[ugaarguy]

Anyone see his thoughts in the July issue of G&A?

"...The Glock is okay. It is generally reliable, it is comparatively inexpensive, and it is available in respectable calibers. Above all, its aftermarket service is superior...It may not be the best choice for the expert pistolero, but such people are not in the majority."

I think it's a fair and accurate evaluation. Thoughts from others here?

[PinnedAndRecessed]

Jeff Cooper? He's still alive? Wow. He must be in his 90s.

I'd say his analysis his correct. I only own one, though. A G17. It is a sweet machine.

I'm also considering a G26 for CCW.

[Dienekes]

He is taking the viewpoint that a Glock is like the jack in a rental car. You may need one, and it's the company's (read "agency's") obligation to furnish you *something* that works in its own fashion and meets *their* needs--not necessarily yours. And there you are. Sort of a lowest common denominator thing.

[BigG]

I think the Glock, particularly the mid-sized 19 and 23, to be better than "the jack in a rental car." There is not a dang thing wrong with them, although I think the 31 flavors of calibers is a little goofy, but not a big thing.

They are like a plain wife - will not turn heads but will stand by you and take care of you when the chips are down.

Cooper must be 85 or 86, as he was born in 1920. He seems to be running true to form, i.e., set in his ways and unable to change. What the heck, he's pretty much right, and it's not bragging if you can do it. ;)

[bestseller92]

I love my Glock 22. Never had a malf -- you can't beat 100%.

[nitesite]

I've long appreciated Glocks, because I've shot other people's guns a bunch and found them quite good at what they are designed for. But I never liked them enough to buy one myself.

Until recently when I broke down and got one of my own. I'm actually growing quite fond of it.

I doubt I'll ever get another one, but that would only be because I have more than enough handguns to keep me busy.

[GeorgiaGlocker]

I own a Glock 19 and have never had any problems with over 1000 rounds through it. It is reliable, dependable, easy to breakdown, clean, to work on and parts are relatively inexpensive to purchase. The G19 is also an excellent CCW weapon. One of the best 9mm made IMHO.

[grimjaw]

The Glock is top heavy

I find that to be true of most polymer/plastic framed pistols, even aluminum framed ones. The main gripe I have with the Glock is the grip. I'm constantly lured to them by the idea that I can treat it like crap and it can still run, but I can't get over the fact that I don't like shooting them.

jmm

[ball3006]

through my Glock with 100 percent reliability. I don't want a mechanical lever between me and my life, that is why I carry a Glock........When I want the gun to go bang, any distractions are neither encouraged or desired.........chris3

[byf43]

G-21 owner here.

Never a malfunction. Not one. Always goes bang when you press the trigger.


Some people just don't like 'em though. That's fine.
That's why Colt, S&W, Kimber, H&K, SA, etc., etc., etc., are in business.

Chocolate, vanilla or strawberry. Heck, even chocolate chip cookie dough :) and black cherry! Not everybody likes the same thing. That's what makes THIS sport so great!

[Pistol Toter]

I'm a G21 owner also. Glocks are the uglest and I mean butt uglest guns that I ever seen, they are plastic, rattle like baby rattles, have no soul, no safety............ But mine is on my hip as I type. It goes BANG every time I pull the trigger, The POI is POA and is very consistant or goups at 2 inches or less at 25 yds off hand shooting. Recoil is in my opinion is quite light, a push with little flip. With 13+1 in firepower of .45acp and conceals acceptably well it makes a dandy CCW. It has basicly the same manual of arms as revolver. What else do you want? OH and the safety is my brain, keep your finger away from the trigger and it wont go BANG, it's an inanimate object so it needs no soul, the rattle is what keeps it from binding up in the dirt and mud, plastic well everything is made out of plastic from tractor trailer trucks to medical inplants, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I am confident that if I ever need it, it will do its job if I can do mine. That's all I expect; the same as my SP101 which is my other CCW. I don't need to spend a $1000 to $3000 for a perfect defense weapon. P.T.

[bestseller92]

I actually think Glocks look cool.

[res1b3uq]

What a great analogy. But they are ugly-------

[nitesite]

I don't need to spend a $1000 to $3000 for a perfect defense weapon. P.T.

You're absolutely correct. In fact, if I spent over $1000 for a personal defense sidearm I would seriously question it's absolute reliability. And absolute reliability is the #1 criteria for a PD weapon, right?

I think the vast majority of Americans who 'legally carry concealed' pack simple revolvers or pistols that cost less than $700. Usually less.

[psyopspec]

I'd say the Colonel is spot on.

[KINGMAX]

I concur that a GLOCK looks like one of the LEE sisters. HOME-A-LEE,
or UG-A-LEE). :D That is double butt ugly. :scrutiny: But looks did not compel me to purchase a GLOCK 21. The .45 cal is my preference for round size, GLOCK sold me on performance. 'I have yet to have my first jam or malfunction' No looks about it. I like Stainless Steel and nice wood for grips, my GLOCK is a 'Plane Jane', nothing to it. :)

[gezzer]

Don't care what a Glock looks like it is better than a heavy almost 100 year old design. I'll take my weight in ammo not in 1911 steel.

[Croyance]

Plenty of competative shooters in IDPA seem to use Glocks, so I don't know that they aren't accurate - his implication with the "expert pistoleros" line. Nobody that is good enough to actually try to win will settle for something that isn't reasonably accurate.

As for aftermarket service, this comment from a backer of the 1911 is a joke. Don't get me wrong, my Kimber has always worked and did so straight out of the box. But when you scan comments on different boards, who needs to return their guns for tweaking and service more? That is needs because of critical malfunctions, not wants to because they want to custom tweak the thing. Customs are even worse, it seems to be expected that several returns are in the future. Sorry, for shelling out extra cash the thing better work from the get go.

Colonel Cooper often has good points. He has been invaluable in starting modern combat shooting and helping it grow. However, he is also an old man that is set in his tastes. He also just admitted that the lever gun can be a good firearm that won't necessarily break down.
No ****ing kidding? You mean the gun that countless hunters and cowboy action shooters use year after year might be a viable design?
So that only took a (long) lifetime to realize and admit to.

[jc2]

Maybe I read it wrong, but Cooper's remark about aftermarket sounded very positive. :confused:
Above all, its aftermarket service is superior

[CPLofMARINES]

gezzer, right on. If you asked Jeff Cooper what his choice would be, he would say a 1911. I just bought my first Glock (G19) last saturday and registered it yesterday, so I'll be doing some shooting this weekend. I've always wanted a Glock, something I can shoot the hell out of. I carry a Kahr
P9 Covert so I wanted something a little larger for the range/house/field...
HOWEVER, my most treasured piece is my Kimber Classic Royal, 45 acp of course. Getting back to Glock, it is the easiest pistol I've ever taken down and assembled. I've yet to shoot my G19 and I'm already considering purchasing my next Glock!!


Semper Fi!

[Snarlingiron]

Yep, its a "me too" on the Glocks. I bought a Glock 19 a little less than a year ago. A freind talked me into it. He has 5 of them. I have over 6000 rounds through it, and have had 2 misfeeds. That is 6000 rounds of CCI Blazer aluminum. Indestructible, accurate, needs little maintainance, gobbles up pretty much any ammo. I know of folks that never clean and oil their Glocks. I am old school, everytime I shoot one, I clean it. With that said, I have had opportunity to have the thing filled with mud and muck, and it just kept on running. I'm pretty much exclusively a Glock guy. This is the only auto loader I have ever shot for any significant length of time without malfunction. The one I had before the Glock is a Browning Hi Power. I still have it, but I carry the Glock every day.

