, but I learned the hard way that a pistol doesn't fit me. But, of all the guns I've owned, that Glock was the most reliable of all my pistols I own. I just couldn't shoot it for beans.

My shooting experience is obviously limited. I haven't tortured tested any of the Glocks I used to own, or the 1911s I now do own, but I do have experience with both. And I still do stand by my opinion that, when reliability and durability matters, the Glock is the weapon. But hey, I got my gripes about that weapon also. I can list so many reasons why I dont like shooting Glocks. But still, in the end, they WORK.

el44vaquero
November 21, 2005, 02:01 AM
I would choose a springfield mil-spec or GI. The guns can be taken down and cleaned with it's own parts, thus getting rid of the need of extra tools. The 1911 is also battle ground proven many times over. I just like the look and feel of the pistol. Good caliber. Easy concepts. Fine weapon all the way around.

duncan
November 21, 2005, 03:02 AM
If SHTF, Glock is carried by so many miltary and LEAs, combined with all of the parts floating around in the US, you gotta be crazy not to grab a Glock in 9mm, 40SW, or 45 ACP.

Darn things are hard to break and with only 34 parts, many plastic, you can fix yourself too.

Love my Kimbers and my Springfields but when these guys come:

http://www.filmfantastic.com/library/films/Shaun/Shaun_19.jpg

My Glock 34 or Glock 21 would be the only "pistol".

RON in PA
November 21, 2005, 03:21 AM
New 1911s are tight while earlier production 1911s were built loose: I say that's bull. If earlier 1911s are loose it's because they are decades old and /or have been rebuilt after firing thousands of rounds.

Steel guns in a fire: What about becoming unsafe due to the original heat treatment becoming screwed-up.

I prefer BHPs and Ruger 95s, but best of all a stainless S&W revolver.

dsk
November 21, 2005, 03:36 AM
New 1911s are tight while earlier production 1911s were built loose: I say that's bull. If earlier 1911s are loose it's because they are decades old and /or have been rebuilt after firing thousands of rounds.


I have owned quite a number of early (1913 through 1970) 1911's that are in nearly-new condition, and yes they are all loose compared to the ones of today. There is some "give" in the barrel lockup, the slides have some play on the frame (but not loosey-goosey either), and the barrel bushings can easily be turned with your fingers. More importantly, the chambers are cut to generous military specifications, not tight like most current pistols. Why do you think Glocks are so reliable? It has much to do with the fact that Glock cuts their chambers on the large side, giving even dirty or mis-shapen rounds room to make it all the way into the chamber. Early 1911's were the same way. In fact, back when I used to reload I didn't know many of my handloads were slightly off-spec until they failed to fit the chamber in a new Kimber I had. They always ran through my sloppy old Colts just fine.

dsk
November 21, 2005, 03:43 AM
By the way, on the subject of SHTF we had a near one up here in the NW today. It seems a 20 year-old kid with, umm, "family problems" walked right into Tacoma Mall shopping center with an AK-47 and hosed the place down, hitting several people as terrified shoppers all ran for the exits. I can only imagine what I would've done if I was there. First I would've tried to evacuate any loved ones out of there, then high-tail it out myself, but had I encountered the friendly local "disaffected youth" I can't imagine wanting any handgun on my person other than my custom Colt 1911. Up against a nut with an AK one or two well-placed shots would probably be all the chance I'd get to take him out.

Zach S
November 21, 2005, 09:00 AM
Both, but I'd pick up my 1911 first.

The glock wold be my loaner pistol.

Borachon
November 21, 2005, 01:02 PM
Fellow's cell phone alledgedly caught fire in his glove compartment. The holster caught and the Glock's ammo exploded. Which blew out the fire!

But...if it DID blow out the fire, then it shows the Glock was already melting...which you can see in some of these pictures...and stopped melting when the ammo blew out the fire. The ammo explosion doesn't seem to have caused the melting on the Glock though.

Now...hypothetically....if the Glock had been unloaded and an unloaded 1911 had been next to it, which do you think would have suffered the most damage? Or do you think each would have suffered equal damage to the point of being unusable? And...finally....does anyone have any pictures of a 1911 that was burned in a fire? I'd like to see a comparison.

http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/alex2.html

Okay...it won't let me post a picture. But the picture is here. http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/alex2.html

rchernandez
November 21, 2005, 01:28 PM
[QUOTE=Borachon]... Glock's ammo exploded. Which blew out the fire!

But...if it DID blow out the fire, ...[END QUOTE=Borachon]


And to think all this time, I'VE been carrying a fire extinguisher!!! :neener:


I shoot Bullseye, my 1911's are Kart barreled wad guns...very precise, however, I'm allowed a refire in the event of an alibi...for all else I have the Glock 19.

Borachon
November 21, 2005, 10:41 PM
Hey. Do what you want. If you are happy with a Glock and feel like this gun will serve you without fail, then you should stick with it. I'm not here to try to convince anybody that they should change. I'm just pointing out what *I* would do, and what my standards for a SHTF pistol would be.

Basically these criteria are:
1. Exceptionally durable: I wanna be able to throw it under a tank, in a fire, in a river, under concrete...whatever and still have it work when it comes out the other side.
2. Accurate: I wanna hit what I aim at. Caliber doesn't matter that much to me. Accuracy is all important. I'm not planning on shopping for ammo when "The Day" comes...so I should have enough. If not...well, that's info not to be shared.
3. Reasonably inexpensive (in case I have to abandon that puppy or loan it or toss it in a river): SHTF means you are relying on yourself or a close knit group of people....alone in other words. Inexpensive means you can afford more than one gun. And it is cost effective...allowing you to spend money on other necessities...like ammo and food.

Neither the Glock nor the 1911 match my personal criteria. After looking at several reports on the Glock, I don't think it's durable enough for my criteria. The 1911?..probably not accurate enough. To get it accurate enough would cost a lot, and MIGHT effect the reliability of loading. And both are too expensive for what you want them to do. My main choice weapon in a SHTF situation is NOT going to be a pistol. A pistol is what I carry when I can't carry something else. Sell your pistols and spend your money on a top of the line rifle.

grumpygrady
November 22, 2005, 05:36 AM
i think i would take my TC contender with the ten barrels i have put away for the end of the world lol

ok then maybe my ruger speed six no
ok my glock 17 no wait that is my wifes maybe she will let me use it

no no wait my shotgun yup my shotgun

by the way i wouldn't shoot a glock or a 1911 that has been in a fire

metal has a way of getting soft and losing it's temper in high heat

did i mention the russian rifle box that i use to put things in that i will need for teotwaini
lol

Borachon
November 22, 2005, 12:16 PM
by the way i wouldn't shoot a glock or a 1911 that has been in a fire

The point I was trying to make was that a Glock would very likely melt and become unusable at temperatures that wouldn't necessarily effect the usability of a metal framed 1911.

I wouldn't use a gun that had been in a fire either. But not because of soft metal. I've owned some "soft steel" guns before from Argentina, and some aluminum framed handguns. I don't think a fire would soften steel to the point that it became less powerful than aluminum.

The reason I wouldn't shoot it is because all the tiny springs inside a handgun would, in all likelihood, be damaged to the point where they would be ready to fail. Reliability again.

one45auto
November 22, 2005, 01:45 PM
I agree that there is problem with SHTF scenario, some of us are talking an hour of shooting, some are talking doomsday. I am taking what I can carry and my choice is rifle ammo and my 1911 to fight a little bit before I take that last one for myself (little John Waynish).

Regardless of what you take, know it. And be real with the engagement, most of us would be cowering in the shadows until it was clear to move. Or at least wait until the crown is not 1000 heineken drinkers, but a little more realistic in survivability.

Good luck with your glock / 1911. Stay alive until tomorrow.


I'm very realistic about SHTF scenarios, believe me. I'm no armchair expert or mall ninja, nor do I have any delusions that I could take on overwhelming odds with the confidence and expertise of a trained SEAL team. Heck, no. My goal in such a situation, should it occur, is simply to survive - period.

Bearing that in mind, my plan is to arm myself with a (proven) reliable weapon which I shoot well and then arrange circumstances so that any potential threats are walking into my kill zone - not the other way around. Once secured I'll hunker down and ride the situation out, formulating another plan if necessary as the situation dictates. Might not be macho, but it works.

foghornl
November 22, 2005, 02:51 PM
I'll be grabbing up my 1911-A1's.

I have shot various Glock models a few times, but I cannot seem to get a 'grip' on them...The Glock is a great weapon; however, it doesn't 'fit' my hands very well.

Same reason that if I pick up a shotgun in a SHTF thingy, I'll be picking up my Maverick 88. 'Fits' me better than the others.

rborensr
November 22, 2005, 06:37 PM
Fellow's cell phone alledgedly caught fire in his glove compartment. The holster caught and the Glock's ammo exploded. Which blew out the fire!

But...if it DID blow out the fire, then it shows the Glock was already melting...which you can see in some of these pictures...and stopped melting when the ammo blew out the fire. The ammo explosion doesn't seem to have caused the melting on the Glock though.

Now...hypothetically....if the Glock had been unloaded and an unloaded 1911 had been next to it, which do you think would have suffered the most damage? Or do you think each would have suffered equal damage to the point of being unusable? And...finally....does anyone have any pictures of a 1911 that was burned in a fire? I'd like to see a comparison.

http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/alex2.html

Okay...it won't let me post a picture. But the picture is here. http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/alex2.html


The whole assumption that melting points really matter is retarded. With either pistol in the glove box, it isn't doing the owner any good. The whole point of having a pistol in a SHTF scenerio is because it is light and compact enough that you have it on you when you need it. If the pistol is on you, then metling points aren't really a concern because if you have it on your hip and your Glock starts melting, you got bigger problems. Please spare me the BS "what if you lock your pistol in the car or put it in the stove or your house burns down or you get the irresistable urge to throw your carry peice on the BBQ grill" scenerios. If the pistol is with you, frame melting temperature isn't likely to matter because it is still going to be higher than your body can tolerate for any amount of time. If the pistol isn't on you, then frame material doesn't matter at all because it isn't going to do you any good. A 1911 in the glove box or locked in a safe is only as good as a pile of goop when you're elsewhere and need to put a hole in something.

f4t9r
November 22, 2005, 06:46 PM
Between the two I would go 1911 It has worked when SHTF in the wars and I personally just do not like Glock (relax Clock fans its my right)
My choice would be Sig

woody
November 22, 2005, 09:18 PM
1911

Old Dog
November 22, 2005, 09:49 PM
You know, I was gonna ignore the remainder of this thread ... but then newcomers come along who apparently can't even be bothered to actually read through all the previous posts ...
rborensr notes: If the pistol is on you, then metling points aren't really a concern because if you have it on your hip and your Glock starts melting, you got bigger problems. Please spare me the BS "what if you lock your pistol in the car or put it in the stove or your house burns down or you get the irresistable urge to throw your carry peice on the BBQ grill" scenerios. If the pistol is with you, frame melting temperature isn't likely to matter because it is still going to be higher than your body can tolerate for any amount of time. If the pistol isn't on you, then frame material doesn't matter at all because it isn't going to do you any good.
Now, try and follow along with me this time: my main point originally (I was the first one to bring up the whole melting deal) was, that in an extreme SHTF scenario, say, an apocolyptic event where NO MORE GUNS would EVER be manufactured (or at least for the foreseeable years to come) and I needed ONE of the two choices -- Glock or a 1911 to keep with me, I'm gonna keep the one that could conceivably be repaired even after exposure to extreme heat or fire. Got it?

I also noted that I have personal experience with firearms that were recovered from fires -- and two 1911s were actually salvaged, whereas three Glocks were not -- because the entire frames were too disfigured. Sheesh ...

jlh26oo
November 23, 2005, 01:45 AM
The whole assumption that melting points really matter is retarded. With either pistol in the glove box, it isn't doing the owner any good. The whole point of having a pistol in a SHTF scenerio is because it is light and compact enough that you have it on you when you need it. If the pistol is on you, then metling points aren't really a concern because if you have it on your hip and your Glock starts melting, you got bigger problems. Please spare me the BS "what if you lock your pistol in the car or put it in the stove or your house burns down or you get the irresistable urge to throw your carry peice on the BBQ grill" scenerios. If the pistol is with you, frame melting temperature isn't likely to matter because it is still going to be higher than your body can tolerate for any amount of time. If the pistol isn't on you, then frame material doesn't matter at all because it isn't going to do you any good. A 1911 in the glove box or locked in a safe is only as good as a pile of goop when you're elsewhere and need to put a hole in something.

Good point. The handgun I would use in such a situation is the one I am carrying. Obviously the least of your worries if IT is melting.

I would also say you have bigger problems if you are pilfering the rubble of your burned down house for guns. If you haven't already removed them from the house, there is probably alot more of your life in there that was toast as well.

torpid
November 23, 2005, 02:45 AM
Well, ya know, TimboKhan, throw your Glock on the grill and I'll throw my 1911 up there next to it ...

Old Dog, I think you might misunderstand the concept of "BBQ gun".

;)

boots
November 23, 2005, 06:09 PM
The whole assumption that melting points really matter is retarded. With either pistol in the glove box, it isn't doing the owner any good. The whole point of having a pistol in a SHTF scenerio is because it is light and compact enough that you have it on you when you need it. If the pistol is on you, then metling points aren't really a concern because if you have it on your hip and your Glock starts melting, you got bigger problems. Please spare me the BS "what if you lock your pistol in the car or put it in the stove or your house burns down or you get the irresistable urge to throw your carry peice on the BBQ grill" scenerios. If the pistol is with you, frame melting temperature isn't likely to matter because it is still going to be higher than your body can tolerate for any amount of time. If the pistol isn't on you, then frame material doesn't matter at all because it isn't going to do you any good. A 1911 in the glove box or locked in a safe is only as good as a pile of goop when you're elsewhere and need to put a hole in something.


a lot of people cannot carry their firearms 24 hours a day. have you considered that? it would be "retarded" not to consider that fact. i live in california, and they do not give out ccw's very often,. if i go to the local supermarket, i usually don't take my gun with me. i can't pack my piece into albertsons, cause if for any reason i was searched, i would be in big trouble. so if a shtf scenario occured while i was away from home, and something involving fire happened to my home, then i would want a gun that would not melt.

farscott
November 23, 2005, 07:45 PM
While I chose the 1911 for myself, I know the Glock is a good, reliable pistol. I have fired enough rounds through several (two G17's, one G22, one G29, one G30, and one G36) to know that for a fact. I also learned, however, that my hands, especially my fingers, are too small to shoot the Glocks accurately. If any Glock better fit my hand, I would be very happy. Glock makes an awesome gun, especially at the price point it occupies.

But they do not fit my hands, and the 1911 does. So I choose the 1911. After all, the shooter has to hit the target when the SHTF.

One last comment: tight 1911 does not mean it will not be reliable even when dirty. Two of my custom 1911's built on modern Colt guns have gotten very dirty and still been reliable. Both have had new barrel bushings fit to them, and require the barrel to be out of battery to turn the bushing without a wrench. I also shot the snot out of them at classes without having failures. A third 1911, an SA, did just fine after being fished out of the stream when I took a spill (thank the heavens for the lanyard). It shot just fine and cleaned up just fine; of course, the parkerized finish looks like a bad stretch of road. But it went bang just fine. Of course, I detailed stripped and cleaned it when I got back home.

