Pros and Cons about Glock


PDA






PinnedAndRecessed
February 28, 2006, 08:23 AM
My current semi-autos include 1911s and a Sig 220. 45s of course.

I currently do not have a 9mm among my handguns and am thinking about concealed carry. I've never owned a Glock and would like any information I can receive.

I reload, and have heard somewhere that you can't shoot reloads. Or is it that you can't shoot lead bullets?

Anyway, I'm kind of a big guy (6 feet, 6 inches) so concealed carry isn't all that difficult. But I've also got fairly big hands and don't like the munchkin sized guns.

Recommendations? Criticisms?

And if you have a particular Glock you can recommend, what is the most I should pay?

Thanx.

If you enjoyed reading about "Pros and Cons about Glock" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Jubei
February 28, 2006, 08:32 AM
You'll get plenty of input from both sides of the fence on this one, those that love Glocks, and those that despise them. I own a few of them, and while they aren't the prettiest guns in my collection (actually far from it), they are reliable to a fault.

The Glock barrels with their polygonal rifling, do not take lead bullets. But an aftermarket barrel with button rifling would solve that problem.

Jubei

355sigfan
February 28, 2006, 08:38 AM
All gun companies say not to shoot reloads. With Glock 40's its not a good idea unless you get an aftermarket barrel. You can't use lead. There are some exceptions but generally don't shoot lead. You can buy an aftermarket barrel and shoot lead and reload to your hearts content. I have reloaded for 9mm, 40sw, 357 sig, 10mm and 45 glocks. The 40 is the most dangerious. It has the least case support with the stock barrel and I had a few kbs early on from overworked brass. The best bet with the 40 is to use special glock only reduced data. Laser cast has some.

Reloading the other calibers was easy except no lead. Glocks have several advantages over other simular guns. Their very durable. A polimer frame will outlast alluminum and it equals steel. The Metal treatment(finish called tefner) is the most wear resistant and water resistant stuff out there. It can survive in the ocean for months.

Glocks are very reliable and are very forgiving of poor maintence. I once did not clean my issue Glock 21 in a training class that lasted 3 days and we fired 1500 rounds. It did not malfunction despite being very dirty. I wanted to see how far it could go.

Glocks are very easy to shoot. You have one trigger pull that is short and relatively light. (3.5 5 8 and 12 pound options exist) The trigger has a short reset. It makes firing the weapon at speed with accuracy very easy compared to other dao and da sa type guns. The only guns faster are 1911's.

Glocks have a low bore axis that reduces muzzle jump making rapid accurate fire easier.

Glocks have a large ammunition capacity for their size. With the Glock 17 with +3 extensions you can have 21 rounds in a pistol. If you like having lots of bullets Glocks are for you.

Glocks are basically very simple, very reliabile, fairly accurate and come in about any caliber and size you could want.
Pat

Joe D
February 28, 2006, 08:43 AM
Actually one can shoot lead bullets in a Glock. Probably the oldest internet myth that just does not die. When you ask people why not, they just say I read about it on the internet. If you really want to blow their minds ask them if they have tried shooting lead bullets in their Glock. Most of the folks that spew out this nonsense do not even own a Glock. I just have to chuckle and shake my head.
There are several Glock 9mm guns that will work. The most popular carry gun Glock makes is the G19. The G17 can also work. It has a longer butt which makes concealment a little more difficult.

355sigfan
February 28, 2006, 08:48 AM
You can shoot lead at your own risk. If you use very hard cast lead bullets and clean every 20 to 50 rounds. If you use swadged bullets can you say Ka Boom. Also Glock does say no lead. Its not internet myth.
Pat

Joe D
February 28, 2006, 08:49 AM
Price? Glocks retail from a low of about $439 to $500. I get mine from a police supply house for $379. If you are a big guy why not just get a G21? I love mine. I am still waiting for it to blow up. I am up to 2,500 rounds of 200 gr lead SWC without a cleaning. So far not a speck of lead in the bore.

Joe D
February 28, 2006, 08:50 AM
Can't seem to find the line in my manual that says no lead bullets.

Joe D
February 28, 2006, 08:52 AM
Pat, not picking on you, but have you actually tried shooting lead bullets in a Glock? My wife and I have put well over 30,000 rounds of lead bullets through our Glocks.

grimlock
February 28, 2006, 08:53 AM
For me, the four main concerns when choosing a pistol for concealed carry are:
1) Reliability
2) Accuracy
3) Thickness
4) Weight

And, for me, they apply pretty much in that order.

Reliability is first for a reason. In my experience, Glocks have this in spades. If my life depended on choosing one factory fresh pistol, loading it without testing, and carrying it, it would be a Glock.

Accuracy is next, because, as one of my instructors told me, every missed shot by you in a gunfight is guaranteed to hit either a child, a nun, or a widow. You do not get to choose which. A Glock won't have a trigger break as good as a 1911 or Sig 220, but combat accuracy is not an issue with training.

Thickness effects the ease with which the pistol can be concealed at the beltline. If you asked 100 people to describe a Glock using only one word, the number of times they choose "thin" will be zero. That being said, thousands of people conceal them every day.

Weight of the pistol is also important for comfort, but is ranked last here because a good belt and holster help a bit, as does balancing the load with spare magazines on the weak side. A Glock's frame weighs almost nothing. It actually shocked me the first time I held my 27's frame in my hand without the slide and magazine.

These considerations don't touch issues of maintenance and durability, where the Glock also shines.

Basically, the Glock is a durable, reliable, lightweight, high-capacity, mushy-triggered, thick pistol. Many love it. Some don't. You should probably buy one to try out. If you don't like it, I doubt you'll have trouble selling it.

PinnedAndRecessed
February 28, 2006, 09:11 AM
If you are a big guy why not just get a G21?

Joe, Glock's web page doesn't list a 21. Has it been updated (i.e., a newer model number?)

BTW, thanx to all for the speedy responses.

355sigfan
February 28, 2006, 09:37 AM
Pat, not picking on you, but have you actually tried shooting lead bullets in a Glock? My wife and I have put well over 30,000 rounds of lead bullets through our Glocks.

END QUOTE

It should be in the manual not to fire lead it was also covered in the armorers course. I have shot some laser cast lead bullets without problems. But someone could get problems if they shoot soft swaged bullets. Hence Glocks saying of to totally abstain from lead. Most factory ammo that uses lead is swaged soft lead that could cause problems with lead build up and pressure spikes. Most reloaders use cast bullets which don't deposit near as much lead.
Pat

DunedinDragon
February 28, 2006, 09:38 AM
Not sure what happened to the G21 on the web site, but it's definately still in the Glock lineup. If you're a big guy with big hands you might be one of the few that can really take advantage of that particular gun. I had one for a while, but it was just too big for me personally, so I traded it in on a Sig 220. The 21 is a real handful, but worth it if you can handle it because of the additional ammo it carries, and being a full-sized gun, it's pretty decent in the accuracy department.

grimlock
February 28, 2006, 09:44 AM
The G21 is still there, listed under .45 ACP as usual. Here's (http://www.glock.com/g21.htm) a link.

HighVelocity
February 28, 2006, 09:46 AM
Pro: Out of the box reliability
Con: Ugly

Onmilo
February 28, 2006, 10:06 AM
Pro: It is the sturmpistolen of handguns.
Con: can't shoot lead bullets without an aftermarket barrel.
Afterthought: If you aren't intending to play in "The Games" who cares if you can't, or at least shouldn't, shoot lead bullets through the factory barrel?
For the money spent these are still darn good guns and I see way more factory loaded jacketed bullet cartridges available at the places where people go to buy their ammo than I do factory loaded lead bullet cartridges in the calibers that Glock offers the handguns in.

Biker
February 28, 2006, 10:23 AM
I've put 16,000 plus rounds (quit counting a couple of years ago) through my G23 without a single malfunction, and a lot of those were factory loaded lead bullets. I have nothing but praise for Glock pistols.
Biker

RyanM
February 28, 2006, 10:41 AM
Pro: Prettier than an XD.
Con: Uglier than a 1911.

