I'm prejudiced---I don't like Glocks


PDA






polekitty
February 22, 2009, 12:48 AM
Yes, I have to admit it, I just don't like Glocks. They are well made and extremely reliable. I just can't get used to the way they look. But I guess the one thing to which I really most object is the lack of a safety. That little thingie in the trigger is not a safety---it does not prevent the trigger being "accidentally" pulled. Of course, revolvers also don't have safeties, but they have much heavier trigger pulls than a Glock. Are Glocks available with a "New York" trigger, like some other autos? HK (as it comes standard) has a really beastly heavy trigger pull. But Glock has a really light pull, doesn't take much of a touch to "accidentally" pull off a shot. All of which really gets me to why I'm starting this thread. There is an "after market" safety available for the Glock. It's a gunsmith job to install it, it goes on the slide. It's a thumb type safety lever that works like the safeties on many other autos. It's a gunsmith job to install it. I wonder if any of you guys have seen one? I won't attempt to argue with those of you who say all you have to do is "be careful." But, let's face it, no one plans to have an "accident"--accidents are things that happen no matter how professional and careful you are.

If you enjoyed reading about "I'm prejudiced---I don't like Glocks" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
W.E.G.
February 22, 2009, 12:50 AM
I just can't get used to the way they look.

The polished gun with all the levers and swoopy things that go up is the gun you show your friends.

The Glock is the gun you show your enemy.

That is all.

ljnowell
February 22, 2009, 12:53 AM
Its no sweat brother, they arent for everybody. There is no one gun for all, and I thank god for that. If everyone liked the exact same thing then they would only make that one thing and guns would be pretty damned boring!

So, basically, from a Glock Owners perspective, THANK YOU for not liking the glocks, you are doing your part to keep the gun market diverse and interesting.

heron
February 22, 2009, 12:58 AM
As I understand it, it's very easy to replace a spring in the Glock and give it a heavier trigger pull.

Really, though, it's been said before (in the text of firearms owner's manuals, among other places) -- don't depend on mechanical safety devices. Learn proper trigger discipline first.

polekitty
February 22, 2009, 01:02 AM
Yup! That "black thing is the thing you show your enemies." Can't argue with that! No, I've been"around guns" longer than most of you have even been alive--I've "carried" for years, again longer than many of you have been alive. And, I'm still just a little nervous, well, maybe better said that I'm very aware I'm carrying a sidearm. And yes, I do prefer a "1911 style" for carry, but it's not the only variety I carry. I have others, revolvers, and several 9's that definitely are NOT 1911 "style." But, I have to admit I do like a safety. I just like a "thingie" that guarantees the trigger will not be pulled by anything other than my trigger finger, accidentally or otherwise. And, apologies to all Glock fans. It is a very good gun.

jdc1244
February 22, 2009, 01:02 AM
These threads never end up good and usually end up locked.

Although I also don’t like Glocks the OP should have just said that and left it at that. To try to make some type of objective argument is pointless – it’s all subjective.

I’ve never owned a Glock nor will I ever; I therefore can not pass objective judgement on Glocks. I find them unattractive and their assets are useless to me.

As noted: buy what you like and take care with all firearms regardless of the safety configuration.

shootistpd27
February 22, 2009, 01:03 AM
A safety doesnt work unless you use it. It takes no more effort to flip on the safety than it does to ensure that you dont pull the trigger. Too many people put false faith in a safety and that is what gets people killed. So many people have been killed by someone saying after they pulled the trigger "I thought the safety was on". At least with a glock it is known that they dont have a safety therefore they know not to pull the trigger. And if someont doesnt know that about a glock then you should have kept the darn thing out of their hands and in your holster.

NotSoFast
February 22, 2009, 01:12 AM
I'm glad we don't all like (or dislike) the same thing. Life would be so boring.

I happen to like my Glock. I find that when I abide by the four safety rules and stay alert I don't have a problem with my pistol being unsafe.

bensdad
February 22, 2009, 01:22 AM
You, sir, are an anti-Glockite! You need diversity training. Report to the dept. of propaganda at once!

Sunray
February 22, 2009, 01:41 AM
"...doesn't take much of a touch to "accidentally" pull off a shot..." That'd be operator failure. It's not terribly difficult to "accidentally" pull off a shot" with a 1911 either. The best safety on any firearm is between your ears.
Mind you, I find the stock grip kind of slippery. Easily fixed with a Pachmayr slip on 'grip glove' though.

Wesson Smith
February 22, 2009, 03:07 AM
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as they say. I have a variety of different sidearms in each of the so-called platforms. I love 'em all, but I have to say that I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for the Glock. When I got my first "real job" in the "big city" I was wet behind the ears, with severely limited funds. I had no choice but to move into a pretty bad section of said city to be able to afford a place to live. After about three nights of break-ins and sirens wailing all evening, I scraped together my Friday paycheck, headed to a pawnbroker and picked up the first sidearm I'd ever owned. I literally felt at this point that it was a matter of dire necessity, if not self-preservation. And that first pistol I bought? It was a pre-ban Glock 17. I have to tell ya that my "little" Glock sort of became my pal sittin' in that dilapidated bedstand at night. Rightly or wrongly, I had in my mind 100% confidence that it would give me a fighting chance shoud I fall victim to a B&E, or some other form of criminal mischief. Fortunately, I never had to use it in that situation, but I still have the gun to this day, and wouldn't trade it for the world. Although I've tinkered with it a bit, giving it a more robust guide rod/spring, it will forever hold sentimental value for me, if for no other reason than that it afforded me some semi-restful nights where I otherwise would have had none. Still sits in my nightstand. Wouldn't have it any other way. ;)

Just a little Glock human interest story from yours truly. :)

RedNoma
February 22, 2009, 03:14 AM
I have a Kimber for HD. As much as I hate to I think I may pick up a Glock for CC. I think they're butt ugly as well (no offense to Glock guys, just opinion).

gglass
February 22, 2009, 03:47 AM
STOP!!!