That being said I have experienced some less than reliable 1911-variants, especially the shorter-barreled guns and some newer Colts. I have also seen some fail at classes, including a few tied up so badly that they needed to see the range smith to get running again. One huge 1911 reliability issue is that there are a lot of variants, a lot of customizing, and a lot of crappy parts. Glocks seem to suffer less of that, probably because all of the pistols are built by one company. With the wave of Glock customization that seems to be occurring, I expect we will see more complaints about Glock reliability. But the 1911 gets the bad rap, some of it deservedly so.

But this is just my opinion based on my experience. Make your own choice.

45R
November 23, 2005, 08:11 PM
My first choice between a Glock and a 1911, I would take the Glock hands down. Higher capacity, light weight and you only need to punch out 2-3 pins to maintain the Glock.

Besides you can freeeze them. run the over with trucks, drop them out of airplanes and they still work :neener:

TexAg
November 23, 2005, 09:28 PM
So if your house burns down and the 1911 is loaded and that ammo cooks off, what shape is your gun in now? just curious

magyvor
November 23, 2005, 11:18 PM
Well, what exactly SHTF scenario are we talking about? A mob of thugs coming down my street intent on rape murder and pillage? Or the Ruskies have landed and Im off to the hills to do a Red Dawn type thing.

Now, given the choice of either a glock or 1911......which glock and which 1911????

If you think about it, both would work well in different scenarios. If it was a mob scene, I would want the glock. If it was the end of days, the 1911.

Now, what would MY GUN BE?

XD9....and 1911

Borachon
November 23, 2005, 11:31 PM
The whole point of having a pistol in a SHTF scenerio is because it is light and compact enough that you have it on you when you need it.

That's YOUR whole point. My whole point might be the necessity to hide my pistol under adverse conditions until I can make use of it later.

Yeah...Democrat Gun Confiscation....yeah...that's right...I said it!:)


Edit:
Or the Ruskies have landed and Im off to the hills to do a Red Dawn type thing.
I pretty much assume that everything is the Russians invading. Price of bread went up at the store? The Russians. Car won't crank? The Russians. I think you're much safer to assume the country has been invaded by rampaging hordes of Communist troops until proven otherwise. Imagine your chagrin if you DIDN'T see it as a Red Dawn kinda thing...and it was! Imagine your face.
If it turns out to be some punk pulling a cheesy robbery...well then just imagine how much easier that is than fighting a Russian tank. Duck soup. Prepare for the worst (Russian Tank) and you'll do okay in a lesser realistic situation (Russian platoon on sunken Russian submarine that got washed ashore in your neighborhood).;) :scrutiny:

Fatelvis
November 23, 2005, 11:35 PM
Reliability and durability.

Glocks for the most part dont require all that much maintenance. They can be ran dry, and preferred to run dry. 6 drops only if you do oil Theres one thread that just absolutely convinced me, that if I need a gun, one I can abuse, carry in the rain, and not have to worry about it.... its of course the Glock


BlackMajic, I'm a 1911 fan too, but you make a pretty good case for Gocks here.

Safety First
November 24, 2005, 12:14 AM
Have what you know and trust the most, that you can shoot the best and have plenty of ammo.. Many will choose the glock but of the two, the 1911 would be my choice. I have nothing against a Glock that is pertinent to this question, I just like the 1911 better, I like the grip, poa and accuracy with the 1911. It was certainly a question that will garner every answer you could imagine..........

chaim
November 24, 2005, 01:49 AM
Glock or 1911 for SHTF? The answer is "yes".

First, what kind of SHTF are you talking about? The more realistic mob violence and I'm staying home and I can have more than one anyway. The fun to discuss total end of civilization and/or invasion kind of SHTF and my answer is any full-size 9mm, .40S&W or .45ACP that you are most comfortable with.

It needs to be reliable. Any gun you've practiced with to know it is reliable should be fine.

It needs to be durable. Most guns are pretty durable, just know it is durable enough to hold up.

Right now, if this happened either my Charles Daly 1911 or CZ 75B would take that role (likely the CZ as the Daly as a budget brand 1911 is starting to show its age now that it has over 10K rounds).

I think either the 1911 (it was good enough for the US military for over 70 years) or the Glock would be more than good enough.

trigger45
November 24, 2005, 09:22 AM
glock 19

PaladinX13
November 24, 2005, 10:11 AM
Which would you grab as a SHTF sidearm (in addition to a rifle, of course) and why?

GLOCK.

If the SHTF, there are some things I would take into consideration:

1. Reliability - Both are reliable, but I've found my Glocks will reliably feed, fire, and eject a wider diet of ammunition than my 1911s.

2. Resistance - I don't know what kind of environmental situation I'll be in when the SHTF... is it because of a hurricane with pouring rains or a blizzard snowing everyone in? These are more relevant to me than surviving a house/ gunsafe fire where my guns would be likely damaged by cook-offs regardless. I trust the Glock to hold up better in rain, mud, snow, sand, etc. than my 1911s... surely both can but that involves...-

3. Maintenance - I know that I can easily and quickly maintain my Glocks, whereas 1911s need more care and have ejecting parts. If you read a story like Halffast's "Lights Out", while it is fiction, granted, it serves to illustrate the dozens of things one might have to worry about a day if it came to TEOTWAWKI, I want maintenance to be one of the last of those things.

4. Carry - Similarly, I don't want to worry about carry weight or holster condition.

5. Capacity - For me, SHTF is most likely a natural disaster, however if it comes to taking arms against other persons, the role of your side-arm could rapidly shift from simply self-defense stand-in (for a long arm) to offensive weapon (maybe handed to another person while you use your long gun, etc). If the SHTF is being forced into a fire-fight, capacity is your friend. Hi-cap 1911s are the exception, not the rule - before anyone brings them up. The 1911s light and accurate trigger makes it a fast and deadly self-defense gun, but if the SHTF where you want to go on the offense, capacity helps.

6. Manual of Arms - While I'm trained and can draw and operate either 1911 or Glock quickly, what about others? Like a revolver, Glocks are simply point and shoot for anyone I hand my gun over to in a SHTF situation. Heck, simply going to the range I've had to spend a few minutes getting new shooters to understand the grip safety and thumb safety of the 1911.

7. Economics - Being more relevant before the SHTF, but if I were on a budget arming specifically for when the SHTF, the Glock seems far more economical buying 2 police trade-in Glocks for the price of a single similarly reliable 1911 - the latter certainly needing a check-up and the former being much more an "out of the box" experience even on used guns. A duplicate weapon serves to alleviate just about any SHTF concern.

Bottom line: I worry less with the GLOCK.

I worry less about what I'm feeding it. I worry less about what environment I'm subject it, the magazines, and my holster too. I have no doubt that I won't worry in the heat of the moment when the SHTF if I had a 1911 in the same situation, but then I'll worry later when cleaning and maintaining the gun, magazine, and leather. Thus I worry less for cleaning and maintenance on the Glock. I barely think about it on my hip, which is a great thing if I'm thinking about a dozen other things if the SHTF. I worry some that my draw might be ever so slightly slower than my 1911, but worry less about capacity, usage for others, etc.

Any situation where my sidearm is involved is worrisome, so I want to worry less.

Like any thinking individual, I will pick my tools for the task at hand... this is in response to an amorphous and unknown SHTF threat, but I can definitely think of situations where I would prefer the 1911 on my hip, knowing what I was getting into.

dsk
November 24, 2005, 02:18 PM
107+ posts, and what conclusion have we reached? Some like Glocks, and some prefer 1911's. In my opinion, in a SHTF situation all that matters is you're one of the ones who still has a gun, even if it's just a Helwan Brigadier.

boots
November 27, 2005, 03:32 PM
So if your house burns down and the 1911 is loaded and that ammo cooks off, what shape is your gun in now? just curious


a lot better shape than a glock in the same situation.

PaladinX13
November 27, 2005, 04:02 PM
a lot better shape than a glock in the same situation.

That's like saying someone who died of a cold is in better shape than someone who died of a fever... dead is dead. Dangerously unusable is dangerously unusable unless you're in the habit of shooting guns, steel or otherwise, that have had ammunition cook-off inside them.

TexAg
November 27, 2005, 04:43 PM
I'm thinking the same thing, although I haven't seen a lot of pictures of 1911s that have had ammo cook off in them, but I am thinking bulged frame, possibly blown off slide, damaged rails, and who knows what kind of damage to small parts.

boots
November 27, 2005, 05:04 PM
i keep my hd gun loaded, but my stored guns are kept unloaded. unloaded, and locked in a safe.

ammo cookoff: releases hot gases from the cartridge, but does not violently explode.

if it is hot enough to promote ammo cookoff inside your safe, what would be the condition of your plastic framed pistol, also in the safe?

420Stainless
November 27, 2005, 05:18 PM
So if your house burns down and the 1911 is loaded and that ammo cooks off, what shape is your gun in now? just curious

It probably won't be in very good condition. Fortunately, the unloaded one in the safe will still be usable, whereas the unloaded polymer in the safe will most very likely not be. I'm assuming the implied meaning of the original post is that a functional weapon would be worthless without the ammo. Very true, but it may be easier to acquire just the ammo than it would be to acquire both. Someone may not be willing to lend, sell, or trade for, a firearm in a SHTF scenario, but may be willing to part with one box out of a case. The other possible advantages of polymer may very well outweigh the potential for loss in a high heat situation, but I can't understand the attempts at negating one persons first hand experience which pointed out a real instance in which the polymer did not fare as well.

PaladinX13
November 27, 2005, 06:10 PM
So now what y'all are talking about is not only your "SHTF" pistol, but at least two or more safe guns to acompany that pistol. If you put the investment into two or more reliable 1911s into a better safe or redundant guns (stored in various locations), you'd still be arguably better off on every front: from likelihood of all your guns surviving fire to your ability to use, lend, sell, or trade an undamaged arm.

boots
November 27, 2005, 06:42 PM
So now what y'all are talking about is not only your "SHTF" pistol, but at least two or more safe guns to acompany that pistol. If you put the investment into two or more reliable 1911s into a better safe or redundant guns (stored in various locations), you'd still be arguably better off on every front: from likelihood of all your guns surviving fire to your ability to use, lend, sell, or trade an undamaged arm.

Why are you stating the obvious, and changing the subject? if i had 5 guns, and one melted or got destroyed, i wouldn't care, because i had 4 good guns left. valid point you make, but it's one that didn't need to be made.

You don't seem to understand what i am trying to say, or you don't want to. whether it be a "shtf" pistol, or a safe gun, i am saying that a steel framed pistol would survive a high heat situation better than a plastic framed pistol. please realize that i am not discounting the advantages that a plastic framed pistol would provide. i am just stating the advantages of a steel framed pistol over a plastic framed pistol in a specific scenario involving extreme heat.

is it really THAT hard to understand that plastic is easier to melt than steel????? jeez!!!!!!!!!!!!

TexAg
November 27, 2005, 07:01 PM
I can't understand the attempts at negating one persons first hand experience which pointed out a real instance in which the polymer did not fare as well.

I'm not negating anyones first hand expereince, just curious to know what condition a loaded 1911 would be in case of a fire. I know plastic will melt in high heat. I do think the "fire situation" does become quite contrived though and should be pretty far down on the reason list you chose the 1911 for your "shtf" pistol.

"ammo cookoff: releases hot gases from the cartridge, but does not violently explode. " -boots

Is the above true? Because I do recall seeing a picture of a gun with a completely blown up grip frame from the ammo exploding...and it looked fairly violent.

atblis
November 27, 2005, 07:06 PM
and definitely a Glock

They work.

They hold lots and lots of rounds.

TexAg
November 27, 2005, 07:18 PM
OK, now this thread has me searching for pics of blown up and melted guns! :banghead: doh!

Here is a thread on Glocktalk thats interesting about what can happen to ammo and stuff in fires. While ammo may not be real explosive, it almost certainly can be.

http://www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=432936&perpage=25&highlight=ammo+cooking+off&pagenumber=2

Thanks to M2 Carbine on GT for the pic.

boots
November 27, 2005, 07:26 PM
i have actually put cartridges in heat high enough to light the powder, and the cartridge blew out the primer pocket and the gases leaked out area between the crimp and the slug, but the reaction was not violent, just a loud hissing.

loaded firearms experiencing ammo cookoff in a safe seems like a "contrived" situation to me.

PaladinX13
November 27, 2005, 07:35 PM
Why are you stating the obvious, and changing the subject? if i had 5 guns, and one melted or got destroyed, i wouldn't care, because i had 4 good guns left. valid point you make, but it's one that didn't need to be made.

It's a point that needs to be made in light of the original post. The context of the entire discussion is the SHTF.

You don't seem to understand what i am trying to say, or you don't want to. whether it be a "shtf" pistol, or a safe gun, i am saying that a steel framed pistol would survive a high heat situation better than a plastic framed pistol.

Then you have to ask yourself, why make the point in a SHTF thread? The reason people are challenging you is because your SHTF is of a severely limited scope... that of surviving an unchecked and extremely hot house fire while unloaded and immediately needed afterwards. That same gun doesn't help you in home defense unless you've got plenty of warning ahead of time and it's not on your hip if the SHTF goes down out and about.

In other words, heat durability proves to be no advantage at all if you invest the same costs into duplicate pistols (polymer or otherwise), wise safe placement and purchase, or keep your guns loaded.

i am just stating the advantages of a steel framed pistol over a plastic framed pistol in a specific scenario involving extreme heat.

is it really THAT hard to understand that plastic is easier to melt than steel????? jeez!!!!!!!!!!!!

The reason people keep bringing up their BBQ grills is because that's what it would take for most of us to find our guns in that situation. Heat resistance only has meaning in context. The context we're given is the SHTF. Granted that's not very specific, but for that factor to make any kind of difference would require gross negligence (BBQing guns) or a case where you invested more into the 1911s, which is an unequal comparison- similarly invested, other pistols are just as protected.

Again, context.

boots
November 27, 2005, 07:36 PM
that can full of ammo works kind of like a pipe bomb. a sealed can full of accelerant. of course it will blow. a gun is not sealed. if a gun was sealed like that can, it would blow up when you dropped the hammer on a live round. do you notice how intact the STEEL frame looks? i'm basically trying to say that plastic melts easier than steel, and you're posting pics that don't even prove your point. go ahead and carry your glocks, and i'll continue to trust my p220ST.

PaladinX13
November 27, 2005, 07:49 PM
i'll continue to trust my p220ST.

Off your hip. Unloaded. In the middle of your house. With no intention of calling the fire department should your house start burning. And needed immediately after.

The only case where your heat durability proves to be an advantage.

Don't confuse the issue. No one is saying "Don't trust your P220!", we're trying to stop you from saying, "Heat resistance of steel guns compared to plastic is highly relevant to when the SHTF!" If you didn't believe so, I doubt you'd argue so strongly unless your sense of trust is invested in that... which is highly suspect. Objectively it may be true, but in context it's mostly meaningless. To be clear, obviously, plastic melting is important to you- for whatever reason- but it's unimportant to the SHTF.

boots
November 27, 2005, 07:56 PM
the original poster does not make any reference to multiple guns. he asks which gun we would pick up in a shtf scenario. so in the context of the original question, your logic is irrelevant. he is trying to see which one pistol we would pick and why. if we all had access to as many guns as we wanted in a shtf scenario, the original poster's question would not matter, as we would have all the firearms for every conceivable need that arised.

