Colt Defender or Glock 36


PDA






kyonic
November 24, 2007, 02:08 PM
I have narrowed my personal protection weapon down to the glock 36 or Colt Defender .45. I was just hoping you all could help me with the descision between the two.

If you enjoyed reading about "Colt Defender or Glock 36" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Slinger
November 24, 2007, 02:31 PM
Are you comfortable enough and more importantly, safe enough to carry a weapon "cocked and locked" like you would with the Colt? Lots of people are not. If you are, then you can't beat a 1911's slim frame for comfortable carry.

My 2 cents.

GunNut
November 24, 2007, 04:58 PM
If you are a Glock guy then go with the 36. If you're a 1911 guy go with the Colt.

Either are great guns, but don't trust either without shooting some of your carry rounds through them.


Personally i'd go with the Glock.

Vitamin G
November 24, 2007, 05:33 PM
One thing that drives me nuts are the glockophiles that will detract from the 1911style guns, and continuously bring up "Cocked and Locked" carry, and its "Dangers".

I think the real question that people should be asking, and what I asked myself, was...

"Would you rather have a gun that LOOKS like it will fire if you unholster it and pull the trigger by accident/negligence, or would you rather have a gun that WILL fire if you unholster it and pull the trigger by accident/negligence?

GunNut
November 24, 2007, 06:16 PM
One thing that drives me nuts are the glockophiles that will detract from the 1911style guns, and continuously bring up "Cocked and Locked" carry, and its "Dangers".


You want to know what drives me nuts? People who start arguing with imaginary posts.:neener:

I have not seen ONE post bringing up the dangers of "cocked and locked" guns for carry.

A lot of people feel unsafe carrying around a 1911 style gun because of the cocked hammer. Has nothing at all to do with "glockophiles", has to do with someones comfort level and training.

Hell one of my friends can't believe that I would ever have a 1911 cocked and locked or have a round in the chamber of my Glock. Different strokes for different folks.

So what do you have against Glocks? Besides they're ugly or plastic or blocky...the standard answer for wood and steel gun owners.

8830
November 24, 2007, 06:34 PM
Having owned and carried both I like the Defender better. I like cocked and locked over any other systems. Plus my G36 mags would not drop free. Weight difference is not an issue.

macadore
November 24, 2007, 06:35 PM
IMO, the Glock handles better and seems to recoil less. I donít know if this is due to the ergonomics, the plastic frame absorbing the recoil, or my imagination.

Vitamin G
November 24, 2007, 07:06 PM
Oh believe me, I have nothing against glocks. I have a glock 20 and a glock 17 in my regular carry rotation. I also tote along a p7m8, BHP, Govt 1911, and Kel-tec .380. I know the conventional wisdom is to dress around the gun, but being single and lucky enough to have a good job, albeit in social work, I was able to splurge and can pick a gun around my clothes of the day.


With that said, my only complaint about glocks are the grip angle, and a very very very nagging "uh oh" about the lack of actual safety. My concern about the safety is about as superficial as a freckle on the playmate of the month's pinky toe, while she's laying naked on my bed.

As far as "imaginary posts", i've semi-regularly seen people raise their concerns about the dangers of "cocked and locked" carry, in this and other forums. Even in this very thread, the implication that 1911's are more dangerous than other guns was made...

Are you comfortable enough and more importantly, safe enough to carry a weapon "cocked and locked" like you would with the Colt? Lots of people are not.

So really, whats the difference in some safety prerequisite in carrying a 1911 vs. a revolver, or a 1911 vs a sig? Is there a point system that some states use that i dont know exist?

1) Draw 2) Flip off safety 3) Point 4) Shoot

How is a 1911 any different than a Sig, CZ, EAA Witness, BHP, et all. In fact, the only guns that come to mind quickly that have significant differences are glocks and revolvers (No #2), and p7's (#2 = Squeeze)

The only difference that I can readily see is that the 1911 style guns "look" scary & dangerous, because they have a visible hammer. If we're going to make a big deal of how a gun looks, are we really any different than Kerry and Feinstein?