That is not being prejudiced... That is merely common sense.

Good call!

Smith & Wesson (An American Company) has answered the lamentations of gun buyers like you, by introducing the M&P line of pistols. Since its 2006 introduction, the M&P has won over 370 LE department "issue" contracts. This has been at the expense of Glock and Sig Sauer... Sorry Springfield, the XD did not have any contracts to lose.

earlthegoat2
February 22, 2009, 04:29 AM
Glocks are utilitarian.
They are ugly.
They dont feel good in the hand.
Their trigger is questionable in the best of times.
I would never in a million years buy one (probably an exageration)

But if the time came when there was a score to settle I wouldnt hesitate to accept a Glock as the tool to do the settling.

ExtremeSquared
February 22, 2009, 04:42 AM
All of which really gets me to why I'm starting this thread. There is an "after market" safety available for the Glock. It's a gunsmith job to install it, it goes on the slide. It's a thumb type safety lever that works like the safeties on many other autos. It's a gunsmith job to install it. I wonder if any of you guys have seen one?

in 14 posts nobody has contributed anything useful towards this. this is the best i can do, but you might just want to pm the person who started the thread. nothing useful comes from internet discussions about glock safeties.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=111065

TRGRHPY
February 22, 2009, 05:17 AM
There is another "safety" for the glock that goes on the trigger itself, but I have a hard time accepting that something you have to push/pull on the trigger is going to be "safe".

That little thingie in the trigger is not a safety---it does not prevent the trigger being "accidentally" pulled

No, that is what a holster is for. If it is unholstered, then you should be on your game, mechanical safety or not.

Not trying to bash on you, but if you don't like glocks why are you asking about a safety for one? Do you know someone who is looking for a mech safety for it? It just seems odd because there are plenty of reliable pistols out there that would have the features that you want.

Haven't seen one personally (don't even know of anyone who has one), but here is their site:
http://www.cominolli.com/ourproducts.html

legion3
February 22, 2009, 06:08 AM
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x49/roman3/GLOCKTEN.jpg

legion3
February 22, 2009, 06:12 AM
in 14 posts nobody has contributed anything useful towards this.

Not much could be useful to a thread that has in its title "I Don't like Glocks."
Another in a long line of THR Glock bashing threads. No matter how many "left handed compliments" are tossed in for cover.

Add Glock to a thread at THR and they will come.

crebralfix
February 22, 2009, 06:49 AM
1) Do you have and carry a gun?

If yes, then all is good. If no, then there's a problem. Perhaps your attitude or state laws need to change.

2) Do you know how to use the gun safely?

If no, then you need to attend the NRA Home Firearms Safety course (or equivalent).

3) Does your carry gun work reliably every time, assuming proper mechanical function?

If no, then you need another gun.

4) Do you know how to use the gun in a self-defense context?

If you think that standing on the range and shooting small groups is sufficient, then you need more training.

5) Have you committed yourself to taking action in an emergency?

All the $3500 1911's in the world won't do anyone any good if you fail to take action at a critical moment.

6) Can you operate any weapon?

If you cannot competently shoot any "battlefield pick-up", then you need to familiarize yourself with a variety of weapons.


For some people, the questions add up to Glock. The problem is that people "invest" emotional energy into their gun. Somehow, the tool becomes some sort of personal "Excaliber". Mushashi warned us to "not have a favorite weapon".

Bill B.
February 22, 2009, 06:54 AM
Glocks are utilitarian.
They are ugly.
They dont feel good in the hand.
Their trigger is questionable in the best of times.
I would never in a million years buy one (probably an exageration)

But if the time came when there was a score to settle I wouldnt hesitate to accept a Glock as the tool to do the settling.



They work .............

chupacabrah
February 22, 2009, 07:06 AM
I never used to like Glocks...and then I got one (because it was a significant amount cheaper than my first choice). No problems with it here. it may not be pretty, but the thing sure can shoot!

A grip safety like the XD would make me more comfortable, but I just keep my booger hook off the bang switch, and holster with caution and it's all good.

Girodin
February 22, 2009, 07:16 AM
I used to not have a real affinity for glocks. I came across a G19 for a song. Owning that pistol has largely chnged the way I feel and I am in the market for a G26.

A glock may not be the sexiest pistol out there but I come back to it because it is dead nuts reliable and I care more about that than anything else. I naturally shoot a 1911 better and love them, but practive with the glock does a lot to over come objections such as, I just can't shoot it well. I can shoot a glock adequately well.

The good thing though is there are many other types of very good guns. No one is making you get a glock. Just buy something else. No need to make silly threads like this IMO.

As to the safety of glocks they are perfectly safe if you know how to properly handle a gun and habitualy do so. If you dotn extra doo dads on the gun should not inspire greater confidence.

DRYHUMOR
February 22, 2009, 07:51 AM
Like is an interesting word, there are all sorts of things we don't like but have to deal with.

It took 30 years of gun ownership before I had my first Glock. Never held one or shot one before then. I took a G22 on trade one day.