"Then you have to ask yourself, why make the point in a SHTF thread? The reason people are challenging you is because your SHTF is of a severely limited scope... that of surviving an unchecked and extremely hot house fire while unloaded and immediately needed afterwards. That same gun doesn't help you in home defense unless you've got plenty of warning ahead of time and it's not on your hip if the SHTF goes down out and about.

In other words, heat durability proves to be no advantage at all if you invest the same costs into duplicate pistols (polymer or otherwise), wise safe placement and purchase, or keep your guns loaded."

did you read my post? my hd gun is loaded, my safe guns are not. and even if my safe guns were loaded, they would fare better than plastic ones in a fire.

"severely limited scope", you mean like thinking that a shtf scenario would never involve heat or fire???

boots
November 27, 2005, 08:01 PM
Off your hip. Unloaded. In the middle of your house. With no intention of calling the fire department should your house start burning. And needed immediately after.

The only case where your heat durability proves to be an advantage.

Don't confuse the issue. No one is saying "Don't trust your P220!", we're trying to stop you from saying, "Heat resistance of steel guns compared to plastic is highly relevant to when the SHTF!" If you didn't believe so, I doubt you'd argue so strongly unless your sense of trust is invested in that... which is highly suspect. Objectively it may be true, but in context it's mostly meaningless. To be clear, obviously, plastic melting is important to you- for whatever reason- but it's unimportant to the SHTF.


MY HD GUN IS KEPT LOADED, MY SAFE GUNS ARE NOT.

so you are saying i wouldn't call the fire dept, if my house was on fire, but what are the chances they would respond in a SHTF scenario!!!!!!

KurtC
November 27, 2005, 08:08 PM
I would chose a gun that can survive just about anything. That includes fire, water, freezing, dropping and being driven over by a car.

That rules out most of the crap on the market, leaving you with a solid stainless pistol with fixed sights. No bells or whistles. Have any internal carbon parts chromed.

My current emergency gun is a S&W 4586TSW, for the above reasons.

The only cartidges that pose a danger during a fire are those that are in the chamber. The more solid the weapon rest, the more danger.

As stated above, ammution that is stored in tightly sealed steel containers does potentially become a bomb during a fire. The container should be plastic if there is a risk of fire. This is one of the reasons that military ammunition stockpiles are encased in concrete and earthen berms whenever possible.

PaladinX13
November 27, 2005, 08:13 PM
the original poster does not make any reference to multiple guns. he asks which gun we would pick up in a shtf scenario. so in the context of the original question, your logic is irrelevant. he is trying to see which one pistol we would pick and why. if we all had access to as many guns as we wanted in a shtf scenario, the original poster's question would not matter, as we would have all the firearms for every conceivable need that arised.

Think you better reconsider your argument. Yours ONLY works with multiple pistols OR a pistol that isn't with you, which is a useless SHTF pistol. The latter case speaks for itself, the former requires me explaining to you that you're making an unequal comparison- multiple 1911s to singular other guns.

did you read my post? my hd gun is loaded, my safe guns are not. and even if my safe guns were loaded, they would fare better than plastic ones in a fire.

See. Multiple pistols. You're confused yourself or otherwise committed to an unequal comparison (multiple steel guns to singular plastic ones). As to the latter assertion, it's "better" cosmetically at best... neither are safely usable in SHTF making the comparison meaningless.

"severely limited scope", you mean like thinking that a shtf scenario would never involve heat or fire???

Heat without the pistol on your hip. Fire with immediate need for your unloaded guns, ammo to be found... somewhere. Hell yeah, that's a severely limited scope. Meanwhile, taking realistic and reasonable precautions - duplicate guns, quality safes with smart placement, etc. matters far more than foolishly focusing on material durability.

It's like saying a suit of armor will protect your kid from falls better than pads and a helmet rather than teaching him to ride... maybe it's true, but not at all relevant.

PaladinX13
November 27, 2005, 08:19 PM
MY HD GUN IS KEPT LOADED, MY SAFE GUNS ARE NOT.

so you are saying i wouldn't call the fire dept, if my house was on fire, but what are the chances they would respond in a SHTF scenario!!!!!!

Be clear. You're saying not only that, but that your HD gun stays in the house while you're outside. Otherwise you're not talking about heat durability or SHTF at all, your talking about collection protection an entirely different subject.

You point out the OP only says one pistol. That means your house goes on fire, you leave the house, the pistol goes with you. NOT IN THE FIRE. Making heat resistance irrelevant (which, somehow, you don't get).

For your point to be relevant AT ALL the one gun has to stay in the fire. More simply put... completely irrelevant.

boots
November 27, 2005, 11:41 PM
that is the point i want to get across. you claim that heat is not an issue for some people(you). i am not arguing against that. different people will face different situations in a shtf scenario. i am saying that in a situation where heat is involved, steel would be better than plastic. that is all.

different strokes for different folks.

btw, great thread. got me thinkin.

MTMilitiaman
November 28, 2005, 02:12 AM
You know, I was gonna ignore the remainder of this thread ... but then newcomers come along who apparently can't even be bothered to actually read through all the previous posts ...
rborensr notes:

Actually, I wrote that post. It was on my dad's computer when I went home for Thanksgiving break. I may not be a vet or founding member here, but I don't think I actually qualify as a newcomer. And I had read every post before that. The point still stands:
We are talking about a SHTF situation. To me this means a break down in local government, similar to what we saw in New Orleans. In such a situation, it doesn't matter so much if it is legal as whether or not it keeps you alive long enough to see a jury. A pistol not on your hip is worthless. So we can discuss locking them up in safes and glove boxes but it isn't really relevent to the conversation at hand. With special regard to hiding firearms in a stove due to, as has been suggested, mandatory confiscation--I say that in that particular case, it is time to use em, not hide em. Don't bury your guns, dig them up.

Barring the most outlandish situations people can think about, the Glock takes anything you can hand to it. In those rare situations, the user would be in deeper crap than just having his pistol melt so it is similarly irrelevent. Case and point, if the SHTF, are you going to leave your pistol in the glove box when it is hot out? Most would be wise to use the same handgun in a SHTF situation that they train with for personal defense. If the SHTF, say, your house has just been Movaltov cocktailed, are you really going to take your pistol from the bed stand and dump it off in the safe on your way out the door? Didn't think so. Meanwhile, the Glock is more corrosion resistant than most 1911s on the market, due in part to the polymer frame and Tennifer treatment. The polymer frame is also far more neutral so in more realistic temperatures--those actually experienced on a regular basis by users and their pistols--the Glock will be more comfortable to operate. It will not be as cold when the mercury drops nor as hot when pressed against your skin when it gets hot.

O yeah and I also don't buy those who argue trading capacity for weight is a far trade. With training people may be able to minimize the disadvantage of only have 7 or 8 rounds in a magazine, but it will never be as good as having 14 or 15 rounds in the magazine. Never. To say otherwise is only to deceive yourself. Lest we forget, you can also train with a higher capacity pistol and having twice as many rounds in the magazine is a very good thing.

420Stainless
November 28, 2005, 10:23 AM
A pistol not on your hip is worthless. So we can discuss locking them up in safes and glove boxes but it isn't really relevent to the conversation at hand.

It is very good that you are in a position in life that you may carry 24/7. As for me, I am not willing to give up my profession, which does not allow me to carry, just to be prepared for a potential disaster. I am not too keen on leaving a weapon in my truck that is parked in a very urban and crime prone area while at work either. Returning to a burned-out house to salvage what I can before (hopefully) removing my family from the destruction zone is a possible scenario. Blame me for choosing my lifestyle if you feel the need to lash out against someone for pointing out a potential weakness in choosing polymer, but don't blame the steel for surviving in this scenario while the plastic won't.

MTMilitiaman
November 28, 2005, 02:42 PM
I don't carry 24/7, but I would if it was a SHTF situation.

So what you're saying is what? That you have this pistol...I assume you keep it for self-defense as well...but it is kept in...what...a fireproof safe, unloaded so in the remote possibility everything goes to hell when you're at work and you return to find your house burnt down, you might still have a pistol? That is, of course, assuming frame material still crosses your mind when you return home to unlock and load your pistol only to find a couple dozen looters sifting through the rubble. So what happens if you return to find a group effort to pull your gun safe into the back of a truck? Or to force it open? The people are armed but you are not. Do you politely ask for your safe back? Does frame material still matter? So when exactly does that pistol do you any good at all?

boots
November 28, 2005, 05:45 PM
It is very good that you are in a position in life that you may carry 24/7. As for me, I am not willing to give up my profession, which does not allow me to carry, just to be prepared for a potential disaster. I am not too keen on leaving a weapon in my truck that is parked in a very urban and crime prone area while at work either. Returning to a burned-out house to salvage what I can before (hopefully) removing my family from the destruction zone is a possible scenario. Blame me for choosing my lifestyle if you feel the need to lash out against someone for pointing out a potential weakness in choosing polymer, but don't blame the steel for surviving in this scenario while the plastic won't.

some people claim heat is not an issue for them. i say good for them. i happen to agree with you 100%.

will919
November 28, 2005, 05:54 PM
SHTF?.....I would use the one I have on me at that time.:)

Biker
November 28, 2005, 06:04 PM
SHTF?.....I would use the one I have on me at that time.:)
That is indeed the best gun in the world: The gun you have with you when you need a gun.
Biker

MTMilitiaman
November 28, 2005, 06:25 PM
That is indeed the best gun in the world: The gun you have with you when you need a gun.
Biker

O! But what's this? Some people can't carry 24/7! So are people just going to ignore my points because it disagrees with theirs? Or have we finally reached pretty much the same conclussion I stated two pages ago?

The best pistol is the one on your hip when you need it and in such cases, all pistols will be pretty much equally useful assuming profeciency--frame material doesn't matter. Any other pistol is equally useless and frame material is again irrelevent. Thus, regardless of whether or not it is on your hip when you need it, a pistol's frame material, when discussing current polymers verses steel or alloy, is completely irrelevent.

Biker
November 28, 2005, 06:28 PM
O! But what's this? Some people can't carry 24/7! So are people just going to ignore my points because it disagrees with theirs? Or have we finally reached pretty much the same conclussion I stated two pages ago?

The best pistol is the one on your hip when you need it and in such cases, all pistols will be pretty much equally useful assuming profeciency--frame material doesn't matter. Any other pistol is equally useless and frame material is again irrelevent. Thus, regardless of whether or not it is on your hip when you need it, a pistol's frame material, when discussing current polymers verses steel or alloy, is completely irrelevent.
Yeah. Pretty much...
:)
Biker

boots
November 28, 2005, 06:35 PM
O! But what's this? Some people can't carry 24/7! So are people just going to ignore my points because it disagrees with theirs? Or have we finally reached pretty much the same conclussion I stated two pages ago?

The best pistol is the one on your hip when you need it and in such cases, all pistols will be pretty much equally useful assuming profeciency--frame material doesn't matter. Any other pistol is equally useless and frame material is again irrelevent. Thus, regardless of whether or not it is on your hip when you need it, a pistol's frame material, when discussing current polymers verses steel or alloy, is completely irrelevent.

yes, i will ignore your points, because it does not apply to me and my situation. and you can ignore mine, because my points don't apply to you.

i guess we agree to disagree.

Borachon
November 28, 2005, 11:12 PM
I think that people have different ideas about what constitutes S hitting the F.

For many, SHTF means it can only be an ongoing and immediate threat. I don't picture it that way. I picture a SHTF situation as perhaps being fluid. At times, it would be advisable to have your pistol handy. At other times, it might be more advisable to have your weapon hidden...until you can use it later. To me, it seems simplistic to assume that carrying your weapon will always be the advisable thing to do. There might be times when I want to walk into the FEMA food distribution facility and get a bite to eat. If I'm tagged with a weapon, it's a jail sentence. (In more extreme times, it might mean death.) I'd feel better leaving my weapon in a spot that would be secure. A sewer, a pile of manure, in a chimney, or on top of a hot stove. You never know when you might have to ditch your weapon and retrieve it later.

But like I say, it's all in what you believe a SHTF situation will involve.
9 times out of 10, even if you prepare, you'll still get it wrong. That's why SHTF situations happen. No one saw them coming, or didn't believe they would occur.

420Stainless
November 28, 2005, 11:50 PM
I don't carry 24/7, but I would if it was a SHTF situation.


So what do you do, watch the cows to tell you about earthquakes or terrorist attacks in advance so you can go and fetch your weapon and be ready?

I carry when out and about after work and on weekends, and I'm always armed around the house. I do not, unless I choose another profession, have the option to carry at work. If I knew the S was going to hit the fan, I would not go to work that day and I not only would have my 1911, but I'd have another pistol strapped to my ankle, a shotgun in my hand, and very probably an ultra-light .308 slung over my shoulder. And if I had a Glock after the S hit the fan, I would be very happy to have it. I was never arguing against the Glock. I was simply trying to point out that someone posted a legitimate concern that a polymer frame might get seriously damaged by high heat and that he had first hand knowledge of a scenario where steel framed guns survived side by side where the polymers did not. Apparently you don't consider the possibility of an inconvenient fire to be part of your SHTF scenario. I do. It wouldn't stop me from owning a Glock, but it might make me think about having something else for backup just in case.

nickE10mm
November 29, 2005, 12:03 AM
The problem I have with this thread is, what exactly would constitute SHTF? A nuclear war? Breakdown of society? Simply being caught in the middle of a riot? All the above? I can think of many scenarios where a well-tuned 1911 would have the edge if I needed rifle-type accuracy and also needed a platform I could also use .22LR ammo for small game hunting (survivalist scenario). But if caught in the middle of total urban chaos I'd want as high a magazine capacity as I could get, so I'd want a Glock 19/17 with 33-round magazines! But as can be seen, neither a 1911 nor a Glock is really ideal, nor are any other handguns. If you're caught in the middle of a true SHTF scenario and all you have on you is a pistol, you're still in big trouble.

exactly. i love 1911's and Glocks both, but my answer to this thread would depend on the actual scenario.

MTMilitiaman
November 29, 2005, 01:05 AM
420, that is exactly my point. I did consider the possibility of a fire. But all things considered, if my pistol isn't on me and it is in a fire, I have real problems to worry about other than its frame material. Nobody wanted to address what they'd do if they returned to find looters rummaging through the remains of their burnt down house or dragging off their gun safe. If you consider the danger of high heat real then you must also consider situations such as this. The bottom line is that there are very few cases where frame melting temperature is a legitimate concern and these cases are unlikely enough that I feel the simplicity of the Glock combined with its advantages in weight and capacity as well as, in many cases, initial cost and cost of parts and accessories are all advantages that will be far more useful in far more situations. Add to this the corrosin resistance of the Glock, the temperature neutrality of its frame material, and any host of other advantages it has, even theoretically over other designs and I just think that the possibility of the frame melting is just too low to ignore the other very real advantages the Glock has over the 1911 and many other competing designs.