Neither a pro nor con: Blow-ups are not unique to any one model. Glock .45s have about the same amount of unsupported case as your average 1911. Put an overcharged round in either of them, and you'll probably get a kaboom. H&K .40 caliber guns have more unsupported case than .40 cal Glocks. Put a setback round in either, and kaboom.

You just hear about it more with Glocks, because it seems like 90% of police departments are issuing G22s to their officers, and police usually have to load and unload their guns several times in the typical day, chambering the same two rounds over and over.

Lonestar.45
February 28, 2006, 10:53 AM
Pros: Reliable, easy to work on, replacement mags are everywhere

Cons: Ugly, ugly, ugly, and for concealed carry is just too darn fat compared to my Kahr PM9.

I'm not a Glock basher full-time (they make great service pistols), but when it comes to concealed carry in 9mm, there are just way better options out there IHMO. Think single stack for concealment, you'll thank me later.

355sigfan
February 28, 2006, 10:55 AM
QUOTE
Neither a pro nor con: Blow-ups are not unique to any one model.
END QUOTE

False . KB's are 90% a 40sw issue not just glocks. I have been there for them. Seen them and even reloading books even address the issue with the 40 sw. There are more 9mm Glocks being used than 40's by the way. Slightly over 50% of leo's are still using 9mm with the 40's a strong second place now. More 40's are sold but they still have not caught up to the 9mms already in service.
Pat

ravencon
February 28, 2006, 11:26 AM
Glocks do inspire pro and con fanaticism. Not in me though. I own several Glocks--they are fine, reliable tools. But they inspire no great fondness in me.

If you like the feel of them you'll probably really like owning them since they are accurate and are very reliable, even if shamefully neglected.

Even if you don't like how they feel in the hand (I don't), you still might like them because of their many virtues.

Lennyjoe
February 28, 2006, 01:51 PM
My only complaint on Glocks is I wish it had second strike capability.

Other than that, they are a great gun.

PinnedAndRecessed
February 28, 2006, 02:05 PM
My only complaint on Glocks is I wish it had second strike capability.

What is "second strike?"

noresttill
February 28, 2006, 02:20 PM
Second Strike, I believe, is what the 24/7 has. if the bullet doesnt go off, it reverts to da.

ive never had a need for this with my g17 though.

gudel
February 28, 2006, 02:44 PM
The pros and cons of Glock and 1911 have been beaten to death. Typically, it ends up in heated argument, to insulting people's education because of grammar or misspelling errors.
Can you just do a search, spare some time and read up?

MTMilitiaman
February 28, 2006, 03:00 PM
My only complaint on Glocks is I wish it had second strike capability.

Why? If a round doesn't fire the first time, why on earth would you ever be inclined to stand there and try to hit it again? That sounds totally assinine and retarded.

Rack, tap, and commence firing.

Lennyjoe
February 28, 2006, 03:40 PM
Guess you havent seen or heard of primer strike issues with Winchester primers in Glocks have you?

http://www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php?threadid=480118

000Buck
February 28, 2006, 03:40 PM
Why? If a round doesn't fire the first time, why on earth would you ever be inclined to stand there and try to hit it again? That sounds totally assinine and retarded.

Rack, tap, and commence firing.

Assinine and retarded?

Well, three reasons a second strike can be nice. 1. Some military surplus ammo has "hard" primers and once in a while a round takes a second strike to fire, Ive seen this a few times, and it almost always fires on the second strike. 2. If you are a reloader and dont seat the primers deep enough accidently, sometimes it takes a second strike, after the first strike seats the primer. 3. Winchester large pistol primers are notoriously hard, many guns have to hit them twice to fire them. You can search on Glocktalk for "WLP" and find it alot.

I'm not defending reckless reloading, but it does happen.

RyanM
February 28, 2006, 03:47 PM
All you have to do is retract the slide about 3/8 or 1/2 inch and release, and the striker will be cocked for a second strike. With a little practice, this can even be done one-handed (without pushing the gun against anything). Not something you want to do in the middle of a gunfight, but good enough for just target shooting.

Lennyjoe
February 28, 2006, 03:52 PM
Not something you want to do in the middle of a gunfight, but good enough for just target shooting.

My point exactly. For a DAO only pistol with no hammer to pull back for a second shot, the second strike is a nice feature to have.

000Buck
February 28, 2006, 03:55 PM
All you have to do is retract the slide about 3/8 or 1/2 inch and release, and the striker will be cocked for a second strike. With a little practice, this can even be done one-handed (without pushing the gun against anything). Not something you want to do in the middle of a gunfight, but good enough for just target shooting.


Anytime you pull the trigger and the round doesnt go off, your best bet is to hold the gun pointed down range for quite a few seconds in case the primer decides to fire. Instead of waiting that time to recharge the trigger, I'd rather just pull the trigger a second time. I always wonder how long to wait anyway. Could you image a round going off as you pulled the slide back? KABOOM!

Can someone explain the dislike for second strike capability?

RyanM
February 28, 2006, 04:15 PM
I think it's mostly a manual of arms thing. Responding to any malfunction with a tap-rack-bang simplifies things a little. Uh oh, it didn't fire. Do I tap-rack-bang, pull the trigger again, or cock the hammer and then pull the trigger again? Making a decision when there's only 1 choice is a lot faster than 2 choices.

Which is why I said that second strike with a Glock is only something you want to do on the range. Probably the same with any other gun. I mean, if a certain type of ammo needs a second strike a couple percent of the time, you aren't going to carry that ammo for self defense unless there's no other alternative. That would be insane.

People often say "when X type of ammo doesn't go off on the first whack, a second hit usually works." But chances are none of them carry that ammo for self defense. With good quality carry ammo, if it doesn't go off the first time, chances are much higher that it won't go off the second time either, compared to military ammo or whatever.

000Buck
February 28, 2006, 04:18 PM
I think it's mostly a manual of arms thing. Responding to any malfunction with a tap-rack-bang simplifies things a little. Uh oh, it didn't fire. Do I tap-rack-bang, pull the trigger again, or cock the hammer and then pull the trigger again? Making a decision when there's only 1 choice is a lot faster than 2 choices.

Which is why I said that second strike with a Glock is only something you want to do on the range. Probably the same with any other gun. I mean, if a certain type of ammo needs a second strike a couple percent of the time, you aren't going to carry that ammo for self defense unless there's no other alternative. That would be insane.

People often say "when X type of ammo doesn't go off on the first whack, a second hit usually works." But chances are none of them carry that ammo for self defense. With good quality carry ammo, if it doesn't go off the first time, chances are much higher that it won't go off the second time either, compared to military ammo or whatever.

Good point!!

MTMilitiaman
February 28, 2006, 05:26 PM
Just like Ryan stated, it simplifies things to have one basic reaction to anything that goes wrong with your pistol.

If it doesn't go bang the first time, I would prefer just to get it out of the system, eliminate it as a possible error in the future, and move on. I don't care if it is improperly seated or hard primers. Rack the slide, tap it, and fire. You can stand there and pull the trigger again, but it may or may not go off. How many chances are you going to give it? If it doesn't go off, you've just wasted that much time that you could have used to clear it and be done with it once and for all. Now you have to decide if it goes click instead of boom do you rack and tap or pull the trigger again. It only complicates things. It is unnecessary at best and fatally erroneous at worst to rely on another trigger pull to do what the second one failed to do, and to add another procedure and decision to your manual of arms.

000Buck
February 28, 2006, 05:43 PM
While I agree with what Ryan said in a defensive situation, I still would like to have the option when at the range to pull the trigger a second time without having to grab the slide and reset the trigger. If thats such a horrible thing, then somebody needs to write HK a letter and tell them about how crappy their new LEM system is.:)

MTMilitiaman
February 28, 2006, 06:47 PM
I already wrote two letters to HK letting them know how crappy their entire USP is, as politely as possible, of course, and inquiring as to how I could get mine serviced--they never replied. So you could write to them, but it wouldn't do you any good.

The pistol still sucks compared to the Glock. Even if you pay twice as much for it, the HK is still only half as good on a good day as the Glock.

ACP
February 28, 2006, 07:10 PM
I've owned a few G19s. The only ones I had reliability problems with were the "factory rebuilds." I'd buy a NIB Glock, put on replacement sights if you desire, stick it in a Blade Tech kydex holster and call it a day.