Took it to the range, fed it good ammo and bad, saw how it functioned. Developed enough respect for it as a useful and reliable tool to put it in the nightstand.

Would I go buy one, probably not.

Would it be the first thing I pull out when things go bump in the night, yep.

usmc1371
February 22, 2009, 08:09 AM
OP. YES you can get a heavier trigger connector something like seven pounds i think. I have shot a G17 with a stiffer than ''normal'' trigger it was like a double action wheel gun with sand in it. I carry a 1911 because it makes me sleep better at night. I shoot a G35 in ipsc cause it isn't a 1911 its ugly has skate board tape on the grips and shoots every time i pull the trigger and if i wear it out I'm only out half the price of my 1911.

Revolver Ocelot
February 22, 2009, 08:15 AM
The Glock is the gun you show your enemy.


mans got a point, if someone pulled a glock on me my first thoughts sure aren't gonna be "damn thats an ugly gun"

23Glock
February 22, 2009, 09:02 AM
*sigh* - here we go... I don’t know why I get drawn into these threads…

There is no such thing as an "accident" when it comes to weapons. That's what people call it when they try to come up with an excuse for their own negligence. Calling it an "accident" shows a lack of accountability for you own actions and tries to put blame anywhere except where it squarely belongs: on you. No one has ever had an accident with a Glock, they *have* been negligent in their trigger discipline though.
Yes you can have a New York trigger or a heavier trigger bar put in, or even an external manual safety – but these don’t make the weapon any safer. They just allow people to make more excuses for their lack of respect for the Four Rules.
And as far as your demonstrated lack of knowledge for the Glock’s *3* safeties, of which the trigger safety is surely one, please read up on them:
http://www.famous-guns.com/safe-action/

bluetopper
February 22, 2009, 09:39 AM
To each his own.........that's why there is diversity in the marketplace, isn't it wonderful.

Glocks are good for their intended purpose. I used to have one and there was simply no "pride of ownership" I felt with it.

gator1gear
February 22, 2009, 11:28 AM
I don't have much to add, except that I'm not crazy about Glock either. I've had three Glocks 26,27,23 After owning three, I still can't tell you why I don't like them. I will say one thing though, The ones I had were 100% reliable. I can't think of a single failure-to-anything with the Glocks I owned. Like 'em or not, there's no arguing the fact they do their job.

verdun59
February 22, 2009, 11:58 AM
I agree with gator1gear I had a Glock26, the thing fired every time you pulled the trigger...never a problem with it but somehow it just didn't feel right and to me that's important. As far as looks that's way down the list of importance when considering a life saving device. As I said I no longer own mine but they are damn good guns.

GZOh_Jr
February 22, 2009, 11:58 AM
Glocks have my respect, but not my heart. To me they are tools that do a job, but they elicit no emotional response from me. But I don't follow this fine blog religiously due to mere utilitarian needs--I follow it out of the joy that I get as an enthusiast.

I have no bias against Glock, nor am I enamored with them (I don't own one, but the G26 is still on my short list). I just find it amusing that so many people are one or the other.

My only pet peeve; "Safe Action" is a marketing term. One may prefer that style trigger, and that is fine. But don't equate a mere descriptive "label" with actual safety. My minimum definition of a safety feature would be that it would require an additional positive action in order to fire. A trigger that won't fire the gun unless the trigger is pulled does not fit that definition.

punkndisorderly
February 22, 2009, 12:00 PM
I turned up my nose to Glocks for years for many of the same reasons. However, I now rely on Glock exclusively for my defensive handgun needs.

Last year, I finally got my Texas carry permit after moving here from elsewhere. I shot the qualification course of fire with my 1911. Two weeks later, I accompanied my wife to a First Steps course and shot the same course of fire with a school provided Glock 26. I shot better, got used to the odd clunky feel after about 50 rounds and the pinky dangling after another 50. I ran out and purchased a 26 and 34 and haven't looked back. The icing on the cake was my first cleaning: amazingly easy.

Buy what you like and feel free to dislike what you choose. Just don't be a gun snob by criticizing others for their choices.

ArmedBear
February 22, 2009, 12:31 PM
They just allow people to make more excuses for their lack of respect for the Four Rules.


Bulls--t.

Why not walk around with a 1911 cocked and unlocked, or a 686 with the hammer cocked? If you follow the four rules, there's nothing to worry about, right?

Bulls--t.

The Glock "safeties" add up to good drop safety, and absolutely NOTHING else. The design is an AD waiting to happen, and the humorous (because I really can't stand the guy's personality from what I can tell) video of the cop shooting himself in the leg in front of a classroom full of kids demonstrates the real danger of this happening. Other police videos concur, as well.

The 4 rules are great for the range, and to an extent for hunting, but if you really followed them religiously, you would never carry a concealed or holstered gun. A carried gun gets pointed at things that nobody wants to shoot ALL THE TIME, and there's no reason to make sure it's "clear" -- you keep it loaded on purpose. Sure, you can keep your finger off the trigger, but what about your shirt, threads, or anything else?

And what about an extreme-stress situation, which would be ANY situation where you may need to actually use the gun? Forget about your range-style safety rules because they aren't enough to save your ass. I doubt I'll ever hear a voice say, "Ready on the right? Ready on the left? Ready in the dark alley? Innocent guy, load!"