Gimme.50
November 30, 2005, 05:40 PM
If anyone cares...the current count as of now is:

Glock - 28
1911 - 20

That should be pretty close, I tried not to count people twice and if I'd been partial one way, it would have been to the 1911, 'cause that's my vote!! Actually I might cancel myself out, because I might take one of each. Considering the number of people that have input their opinions on this, I'd say it's close to being a toss up...take what you want if the SHTF. If you see somebody in the woods after the SHTF and they're gun is broken, and your gun isn't, then you can say "See, I told you so!":neener: . I'm off to other threads to talk about something else!!

Borachon
November 30, 2005, 06:34 PM
The bottom line is that there are very few cases where frame melting temperature is a legitimate concern

It doesn't necessarily have to be the melting point. The issue could be it's breaking point when the plastic becomes cold, or the breaking point when subject to the owner falling down a flight of stairs, or how soon the parts wear out from constant use.

Steel is a fairly well known substance, and has some reputation for durability. Plastic doesn't have as long a track record in comparison.

Biker
November 30, 2005, 06:51 PM
Seems to me that Glocks have been around long enough to pass the 'cold test', the 'falling down the stairs' test and the wear test.
Biker;)

shooter05
November 30, 2005, 06:56 PM
Glock 21 with 13 rnd mags
Go ahead punk make my day

atblis
November 30, 2005, 11:01 PM
10mm would be nice, but if scrounging for ammo...
9mm or 40 would be easier to find ammo for.
lotsa 17rnd mags and a few 33 rounders in the back pack for special occasions.

Cueball
December 1, 2005, 01:43 AM
Now that there seems to be a break in the arguing, I'll make my reply to the original post.

I wouldn't choose either a glock or a 1911... I would go for my H&K USP 40

brickboy240
December 1, 2005, 12:44 PM
Neither:

Sig 220 45ACP. Reliability, accuracy and stopping power.

Thats my SHTF pistol...no doubt!

- Brickboy240

Too Many Choices!?
December 2, 2005, 04:57 PM
2 X 10 round mags, 2 X 15 round mags, and one up the pipe...This is no contest! Double stack mags, lighter ammo, and the same manual of arms as a revolver,"point and click"! What is not to like?

Plus either the M4 and/or PDW AR-15 pistol would be close depending on where I am:evil: !

dsk
December 2, 2005, 11:57 PM
post #150

1911 rules! :neener:





so there

gudel
December 3, 2005, 02:30 AM
having own both glock and 1911, and when i need to be positively absolutely sure that it will go bang, i'll take the glock.
sure the 1911 looks pretty and all, but it's nothing but a range gun for me. It's a great gun for practicing clearing jams, and knowing your local UPS/Fedex firearm shipping rules :D

dsk
December 3, 2005, 03:27 AM
gudel, look at 1911's like girlfriends. The prettier they are, the more money they'll want from you and the more whining and temper tantrums they'll raise if they don't get it.

jlh26oo
December 3, 2005, 04:35 AM
lol high maintenance

Borachon
December 3, 2005, 10:00 PM
Seems to me that Glocks have been around long enough to pass the 'cold test', the 'falling down the stairs' test and the wear test.

How long have Glocks been in existence as pistols? I honestly don't know. But I believe they didn't make an appearence until around 1988 or so. Correct me if I'm mistaken. That means about an 18 year history.
How many wars have Glocks been used in so far? To my knowledge, I don't think any.
So far, I can't think of any disasters that have happened in recent years that would have involved countries that keep Glocks as a primary weapon. Katrina being an exception, but not a very good exception in my opinion because police departments did have excess to some materials like lubricants, and other cleaning supplies for their firearms, and the duration of the situation wasn't more than a couple of weeks before backup arrived. Although I'd be very interested to here stories that any officers might have about the successes or failures of their Glocks in the aftermath of Katrina. For information purposes.

Most disasters have happened in the Third World, and I don't see many Glocks being carried in news photos that I see from overseas. Until we have a big disaster in the US that involves Glocks being carried through the mud for literaly weeks at the time under the most adverse of conditions (as 1911s have been), I really won't trust them. 1911s have been around almost 100 years. That's a pretty good track record. If I had to choose between a Glock and a 1911, I'd go 1911.

Edit:
And some of the info I've seen isn't very supportive of Glock is a wonder gun.
http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/glock-kb-faq.html

Biker
December 3, 2005, 10:13 PM
There have been numerous 'torture tests' perfomed on Glocks. It wouldn't be hard to dig a few up if you wished to do so. I've performed a few of my own on my Glock 23. I've shot it dry then refused to lube it, 'just to see', I've gone 1000s of rounds without cleaning it with no problems and this is over 16,000 rounds ago with *not one malfunction* of any kind. I sometimes carry my Glock 27 in an ankle holster, and the gun gets very dirty very quickly this way. I've taken the little booger to the range (known as the boonies around here) and shot it straight out of the holster with lint visible in the mag and internals and it fuctioned
perfectly.
My Colt LWC is pretty reliable with most ammo but likes to be cleaned and lubed on a regular basis. While that is not normally a problem, in a SHTF scenario, TLC might be hard to come by.
I want my gun to go bang every time under every imaginable condition and thus far, the only auto-loader that will do that for me is the Glock.
Biker

Borachon
December 4, 2005, 04:06 PM
I've gone 1000s of rounds without cleaning it with no problems and this is over 16,000 rounds ago with *not one malfunction* of any kind.

That's an extraordinary claim. Being the Internet though, I'm afraid that I'd want to see these results duplicated by organizations in whom I place more credibility. Not because I doubt your word, but more because I doubt your possible methods. I'm not sure that you maintained the same level of standards throughout your process. An accidental cleaning two years ago after you fired round 5,335 would screw up the experiment. You might not even remember this cleaning. To me, it seems difficult to believe that someone would deliberately go 15,000 plus rounds without cleaning their gun. Personally, I'd give this experiment after about round 5,000 and just accept the fact that my gun was good. If you were an organization being paid to test a Glock to destruction, then I'd understand why you'd treat your firearm in this manner. Absent this, I can't except your statement as fact...even if it is true. More controlled conditions and the descriptions of the various torture tests would need to be done before I would except them.

As to the numerous torture tests, why not post some links to these experiments so that I can read about them myself? This would go a longer way toward proving to me the value of a Glock than by just telling me about the tests.

outofbattery
December 4, 2005, 04:42 PM
Speaking of temperature extremes, how well does/would polymer hold up in extreme cold?


Norway,Sweden and Finland issue Glocks if that tells you anything.

Borachon
December 4, 2005, 08:35 PM
Norway,Sweden and Finland issue Glocks if that tells you anything.

I do seem to remember a couple of years ago when Finland tried to conquer the rest of the world, and therefore received a great deal of experience with their firearms in adverse conditions.

It doesn't really tell me much actually. First off, I'd want to make sure that they do, or ever did, actually issue them. Again, I'd prefer a link of some kind to an offical site stating that these countries issue these to their troops. Secondly, it's one thing to know they were issued. It's another thing to know how well they performed. I'd want to know how the troops judged the overall performance. And lastly, procurement of firearms can be motivated by all sorts of considerations. Performance and quality aren't always the only factor. Price might have been the only concern. Maybe the Glocks were the only things the Northmen could afford.

And I'm only trying to point out that you bet your life on what you carry. Issues of extremes of heat, cold, or blunt force are merely being used by my as a method to get you thinking. If after thinking about it, you are content with plastic polymer guns and feel these are sufficient...or desirable because of their lighter weight..., then fine.
I'm content too. Because you'll have a plastic gun after the SHTF while I have a gun made from all steel.

jazurell
December 4, 2005, 10:09 PM
Sounds like one should carry a Glock and a 1911, one for BBQing and one for SHTF activity. :rolleyes:
Both are fine, if set up and maintained. Your choice. The reliability of any weapon should be tested before SHTF.

outofbattery
December 5, 2005, 12:35 AM
[QUOTE=Borachon]I do seem to remember a couple of years ago when Finland tried to conquer the rest of the world, and therefore received a great deal of experience with their firearms in adverse conditions.

It doesn't really tell me much actually. First off, I'd want to make sure that they do, or ever did, actually issue them. Again, I'd prefer a link of some kind to an offical site stating that these countries issue these to their troops. Secondly, it's one thing to know they were issued. It's another thing to know how well they performed. I'd want to know how the troops judged the overall performance. And lastly, procurement of firearms can be motivated by all sorts of considerations. Performance and quality aren't always the only factor. Price might have been the only concern. Maybe the Glocks were the only things the Northmen could afford.

QUOTE]


The question was about Glocks and cold.Nordic countries that can afford to equip their militaries with whatever they would like choose to use the Glock.In the case of Norway,the Glock 17 replaced the P35 which in turn replaced the 1911.Sweden and Finland both have arms industries of their own;had they chosen to do so they could have designed and purchased an alternative but felt the Glock was more than good enough.

If you really need a picture,here are 2 Norwegian Glocks in Afghanistan:

http://sapperbase.com/albums/Svarten/aaf.sized.jpg

Borachon
December 5, 2005, 09:05 PM
If you really need a picture,here are 2 Norwegian Glocks in Afghanistan:

I don't see his insignia. Could you point out his flag or other form of ID so I can tell his country of origin?

Also, they issue TWO Glocks to their soldiers? Wow! One on each hip must make them look like they are in those Westerns when the bad guy carried two!

I'd have preferred a link something like the following to prove that Norway issues Glocks to its troops.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Army

Under "hand weapons"

Sweden...likewise.
Finland....can't confirm it.

Lots of countries issue Glocks to their troops, but they aren't the types of countries that routinely fight wars either.

Borachon
December 5, 2005, 09:26 PM
After seeing this, I'll stick with my original "no thanks".

http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/broken-glock17.jpg

http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/g17-breaks.html

S&W620
December 6, 2005, 03:08 AM
I am not trying to offend anyone with this but I feel a few things need to be said on the subject.
1. The whole "SHTF" idea. To me, the whole SHTF idea is absurd. In my opinion, if there is ANY need at all to use a gun than I think any gun in working order should do just fine. If you are refering to an invasion of your house by 50 guys armed with machine guns then it probably won't matter if you grabbed the 1911 or the glock will it?
2. GLOCKS melting? GLOCK claims their guns are resistant up to 158 deg. So I don't see how this can even be a legitimate argument. Oh, I forgot about the whole idea of your gun being caught in a fire at the SAME TIME you need to use it.
I guess I don't have an opinion either way except that the SHTF concept of needing a gun to be reliable in snow, water, sand, mud, heat and cold all at once against a multitude of armed assailants is ridiculous and if the situation ever would occur, you would need a S.W.A.T. team, not a pistol. The most likely scenario is one or two desperate individuals trying to harm you or those you care about. In this situation I think we can all agree that either the GLOCK or the 1911 will do just fine with proper training.
AGAIN, this is just my humble opinion and two cents.

Too Many Choices!?
December 6, 2005, 03:49 AM
100 buck bet says that Glock will still fire:neener: :evil: ...

Borachon
December 6, 2005, 04:04 AM
if the situation ever would occur, you would need a S.W.A.T. team

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the meaning behind SHTF. I'll try to explain. SHTF means that you are largely without the typical societal safety nets to come to your aid. You are largely on your own, or limited to a few trusted friends, family, or possibly church or other organization members that you know.
SHTF doesn't mean a break-in robbery (to me at any rate) where you still have the option of calling the Police and have a reasonable expectation that they will arrive in a timely manner but instead more like a breakdown in government (sudden dictatorship, let's say), or a huge natural disaster (New Madrid finally gives way) or massive disease vector hits the nation (Smallpox, for example), or a sudden Pearl Harbor like invasion (The Swiss have been just WAITING for their chance). SHTF means to me that things have totally and absolutely fallen apart. The old rules are gone.

In a SHTF situation, I'd be reluctant to call SWAT...because they might be low on ammo, and decide that mine needed to be "confiscated" for their use.

100 buck bet says that Glock will still fire ...
Actually it does look like the barrel is still good. Wow...this is a revelation. I was wrong! Glocks Rule! The subjugation of the Overlord Steel has now been usurped by its new master Plastic Polymer! Bow down before your new master ! Worship at his alter! No more rust! Lighter weight for all! And...and.....!!!

Ok, I'm over it. :D

Rob96
December 6, 2005, 05:24 AM
After seeing this, I'll stick with my original "no thanks".

http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/broken-glock17.jpg

http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/g17-breaks.html

That kind of looks like the pictures I have seen of the Springfields that were breaking their slides just before the dust cover.

stevelyn
December 6, 2005, 05:46 AM
Which SHTF Pistol......

Glock without a doubt.

Speaking of temperature extremes, how would/does the polymer hold up in extreme cold?

The Alaska State Troopers, North Slope Borough PD and about 90% of the agencies in Alaska including my own issue Glocks. In my experience with Glocks in sub zero temps of the Interior, the polymer frames do just fine. I haven't heard of any issues with them from any other agency either.

Ares
December 6, 2005, 01:58 PM
In regards to the original question... my 1911... So far it's failed all of 0 times and I don't own a Glock (yet). I do own a Ruger KP89 with a similar failure rate... Zero... but it's not as comfortable to carry or shoot as a 1911.

Glocker
December 6, 2005, 03:19 PM
:evil: GLOCK G18 would be my pick for SHTF gun:evil: ( If I had one:rolleyes: ) my vote for a SHTF gun would be a Glock G21. I have not had much luck with a 1911, my Glocks I have never, never, never, did I say never had the first problem, GOD LOVE GASTON GLOCK, LONG LIVE THE MAN !!!! Hay, I'm on a Glock high right now, wow dude you gotta love it.:neener:

Too Many Choices!?
December 6, 2005, 03:19 PM
1. It is in .45 apc...
2. It has a flawless single stage trigger if done correctly...

Detractions from the End All Be All of Handguns the 1911

1. The the trigger-Too light for a combat weapon,IMHO, great for the range though
2. It is in .45 APC-meaning it carries less ammo, unless you get a double stack 1911, which takes away from the slim profile...

MarshallDodge
December 6, 2005, 07:34 PM
This argument could go on all day....kinda like Democrats and Republicans:D
I personally feel the Glock and the 1911 are an excellent design. As stated already, the Glock has an advantage in the weight department and the 1911 in the trigger. I like good triggers;)

I carry either a Kahr E9(very Glock like) or Kimber Custom Target. I don't like the feel of a polymer framed gun when I fire it. In my hands the polymer feels like it is flexing and I can't get used to the feeling so I don't own any polymer guns-good or bad.

As far as reliability I have personally seen issues from both guns. The original mil-spec 1911 with its lose tolerances is very reliable in a nasty environment just like a Glock. In a recent 3-gun match I shot my Kimber Gold Match(very tight gun) and it functioned flawlessly. Everybody else had Glocks except one and there were two malfunctions from the Glocks that really surprised me.

The last thing I like about the 1911 is the grip size. It fits my hand very well and my wife's. She has shot Beretta's, Glock's, S&W, and besides her Colt Detective Special really likes the 1911.
THAT'S WHAT COUNTS!
Make sure you are very comfortable and accurate with your chosen pistol. My first pistol was a "gotta have it" Taurus PT99. Very reliable but I was not very accurate with it. Traded it in for a Colt Gold Cup and have been a 1911 fan ever since.

dsk
December 7, 2005, 12:51 AM
1. It is in .45 apc...
2. It has a flawless single stage trigger if done correctly...