Joe D
February 28, 2006, 08:20 PM
Lonestar, you are correct about a single stack being easy to conceal. I carried a Series 70 LWT Commander for years. I then discovered the Glock 23. Yes it is a little wider, but not by much. I like the 14 round capacity of the G23. The one thing I do not like about the 1911s is the thumb safety. I have seen too many shooters make that lightening draw only to look at their gun trying to figure out why it won't shoot. Whoops, thumb safety was still on.

355sigfan
February 28, 2006, 08:28 PM
My only complaint on Glocks is I wish it had second strike capability.
END QUOTE

Not to pick on you but even if you had second strike you should not use it.

If its a dud round it may fire your right with the second pull. But while your wasting time what if the chambe was simply empty because you did not load your weapon or because the mag was not seated. Now you have wasted precious time pulling the trigger when you could have been performing the tap rack access and getting ammo into your pistol. Also the most common cause for a fail to fire is operator error in loading the pistol.
Pat

kerank
February 28, 2006, 11:32 PM
Pros:
- Reliable
- simple...even in high-stress, just pull the trigger.
- easy to shoot well
- easy to maintain, repair, get parts.
- so functional and ugly.... it's pretty
- proven
- did I say, reliable!

cons:
- some glockers are a bit abrasive (but, so are some anti-glockers).

RFM
February 28, 2006, 11:56 PM
Pros:
Accurate and Reliable.
Light Trigger.
Light Weight.
Plenty of Upgrade options (Mounts, laser sights, heavier recoil springs, etc.).
Very Popular

Cons:
Light Trigger makes it very difficult to take up the trigger for a semi-single action
like trigger pull.
Inaccurate (when I shot one).
Expensive, but getting cheaper.
No real safety.
No double strike capability (not sure if it has a stupid magazine disconnect feature).
Frame Rails could be a little longer and thicker.

I suggest field stripping and shooting one for yourself.

KaceCoyote
March 1, 2006, 12:07 AM
I dont know what everyone is so crazy for reliability for.


My CZ ran like a top through 2000 rounds over the course of 3 weeks without cleaning. Just because 1911s require thousands to become reliable doesnt mean that everyone else does.:evil:


Glocks are fine weapons, but they're no longer top of the stack in terms of reliability. I'd say there are presently a few pistols capable of going blow for blow in terms of reliability, and which still lack that retarded DAO thing. I'd say a CZ-75, the P99s, Taurus 24/7 seems to be either or at times, Makarovs, Certain select M1911s and a few others. Sorry but DAO is retarded.

JohnKSa
March 1, 2006, 12:51 AM
Actually one can shoot lead bullets in a Glock. Probably the oldest internet myth that just does not die. Thought we hashed this out on this thread (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=172607) when you said you were beating a dead horse. Guess you think it's back up and running again? ;)

It may not be in the manual, but Glock doesn't make a secret of the fact. If you call Glock, they will tell you not to shoot lead in their barrels. If you read any of the Glock Annuals, it's almost always spelled out in the first few pages.

And it's not even like this is something Glock cooked up. Here's (http://yarchive.net/gun/ammo/glock_lead_bullet.html) what Gale McMillan has to say on the topic.
It's the nature of a polygonal barrel that soft lead wants to skid across the rifling and lock up. With a bullet it will actually shear the lead causing high pressure. ... If you haven't had trouble just be patient.
Gale McMillan
Of COURSE you can shoot lead bullets in Glocks. You can also play golf in a thunderstorm or cross the street without looking both ways.

People get away with shooting lead in Glocks and doing many other things that are not necessarily wise--sometimes for a long time. But that doesn't mean it's a good idea to recommend it. The pressure rise from shooting lead bullets is predictable, it has been documented, and it is factual, not myth as you have repeatedly stated on this forum. The fact that you may get away with it for a long time doesn't make it safe--it just means you're either very careful, very lucky, or both.

I'm glad you have gotten away with this practice for a long time. I'm not trying to get you to stop because I know there's not a chance of that. But I sincerely wish you would stop telling other people that it's perfectly safe.

You're disagreeing with:

The company that made the gun.
A forensic mechanical engineer that did pressure measurements.
An expert in barrel making.
Many people who have actually had the "pleasure" of blowing up Glocks with lead bullets.

Now, maybe all of them are wrong and you're right! If so, please publish your credentials and pressure testing numbers confirming your allegation and convince Glock to stop warning people about shooting lead in Glocks. It should be no problem if it's really a myth.

Good luck,

John

noresttill
March 1, 2006, 02:47 AM
I can field strip and reassemble my Glock 17 in under a minute. At first, the slide release is tricky, but after you get that its like assembling a Glock (I tried to think of something easier to assemble, but couldn't so Glock is the standard)

Jesse

EDIT: Geez, I cant spell!

medmo
March 1, 2006, 03:47 AM
Pros = Everyone will love you if have a Glock on your hip.
Cons = Everyone will hate you if have a Glock on your hip.

Great gun at a great price. The models that are off the shelf today are an evolution of upgrades that Glock has made on improvements over the years. There have been obvious short comings that have been addressed by the factory and today's new models are far different then their older siblings imported years ago.

My favorite? The G19. I think it is the best for overall weight, firepower, dimensions and flat out "shoot-ability".

I don't think you can go wrong owning one... or two.

Glocker
March 1, 2006, 04:33 AM
This is simple :cool:

pro's on a Glock : Gaston Glock is a god ! :evil:

con's on a Glock : can't think of any:neener:

nuff said :D

IndianaDean
March 1, 2006, 05:07 AM
Major downside to my Glock 19:

I go through rounds at the range way too fast! :)

Kommander
March 1, 2006, 05:42 AM
Pros:
Reliable
Well Priced
Light
Easy to Use (perhaps too easy...)

Cons:
Thick
No Soul

Joe D
March 1, 2006, 09:01 AM
John, I have asked the person that did all of those "pressure test" to publish his actual findings. I have asked to see his testing protocol. I have asked for the type and model of his testing equipment. No answers so far.
I tend to have little respect for "experts". All too many times they have been proven wrong. Good thing Chuck Yeager did not listen to the "experts" or we would have never gone past the sound barrier.
Perhaps the key wording in Gale McMillan's quote is "soft lead". I wonder what his definition of "soft" is. The lead bullets I use come from two quality bullet makers. Both cast their bullets in the 18-20 range. I have "read" where others have shot soft lead bullets through their Glocks without any ill effects. I do not know this to be true as I have not tried it. What I do know is a large number of Glock owners shoot lead bullets through their guns without any issues. My Kimbers lead more than my Glocks.
My question to you is do you even own a Glock. If so have you ever tried lead bullets or do you just accept what the "experts" say as gospel.
As far as the "dead horse" issue I will continue to refute those, like you, that claim one cannot shoot lead through a Glock. My credentials? I have been shooting competitively since I was 12 years old. I have been gunsmithing for over 30 years. I have probably worked on more Glocks and 1911s than you have ever seen.
It sounds like you are comfortable living in a "safe little cocoon" never questioning the "experts". It is probably hard for you to admit you could be wrong. That's OK.
Feel free to continue your lead bullet posts, I will do the same.
BTW I do not believe in luck.

Joe D
March 1, 2006, 09:27 AM
John, answer this question for me. I have a G35 that I bought a 9mm conversion barrel for. This barrel has conventional rifling. My wife's G34 has the stock factory barrel. We both shoot the same practice load. That is a 125 gr lead bullet from Valiant loaded to a little over 1050 fps. After 500 or so rounds her barrel will have no lead what so ever. My 9mm barrel will have enough lead build up that it will require a fair amount of scrubbing to clean. My barrel is not what I would consider rough as a patch will slide easily through the bore. The bore size must be OK as the gun groups under 2" at 25 yds with this load. I have not slugged the barrel so I do not know for certain.
Why does one barrel lead and the other, that is supposed to, not?
I am certainly willing to listen to your reasons.

dmallind
March 1, 2006, 12:42 PM
You'd think I'd get this "soul" concept. Apart from one pocket gun all I have is Glocks (almost universally derided as having no "soul") and 1911s (usually held up as the epitome of "soul").

