Let's have a candid conversation about GLOCKs.


PDA






Pages : [1] 2

TexasGunbie
October 11, 2010, 12:29 PM
So there are Glock lovers and haters, I don't see many in the neutral stand.
Most people that loves Glock name its reliability, durable coat, simplicity, etc.

What are reasons why people don't like the GLOCK?? :evil:

If you enjoyed reading about "Let's have a candid conversation about GLOCKs." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
CoRoMo
October 11, 2010, 12:31 PM
We've done this one too.

I'm Glock-neutral.

youngda9
October 11, 2010, 12:32 PM
somewhat ugly
bad ergonomics(they are nicknamed Blocks for a reason)
bad grip angle for many people
un-supported chamber
foreign made.

Other than that I they are almost perfect.

SSN Vet
October 11, 2010, 12:33 PM
Swung by Cabelas a week ago during the quiet morning hours of a weekday and handled a G19 for the umpteenth time.

I want to like Glocks, but every time I handle one I just cringe at the "blocky" ergonomics.

Not trying to dine on anyones sacred cow, I just can't personally warm up to them, when there are so many other choices that feel better in my hand.

Derek Zeanah
October 11, 2010, 12:37 PM
I've owned four or five Glocks, and have never held on to them.

I have a couple of problems with Glocks: the trigger, and the way they point. Even competition triggers seem mushy to me, and I've never felt that a Glock was as intuitive feeling as a 1911. And that's a real shame, because Glocks have a lot going for them when compared to a 1911 -- weight, capacity, resistance to sweat, etc.

oneounceload
October 11, 2010, 12:37 PM
I don't have a problem with my G17 - I find it as comfortable to hold as my 1911, but not as comfortable as my S&W 66 with finger-groove grips.

Mine goes bang every time - even with my reloads, but I don't "hotrod" my reloads anyway - never had a problem with the unsupported chamber - I haven't ever seen an issue in person, and the internet (so it MUST be true! :D) seems to have that happening with the more powerful 40.

Could they be prettier? I suppose - but they weren't built for looks, they were built to be an inexpensive military sidearm that functions every time - from that aspect they seem to have succeeded

Hanzo581
October 11, 2010, 12:41 PM
I am sure Glocks are wonderful guns, but if I don't like the way a gun feels in my hand, I just won't buy it. I have not held the new Gen 4 models, if it is a substantial difference I would not hesitate to look at them.

CoRoMo
October 11, 2010, 12:49 PM
I like Glocks. I think I should own one someday, just because. I guess I don't like them enough to have one in my safe right now.

Still neutral.

DonRon
October 11, 2010, 01:00 PM
Maybe this would be a better question. Why are Glocks so popular and why have they taken over the world as the staple of all handguns? They sure are not pretty and you can't really customize them with a pair of $100.00 grip panels nor can you brag that you have a $2,000.00 one to your friends. They just seem to just keep finding their ways into the holsters and trusted positions of our law enforcement community both here and around the world. Why is that. They don't seem to rust, bust or collect dust.

Guillermo
October 11, 2010, 01:07 PM
I am pretty neutral on Glocks.

They are very dependable. I had a 19 that was excellent.

Got rid of it and bought an XD because of the ergonomics.

Hk Dan
October 11, 2010, 01:08 PM
Oh, Don--You can customize a GLOCK far more easily than you can a 1911, and without a gun smith. I think they're popular because you can't claim to have a $2000 one (you can claim to have a $2000 FOUR, though).

It's all a matter of personal choice. I ditched 1911s for them 10 years ago and haven't looked back. They are ugly, but I don't care about looks (they look fine from the back anyway), I care about having an effective tool to defend my life with, compete with, and enjoy my range time with. I can do that very inexpensively with a GLOCK.

TexasGunbie
October 11, 2010, 01:09 PM
They are very dependable. I had a 19 that was excellent.

Got rid of it and bought an XD because of the ergonomics.

I went the other way instead :). I had to add a hogue grip on my XD because the grip angle felt awkward. In the end I traded for a Glock 34 and it feels natural.

Prion
October 11, 2010, 01:09 PM
I am also one who wants to like them. I've been ready to pull the trigger on a G19 for some time. Every time I go to pick one up I walk away empty handed or with something else.

I really wish they'd offer one without the grip hump and a less rakish grip angle.

I have not written off a G19 yet. It is a gun I feel I should own at least once.

Oh, and get rid of that ridiculous 'Perfection' ad slogan, it's so pompous.

ny32182
October 11, 2010, 01:12 PM
A lot of these conversations could be avoided if people would just learn to evaluate pistols based on their own set of objective criteria and not worry about what everyone on the internet thinks about it.

Guillermo
October 11, 2010, 01:13 PM
I went the other way instead

I heard that about you Gunbie

:neener:

JK


Different strokes

That is why they make different guns.

I am not going to rag on your choice. It is not like you are shooting a Rohm 44 magnum or a Smith with the IL

:what:

Isher
October 11, 2010, 01:15 PM
Perhaps this may help in resolving the issue - for all flavors of semi's.

I call it "blind testing."

From a standing position, with the weapon on a table or bench in front of you, and a target 7-10 yards away, place your strong hand on the gun and close your eyes. Having done this, still with eyes closed, pick up the gun and bring it to battery, then aim it using your normal stance. Open your eyes, and observe the accuracy of your aim. Review how the handling of the gun felt as you brought it into battery and aimed it. Repeat ten or twelve times, to establish a baseline.

The results may surprise you, as to which guns really work for you and those which don't.

FWIW, CZ's by far and away work best for me, so are my weapons of choice.


Isher

M2 Carbine
October 11, 2010, 01:17 PM
Don't own any Glocks.

Two different times a friend gave me two Glocks, a 17 and a 26. I ran a lot of magazines through them in a few weeks.
Pretty much didn't like anything about the guns, so gave them back to my friend.

Even though I didn't like the 26 I thought I might keep it and use it for a car gun, but it was too unreliable. (Yeah, yeah, I know, Glocks don't jam :D )

wow6599
October 11, 2010, 01:18 PM
I think Glocks are outstanding combat firearms, and have been for the last 25 years or so. My 2 problems are the trigger and the grip angle. I own a G20 SF because it's a 10mm, not because it's a Glock.
It's hard to fall in love with a black, poly gun.......I don't care if its a Glock, M&P, XD, etc.
Place a Glock (or any poly gun) on a table next to an Ed Brown 1911 and you will know why there isn't any "love" for the Glock. But, put me in a life and death situation and I will "love" a Glock more than any 1911.

DonRon
October 11, 2010, 01:21 PM
Oh, Don--You can customize a GLOCK far more easily than you can a 1911, and without a gun smith. I think they're popular because you can't claim to have a $2000 one (you can claim to have a $2000 FOUR, though).

It's all a matter of personal choice. I ditched 1911s for them 10 years ago and haven't looked back. They are ugly, but I don't care about looks (they look fine from the back anyway), I care about having an effective tool to defend my life with, compete with, and enjoy my range time with. I can do that very inexpensively with a GLOCK.
But that is just like putting streamers on a good bicycle. You only end up taking them off later on. I must have a junk drawer full of all the after market junk they sell for Glocks. It was cheaper that all the junk I stuck in a 1911 tough. Old too soon and smart too late for me I guess.

M2 Carbine
October 11, 2010, 01:22 PM
FWIW, CZ's by far and away work best for me, so are my weapons of choice.

For me the CZ 40P points very well. So well in fact I shot this target with my eyes closed the day I bought the gun.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/Bell406_206B/CZ40P10ydseyesclosed.jpg

Big_E
October 11, 2010, 01:31 PM
Glock neutral here as well.

I think they are ugly, but they are very very functional. I really suck at shooting the G21 and others, but that is because of the trigger. I will not stop shooting them because of the trigger, I just need to buy one to practice with. I would probably take a M&P or CZ-75 Phantom over a Glock, but the Glock is a reliable tool that has been proven over time.

Onward Allusion
October 11, 2010, 01:31 PM
I like Glocks because they're basic utilitarian pistols that go bang every time. The two things that does makes me uncomfortable is the unsupported chamber and the light DA trigger (yeah, yeah - it ain't a true DAO...). Would I depend on one? You betcha - in a second. With all that said, that's why I'm a Sigma fan.

skwab
October 11, 2010, 01:40 PM
I like Glocks (wouldn't say love), but our household has two of them because for my wife it's what she handles best - for her they are hard to beat. What I do like about them is their simplicity - they are tools built for a specific purpose. Ours have been extremely reliable, and if my wife is going to rely on anything to protect herself her two Glocks are fine by me.

I think it's funny though, people complain about their ergos, but to me they're more comfortable in the hand than any XD I've ever handled. It's all subjective.

waterhouse
October 11, 2010, 01:42 PM
I'm neutral on them. I think they are good guns that work well at a good price point, but they don't feel good in my hand so I don't personally care for them. I recommend them to friends and relatives if they like the way they feel. In short, good guns, but not for me.

DCB
October 11, 2010, 01:44 PM
Glock neutral here.

I have owned 8 different Glock's and just can't get past the grip angle.

M&P guy now.

Peace

John Wayne
October 11, 2010, 01:54 PM
My experiences has been the complete opposite of most. I owned a Glock 30.

I actually liked the trigger and ergonomics of the gun. I thought it pointed well and handled recoil better than any other gun its size/weight. I liked the fact that all of the parts were easily replacable by the owner, and very inexpensive.

I got rid of it because of the reason most people buy them: reliability. The gun would not eject a round in the chamber (when hand-cycling) if there was a loaded mag in place. After experiencing a dud round on the range, and finding that my time in clearing this malfunction was about 4x longer than the usual "tap, rack, ..." drill, I sold it.

The gun had been taken to a Glock armorer earlier, because the plastic rear sight fell off. I told him about the issue and he said it was normal, and that the proper way to eject the round was to first remove the magazine. If that's "normal" for a Glock, I don't want any part of it.

My experience hasn't put me off to them entirely, as I have friends who love their Glocks and have not experienced this problem. If I buy another Glock, it will be in the caliber it was designed for though (i.e. a G17 in 9mm, not a G22 in .40 or a G29 in 10mm, not a G30 in .45).

I still think Glocks are a great guns, but XDs are a better value for my needs. Cheaper to start with and I don't have to buy metal sights or a cut-rifled barrel, as they already come with those.

psyopspec
October 11, 2010, 02:39 PM
I've owned a couple in the past, and let them go to fund other guns that I could use for carry. Never had an issue mechanically speaking, but the grip angle was something I just couldn't warm up to. Really liked the reliability and the tennifer finish, so chalk me up to neutral.

mesinge2
October 11, 2010, 02:47 PM
128909
Click Image to Enlarge

harmon rabb
October 11, 2010, 02:53 PM
The only problem with glocks is that xd's exist and are cheaper, while having better ergonomics and a better trigger. :o

That said, I own a glock, would absolutely own another, and in fact WILL own another as I want a 10mm.