LanEvo`
November 24, 2007, 07:23 PM
I have narrowed my personal protection weapon down to the glock 36 or Colt Defender .45. I was just hoping you all could help me with the descision between the two.I have handled both guns in a local gunshop not too long ago. My impression is that the G36 is more or less the same size as the G19 (just a bit slimmer). I found it to be both larger and thicker than an Officer's ACP. The Colt Defender strikes me as being easier to conceal.

I haven't shot either gun. But, I have read that the G36 is less accurate than most compact .45's on the market. And I have read that it is less reliable than a typical Glock. Again, this is NOT based on personal experience...just what I've read!

I hope people with hands-on experience will share their thoughts.

Geno
November 24, 2007, 08:30 PM
The 36 was alleged to me to have reliability issues. I do not know if they really do, or do not. I settled with the Colt New Agent. It is similar to the Defender, with carbon slide and has no sights. So far, it has been an awesome point shooter.

jetman
November 24, 2007, 09:45 PM
I just bought a Colt New Agent too. No doubt about it, no Glocks for me!

Geno
November 24, 2007, 09:56 PM
Jetman:

Does this look familiar at all? :)

Doc2005

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e364/Doc2005/NewAgent.jpg

MICHAEL T
November 25, 2007, 02:08 AM
Ive been packing a Defender and have a new Agent on layaway No glock in my family

Rexster
November 25, 2007, 03:50 AM
Neither. I have owned several of each size of 1911, and found anything smaller than full-sized to be likely to have reliability issues. An acquaintance who works at a gun range has a G36, which he shoots A LOT, and he has experienced several parts breakages. A colleague I do trust has found the SIG P245 to be reliable and durable. It is discontinued, but the Compact P220 is in production.

DHart
November 25, 2007, 04:24 AM
.45 acp in a gun with a 3" barrel is just a little "wacko" in my opinion. THe velocity loss is quite significant with a barrel that is 40% shorter than the barrel length which .45 acp loadings are designed to work well with. THat said, I wouldn't choose to be shot with a 3" .45, but .40 and 9mm are much better suited to such short barrels. If you must choose .45 acp for a caliber and need a small-ish concealment pistol, may I suggest a Colt Commander with a 4.25" barrel or a Glock 30 with a 3.8" barrel? Both are much better choices for a variety of reasons and, I feel, quite easily concealed. Otherwise, buy a Glock 23 and have 14 rounds of hot forty on tap in a relatively small, lightweight, easily concealed, highly reliable platform.

wayno
December 1, 2007, 06:14 PM
:banghead:

wayno
December 1, 2007, 06:16 PM
DHart not to argue, but according to the Glock site the G30 and
G36 have same length barrel.

DHart
December 1, 2007, 07:17 PM
WayneO.... not sure what you are saying with reference to what I wrote? Can you clarify? I never mentioned the Glock 36.

The Defender has a 3" barrel. The barrel in the Glock 30 & 36 is 3.8", IIRC, and has polygonal rifling, which tends to keep velocity from dropping as much. You WILL get better velocity from the Glock 30 and 36 w/3.8" polygonal barrel than you will with the Defender's 3" standard rifling barrel.

And you'll get MUCH better CAPACITY with the Glock 30, if you can handle it's "beefiness" in the grip.

Lonestar49
December 1, 2007, 07:32 PM
...

IMHO, you can't beat a SAO trigger (pull) exactly the same sweet pull, every time..

Good luck, (hope ya get a Defender 45), as mine is, as mentioned by Doc, one of the best point shooters I own, besides my EMP..