Bugger me with a banjo if I can see anything I would call "soul" in either of them. And I'm not even being pedantic and talking about a "nephesh" breath of god type soul here. I see nothing in 1911s that evokes any kind of emotional, spiritual or whatever response. I see nothing in Glocks that does either. Clearly most people agree on the latter, but many do not on the former.

Other than having a little more interesting lines with some curves and some straights blended together rather than the all-straight-line Glock, I don't even see any great aesthetic principles being demonstrated by the 1911.

What is this "soul" idea? Is it nostalgia mostly - do you look at a 1911 and imagine all the battles and gunfights it's been used in? Is it some sense of the aesthetic reaching some sublime level? Sorry but I don't see any great visual beauty per se in any gun. In 1915 or so did old time shooters wax lyrical about the "soul" of the service revolver and the boring practical mechanistic ugliness of the new fangled slabbly 1911? Why or why not?

Again make no mistake I enjoy my 1911s immensely and am trending almost exclusively in that direction. I am doing this though for very objective reasons - the trigger action, the accuracy for me, the practicality anmd modularity of the design. I also have Glocks for similarly objective reasons - simplicity, durability, reliability, consistency, cost.

Maybe I'm just a rational materialist here but "soul" in this context means nothing.

PinnedAndRecessed
March 1, 2006, 05:35 PM
Thanx for the great information. Based upon what I've read here, I'm going to rent a 17 and a 19 to test fire. My ultimate purchase will depend upon that.

One question, though. What is "firing out of battery?"

And, kbs. That is an explosion that damages the gun, right?

Ok, two questions.

:D

dmallind
March 1, 2006, 05:47 PM
Firing out of battery means the risky and presumably unintentionally designed ability for a semiauto to fire with the slide almost but not quite fully returned to battery - which is the "normal" locked up position with the breechface resting fully forward. While there is some debate about this, strong anecdotal evidence points to the fact that a bog-standard Glock can indeed have the striker move the firing pin with enough force to at least dimple and potentially even ignite while the breechface is not completely forward.

This also feeds into an increased risk of kb or kB or ka-BOOM! where this slight gap or lack of full chamber support allows an outlet for the explosion other than (technically in addition to) sending the bullet forward. This is also anecdotally more prevalent in Glocks although I suspect the huge number of Glocks in service contributes heavily here. It's also heavily centered on the .40 caliber. The 9mm Glocks are almost universally - even by Glock haters - acknowledged as exceedingly safe (as far as OOB and kBs go) and reliable.

JohnKSa
March 1, 2006, 09:36 PM
I tend to have little respect for "experts".Clearly! :DI have asked the person that did all of those "pressure test" to publish his actual findings.A very reasonable request. Therefore, I make the same very reasonable request of you. Please publish your "testing protocol." Please let us know "the type and model of your testing equipment."My question to you is do you even own a Glock. If so have you ever tried lead bullets or do you just accept what the "experts" say as gospel.I own 4. I will not shoot lead bullets in my Glocks because what the experts say makes perfect sense to me and because I don't have the pressure testing equipment to prove otherwise. I don't always accept what experts say--as you point out, they're not always right. But this time it makes sense.

As far as proving anything by shooting lead in my Glocks, it's like the old saying goes, One doesn't have to actually eat an egg to know it's rotten. ;) Anyway, simply shooting a few rounds of lead in my Glock would prove very little--the forensic engineer admits that it took him over 20,000 rounds to blow up his Glock. Only THEN did he do the pressure testing that showed him why it happened. AND why it could happen with far fewer than 20,000 rounds if one were unlucky.I will continue to refute those, like you, that claim one cannot shoot lead through a Glock.Of COURSE you can shoot lead bullets in Glocks. You can also play golf in a thunderstorm or cross the street without looking both ways.It sounds like you are comfortable living in a "safe little cocoon" never questioning the "experts". It is probably hard for you to admit you could be wrong. That's OK.Nope, anyone who knows me would laugh at a statement like that. I don't blindly accept what experts say--but I don't blindly dismiss whatever they say either.

As far as admitting I'm wrong, I'm sure you could find a few instances on THR or TFL. I'm wrong at times and when I am, I admit it. But Joe, this isn't about ME being wrong. I'm just telling you what the barrel maker says--what the manufacturer says--what the forensic engineer's pressure testing says--what various other experts say. Your quarrel is with THEM, not me. All I'm doing is pointing out that your position is in direct opposition to what these experts have to say.Why does one barrel lead and the other, that is supposed to, not?Nobody says that Glock barrels are SUPPOSED to lead. The problem is that they tend to be more prone to leading and, more to the point, when they DO begin to lead, the situation rapidly becomes dangerous. Furthermore, it's not as easy to tell if they are leaded, so if they begin to lead so the shooter may not realize what's happening. As far as why one barrel leads and another doesn't, there are lots of reasons for that--I'm sure you know them all. As to why you haven't had problems yet--like Mr. MacMillan says--if you haven't had problems yet, just be patient.I am certainly willing to listen to your reasons.MY reasons? Listen to Mr. MacMillan's reasons. Listen to the forensic engineer's reasons. Listen to Glock's reasons. Why would you accept my reasons (some anonymous guy on the web) over the high-powered experts out there who have given far better reasons than I could.BTW I do not believe in luck.The rain falls on the just and the unjust. ;)

355sigfan
March 1, 2006, 09:40 PM
I like both Glocks and 1911's for what they are good fighting sidearms.
Pat

RFM
March 2, 2006, 02:33 AM
I really can't figure out why Glocks are so popular.
After field stripping one, it seemed a little on the
cheap and flimsy side to me. Also, I could never
achieve tight groups with it :(

To each, his own I always say,...

XDKingslayer
March 2, 2006, 11:42 AM
If you are going to rent a Glock and give it a spin, rent a Springfield Arms XD series while you are at it for a good comparison.

I personally don't like Glocks. They feel goofy to me. But that is subjective and why I recommend trying other pistols. My beef with the Glock other than feel is that some models have non-fully supported barrels. I don't like that and prefer a pistol with a fully supported chamber.

I also like the additional safety on the XD. Take that one step further and look at the Taurus polymers that actually have a manual safety on them if that is a concern of yours.

brickboy240
March 2, 2006, 01:36 PM
I used to own a Glock 17 (amognst other hi-cap 9s) but traded it for an XD.

The Glocks pluses are its durability and reliability and simplicity. All of which I have found with the XD.

If you (like me) shoot 1911s, Sigs, Hi-Powers or the CZ-75, the grip angle on any Glock will give you fits. It is swept too far backwards and if you're used to these other pistols, it will seem to point way too high. I found the transition between these others and the Glock unnerving and sold the Glock 17. it was not a bad pistol, just didn't feel right.

If the Glocks feel good to you, go for it...they're just not for me.

If you shoot any of the above mentioned other pistols and want a polymer-type pistol, I highly reccomend the Springfield XD. Don't let the Glock desciples poo-poo it - the XD is a pretty good piece. I own Colts, Sigs and a FN Hi-Power so I am used to high quality pistols and the XD impressed me and is a real keeper.

- Brickboy240

orangeninja
March 2, 2006, 01:44 PM
My favorite Glocks are the 26, 19, 30 and 21.