[progunner1957]

Don't care what a Glock looks like it is better than a heavy almost 100 year old design.ROFLMAO!!:D :D

[jame]

The Glock is a utilitarian, service type pistol.

Utter reliability. Zero style.

If I had to be in the trenches and issued a handgun, I'd take the Glock.

If I had to be in the trenches, but had a month to work things out, I'd take the 1911.

I'm not in the trenches. I finally took the 1911.

[GrammatonCleric]

The first pistol I bought was a G21. It has recently been joined in my small gun collection (2)by an S&W M625-8. My Glock is my favorite for it's reliability, high-capacity, and large caliber.

[WeedWhacker]

Don't care what a Glock looks like it is better than a heavy almost 100 year old design.
The Glock is based on a modified Browning Hi-Power action, the latter which was designed around 1922. So, while the 1911 platform has a few more years on the Browning-hence-Glock design, neither are exactly sweet sixteens.

For the record, I only own two semi-autos: a Glock 17 and a Glock 26, both of which I like very much.

[valor1]

What the heck. So what if the Glock doesn't like reloads and goes kaboom if you use one with it? I don't use reloads in my carry ammo. Whatever is said about Glocks, all guns have weaknesses and strengths. Everybody prefers something over another. It's like having a wife. Who cares if my wife is ungly or so is everyone's? As long as she works for me:D , I mean as long as we go okey together. I wouldn't mind having Angelina Jolie for a wife though (rich and good-looking and all that stuff). Glocks are reliable if you use the proper ammo. They are dirt cheap too.

Who cares about Cooper? He's old and I'm young. Anyways, he's right about his assessment with the Glock.

[00blkgt]

I always seem to pick up one of my glocks when I leave my house. This says alot about Gaston's products to me. Although I value many of the things written by the Colonel, I feel he can't recognize the unbelieveable ability of these polymer pistols. You know what they say about opinions.;)
J

[jc2]

Of course, one thing to remember is the 1911 was actually proven in trenches. The Glock was not. :)

[MCgunner]

gezzer, right on. If you asked Jeff Cooper what his choice would be, he would say a 1911.

Well, you gotta realize, to that old man, the 1911 is a new design! Heck, he was 15 years old when JMB died! I rather doubt he's still driving a Model T Ford, though, but then, heck, you never know.:rolleyes:

[Tearlachblair]

"If you want to be happy for the rest of your life, never make a pretty woman your wife...."

Man, sounds like that song was just MADE for a Glock thread, doesn't it? lol.

[CSA 357]

yes the glock is not the best looking hand gun, but i love my glock 30, i think of it as a tool it works that is what it was made to do, yea i love my 1911 but it stays home most of the time and the glock gets to go out on the town, at one time i didnt like glocks, but that was before i had one, i fell in love pretty fast!*csa*:)

[JohnBT]

"Of course, one thing the remember is the 1911 was actually proven in trenches. The Glock was not."

Uh-oh, no fair fighting with facts. ;)

John

[Pistol]

Oh, yea, you mean the loose fitting rattling type 1911's were proven, right?

(Sorry could not resist) :)

They both rattle and have ample clearance in the right places :rolleyes:

I never thought I would have one of the plastic wonders either, but I do and it is the easiest to clean and maintain thing I have ever seen.

[Squawker]

Different brands for different people. There are people carrying guns that I hate, but suits them just fine. I have 2 Glocks, a 19 an a 26, and I like both. Although many consider it too fat for the purpose, my 26 works well for me as a pocket pistol. I have no complaints with the accuracy, and I enjoy shooting them. Even my 26 has a 13 round capacity (I use 12 round magazines), which is far better than a 1911, and with +P ammo, adequate stopping power. To top it off, I can buy 2 for the price of one 1911. I intend to get a 1911 one day, just to have one in the collection, but for now,I have others that I want first. Bottom line, what you like, and enjoy it. But what you love, others may think otherwise.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Cooper is right.

The Glock is a cheap and reliable gun. It's about as idiot-proof as any gun can be. It's the ideal choice for police departments and such, since department-wide equipment must be selected according to the lowest common denominator.

If you don't set your standards too high, the Glock will fit the bill perfectly.

[RyanM]

If you check the specs on a Glock chamber, you'll find that the round sits in the breech like a really loose tooth. The chamber is oversized, tapered to facilitate feed. Also, the feed ramp is cut into the web up to the edge of the web margin in the brass.

When the round fires in a Glock, the brass stretches to fit the loose breech. Also, the brass stretches against an "unsupported breech" in the feed ramp area.

Ah, the words of someone who's never compared disassembled handguns.

Try taking apart any autoloader. Maybe a 1911. Take out the barrel. Insert a dummy round or empty case or something. Do the same with a Glock. Or if you did it with a Glock first, do some other gun.

Surprise! It's got just as much "unsupported chamber" as a Glock! Maybe more. H&Ks typically have extremely "poor" chamber support, considerably worse than Glocks of the same caliber. But they make up for it with a tighter chamber. Compare a stock 1911 to a G21, and you'll find exactly the same chamber support. Berettas, SIGs, S&Ws, any brand you care to name uses "unsupported" chambers in most of their autoloaders.

The difference between a Glock and one of those other brands is that Glocks will continue to function 100% with a TIG-welded feed ramp and a 100% supported chamber. They'll also take way hotter loads than most guns will tolerate, when so modified. http://thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=1028467&postcount=17

[middy]

Y'all are overlooking the fact that for Cooper to admit that a non-1911 pistol is worth more than the steel (plastic) it's made from is high praise indeed... :rolleyes:

[buzz_knox]

If you don't set your standards too high, the Glock will fit the bill perfectly.

That's funny. I've seen people switch from P7s to Glocks due to parts availability, and from Kahrs to Glocks due to higher round count for roughly the same size.

Personally, I went from a Sig 226 Navy and/or 228 to a Glock 19 due to concealed carry weight/size considersations.

My standards are as high as anyone elses. But I don't confuse prejudice with standards.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Prejudice, eh?

Glocks are reliable and affordable, but that's about all you can say about them. Poor ergonomics (for me), terrible trigger pull, poor sights, poor balance. That's not prejudice, that's an objective assessment.

If you don't set your standards too high, say if all you want from your pistol is "cheap" and "reliable", then the Glock will serve you well. But I happen to want more from my handgun than just reliability and cheapness. At the very least, I expect my handguns to be reliable AND to fit in my hand AND to have a decent (not great, just decent) trigger pull.

My experiences with Glocks also tell me that they aren't always perfectly reliable, despite what everyone thinks. At my pistol class, the only two guns that had problems cycling were both Glocks. The only gun to literally break was a Glock.

A friend's Glock lost that little sheet metal takedown switch that sits in the dust over. He locked the slide back, loaded a magazine, then hit the slide release to let the slide forward. The slide went forward alright, right off the end of the gun. He got to hunt around in the grass for 20 minutes looking for the pieces.

Anyway, if you like your Glock then I'm happy for you. Just don't try to convince me it's some sort of ultimate handgun. It isn't.

[loadedround]

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"!

[TonyB]

I didn't want to spend all kinds of money on a gun and THEN have to put MORE money into it to get it to shoot properly.MyG17 will shoot freakin' rocks through it.Syle..blah blah...soul..blah blah blah....give a gun that WORKS...Now if you have another gun ,be it a 1911,sig or anything else that is reliable...from a $150 gun to a $1500 gun,keep it and be thankfull.