Personally, I like the XD's grip safety design. There's no manual safety to forget to operate, and at least the gun won't operate unless that's depressed. I'll buy that as a second line of defense against AD, a lot sooner than I'll buy Glock's "three" safeties.:rolleyes:

Glocks are reliable guns, with a lot to recommend them if you don't use the gun for serious target shooting (or don't mind getting a spare barrel). I'm not against carrying them. But 23Glock, don't piss down my back and tell me it's rainin'. That's what you're doing (and so is Glock's marketing department).

ArmedBear
February 22, 2009, 12:52 PM
P.S. In no way am I denigrating the 4 Rules or any other standard gun safety orthodoxy, at least insofar as that orthodoxy is understood by intelligent people.

What I am saying is that, for a gun that is carried so it can be used in defense against immediate threats to one's life, you need all the help you can get: good habits, good gun engineering, everything you can get.

Ranting that the Four Rules would have prevented some accident is good if you're instructing people in gun safety.

But it's BS as a defense of a design whose maker claims has a level of safety that simply does not stand up to real-world scrutiny. Furthermore, it's dangerous hubris.

If you're going to carry a Glock, you'd best treat it according to real-world experiences people have had, not according to marketing claims. Otherwise, you could become another ugly example of how the Four Rules should have saved the day, but didn't.

The only gun that can't fire accidentally is one that is unloaded, disassembled and locked in a safe. If you don't hedge your bets, you're asking for a tragedy.

legion3
February 22, 2009, 01:02 PM
Personally, I like the XD's grip safety design. There's no manual safety to forget to operate, and at least the gun won't operate unless that's depressed. I'll buy that as a second line of defense against AD, a lot sooner than I'll buy Glock's "three" safeties.

Glocks are reliable guns, with a lot to recommend them if you don't use the gun for serious target shooting (or don't mind getting a spare barrel). I'm not against carrying them. But 23Glock, don't piss down my back and tell me it's rainin'. That's what you're doing (and so is Glock's marketing department).


But it's BS as a defense of a design whose maker claims has a level of safety that simply does not stand up to real-world scrutiny. Furthermore, it's dangerous hubris.

If you're going to carry a Glock, you'd best treat it according to real-world experiences people have had, not according to marketing claims. Otherwise, you could become another ugly example of how the Four Rules should have saved the day, but didn't.

The only gun that can't fire accidentally is one that is unloaded, disassembled and locked in a safe. If you don't hedge your bets, you're asking for a tragedy.

:barf:


Like I said mention it and they will come.

Duke of Doubt
February 22, 2009, 01:30 PM
Last plastic pistol I owned fired a dihydrous monoxide round.

23Glock
February 22, 2009, 01:34 PM
All I can say is "wow". No point in arguing with that ration of sh...interesting observations...

FiveFiveSixFan
February 22, 2009, 02:12 PM
Last plastic pistol I owned fired a dihydrous monoxide round.

That's a good one, Duke!

The Lone Haranguer
February 22, 2009, 02:25 PM
If you don't like them, don't buy them. :rolleyes: More for me. :neener:

DCortez
February 22, 2009, 02:33 PM
I don't like how they feel in my hand. I prefer the feel of a Kimber, cept the raptor series, overall.

polekitty
February 22, 2009, 02:41 PM
Not trying to bash on you, but if you don't like glocks why are you asking about a safety for one? Do you know someone who is looking for a mech safety for it? It just seems odd because there are plenty of reliable pistols out there that would have the features that you want.

No, I was not asking about a safety for a Glock, just suggesting (for those who may not know about it) that one does exist. And yes, a safety doesn't work if you don't use it. And I agree that the "perfect handling" of a gun will prevent accidents. But I'm sure there are a few of us who are not perfect--that's what safeties are for. And I already have (several) guns I really like. I do apologize to Glock admirers that I don't have a Glock.

W.E.G.
February 22, 2009, 03:00 PM
aftermarket add-on Glock safety kits

http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/?productNumber=247176
http://www.midwayusa.com/mediasvr.dll/image?saleitemid=247176

http://stores.myglockdoc.com/Detail.bok?no=58
http://stores.myglockdoc.com/catalog/slider.jpg

http://www.tarnhelm.com/GlockSafety.html
http://www.tarnhelm.com/gifs/GlockSafetyLg.jpg

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=977325&highlight=safety
http://glockfaq.com/images/pics/g17s_left.jpg

http://glocktalk.com/forums/search.php?searchid=2632205

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd7/rkba2da/humor/deaglock40.jpg

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd7/rkba2da/pistol%20pics/Glock/kool_aidGlock.jpg

Hanafuda
February 22, 2009, 03:07 PM
holstered = manual safety.

out of holster = hot.

during my 5-year stint in the law enforcement biz (I was a prosecutor, not a cop), I had 2 cases in which a homeowner attempted to use a handgun in self-defense and was unsuccessful due to a manual safety being engaged.

In the first case, the gun was seized by the bad guy and the homeowner was held at (his own) gunpoint while accomplice emptied the house of valuables. When they were done, the gun was taken also, of course.

In the other case, homeowner got stabbed in the abdomen 7 or 8 times with a large kitchen knife. His pistol was taken by bad guy, but then dropped elsewhere in the house before making his exit. Again, the weapon used against him (kitchen knife) was his own property. He survived, but seeing the damage, I had to wonder how he felt about being alive.

In both cases, the homeowner/victim was elderly and the gun was an old blowback design ... one was a .25acp, the other a .380 IIRC. Certainly, neither of the victims were well acquainted with the operation of their own guns, and that was the real deciding factor. But panic being what it is, I remain convinced that any HD handgun I ever use will not have a manual safety. Doesn't have to be a Glock though. Revolver, DA/SA, or plastic fantastic ... all fine.