Joe D
March 2, 2006, 08:57 PM
Wow John, that took a lot of effort! Did not know I riled you up so. I am waiting on HIS tests. I have proven to myself lead bullets are just as safe to shoot in a Glock as any other gun. I try to live in a common sense world. Something that is sadly lacking these days.
My tests? When I first started seeing posts on the internet about lead bullets and Glocks I had to think about it for a moment. It did not make sense to me. I had been told many, many years ago by Fred Kart that barrel leading starts at the juncture of the lands and grooves. That sharp corner was the culprit. The Glock barrel profile is more rounded. No sharp corners. So being a wild and reckless type I decided to see if all of that talk was correct. I took my G34 and loaded a couple of hundred rounds of a 125 gr Valiant lead bullet and 3.5 gr of Titegroup powder. Velocity was a bit over 1050 fps. After a hundred rounds I checked the bore, no lead. I repeated this until I hit 1,000 rounds. At 1,000 rounds there was just the slightest trace of lead. A couple of passes with a Bore Snake and that was gone.
I have over 2,500 rounds of lead bullets through my G21 so far without any lead. Is my 9mm conversion barrel unsafe because it leads and my Glock barrel does not? Are my Kimbers unsafe because they lead and my Glock 21 does not?
You and I will never agree on this issue. That is fine with me, but answer me this. Aren't you afraid to shoot your Glocks with those unsupported chambers? Maybe you have installed aftermarket barrels in all of them. What about "firing out of battery"? Do you still have all of your fingers? I pegged you wrong. You ARE a "wild and crazy guy".:D

JohnKSa
March 3, 2006, 11:18 PM
Naw, I'm not riled up. However, I do think it is VERY important to provide a counterpoint to your comments. Not everyone is as careful as you are. Not everyone knows how careful you are. And lastly--perhaps most importantly--not everyone is as lucky as you have been.

While you certainly have the right to do whatever you want, I believe that it is unwise to encourage others to do the same given the number of experts who strongly recommend against it.I have proven to myself lead bullets are just as safe to shoot in a Glock as any other gun.With all due respect, you haven't actually "proven" anything. You may be satisfied with the conclusions you have drawn from your shooting, but in the absence of pressure testing, that is far from being proof of anything.

As with many practices that are not recommended, the fact that a person gets away with it for a long time (or even for a lifetime) doesn't prove that it is safe. It only proves that the person is lucky or perhaps very careful. For example, I know smokers who have lived to a ripe old age, but that doesn't prove that smoking is safe, only that some people are lucky to be less affected than others.You and I will never agree on this issue.Well, that may or may not be true, but I'm not trying to convince you to agree with me. I'm just pointing out that while your anecdotal evidence points to one conclusion, there are plenty of well-respected experts who disagree strongly.Aren't you afraid to shoot your Glocks with those unsupported chambers? Maybe you have installed aftermarket barrels in all of them. What about "firing out of battery"? Do you still have all of your fingers? I pegged you wrong. You ARE a "wild and crazy guy".I'm certainly not one to believe everything I read on the web. No aftermarket barrels, no missing fingers, no fear of Glocks. ;)

GunAdmirer
March 5, 2006, 12:21 AM
I avoid the whole lead reload issue by reloading with Berry's copper plated bullets. They work very well, don't lead the barrel and are only a little more expensive than lead. I've shot well over a thousand of them through my various pistols with no problems and good accuracy.

I love my Glocks. They aren't the prettiest pistols but are unsurpassed for reliability and longevity. I tactually like the way they look.

Parts are easy to come by and Glocks are easy to repair and clean - IF you ever needed to.

The owner of our club's range has a Glock 17 with over 250,000 rounds through it. He still rents it out every week and has only replaced a trigger spring. The grip is smooth in spots but it keeps on firing.

Half or more of the guys in our pistol club shoot Glocks at the different matches. It is really rare to see one jam. I saw the first one jam today because an inexperienced shooter didn't fully seat the magazine.

Black Majik
March 5, 2006, 03:06 AM
Since I've written this same thing over and over before, I'll give give the pro/con format of the Glock.

Pro: Reliability, durability, and dependability (doesn't that sound like a truck commercial?) They're light, come with a lightrail that doesn't protrude from the frame, and they're usually high capacity. Awesome finish. Very easy take down and fieldstrip.

Con: The awkward grip angle, spongy trigger, plastic sights, quite thick.


I had a Glock 23 once, I wanted to try the Glock niche. I honestly felt that if the Glock fit me, the compact size Glocks (19/23/32) would be the perfect CCW weapon.

The two things that bothered me most was the grip angle and the spongy trigger. While I don't like em', I do respect them. I tried the Glock thing once, and once is good enough. :)

Joe D
March 5, 2006, 07:54 AM
You know John, I am very skeptical about the "forensic engineer's" tests. No one seems to be able to come up with his test methods or equipment that he used. Where did he get his test barrel? Did he make one? Was it a CUP test, Piezo strain gauge or transducer? Make and model of his equipment?
Did the "famous barrel maker" actually test a Glock barrel or was it just an opinion? If it was just an opinion then that's all it was. His "opinion" is worthless without any testing. At least I have done enough "testing" to prove to me that shooting lead through Glocks is just as safe as shooting lead through any gun.
There are several posters on various forums that appear to stake their reputation on what these few "experts" have to say.
I have been shooting competitively since I was 12, gunsmithing for 30+ years, reloading for 35, IDPA Master. Does all that make me an expert? Nope, but I do have a wee bit of experience.

PinnedAndRecessed
March 5, 2006, 09:39 AM
Firing out of battery means the risky and presumably unintentionally designed ability for a semiauto to fire with the slide almost but not quite fully returned to battery - which is the "normal" locked up position with the breechface resting fully forward. While there is some debate about this, strong anecdotal evidence points to the fact that a bog-standard Glock can indeed have the striker move the firing pin with enough force to at least dimple and potentially even ignite while the breechface is not completely forward.

This also feeds into an increased risk of kb or kB or ka-BOOM! where this slight gap or lack of full chamber support allows an outlet for the explosion other than (technically in addition to) sending the bullet forward. This is also anecdotally more prevalent in Glocks although I suspect the huge number of Glocks in service contributes heavily here. It's also heavily centered on the .40 caliber. The 9mm Glocks are almost universally - even by Glock haters - acknowledged as exceedingly safe (as far as OOB and kBs go) and reliable.

From here:

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=173504&page=2&highlight=glock+battery

Quote:
9mm Glocks don't seem to be a problem for some reason

I think a big part of this is that the 9mms were considerably over-engineered. I think a lot of that over-engineering is why the .40 could be shoehorned into the same basic design with only minor changes. And I think that loss of margin is why the .40s, seem to be so much more problem prone.

I'm thinking that maybe since the 17 is the flagship of Glock, and that they've had sufficient time to upgrade (what is this, 3rd generation?), that maybe the 17 is best.

Now, if I can only remember to clean the chamber, don't use lead, (or is it, "don't use reloads?"), or if I use reloads, don't use Federal primers, don't use aftermarket springs, don't limpwrist while shooting, don't press the barrel against a wall and pull the trigger, brush my teeth before I shoot...........

I think I'm getting a headache. Maybe I should just take up stamp collecting.

boldkharma
March 5, 2006, 10:08 AM
Or :neener: just get a Sig P226

IlikeSA
March 5, 2006, 10:11 AM
Pros: popular with police forces and with population in general...how many "non-gun" people do you hear saying when they come to the store "I wanna see a Glock!"
Reliable

Cons:
More expensive than newer guns with more or better features
plastic magazine, sometimes jams in magwell
Plastic sights
Plastic trigger
Plastic guide rod for spring
Expensive for plastic (I've actually watched them be assembled in the factory, it doesn't cost them the 500 dollars you pay NIB)
New Gen 3 model has grips on it that sometimes doesn't fit the hand holding it
the Kabooms (I've witnessed it on the police range...2x with different Glocks, on the same day)
lack of external manual safety
Lack of mods, can be boring like my XD...it shoots great and theres nothing I can or need to do to modify it...where's the challenge in that :p

Onmilo
March 5, 2006, 11:52 AM
I find it fairly amusing that even the Glock Company itself explicitly states in the owners manual NOT to use lead bullet ammunition in any Glock firearm and someone will still post on the internet that fabled he has been shooting millions of lead bullet loads through his fabled factory Glock complete with fabled factory Glock barrel and never had a problem doing so, and fabled he recommends that you can do so and not worry about any problems doing so even though all the information and testing and exploded Glocks has conclusively proved that shooting lead bullet ammunition through Glock factory barrels is indeed a very problematic issue and one of the, if not THE, most common reason for the other internet issue,,, the famous explodes for no apparent reason Glock handgun.
I swear these posters must be affiliated with litigation lawers,,,,,,

I don't tell people that they can't shoot lead bullet ammuntion through their Glocks.
I insist that if they choose to do so, they spend the money for a proper aftermarket barrel specifically designed to safely accomodate lead bullet ammunition is the Glock pistol.
No one should ever say shooting lead bullet ammunition in Glock pistols can't be done.
They should state that shooting lead bullet ammunition can't be SAFELY done in the factory barrel.