CajunBass
October 11, 2010, 02:58 PM
My wife has a G-19. I've shot it a bit. I think they're rather boring, but she likes it. I don't "hate" them, but I probably will never buy one for myself.

tapauly
October 11, 2010, 03:01 PM
Easy: they aren't fun to shoot (for me.)

My reason for owning guns may be different than others', but I shoot because it's fun. Shooting Glocks isn't fun, so I don't own them.

Broken Anvil
October 11, 2010, 03:04 PM
Why are they so popular you ask......a very short learning curve, police departments can hand them to new recruits with no firearms experience and it's a simple point and pull. Pull trigger - gun go bang - put back in holster - hit the streets. So simple even a caveman can do it......

TexasGunbie
October 11, 2010, 03:06 PM
I am glad that glock grip is natural to me since it seems most people that dislike it have issue with the grip angle.

TexasGunbie
October 11, 2010, 03:14 PM
My wife has a G-19. I've shot it a bit. I think they're rather boring, but she likes it. I don't "hate" them, but I probably will never buy one for myself.

You're right on the boring part.

It's too easy to shoot a Glock, it makes gun range sessions very plain, that's why I add other drills into my session such as point shoot drills, reload drills, rapid fire, double tapping, etc.

DonRon
October 11, 2010, 03:35 PM
Why are they so popular you ask......a very short learning curve, police departments can hand them to new recruits with no firearms experience and it's a simple point and pull. Pull trigger - gun go bang - put back in holster - hit the streets. So simple even a caveman can do it......
Like they could not do that with the revolvers they replaced? Durability and Reliability also play a major role. The side arm is just a tool in your tool box. The most effective tool in your arsenal is between your ears when you wear a badge and deal with the unpredictable public on a daily basis.

GLOOB
October 11, 2010, 03:42 PM
The gun had been taken to a Glock armorer earlier, because the plastic rear sight fell off. I told him about the issue and he said it was normal, and that the proper way to eject the round was to first remove the magazine. If that's "normal" for a Glock, I don't want any part of it.
That's not normal. Glock ejectors are positioned for early ejection. A round with OAL longer than normal would be difficult to eject by hand. My guess is your ammo was out of spec or the ejector was a hair too long. Either problem easily remedied.

3 reasons I like Glocks
1. Trigger: I like the feel if the break and the short, positive reset.

2. Magazines: Mags are half of the system. Glock mags are durable, reliable, and cheap.

3. Finish: It's not just the slide looking pretty. The barrel/slide lockup experiences practically zero wear over time.

TOADMAN
October 11, 2010, 03:53 PM
I think the biggest reason why folks find it easy to not like/hate Glocks is - too many Glock owners are poor Glock Ambassadors... I have no negative issues with the two Glocks, G19/26, that I own..

Steve C
October 11, 2010, 04:05 PM
I've owned my one and only Glock, a model 19 gen 1 for more than 20 years now and while its not the most beloved pistol of my collection it is IMO the best self defense tool of the bunch. When I carry a pistol its the one that gets used. Light, easy to carry concealed, compact in size, imminently reliable, no snagging problems in a draw, durable, lots of rounds in the magazine, simple manual of arms and I can hit what I aim at. All those things that make for a good SD gun. Despite all these good features there's nothing that makes me want to get another one though if I where to loose this one I would replace it ASAP.

http://members.cox.net/scollins15/Pictures/Glock19s.JPG

DasFriek
October 11, 2010, 04:08 PM
Im Glock neutral also, I can take it or leave it when it comes to them.
My main issue against them is their fat width which is unnecessary imo.
But i would like to have a G29 for ccw despite that fact.

Imo they are no better or no worse than any gun on the market and fail just like the others do. But as far as reliability goes they do tend to be above average.

Ben86
October 11, 2010, 04:09 PM
I myself love Glocks. They totally work for me all around. My wife on the other hand does not like them. They don't fit her hand, and she doesn't shoot them all that well. I completely understand that, and was very happy to surprise her with an M&P9C, which is now her favorite gun.

That said some people disparage Glocks for no good reason. Some it seems bad mouth them as a form of anti-culture, spouting off about glock kool-aid and such. Well I've drank the kool-aid and I like it. The kool-aid's not for everyone, but I myself drink it pretty often. ;)

Zotter
October 11, 2010, 04:15 PM
Have you ever watched a "discussion" on Windows vs Linux vs MacOS by those that care?

Yea - similar paradigm here. (sorta, analogy breaks real fast on particulars)

Ultimately it all comes down to :: wait for it :: Personal choice.

It's a product that fills a market. Does that mean the market for Glock really is that big? Maybe. Could also mean their marketing department is on par for effectiveness with Microsoft. Could well be that just like for using Windows, some don't have a choice. If they did - or even knew they did - maybe they'd use something 'else'.

Choice - ain't it great?! Make one. You'll like it.

(new tag line: "Glock, the Windows of semi-autos")

gwnorth
October 11, 2010, 04:16 PM
I'm not a fan. But for me it is not just glocks. After experimenting with owning different guns over the years (and renting many too, for that matter) I just don't like striker fired pistols. Everything I own now has a hammer - either DA/SA with a decocker, SAO with a safety or is a revolver. That's the manual of arms I like so I steer clear of glocks and other striker fired guns.

To those who like them - enjoy!

leadcounsel
October 11, 2010, 04:18 PM
Well this is a ground breaking conversation...:neener:

For the reasons already mentioned, (affordability, durability, field tested and proven, simplicity, weight-to-power ratio, reliability, ease of use/cleaning/stripping, accuracy, etc.) I am a HUGE fan.

Waywatcher
October 11, 2010, 04:42 PM
I didn't grow up with guns of any sort. The Glock angle is just fine, I was never used to anything else. I find the transition between it and my revolvers very natural.

It's not my favorite gun, but my 17 is my favorite auto-pistol.

I don't mind sending money to Austria, some other countries--not so much.

Oh, and for the record, their 9mm chambers are not undersupported.

Phil W
October 11, 2010, 05:21 PM
Darn good weapons......just so bland

9teenEleven
October 11, 2010, 05:31 PM
Well, let me complicate it a little. I really really want to dislike Glocks. There are guns that are far better designed with intuitive controls and ergonomics (P30 comes to mind). There are guns that are all metal (I love my P225 and Kimber because they feel like a gun should feel). There are even striker fired guns that don't look like they were made in shop class (M&P). Glock seems to be stuck in the past. The new Gen 4s are very ill-thought out, with poorly implemented backstraps and the same crappy controls.

However, as much as I want to dislike them, I prefer them. They point very well; the low-axis makes for the fastest shooting gun I own (even if the controls make them the slowest to reload); they are amazingly accurate for what they are; and they are reliable and easy to break down and clean. As much as people gripe about the trigger, although it feels cheap, IMO it is one of the best factory triggers I've shot under 1k. I really want to hate them, but every morning I load up my Glock 26 and stick it in a holster.

Joe Demko
October 11, 2010, 05:32 PM
Love? Hate? Those are emotional terms that don't really describe the situation with me and guns. Those that fit me, or can be customized to fit me, and that are accurate, reliable shooters are worth having. The rest? Well, I just don't buy them or I get rid of them after their shortcomings come to light.
I've owned a couple different models of Glocks and shot a bunch more. They don't fit me and that is that. There are enough other guns in the world that I don't have to force myself to adapt to a Glock. I don't hate them, or even dislike them, but I have no desire to own another.

DonRon
October 11, 2010, 05:44 PM
Well, let me complicate it a little. I really really want to dislike Glocks. There are guns that are far better designed with intuitive controls and ergonomics (P30 comes to mind). There are guns that are all metal (I love my P225 and Kimber because they feel like a gun should feel). There are even striker fired guns that don't look like they were made in shop class (M&P). Glock seems to be stuck in the past. The new Gen 4s are very ill-thought out, with poorly implemented backstraps and the same crappy controls.

However, as much as I want to dislike them, I prefer them. They point very well; the low-axis makes for the fastest shooting gun I own (even if the controls make them the slowest to reload); they are amazingly accurate for what they are; and they are reliable and easy to break down and clean. As much as people gripe about the trigger, although it feels cheap, IMO it is one of the best factory triggers I've shot under 1k. I really want to hate them, but every morning I load up my Glock 26 and stick it in a holster.
Amen.. well said and same here. I could not agree more.

lambertiana
October 11, 2010, 06:18 PM
It's mostly due to subjective appraisals that are unique to each user - appearance, ergonomics, etc.

I happen to like my G30. I have a full size 1911 (SA), and my son has a P220, and I shoot the G30 better than the other two. It feels good in my hand, and I do not have large hands. In fact, before I started to look at Glocks, I was concerned because of all the reports from people who complained about the fat grips, but that has not been an issue for me. In fact, I think the USP 45 has much blockier and very uncomfortable grips.

Use what works best for you, and don't be a hater if someone likes something else better. If you like your 1911 or Sig or M&P or XD or HK, that's fine by me. I will stick with my G30.

GunBugBit
October 11, 2010, 06:49 PM
Don't own a Glock just yet but I will soon. I'm no expert on Glocks, but I've shot the 20, 22, 23, 27, 31, 36 and 21 so I do have an opinion on them.

My thoughts on the frequent criticisms:

UGLY - It's a gun, not a beauty contestant. I've never understood how some gun owners perseverate over how a gun looks, including having anxiety attacks over tiny scratches. Not that I can't appreciate a good-looking gun, it's just such a low priority for me.

BLOCKY - So is my head.

FRAME MADE OF PLASTIC - Yeah, extremely rugged plastic.

BLAND - I don't look for spiciness in a gun. For that, I turn to food.

TRIGGER IS YUCKY - Not as yucky as a Springfield XD(M). I'll always love 1911 triggers above all others, and I'll never expect a Glock to fill the 1911-sized hole in my heart. When I want the 1911 experience, I shoot a 1911.

GRIP ANGLE - I'll admit I don't love it. My benchmark for how a pistol should point is the 1911, the pistol with which I have the most experience. I think I can train myself to adjust to the Glock grip angle with no serious issues.

OK, so what's good?

They're inexpensive, light, easy to operate and maintain, rugged and reliable. Their design mechanically is quite elegant, very few parts involved.

Not much more to say about them.