Ls


http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc306/Lonestar49/Picture215.jpg

ak-kev
December 1, 2007, 08:32 PM
To me, its a no-brainer. Colt all the way baby:D:D

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p266/james807/100_3131.jpg

10-Ring
December 1, 2007, 10:11 PM
I've had a 36 & didn't much care for it...go w/ the Defender! ;)

DHart
December 2, 2007, 12:41 AM
Though I prefer the Glock 23 (14 rounds of hot .40 cal.), as hinted at above, for my primary carry gun (capacity is important to me), I really, really LOVE Colt 1911's! Here's one of my two favorite Colt 1911's for carry duty:

http://www.legendportraits.com/Images/Guns/Cmdr_NC_1432.jpg

The other fave Colt carry gun is set up just like this one, but is a LW Commander bobtail.

Hunter0924
December 2, 2007, 12:54 AM
My vote goes for the Colt Defender with a suggestion to look at the New Agent.

MICHAEL T
December 2, 2007, 01:25 AM
Once again COLT DEFENDER or AGENT use 185 gr ammo and they work fine.

DHart
December 2, 2007, 02:35 AM
use 185 gr ammo and they work fine

This is wrong. 185 gr. ammo may function fine, but the 185 gr. loads are much less effective from a 3" barrel than they are from the 5" barrel they were designed to be fired from.

Lighter weight (200 and 185 gr.) .45 acp bullets LOSE velocity at a HIGHER RATE than the 230 gr. bullets do... so, a 230 gr. bullet will retain desired velocity a little better (due to momemtum) than the 185 gr. bullet will. Therefore, the 230 gr. bullet will stay a little closer to it's designed velocity (which is with the 5" barrel) than the 185 gr. bullet will. Simplified: the 185 gr. bullet suffers from a greater slow-down rate from the short 3" barrel than the 230 gr. bullet does. Stick with 230 gr. if you must shoot a 3" 1911. You will give up most if not all of your expansion, but you'll still have the 230 gr. weight for good penetration and.... don't forget, penetration is KING! (Assuming good placement.)

NOW, if you really want good penetration AND expansion, as well, with the short 3" barrel, there are only two good ways to do so that I know of: Corbon 165 gr. PowRBall and Corbon 185 gr. DPX. These are proven to penetrate deeply AND expand fully when fired from a 3" barrel. BUT, these are really expensive loads to shoot; and VERRRRY expensive if you want to practice with your carry load!

I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but 1911's with 3" barrels are the worst possible choice for both the 1911 platform AND for the .45 acp caliber.

I can certainly see the attraction to the Defender... in fact I was so attracted to one, that I bought one for myself. But with time and use I began to realize that a LOT had to be given up/compromised by choosing the Defender (or any 3" barrel 1911) and a bobtailed Commander is a MUCH smarter choice for a carry gun.

The reason I sold my Defender and decided to stick with Commander 1911's for carry use is multi-fold:

• cost of the Corbon ammo (necessary for achieving excellent terminal ballistics from a 3" barrel) is so high and I wanted to be able to shoot a LOT of practice WITH my carry ammo - too costly for me to do with the Defender, but affordable with the Commander.

• cost and replacement frequency of recoil springs in the Defender is high. Recoil springs in a Defender should be replaced as early as 750 rounds, typically, and the compound springs are MUCH less readily available and much more expensive than springs for a Commander, a model who's recoil springs last a LOT longer, are much cheaper, and much more readily available all over the place.

• Capacity of the Defender is reduced due to the short butt... whereas a bobtailed Commander has a very easliy concealed butt, yet retains use of full size/full capacity Government magazines! Choose mags without the bumper at the bottom and the bobtailed Commander has a VERY easily concealed butt.

• The 4.25" barrel on the Commander provides much better terminal ballistics with a wide variety of ammo types than the 3" barrel does.

• The 4.25 " slide on the Commander gives a much better sighting radius, enabling more accuracy if you need to take a longer shot, than the 3" barrel does.

• The greater weight of the 4.25" slide on the Commander reduces felt recoil and muzzle rise such that follow up shots are quicker to get off than with the 3" barrel 1911.