[the naked prophet]

Why doesn't somebody make a rounded slide for a Glock? All you'd need would be a barrel with a rounded chamber top as opposed to the Glock square top. Then simply make a rounded top slide to fit. Keep all the rest of the internal slide parts, and voila, a less-ugly Glock.

Somebody with a machine shop should try it, and see how it works and what it looks like.

[TaxPhd]

Plenty of competative shooters in IDPA seem to use Glocks, so I don't know that they aren't accurate - his implication with the "expert pistoleros" line. Nobody that is good enough to actually try to win will settle for something that isn't reasonably accurate.

Take away the different classes and let the Glocks run with the guns from ESP and CDP and see what happens. Back in the day, all IPSC competition was a "run what you brung" format. No classes. IDPA and USPSA recognize the inherent differences in pistol designs and have created classes to let inferior ( :neener: ) weapons compete against themselves, rather than having to run with the big boys.

[RyanM]

Glocks are reliable and affordable, but that's about all you can say about them. Poor ergonomics (for me), terrible trigger pull, poor sights, poor balance. That's not prejudice, that's an objective assessment.

Wrongo. That's subjective opinion.

[MCgunner]

The Glock is a cheap and reliable gun. It's about as idiot-proof as any gun can be. It's the ideal choice for police departments and such, since department-wide equipment must be selected according to the lowest common denominator.

Idiot proof? How about that idiot DEA agent that shot himself in the leg? Yeah, it's idiot proof for departments that issue it. It weeds out the idiots, much as with Darwin's survival of the fittest. :rolleyes: :D

If you're going to issue a weapon with a 4 lb short throw trigger and no safeties, it'd be really nice if you'd have a little safety training and range practice to go along with it. I don't think it'd be any harder, frankly, to teach the "lowest common denominator" to handle a 1911 safely. I mean, maybe the presence of a safety would warn him that if it's OFF SAFE, maybe it might be a little more ready to go bang.

If departments really wanna go back to "lowest common denominator" guns, though, they need to go back to the service revolver, the good ol' M10.

[the pistolero]

Don't care what a Glock looks like it is better than a heavy almost 100 year old design. I'll take my weight in ammo not in 1911 steel.

To each his own, but I don't think I'll ever understand the animosity aimed at the 1911 because of its age. IMHO, Mr. Browning must have been doing something right for his design to still be so widely used and produced almost 100 years later. More power to the Glockers, and I suppose comfort is relative, but as for me, I don't see why I couldn't get comfortable with a Commander-size 1911 strapped to my side.

A friend's Glock lost that little sheet metal takedown switch that sits in the dust over. He locked the slide back, loaded a magazine, then hit the slide release to let the slide forward. The slide went forward alright, right off the end of the gun. He got to hunt around in the grass for 20 minutes looking for the pieces.

He'd probably have spent twice as long looking for the recoil spring plug on a 1911. I know I launched that thing several times in the dining room as I was field-stripping mine. I eventually got the hang of it, though. :D

[michiganfan]

I've always felt that the gun I would want for a duty gun or for warfare is exactrly the gun I would want for everyday carry. For as one of our esteemed members has said "Glock...cause a gunfight ain't a barbeque"

[MCgunner]

I've always felt that the gun I would want for a duty gun or for warfare is exactrly the gun I would want for everyday carry. For as one of our esteemed members has said "Glock...cause a gunfight ain't a barbeque"

IMO that is not so. The requirements of a CCW gun are quite different than that of a gun for warfare. Of course, a pistol is the last weapon I'm going to carry in war, but that aside, one of my requirements is absolute safety. I can handle a gun as safe as the next guy, but I won't carry a gun with a 4 lb trigger and such a short travel, no thanks. I'm quite happy with a revolver or DAO with a revolver like DAO trigger. In war, for the most of the time you're not in action and/or don't need the gun, you can carry condition three. You ain't gonna go for the pistol when the SHTF, you're going to use your M16 or whatever long gun you are issued. You need the pistol, jack a round in it and go for it. In a gun for warfare, you're not worried about comfortable all day concealment or pocket carry. In ways, the demands of a CCW gun are greater than that of a service weapon.

[RyanM]

I mean, maybe the presence of a safety would warn him that if it's OFF SAFE, maybe it might be a little more ready to go bang.

Or it might make him go "oh, it's safe now, so I can put my finger wherever I want..." *BLAMMO*. That is exactly what happened to that DEA agent. He had some other guy clear his gun, so he thought it was safe to do whatever because it was "empty." If he'd been demonstrating with a gun with a manual safety, the exact same thing woulda happened.

In war, for the most of the time you're not in action and/or don't need the gun, you can carry condition three. You ain't gonna go for the pistol when the SHTF, you're going to use your M16 or whatever long gun you are issued. You need the pistol, jack a round in it and go for it.

If you're carrying the gun with an empty chamber, why's the trigger matter? A Glock gives you an advantage for condition whatever empty-chamber carry. There's no extra resistance from the mainspring (which actually helps open the slide a bit, if it's at half-cock), and there's no safety to accidentally engage and prevent the slide from moving. Fairbairn and Sykes, two big advocates of empty chamber carry with 1911s for police use, recommended pinning the safety in the fire position for this reason.

Plus, there's the customizability of the Glock trigger. Everyone says the trigger is the main disadvantage to the Glock. I say it's the biggest advantage. If you want, you can lighten the trigger all the way down to 1-2 pounds, and still have a reliable gun. You can keep the two-stage feel but make the stages different weights. You can make a genuine DAO feel to it with only slight stacking, going from 5 to 7 pounds. Or you can make it really heavy. And at the same time, independent of weight, you can either keep the trigger pull length the same, or you can shorten it a little, or go nuts and shorten it all the way down to 1/10" while keeping all drop safeties working fine.

Try getting that wide a variety of trigger pulls with any other handgun, using nothing but slightly modified factory parts. It can't be done with anything but a Glock.

[MCgunner]

If you're carrying the gun with an empty chamber, why's the trigger matter?

Exactly my point. For military use, it's fine cause I'm carrying condition 3. I don't carry condition 3 in a CCW gun. I want a heavier, longer trigger throw for safety or I want redundant manual safeties. For a pocket gun, long, heavy DA is the only way IMHO.

You can modify the weight of the Glock, but can you make the action a true DAO in length of movement?

Regards to the DEA agent, that guy was so stupid he probably woulda done the same thing with a revolver. LOL

[Manedwolf]

The Glock is top heavy

I find that to be true of most polymer/plastic framed pistols, even aluminum framed ones.

Springfield and Taurus have both moved past that and balanced them properly with the XD, MilPros and 24/7s. They're also a lot THINNER than the chunky "block".

Glock really needs to do some innovating, they're stuck somewhere in the 90's, IMO.

[doofus]

Glock really needs to do some innovating...

I don't necessarily think so...the same argument could be made against 1911 pattern pistols as well.

IMO, Glocks:
1. Work.
2. Use a simple design (which I tend to favor; less to break).
3. Have ergonomics that work for me.

As a tangential to this topic, I think it's odd when I read so many posts concerning "poor" ergonomics of one pistol or another. Maybe I'm just not experienced enough (I've been shooting for about 10 years), but I don't find it all that difficult to adapt to a specific pistol; there are pros and cons to any design.

Sure the Glock grip angle is more extreme than -- for example -- a 1911, but the trade off is a very low bore-axis. I don't think there are many mainstream pistols with "poor" ergonomics...it's simply a matter of what you prefer.

[RyanM]

You can modify the weight of the Glock, but can you make the action a true DAO in length of movement?

The total trigger movement on mine, measuriat the tip of the trigger, is about 0.5" (0.55" if you count the trigger safety). Measuring my SP-101 the same way, that one's 0.8". Not that big of a difference.