FastMover
October 11, 2010, 07:27 PM
Pro-Glock here. I will admit that they are not the prettiest girl out there but the platform is a breeze to learn, they always go bang, and they are affordable. The grip angle is not the best but it is certainly not the worst I've handled.

yeti
October 11, 2010, 07:37 PM
Neither like nor dislike Glock, never wanted one either. I just see no reason to pay for and own a gun I don't want; now if someone wanted to just give me one I think I could grow to like it... how could you not like a free gun?

basicblur
October 11, 2010, 07:42 PM
Glock neutral myself (which is often confused as Glock hater), but the grip just never worked for me. I also prefer the grip safety of the XD over no safety on the Glock (and don't try to tell me that trigger thingy is a safety!).

I get a kick outta some of the podcasts I've listened to lately-they go to great lengths to excuse what I see as the two main drawbacks to a Glock-no safety ('specially with the lighter triggers) and the grip.

I have no doubt that I'd get used to the grip, and if a Glock was my only gun maybe I'd bother, but since all my other guns point naturally, why should I buy one oddball? I don't relish the thought of having X number of guns that all point pretty much the same, and having to go back and forth between all of them and one that does not point naturally for me.

'Course, trigger and grip aside, there are other choices out there these days, much as some wish to deny it.

Heck-waaaaay back when I bought my first polymer gun, I compared the Glock to the Sigma, came home and did my research, and ended up with the Sigma! :what:

It didn't take too much research even way back then to discover perfection is just a marketing term.

I think Glock is probably one of the world's best guns.
I also think it's one of the world's most overrated guns.

wally
October 11, 2010, 07:49 PM
What are reasons why people don't like the GLOCK

Only one reason I can think of (ugly don't count :) ). The size and shape of the grips just don't fit some people, including me. The new Gen 4 is the first one I can actually shoot well. Still lots of guns I like better, but I now have a Glock I can like.

FruitCake
October 11, 2010, 08:10 PM
I just bought a glock and did the grip reduction and now I love it. The untouched grip is like a brick. A manual safety would be nice because I'm not to fond of the trigger safety. Besides that I'm very happy with it.

longhair75
October 11, 2010, 08:16 PM
I shopped around for a long time before buying my last handgun. I tried glock after glock, but they never felt right in my hand. I fired a couple, but they still just didn't feel comfortable. They were accurate enough but they just didn't suit me.

XDShooter07
October 11, 2010, 08:24 PM
I'm pretty glock neutral. I've owned a G19, an XD, and currently have an M&P. The G19 just didn't fit me at all. The hump in the grip pushes my hand up and over to the right which makes the knuckle of my thumb get bit by the left lower corner of the slide. I liked the gun I just couldn't deal with the way it fit my hand. I held one of the Gen 4's and even with the smallest grip it still did the same thing. The XD and M&P fit my hand perfectly so I like them better. I think they all have the same reliability.

There is one thing I don't like though.... the plastic guide rod. I know it works for them and they are very reliable but it just seems like a weak link to me that could be easily fixed.

Looks aren't an important factor.

hemiram
October 11, 2010, 08:24 PM
I'm not a fan...

1. Plastic!
2. Grip is all wrong.
3. Too light.
4. Very odd trigger.
4. Striker.

TheProf
October 11, 2010, 08:38 PM
I originally did not Glocks... I was annoyed with all the hoopla and Glock fanatics out there. Glocks can't be that good... not to mention that that everyone knows that Glocks are blocks. Just too blocky to carry.

Then...after going through 3 or four other guns... I gave in and acquired a G27. Simply put..."perfection". It offers the best balance of firepower, caliber, size, ruggedness, and reliability. I don't consider it to be a pocket gun...but as an IWB gun, its just almost as easy to conceal as my j-frame. And yes, I actually like the grip angle. And there's a certain beauty in the gun...you know, beauty in simplicity.

Oh.....if only they would make a single stack pocketable 9mm.

Glockurai
October 11, 2010, 09:27 PM
The first time I held a glock it didn't feel right. As I got more into shooting I bought a G34. It's like beer I guess....an acquired taste. I now own a 21sf, a 17, and a 26 and will soon be getting a 19 od. I own other guns but none that I trust like my glocks. :cool:

smartshot
October 11, 2010, 09:47 PM
If I were a target shooter, I'd hate glocks, but what makes them not accurate, makes them reliable and durable. When they first were introduced to Law Enforcement and Military they dropped them from a helicopter then shot them without any problems. I know many other guns that I wouldn't want to drop from a helicopter. At the end of the day, a Glock is a fantastic affordable production gun that has been around and proven itself worthy.

FriedRice
October 11, 2010, 09:52 PM
I want to like Glocks. I just don't. Not many educated reasons. They feel wrong in my hand. They don't conceal (for me) very well. They're ugly. The mag usually bites my palm. The trigger bites me sometimes. It seems they don't like me either. I keep trying to find Glocks I like and I can find only aspects of them I like. I like the crisp reset of the trigger. I like that I can buy 4 for the price of guns I normally buy. I can still shoot well with one so they are functional.

I just don't like polymer guns. I much prefer metal and lots of it. I dunno why. One day maybe I'll find a Glock I like. I hope so.

DoubleTapDrew
October 11, 2010, 11:00 PM
I'm another neutral person. It can take a magazine or two to readjust your natural pointing though if you shoot both American grip angle guns and European. Shoot a Glock extensively and then shoot a 1911 and you'll be shooting low, vise versa with going the other way.
They are very plain looking and can't really be dressed up. They are usually very reliable and plenty accurate. I see them as a utilitarian tool. They won't work as a BBQ gun but if the zombies invade its what I'd go for. It's a gun you can toss around and not gasp when it slides across the pavement like you'd do with your $3,000 custom 1911 uber-blaster.
Kind of like that car that you don't care about when it gets a door ding but keeps running no matter how you mistreat it.

WardenWolf
October 11, 2010, 11:17 PM
I don't care for Glocks. Lots of reasons. All the evidence I've seen shows them to be mass-produced with poor tolerances and a general disregard for user safety. Around 25% of them can fire out of battery. This, coupled with a partially unsupported casing can, and has, resulted in guns blowing up in peoples' hands. Additionally, tests done on the Glock .40 have found it to have the same barrel outer diameter as the 9mm, meaning the width of the barrel wall, and thus its strength, is significantly less, despite firing a much more powerful round. Given that this is also the caliber most likely to suffer a catastrophic malfunction, I find this safety compromise unacceptable.

All I see on the Glock are compromises. Compromises that jeopardize peoples' safety. I personally consider them inherently unsafe handguns for this reason. I do not believe Glock cares enough about making its guns safe. I believe they care about their cheap manufacturing price, reliability, and reputation for accuracy. Because I value my fingers, I will not buy a Glock.

Sebastian the Ibis
October 11, 2010, 11:26 PM
It is an extremely well thought out utilitarian pistol: it is cheap, the manual of arms is short, it holds a lot of rounds, it is easy to clean and maintain and it is effective enough to win competitions in the proper hands. It is basically the standard which other pistols are measured against.

People don't like them because: (1) Some people don't like the grip. I didn't either at first, but am now fine with it however I understand if people have this issue, (2) other pistol designs offer different compromises - i.e. more accurate but heavier. I understand this group of people too. (3) then there are the people that love their $5,000.00 custom 1911 and cannot understand why anyone would want a glock, sigma, XD etc., and will not shut up about how special their gun is. I find these people extremely tiresome. It's like the guy who drives a Ferrari and snickers at your Mazda then asks for a ride because his Ferrari is in the shop, or it is raining out and he doesn't want to hit a pot hole.

Ragnar Danneskjold
October 11, 2010, 11:29 PM
Why are Glocks so popular and why have they taken over the world as the staple of all handguns?

Because Glock offered them to police departments at a severely undercut price compared to other makers. Once Glock secured the law enforcement market through low pricing, the "every police department uses them, so they must be the best" fad caught on. Now they're here to stay.

With that said, they are very reliable, and I own a G19, G17 and soon a G26. They are still the second most ugly gun I know of, the first being the HK P7, but I do like the magazine interchangeability and the wide variety of holsters and such offered.

IMTHDUKE
October 11, 2010, 11:50 PM
I want to like glocks, but every time i handle one i just cringe at the "blocky" ergonomics.

Not trying to dine on anyones sacred cow, i just can't personally warm up to them, when there are so many other choices that feel better in my hand.

ditto

Bubba613
October 11, 2010, 11:56 PM
You can't boast to your friends about owning one. You won't overpay for a pistol. You can't make a cool clicking sound with the manual safety. You have to buy extra ammo to fill all that magazine capacity. You can't justify buying two by saying the other is "for when the first one is in the shop."
Pretty much the polar opposite of the 1911.:neener:

Pilot
October 12, 2010, 12:05 AM
I want to like them. I have shot some with good experience, but can't warm up to them. Trigger feel and grip angle are my issues. If I had to carry one I would, but since there are other options, I won't.

ET
October 12, 2010, 12:09 AM
I own and use Glocks. I like them as well as most all guns. I'm not into bashing any gun. Some people think it is their duty to tell others that their choice in guns is wrong or a certain gun manufacturer is junk. I don't see what they get out of doing that. I have defended Glocks, Sigmas, Judges, TCPs & Taurus in general just this week. I find myself defending these guns to people who have never even fired one, much less owned one. I own them and have had good service out of all of them. Gun lovers bashing guns makes no sense to me. Plus, threads like this which fish for such comments aren't my favorite either.

Old krow
October 12, 2010, 12:18 AM
People don't like them because: (1) Some people don't like the grip. I didn't either at first, but am now fine with it however I understand if people have this issue, (2) other pistol designs offer different compromises - i.e. more accurate but heavier. I understand this group of people too.

Yeah, pretty much. My 1911 wasn't 5k, but I like them a lot, they work for me. I like the accuracy and the weight doesn't bother me so much. I had a G19. Not a bad gun at all. Never a malfunction, went bang, easy to clean, small, and inexpensive. I gave it to my girlfriend and bought a 1911. Then she bought another G19... so I bought another 1911. I dunno how long we're gonna be able to keep this up though :uhoh:

She can shoot hers very well, so while mine are in the shop we're okay ;)

benzy2
October 12, 2010, 12:34 AM
I just picked up a 34. Nice pistol for the range. I was looking at it and a M&P 9mm Pro with the 5" barrel. It was a toss up. I personally like the grip angle of the glock. For me, it makes me position my wrist in a more solid position to be looking down the sights, which is a good thing. With the aftermarket out there quite a bit is possible. There were other pistols that are similar in capacity and sight radius that would be good options as well, but I liked the glock and went with it. Not the only pistol in the stable, but one that works well so far. Mine has been as accurate as any pistol I have owned.