If your opinion differs, fine by me.

phish
February 22, 2009, 03:31 PM
If you're really scared of your glock going off, don't carry with one in the pipe...

dogrunner
February 22, 2009, 03:35 PM
Well, speaking as a retired LEO with over 30, half that time as a CLEO, I can unequivocally state that I don't like Glocks for the simple reason that the AD rate with them is more than just unacceptable....................the damned things are dangerous.

I can state a case wherein a young deputy had the base of his spine blown out by a young female that thought the gun was a "toy", another case wherein the "cleaner" blew a hole thru his hand and the bullet wound up in his partners abdomen....another wherein a rather high ranking officer put one thru a wall, and subsequently the chest and both lungs of a rookie standing in a parking lot...............sorry folks, and I KNOW this will incite the PGers (pro Glockers) to riot, but any gun that one must have a special holster to carry safely IS an unsafe firearm.....I Forbade my folks from carrying them, but now I'm gone and a fossil, so they do....the AD issue tho, remains.

That design both shoots and handles well, very intuitive in handling, but lacking some means of SAFELY disabling it, remains a very real hazard.


FLAME AWAY!

The Lone Haranguer
February 22, 2009, 03:45 PM
Dogrunner: No flame, but all the instances you cite are the fault of negligence or outright stupidity, not a gun design. And define a "special" holster.

Ringer
February 22, 2009, 04:37 PM
Like it or don't that's fine. If you need a safety, buy a gun with a safety.

All these cases of people pulling the trigger on loaded guns and calling it accidental or the guns fault is just ridiculous. Guns don't go off on their own, safety or not.

Hopefully one of the Moderators will do us all a favor on this one. :banghead:

LightningJoe
February 22, 2009, 04:59 PM
Every time I hear about an accidental discharge (especially by someone who seems pretty marginal), I think "Glock." Later, it invariably comes out that the gun was a Glock.


If there are multiple companies selling aftermarket safeties for Glock, that says something.


On the other hand, they do have a reputation for reliability.


Glock's problem, I guess, is that they're very popular, including among fools and criminals. If a bunch of bangers and goofballs carried 1911s, maybe they'd be involved in more accidental discharges.

legion3
February 22, 2009, 05:44 PM
Well, speaking as a retired LEO with over 30, half that time as a CLEO, I can unequivocally state that I don't like Glocks for the simple reason that the AD rate with them is more than just unacceptable....................the damned things are dangerous.

I can state a case wherein a young deputy had the base of his spine blown out by a young female that thought the gun was a "toy", another case wherein the "cleaner" blew a hole thru his hand and the bullet wound up in his partners abdomen....another wherein a rather high ranking officer put one thru a wall, and subsequently the chest and both lungs of a rookie standing in a parking lot...............sorry folks, and I KNOW this will incite the PGers (pro Glockers) to riot, but any gun that one must have a special holster to carry safely IS an unsafe firearm.....I Forbade my folks from carrying them, but now I'm gone and a fossil, so they do....the AD issue tho, remains.

That design both shoots and handles well, very intuitive in handling, but lacking some means of SAFELY disabling it, remains a very real hazard.


FLAME AWAY!


Makes you wonder how certain people were ever law enforcement qualified, but I guess if Barney Fife could be a deputy then anyone could back 30 years ago. ;)

:barf:

legion3
February 22, 2009, 05:53 PM
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x49/roman3/Military/ouch.jpg

Mainsail
February 22, 2009, 06:14 PM
The inanity of the original post aside, and really, there isn’t much there that one could consider an intelligent argument against the Glock, I think it’s possible to appreciate something for what it is whether one finds it personally practical or not. I bought a G17 in 1987 (serial number AYXXX) and always thought it to be perfectly safe and reliable. I didn’t get rid of it because I was too much of a panty-waste to safely handle it, but because I was never able to shoot it well. I used the proceeds to buy a Sig P239, which still amazes me with its accuracy.

23Glock
February 22, 2009, 06:16 PM
@dogrunner
Look, I respect your service as a LEO immensely, but as Haranguer said, every instance mentioned was negligence on the part of the person holding the weapon.
I challenge anyone to produce an example of a Glock, in good working order, that has had an “accidental” discharge and I guarantee it can be demonstrated that the discharge was due to operator error (negligence). I’m not a pro-Glocker – just a realist. Yes I own one, but I own others as well and treat them all NO differently simply because they have different safety mechanisms. Those that do are a negligent discharge waiting to happen.
A Glock in and of itself is not dangerous – the person holding it is, cliche as that sounds.

PhillyGlocker
February 22, 2009, 09:36 PM
I'm glad there are people who don't like Glocks. It keep Glocks available to purchase for those of us who absolutely love them!

elktrout
February 22, 2009, 11:48 PM
The only Glock I ever owned, a G26, would not feed certain hollow point factory ammo from the major makers. The gunsmith at the shop where I bought it tried several times to remedy the problem and finally gave up. His answer was that some Glocks are ammo sensitive.

This was contrary to their reputation at that point in time. I eventually traded the gun on an H&K USP 40 which has digested every ammo make and type I can throw into it.

I likely got a bad one, but it soured me on Glocks. Nevertheless, the posts about safe handling vs. a mechanical safety are dead on. After all, it is a tool and must be operated properly.

TRGRHPY
February 23, 2009, 01:54 AM
Dogrunner claims that Glocks are inherently dangerous.

Anti's claim that all handguns are dangerous....oddly, for the same reason that Dogrunner is claiming.