Detractions from the End All Be All of Handguns the 1911

1. The the trigger-Too light for a combat weapon,IMHO, great for the range though
2. It is in .45 APC-meaning it carries less ammo, unless you get a double stack 1911, which takes away from the slim profile...

Ummm... it's .45ACP :neener:

By the way, neither the Glock nor the 1911 are the "end all be all" of handguns. That would be a rifle, subgun or shotgun (take your pick). I stated very early in this thread that simply being one of the few still packing would make you leagues above everybody else, but it seems people still want to argue about what temperature their handguns will melt.

Too Many Choices!?
December 7, 2005, 01:15 AM
Ummm... it's .45ACP
By the way, neither the Glock nor the 1911 are the "end all be all" of handguns. That would be a rifle, subgun or shotgun (take your pick).:neener:

Thanx for the proof read, but my points stand.


Ummm, not to be a smart ass or nothing :evil: BUT(you knew it was coming), since when is a rifle, subgun, or shotgun, the end all be all of ,"HANDGUNS"!?:neener: None of my handguns seem to," shoulder",as well as any rifle, shotgun, or subgun:rolleyes:...

Borachon
December 7, 2005, 02:42 AM
The Alaska State Troopers, North Slope Borough PD and about 90% of the agencies in Alaska including my own issue Glocks. In my experience with Glocks in sub zero temps of the Interior, the polymer frames do just fine. I haven't heard of any issues with them from any other agency either.

Sure. Sure. Glad to know that. And I encourage you to continue using and trusting your Glock. I'm sure it will never fail.

Like this one did.
http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/broken-glock17.jpg

I'm actually moving away from the idea of trying to convince people to change out their Glocks. Given that I feel they won't last when put under SEVERE conditions of stress the same way steel would, it makes sense for me to encourage you to go with what I consider to be an inferior gun. In a SHTF situation, I'll have a working firearm and you won't....sounds like a good situation to me.

Too Many Choices!?
December 7, 2005, 11:35 AM
Now you are just whining because everybody doesn't want to drink the ,"1911-ade":rolleyes:. In case you didn't know it, the 1911 even as the ,"end all be all firearm", it was constructed by a MAN(or atleast a man-made machine), and therefore subject to laws of nature, and physics, and prone to all man made defects which can, will, and have caused corrosion, explosion,or invasion(by Gremlins)!!!! EVEN THE END ALL BE ALL 1911, has suffered a catastrophic failure at some point in it's history ,don't you suppose?:neener:...

So good, I am glad you have decided to let me carry my inferior Glock, and be happy with it. If I ever have to put my gun into a fire, retrieve it, and then shoot it, I will gladly say you are right,or switch to my BUG, whichever comes first:neener:.

RyanM
December 7, 2005, 11:57 AM
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=5&f=4&t=13658
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=81964

Now can we end this "which is reliable" pissing contest? Both are capable of excellent reliability in adverse conditions as long as you use decent parts, don't add too many stupid doohickeys, and don't try to get a 2 pound trigger.

Borachon
December 7, 2005, 02:34 PM
Now you are just whining because everybody doesn't want to drink the ,"1911-ade".

Nope. Sorry. Doesn't work in my case. I don't own a 1911. Did at one point, but got rid of it due to reliability issues.

What you see ME advocating is steel versus plastic.

But thanks for playing.


Again, I'll repeat this. My OPINION is that I want a firearm that is composed of a durable material when I'm in a SHTF situation. I THINK, and I believe most independent observers WITHOUT a justification to defend their favorite plastic firearm will agree, that STEEL is more durable than PLASTIC. If they made a gun that was fashioned out of a diamond, I'd be advocating THAT as a good weapon.

If you are comfortable with your Glock...fine. Just remember...it's only your LIFE you're betting on when it comes to gun durability.

And frankly, I'm willing to bet YOUR life on it. :D
So carry on...you're doing fine as far as I'm concerned.

thorazine
December 7, 2005, 02:34 PM
Which SHTF Pistol: Glock or 1911?

Glock for me! woohoo!

Especially considering that:

1) I do not presently own a 1911.
2) I will never buy one again.

Borachon
December 7, 2005, 02:47 PM
Now can we end this "which is reliable" pissing contest?

Which is more reliable?:D


Couldn't resist.

Borachon
December 7, 2005, 03:18 PM
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=5&f=4&t=13658

That's a pretty cool link. What a maniac to treat his gun like that.

I can still criticize some aspects of his methods though. Nowhere in the whole process do you see him simulate what it looks like to put a direct, localized, and heavy impact on it. In other words, he didn't throw my 400 lbs cousin on top of it. Or have my cousin step on it while it was wedged between two boards. Those things happen more often in real life. Someone drops their gun in the dark, goes to look for it, and steps on it. The driving over it with a truck on concrete looks impressive, but that really isn't all that big of a deal. Tires will give and move and the area of pressure is distributed over a wide surface. No doubt you've seen videos where people lay down and have trucks run over them? It's an old trick stunt people do.

Throwing a lightweigh piece of plastic out of an airplane onto soft ground? C'mon. You can get the same effect by climbing a tall building. He didn't need the airplane. Now if it had hit concrete, I'd be a lot more complimentary of it. Cause it would have been at terminal velocity when hitting a hard surface. The only concrete experiment I saw him do was to drop it from about 15 feet to test if it could be forced to fire. That's not enough to reach terminal velocity.

What I'd like to see is how the gun stands up to having some 250 lbs guy stumble on it and have it wedged at an odd angle...as can happen when you drop it. Or hit it with a sledge hammer a couple of times.

Maybe he should get a 1911 and start shooting both the Glock and the 1911 with increasingly larger calibers until he sees which one breaks first. :D

Too Many Choices!?
December 7, 2005, 05:15 PM
From the tone of your post, you still don't trust the Glock, that is fine, stop arguing against it though, becasue you wouldn't do half that stuff with your vaunted 1911:evil:. Or need to in a SHTF situation...

I also like how you excuse all the real abuse the Glock took while still banging alon and look for tests he didn't do:rolleyes: ...

PS- Pssst, one more thing. Dont' tell anybody but some polymers/compostie materials have been prove STRONGER than STEEL in test but, Thankyou for playing:neener:

Borachon
December 7, 2005, 10:27 PM
From the tone of your post, you still don't trust the Glock

ME!? NOOOOO! What EVER gave you that idea? :rolleyes:

stuff with your vaunted 1911

Don't own a 1911. Sold the 5 I owned couple of years ago.

ike how you excuse all the real abuse the Glock took while still banging alon and look for tests he didn't do

Oh I'll give him credit for abusing his firearm. He did do that. And he showed that salt and fine powders don't have a horrible effect on Glocks. Probably make very good ocean guns. Salt content and fine sand being prevelent in those places.

I was less impressed with his drop tests, drive over tests and his drag tests though. Some of those would have benefitted from carrying them to a higher level. But if he'd done that, there would have been Glock parts laying all over the ground. But to be fair, a 1911 probably wouldn't have survived hitting concrete after being dropped from a plane either.

Dont' tell anybody but some polymers/compostie materials have been prove STRONGER than STEEL in test

Stronger? Perhaps.
Does Glock claim that their polymer is stronger than steel? I'm curious if they claim that. Also, steel has other properties than it's strength. Steel has a range of environments in which it can still be strong. Place steel in the vacuum and it doesn't fly apart. I don't know if plastic responds the same way. Steel has, as was already mentioned, a higher melting point than polymer. And people can argue all day long about how their gun will be with them and wouldn't be close to a fire blah blah blah...but they can't know that. Lots of SHTF situation involve things on fire. Earthquakes, riots, forest fires. Let's put the glock and the 1911 in the oven (unloaded of course) and turn it up to 500. Let's see which one lasts longer. I know..the handgrips would catch fire. Oh well, guess I'll have to duck tape the 1911 frame.
Wouldn't be the first time:evil:

Thankyou for playing
Next time...bring chips.

huntershooter
December 7, 2005, 10:37 PM
RE. SHTF pistol: How many of you Glockafiles could rebuild your pistols? My experience has been that MANY 1911 shooters can trouble shoot/repair their pistols. Is it the same with the Glock fraternity?

Biker
December 7, 2005, 10:40 PM
RE. SHTF pistol: How many of you Glockafiles could rebuild your pistols? My experience has been that MANY 1911 shooters can trouble shoot/repair their pistols. Is it the same with the Glock fraternity?
Yeah. Pretty much. It's downright simple. For the most part, it requires just one tool.
Biker

Biker
December 7, 2005, 10:45 PM
You've persuaded me. I'm selling all of my Glocks because someday I may be at ground zero of a nuclear blast while packin' my Glock 27 or I might screw the pooch and accidentally mix my Glock 23 into my meatloaf and cook it at 380 degrees for four hours.
Biker

Too Many Choices!?
December 7, 2005, 11:59 PM
I have also seen the light:rolleyes:. I would love to see you put your metal framed gun in the oven and leave it with the mag in, and see if you DON'T get a,"Catastrophic Failure", when the ammo go's.Sorry but I don't unload my defensive handguns unless I am cleaning them, so my gun WILL go,"kaboom", if in a 500 degree fire, so would a loaded 1911:neener:. You did not just say that metal framed guns will survive in a ,"vacuum", better than a Glock, did you !? Tell me this was an error on your part and not evidence to back up your premise? 'Cause I got news for you, lack of oxygen tends to hamper your ability to shoot, and I don't envision going into space with my Glock, and fighting ,"ET". I also hear that lack of oxygen, has some kinda effect on ballistics:confused:. So if I want to fight ,"ET", in a "vacuum", while on fire at 500 degrees, I will grab a metal framed gun, that I could not touch(1911), or I will get off the drugs and get back down to Earth...Thanx for the laughs....:neener:

RyanM
December 8, 2005, 12:21 AM
RE. SHTF pistol: How many of you Glockafiles could rebuild your pistols? My experience has been that MANY 1911 shooters can trouble shoot/repair their pistols. Is it the same with the Glock fraternity?

You'd have to be one of those amazingly mechanically inept people, who just can't figure out for the life of them why that darn round peg won't fit through the square hole, to not be able to replace every single internal part in a Glock, given about 30 minutes of instruction.

http://glockmeister.com/slidedis.shtml
http://glockmeister.com/trigger.shtml

And as a bonus, the parts tend to be quite inexpensive, especially compared to 1911 parts. And there's absolutely no time wasted trying to decide what brand of parts to get. For a carry gun, it's Glock OEM or bust.

jlh26oo
December 8, 2005, 02:53 AM
smaller
lighter
higher capacity
tougher finish
doesn't rust
most reliable
no safeties/decockers
no exposed hammers
simpler to operate
simpler to field strip
simpler to detail strip
simpler to maintain
higher round count between scheduled parts replacements

Borachon
December 8, 2005, 03:52 AM
I'm selling all of my Glocks because someday I may be at ground zero of a nuclear blast while packin' my Glock 27

Nah...keep 'em. If you aren't smart enough to be livin' in a bunker and armed to the teeth like I am, then nothin' can save you now. :D

Although, all joking aside...what have I said so far that was actually illogical?


cook it at 380 degrees for four hours.
Let's assume for a minute that the rioters hit your car. You were at work and you weren't able to get out when the ballon went up. You had the Glock in the glove compartment of your car (not unusually to store one there). Your car catches fire. It burns for a brief peroid but is stopped when the local fire department comes. Rioters are still burning and looting in your town. The temperture in your car got very high. Now the question becomes...is my gun still usable?

That's just one semi-realistic scenario I can imagine that involves fire, your Glock, and you.

Borachon
December 8, 2005, 03:56 AM
lack of oxygen tends to hamper your ability to shoot, and I don't envision going into space with my Glock,

Actually, there seems to be some evidence that the gunpowder in your ammunition has oxidizers inside of it. I've never tested it, but if this is true, then firing a gun in a vacuum shouldn't be a problem.

And some nearby explosions have been known to suck all the air out of a structure. And finally, the best way to store a gun long term is to place it inside an airless environment. Smart fellow like you and you didn't know that? ;)


I would love to see you put your metal framed gun in the oven and leave it with the mag in, and see if you DON'T get a,"Catastrophic Failure"
Which is why....one reason why....it isn't always the best idea to have your gun loaded. But then again...I'm thinking about this from MY perspective. I've got handguns to spare. I got enough handguns to arm half my church, and all of Kansas. I didn't invest ALL my money into a $400 Glock or a $400 1911. I spent mine on more inexpensive firearms that were looked down on by others. So I can AFFORD to have one gun loaded, and another one packed away in a vacuum sealed, fire resistant area. Ready to be taken out and loaded when I need it.

Not to mention there are acutally states were you can't have the firearm and the ammunition together in the same place at the same time in your car. In a fire, your gun might survive in that case.

Borachon
December 8, 2005, 04:18 AM
smaller
lighter
higher capacity
tougher finish
doesn't rust
most reliable
no safeties/decockers etc.

Those are all excellent reasons. And you presented them in a cogent fashion. Nice to see a logical argument for a change and not just blind devotion.

Is there anything about them you would change?

jlh26oo
December 8, 2005, 05:29 AM
Yeah, the spring door squeaking sound the slide makes.

Biker
December 8, 2005, 11:52 AM
Nah...keep 'em. If you aren't smart enough to be livin' in a bunker and armed to the teeth like I am, then nothin' can save you now. :D

Although, all joking aside...what have I said so far that was actually illogical?



Let's assume for a minute that the rioters hit your car. You were at work and you weren't able to get out when the ballon went up. You had the Glock in the glove compartment of your car (not unusually to store one there). Your car catches fire. It burns for a brief peroid but is stopped when the local fire department comes. Rioters are still burning and looting in your town. The temperture in your car got very high. Now the question becomes...is my gun still usable?

That's just when semi-realistic scenario I can imagine that involves fire, your Glock, and you.

I would venture to guess that any gun with rounds in it (chamber or mag) would be damaged due to cook-off as a result of the fire.
Biker

MrPink
December 8, 2005, 12:17 PM
I'd grab the 1911 for the simple fact that I don't own a Glock but have numerous 1911s.

The tough choice for me would be 1911 vs. SIG vs. S&W revolver vs. HK P7.

Borachon
December 8, 2005, 12:23 PM
I would venture to guess that any gun with rounds in it (chamber or mag) would be damaged due to cook-off as a result of the fire.

That's why I said the thing about keeping ammo in one place and your gun in another. If you've only invested in one or two guns and keep both of them loaded 24-7 then it's gonna suck if they are close to a fire. You'll be unarmed.

I had a gun in my car once when it caught fire, but the Fire Dept got there before it got too bad so my gun wasn't subjected to a great deal of heat. That's my primary reason for bringing fire into this discussion. 'Cause I know it can happen.

Ares
December 8, 2005, 12:30 PM
I would venture to guess that any gun with rounds in it (chamber or mag) would be damaged due to cook-off as a result of the fire.
Biker

Then there's the issue of what happened to the heat treatment of the steel parts (glock or 1911 or otherwise) which may leave any weapon weakened and dangerous after a fire.