TuckerNielson
October 12, 2010, 12:39 AM
I'm surprised by how many "Neutrals" are out there. I am also neutral. A very experienced Shooter gave me some advice when I was purchasing my first firearm. He told me to buy what I shot well and take everyone's opinion with a grain of salt. They are just opinions after all and you know what they say (opinions are like armpits yada yada). Two very good firearms that I shoot terribly are Glocks and Sigs. I have no explanation for this. Everybody talks about the grip angle etc but I found nothing about either gun that was offensive to me. I just didn't shoot them well. I purchased a XDm 9mm because I shot it rather intuitively - after ~9000 rounds I can shoot it lights out (at least in an air conditioned range:o ). Now I like revolvers. I never got bit by the 1911 bug either - although I'd like to buy one in 2011 for the 100 year historical factor.

I'm also surprised by how many people have described how "ugly" they are - which just confirms my belief that guns are just 'man jewelry' for many.

pmec
October 12, 2010, 12:54 AM
I bought a 26 recently and it fills the bill. Yeah, the grip is a tad wide for me but I got used to it quickly. Tares down in under 10 seconds for cleaning... works for me! For CC, the small handle doesn't cause an issue with printing. I've shot everything from handloads to cheapies without a problem.

All in all, it's a great and reliable concealed weapon and fun to shoot at the range. I have no regrets buying it. When I hit the lottery, I'm planning on visiting Bill Wilson for my next pistol!

1858
October 12, 2010, 05:22 AM
I consider myself to be Glock neutral as well. Like many here, I just can't get excited about a Glock but I can see why others like them. I've shot a bunch and shot them well. We all know that Glocks are reliable and accurate enough, but they're not unique in this regard. My "problem" with Glocks is purely aesthetic. If I can buy a pistol that shoots just as well, is just as reliable, but is considerably more appealing (to me), then that's my choice. I'd NEVER choose form over function and luckily I don't have to.

The best Glock that I've ever shot was a G17 this past Sunday but it was no $450 G17. This particular one has so many upgrades that it's an $850 pistol!

:)

357sigRog
October 12, 2010, 05:36 AM
I love the Glocks I have, G20 in 10mm and G33 in 357sig. I have a 4 inch 40 S&W barrel from Lone Wolfe for my G33.

Ragnar Danneskjold
October 12, 2010, 06:46 AM
While we're on the subject, let's have a candid conversation about GLOCK magazines. Specifically, taking them apart. Disassembling your magazines from time to time in order to clean them is a smart thing to do, especially if you shoot outside and train on things like mag changes where you might drop one on the ground. Glock magazines are some of the most difficult magazines to take apart I have ever encountered. Not only do they have the little push-button on the floor-plate, like most other manufacturers, but the floor-plate is also held in place by little notches on both sides, preventing it from sliding off, even when the button is depressed. You have to actually crush the body of the magazine in order to warp it out of shape, just to slide the floor-plate off. It is honestly one of the stupidest ideas I have ever seen.

Sgt_R
October 12, 2010, 07:17 AM
I own two Glocks, but I didn't drink the KoolAid. I do like the grip angle on the ones that work for me (the 17/22 and the 26/27 fit my hands, but the 19/23 just feels wrong, and the 20/21 is too fat). I hate the factory trigger, but I do enjoy the 3.5# aftermarket option. I like the simplicity of operation, and the outstanding durability and reliability of the platform.

But that's only my opinion. Plenty of other folks hate 'em, and that's just fine by me. Shoot what you want.

R

GunTech
October 12, 2010, 07:31 AM
I have a G23 and it's been a super gun. But I've never like the feel of the grip and been considering an SA XDM. I've only found the 4.5 version in town, so I am wondering how the 3.8 compares to the G23 in terms of grip length. I'd prefer something closer to the G23 in terms of grip length. This will be a daily carry gun.

DonRon
October 12, 2010, 11:52 AM
While we're on the subject, let's have a candid conversation about GLOCK magazines. Specifically, taking them apart. Disassembling your magazines from time to time in order to clean them is a smart thing to do, especially if you shoot outside and train on things like mag changes where you might drop one on the ground. Glock magazines are some of the most difficult magazines to take apart I have ever encountered. Not only do they have the little push-button on the floor-plate, like most other manufacturers, but the floor-plate is also held in place by little notches on both sides, preventing it from sliding off, even when the button is depressed. You have to actually crush the body of the magazine in order to warp it out of shape, just to slide the floor-plate off. It is honestly one of the stupidest ideas I have ever seen.
Taking them apart is a snap once you know how. Just compress the sides slightly with a small C clamp, like a 2 inch one slightly, then pop off the end cap.

ForumSurfer
October 12, 2010, 12:25 PM
I have a G23 and it's been a super gun. But I've never like the feel of the grip and been considering an SA XDM. I've only found the 4.5 version in town, so I am wondering how the 3.8 compares to the G23 in terms of grip length. I'd prefer something closer to the G23 in terms of grip length. This will be a daily carry gun.

I wish Springfield made an XD that had a grip length the same as a 19/23. It is just a little bit longer than the 19/23. That little bit proved uncomfortable for me.

Beretta seems to get the picture since they planned to release a PX4 compact. I keep seeing teasers about it all over the web, but I've yet to see it in distributors. Then again, I gave up looking long ago since they were so slow to release it.

CoRoMo
October 12, 2010, 12:31 PM
Wow. Four pages in less than 24 hours. Who woulda thought?


Me.

MisterMike
October 12, 2010, 12:51 PM
Wow. Four pages in less than 24 hours. Who woulda thought?

Yeah, the only topic more likely to draw comment is religion. :D The number of Kool-Aid drinkers is roughly equivalent to the number of Glock-haters, and the latter group has been statistically proven to be more likely than any other demographic group to make up facts about Glock failures (just scroll up a few posts to see what I mean). :rolleyes:

I don't own a ton of firearms, but three of the six handguns I own are Glocks. I find the ergonomics to be "okay" to "good," but their grips do tend to feel a little blocky. As with any gun, I'd imagine that if you used one exclusively for an extended period of time, you'd adapt to it.

The great attributes of any Glock are its simplicity of design and near-100% reliability. Yes, you can undoubtedly find anecdotes of malfunctions, but they're relatively few and far between, considering the millions of Glocks in use. In fact, the very fact that any Glock "kaboom" story is repeated ad infinitum on the web is probably pretty good proof that it's a rarity.

There are reasons why I might choose to carry another handgun--size, weight, ergonomics, or just plain prettiness--but I feel confident that there is no more reliable handgun brand in existence.

But, really, I don't much care what others choose to buy. What does strike me as goofy is the fact that so many choose to criticize others' choices, whether it's Glock, Kimber, Kel-Tec or whatever. Generally, it seems that the most strident critics seem to suffer from personal insecurity.

MTMilitiaman
October 12, 2010, 12:52 PM
Maybe I drank too much Kool Aid, but there isn't much I would change about the Glock. The grip angle is different, but I am not convinced that is a bad thing, and at any rate, all it means as near as I can tell is that you hit a couple inches higher. That is a training issue, if you call it an issue at all. The grip can be bulky. My G20 is no small pistol. But I've seen a 100 pound 16 year old girl shoot it well enough that I have difficulty seeing what all the hub-bub is about. The trigger reach isn't as bad as most DA autos, either. So I call this a personal problem, more than anything. If the Glock fits you, there really aren't many (if any) better choices for an all around defensive handgun.

KBs? Unsupported chamber? Bullpucky. The Glock's chamber still offers roughly the same support as many of the older 1911s on the market. It is still within SAAMI spec, and perfectly safe to shoot with all SAAMI spec ammo, provided you adhere to at least the manufacture's recommendation not to shoot un-jacketed ammunition through it. And for $100 or so you can drop in an aftermarket, conventionally rifled barrel and worry not even about that. The only reason I dropped a KKM Precision in my Glock 20 was because I started handloading for it, and while the chamber being on the looser slide of SAAMI specs makes it very reliable and tolerant of a wide variety of ammunition, it also accelerates case wear. The only reasons to buy an aftermarket barrel for your Glock are as follows:

+Better case life if you reload
+Safer shooting un-jacketed ammunition
+Caliber conversion

You might get better accuracy, but for most applications, this won't be necessary and in fact, a lot of people won't even be able to shoot their Glocks well enough under duress to take advantage of any accuracy advantage anyways. However, if you're one who can and you want this accuracy, add that to the list as well.

And don't even get me started on kBs. I don't even worry about them.

That's about all the con's I can think of. Now consider the pro's:

+Reliability. Sure, they fail like everything else. But they seem to fail less than most. The Glock has become the standard by which all others are judged. It is like the AK. Shoot it hot, shoot it dry. Shoot it covered in ice. Shoot it over and over again until your finger falls off and the cows come home. Shoot it until pallets of ammo have been reduced to noise and brass. The Glock keeps on working. People were initially skeptical of Gaston's plastic pistol until he proved you could rely on it to save your life. His success in doing so is evident by the overwhelming popularity of these pistols in the law enforcement and civilian defense marketplace, as well as in foreign military and counter-terrorist organizations.
+Durability--we've seem them shot out of cannons, dropped out of airplanes, dragged behind cars, shot with other firearms, and generally just abused in the most obnoxious ways possible. The Glock is probably responsible for starting the "Torture Test Craze." What does it prove? That Glock can take a lot of abuse.
+Lightweight with good capacity. My Glock 20 gives me 15+1 capacity of full power 10mm Auto. That is like having three .357 Magnums! It's a platform with roughly the same dimensions and weight as a loaded 1911, but with at least twice the firepower.
+Very good defensive weapon trigger. The trigger pull comes in between 5 and 6 pounds, stock, from most accounts. It is relatively short with only a tolerable amount of take up and grit. What's better? The trigger pull is the same every time, and has one of the shortest and most distinct resets available.
+SIMPLE! From its design to its operation, the Glock embodies the spirit of simplicity. It has relatively few parts--in the neighborhood of 33, most, if not all of which are interchangeable between at least pistols of the same model. This is less parts to break at inopportune moments. Less parts to fail. Less parts for armorers to keep stocked, and replace. Detail stripping the pistol is like playing with Legos, and there is not a part on my Glock I don't feel confident that I could replace if it broke. I have some experience with a lot of autos, but the Glock is the only one I can say that about. And it's a point and click interface. Not only do you not have to memorize and train for two separate trigger pulls like many of the DA autos on the market, you don't really even have to train to remove an active safety. All you have to do is train to keep you trigger out of the trigger guard, and getting that front sight center mass before you squeeze. Simple. I like that. Keep it simple, silly.
+Control--love it or hate it, the steeper grip angle does allow for a very good level of control. Add to this one of the lowest bore axises on the market, a little bit of flex in the frame, and a wide grip that helps distribute recoil and shock forces over a larger part of the hand, then add that to a relatively light trigger pull with a very short reset, and you have a pistol that works with you to help get rounds on target quickly.
+Modularity and aftermarket support. Only the 1911 can claim among all other centerfire autoloading handguns to have as much or more aftermarket support than the Glock. From your choice of sights, to trigger options, and just about everything else, the Glock has an amazing array of choices. This combined with the amount of interchangeability and modularity the platform offers gives you options and flexibility that most just don't have. Swapping out barrels for caliber conversions and being able to use pretty much all magazines of the same caliber in any Glock chambered for that caliber, regardless of frame size or slide length is just the beginning. Take a look at LoneWolf Dist and consider the plethora of different slides available, check out the growing array of custom gun makers marketing grip sculpting, as well as the alloy frames becoming available. Possibilities are endless.
+Price. In a market where performance is supposed to have a price, the Glock gives you a lot of performance for relatively little price. There may be better deals out there, sure. But the Glock does a good job of providing proven, reliable firepower at a price that the common, working man can afford. Power to the people? Heck yeah!