Glock triggers pull themselves...cool.:banghead:


Armedbear: Why not walk around with a 1911 cocked and unlocked, or a 686 with the hammer cocked? If you follow the four rules, there's nothing to worry about, right?


That comparison is absurd since the trigger pulls are completely different. My LCP doesn't have a safety either, are you going to convince us that those are bad as well?

The rest of your rant just goes against any and all rational thought with regards to handling firearms and handguns in particular.

jakk280rem
February 23, 2009, 02:22 AM
Yes, I have to admit it, I just don't like Glocks.

neither do i. for completly different reasons. i don't like the way it spits brass in my face, and i dont like the mediocre accuracy. i don't have extensive experience with glocks, but have shot a few.

as to your question about an add on safety, don't bother. if you are uncomfortable with a gun that has no safety, pick a different gun. if you dont like glocks, don't try to make it something its not. there are a lot of other companies that make pistols that are every bit as reliable, accurate and scary looking as a glock, and some of them even have safeties. some are even ambidexterous. i am sure any one of them would be more than happy to sell you a new gun.

mordechaianiliewicz
February 23, 2009, 02:36 AM
To the OP, that's not prejudice. That's postjudice. You've already considered them.

While I can't say I don't like Glocks, I have to admit, there are pistols I like more.

CPshooter
February 23, 2009, 02:46 AM
I recently sold all my Glocks in favor of H&Ks for my polymer needs. The unsafe design of the Glock is one of many reasons I gave them up.

First, I agree that keeping your finger off the trigger unless you intend to shoot is the best way to prevent a ND.

Second, I don't like manual safeties on my concealed carry gun, but the Glock's design is still too unsafe for me. There is no external hammer to keep your eye on when holstering your weapon. I was just too nervous every time I had to holster my Glocks. Once the trigger starts to disappear in the leather, I freak out because there's nothing you can do except hope that nothing snags the trigger. The trigger safety is a joke. It practically does nothing.

I like my LEM-equipped H&K. I have a light DA trigger w/ a longer take-up and a short reset, but most importantly I can keep my thumb over the hammer when holstering the gun to prevent the hammer from coming back in the unlikely event that something did happen to snag the trigger.

jakk- I agree about not adding a manual safety to a Glock and just picking something else. Why make something work for you when there are so many other options that already work? I've owned 3 Glocks. They aren't as great as some people make them out to be.

JohnKSa
February 23, 2009, 02:54 AM
All of which really gets me to why I'm starting this thread. There is an "after market" safety available for the Glock. It's a gunsmith job to install it, it goes on the slide. It's a thumb type safety lever that works like the safeties on many other autos. It's a gunsmith job to install it. I wonder if any of you guys have seen one? I won't attempt to argue with those of you who say all you have to do is "be careful." But, let's face it, no one plans to have an "accident"--accidents are things that happen no matter how professional and careful you are.Ok, that's your point of view.

Let's see what the late Col. Jeff Cooper had to say on the topic:

Combat Handguns August 2008 edition
Gunsite Gossip Column
A Jeff Cooper Retrospective
Excerpts from the 1992 Volume 12 ‘Gunsite Gargantuan Gossip!’

The notion that one can make machinery safe or unsafe by mechanical ingenuity is increasingly depressing. As we insist here at the school, safety does not lie in gadgetry, but rather in the mind of the user. One cannot make a “safe” gun. One can certainly make a “safe” shooter. But the unenlightened refuse to recognize this, and go right on trying to regulate the construction of machinery about which they know nothing. Apparently it is an elemental characteristic of the Age of the Common Man to attempt to save the stupid from themselves. Obviously this cannot be done, either by education or by legislation. Personally, we do not even think it should be done, as we rather tend to the doctrine of the survival of the fittest. The fact that it cannot be done, however, will not deter the do-gooders. The urge to “do something”, even if it makes no sense, seems unavoidable in a certain kind of nitwit.

CPshooter
February 23, 2009, 03:14 AM
One cannot make a “safe” gun. One can certainly make a “safe” shooter.Sorry, but the late Jeff Cooper must not have recognized the fact that the human body is nothing more than a super-complex biological machine with a much higher probability of failure (physical or mental) than any piece of machinery or gadgetry.

Unfortunately, emotion is a factor that affects every human being. Accidents do happen and if someone insists on owning a Glock, but would feel more comfortable putting a manual safety on it then so be it. If a small mechanical alteration can positively affect a person's psychology, then I'm cool with that. Especially if that person is carrying a gun around me.

Do I think it makes sense? Only if you absolutely insist on owning a Glock, but want a manual safety.

I wasn't going to go that route, so I did what made more sense to me and I sold my Glocks in favor of H&Ks.

JohnKSa
February 23, 2009, 03:30 AM
...the human body is nothing more than a super-complex biological machine with a much higher probability of failure (physical or mental) than any piece of machinery or gadgetry.So every piece of machinery or gadgetry ever made has a lower probability of failure than the human body? That's a pretty sweeping claim...

On the other hand, it does shine some light on why you take the position you do.Accidents do happen and if someone insists on owning a Glock, but would feel more comfortable putting a manual safety on it then so be it. If a small mechanical alteration can positively affect a person's psychology, then I'm cool with that. Especially if that person is carrying a gun around me.So if it makes the owner feel more comfortable then it must be safer (at least it makes you feel safer if they're carrying around you).