Comparing Glocks to 1911's is somewhat like comparing 9mm to 45 ACP both sides have staunch defenders with strong opinions who will gladly argue the point until the end of time. Personally I'd take either. I happen to own a 1911 and not a Glock (yet) but in a SHTF scenario I would take the first thing I got my hands on and it may end up that it would happen to be neither a Glock or a 1911... Ideally it would be a rifle...

Borachon
December 8, 2005, 12:34 PM
Ideally it would be a rifle...

Exactly. A rifle is almost always a better weapon.

That being said....SHTF oftentimes won't give you the option of choosing. It makes you "make do" with what's closest.

Too Many Choices!?
December 8, 2005, 01:17 PM
smaller
lighter
higher capacity
tougher finish
doesn't rust
most reliable
no safeties/decockers
no exposed hammers
simpler to operate
simpler to field strip
simpler to detail strip
simpler to maintain
higher round count between scheduled parts replacements

These are the same reasons most people chose the Glock, but this is not what you wanted to know. Or you would have asked me, instead of simply calling my gun crap 'cause in YNSHO, a Glock won't do well in a vacuum, a Glock might burn in a fire(we know mine will), and a Glock is inferior to all metal guns...This is clearly not the case, which is why so many GLOCK responses.
You started arguing all metal guns are great and that all Glocks are crap by design defect, composite materials. That dog don't hunt:neener:, plain and simple.

Glock out of the box, it is what it is, a combat gun, with no frills. You miight add night sights, and a 3.5# connector, that is it. Mine is stock as I shoot it just fine to Minute of Man, out to past 35 yards easily...How many completely stock 1911's out there? Besides not needing to be tricked out to be effective the Glock is cheaper to buy new than a good name brand 1911...

longeyes
December 8, 2005, 02:03 PM
I was going to vote Glock until I had a stovepipe jam with my G19 at the range yesterday.:D

Borachon
December 8, 2005, 03:01 PM
instead of simply calling my gun crap 'cause

When did I say your gun was crap? Show me where I said that.

What I said was that I have different concerns about what I expect of a gun. All the reasons listed by jlh26oo were good reasons. Doesn't mean I agree that a Glock is for me. I still think its a gun I don't want.

a Glock is inferior to all metal guns...This is clearly not the case, which is why so many GLOCK responses.
You have a different idea about INFERIOR than I do. That's all. To me, a gun that can be melted is inferior. My opinion on that doesn't change the fact that Glocks may be high accurate, reasonably durable, and provide stellar service for their users. But it does mean....that under certain conditions...they WILL melt.:D
As to it being CLEARLY not the case, I again believe that is a matter of perspective, and speaks to the issue of what you consider a SHTF situation to be. If your SHTF situation is something simple like "there's a raccoon in freezer, I better go shoot him" then a lot of issues about durability and long lasting don't enter into it.
If your SHTF situation is "Society has fallen...the Russians have invaded....the Glock plant is burning and there will never be any replacement parts again" then questions about durablility and long lastingness could be important.

Besides not needing to be tricked out to be effective the Glock is cheaper to buy new than a good name brand 1911...
An SKS carbine is cheaper than all of them. You could buy 4 SKS carbines for what one Glock would cost. Some ammo. Lots of accessories. Quart of milk. One of those little Pez dispenser things. Some gum. Maybe a......well, anyway. A lot of stuff.

But neither the 1911 or the Glock is ever going to rise to what you described the Glock as:
a combat gun, with no frills.

Don't ever take a pistol into combat. Just trust me on this one.

Borachon
December 8, 2005, 03:11 PM
I was going to vote Glock until I had a stovepipe jam with my G19 at the range yesterday.

One stovepipe jam, eh?
How can a company continue to foist this poorly designed death trap of a firearm onto an unsuspecting public?

Well it seems clear to me now that ALL Glocks ever made til now, or which will ever be made in the future are clearly CRAP.


(Now those of you who've said I've called a Glock crap have some justification.):D

Edit:
There are some really good reasons for having a Glock. As has already been mentioned. Cost, light weight, ammo capacity. And I'm not trying to down anybody's gun. I'm just trying to make people think about some things that can happen to them in an emergency that they may not have thought of before. Some of these things I've experienced, and some of them I've heard about happening to other people.

PaladinX13
December 8, 2005, 04:13 PM
And I'm not trying to down anybody's gun.

Whoa, huge back pedalling there on par with Slick Willie or Flip-Flop Kerry. You out and out said you considered Glock's inferior and that it was your task to talk people out of 'em. Don't try and pretend to be reasonable now, you've already outed yourself as on a crusade.

I think most of us stopped taking you seriously with the BBQ gun stuff, but your earlier post was the nail in the coffin:
I'm actually moving away from the idea of trying to convince people to change out their Glocks. Given that I feel they won't last when put under SEVERE conditions of stress the same way steel would, it makes sense for me to encourage you to go with what I consider to be an inferior gun. In a SHTF situation, I'll have a working firearm and you won't....sounds like a good situation to me. Post 174 (http://thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=2080009&postcount=174)

I suspect most of the folks still engaging you are humoring you to allow you enough rope to hang yourself.

I'm just trying to make people think about some things that can happen to them in an emergency that they may not have thought of before. Some of these things I've experienced, and some of them I've heard about happening to other people.

Meanwhile you seem to refuse to acknowledge that the cases are largely unlikely to unplausible (I'm not sure how often a pistol on my hip is going to be striking concrete at terminal velocity, you?) and narrowly viewed. You talk of cases where your secondary arm survives frost and flame... what about the immediate need for an arm insulated from extreme temps? For every contrived case of a secondary safe gun surviving hot or cold, I can come up with an equally contrived case where a gun is needed immediately and a plastic frame dramatically out-performs and dangerously cold/hot frame against human flesh.

There are highly specialized cases both ways to highlight their benefits, but only a crusader would use such contrivances as the basis of superiority or inferiority.

Borachon
December 8, 2005, 11:18 PM
You out and out said you considered Glock's inferior

Any gun with a plastic frame will be inferior....to me. Now take my opinion...and a quarter....and go to the coffee shop and see which one buys you more coffee.
:D

you've already outed yourself as on a crusade.
True. My crusade is to make people think about their firearm. And what some potential disasters they could face. Now as you and I both know...the only true disaster any of us will face is next weeks invasion from Zeta Reticuli aliens. But I couldn't very well tell the rest of the board about that so I mentioned that highly unlikely "fire thing".:D

I think most of us stopped taking you seriously with the BBQ gun stuff, but your earlier post was the nail in the coffin:
If you change your judgment about your own personal self defense based on ME...a faceless stranger who you have NO idea about in terms of qualifications...then you would DESERVE to die. Judge your own personal self defense yourSELF. SELFdefense....YourSELF....see how I did a little play on words there? I'm not going to convince anyone to change their gun. (At least I doubt I will.) But there may be a few people who went out and bought firesafes...or vacuum seal their firearm for storage...or started asking Glock Corp about the Stress Rating on their polymer frames...or a dozen other things that might help them keep their firearm for when they need it.

You don't actually BELIEVE that people are going to change the gun they own based on this, do you? They aren't. I'm not even going to say that they are wrong to keep their gun. I'd probably lose some respect for them if they did.

If light weight is the most important thing...then it is the most important thing....TO YOU! So what you can then point out to me is that Glocks make great shipwreck guns....cause they don't corrode, they won't weigh you down while your trying to swim to shore, and you have bullets to spare when shooting coconuts for the meat. You can point this out to counter any points I might make about the overly heavy and clunky 8 round 1911. Tell me how carrying this heavy joker would end up in me being drowned. See how this can work? And you know what...I might never have thought of that before. You might have given me something new to think about. Maybe save my life when I wreck in Madagascar. In a flood...for all I know....maybe your Glock will FLOAT. Do you know if it can float or not? I don't. Truth to tell, I'd appriciate you telling me that info if you know. Cause I can see where that might save my life some day.

Normally I deal with most things with humor. But I'm going to be totally serious for a minute. I just saw this year the effects of what a really bad storm can do to a whole region. I've got friends and some family who are still dealing with it. Thankfully getting better. Gunowners....or hell just people in general....have preconceived ideas about what they think will threaten them. Invasion, US dictatorship, Killer virus, Economic failure, hurricane.....pick any of these or make up a new one. No matter what you think....it won't be like you think. I've spoken with friends recently who constantly remind me of this. They didn't expect their whole house to be washed away. That means no guns. Zip. Nada. They didn't expect to be without water. Or food. Or clothes. They didn't expect the people around them to start acting out of desparation. They didn't expect THEMSELVES to start acting out of desparation. Luckily, none of my friends experienced anything TOO violent (some shots in dark...things like that). But they had their gasoline stolen from out of their lawn in the night. They had to go loot food and water from a local convience store. They were without electricity for a month. They'd thought about disasters before, and even thought they were somewhat prepared. It...wasn't...like...they...planned.

Does that mean they shouldn't have planned at all? I'm not ready to go that far and say that.

I happen to think that firearms can be beneficial tools. I know for a fact they would have provided a couple of my friends with peace of mind, if nothing else, after Katrina passed. Luckily, many of the people I knew were able to go to friends who were less effected. But suppose that hadn't been the case? Suppose the disaster had been so bad that they were totally on their own?

IF...and it's a huge IF....IF I can introduce a new idea that someone NEVER considered before, or point it out to them from a new direction, then they MIGHT take action on it and it MIGHT help them sometime in the future.

But what the conversatin usually devolves into is "Hey! You said something bad about my firearm. You questioned it. You're an idiot for questioning a firearm that *I* own" blah blah blah.

In a SHTF situation, I'll have a working firearm and you won't....sounds like a good situation to me.
Yeah I was PO'd when I wrote that. Ever written something and then regretted it later? I suppose I shouldn't be backstepping on anything I've written though. Some sharks on this forum will sense weakness from me and swoop in for the kill. Contrition being a sign of weakness to many of them.

Meanwhile you seem to refuse to acknowledge that the cases are largely unlikely to unplausible
Having your gun be close to...or even inside of....a fire is hardly unlikely. Fire is one of the most common destructive events that occur in the US. Now then...what MIGHT be unlikely is to assume that fire would occur in concert with some other event.

Fire and economic collapse? Maybe but not necessarily so.
Fire in concert with....a hurricane? No probably not so much. I know they can happen but probably not.
But let's try...Fire in concert with an earthquake? (by the way, I never did find out if Glocks can withstand having houses fall on them...course I never asked) Yeah, fires and earthquakes can go hand in hand.
Fire in concert with riots? yeah. those happen together.
Fires in concert with chemical plant leaks? Yes.
Fires and drought?
Fires and Russian invasions? I've been told they can correlate. :D

I can come up with an equally contrived case where a gun is needed immediately and a plastic frame dramatically out-performs and dangerously cold/hot frame against human flesh.
Yeah, and not to be critical of you, but I kinda think you are remiss for not doing so. Tell me how I'm wrong. Point out the times when Glocks are better. That's a lot better than appealing to my "reasonableness" and to all this supposed knowledge that tells me plastic is better than steel. Hit me with some facts. Question me. But don't just say, "You're wrong." Or "You're a Glock hater". Back up what you got to say. If it doesn't help ME...it might help someone ELSE. It's too late for me. I had a conversation with someone resently that went something like this.

Friend: Search your feelings, Borachon. You can’t do this. I feel the conflict within you; let go of your hate for Glocks!
Myself: It is too late for me. John Browning will show you the true nature of Shooting. He is my master now.
Friend: Then you are truly dead.
:evil:

And by the way...has anybody bothered to find out the melting point of Glock frames?

Really though. This is not about whose gun is better. It's about having guns to use when people need them.

PaladinX13
December 8, 2005, 11:36 PM
Any gun with a plastic frame will be inferior....to me. Now take my opinion...and a quarter....and go to the coffee shop and see which one buys you more coffee.
:D

'bout the only sane thing I heard yet and sufficient reason for me not to bother reading that monster block-o-text not worth even two cents by your own figuring.

You're hung up on how a safe gun survives fire, absent ammo, for the SHTF... congrats, you have a heat-weakened, dangerous to shoot, cosmetically better off gun with no ammo to shoot. Any where and any how you're going to store ammo to last through a fire, a Glock will reside just as well.

Meanwhile, a contrived (say, rescue mission going in and outdoors repeatedly during a blizzard) wet polymer gun brought into blistering sub-zero temps will perform better in the human hand than the steel one fusing to flesh and deadening nerves. A polymer gun briefly stowed away in an oven, fire, or pile of ash when the zombies come will be more quickly brought to the ready than a searing hot steel grip in the same situation. As ridiculously contrived as your foolish scenarios. If only for comfort, Glocks get carried in cold conditions and comfort translates to SHTF accuracy a helluva lot more than a safe gun fire. I mention them because, apparently, you lack the imagination to come up with contrived situations for anything but your beloved steel, not because I seriously consider them a measure by which to consider any gun inferior.

PaladinX13
December 8, 2005, 11:40 PM
And by the way...has anybody bothered to find out the melting point of Glock frames?

Again, why you're not taken seriously... such a strong standpoint based entirely on Glock temperature performance, yet completely ignorant of the facts save your "feeling" that they're not going to do well in a highly contrived circumstance.

Borachon
December 8, 2005, 11:41 PM
Any where and any how you're going to store ammo to last through a fire, a Glock will reside just as well.

I don't know. Will a Glock float? If so...then there are some places I don't want to store it.

Borachon
December 8, 2005, 11:48 PM
Again, why you're not taken seriously... such a strong standpoint based entirely on Glock temperature performance, yet completely ignorant of the facts save your "feeling" that they're not going to do well in a highly contrived circumstance.

Exactly.
But at least I'm honest enough to admit ignorance.

And strong standpoints are often needed when dealing with people who are wrapped up in their self-importance, or their arrogence. Unless you make them surprised, or angry, then they won't consider what is being said. Because they already "knew" the "truth".

Regardless of your statements that I'm foolish for having presented these ideas, I'd be willing to bet at least a few people THOUGHT about the melting point of Glocks for the last day or so. Maybe one or two will ask their Glock dealer about it. Maybe Glock will let us know. I'm a believer in truthful information never being a bad thing.

Maybe we can get that guy whose done all the torture tests on his to try melting it? Then we'd know.:D

Borachon
December 8, 2005, 11:51 PM
I mention them because, apparently, you lack the imagination to come up with contrived situations for anything but your beloved steel, not because I seriously consider them a measure by which to consider any gun inferior.

I don't claim to be imaginative. I only ask that you use yours along with me.

On the steel versus plastic thing...yes, I'm prejudiced. Now...having admitted that...can you point out some contrived situations where steel is inferior? I'm looking to do some new storage work on my guns soon.

Any valid fear will be considered.:)

Marshall
December 8, 2005, 11:52 PM
1911? How about 1873.............

Maybe I can get it in Glockplastic. :evil:


http://www.uberti.com/firearms/images/prod_1873-buntline.jpg

Borachon
December 8, 2005, 11:56 PM
Maybe I can get it in Glockplastic.

:what:

Borachon
December 9, 2005, 12:08 AM
Your Glocks frame is made out of a substance called nylon 6. (Trade secret...don't expect a lot of info on it.)