• The slide length on the Commander lends generally greater overall reliability than is typically found with 3" 1911's.

• The Commander is a more enjoyable gun to shoot and practice with - over a high volume of shooting, than is a 3" 1911.

REALIZE that you have to compromise/give up a LOT when you choose a 3" 1911 for a carry gun!!!

Don't get me wrong, I think the Defender is a GREAT and fun little gun, very attractive indeed, but I finally figured out after owning one that I didn't NEED to go that small and didn't HAVE to put up with lackluster terminal ballistic performance and high maintenance... I found that I could carry a bobtailed Commander JUST as easily and would have a MUCH better performing 1911 which allowed use of full capacity mags as well. Even full capacity 1911 mags are on the low end of capacity as far as I'm concerned, so giving up even one round had to result in gaining a HECK of a lot more in something else in return. What I found is that 3" 1911's are all about "giving up" a lot and not so much about "getting back".

GO with a Defender over an Agent if you must have a .45 with such a short barrel, but seriously consider a bobtailed Commander as a very strong, less-compromised 1911 alternative. And, if your hands are large enough to handle one, look at the Glock 30 ... they're an awesome (11-round) .45 acp choice in a small package that doesn't give up much in terminal ballistics with it's 3.8" polygonal rifled barrel and has awesome capacity for a compact .45!

The Defender is a much better choice, IMHO, than the new Agent because of the sights on the Defender. But neither are as smart a choice, in my view, as the Glock 30 or a bobtailed Commander. That's my reasoning. Your mileage, and others, may certainly vary!

Why am I so big on capacity?

We've all heard the statistic dating back to the revolver days that a civilian is not likely to need more than 5 shots in a self-defense situation.

In today's world, that's not a smart statistic to base your gun choice on. With that mindset, statistics show that you will never need to shoot anyone in defense of your life, so why even carry a gun at all?

Let's face it... you could very easily (in about 4 seconds) empty a low capacity auto in a hot hurry and still not have STOPPED an assailant. Add another assailant or two and you're totally screwed. RELOAD? Yeah, right... odds are strong that you'll never even get half chance to do that. This is not to discount the importance of training, which I think it critically important, no matter what the capacity of your carry gun.

It makes a huge amount of sense to carry a gun with as much capacity as you can reasonably carry. In a 1911 that's gotta be a full size mag. But my preferred choice is a GLock 30 with 11 rounds of .45 or even better, a Glock 23 (14 rounds on tap) or a Glock 19 (16 rounds on tap) or for me. You can never have too many rounds on tap before a reload!

Sorry for the extremely long post, but these are matters of great importance and I have given considerable years and energy to these matters. Rant off. ;-)

Rexster
December 2, 2007, 03:48 AM
OOps, I already posted an answer earlier.

Autolycus
December 2, 2007, 05:19 AM
I like the Colt aesthetically and the trigger. However the Glock has a good trigger and is a very reliable gun with no beating around the bust as to what it is.

wayno
December 7, 2007, 11:37 PM
"WayneO.... not sure what you are saying with reference to what I wrote? Can you clarify? I never mentioned the Glock 36.

The Defender has a 3" barrel. The barrel in the Glock 30 & 36 is 3.8", IIRC, and has polygonal rifling, which tends to keep velocity from dropping as much. You WILL get better velocity from the Glock 30 and 36 w/3.8" polygonal barrel than you will with the Defender's 3" standard rifling barrel.

And you'll get MUCH better CAPACITY with the Glock 30, if you can handle it's "beefiness" in the grip."
__________________
Thanks for clearing it up for me!