I guess that's sort of the "If you're OK then I'm OK" theory of gun safety. :D

CPshooter
February 23, 2009, 03:54 AM
So every piece of machinery or gadgetry ever made has a lower probability of failure than the human body? That's a pretty sweeping claim...
Considering the human body eventually dies, I'd consider that a 100% failure rate:neener:

Just kidding..

But obviously not every piece of machinery is built to the standards of those that a quality firearm, or a quality piece of "ingenuity" is built on. To put it simply, what I was trying to say is that Jeff Cooper's words shouldn't be taken as gospel in this situation.

In my honest opinion, adding a manual safety to a Glock totally makes the design "safer." Again, I would personally never do it when I can just buy another gun, but if you read what I had to say about holstering my Glocks a few posts above you will see the obvious safety advantage a manual safety would, in fact, add to the Glock. I don't care if you are the most careful person in the world. There is nothing you can do to prevent an AD from occurring with a chambered Glock once that trigger leaves your sight. In this case, it would NOT be considered a ND, because there are only so many steps a "careful" person can take before you become redundant or straight-up OCD.

Going back to a design like the H&K LEM trigger... If you managed to discharge a LEM-equipped gun while holstering, then I'd call it a ND because you had every opportunity to become aware of that hammer coming back while you holstered it. Glocks just don't give you this opportunity. They are more prone to ADs than most other guns simply because of the design. You just can't argue this.

ExtremeSquared
February 23, 2009, 04:35 AM
I still can't for the life of me figure out why glock owners are so militant about aftermarket safeties.
"If you want a gun with a safety, buy a gun with a safety"
Why not just buy a glock, which is a great design, and add a safety? Is there some sort of club people are not invited to if they add one?

legion3
February 23, 2009, 06:00 AM
Mention Glock and they will come.

:barf:


I recently sold all my Glocks in favor of H&Ks for my polymer needs. The unsafe design of the Glock is one of many reasons I gave them up.


Why not just buy a glock, which is a great design, and add a safety?

I still can't for the life of me figure out why glock owners are so militant about aftermarket safeties.

I don't like manual safeties on my concealed carry gun, but the Glock's design is still too unsafe for me. There is no external hammer to keep your eye on when holstering your weapon. I was just too nervous every time I had to holster my Glocks. Once the trigger starts to disappear in the leather, I freak out because there's nothing you can do except hope that nothing snags the trigger. The trigger safety is a joke. It practically does nothing.

i don't like the way it spits brass in my face, and i dont like the mediocre accuracy. i don't have extensive experience with glocks, but have shot a few.

:rolleyes:

23Glock
February 23, 2009, 07:48 AM
You just can't argue this.

I sure can.
What kind of holster were you putting a Glock in that you thought might snag the trigger and set it off? If that’s you’re argument, it could happen to almost any weapon, if you forgot to engage your manual safeties and had a cheap holster for. A proper holster, either molded kydek, or molded leather designed for the gun is not going to snag your trigger…
The point is that a Glock will not fire unless the trigger is pulled. PERIOD. While I will concede it is possible for something other than your finger to pull the trigger, I guarantee you have control over that something. And just because the trigger leaves your sight, doesn’t mean you stop being cognizant of it. What happens if you forget to click on your external safety? You’ve already built the motor reflex that you don’t need to care about the trigger when it leaves your sight because you’re relying on the external safety to “protect” you. Bad, bad, bad discipline….
Now, this may take the thread in a different direction, but here is my opinion on holstering technique. This is just my opinion, but if you’re staring at the hammer while you’re holstering, you may become a statistic because your situational awareness is not where it should be. You should be holstering while scanning your surroundings, not staring at your weapon. True, you’re not going to do this while loading up in the morning at home, but you’re building a bad motor reflex asking the hammer to give you feedback on the weapon’s perceived safety.
Again, this all goes back to people needing some external stimulus (safeties, hammer movement, etc) to lull them into a false sense that their weapon is “safe” – and when the weapon goes off they call it an “accident”. When in reality the weapon’s safety is derived from proper training, attention to technique, knowledge of the weapon, and respect for the Four Rules. I.e. The weapon’s safety lies within you. If it didn't, more LEOs would be shooting themselves every day and Glock market share would plummet as they looked for a "safer" weapon.
I’m not being militant about Glocks, it’s just my fundamental philosophy that applies to all weapons.

KenW.
February 23, 2009, 07:59 AM
Glocks are proven, reliable weapons.
Anyone can be trained to operate one effectively.
They are "nearly" idiot-proof.(I say "nearly" because there's always that "one guy"...)
You can use and abuse one and it will still work.
Glocks thrive on neglect.
You don't need to be a "gun guy" to maintain one.

That being said; I prefer my 1911s and XD.

Maybe if there were a seperate manually-operated safety device (other than one built in to the "bang switch") I would be more comfortable. Having a weapon that can be fired by a jacket's drawstring upon holstering is scary to me. It took a while for me to get accustomed with my XD too.

Mr. Bojangles
February 23, 2009, 08:54 AM
They just need a nickel-plated glock... :barf:

legion3
February 23, 2009, 10:00 AM
Having a weapon that can be fired by a jacket's drawstring upon holstering is scary to me.

OMG!!! :uhoh:

jocko
February 23, 2009, 10:04 AM
siderlock.com

for the best glock safety in the world, required no smithing either,just drops right in. Still works perfectly withthe GSA system. You won't bump it on or bump it off, and it's top quality to..

hankdatank1362
February 23, 2009, 10:28 AM
That's why I love my SIGs so much.