While we're on the subject, let's have a candid conversation about GLOCK magazines. Specifically, taking them apart. Disassembling your magazines from time to time in order to clean them is a smart thing to do, especially if you shoot outside and train on things like mag changes where you might drop one on the ground. Glock magazines are some of the most difficult magazines to take apart I have ever encountered. Not only do they have the little push-button on the floor-plate, like most other manufacturers, but the floor-plate is also held in place by little notches on both sides, preventing it from sliding off, even when the button is depressed. You have to actually crush the body of the magazine in order to warp it out of shape, just to slide the floor-plate off. It is honestly one of the stupidest ideas I have ever seen.

It takes a little force, but lets consider some things.

First off, the weak link to any autoloading firearm is usually the mags. Lots of different firearms have been hindered by flimsy, unreliable magazines. Consider the Beretta M9 and the M16/AR-15. Today, magazine selection has improved for both of these models, but in the past, this wasn't always so. Weak springs, poorly designed followers, and shoddy, flimsy craftsmanship that allowed the magazines to dent easily can turn a functional firearm into a paperweight very quickly.

Second, most on the frontlines, whether they be police officers on the streets, or soldiers on a battlefield, probably don't clean their magazines much. If a magazine becomes lost, dirty, or damaged, it is more likely that they are just going to turn the defective magazine into the armorer, who is either going to fix or replace it.

What Glock has done is create a simple, durable, reliable magazine with decent capacity--one that can take abuse--but which is cheap enough to replace if actually broken. If they had went the other way and not designed their magazines to be as durable as the rest of the platform, then there would be all sorts of complaints about the lack of reliability/durability, ect. You can't please everybody, but erring on the side of caution by ensuring, if nothing else, the reliability of the pistol and its magazines is a pretty good place to start.

Armorers can deal with the magazines easy enough. The troops mostly just care that the pistol fires when they pull the trigger.

I know I only clean my mags once in a blue moon. So if I have to put a lil bit of elbow grease into popping off my floorplate, that fine with me. At least I know it's not going to pop off at a less opportune time, and at least I know the magazine is going to be durable enough to take hard use. That is far more important to me. And Glock manages to keep these mags readily available, even to non-military/LEO customers, for around $20 to $25. Compared to lots of magazines out there running $40 to $50, many of which aren't as durable or reliable as the Glock's, I think Glock got the important things right. I'm fine with the Glock magazines.

bartman06
October 12, 2010, 01:12 PM
I"m pro Glock but i no longer own one. I hope to get a couple more in the future. The original question was why don't people like them well some people have some legitimate issues with the platform but most i think just hate the prom queen cause they (Glock) are they prettiest and biggest target.

Ben86
October 12, 2010, 01:24 PM
I really like how smooth feeding, loading and durable their magazines are but they are a PITA to take apart. My usual method is to use two small, thin flat head screw drivers to pry the floor plate away from the mag body and slide it off. I then proceed to round off the annoying and pointless notches on the side of the magazine. I do plan to buy a good c-clamp, that sounds much easier.

Fishman777
October 12, 2010, 01:48 PM
I like Glocks a lot, but I wouldn't buy one.

I like M&Ps better for a number of reasons, but I won't hijack this thread. I don't really care if others agree or disagree with my choice.

Anyways, Glocks are not as good as their near-mythical reputation for durability and reliability, but they are among the best pistols out there. I don't put any stock in internet or gun magazine torture tests. They are biased and easy to fake. I prefer military and police testing, because these types of tests aren't as biased. These agencies are trying to spend their money wisely, so they are less likely to fudge results to get a certain outcome.

Glocks are one of the most reliable guns on the market. I'd place the Beretta 92 series, the P226, and the M&P in the same category. I've never seen data from government tests for HKs, XDs, or CZs. I'm sure they are very reliable, but I want proof of reliability through exhaustive tesing through non-biased parties. Springfield, HK, and CZ didn't even submit pistols in the recent ATF pistol trials. I can only guess that this is because they didn't think they'd win the contracts and were concerned about how it might hurt their brand image. The Sig's p250's lack of performance in the ATF will probably kill this model. Who wants to trust their life to a gun that failed the ATF reliability testing?

Glocks are reliable and they are durable. By modern standards, they don't support ammunition casing as well as most other modern firearms. The support is better on G3 and G4 pistols, but a significant amount of the casing is not supported by the feeding ramp. After market barrels should solve this, so this isn't the big issue with me.

My reason for not owning them has to do with the ergonomics, or lack there of. The only glock that I'd consider would be the 20 sf. This is because 10 mm handguns are hard to find.

In a world without M&Ps, I might own a Glock or two. As long as M&Ps are available, make mine an M&P.

DakPara
October 12, 2010, 02:13 PM
I will sum it up like this. Not counting those I inherited, I have the following handguns, in order of acquisition:

1. Glock 17 (acquired 1986)
2. Glock 26
3. Glock 32C
4. Glock 31C
5. Kahr P9
6. EAA Witness 10mm
7. EAA Witness 10mm (yes I have two)
8. Glock 20SF (highly customized)
9. Dan Wesson Sportsman 1911 10mm (acquired last week)

If I thought I was going to be in a gunfight, it would be the Glock 20SF - no question what-so-ever.

In order of size, these are the guns I actually carry every day:

1. Glock 20SF (largest)
2. Glock 32C (med)
3. Kahr P9 (smallest so far)

I have owned Glocks since they were imported in 1986. Never had a single failure fire or cycle in 24 years -- except once -- when the primer was actually missing from a round.

There is no better self defense handgun for the vast majority of people. I don't care one bit about style, function is king. Learn to point it. And learn to love the trigger, or go aftermarket. If you can't hold it, have a grip reduction. If there is something that doesn't fit, modify it.

md7
October 12, 2010, 02:32 PM
Pro Glock here.

I own a 17 and a 23. Would like to pick up a 26 too. There are numerous reasons why I spend my money on Glock products.

-reliability- All of mine have been reliable. I have confidence in them, and my ability to perform with them.
-durability- I have no doubt that when I expire my Glocks will still be in good working order.
-performance- I shoot the Glocks very well, like the grip angle, and they "fit" my hands.
-trigger- I prefer the trigger and like the short reset.
-looks- the gun looks homely and soul less. It's a defensive weapon, a machine. I don't care if my defensive weapon has soul. I want it to function with an extremely high rate of success. It looks kind of cold. Good, it's a firearm. I don't care how it looks, just so long as it works.

Is Glock the "end all, be all" for EVERYONE? --------> NO. Different strokes for different folks. Plenty of other good, reliable guns out there to fit an individual's criteria.

Glock fits mine.

DonRon
October 12, 2010, 02:36 PM
Glock reliability and durability rivals that of the most durable and dependable auto loader ever designed and made, the Russian Makarov PM. They share the same principles, less parts equals less problem and totally serviceable by the end user in the field with little required training. Plus universal parts replacement also like the Mak. To me, that is very intelligently thought design for a combat weapon. Like them or hate them they simply work and work well in a very high percentage of the time.

My personal observations is that they are excellent CCW with no protruding and sharp edges like a 1911 or a S&W revolver and I am sure that was not by accident either. I read somewhere that a 1911 is what you show your friends and a Glock is what you show you enemies.

1858
October 12, 2010, 03:11 PM
I read somewhere that a 1911 is what you show your friends and a Glock is what you show you enemies.

I'm guessing that a 14 year old boy with lots of Ghost Recon time came up with that expression. :rolleyes: I wouldn't be surprised if the "head count" from every Glock ever made is a mere drop in the bucket compared to the carnage caused by the 1911 during the 20th Century.

:)

Pilot
October 12, 2010, 03:51 PM
Not a big polymer fan, but I've toyed with the ideas of getting a G19 at some point, just to try. I think this is the sweet spot in the Glock line up. I've shot a friends G17, G36 and G26 and found them accurate, reliable and a lot easier to shoot well than I would have ever thought. Once I got used to the trigger, I was able to shoot them fine.

Count me in the neutral camp as well.

Ben86
October 12, 2010, 03:58 PM
Not a big polymer fan, but I've toyed with the ideas of getting a G19 at some point, just to try. I think this is the sweet spot in the Glock line up.

It is the best all around size offered by Glock, and in the most practical of calibers, IMO.

ForumSurfer
October 12, 2010, 04:04 PM
Not a big polymer fan, but I've toyed with the ideas of getting a G19 at some point, just to try. I think this is the sweet spot in the Glock line up.

Don't do it, Ben...get the 23 instead. I was thinking the same, exact thing when I bought my 19. Now I wish I had gotten a 23 so I can buy barrels, mags and extractors to turn a 23 into a 357, 40 or a 9mm. It's simple enough to do at the range on a bench. But alas, I bought a 19 and I'm stuck with just 9mm.

easyg
October 12, 2010, 04:52 PM
I'm guessing that a 14 year old boy with lots of Ghost Recon time came up with that expression. I wouldn't be surprised if the "head count" from every Glock ever made is a mere drop in the bucket compared to the carnage caused by the 1911 during the 20th Century.
That's a fairly safe thing to say considering that the Glock has only been around for a little over twenty years while the 1911 has been around for over one hundred years.

But the difference might be far less than you might think....

The vast majority of military personnel never carried the 1911, and handguns played a rather insignificant role in all modern wars (WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam...the "heyday" of the 1911).