And actually, one of the modifications to get an ultra-light trigger is drilling a new hole in the trigger bar to change the leverage. I think that results in a longer pull, but I'm not sure. It probably does. TANSTAAFL. That extra leverage's gotta come from somewhere. So doing that modification combined with stuff to increase pull weight would probably do the job.

[JohnKSa]

Of course, one thing to remember is the 1911 was actually proven in trenches. The Glock was not.The 1911 had already been replaced by the M9 before the Glock was invented. So the Glock failed to prove itself in the trenches with the 1911 because it didn't exist yet.

Harsh criticism indeed...

[jc2]

Yep, John, most of us knew that which explains why the remark was clearly in jest :) in response to an earlier post (#25).

I'm sorry, but I really didn't realize you weren't aware the Glock wasn't around in 1914-1918 (or that anybody would be so sensitive as to interpret the remark as even remotedly critical). If known you (or anybody else) would be confused by a remark referencing a war that took place 70 years before the Glock's appearance, I would have expounded further on the subject and saved you some research.

I really don't what to do about your continued failure to understand that a "smilie" ( :) ) indicates a remark made in jest, John. Maybe a something like a post-it note on your screen would help.

[albanian]

Cooper is probably the man I respect the least out of a long list of gun rag "writers" that i don't respect. I repect Ayoob probably the most out of living writers and Elmer the most of all time. Cooper is nothing but a narrow minded A-hole.

His views don't sway me in either direction. Those that look up to him are looked down on by me.

That said, I would agree with the statements he made. Glocks were big news when they were the only game in town for a plastic gun. Now you can get plastic guns anywhere. The SA XD is probably more refined than the Glock and it costs less.

[XDKingslayer]

Of course, one thing to remember is the 1911 was actually proven in trenches. The Glock was not.

That I would have to disagree on. As much as I dislike 1911s and hate Glocks with a passion, the Glock is proven in the trenches. It might be different trenches but it does have a decent service record with many police forces that can't be denied.

Granted it may be due to Glock catering their prices to said police forces, but you simply can't ignore thier record.

As far as Cooper's opinion, well all know what opinions are like. He may be a well respected gun guy, but his opinion of the Glock pretty much mirrors his opinion of every other non-1911 gun. I can't remember the last time the guy got excited over a non-1911 gun, so I don't hold his opinion in very high regard.

This is the state we're in all across the board. All the senior gun guys are getting to the age where they don't take change well and we're in the middle of a big stage of change. More and more polymer guns are coming, companies making polymer guns are pushing the limits to the edge, the new XD .45 is a good example of that.

You're going to have guys that flat out refuse to accept polymer guns. Whether it's tradition, fear, or stubborness.

[SDM]

A friend's Glock lost that little sheet metal takedown switch that sits in the dust over. He locked the slide back, loaded a magazine, then hit the slide release to let the slide forward. The slide went forward alright, right off the end of the gun. He got to hunt around in the grass for 20 minutes looking for the pieces.

That's like taking the lug nuts off your car, trying to drive it, and then complaining that the car is unreliable because you didn't get to where you wanted to go. Start taking parts out of a 1911 and see how well it performs.


I have read some of Cooper's comments and most of the time he is fair to the Glock. I believe he mentions that his daughter carries a 27. I think he questions the need for it more than anything, as he feels the 1911 filled the world's handgun needs a long time ago. Maybe thats right, but as we all should agree you don't have to need a gun to have it.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

This is the state we're in all across the board. All the senior gun guys are getting to the age where they don't take change well and we're in the middle of a big stage of change. More and more polymer guns are coming, companies making polymer guns are pushing the limits to the edge, the new XD .45 is a good example of that.Have you considered that all this new change isn't necessarily for the better?

I learned how to shoot on a Glock 19. It was a good enough gun, for what it was. But I'm not convinced that it's the equal to a well made 1911 or Hi Power.

Sure, the old-guard writers aren't very smitten with the Glock. But maybe the reason isn't prejudice or stubbornness or dislike for anything new and different. Maybe the Glock simply isn't a spectacular gun. Maybe their cool reception towards the Glock is justified.

Newer doesn't automatically mean better.

[XDKingslayer]

Have you considered that all this new change isn't necessarily for the better?

I learned how to shoot on a Glock 19. It was a good enough gun, for what it was. But I'm not convinced that it's the equal to a well made 1911 or Hi Power.

Sure, the old-guard writers aren't very smitten with the Glock. But maybe the reason isn't prejudice or stubbornness or dislike for anything new and different. Maybe the Glock simply isn't a spectacular gun. Maybe their cool reception towards the Glock is justified.

Newer doesn't automatically mean better.

Yeah, I actually have. The way I see it if these polymer guns weren't what they are cracked up to be, then they wouldn't sell as well as they do. Their popularity mirrors the 1911. They may not have the aftermarket support that 1911s do, but give that time and it will change.

They're cheaper, they perform as well if not better, and they are just as reliable if not more reliable than 1911's out of the box. They are today's firearm.

The M-16 was crapped on simply because it was plastic and 40 years down the road it's still the choice of our armed services. It took time and redevelopment of some items, but it's still there. So will polymer pistols.

No, newer doesn't automatically mean better, but all of these new pistols are well proven, well tested, and well liked. It's hard to argue with that evidence.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I'm not saying that plastic guns are bad. I didn't say that any gun in particular, including the Glock, is bad. My first handgun experiences were with a Glock, and I own and carry several plastic handguns. Nothing wrong with plastic or with Glocks, if that's what you like.

What I was trying to say is that for a gun to be considered great, and for it to receive high praise from the old-timey gunwriters, the gun must deserve it. The Glock doesn't.

Glocks are decent guns. They get the job done. But they aren't spectacular. That's essentially what Cooper said about them and I think he's right on the money (this time).

[TaxPhd]

I can't remember the last time the guy got excited over a non-1911 gun, so I don't hold his opinion in very high regard.

Cooper has had good things to say about the CZ-75 and the Bren 10, to name two.

Cooper formed his opinions from combat and competition. He was always looking for what was demonstrably better. He was very willing to accept new and different equipment and technique when it proved to be superior (1911 over SAA, Weaver over one handed shooting, etc.).



Scott

[yy]

meatcurtain: did you paste your reply to my thread (newbie XD) to this thread? (not a put down), this is humorous, because your reply fits both threads. :)


(disclaimer: I've never met Cooper, and do not claim to know him) Still, it chafes this Taiwanren when someone ripps on "gun experts" based on age. An intelligent man does not throw out good advice/opinion due to a dislike of the source. The same way one does not throw out a perfectly good birthday cake (or pizza) because a disliked person delivered it.

Now to evaluate Cooper's opinion that the OP quoted...
Sounded fair. No faulty facts. Looks like good opinion.


finally, I own a glock 27. I will not try to sway the world opinion to justify my purchase. I'm not that invested.
<my turn to rant>
But what's the big deal about looks? How many people (outside this forum)buy a pistol for its looks? I don't even *look* at my glock, the same way I don't ogle my wife. <looks over shoulder> Glocks' look has zero import when evaluating Cooper's opinion. He's not a guru of gun collecting.:fire:

I'll drive a toyota Prius over an Italian convertible _anyday_ because let's face it, I'd rather be saving money while stuck in Los Angeles traffic.


ps: note to OP -- I guess I could be overcompensating for my lack of internet connection yesterday when I wished I could be policing my own thread. Sorry :p

[XDKingslayer]

What I was trying to say is that for a gun to be considered great, and for it to receive high praise from the old-timey gunwriters, the gun must deserve it. The Glock doesn't.