Rockstar
March 5, 2006, 11:55 AM
Joe,
I guess you know by now that I generally agree with you. However, I would point out a couple of minor exceptions that I have with you in this thread. You make queries about the testing equipment used by the forensic engineer (He's MarkCO, a GT moderator, and the results are on his website; he's available for discussing his methods), but it's pretty clear that the only equipment that you used were a barrel and a bunch of lead bullets. I have to agree with John that you haven't proven anything; just provided anecdotes of your having shot a bunch of lead through your Glocks, with no malady so far.

The theory of why Glock barrels lead has nothing to do with the reference that you made to Kart. The theory is that, at higher velocities, the lead "smears" in the shallow rifling of the polygonal rifling, causing build-up just north of the chamber. I don't shoot lead through any of my firearms, simply because I don't like lead. I REALLY don't know if you're right or MarkCO's right...was just making observations.

I do know, however, from my own experience with Glocks, that firing out-of-battery/unsupported chambers aren't "dangerous" Glock design issues. I've had some off-center strikes, but ignition didn't occur. If a head does separate @ 6 o'clock, the damage to the Glock will be relatively minor. If a true catastrophic failure happens, it won't be due to a case failure at 6 o'clock; it'll be from a dramatic overpressure caused by too much powder crammed into the case.

Biker
March 5, 2006, 12:56 PM
I've likely fired equal amounts of factory lead and FMJ out of my G23 over the years, depending upon what was on sale and have experienced no problems. I wonder if it's because the FMJs 'clean' the lead out of my barrel? Is this a myth?
Biker

Rockstar
March 5, 2006, 03:47 PM
If your barrel is lead-occluded, the last thing you want to do is run a jacketed bullet through it!

Biker
March 5, 2006, 04:54 PM
Kinda makes my point. A few years ago, at 16,000 rounds, I quit counting how many rounds I put through my G23. Likely half of them were lead.
Biker

355sigfan
March 5, 2006, 06:47 PM
{Or just get a Sig P226}
END QUOTE

Sigs are nice but sig also says no reloads. Sigs frames crack (alluminum ones) sigs rust (prior to Nitrol finish) sigs have a crappy DA trigger (prior to dak) sigs have a long trigger reset when in SA mode. Sigs have a high bore axis that magnifies muzzle flip. Every gun has its pro's and cons.
Pat

RyanM
March 5, 2006, 07:21 PM
I dunno why people complain about the lack of customization options. There's lots of crazy custom junk you can do to a Glock. And just like a 1911, the more you depart from the original design, the less reliable they get.

There's also a ton of personal preference junk you can do that won't affect reliability. Especially for the trigger pull. My G23 has an 8 pound, revolver-like trigger with only a little stacking. Starts at about 6 pounds, ends at 8. Only cost about $30 to do.

355sigfan
March 5, 2006, 07:26 PM
Actually for the 1911 a lot of things have improved reliability. Lowered ejection port, polished feed ramps. ect. With the Glock stock is better.
Pat

Joe D
March 5, 2006, 10:53 PM
Rock, I have emailed him on several occasions to find out a little more about his testing protocol. No replies. I have stated many times that I don't drive lead bullets very fast. The "hottest" load is a 125 gr 9mm at 1050 fps. Most folks that have been around lead bullets for a while know it is unwise to push them much past 1,000 fps without a gas check.
Years ago the joke in the Bullseye circle were bullets made by the Zero Bullet Company. The joke was they had zero animony (sp?). I doubt they would go much over a 10 Brinnel. Anything over about 750 fps and you would have lead dripping out of your barrel.
I am really not trying to prove anyone wrong or win some argument. I think the real issue is someone started posting on their turf/forum that did not agree with them. Every forum has it's "Forum Kings". One can usually tell by the number of posts they do. All I have ever said is I and many others have shot lead through stock Glock barrels for years. I ran into a guy the other day that was shooting lead through his G17. I asked him, with a little smirk, how many barrels he had blown up due to the lead bullets. He said that was all he shot in his Glock. He did not know you were not supposed to.

JohnKSa
March 5, 2006, 11:25 PM
If your barrel is lead-occluded, the last thing you want to do is run a jacketed bullet through it!+1. That's not even a safe practice in regular rifling. Beretta specifically recommends against it in the newer manuals for their 92 series pistols.All I have ever said is I and many others have shot lead through stock Glock barrels for years.That's fine, I have no problem with that given that you know the score. I do have a problem with you taking that one step farther (which you have done even on this thread) and stating that it is a myth that one should not shoot lead in Glock barrels.

Whether or not you believe MarkCO (and his credentials make him pretty credible IMO) you still have to deal with the manufacturer and other well-respected experts who say it's a bad idea. At least some of those entities have access to testing equipment, design and engineering experience, and destructive testing results that you and I could never even begin to pay for.

Stating that you shoot lead bullets with no ill effects to date doesn't give me any heartburn. Stating that you have proven it is safe or that the recommendation against it is a myth is going too far, IMO.His "opinion" is worthless without any testing. At least I have done enough "testing" to prove to me that shooting lead through Glocks is just as safe as shooting lead through any gun.You have not done any testing. You have simply gotten away with a procedure that is not recommended for a long time--as have others. That is not testing. It's the equivalent of someone arguing that they have proven to themselves that smoking is safe because they've done it for years without dying of cancer. And saying that their "testing" (smoking for years without getting cancer) makes their opinion more valid than that of the experts.

Does everyone who smokes die of cancer? Nope. Is it safe? Nope.

Does everyone who crosses the street without looking get hit by a car? Nope. Is it safe? Nope.

Does everyone who shoots lead in Glock barrels have a gun blow up? Nope. Is it safe? Nope.

Joe D
March 6, 2006, 07:24 AM
John, guess we will not agree on the lead bullet issue. Not a problem for me. Time to move on to other issues.
What I struggle with is proof that these "experts" have actually done any testing. I am yet to find any documented tests.
Think about it for a moment John. Time to push any issues you and I may have aside. Have you ever seen any actual data? I have not. Believe me I have looked for it.
Do I believe one should shoot soft lead bullets in Glocks? Of course not. They should not be shot in any gun. Yes, I have seen a 1911 barrel split due to excessive lead build up. Guy was shooting Zero brand lead bullets. He did not believe in cleaning his barrel. His method of cleaning the lead out was to fire a few rounds of 230 gr ball ammo through his gun.

Rockstar
March 6, 2006, 11:01 AM
Check this "data" out, Joe! :p

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=187085

Big Gay Al
March 6, 2006, 05:56 PM
Another reason I don't like Glocks. The only gun I have that doesn't fire jacketed bullets is my black powder cap & Ball revolver. And that gets thoroughly cleaned after every shooting session, and sometimes partially cleaned during.

brickboy240
March 7, 2006, 01:03 PM
If you have 1911s and a Sig 220...why the hell do you want a Glock?

I ask, because I too own 3 1911s and a Sig 220 and the Glock just does not interest me one bit. The 1911 and Sig 220 are very capable and feel better in the hand than any Glock I have ever shot. Trigger is better, too.

- Brickboy240

dmallind
March 7, 2006, 01:33 PM
But the opposite can also be true as you are making an entirely subjective point brickboy. I have several 1911s and 2 Glocks and nothing interests me about Sigs. Sigs are more expensive, lower capacity, more prone to surface wear than Glocks, also head to head normally heavier, less concealable too. They typically have the annoying crunchenticker DA/SA trigger with weird resets. Glocks fit my hand just fine and I have no problem whatsoever switching between 1911s and Glocks. Muscle memory is a wonderful thing. I know SIGs are held to be reliable and durable guns, and I have no reason to doubt that indeed they are so, but I already have Glocks which are reliable and durable and work just fine, so why would I want to pay more for a Sig (when I can pay LOTS more for another 1911 instead :cool: )?