Tougher than GLOCK, and just as reliable. That's not an opinion, that's fact, backed up by many different test by different LEO/MIL departments. The SIG always finished at the top of the pile (sometimes shared, like with HK in the DHD trials); whether or not the department can afford to purchase enough SIGs to go around is a different story.)

Exposed hammer, so when I cram it in my holster in a hurry, I can keep my thumb on the hammer to make sure it's not making any rearward travel because something in the holster (piece of clothing, debris, anything) is actuating the trigger. (Personal preference)

DA/SA... heavy first pull if needed on the fly (CCW-related, like you're being mugged.) Or cock it and go SA for a crisp, light trigger pull thats on par with a nice Smith revolver in SA. (personal preference; some people like a consistent trigger pull, being the same with every shot)

Much better looking and better ergos than GLOCK (completely subjective, I know)

Do I have a point?

Not really. To each their own.

Walkalong
February 23, 2009, 10:58 AM
Neither do I, it's OK. :)

Matrix187
February 23, 2009, 11:24 AM
I like CZs and SIGs more than glocks. Glocks work good though... but what I hate is how they fit in my hand.

Zak Smith
February 23, 2009, 11:25 AM
This is a tedious topic because it has been covered so exhaustively, so many times, and often poorly. However, one issue that has not yet been mentioned explicitly in this thread is what pistols "succeed" at high-volume pistols classes. Besides reliability (which is of critical importance), one ought to consider how successfully people can operate the weapon in question. It is my experience - with very few exceptions - that during "fighting" pistol classes, people can more effectively operate Glocks than most other designs, and that Glocks are on average more reliable than other designs.

Now I have run 1911's in 2000+-round pistol classes successfully; however, this is not the typical experience.

ETA: I hear all the time, generally from new or inexperienced shooters, that gun brand X doesn't "fit" their hand or that they do not "like" a handgun for whatever reason. In terms of operating the pistol effectively, "fit" and "like" are mostly useless concepts, IMO. The tool is either effective and efficient (ie, D, V, C) or it is ineffective. Sometimes "fit" means that controls cannot be effectively operated; however, the word "fit" brings to mind a pair of shoes. That is not it at all. The mechanics of holding a pistol, aligning the sights, and pressing the trigger are elementary.

-z

xxxstarmaniac
February 23, 2009, 11:26 AM
Dogrunner,

I laughed so hard I pissed myself reading about your personal experiences. I would have left that department immediately in favor of a location where a persons awareness and safety was a factor of employment.

I don't care what gun is being discussed, STUPID IS STUPID!

I feel like I live on the edge, and yet even bungie jumping off a bridge with a rope thats too long seems like it makes more sense to me than cleaning a gun that I left loaded with a round in the chamber. They don't teach you to check the chamber with a FINGER to make sure it's not loaded? LEO have to do that here whether it's a sig, glock or beretta.

Evidently safety should have been first and foremost; always treat the gun like it's LOADED!

All the whining about glocks here is funny. Don't buy one if you don't like it! But having an exposed hammer catch on a seatbelt on a duty weapon is something that must be pretty rare.

If you don't FEEL safe, you aren't safe.

If I think glocks or sigs or hks suck, I would be interested in something else, and satisfied with another firearm that <GASP> someone else might not like!

Everything I own is a POS. Why? Because someone always has something better, even if it's the same thing.

HoosierQ
February 23, 2009, 11:32 AM
I think this got a little out of hand but I am not a moderator.

I am wrestling with some of these issues right now. All three of my Semi-Autos are striker fired. Only one has a safety. My EDC gun is a 642 DAO Revolver but I also carry my M&P 9c...no safety.

It is disconcerting to know that you don't have a safety.

I would boild this whole thread down differently than maybe others...simply put...Hammers vs Strikers. There are days when I wonder if all my autos should be hammer guns with decockers. But...since some of the very best guns in the world are striker fired guns lacking manual safeties (Glock, S&W M&Ps most of them)) one mitigates risk. Of course there are great hammer guns as well (Beretta, H&K, and Sig to name only a few).

Bashing a gun like the Glock serves no purpose. I have had mine since 1991 without a single accidental/negligent discharge.

Thinking about safety is always a good thing. If I could take all three of my striker guns and trade them, dollar for dollar for new hammers guns, I just might...or I might not. Since that is not going to happen...I am sitting tight and being careful.

phish
February 23, 2009, 04:16 PM
Anyone who thinks a glock is unsafe is just dumb and doesn't know how to handle it properly.

PS...Yes, pulling the trigger on a loaded glock will cause it to go off. If you don't pull the trigger, it won't go off. I know it's difficult to understand, but that's how it was designed.

xxxstarmaniac
February 23, 2009, 04:54 PM
Anyone who thinks a glock is unsafe is just dumb and doesn't know how to handle it properly.

PS...Yes, pulling the trigger on a loaded glock will cause it to go off. If you don't pull the trigger, it won't go off. I know it's difficult to understand, but that's how it was designed.

phish,

I don't know about you, but that definitely adds up to unsafe in my book. That's why I keep my firearms unloaded, locked and in a seperate safe from my ammunition, and I let a neighbor down the street keep one of the two keys for the safes (yes they need two, and yes I keep the other in a safety deposit box at the bank 10 miles or more from the nearest freeway).

Who knows what could happen if I had the gun, ammo and myself all in the same place!

Zak Smith
February 23, 2009, 05:00 PM
This has degenerated to sarcasm useless posts. Please think before you post and try to be productive in the future.

If you enjoyed reading about "I'm prejudiced---I don't like Glocks" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!