I know where you were coming from.

Sure, the glock doesn't receive high praise from old-timey gunwriters. Is the problem the Glock or the old-timey gun writers? Considering hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of glock owners and users aren't throwing them away I'd have to say that kinda narrows it down.

As much as I hate Glocks and hate to admit this, the glock does deserve high praise. They changed the handgun world in the same fashion the M-16 changed the battle rifle world. They've placed a reliable, accurate, popular and cheap firearm in the hands of gun enthusiasts.

Every gun manufacturer out there is now flooding the market with polymer guns. When Glocks first hit the shelves how many people said Smith & Wesson would never do that, but now they are. When everyone else is following your lead in today's market, you deserve praise because you've done something right.

[nitesite]

XDKingslayer~

+1 and props for what you wrote.

I recently bought my first Glock and understand why they are a good sidearm for many people. They are not exactly for novice shooters IMO. But there are many shooters in that category that own one (perhaps their only gun). It's good that the shooting sport and the RKBA has been bolstered by Glock's presence on the shooting scene.

You'll never hear me cheer "GO Glock" but I am glad they have made such an influence.

[Nail Shooter]

SlamFire
Member

...."I don't have any problems with the "double action saftey" -- but Kahr makes a better small 9mm (MKII) with a better trigger, better action, better balance, smaller"....
***************************

I'll comment on the above quote from early in this thread.

I own a G19 and an MK9 Kahr (both about 5-6yrs old). Love both guns. My assessment does not coincide with SamFire's. I tried double and triple taps with both guns recently--NO CONTEST--the Glock wins easily in a time/accuracy race. If I take my time, I can shoot the Kahr very accurately too, just not fast. Practice some "resets" with the Glock, you'll see what I mean.

That said, I carry the Kahr more because it's so easy to hide in a number of different ways for CCW, but let me have the Glock if the shootin' ever starts!

NS

[Croyance]

Does anybody know if the Austrian Army ran torture tests like the ones the Army did for the M9? Because they use Glocks, but I don't know if they just brought the hometown product.

[ugaarguy]

ps: note to OP -- I guess I could be overcompensating for my lack of internet connection yesterday when I wished I could be policing my own thread. Sorry

Ian,

No apology needed. You make some great points that contribute to this thread. A pleasant surprise, it's been a rather civil discussion on a ploarizing writer's comments on a polarizing pistol.

[JohnKSa]

...the remark was clearly in jest ...I really didn't realize you weren't aware the Glock wasn't around in 1914-1918...a remark referencing a war that took place 70 yearsjc2, if the remark was made in jest, then I apologize for taking you seriously.

However, your response was a bit ungracious considering,

1. I'm not the only one who took the comment seriously.
2. Neither your post nor the one you say you were responding to referenced any war or timeframe specifically.
3. Not even you really think I didn't know the Glock wasn't use in WWI.
4. Ascertaining anyone's frame of mind over the internet (yes, even with smilies) is something less than 100% accurate.

[jc2]

JohnKSA #56
So the Glock failed to prove itself in the trenches with the 1911 because it didn't exist yet.
JohnKSA #71
Neither your post nor the one you say you were responding to referenced any war or timeframe specifically.
:confused: :confused:

John, I really figured most people with even rudimentary knowledge of American history (or British, French or German for that matter) would understand that trenches (trench warfare) was the salient characteristic of The Great War (1914-1918). My bad.

[JohnKSa]

My bad.Indeed.

Trench warfare was also employed in the Korean war.

Besides, "in the trenches" is far more commonly used as a metaphor relating to general military service than it is to reference trench warfare specifically.

[slzy]

i have no dog in this fight,and i can only remember one thing Cooper said,and that was more or less sillines is Americas biggest problem.

[SgtRich]

The M-16 was crapped on simply because it was plastic and 40 years down the road it's still the choice of our armed services. It took time and redevelopment of some items, but it's still there.

Yeah, but the M-16 is still crap in combat. Ask the guys that use them in the sandbox.

[bcominos]

I've owned a couple Glocks and SA XD's... great guns for their intended purpose... I currently have a G17L that is pretty impressive. I bought it for 3 gun comp's and it faired well. The 6" barrel, 3.5# factory trigger, lightened slide (cut out - think this also allows for use of ported barrels), and 17 + 1 capacity make this a pretty competitive & attractive pistol for what I bought it for. I later acquired a Kimber Classic Custom 1911 that was tweaked and tuned by Wilson Combat. I now use the Kimber. The Glock cost me just over $600... The Kimber is worth over $1500... which one to use for three gun was actually a pretty tough decision... I shoot better with the Kimber, so it won... but it costs over 2 x's as much as the Glock! I still like my Glock, but have posted it for sale or trade... it's in the classifieds for pistols if your interested (with pics!). You may not admit it publically, but you know you need an extra inch in the barrel department!:neener:

*pretty funny ad if you read it all the way through (additional comments later in post):what:

My G23 ran like a top! had to part with it in a trade though... may pick up another as it was one of my favorite CCW's...

[XDKingslayer]

I recently bought my first Glock and understand why they are a good sidearm for many people. They are not exactly for novice shooters IMO. But there are many shooters in that category that own one (perhaps their only gun).

Actually, I think Glocks, and most other polymers, especially the XD, make the perfect sidearm for novice shooters. They are accurate and that helps when training a newer shooter. You'll always know it's the shooter and not the gun that's throwing rounds all over the place.

They are inexpensive. They are simple to disassemble and maintain which is important. I'm a mechanical guy and with 20 years of gun experience under my belt, 8 years of military experience with 1 of that being my platoons armorer, tearing apart and reassembling my first 1911A1 was a frustrating process, while field stripping my XD is a 5 second happening.

The only draw backs I can see giving a Glock to a new shooter with a lack of guidance is the lack of safeties. However, if he has guidance from a knowledgeable instructor the lack of safeties will enhance his handling of just about every other weapon.

[yhtomit]

Croyance asked: "Does anybody know if the Austrian Army ran torture tests like the ones the Army did for the M9? Because they use Glocks, but I don't know if they just brought the hometown product."

First, I don't own a Glock. I do have an XD-45, though, and the local bookstore happened to have a "Book of the Glock" which I was reading in order to learn a bit about polymer pistols generally, and it gave me a bit of knowledge on Glock's firearms specifically.

The first Glock pistol IIRC was the Glock 17; the Glock family had been in the business of making high-precision molded things (including military doodads like knives) out of plastic for a while before that, though. Gaston Glock decided that their modern manufacturing facilities were applicable to making just about anything that had to be small and durable, though, so entered the Austrian military's competition for a few pistol in the early 80s, with a gun designed specifically for that competition. The 17 in the name is chosen because it was the 17th product that the company produced.

And the testing that pistols went through (which eventually led to the adoption of the Glock) was a pretty decent torture test, though I don't have that book in front of me to cite chapter and verse. Many rounds, little care, lots of abuse.

timothy

[SDM]

I have three Glocks and one 1911. These have never given me any trouble. I can’t say that one is more reliable than the other because they've been the same. I shoot (attempt at least) IDPA and I’ve seen folks have trouble with both types. Probably more trouble with 1911s but then it seems like they are the more prevalent gun at the matches I shoot. I don’t think anyone will ever convince me that someone with a well made 1911, is more well armed than someone with a Glock 21, or vice versa. The two sides always argue the same points, but they are never legitimate, just personal preferences.

[MCgunner]

As a tangential to this topic, I think it's odd when I read so many posts concerning "poor" ergonomics of one pistol or another. Maybe I'm just not experienced enough (I've been shooting for about 10 years), but I don't find it all that difficult to adapt to a specific pistol; there are pros and cons to any design.