Wayne

Gordon
December 8, 2007, 12:47 AM
You might want to TRY a Kahr MK40.

azmcmac
December 8, 2007, 12:42 PM
I have both and honestly prefer the Colt as my every day carry weapon. It fits me better, is more comfortable and is somewhat easier to conceal. I prefer shooting the Colt over the Glock. Accuracy, recoil and handling are better (for me). The Defender carries one more round than the 36; not that I'm a "Capacity Freak" (I figure that unless you are LE or Mil, if you can't protect you and yours with 5, you can't do it no matter how many rounds you have) I do carry the Glock when I'm hiking or riding a motorcycle only because I prefer teh extra security of a thumbstrap to insure the pistol doesn't fall from it's holster when I'm doing active things like that. (Only thumbstrap holster I've found for my Colt requires the hammer to be down-and I only carry a 1911 cocked and locked (no IDF training here)) If I had to choose only one - it would be the Colt but at the same time I have to say that of my weapons, (Colt, Glock, Kahr & Taurus) the only one I've had to send back to the factory because it wasn't right out of the box, is the Colt) But thats a another story.

DHart
December 8, 2007, 03:41 PM
if you can't protect you and yours with 5, you can't do it no matter how many rounds you have

This type of comment is often casually made here and there. It is simply wishful thinking! Usually offered by someone with a low capacity gun.

Let's start by realizing that handguns are VERY POOR STOPPERS. Yes, it's entirely possible that 5 shots might be enough to stop an attack on you or your family.

But then again, think about how quickly those five shots will be fired and how unlikely any one or two of them are in causing a doped up, pumped up, muscle bound, cold-hearted, cold-blooded killer to drop in his tracks instantly.

Do you think all five will all strike the target perfectly? Do you realize that two or three or four of them, or ALL of them, may miss the target as you scramble to protect yourself in the heat of a sudden, violent confrontation? And even if you do get two solid hits, do you think the perp is going to instantly fall to the ground and cease the attack?

Are you sure you won't find yourself in a situation where there may be two or three (or even more) people threatening you? There are so many possible ways for this to happen. And all you have are 5 shots before your gun turns into a stone? Reload? Yeah right... not very likely in the heat of close encounter defense. I'll take a five-shot gun over none at all, but not if I have a choice.

Do you quote the old statistic (probably coined thirty years ago) that *most* defense encounters are over within three or four shots? If you bank your strategy on that statistic, why don't you bank your strategy on the statistic that you are not likely to ever need to use a gun to defend yourself - therefore, don't even both to be armed.

I submit that these days it makes a LOT of sense to carry a gun with as high a capacity as you can comfortably handle in a caliber as potent as you can manage. Perps don't instantly fall down when they are hit by bullets. You may have two or three or four jacked-up heartless jerks to deal with.

There is a good possibility that it may take FIVE SOLID HITS very well placed in very rapid order to bring an attacker to the ground quickly. After your five are spent, assuming you were fortunate enough to have made all five of those rounds count perfectly, what do you do about the other guy or two who are hell bent on taking you out? Throw the gun at them?

Certainly 5 shots is better than none. But greater capacity is ALWAYS much better. Plan for the worst and hope for the best. Don't plan for the best and find yourself having to deal with the worst.

Every choice you make in life involves a compromise. Whatever you gain, you give something up. Can't get around that. I love .45 and have a lot of guns in that caliber. My favorite guns are 1911's. I also like .40 and 9mm.

BUT, for me, after considerable study and thought, I have chosen the Glock 23 which is a compact, very concealable, stone reliable CCW which carries 14 rounds of .40.

This is NOT my "favorite" handgun, but it is my smartest choice in a CCW because of the reliability, capacity, and potency. I like the gun a lot, I like the capacity a lot, I like the reliability and durability a lot, I can shoot it very well, and the caliber is a reasonably good choice for a handgun. Your mileage may vary.

Just some thoughts.

azmcmac
December 9, 2007, 11:30 AM
One of the beauties of living in the USA is that we are all free ot express our own opinion, as I have - and I'm still convinced my position is best for me. However; the topic of this post was the personal preference between 2 specific weapons, Model 36 vs. Defender. I suppose I could have just kept my comment to one having a 6 round mag and the other up to a 7 round mag but that isn't an over riding factor in my preference. In fact, if the mag capacity were reversed, I would still prefer the Defender.