As for non-war related shootings....
The 1911 was never overly popular with cops or criminals.

1858
October 12, 2010, 05:07 PM
As for non-war related shootings....
The 1911 was never overly popular with cops or criminals.

I guess LAPD didn't get the memo (see below). In the hands of a competent individual, the 1911 is an effective and reliable pistol. Of course, many find the magazine capacity to be an issue for them but that's hardly surprising given what we know about the number of shots fired compared to hits on target (military, law enforcement, civilian). Now add in the cost of 1911s compared to Glocks and the shoestring budget of many police departments and it all starts to make sense. Let's see if the Glock is still around in its original form 100 years from now.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MEU%28SOC%29_pistol

ICQB Pistol

Discovering that the Los Angeles Police Department was well pleased with their special Kimber-made M1911 pistols, a single source request was issued to Kimber Manufacturing for a similarly built pistol, despite the imminent release of their TLE/RLII models.[11] Kimber shortly began producing a limited number of what would be later termed the Interim Close Quarters Battle pistol (ICQB). Maintaining the simple recoil assembly, 5-inch barrel (though using a stainless steel match grade barrel), and internal extractor, the ICQB is not much different from Browning's original design.[10]

The final units as issued to MCSOCOM Det-1 are the Kimber ICQBs with SureFire Integrated Military Pistol Light (IMPL), Dawson Precision rail, Gemtech TRL Tactical Retention Lanyards based upon the jury-rigged telephone cord versions, modified Safariland 6004 holsters, Simonich G-10 Gunner Grips manufactured by Simonich Knives and Strider Knives replaced the original Pachmayr rubber grips, and Wilson Combat's '47D' 8-round magazines.[9][11] Tritium Novak LoMount sights replaced the originals which were made in-house by the Marines.[9][11]

A source request was sent out to Springfield Armoury as well, hence the Springfield Operator, based on the FBI's TRP setup. Kimber won out in the end though.

ny32182
October 12, 2010, 05:19 PM
Considering the 1911 was carried primarily by one military, and Glocks are carried by mil and police the world over, I'd bet the Glock "head count" (:rolleyes:) is bigger than the 1911's by a sizeable margin.

Joe Demko
October 12, 2010, 05:36 PM
I guess LAPD didn't get the memo...

The 1911 was never as widely issued among US police agencies as the Glock is today or S&W/Colt .38 specials were in the past. Yes, it is possible to find agencies here and there who use it or used it, but it was never a common cop-on-the-street gun.

Before you launch into an impassioned defense of the 1911, two things:
1. That isn't the topic of the thread.
2. I like 1911's perfectly well and carried one as a deputy sheriff at an agency where we bought our own guns.

1858
October 12, 2010, 05:50 PM
Before you launch into an impassioned defense of the 1911, two things:
1. That isn't the topic of the thread.
2. I like 1911's perfectly well and carried one as a deputy sheriff at an agency where we bought our own guns.

True, but when someone makes a moronic statement such as the one in post #90, it deserves a response. Reliability, accuracy, lethality and longevity are NOT unique to Glocks even though internet lore would have us all believe this to be the case.

:)

CoRoMo
October 12, 2010, 05:55 PM
This thread is lacking. We need a fifth page. That should get us to a consensus... right?

DonRon
October 12, 2010, 06:01 PM
Glock reliability and durability rivals that of the most durable and dependable auto loader ever designed and made, the Russian Makarov PM. They share the same principles, less parts equals less problem and totally serviceable by the end user in the field with little required training. Plus universal parts replacement also like the Mak. To me, that is very intelligently thought design for a combat weapon. Like them or hate them they simply work and work well in a very high percentage of the time.

My personal observations is that they are excellent CCW with no protruding and sharp edges like a 1911 or a S&W revolver and I am sure that was not by accident either. I read somewhere that a 1911 is what you show your friends and a Glock is what you show you enemies.
As the author of post # 90 I really don't see what is moronic about it. It was an opinion just as yours is an opinion. I like Glocks and carry one every day and would never even consider any single action pistol for self defense such that requires 2 actions to make it fire.

Safeties can get you killed. With a revolver and a Glock there is only one action needed....pull the trigger. That is innovation that seemed to have escaped the John Moses Browning worshipers. But then again, that is my opinion. Que Sara Sear!

jackpinesavages
October 12, 2010, 06:03 PM
...........

Sheepdog1968
October 12, 2010, 06:06 PM
I think they are and fine reliable pistol. I don't love or hate them.

1858
October 12, 2010, 06:07 PM
Safeties can get you killed.

No ... lack of training and practice can get you killed.

:)

Marshall
October 12, 2010, 06:08 PM
somewhat ugly
bad ergonomics(they are nicknamed Blocks for a reason)
bad grip angle for many people
un-supported chamber

Agreed.

I'm not a hater nor a supporter, just prefer other choices available.

DonRon
October 12, 2010, 06:10 PM
This thread is lacking. We need a fifth page. That should get us to a consensus... right?
There is already a consensus. A Glock is a far better designed combat weapon than the military scrapped 1911. But that will never stop the controversy like the 9mm vs 45 caliber. I say shoot what ever you are happy with and like and all this nonsense about grip angle and how it points or if you got a $300.00 Sear and a $500.00 Hammer in it won't mean a flip to the bad guy. A $150.00 High Point 45 will shoot the same cartridge and stop him just as quick, don't you think!

DonRon
October 12, 2010, 06:13 PM
No ... lack of training and practice can get you killed.

:)
That was my point exactly, you don't need a hole lot of training to learn how to shoot a Glock. Actually it was the first Point and Click device made.

Old krow
October 12, 2010, 06:14 PM
So we turned this into Glock vs 1911? There's a reason the 1911 is 100 years old. There's a reason Glocks are popular. Both look the same on the other side and if one were more reliable than the other it would not instill enough courage in me to charge the person wielding it.

Fortunately for me I live in a place where I can have both if I want... that affords for the ability to annoy both sides!! :evil:

DonRon
October 12, 2010, 06:22 PM
So we turned this into Glock vs 1911? There's a reason the 1911 is 100 years old. There's a reason Glocks are popular. Both look the same on the other side and if one were more reliable than the other it would not instill enough courage in me to charge the person wielding it.

Fortunately for me I live in a place where I can have both if I want... that affords for the ability to annoy both sides!! :evil:
You knew it would but then again every gun owner is a Fan Boy for what he owns, call it human nature to brag about what you spent you money on. I like all hand guns including the 1911 and have a few but, I carry a Glock as a CCW every single day so I guess I prefer them to the others I guess.

NMGonzo
October 12, 2010, 08:36 PM
So there are Glock lovers and haters, I don't see many in the neutral stand.
Most people that loves Glock name its reliability, durable coat, simplicity, etc.

What are reasons why people don't like the GLOCK?? :evil:

Because it does not conceal as well as my 1911.

In a perfect world, Glocks would be as thin as the Taurus slimline.

DenaliPark
October 12, 2010, 09:50 PM
somewhat ugly
bad ergonomics(they are nicknamed Blocks for a reason)
bad grip angle for many people
un-supported chamber
foreign made.

Other than that I they are almost perfect.
Bad ergonomics & grip angle? LMAO....It's double action only, you draw the weapon, aim and fire it without so much as having to tickle an extraneous extra, and it is the uncontested, A-number-1 most popular sidearm in American LE, including the US Marshals, DEA, and the FBI.
Millions more Americans prefer the Glock(in any caliber)over any other alternative, they must have funny wrists....

PR-NJ
October 12, 2010, 10:15 PM
I've recently been bitten, and I really, really like my new G19. I shoot it better than any of my other handguns (granted, I'm nowhere near a marksman). The grip takes some getting used to, but I can't get over the accuracy.

Hangingrock
October 12, 2010, 10:23 PM
A simplistic view point Glock’s work. Fact is that S&W is on their third rendition Sigma, SW99, and MP to replicate Glock’s success in the market place. Glock’s market share can’t be easily ignored.

TexasGunbie
October 12, 2010, 10:32 PM
Behold! the Original Poster had commented! (me)

I owned many guns before I just recently acquired a Glock. I have shot all Glock competitors... Sigs, Taurus, XDs, CZ, M&P, Ruger SR9, Kahr, etc... I kept trading and trading and finally I submited myself to a glock.

The stupid reason I didn't get a glock at first is as follow... I went out with a few friends that had glocks, and they were pretty cocky and bashing everything else. I think everyone that begin shooting ran into a lot of GLOCK jerks very early on, but now that I own a glock, I really enjoy it. It's a workhorse that won't quit on you. I like it's simplicity. I actually think it looks real good compare to other guns, and the finish is so durable that I don't worry much about scratching it.

However... I can't compare a glock to a 1911, nor can you compare a 1911 to a glock.
The legendary status of the 1911 will always stick with it, but I think now days the ownership of 1911 is different from the olden days. Now, you own a 1911 because of the nostalgic feel, and the many aesthetic things you can do to it just adds onto the fun of owning a 1911. Now if you like to be old school, you would carry your 1911 too!

To me, the issue with 1911 is that it simply cost too much for me to keep it functional. The magazine is a big part of the gun, I have had many issues with 1911 mags, and replacing a 1911 is expensive.

Many of you pointed out the magazine design was very essential to the success of glock, I think that's a crucial point in this thread. Most people still have the same magazine since they bought the gun, and it's still functional.

I might be influenced by you guys after reading 5 pages of this, so it might sound like I am reiterating previous posters! Keep on posting! MORE DRAMA! :fire:

S&W-Keeper
October 12, 2010, 10:33 PM
Everybody needs a Glock 19.

TexasGunbie
October 12, 2010, 10:38 PM
Quote:

"Originally Posted by DonRon
Safeties can get you killed."

No ... lack of training and practice can get you killed.

__________________
AUT PAX AUT BELLUM


The two of you makes a fine couple :neener:! I am going to add my own into this!

"The trigger is my safety!"

And this works for the GLOCK because it actually does have a safety on the trigger! Oh and a safe holster for the GLOCK is a safety measure too!

ny32182
October 12, 2010, 10:43 PM
Buy guns for function or whatever other reasons appeal to you, and not to be part of a social club, and this would be less an issue.

"Glock jerks"? Does something like this really come into consideration for people when they are buying stuff? You saw a moron with a Glock, so said inanimate object is bad. No offense, but that is some... interesting logic.

You are not in a frat as a result of buying a gun. You don't have to like everyone else that owns that gun any more than you like everyone else who drives the same car or wears the same underwear.