I totally agree. It takes no time for me to adapt to a gun. If the frame is too skinny, like the 1911, to fill my hand, there is usually a hardware solution like aftermarket grips or a handall or something. I routinely switch from SA revolvers to DA revolvers to autos of all sorts in my shooting, no problem. I don't see all the yappin' about grip angle and fit and such. Quit bitchin' and SHOOT the danged thing!:rolleyes: I can easily adapt to any gun I'm firing and the ones I carry are the ones I've adapted to the most, not the ones that I picked out that felt right in the gun store. There's far more I look at in a gun that grip angle or shape. In fact, that's way down the list of my priorities. I've yet to find the gun/grip I couldn't shoot.

I think the grip shape/angle thing is one of those esoteric things 1911 fanatics rattle off because they figure you can't argue it. After all, God, er, JMB knows all about shooters and shooting and he made it to fit all shooters naturally. :rolleyes: Well, heck, I reckon old Wild Bill Hickok could out shoot most 1911 fanatics with his Navy Colts. Explain to me how that's possible if the 1911 has the perfect grip shape. Might it be the shooter, not the gun?

Ah, whatever....:banghead:

[JeffreyWarren]

While I am still a 1911 fan. Which I own a Para Ordance P-14, as well as a single stack Kimber. Bothy these are great concealed carry guns......in the winter. For Spring and Summer and when I don't feel like lugging around the 1911s. My Glock M30 (the compact 45acp) serves me well. I do carry it with a model 21 high capacity magazine and grip extension. The added firepower is abonus. I just perfer having a full size grip. I'll give up my 45acp whe the 50 GI or something like it becomes common place. The bigger the hole with the right penetration is the keys to so called stopping power....so I have read

[danbh]

I'm a G21 owner also. Glocks are the uglest and I mean butt uglest guns that I ever seen, they are plastic, rattle like baby rattles, have no soul, no safety............ But mine is on my hip as I type. It goes BANG every time I pull the trigger, The POI is POA and is very consistant or goups at 2 inches or less at 25 yds off hand shooting. Recoil is in my opinion is quite light, a push with little flip. With 13+1 in firepower of .45acp and conceals acceptably well it makes a dandy CCW. It has basicly the same manual of arms as revolver. What else do you want? OH and the safety is my brain, keep your finger away from the trigger and it wont go BANG, it's an inanimate object so it needs no soul, the rattle is what keeps it from binding up in the dirt and mud, plastic well everything is made out of plastic from tractor trailer trucks to medical inplants, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I am confident that if I ever need it, it will do its job if I can do mine. That's all I expect; the same as my SP101 which is my other CCW. I don't need to spend a $1000 to $3000 for a perfect defense weapon. P.T.

I second this post 100%. I have other pistols also but I seem to go back to the 21. If I need it it will get the job done.....

[SAG0282]

What he fails to accurately note is that the GLOCK is "generally" much more reliable then his beloved 1911s, "generally" has a higher capacity, "generally" easier to work on by far then a 1911, and "generally" more forgiving all around. Some products are over-rated, not GLOCKs. They aren't perfect but their reputation is deserved, and sorry but to me Cooper is about useless, his incontrovertible early contributions to gunning notwithstanding.

[rough rider]

Just try both designs and decide for yourselves which one fits you. Hey different strokes for different folks. Been reading around the forums. Got even more confused. I have a 1911 and read that glocks were this and that. So I bought one ( to get a first hand experience). Shot it at the local range. Guess what. I still like my 1911 better. But thats just me. :uhoh:

[Squidward]

If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then Springfield and now Beretta (as examples) have said something.

[jc2]

Oh, really?

Let's see. Glock imitated an HK polymer frame. Glock imitated a SIG modified-Browning lock-up. Glock imitated a Steyr striker-fire system.

FWIW, both the XD and Beretta are a long, long ways from being Glock imitations (though most people who know much about handguns should already know that).

[greg700]

Except even 'expert pistoleros' shoot faster in competition with glocks than with 1911's. A Glocks capacity goes a long way towards compensating for it's shortcommings.

I think Cooper is a legend and a man to be respected, but in some ways is growing obsolete along with his 1911's.

[TaxPhd]

Except even 'expert pistoleros' shoot faster in competition with glocks than with 1911's.

:confused:

[bcominos]

the high capacity of the Glocks is "one" of the features that drew me to them. 18 rounds of 9mm in my 17L definitely makes me want to shoot it more! The 6" barrel adds a little extra zip to the round, provides for an improved sight picture (for me!) and produces nice tight groups! It's for sale or trade if anyone feels the need to get rid of any 1911's, .308's, or .223's!:D

I still love the feel of my Kimber custom classic in my hand!:cool: It just feels solid!

I don't see why people feel the need to be so polarized on Glock -vs- 1911 comparisons:confused: , ya pick the pistol that 1. is as close to 100% reliable as possible, 2. fits both your hand & intended purpose, and 3. "you" can hit what you're aiming at with! Oh yea, 4. fits your budget!

They are different guns! Get the one "you" want! :what:

Ol' Cooper wasn't dogging the Glocks, just calling a rose a rose, with his known bias towards 1911's.:neener:

:cuss: now lets get off our freaking computers and go shoot!:banghead: I'm heading out now, and am taking 2 Glocks, a Kimber 1911, a SA XD 9V10, and a Rossi .38!

[Ron Brooks]

You're going to have guys that flat out refuse to accept polymer guns. Whether it's tradition, fear, or stubborness.

Well, the big problem that I have with Glocks and other polymer guns is if you leave one on say the dashboard of your car on trrhe south or next to a heater vent up north, well remember what used to happen to vinyl records?

I'll just stick with steel. :)

[JohnKSa]

Well, the big problem that I have with Glocks and other polymer guns is if you leave one on say the dashboard of your car on trrhe south or next to a heater vent up north, well remember what used to happen to vinyl records?Sorry. That's not a problem that you or anyone else has with Glocks.

Nylon 6 (Glock pistol frame material) will not deform or otherwise be damaged by temperatures up to and slightly exceeding 400 degrees Fahrenheit. If the temperature of the frame is less than 260F you can pick it up (with gloves--that's well over the temperature of boiling water) load it and use it without fear that the temperature is weakening the frame. If the temperatures exceed 260F, you should let it cool down to below 260F before using it.

Basically if you can touch a heater vent without having your flesh immediately seared, or if you can enter your vehicle and touch the steering wheel or dash without having to immediately go to the hospital for severe burns, your Glock will be just fine.

Glock imitated an HK polymer frame.Maybe a bit of a stretch. Glock was set up to make stuff from plastic. The fact that H&K fielded a spectacularly unsuccessful polymer framed pistol more than a decade earlier may or may not have influenced Glock's decision to make his frame from plastic. It's more likely that the frame was made from plastic because that's what Glock was used to making stuff from.Glock imitated a Steyr striker-fire system.Again, something of a stretch.
1. There have been many different striker fired firearms in history.
2. Some (including Steyr's design) have SOME similarities to the Glock design.
3. None (including Steyr's design) operates like the Glock striker system does.

[jc2]

The real stretch was in the preceding post (#85):
Glock has something

If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then Springfield and now Beretta (as examples) have said something.
I'm surprised you missed it.