DHart
December 9, 2007, 05:38 PM
The reason for my digression from topic is that I have given a lot of thought to carrying the Defender that I once owned. After a lot of careful consideration, I decided it would be a much better decision to carry a Commander (bobtailed) for many reasons (stated above). Beyond that, I have leaned toward increased capacity as well (stated above). I just though that these additional considerations *might* be helpful to anyone who is in the position of thinking of choosing a Defender or G36 as a carry gun. None of these is really a bad decision, but there are really so very many factors to consider.... I think it's a really complicated decision to make.

ONE more thought regarding capacity.... remember when we had a ban on sale of magazines with more than 10 rounds? If the democrats get their way, we may see such a ban again! Buy your high(er) capacity guns and mags now that you can!

Lonestar49
December 9, 2007, 08:20 PM
...

I agree with D Hart in regards to shooting 185gr in 3" barrels, not too use it.

Personally, I have found that with my Colt Defender, I get far less snap with 230gr JHP's along with far better follow-up shots with accuracy. I trust that the 230gr JHP will be most effective, if needed, and even here in Winter time in Calif.'s colder 50 degree nights, and 64 degree days, and the heavier clothing that goes with it.. lol I hear all those back east and in the mountains laughing at that being cold.. :D

As far as most 3" guns being limited (especially for me in Calif, 10 round max) that given what it will, if ever, be used for, up close and personal, at 16ft or closer, 7 rounds should suffice to change one's, BG/s encounter, situation.

And I have no problems carrying 1 extra mag, but I could carry 2, in the same mag clip, if I wanted to, as reloading mags, for me, is quick, a force of habit, well learned.

I don't go to places, nor seek them out, that support war zone type battles.

I always look back over my entire life, without any incidents, before I joined the handgun, CCW, club, and use the same (SA)thought-process today, as I did for all those years without a gun out in public and feel confident that my better judgement will keep me from ever having to fire a shot, let alone, pull and load-up a reserve mag, and use up all 14 shots.

Least, that is my game plan for the rest of my life..


Ls

DHart
December 10, 2007, 12:56 AM
Lonestar... there is a lot to be said for living life well, staying in a good & generally safe zone. The way I live my life, I am extremely unlikely to ever have to defend my life with a gun... though I do plan for the worst. Of course, the last thing most of us would ever want to do is have to pull out our gun in a defensive encounter! Chances are good most of us will never have to do that and should we have to, again chances are that 8-9 rounds on board will be enough. I just have a better comfort zone knowing that I have more than that (11 rounds in my G30, 14 in my G23, 16 in my G19) before having to reload.

As you live in California, it is unfortunate that the State has decided you cannot buy any mags with greater than 10 capacity. Is it ok to posses them and carry them if you already owned them before? Or has the great liberal state banned that as well???

Lonestar49
December 10, 2007, 02:06 PM
Quote: As you live in California, it is unfortunate that the State has decided you cannot buy any mags with greater than 10 capacity. Is it ok to posses them and carry them if you already owned them before?

Or has the great liberal state banned that as well???
...

It's, IIRC, legal for anyone that owned any guns prior to when the law came into effect to have 14 round mags, or larger mag loads for rifles, with any weapons owned, with proof, if the matter were to come into legal question.

As for me, any guns I own are restricted to the 10 round max, even if I buy a used gun from anyone, any business, if they came with 14 round mags, etc., legally, they cannot go with the purchased used gun, nor used. One must find legal 10 rounders for any gun, used, to stay legal.

So, one or two reserve mags is the only way for many of us.


Ls

memphislee
December 10, 2007, 02:42 PM
i would go with the glock nothing to hang up on if you ever had to pull it (pray that you dont).im with dhart i also would like to have a few more rounds. i have a glock 20c (10mm) with a 15rd clip and thats good enough for me but to each his own

If you enjoyed reading about "Colt Defender or Glock 36" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!