355sigfan
March 7, 2006, 01:59 PM
1911's are my faviorate and the sig 220 is a nice DA pistol. But given the choice between any non 1911 and a Glock I will take the Glock. It has a better trigger than the sig. The sigs DA is long and heavy often stacking. The SA on the sig is crisp but has a long reset. The sig has a high bore axis which magnifies muzzle flip. I sold my Sig 220 a while back and feel the Glock is a far better choice. But even better than the Glock is a Custom 1911.
Pat

brickboy240
March 7, 2006, 02:55 PM
Actually, I have found the XDs to be better shooters than Glocks. The trigger on the XD is betteer, too.

The Glock has a wierd grip angle...wierd if you're weened on 1911s, Sigs and Hi-Powers like I am. Its too swept backwards, forcing me to hold my wrist down or shoot too high. If you never shoot other pistol types, it wouldn't seem odd, but if you shoot 1911s, it will drive you nuts. It did for me, anyways.

99% of whether a pistol is for you depends on feel. Actually, the best-feeling hi-cap 9mms to me are the Hi- Power and the CZ-75 - these are not the most popular, though. Alot of people see Glocks in movies and see cops carrying Glocks (hint" Glock goves PDs group discounts) and think they are the best. The "Glock is the only pistol" types are about as bad as the "Colt is the only pistol" types. Both are annoying and wrong.

Whats best for you is the one that fits and the one you can hit with, and that may or may not be the one you see in the movies or on a cop's belt. Other pistols are as durableas a Glock...don't fall for that. Did you see the torture test done on the XD-9 in Handguns Magazine last October? Pretty impressive, I doubt anyone here will subject their own pistol to that kind of abuse.

Why I said what I said was that most people I know can hit very well with a 1911 or some sort of Sig and don't need to look anywhere else. Too many types in your battery can lead to confusion. If you can hit well with a Glock, trade the others on a pistol you can hit better with.

- Brickboy240

dmallind
March 7, 2006, 03:55 PM
I agree with evrything there except that the assumption is 1911 shooters can't transfer happily to Glocks. Look at my current list (need to add the RIA I ordered yesterday) - apart from a pocket Kahr all I have is 1911s and Glocks. Doesn't give me fits at all. Sure the grips feel different, but the adjustment for me is easy and automatic. I'm NOT saying it should be that way for everyone and I am sure you are correct in that it causes you problems. It does so not because you are any less skilled or competent than I am (I'd be willing to bet the opposite is probably true - by THR standards I am a subpar shooter) but because of some hardwired physiological differences in how exactly you and I hold guns and change from one grip to another. Grips are incredibly subjective from person to person. One of the most universally praised pistols for natural grip is the CZ75. I hated the thing and it felt horrible to me, but again that's just a subjective anecdote not a reason for anyone else to avoid CZ-75s unless they have the same hands and grip and preferences as me.

I wouldn't use my experience to recommend Glocks to 1911 shooters, but I don't think it's valid to use yours to warn all 1911 shooters off Glocks either.

The best advice is one we both offered - try out the Glocks or ANY other brand before you buy - they'll either feel and point comfortably or they won't. If they do and are otherwise good buys, buy it. If not, don't regardless of their reputation because nothing, I agree, screws up a gun more than uncomfortable ergos.

355sigfan
March 7, 2006, 04:47 PM
QUOTE
Actually, I have found the XDs to be better shooters than Glocks. The trigger on the XD is betteer, too.
END QUOTE

Actually Glocks have a better trigger pull due to a much shorter reset. Glocks are better shooters as well. As to the other poster I shoot Glocks and 1911's with no problem in transistioning.
Pat

Braden
March 7, 2006, 04:50 PM
Recommendations? Criticisms?

And if you have a particular Glock you can recommend, what is the most I should pay?

To answer the original question:

Recommendations? Since you said you want a 9mm then I'd recommend either the G17 or the G19. Personally, I have the G17 and I intend to buy the G26 as a BUG or pocket gun, so I really have no need for the G19. The grip on the full size G17 also fits my hands better than the one on the G19 does. That being said, the G19 is quite possibly one of the most popular Glock models. Do like you said...rent both and then decide which one you like better.

Criticisms? I don't like the plastic sights. That is the only REAL criticism I have of Glocks.

That being said, there are four things that I install on any new Glock that I get:

1) Night sights (for obvious reasons)
2) Extended Slide Stop Lever (makes it easier for me to release the slide after reloading)
3) Extended Slide Lock Lever (makes it easier to get my fat fingers on the lever for field stripping)
4) Grip sleeve (I use a piece of bicycle inner tube cut to the appropriate length).

1, 2 & 4 are a must for me. Number 3 is just personal preference.

Prices?? I paid $475 for my NIB G17. I've seen them anywhere from $469 to $569 NIB. Personally, I wouldn't pay more than $500 unless it came with night sights (which cost $70 to $130 aftermarket depending on which ones you want).

kennyboy
March 7, 2006, 08:10 PM
Glocks are reliable, fairly inexpensive, have high mag capacities, have a tough finish, are durable, have a crapload of aftermarket accessories, etc. The only minute downsides are that the .45 model 21 has a grip that some feel is too big, but I think it is just fine. Also, lead bullets should not be fired from Glocks.

IV Troop
March 7, 2006, 10:06 PM
A little more fuel for the discussion.

I shot IPSC for years with a bone stock G21 45 that was also my work gun. In about 4 years of heavy (for me) competition and work practice I put between 45 and 50 thousand rounds through that first G21. I kept track by tearing off the end of the 1000 primer carton and throwing it in the drawer next to my 550 dillon. All of those rounds were 200 grains SWC lead bullets, with the exception of my duty HP,s.

The only failure I had with that early G21 was a broken trigger return spring and a chipped extractor. While the chipped extractor functioned perfectly I replaced it anyway because it was a duty gun.

Then I gave that one to my dad who still uses it. I wanted a new one with the new rail. I did not keep close track on that one but I conservatively estimate it at around 30 thousand rounds. This time a mix of lead and jacketed. Zero parts breakage

I went to work for an agency that issued G21s and I have put around 50K though this gun as one of my jobs has been as a firearms instructor, plus teaching at the local colleges LE program. It has seen mostly ball ammo with maybe a few thousand 230 gr jhp's. Zero parts breakage.

In 2004 I went to John Shaw's Mid South Institute, a military and LE training facility. In 3.5 days I put 5 thousand rounds of 230 grain Blazer ball through my issue G21. It was the most ammo intensive course I have been to and I have been to a few. I NEVER cleaned it with the exception of wiping off the front sight tritium for the kill house and night drills. I wanted to see when it would start to choke. It never malfunctioned even once. That gave me a warm and fuzzy feeling about my issue duty G21 and G21s in general

Form your own opinions about Glocks. I have, based on a whole lot of years of shooting them.

gunfan
March 7, 2006, 10:18 PM
I carry it on duty, daily. When I can, I put the effort into practicing with it. I outshot EVERYONE on the range during qualifications. That should speak for itself.

Scott

PinnedAndRecessed
March 8, 2006, 06:03 PM
Epilogue:

I put a NIB G17 on layaway, today. Will pick it up in about a week.

The price was $468.95, before tax.

One question. The dealer said his WW ammo was better than Walmart cause Walmart ammo is "seconds."

Is that true?

dmallind
March 8, 2006, 06:12 PM
Nope.

WWB is WWB. There are better levels of ammo sold by Winchester but white box works just great in Glocks and white box is white box is white box.

BTW if your range allows them I have good luck with Blazer Aluminum - even cheaper than WWB and seem to shoot a bit cleaner for me at least.

Enjoy the Glock - nice price and a nice standard gun.

If you find yourself not happy with it after a while one good thing about Glocks also is that at resale they fetch pretty close to new prices as long as they are not abused. You could probably sell that G17 without losing 10% of the value after a few thousand rounds.

Braden
March 8, 2006, 06:32 PM
If you have an Academy near you then you can purchase the Blazer ammo for $4.86 per box. I'm not sure how that compares to WWB at Walmart, but I have given up on buying ammo from Walmart so I'll never know.

PinnedAndRecessed
March 9, 2006, 09:20 AM
If you have an Academy near you then you can purchase the Blazer ammo for $4.86 per box.