I swear this isn't the first thread I've seen with this exact reasoning either.

outofpractice
October 13, 2010, 12:23 AM
Yeah, you're right on the trigger part. As someone who unchambered a round from a Glock after it was pointed in my face by a novice some 20 years ago, I agree. The best part of it was when I berated the idiot who only dropped the magazine before handing it over- he said something like: "The safety's on the trigger". I was like- "***?!?!?!? Where's the sense in that if you don't know to keep your finger off the trigger?" Not a Glock hater but it didn't leave the best taste in my mouth. On the other hand, just to be fair, the only other (unknowingly) loaded gun I was handed was a Colt 1903 hammerless.

DonRon
October 13, 2010, 12:35 AM
Actually the best gun safety is between your ears!

TexasGunbie
October 13, 2010, 12:54 AM
Buy guns for function or whatever other reasons appeal to you, and not to be part of a social club, and this would be less an issue.

I don't see what you mean at all. When was being a social group a consideration when purchasing a gun?


"Glock jerks"? Does something like this really come into consideration for people when they are buying stuff? You saw a moron with a Glock, so said inanimate object is bad. No offense, but that is some... interesting logic.

Just wanted to try other guns rather than a GLOCK, when I was new to guns, everything is under consideration, since I didn't even know what to look for.
When did I ever said Glock is bad because I met Glock jerks? I did say that I went to try out other guns instead but not because the Glock is bad. At that time I just felt there are other things on par or better.

You assumed too much.

daorhgih
October 13, 2010, 01:09 AM
R. Lee Ermey. Pompous fraud; excellent well-paid actor. One good reason to at least consider buying a GLOCK: They have SOLD almost 7,000,000 guns. More than any other maker. Now, we do not include the millions of other guns, existing before Gaston, that were issued -- "given" free -- to the military. And excluding $4,000 race-guns or safe-queens. The GLOCK is the small-block Chevy of hand-guns. The 1911 frames are the flat-head Fords of hand-guns.

Marshall
October 13, 2010, 01:09 AM
LMAO....It's double action only

Actually it's striker fired. Not DAO.

DenaliPark
October 13, 2010, 01:31 AM
Actually it's striker fired. Not DAO.
BATFE say it's DAO....BTW, go post that it's a striker fired pistol at Glocktalk and see what they have to say in response!

Sevenfaces
October 13, 2010, 01:45 AM
I used to dislike glocks for the same common reasons everyone has listed, blocky, fat, the "cheap" look and feel of polymer... I shot a rental g19 once and it wasn't bad, I just couldn't get over the cosmetics... then I looked for a reasonably priced compact .45 and I couldn't find anything except the G30...

the combination of the weight, capacity, size, and all the benefits of polymer in a conceal conscious scenario caused me to buy one. After shooting it and realizing how accurate it was despite its small size and light weight, I forgot all about my dislikes.

I happen to have large hands, so the fat frame doesn't bother me, I do however not like the rigid "spikes" in the front strap. Other than that, I can find no faults. I wouldn't call myself a Glock fan, definately a G30 fan though.

edit: I also just want to add that I don't really like the angle of the grip on fullsize glocks, it just looks weird, and feels weird. On the compacts, I don't feel, or see the angular issue.... which is weird...I think...

A and O
October 13, 2010, 01:59 AM
Looks like we are going for six pages folks.

I love Glocks and I love Harley's. Problem is I've never owned either and probably never will, and for the same reason. My list of hand guns to buy is long and the Glock family is close to the bottom. Of course for this reason I'm known as a Glock hater by my friends and family. This to me is good news, because I really do like Glocks. Best Analogy is today's automobiles. So many great choices, just because I don't ride in a Honda Accord don't call me a Honda hater because I bought the BMW.

I lied, I hate Harley's.

Ragnar Danneskjold
October 13, 2010, 05:12 AM
R. Lee Ermey. Pompous fraud.

Uhh...what?


Please, let's not try to spin the Glock magazines difficulty of takedown into some sort of positive feature. Somehow, SW, Ruger, HK, Walther, Sig, and Springfield all manage to make reliable magazines for their handguns that you don't need to squeeze with vice grips in order to take apart. Glock could do it if they wanted to. They choose to make it difficult. Why? I have no idea.

Ragnar Danneskjold
October 13, 2010, 05:22 AM
Everybody needs a Glock 19.

I think that is a step over the line. I own a G19 myself. But I am not going to assume every gun owner should want one. There is a such thing as personal taste. A reliable Sig, XD, M&P, P99, etc are all on par with a Glock as far as reliability and accuracy. If someone prefers one of those to a Glock, that's their choice. No one is selling themselves short by choosing an M&P over a Glock.

smartshot
October 13, 2010, 06:43 AM
I agree with RagnarDanneskjold, who talked about price. Police Departments have to factor in costs and at this point a competitor (like Springfield) has to not only show us that their product is cheaper and better, but they have to find the time window in the great depression for departments to get rid of firearms that are paid for and buy new ones, then the cost of training the police and armorers with the new firearms. Then the cost of new holsters. The truth is, even state police and federal departments do not have the money for that now. Glock was ready to roll at the right time when many were switching to duty autos and choices were pretty much "glock or not." Kind of like getting the army to give up all their M16's/M4's. On top of the cost factors, Glock works, they are simple to train people with and easy to take apart, low maintenance and reliable.

IMTHDUKE
October 13, 2010, 09:28 AM
"Originally Posted by DonRon
Safeties can get you killed."

No ... lack of training and practice can get you killed.

__________________
AUT PAX AUT BELLUM

The two of you makes a fine couple ! I am going to add my own into this!

"The trigger is my safety!"

Not so....


http://i700.photobucket.com/albums/ww2/imthduke/GUNS/safety.jpg

kulprit
October 13, 2010, 10:38 AM
I really only have two complaints:

1. Terrible tactile feedback. There's very little travel and feedback with the mag release, and the take-up point for the release is very late in the travel. I find that I have to hit it twice to drop the mag. Also, when inserting a mag, there's no satisfying "click" once it's in - it just sort of stops. These types of things just add up to an unpleasant experience.

2. Unnecessarily wide. I shot a 27 recently and this "sub compact" was far too wide to CC. The slide doesn't need to be an >inch wide and the grip would easily bulge underneath clothing. I'm hoping to test drive a 36 soon to see if a single-stack mag will finally make for a stealthy Glock.

So those are my griefs. That said, I'm open to owning one at some point. I think a narrow sub compact Glock would be the perfect CC piece.

ForumSurfer
October 13, 2010, 10:47 AM
2. Unnecessarily wide.

I agree. When I handle a px4 or XD, I get the feeling that the 19 in my waistband is just a little too fat. I can't conceal it except for IWB. It does conceal nicely at 4 o'clock with regular shorts andd a t-shirt...just not as well or as comfortably as my 1911's. OWB concealed just doesn't work since it is so fat, unless I'm wearing a long, thick jacket. Even if I wear a long button down shirt over it OWB, it still looks like I'm oddly chunky on one side.

easyg
October 13, 2010, 11:21 AM
LMAO....It's double action only

Actually it's striker fired. Not DAO.
The Glock is a DAO pistol.
Once a round has been chambered the pistol is still not fully cocked.
Pulling the trigger completes the cocking of the stiker and then, with continued trigger pull, releases the striker....two separate functions....thus: Double-action.

BTW, the simple fact that a pistol is striker-fired has no bearing on whether the pistol is SAO or DAO.
Glocks are striker fired and are DAO.
Springfield XD's are striker fired also yet they are SAO.

Marshall
October 13, 2010, 11:32 AM
BATFE say it's DAO....BTW, go post that it's a striker fired pistol at Glocktalk and see what they have to say in response!

DAO cocks the gun and fires the gun with every single pull of the trigger. DAO cocks the gun for you from the trigger, and will do so every time. Dry fire your unloaded Glock twice in a row to simulate a misfire and judge for yourself.

REAPER4206969
October 13, 2010, 11:38 AM
There is so much wrong in this thread it's painful to read.

DonRon
October 13, 2010, 12:09 PM
There is so much wrong in this thread it's painful to read.
Ain't that the Truth!

JohnBT
October 13, 2010, 12:34 PM
"Everybody needs a Glock 19."

Everybody needs a brick with a trigger? :uhoh: It feels like a brick to me. A plastic brick. To each their own I suppose. And I have XL hands.

Ben86
October 13, 2010, 01:16 PM
There's very little travel and feedback with the mag release, and the take-up point for the release is very late in the travel. I find that I have to hit it twice to drop the mag.

Just press it until the mag drops out.

Also, when inserting a mag, there's no satisfying "click" once it's in - it just sort of stops. These types of things just add up to an unpleasant experience.

It clicks for me.

I admit they are a little on the fat side, but I can deal with that personally.

Ragnar Danneskjold
October 13, 2010, 03:31 PM
The Glock is a DAO pistol.
Once a round has been chambered the pistol is still not fully cocked.

That doesn't make it DAO. Double Action Only requires the trigger pull to cock and fire the weapon. If something else, such as precharging the firing pin half way through cycling the slide, is required, than it is not a true DAO weapon. Marshall nailed it. A true DA weapon is one where each trigger pull pulls back the hammer/striker and then releases it, like the DA on any DA/SA pistol (92FS, etc). DAO is naturally where you can only fire it this way, hence the name Double Action Only. Again, if you need to perform some other action, like working the slide once, to get the weapon to fire, it's not really Double Action.

Let's say I have a 9mm round with a bad primer that for some reason needs two strikes to fire. I load it in my Beretta 92FS. I don't cock the trigger, so my first shot is Double Action. I pull, it releases and...nothing. I pull again, the hammer pulls back again, releases again, and this time it fires. Double action. Same with a DA revolver. You pull the tigger, the hammer pulls back and the cylinder rotates, then it releases. You pull the tirgger again, the hammer comes back again, the cylinder rotates again, and you fire another round.

Those are both examples of Double Action. The cocking of the hammer/firing pin and the release of it, through pulling the trigger.

Now contrast that with a Glock. You load a new mag, cycle the slide, and the firing pin is preset about halfway. When you pull the trigger, it pulls it back the rest of the way, and releases it. But it didn't and cannot pull the firing pin back the whole way. If that round misfires, you cannot pull the trigger again. You need to reset the trigger by moving the slide. The means the Glock trigger cannot be DAO as it cannot perform both fully cocking and releasing the firing pin by itself.

sansone
October 13, 2010, 03:40 PM
brick with a DAO trigger :evil: .. They're fine guns, I sell MANY without complaints. BHP was a painful purchase for frugal me, but what a masterpiece!

REAPER4206969
October 13, 2010, 03:56 PM
I really don't want to get into this thread, but I can't let this go.