It looks like your Glock won't like temperatures above 120 degrees.

It is subject to some degradation from UV rays if exposed over time. (Alaska and high altitude areas get lots of UV radiation if I'm not mistaken.) Unless you use Carbon Black. Which I'm not familiar with.

It's better than steel when subjected to strong acids and bases.

Melting point is 420 degrees F. Thermal index rating of 284 degrees F (maintains shape and properties up to that point)

http://www.glockfaq.com/generalinfo.htm

I'm not sure if 284 degrees is enough for ammo to kick off or not. Anyone know? But your Glock will start losing it's shape after this point.
Sounds like it would be a better winter gun and not so good in Phoneix or some other hot and sunny area. Given the gun degradation from UV.

Too Many Choices!?
December 9, 2005, 12:22 AM
All I wanted was for you to admit you are arguing from emotion...Your statement about ,"being mad", when you wrote something, said it all. I, on the other hand, have been simply debunking your outlandish, notions of metal = good, plastic = bad...

Both have redeeming qualities, and no I don't expect to change your mind, but just like you said other people, maybe newbies, need to see both sides of the argument. Especially since you now admitt bias, and arguing with emotion, and not logic. Which explains all your bad examples for the metal gun being superior(surviving in a vacuum?, fire?, your fat cousin falling on it?:rolleyes: )....

Man I haven't seen so much back peddling since the summer olympics 100m backstroke:evil:...

Oh yeah, by the way, I never used quotation marks when I claimed you said my gun sucks or was crap...I was praphrasing your argument, as any rational person would see. But then again you already said you weren't being rational, but glad to see you came to your senses. I like the new you better, but you lose two cool points for emotional arguing! Damn man it's just a gun:evil:

PaladinX13
December 9, 2005, 12:28 AM
I don't claim to be imaginative. I only ask that you use yours along with me.

On the steel versus plastic thing...yes, I'm prejudiced. Now...having admitted that...can you point out some contrived situations where steel is inferior?

I already did (specifically mentioned a blizzard and zombie gestapo). Extreme cold or hot AND you need to HOLD your gun. So far you've spoken ONLY of storage to extreme extremes that break down materials, but I've news for you, the human hand suffers under much lesser conditions found in nature and ridiculous contrived circumstances.

And strong standpoints are often needed when dealing with people who are wrapped up in their self-importance, or their arrogence. Unless you make them surprised, or angry, then they won't consider what is being said. Because they already "knew" the "truth".

This is completely wrong and only adopted by the pig-headed, biased, and self-righteous... which is exactly why polarized groups butt heads. Shock and emotion NEVER makes headway. It's the most foolish of approaches because it polarizes and triggers their defenses and in-grained beliefs. Only actual truth gets past deaf ears, if even that.

The only reason you see people annoyed at your ranting is that you're so aggressively pushing HALF a truth. While in terms of storage under fire, steel might trump plastic, but in CONTEXT, you're still left with a defective gun and no ammo to use, making you SOL when the SHTF and any claims of superiority meaningless.

Borachon
December 9, 2005, 12:29 AM
Cool I win!

Let's both take enjoyment from your victory.

:D

Borachon
December 9, 2005, 12:31 AM
While in terms of storage under fire, steel might trump plastic, but in CONTEXT, you're still left with a defective gun and no ammo to use, making you SOL when the SHTF and any claims of superiority meaningless.

That's a fallacy.

Edit:
In my case in any event. I have ammunition stored in three different locations. It would take a rather large event to destroy all three separate locations. That's why I'm saying it isn't always the best idea to have gun and ammo together. If I had a fire at one location, the ammo would be gone...but I might salvage the firearm. And then load it from stocks of ammunition I have stored elsewhere.

A polymer gun in a fire is ruined. Apparently, it takes a lower tempature to melt Glock polymer than it does to make paper burn. (Fahrenheit 9/11---ah, I mean Fahrenheit 451) A steel framed gun in a fire...that doesn't have any ammo in it....MAY suffer some temper damage....may twist or contort....may lose all the outer metal covering....but unless warped or twisted could still function as a gun. Certainly at lower temperatures it could still survive a fire of short duration that would melt or warp a Glock.

PaladinX13
December 9, 2005, 12:40 AM
Your Glocks frame is made out of a substance called nylon 6. (Trade secret...don't expect a lot of info on it.)

Amen. Most of the info on Glock's plastic is speculative hearsay. Not exactly hard facts... for example:

It looks like your Glock won't like temperatures above 120 degrees. HYDROLYTIC (in water) temperatures above 120... WHAT? Celsius? Fahrenheit? 120 degree figure is useless. That said, I doubt it's Fahrenheit as a common Glock cleaning method involves hot tap water rinse. Presenting half-truths with an agenda is exactly what hurt your credibility in the first place.

It is subject to some degradation from UV rays if exposed over time.

True, but reinforced with 2% carbon-black, as Glock is suspected to be, you'll only experience .05% degradation under elevated 24/7 UV after 100 years... so the hearsay says, which is to say, no meaningful degradation in the lifetime of most civilizations under normal UV exposure.

Melting point is 420 degrees F. Thermal index rating of 284 degrees F (maintains shape and properties up to that point)

Once again hearsay.

No confirmed stories of Glocks melting in any hot cars. Plenty of Phoenix Glock owners.

Borachon
December 9, 2005, 12:42 AM
420 degree melting point.
Once again hearsay.No confirmed stories of Glocks melting in any hot cars. Plenty of Phoenix Glock owners.

Hmmm...but easily enough proven or disproven.

You've got an oven, right?:evil:



Edit:
Good catch on the 120 degree thing. I just got that from the only website I could find. It's probably Celcius...although that website specifically says not to Hot Tub with your Glock, which seems to indicate Fahrenheit. But 120 Celcius would be near that theorectical 240ish degree F. temperature were Glocks supposedly start to lose their shape.
Car temperatures won't get hot enough to melt it appearently. But UV content causes plastic to lose it's integrity over time. No info on when that integrity loss gets to be so bad that the gun might suffer from a drop or other unintended accident.

PaladinX13
December 9, 2005, 12:45 AM
Hmmm...but easily enough proven or disproven.

You've got an oven, right?:evil:

So do you, Bubba. Show me yours and I'll show you mine. Might want to take out an insurance policy on your hand first.

Borachon
December 9, 2005, 12:51 AM
Might want to take out an insurance policy on your hand first.
I got oven mitts.:D I was the best cooker in the Boy Scouts.
And they always told me..."Be prepared...and use oven mitts."

But before we both collectively destroy the finish (if nothing else) on our guns, why don't we approach big Daddy Internet and see if he won't give us some solid info? What say?

Presenting half-truths with an agenda is exactly what hurt your credibility in the first place.
Those weren't MY half truths...not in this case anyway. I lifted those from another site. Two sites actually.

Quoting that information was instead an attempt at quantitfying the honest, and for true qualities of your illustrious firearm. An attempt at honesty that was inglouriously attacked and villified by yourself. I stand offended, sir.

PaladinX13
December 9, 2005, 12:52 AM
Car temperatures won't get hot enough to melt it appearently. But UV content causes plastic to lose it's integrity over time. No info on when that integrity loss gets to be so bad that the gun might suffer from a drop or other unintended accident.

Freakin' A, read your own sources before you start spouting idiotic conclusions. Jeez you're the worst example of a researcher with an agenda I have EVER seen. My God.

As already stated, Glock frames are 2% carbon black which greatly enchance polymer UV durability such that under intense and constant rays for 100 years, there's only .05% degradation. Under realistic UV conditions you're talking centuries upon centuries before any noticable degradation.

JackOfAllTradesMasterAtNone
December 9, 2005, 01:01 AM
Except, I've never felt a Glock trigger that I liked.

One of my 1911's is from 1937. Has one armory stamp, So, it's been across a bench and smith's eyes at least once. I can only imagine that it may have several thousands of rounds through it. Shoots like the dickens.

I had a 1921 1911 in my hands the other day. Reworked to a match pistol in 1964. Still prints 10's from a randsom rest. Looks and acts like a shooter.

I do wonder, "And I'll keep all emotions reserved", will a Glock or any other polymer (Nylon 6?) framed gun last that long? These 1911's could very well last another 80 years each. As shooters, not safe queens. My vote is for which ever will last. I figure time will tell, the jury's still out on the Glock.

I've seen a few Glocks used in pin shoots. Effective in .45. Also effective in IPSC and IDPA. Not to mention real life situations. (We won't discuss how many 1911's have been in fire fights and come out on top.) But I've never seen a Glock put up against an accurized 1911. Can a Glock be accurised to print a 1.5" group at 50yds? (I honestly don't know). So with a lean toward that which I know, I also lean toward the 1911 as an accurate pistol. My Kimber certainly shoots that well. I'm more of an 'accuracy win's' over a 'spray of bullets' type of guy.

It's amazing at my local gun range. Many of the law enforcement shooting there can't hit the broad side of a barn. (Border patrol, Customs, and local deputies) Much of that is due to inferior equipment. Reliable, But inferior. Most of them shoot some sort of high capacity, (.40 and 9mm), polymer framed pistol.

If shinola really has hit the fan, I'm not leaving. I'm digging in and will hold out until reinforcements arrive or they peal my cold dead fingers from my 1911, or six gun, or long gun, or what ever is in my hand that I'm currently using to defend, family, friends, home and the country that I love.

-Steve

Borachon
December 9, 2005, 01:03 AM
As already stated, Glock frames are 2% carbon black which greatly enchance polymer UV durability such that under intense and constant rays for 100 years, there's only .05% degradation. Under realistic UV conditions you're talking centuries upon centuries before any noticable degradation.

You are correct. I misunderstood that.

Of course, we can still question whether any carbon black is present. As you yourself said...the compostion of Glock plastic is not known outside of the company. We are...after all....only 20 years into Glocks existing. Maybe some of the owners of some really old 1980's Glocks can comment on flaking, or other observed degradation.

I just don't always trust a companies claims of "Lifetime service". It's a suspicious failing of mine. I should be more trusting.:(

PaladinX13
December 9, 2005, 01:07 AM
But before we both collectively destroy the finish (if nothing else) on our guns, why don't we approach big Daddy Internet and see if he won't give us some solid info? What say?

Your ENTIRE argument is that your steel gun will survive a fire event better in a highly contrived and ill prepared situation. You're betting your life on it and being a dog with a bone about it online... yet unprepared to put your words into deeds?

If your steel gun will significantly and easily survive a fire event, a 500-degree oven is meaningless to it and should be do you. But the truth comes out, you don't believe it... not a word of your own spoutings. Certainly not enough to put it to the test.

OUR position is that it a completely inane situation to begin with, but since you consider it such a dire threat as to signify superiority, then you'd better test it out... else you're just faithing a feeling.

And lack no credibility... as was recognized from the get go.

Those weren't MY half truths

Actually they were. You left out the hydrolytic part and drew a conclusion absent the reference. Likewise now you're claiming the duplicate post in two locations is the same as two references of original research, another half-truth. Earlier you weren't content to post the failed Glock once on the same page, but twice as if anyone would miss it... utterly ignoring the context of the failed gun.

Man o man, you're the the zealous of the worst sort and the only reason I call you out now is because before you were plainly zealous and now you're weakly pretending to be even handed with colored research and "findings" only to reinforce your feelings.

PaladinX13
December 9, 2005, 01:08 AM
Maybe some of the owners of some really old 1980's Glocks can comment on flaking, or other observed degradation.

Maybe this is why your current facade of being rational is a joke... what kind of researcher looks only for the results he wants to see?

Borachon
December 9, 2005, 01:18 AM
Man o man, you're the the zealous of the worst sort and the only reason I call you out now is because before you were plainly zealous and now you're weakly pretending to be even handed with colored research and "findings" only to reinforce your feelings.

Hey...I tried to find info on Glocks. Found what I could. You do better than that..then post it. At the very least I QUESTIONED something. You accuse me of zealousness..when it actually looks like you are the zealous one.

But you're right. This is going nowhere. You "won" your argument. You keep your Glock. I'll keep my steel frame. And nothing else need be said.

Just like I predicted earlier.

But I can show you how little I really care about this and just admit that you've beaten me down. I won't post another comment on this thread. Which thankfully means I won't have to learn anything more about Glocks and can continue on in my "weakly pretending" belief that steel is good.

Good day to you.

RyanM
December 9, 2005, 01:28 AM
Except, I've never felt a Glock trigger that I liked.

3.5# connector, NY-1 (olive) trigger spring with the metal part taken out, Wolff increased power striker spring. Gives a smoth, even, pull with very little stacking. Starts at about 6 pounds, breaks at 8. Pretty similar to today's revolvers.

echo5tango
December 9, 2005, 09:04 AM
Hey...I tried to find info on Glocks. Found what I could. You do better than that..then post it. At the very least I QUESTIONED something. You accuse me of zealousness..when it actually looks like you are the zealous one.

But you're right. This is going nowhere. You "won" your argument. You keep your Glock. I'll keep my steel frame. And nothing else need be said.

Just like I predicted earlier.

But I can show you how little I really care about this and just admit that you've beaten me down. I won't post another comment on this thread. Which thankfully means I won't have to learn anything more about Glocks and can continue on in my "weakly pretending" belief that steel is good.

Good day to you.
Borachon,
I applaud your attempt at enlightening and questioning. From a newb, 3rd party view, Paladin, you look like a teenager who is doing nothing more than regurgitating :barf:

PaladinX13
December 9, 2005, 12:12 PM
Borachon,
I applaud your attempt at enlightening and questioning. From a newb, 3rd party view, Paladin, you look like a teenager who is doing nothing more than regurgitating :barf:

Borachon, you embarass yourself further by making a new account just to make this post. No reader would look at your posts and consider them enlightened. You out and out admited bias, emotional debate approach designed to agitate, and said that you were on a mission to talk people out of guns you considered inferior (ALL from a position of UTTER ADMITTED IGNORANCE, mind you)... then Flip Flopped not a moment later saying "I'm not trying to down anyone's gun", but watch as you then research with an agenda, report half-truths with your own made-up conclusions, and then play martyr when it's all done.

Frankly, if someone can't see through your BS, their opinion on anything isn't worth a whole lot period. Your own post damn you more than anything I say.

You've done little but write a thinly veiled "I Hate Plastics" thread despite the ban on them stickied to the top of the forum. Questions are questions. Research is research. When you start interjecting your own half-assed interpretations without reporting all your research based on an agenda, you've long since left the arena of enlightenment or truth-seeking.

Old Dog
December 9, 2005, 12:17 PM
Borachon, you've fought the good fight. If nothing else, this thread clearly displays the oft referred to, but seldom witnessed, effects of drinking the Glock kool-aid, and the amazing lengths Glocksters will go in the promotion of "Perfection."

I predict GlockTalk will post a link to this thread to demonstrate to all Glocksters far and wide how they must dedicate themselves to overcome the spirit of all us 1911 and steel handgun dinosaurs ...

echo5tango
December 9, 2005, 12:19 PM
Borachon, you embarass yourself further by making a new account just to make this post. No reader would look at your posts and consider them enlightened. You out and out admited bias, emotional debate approach designed to agitate, and said that you were on a mission to talk people out of guns you considered inferior (ALL from a position of UTTER ADMITTED IGNORANCE, mind you)... then Flip Flopped not a moment later saying "I'm not trying to down anyone's gun", but watch as you then research with an agenda, report half-truths with your own made-up conclusions, and then play martyr when it's all done.