[1911Tuner]

Partial quote:

>is growing obsolete along with his 1911's.<

Obsolete...Another stretch. If it were obsolete, it would have long gone the way of the Dodo bird and the flintlock rifle instead of having so many manufacturers investing time, labor, and materials to clone and sell it...and you can't assign nostalgia or tradition to the Marines' Spec-Ops groups bringing it out of retirement and fielding it for the purpose it was designed for. Namely, mankilling in dark and dangerous places. And...they're doing this at much greater expense than would be incurred by simply going with the Sig or the USP. That also speaks volumes, in case anyone missed it. "The best tool for the task at hand, and hang the expense" could become the rallying cry for the "obsolete" 1911.

Cooper's take on the Glock is much the same as his take on the assault rifle. A weapon that is best issued to the rank-and-file when time restraints prevent advanced training and weapon familiarization with a more suitable platform. In other words...the "Volkswagen" of the smallarms set. One that will serve adequately in the hands of the masses. It's a gun. It's reliable enough. It's durable enough. It's accurate enough...but...given a choice... in most cases, won't be the first choice among the more highly trained and motivated personnel.

[MCgunner]

A weapon that is best issued to the rank-and-file when time restraints prevent advanced training and weapon familiarization with a more suitable platform. In other words...the "Volkswagen" of the smallarms set. One that will serve adequately in the hands of the masses. It's a gun. It's reliable enough. It's durable enough. It's accurate enough...but...given a choice... in most cases, won't be the first choice among the more highly trained and motivated personnel.

I don't agree, though, that you can give a new recruit a Glock, make sure he or she can hit a target at ten feet, and just turn 'em loose. This is how all those ADs come about in law enforcement. While proper handling of a 1911 is more involved and requires more familiarization, there is always the need to impress safe gun handling habits on the unwashed and that's particularly important with the Glock. If you want a simple platform for the non-gun recruit, issue revolvers. 90 percent of the law enforcement agencies in the US would be better off with revolvers anyway, I believe. You see the rare shootout with AK armed robbers that make the headlines, but I'd speculate ADs occur more often than Miami shoot outs or those two idiots that shot it out in LA.

I know our $9 an hour small town cops here carry Glock .40s. I hope they don't shoot themselves. I've seen some of the "better shooters" in action and I can tell ya, Keystone Cops comes to mind. ROFL! There is no idiot proof sidearm, safe gun handling rules ALWAYS apply. However, some guns are more idiot proof than others and the simpler manual of arms of the revolver lends it to idiots IMHO. I carry 'em and don't consider myself MUCH of an idiot.:D They are effective and simple.

[1911Tuner]

Quote:

>I don't agree, though, that you can give a new recruit a Glock, make sure he or she can hit a target at ten feet, and just turn 'em loose.<
******************

Please point to where I said or even insinuated that... :scrutiny:

No more than I'd hand a 16 year-old the keys to a Dodge Viper and tell him to go have a ball would I endorse handing a new recruit without prior training any weapon and "turning him loose."

[MCgunner]

A weapon that is best issued to the rank-and-file when time restraints prevent advanced training and weapon familiarization with a more suitable platform.



No, but it seems that Cooper is saying the Glock takes little training (by your post). Well, that's probably one of Glock's sales pitches to local departments, too. Anyone that knows guns knows better, but some little departments in small towns may not know any better, or their purchasing agents may not. They get a few days of familiarization, IMHO, that's not enough. Safety training should be a continuing thing.

Fortunately, where I live, it's rather rural and most of the kids that hire here are at least exposed to firearms during their youth. Safety cannot be stressed too much, though. If anything, I think the Glock deserves JUST AS MUCH training as any other firearm including 1911s, if not more! So, there's no safety to flip off or forget to flip on, that's my point. There's no safeties and when you're holstering a gun with a 4 lb trigger, it just don't take much. Too, the striker system in the Glock should be understood by the officer. It is not visible, so he or she should be impressed with the fact that YOU MUST point the unloaded gun in a safe direction before dropping the striker on the "empty" chamber, such simple things as that should be second nature gun handling habits before such recruits are turned loose on patrol. It's more than just keeping your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot. It's all about understanding the gun and getting in good gun handling habits by repetition.

[gopguy]

I enjoy reading Cooper, I don't always agree but he is thought provoking. I love my 1911s and my Browning High Powers. I also enjoy my various Glocks, in many chamberings. I think Jeff would have to concede that the 1911 could not pass a few of the torture tests done by Chuck Taylor on the Glock 17....including leaving one on the ocean floor for months. Lets face it a month on the ocean floor and a carbon steel Colt 1911 would suffer for it.

I wonder if Jeff Cooper reads Chuck Taylor's great writings....hmmm.

http://www.usashooters.org/artman/publish/printer_2372.shtml

From USAShooters.org

Gun Rag, Vol 3, Issue 1
Chuck Taylor’s Thus-Far Indestructible Glock 17 Takes A Bath
By Chuck Taylor
Jan 12, 2005, 12:38

For the last twelve or so years, I’ve been continuously torture-testing a Glock 17 9mm pistol. I obtained it new over the counter back in 1998 and, there being no data on Glocks available at the time other than what was furnished by the maker, I endeavored to determine for myself exactly how good Glocks really were. Specifically, the idea of polycarbonate frames and other internal parts being a relatively new feature, I wanted to know for sure if the gun would really take the abuse Glock, Inc. claimed it would.

Thus far, I’ve carried that pistol all over the world - Latin America, Africa, Alaska, the Philippines and Alaska - to name but a few, during which it’s been exposed to what can only be described as “highly abusive” conditions. It’s been exposed to 120-degree-plus heat and forty degrees below zero and nearly every temperature in between. It’s seen mud, snow, dust, gravel and lots of just plain dirt. It’s been buried in dust, mud and snow, then exhumed and still it fired without a single stoppage and looked much better aesthetically than its history would indicate it should.

In fact, after all this time, I considered concluding the test and declaring the doggoned gun to be indestructible. But, over a glass of wine (well, okay, several glasses!) with ASAA associate Arnold Teves, honcho of Firearms Academy Of Hawaii and his lovely wife Paulette at a fine seafood restaurant in Kailua, it was discovered that I had missed something.

“What?” I exclaimed, examining Arnold’s controlled smirk alarm. “What do you mean I missed something? What could I have possibly missed? H---, I’ve done everything I could think of to that gun within reason and still it works perfectly. What could I have possibly missed?”

Continuing to control his amusement, albeit with some difficulty, Arnold smiled and said, “What about leaving it in the ocean for a while…you know, long-term salt-water immersion? I don’t remember reading about anything like that in the dozen or so articles you’ve published about the test over the years. I would be something new and still be a valid test, wouldn’t it?”

He had a point. At various points during the test, I had thrown the pistol into the ocean several times and let it stay submerged overnight a couple of times with no discernible effect, but I had never really exposed it to salt water for any longer period of time. After all, I am SCUBA qualified and it would give me the opportunity to not only further test the ruggedness of the gun, but shoot it underwater as well. And what cool photography I could get, too.

Hmm…

As dinner progressed, a format emerged. The gun would be left on the seabed for one-month increments, after each of which it would be retrieved, rinsed in fresh water, disassembled, examined and then returned to the sea. A total of six months was decided upon, since it was December, 1999 and I was in Hawaii teaching and would return for another class with Arnold and a some U.S. Navy SpecWar personnel the following June (June, 2000). The next day, I arranged for a friend of mine who was a diver to administer the program and we were off and running.

Six months later, I returned as described above and found the gun to be relatively unscathed even though, other than the five times it was rinsed in fresh water and examined, it had spent the last six months at the bottom of the Pacific.