As a matter of fact, I do. I've passed the Academy store often, but have never been in.

This is a good excuse to visit.

:D

DunedinDragon
March 9, 2006, 09:35 AM
Epilogue:

I put a NIB G17 on layaway, today. Will pick it up in about a week.

The price was $468.95, before tax.

One question. The dealer said his WW ammo was better than Walmart cause Walmart ammo is "seconds."

Is that true?

Congrats on the G17. You're going to have a lot of fun shooting it, and with the savings on ammo I suspect you're going to be shooting it a lot!!! I also have a P220 and 1911, but that doesn't mean I don't love shooting my G19!!

Dean Speir
March 9, 2006, 10:37 AM
.
I find it fairly amusing that even the Glock Company itself explicitly states in the owners manual NOT to use lead bullet ammunition in any Glock firearm... Cite, please, including date of manual.

.

GunAdmirer
March 9, 2006, 10:43 AM
Congrats on your G17. You got a good price. I love mine. It is accurate, reliable and tough. The trigger has gotten smoother over the first 1500 rounds too.

I enjoy shooting 9mm because it is cheap, manageable and powerful and accurate enough.

My original G17 has attracted a G19 and G26. Be careful.

I wouldn't do anything to it except maybe adding a grip plug and upgrading the sights. It's fine the way it is, so avoid messing with it much.

Try to get involved in a shooting club and IDPA matches. You will learn some important gun handling skills and make some new friends.

Bronson7
March 9, 2006, 11:05 AM
JoeD, In another forum, this topic also came up. I agree with you. A gentleman there told me he knew of a forensic engineer (whatever that is) that performed a test that proved Glocks lead more than standard rifling. I asked the same questions with the same results. I wanted to know the test parameters, all of which should be spelled out in a Test Report. No one could site a Test Report. I asked if the same test was done with a standard rifled barrel also. Same response. I'm a retired engineering test lab technician, so I'm familiar with this sort of thing. The lack of information on the subject is suspect. Back in the mid '80s, I had a 17L. I shot thousands of lead bullets through it with very little leading. I would be more than pleased to review these alleged tests. Perhaps they won't hold up to scrutiny, hence their unavailability.
Bronson7

Braden
March 9, 2006, 05:10 PM
As a matter of fact, I do. I've passed the Academy store often, but have never been in.

This is a good excuse to visit.


Friend, you don't know what you've been missing. Academy is one of my favorite stores for anything sporting good related. :)

I buy my .40 ammo there too. They sell 250 round bricks of UMC for $42 and some change. Hard to beat that price.

OneFireStick
March 9, 2006, 06:38 PM
I thought my Glock manual stated no lead. I'll have to check that this evening and see.

AWGD8
March 9, 2006, 07:30 PM
Yep , base from my experience never ever use a lead ammo for the Glock. I always buy a $15 brand name 50 rounds ammo when I shoot my G27. One day I decided to save money:D and bought $12 50 rounds lead ammo. Much to my surprise:eek: , after my 1st 10 rounds the lead got stucked right below the entrance (base) of the chamber and the casing end still held by the magazine. I had to tap the base of the magazine harder :banghead: to free the jammed round. It happened 4 times that day. :cuss:

I talked to a retired cop who is a friend of mine, and said that the lead
produces too much residue and build up when it hits the base of the chamber before the round enters it. not sure if this is true.

PinnedAndRecessed
March 9, 2006, 07:45 PM
I have given up on buying ammo from Walmart

Why?

OneFireStick
March 10, 2006, 02:22 AM
I checked my glock owners manual and there was no mention of lead ammo at all. Closest thing it said was only use high quality manufactured ammo in good condition. Reloaded ammo would void the glock warranty if used.

That's it.

Braden
March 10, 2006, 10:22 AM
PinnedAndRecessed, I simply got tired of dealing with them. I used to buy all of my practice ammo from Walmart because of the great price they have on WWB. However, it's a BEATING actually getting it in your hands. First, there is RARELY anyone actually at the ammo counter to help you. You either have to go and find someone or sit there and wait. Second, when you do finally find someone you have to all but walk around the counter and SHOW them where their own products are. I got tired of the, "No, not that one....to the left....no, your other left....your OTHER left....a little more....it's the box with BIG letters that say '.40 S&W' on it....no, not that one....one more.....no, now go up one....THERE!! Yeah, that one. Yes, I'm sure." :rolleyes:

I can walk up to the ammo counter at Academy where there are usually at least two associates waiting to help me. I can tell them what I want and they walk straight to it, pull it out, hand it to me and tell me to have a good day.

I just got too frustrated dealing with the Walmart sporting goods people so I quit buying ammo there. The few pennies I saved per box wasn't worth the frustration. The last straw for me was when I went there for the third time in a row and they didn't have my ammo in stock. I told the clerk that they need to be better about stocking their ammo and he made some comment about it being hunting season so they were selling a lot more of what I wanted (as if the .40 S&W round is a popular hunting cartridge). :rolleyes:

PinnedAndRecessed
March 10, 2006, 11:28 AM
I understand. It is frustrating, isn't it? Now we know why they suffer massive, and I mean "massive", shrinkage.

ruger270man
March 10, 2006, 07:10 PM
I love my G34 with a passion.. there is not a single thing I'd change about, and its perfect in every way imagineable.

I'm a Glock fan for life. :D

355sigfan
March 10, 2006, 07:46 PM
The 34 is a nice gun except that large dirt allowing hole on the top of the slide.
Pat

ruger270man
March 10, 2006, 07:56 PM
the large hole is for balance, and for proper cycling of the slide.

and I dont mind the hole :neener:

355sigfan
March 10, 2006, 09:43 PM
I know what its for but it allows debris to get into the gun.
pat

v35
March 10, 2006, 10:36 PM
I got tired of the, "No, not that one....to the left....no, your other left....your OTHER left....a little more....it's the box with BIG letters that say '.40 S&W' on it....no, not that one....one more.....no, now go up one....THERE!! Yeah, that one. Yes, I'm sure."
Ditto.

Sounds like I shop at the same Wal-Mart, but then I saw your location.

Unfortunately I have no other alternative within a reasonable distance.

:banghead:

PinnedAndRecessed
March 11, 2006, 01:19 AM
Update on the myth that Walmart's White Winchester Ammo is "seconds."

http://glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=512806

I have heard many stories of gun shop salesmen telling people that the winchester WWB that is at Wal-Mart is "seconds".

I have decided to clear this up once and for all. I emailed Winchester and this was there reply to me:
_________________________________________

Thank you very much for taking the time to contact us here at Winchester Ammunition. We are always glad to hear from our many friends and customers who share in the shooting sport.

Winchester Ammunition does not sell seconds. All ammunition shipped from Winchester is High Quailty First class ammunition.

Thank you again for contacting us here at Winchester Ammunition. If you should require additional information, do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

Winchester Technical Department

mrvickery
March 11, 2006, 02:49 AM
"Actually one can shoot lead bullets in a Glock. Probably the oldest internet myth that just does not die. When you ask people why not, they just say I read about it on the internet. If you really want to blow their minds ask them if they have tried shooting lead bullets in their Glock. Most of the folks that spew out this nonsense do not even own a Glock. I just have to chuckle and shake my head."
I have owned glocks since the early 90's. I once loaded a bunch of light reloads to practice with using lead bullets. The gun didn't blow up or anything but I have never spent so long a time trying to clean lead out of a barrel. While you can laugh about the so called myth all you want, I suggest you fire a couple hundred rounds through your gun and see if you still have the same opinion. Of course you probably don't own one or have ever even shot one. Perhaps with a little more experience you might come up with a valuable opinion someday.

PinnedAndRecessed
March 13, 2006, 08:36 PM
I just received my membership for a gun range. The range has a rather impressive pistol range.

So now I guess I'll go pick up my G17 Glock that's on layaway. I'll also need to pick up a couple hundred rounds WW ammo from Walmart. I know it's dirty but everything I've shot for the past 15 years has been Unique. And we all know how dirty it is.

Anyway, thanx for all the recommendations. I'll post back to let you know how it went.

If you enjoyed reading about "Pros and Cons about Glock" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!