Frankly, if someone can't see through your BS, their opinion on anything isn't worth a whole lot period. Your own post damn you more than anything I say.

You've done little but write a thinly veiled "I Hate Plastics" thread despite the ban on them stickied to the top of the forum. Questions are questions. Research is research. When you start interjecting your own half-assed interpretations without reporting all your research based on an agenda, you've long since left the arena of enlightenment or truth-seeking.
Mods can check the IP address, this is not Borachon. Personally, though I haven't read all however many pages all at once, what I've seen from you has sounded like a teenager. I really don't know how else to put it.

BTW, I don't hate plastic pistols ... I've owned more plastic pistols than steel. However, I don't think that really is the point. Simply questioning something in the hopes of opening the mind results in elementary school reprisals.

-Greg Thomas

echo5tango
December 9, 2005, 12:36 PM
Borachon, you embarass yourself further by making a new account just to make this post.
Just to make it easier on you ... my IP address is 138.162.128.43 just go to http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm and put that in there

PaladinX13
December 9, 2005, 12:56 PM
However, I don't think that really is the point. Simply questioning something in the hopes of opening the mind results in elementary school reprisals.

Then you're a fool making a judgement without research just like him, read his posts.

The FACTS:
- From a place of admitted ignorance, without facts in hand, B has an opinion.
- B argues strenuously for this opinion- DOG WITH A BONE- despite having no proof, believing it religiously.
- B continues on a campaign of sheer stupidity bringing in sledgehammers and terminal velocity.
- B out and out admits he believes others guns to be inferior and has been on a crusade to talk people out of them, only now snidely saying he won't so that he'll have the superior gun.
- B goes on to argue a point from ignorance, then decides to "research"
- B puts out a call looking for the weakness he wants to find

The LIES:
- He posts busted weapons without context.
- B cites a single post as coming from "two sources"
- B leaves out Hydrolitic
- B leaves out what TYPE of degrees
- B concludes Glocks fall apart at 120 degrees
- B leaves out Glock composition, posts only UV vulnerability
- B concludes Glocks fall apart in sunny weather
- B concludes Glocks unsuitable in Phoenix

All for what? The bottom line is he wants to put down a gun. That's not The High Road. Disguising it as "questioning" when the agenda is clear is disgusting and he needs to be called on it. The fact of the matter is, the only people that swallow it are the similarly inclined cultists like Old Dog.

Those are the facts and the lies. B's behavior is a High Road embarassment. If there's ANYWHERE where I have promoted polymer beyond its capabilities or put down steel or anyone else's gun like B has, I hope someone calls ME out on it. I've never claimed Glock "perfection" or campaigned against another's gun. I've SOLEY pointed out how disgusting B's behavior has been.

Old Dog
December 9, 2005, 01:15 PM
Cultists? Wow, first time I've ever been called a "cultist." Okay, I'll buy that ... 1911s are my pistol of choice ... But I also am a member of the SIG Cult, the Smith & Wesson Revolver Cult and the Winchester Rifle Cult.

Lighten up, PaladinX13 ... I was simply trying to inject a bit of levity into what (somewhat alarmingly) turned into an acrimonious, albeit entertaining, exchange of posts ... Seems as though you may be taking all this a bit too personally ...

echo5tango
December 9, 2005, 01:25 PM
Then you're a fool making a judgement without research just like him, read his posts.

The FACTS:
- From a place of admitted ignorance, without facts in hand, B has an opinion.
- B argues strenuously for this opinion- DOG WITH A BONE- despite having no proof, believing it religiously.
- B continues on a campaign of sheer stupidity bringing in sledgehammers and terminal velocity.
- B out and out admits he believes others guns to be inferior and has been on a crusade to talk people out of them, only now snidely saying he won't so that he'll have the superior gun.
- B goes on to argue a point from ignorance, then decides to "research"
- B puts out a call looking for the weakness he wants to find

The LIES:
- He posts busted weapons without context.
- B cites a single post as coming from "two sources"
- B leaves out Hydrolitic
- B leaves out what TYPE of degrees
- B concludes Glocks fall apart at 120 degrees
- B leaves out Glock composition, posts only UV vulnerability
- B concludes Glocks fall apart in sunny weather
- B concludes Glocks unsuitable in Phoenix

All for what? The bottom line is he wants to put down a gun. That's not The High Road. Disguising it as "questioning" when the agenda is clear is disgusting and he needs to be called on it. The fact of the matter is, the only people that swallow it are the similarly inclined cultists like Old Dog.

Those are the facts and the lies. B's behavior is a High Road embarassment. If there's ANYWHERE where I have promoted polymer beyond its capabilities or put down steel or anyone else's gun like B has, I hope someone calls ME out on it. I've never claimed Glock "perfection" or campaigned against another's gun. I've SOLEY pointed out how disgusting B's behavior has been.
WOW, I came here because of the gentlemanly nature of the majority of posts I read. I really hope you are not representative of what I have to look forward to. You seem to be taking this way too personally. A pistol is a tool ... that's it. Do you think carpenters get in verbal altercations over what brand of hammer is "better"? I doubt it.

goon
December 9, 2005, 01:29 PM
Is it really that big of a deal?

PaladinX13
December 9, 2005, 01:43 PM
Cultists? Wow, first time I've ever been called a "cultist." Okay, I'll buy that ... 1911s are my pistol of choice ... But I also am a member of the SIG Cult, the Smith & Wesson Revolver Cult and the Winchester Rifle Cult.

You become a cultist when someone blindly defaming another gun is congratulated as "fighting the good fight" because it's the opinion you want to see enforced. For the record, by your definition of "cult" (mere ownership) I'm in all the same and more. I own more steel than polymer and in my very first post of this thread, said I'd pick the 1911 for some applications over the Glock, but not some nebulous and undefined SHTF situation.

Lighten up, PaladinX13 ... I was simply trying to inject a bit of levity into what (somewhat alarmingly) turned into an acrimonious, albeit entertaining, exchange of posts ... Seems as though you may be taking all this a bit too personally ...

Mostly because I'm being portrayed a cultist despite a well rounded and deep collection of guns, and a guy blindly carrying your banner is an "enlightened fighter". Disgusting.

Old Dog
December 9, 2005, 01:46 PM
Wow, you are definitely taking all this a bit too seriously ...

PaladinX13
December 9, 2005, 01:48 PM
WOW, I came here because of the gentlemanly nature of the majority of posts I read. I really hope you are not representative of what I have to look forward to.

BS B.

You seem to be taking this way too personally. A pistol is a tool ... that's it. Do you think carpenters get in verbal altercations over what brand of hammer is "better"? I doubt it.

Again, call me out on ANYWHERE where I put down another's tool, much less with the fervor or consistency B does from an admitted position of ignorance. He wasn't saying, "I personally dislike the trigger. Polymer guns aren't for me." He went the extra mile to say "Your guns are inferior and aren't right for anyone." Then backed that bigotry up with page after page of posts.

I'm calling him out on it because while that kind of nonsense happens in other forums and goes on and on endlessly, THR has consistently stayed ABOVE that kind of behavior. A few diplomatic false-faced guestures of backpedalling isn't enough for a guy to suddenly become an "enlightened" truth seekerk.

Too Many Choices!?
December 9, 2005, 01:52 PM
Let's both take enjoyment from your victory.

:D

I sure did, as I celebrate even the small victories lol...

PaladinX13, wow! How did it get from me having Borachon ,"against the ropes", to you being ,"rope a doped"? I think you do protest too much, and a little to vehemently. Borachon , has admitted to all the eveil of arguing emotionally with an agenda, and has been docked the required ,"two cool points", now either use your own advice and drop the emotion from your arguments ,or people will jump on you just like the reformed and now fairly even handed and still biased and agenda driven Borarchon:)...

echo5tango
December 9, 2005, 02:02 PM
... and a guy blindly carrying your banner is an "enlightened fighter". Disgusting.
Whoa there hoss, I'm not blindly carrying anyone's banner. If you honestly believe by me voicing my agreement with him means I'm "... blindly carrying [his] banner", you have a lot of learning left in you.

Again, call me out on ANYWHERE where I put down another's tool, much less with the fervor or consistency B does from an admitted position of ignorance. He wasn't saying, "I personally dislike the trigger. Polymer guns aren't for me." He went the extra mile to say "Your guns are inferior and aren't right for anyone." Then backed that bigotry up with page after page of posts.
And where did I say you put down another man's tool? All I said was:
Do you think carpenters get in verbal altercations over what brand of hammer is "better"? I doubt it.
You obviously took it personally, hence your attack.

Ares
December 9, 2005, 02:03 PM
Me thinks this thread hit the proverbial fan :uhoh:

Biker
December 9, 2005, 02:13 PM
Yup. Art will be around soon with the old 'anything more than 5 pages' speech:neener:.
Seems he's usually right about that.;)
Biker

PaladinX13
December 9, 2005, 02:15 PM
Whoa there hoss, I'm not blindly carrying anyone's banner. If you honestly believe by me voicing my agreement with him means I'm "... blindly carrying [his] banner", you have a lot of learning left in you.

You'd have to be blind to swallow his BS as delinated by his posts... alternatively you read two of his posts then decided that's enough research to judge him by as I've been judged a Glock Kool Aide drinker despite never promoting Glock anywhere else save the SHTF context of this thread. So blind or ignorant, I suppose.

You obviously took it personally, hence your attack.

You misunderstand, I take offense that putting down a tool- to B's degree- ISN'T considered an offense. I specifically said it upsets me because I see that kind of poster degenerate thread after thread in other forums, whereas THR has been ABOVE that. That's WHY it's a rule. To see it as "no harm, no foul" is to let THR degenerate into those other forums.

Too Many Choices!?
December 9, 2005, 02:23 PM
I could dock him two more,"cool points", for arson, or setting a thread on fire, and running, but he stuck around and tried to put it out. Now you are the only one left fanning the confligration, let it go:banghead:. Again, it's just a gun:uhoh:...

PS- I do drink the ,"Glock-ade", and damn is it sweet, doesn't stop me from trying or liking new ones though. What is that saying? Something about an,"old dog," and ,"new tricks"? :neener:

echo5tango
December 9, 2005, 02:32 PM
You'd have to be blind to swallow his BS as delinated by his posts... alternatively you read two of his posts then decided that's enough research to judge him by as I've been judged a Glock Kool Aide drinker despite never promoting Glock anywhere else save the SHTF context of this thread. So blind or ignorant, I suppose.
funny, how is this post of his bashing:

I understand that in the Warsaw ghetto uprising, it was common to hide your firearms inside a stove, up a chimney or buried at the base of a chimney. That way, if the house was destroyed or burned out, the weapon might survive and the chimney would serve as a location marker for where the weapon was at.

Also, one of the classic methods of smuggling items is to put them under your car hood...secreted under some oily and dirty part of the motor (or hot part of the motor). In a survival situation, you might actually NEED to store your gun in a hot place. The trunk and all the other parts of the car can be searched easily. Thieves...or others....might hesitate to take off the air filter cover or push their hands on top of the oil pan in order to search. So I'll ask now...do you feel confident laying your Glock on a part of the engine for 3 hours? (I've been at some checkpoints that lasted longer) If you ain't 100% confident....well, just think on it.


I guess what I'm saying is that the materials that go into the construction of my weapon are important, and I'd rather err on the side of proven durability versus more modern, but with less track history.

I believe that was his first post in this whole mess of a thread, and I believe it shows he was trying to throw out things people haven't thought of before (some of us call that "out of the box thinking").


You misunderstand, I take offense that putting down a tool- to B's degree- ISN'T considered an offense. I specifically said it upsets me because I see that kind of poster degenerate thread after thread in other forums, whereas THR has been ABOVE that. That's WHY it's a rule. To see it as "no harm, no foul" is to let THR degenerate into those other forums.
I've only had time to go through about six or seven pages of the 15+ pages containing all his posts. But in the ones I've gone through, none (other than those in this thread) have even mentioned a brand or composition of pistol.

PaladinX13
December 9, 2005, 02:35 PM
I could dock him two more,"cool points", for arson, or setting a thread on fire, and running, but he stuck around and tried to put it out. Now you are the only one left fanning the confligration, let it go:banghead:. Again, it's just a gun:uhoh:...

You're missing the point now and confusing me as someone zealously defending Glock. It's not about the gun. My whole debate with B has been an attempt to get an informed opinion out of him, which is a forum integrity issue. When someone posts an informed criticism, that's VALUABLE... when someone repeatedly posts feeling-based put-downs that's degenerative. I was eventually hoping to get to an informed opinion, but instead he just twisted his research showing his stripes weren't going to change. Uninformed put-downs are worthless.

I'm an informed poster... been on this board since it's conception and I can tell you the value of posters who post informed opinions rather than gut-based put-downs (worse yet, congratulated for it) compared to those other forums I've seen. Threads debate actual merits and everyone's better for it. But if you've got an uninformed poster blathering on without stopping, everyone's a little stupider for it.

Again, it's not about the gun.

PaladinX13
December 9, 2005, 02:41 PM
I believe that was his first post

Good job, you've increased your reseach by a total of 1 post and amended your judgment by it... no doubt seeking the result you want- a valuable asset in forming an objective opinion, I might add- I've already summarized his offending posts, if you're not going to read them then obviously your uninformed opinion's going to differ from mine. What you've done is degenerate, seeking to debate me personally, rather than posting from information... like in your first post, while claiming he's enlightened and I, a teen.

You see... this is why uninformed posters providing views suck.

echo5tango
December 9, 2005, 02:53 PM
Good job, you've increased your reseach by a total of 1 post and amended your judgment by it... no doubt seeking the result you want- a valuable asset in forming an objective opinion, I might add- I've already summarized his offending posts, if you're not going to read them then obviously your uninformed opinion's going to differ from mine. What you've done is degenerate, seeking to debate me personally, rather than posting from information... like in your first post, while claiming he's enlightened and I, a teen.

You see... this is why uninformed posters providing views suck.
Odd, I have all of his posts which I've been referring to for reference. And how informed do I have to be to draw a conclusion after reading this entire thread? I think reading the entire thread is informed enough, but just to be sure, I started going through his other posts, those NOT in this thread. Me thinks that's more than informed enough.

Also, I didn't call you a teen:

what I've seen from you has sounded like a teenager. I really don't know how else to put it.

I really think you need to take a deep breath and relax. No one is attacking you. Honestly, I find this whole exchange amusing ... kind of like dealing with one of my devil pups LOL

Biker
December 9, 2005, 04:24 PM
Ya know, I've pretty much said my piece concerning the original subject of this thread, but I'll be damned if I'm not starting to think that "echo5tango" isn't an 'aka'.;) It begins with 'echo'...just a gut feeling.
Biker

Riktoven
December 9, 2005, 04:55 PM
Heh...just skipped from page 2 to page 10.

You guys have too much free time :-)

If you enjoyed reading about "Which SHTF Pistol: Glock or 1911?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!