With a friend of mine, who in addition to being a serious shooting enthusiast is also expert diver, I donned a wetsuit and SCUBA gear and, with the test Glock holstered around my middle and my dive camera hanging from my neck, boarded a towed sled behind his Jet Ski with extra tanks, film and proceeded out to sea.

The net result of all of this was that the Glock, which was equipped with an underwater firing pin kit, worked fine…even submerged. Using 9mm 115 and 124-grain ball ammunition, not a single malfunction was noted, which stimulated my mind even more. I now have a plan for doing this again, but doing it complete with target frames, silhouettes and so on and becoming the first guy in history to run through high speed presentations and shooting drills on actual targets underwater! Stay tuned for the results of this one with it’s accompanying photography at a future date, eh?

Emerging from the ocean on a remote stretch of the beach several miles from our departure point, we encountered several lovely ladies sunbathing - and I mean sunbathing - but managed to soothe their fright at unexpectedly seeing two guys clad in black wetsuits and SCUBA equipment stumble up out of the surf practically at their feet. We then hiked back up the beach to our vehicle and proceeded to Arnold’s house to examine the weapon one last time.

Upon rinsing it in fresh water and detail-stripping it, we determined that virtually nothing had happened - other than some almost microscopic rusting on the slide release lever and a small pit on the edge of the top of the slide, the pistol was completely intact. In addition, a small crack had appeared in the polycarbonate frame on the left front side of the entrance to the magazine well, but no other damage was detected.

Impressed, Arnold and I then dried and lubricated the gun, proceeded to obtain one last substance to dunk the pistol in - fresh cow manure - and to the range we went. At the dinner where the initial test had been conceived, I had inadvertently muttered that once the seawater test was complete, I would have done everything to the gun but dunk it in doo-doo. This got a bit of a laugh in that the old phrase of “shooting the …well, you know…immediately came to mind.

Still, the idea wasn’t so far fetched as you might think. Cow manure, for example, is a multi-media substance containing partly digested grass and other vegetable matter, stomach acid and who knows what else. Moreover, it tends to be glutinous, stringy and otherwise highly obnoxious in every way. After laughing about it for a while, I realized that such a substance would make a good test medium. Previously, I had only subjected the pistol to single-media substances like dirt, dust, ice, snow, et al and if it functioned after being soaked inside and out in fresh cow dung, it would have indeed proved its worth.

So, we obtained the “unspeakable agricultural substance” (fresh from its usual source, of course!), placed it in a plastic trash bag and off to the range we went. Upon arriving there, I placed a magazine loaded with 124-grain Federal Hydra-Shok JHPs into the gun, cycled the slide to load it and unceremoniously dropped it into the bag.

It was then that an amusing revelation fell upon us - after retrieving the manure-soaked Glock from the bag, I realized that I needed to be the one to take pictures, so that left Arnold to be the shooter! Still, his smile remained (frozen?) as he gingerly assumed a Weaver Stance, pointed the piece at the target and pressed the trigger.

BOOM! The pistol fired, the slide reciprocated, reloading it and sending a cloud of the “unspeakable substance” flying everywhere…including all over Arnold!

Then, BOOM!, BOOM!, BOOM! and so on until the magazine was empty and the slide locked open. In the target 7 meters distant were 17 center hits. I handed Arnold another loaded magazine, then another and another until a half-dozen were expended, but the pistol continued to function without mishap. When it was over, Arnold’s face, arms and shirt were spattered and his smile had vanished (mine would, too - with all that, er, stuff flying around, who wants to keep his mouth open?).

“Got it…all of it!” I said happily, and handed him a one-gallon container or water, some soap and a clean shirt, which he accepted with alacrity, and the test was over. The Glock had gone the whole route and passed with flying colors.

Frankly, I don’t know what else to subject it to without losing focus on being realistic. I guess I could freeze it into a solid block of ice and then try to fire it but I know darned well it will malfunction and who cares, right? Or perhaps I could run over it with a car to see if it would break, but then what would that prove? Besides, a friend of mine just inadvertently did that and the pistol -- also a Glock 17 - didn’t break!

In conclusion, my test Glock 17 is still going strong and has now digested 168,000 rounds and successfully endured everything I’ve been able to throw at it. Like the old TIMEX commercial featuring reporter John Cameron Swayze, “It took a licking and kept on ticking.” Yet, though finish wear is evident, the pistol doesn’t look nearly as worn as it should, given the abuse to which it’s been exposed. In fact, when it’s shown to people, they all marvel at the fact that it’s been through so much and still looks as good as it does.

This being the case, only continued shooting, carrying and high-speed presentation under real-world environmental conditions remain as a valid means of continuing the test, so that’s what I intend to do. I’ll be back in Hawaii teaching later this year, and will look forward to shooting my ol’ Glock 17 some more - under water against targets - because I always wondered at what distance a pistol fired underwater might remain lethal. We’ll see, but in the meantime, I’ll continue to lend it to students, carry and shoot it myself and otherwise continue the project.

Because, who knows, though based on its performance so far I’m not holding my breath, one of these days it might actually break, eh?


© Copyright 2003 by USA Shooters

[1911Tuner]

Quote:

>No, but it seems that Cooper is saying the Glock takes little training (by your post).<
************

Well...He is, as compared to a more work intensive platform like a SA Autopistol. Just like the Sturmgewer is neither built, nor is it intended for precise marksmanship, as compared to the Aim and Squeeze operation required of the bolt-rifle...at least in order to utilize the turnbolt's full potential. The Glock is basically a point and click interface, much like a DA revolver...which is why so many police agencies held onto it for so long. The DA Autos are a step forward of the revolver...but they still don't require intensive training and familarization in order to realize their full potential. Note the many agencies that issue the DA or DAO auto to their patrolmen, while going with the 1911 for their SWAT and Entry Team personnel. The 1911, et al is a very good pistol for those who take the time to learn it, and the motivation to work with it...and it does take time and motivation. Well worth the effort, IMO, and the pistol in the hands of a motivated and capable shooter takes a back seat to none.

The time that it takes to train a soldier or a LEO with a Volksrifle as compared to the time and intensity required to train a sniper, is the main factor. So it goes with the DAO's less complicated manual of arms as compared to the SA autopistol. Not only in the marksmanship endeavor, but in the ability to handle it safely and use it to its potential.

Just in case I seem to appear biased...I am...but only in the practical application. Double-action revolvers are my first love, and I'll always own, and occasionally carry one...but if I had to make a choice between my personal favorite revolver and one of my 1911s...and it had to do me for the rest of my life, come what may...the 1911 would have to be the one that comes along for the ride, and the choice would be made without hesitation.
Not that it's perfect. It's just the best compromise in a given situation, and it outclasses the revolver on a number of points, by a considerable margin...at least in my hands.

Also, I don't have a thing against Glocks or Sigs, or any of the others in that class. They're solid, reliable weapons that seem to do just fine in the role that they were designed for. My reasons for not working with any of them are largely personal, and mainly that they just don't "feel" right for me. They may be just the thing for others, and my advice is to go for whatever suits you best.

[Ron Brooks]

1911Turner

Very, very, well said.

[XDKingslayer]

Well, the big problem that I have with Glocks and other polymer guns is if you leave one on say the dashboard of your car on trrhe south or next to a heater vent up north, well remember what used to happen to vinyl records?

I love statements like this. It shows just how far the gun world will go to completely dismiss polymer firearms.

The beauty is that I live in Southwest Florida and my recycled record sits inside a dark green truck that reaches well over 150 degrees. It has set on the hood of said green truck for the better part of many summer days while shooting. I can assure you that it hasn't curled up into a little ball of plastic.

How many times has your polymer pistol curled up like an LP? I'd love to see pictures of it.