Double strike capability has nothing to do with determining if a firearms action is double action or not. All that matters is that:

When you press the trigger to the rear, the action

A)Draws the hammer/striker to the rear no matter how slight,
and
B)Releases the hammer/striker firing the weapon.

Double strike capability is a separate feature. The Glock is Pre-set Double Action Only.<--That's a period.

Ragnar Danneskjold
October 13, 2010, 03:58 PM
If 1 trigger pull does not equal 1 pulling and release of the firing pin, every single time, it's not true Double Action. That fact that there are instances on a Glock where pulling the trigger does nothing, means it's not really Double Action.

REAPER4206969
October 13, 2010, 04:29 PM
*sigh*

Marshall
October 13, 2010, 04:32 PM
Ragnar Danneskjold has it down exactly correct.

REAPER4206969
October 13, 2010, 05:00 PM
So me/Glock/S&W/Ruger/Kel-Tec/Kahr/Walther/Taurus/Para Ordnance/the BATFE and every other firearms authority is wrong?

Joe Demko
October 13, 2010, 05:04 PM
So me/Glock/S&W/Ruger/Kel-Tec/Kahr/Walther/Taurus/Para Ordnance/the BATFE and every other firearms authority is wrong?

It's tres cool that you not only list yourself as one of those authorities, but actually put yourself first. That's what I call real confidence.

Ragnar Danneskjold
October 13, 2010, 05:07 PM
And the fact that Glock itself refers to their pistols as "Safe Action" and not Double Action Only...

REAPER4206969
October 13, 2010, 05:09 PM
"Safe action" is a trademark name for Pre-set DAO, just like Para's "LDA."

Mac's Precision
October 13, 2010, 05:18 PM
I am going to try to post a reply. This conversation has taken so many twists and turns it is like a police chase in East L.A..

I like Glocks. I will tell you why from a Gunsmith's opinionated perspective.

Glocks are built well. They are constructed from quality materials with a good attention to details. They fit the appropriate parts tight and the other parts loose. They rarely exhibit loose breech issues. They are headspaced correctly. They have well engineered extractors that fit properly and work well. The ejectors are very effective. The barrels and slides are appropriately hard to encourage long lasting durability. The trigger parts are engineered well with as few parts as possible. The metal parts are very rust resistant and require VERY little lubrication to work well. They are very consistently well built. Glock doesn't have much if any variance in quality. Unless they have been altered, Glocks all do the same thing, the same way and they do it very well.

Glock makes great magazines. They are simple to work on and easy to clean. They hold up much better than many competitors mags and tolerate a ridiculous amount of abuse.

Glocks are easy to work on. In the rare incident where one needs repair they can be fixed easily and very inexpensively. They respond well to the attention of an experienced gunsmith and can have superb triggers to satisfy the shooter with a critical trigger finger.

Glocks do have some shortcomings that I am not fond of....BUT the issues are MY dislikes and in no way make the gun any less of a weapon. They are things that I like to see changed because they make the gun nicer to shoot.
I am not fond of Glock's factory sights, guide rod, polygonal rifling or factory trigger action feel. The rifling issue is ONLY an issue if you want to shoot volumes of lead bullets. Otherwise it is a non issue. The factory barrel is accurate and LONG lasting.

Glocks designs and interchangeability of parts is pure genius. The ability for me to stock such a small supply of parts and yet service ALL the models is wonderful for the repair center.

Glock has very good customer service. My dealings with them regarding rare warranty issues has been VERY VERY good. I sent in a Glock 19 recently. It was one of the first 1000 of the model 19's (first Gen). After several thousands and thousands of rounds it finally developed a hairline crack in the polymer behind the locking block. It was sent in...and replaced. No questions asked. That gun was VERY used. And I do mean VERY used. It had more ammo through it than most people have ever seen in one place at one time. A wonderful testament to durability.

Glocks are good platforms to customize and can be made to fit every need in every way. The modular design lends itself to adding custom parts with a minimal degree of fuss. They are WELL supported by the aftermarket, equal to or exceeding the 10/22 rifle.

Glocks shoot well. They are accurate, reliable, long lived and dependable tools. It has been my experience that of all the guns I see at police ranges during training shoots and competitions, Glocks and Sigs fail the least. There are a number of OTHER brands that fail a LOT.

Regarding the firing mechanism: The in ability for a second striker hit is in no way a detractor to the Glock design. The striker hits with authority. Glocks reliability to fire is VERY good. Should you have a dud primer then a tap rack should be used. Shuck the dead round and load another. I cannot imagine that a person would ever sit there and repeatedly pull the trigger on a hammer fired gun trying to make a dead round pop. It didn't fire...get it out and move on. Use the same response to every fail to fire regardless if striker or hammer fired. Do you (during a gun fight) open your revolver and rotate the cylinder back to a dead round to hit it a dead primer again? No...of course not.

Do I own Glocks? Yes. I have owned many, customized them and sold many customs to drooling shooters that had to have them. I will own more in the future.

The local gun shop manager and I were having a discussion about manufacture quality. I posed the question to him: "IF you had to take any gun from your pistol case and step out in the street and get involved in a gun fight.....what would you choose?" Keep in mind you have never fired any of the guns in your case. You don't get to test fire it. You don't get to inspect it or clean / lube it. It just MUST run, feed perfectly and save your life. You don't know that they will or will not work. "What would you bet your butt on?" What gun would you bet that you can load from ammo on the shelf...and bet that it will run without fail? We talked about all the brands there...Which one's we have seen fail..based on what I have fixed in NEW guns...what NEW guns have issues right out of the box.... Which brands are consistently aces. After about an hour discussion it boiled down to Glock and SIG.

I will buy a new Glock in the future....and it will be .357 SIG caliber....a Model 32. It will be fit with a NY1 trigger, Ghost Rocket 3.5 connector, Stainless guide rod, Seattle slug, and Trijicon night sights.

Many purists have an issue with the poly frame, the wierd trigger that goes sproink, the NON 1911 frame angle, the NON hammer fired mechanism and the lack of "pretty" that the 1911 and other guns have. The cosmetic aspect of the Glock isn't an issue. The striker fired aspect isn't an issue. The trigger feel isn't an issue. The frame angle is less of an issue than most folks make it. If you are a skilled shooter and you shoot a LOT....you can make any pistol run and run well. The ergonomics of the Glock isn't a downfall of the design...it is often an excuse for someone to buy another gun they think they like better :D.

In the end they are a good tool and are on a plain above much of it's competition. They are on a par with SIG. They are a far better design than the 1911 in MANY ways and fail far less often. That is a bitter pill for many to swallow....including me. I like the 1911 design and cosmetics but an equally priced 1911 just won't run as well or as long as a Glock from that same price point.

Cheers
Mac.

MTMilitiaman
October 13, 2010, 05:20 PM
BATFE say it's DAO....BTW, go post that it's a striker fired pistol at Glocktalk and see what they have to say in response!

The BATFE also called a 14-inch shoelace a machine gun.

And are you debating whether it is a striker fired handgun? Because it obviously is...

REAPER4206969
October 13, 2010, 05:20 PM
Here's Kahr breakin' it down for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYRHpolEC_Y&feature=related

DonRon
October 13, 2010, 05:28 PM
The same uninformed, opinionated drivel just regurgitated over and over again by the Glock Haters. It does get boring Reaper indeed.

1858
October 13, 2010, 05:38 PM
Mac's Precision, that's an excellent post and by the far the best (most informative) post in this whole thread.

:)

Mac's Precision
October 13, 2010, 06:20 PM
Thank You Sir :D

I try to be totally based firmly on facts and leave my emotions out of the discussion. Too much internet discussion is passion driven. While we all have an inclination to be passionate about our selected firearms it really has no place when making decisions about machinery.

I used to be pretty passionate and blindly a follower of specific brands. Working on guns daily for many years has been an education. Most people only get to experience one, two or a maybe few examples of certain brands. I get to see many examples of all brands so I can make comments and observations that other's can't due to lack of exposure to volume.

I see designs that are used in many guns and implementation of processes that are poor. Sadly some makers refuse to abandon certain processes and blindly march forward watching those processes fail. It is just accepted as a quirk of that design?!?! There are better ways but for what ever reason they go unresolved. Many of the makers have had a decline in quality over the years. I get to observe this decline happen and guns that once were regarded as fine quality have moved to mediocre or poor in my opinion due to factory disregard for precision.

Every firearm has drawbacks. Selecting a firearm for purchase is always a compromise on some level. You must evaluate how MUCH the drawbacks affect your satisfaction of ownership.

Cheers
Mac.

DonRon
October 13, 2010, 06:37 PM
I am going to try to post a reply. This conversation has taken so many twists and turns it is like a police chase in East L.A..

I like Glocks. I will tell you why from a Gunsmith's opinionated perspective.

Glocks are built well. They are constructed from quality materials with a good attention to details. They fit the appropriate parts tight and the other parts loose. They rarely exhibit loose breech issues. They are headspaced correctly. They have well engineered extractors that fit properly and work well. The ejectors are very effective. The barrels and slides are appropriately hard to encourage long lasting durability. The trigger parts are engineered well with as few parts as possible. The metal parts are very rust resistant and require VERY little lubrication to work well. They are very consistently well built. Glock doesn't have much if any variance in quality. Unless they have been altered, Glocks all do the same thing, the same way and they do it very well.

Glock makes great magazines. They are simple to work on and easy to clean. They hold up much better than many competitors mags and tolerate a ridiculous amount of abuse.

Glocks are easy to work on. In the rare incident where one needs repair they can be fixed easily and very inexpensively. They respond well to the attention of an experienced gunsmith and can have superb triggers to satisfy the shooter with a critical trigger finger.

Glocks do have some shortcomings that I am not fond of....BUT the issues are MY dislikes and in no way make the gun any less of a weapon. They are things that I like to see changed because they make the gun nicer to shoot.
I am not fond of Glock's factory sights, guide rod, polygonal rifling or factory trigger action feel. The rifling issue is ONLY an issue if you want to shoot volumes of lead bullets. Otherwise it is a non issue. The factory barrel is accurate and LONG lasting.

Glocks designs and interchangeability of parts is pure genius. The ability for me to stock such a small supply of parts and yet service ALL the models is wonderful for the repair center.

Glock has very good customer service. My dealings with them regarding rare warranty issues has been VERY VERY good. I sent in a Glock 19 recently. It was one of the first 1000 of the model 19's (first Gen). After several thousands and thousands of rounds it finally developed a hairline crack in the polymer behind the locking block. It was sent in...and replaced. No questions asked. That gun was VERY used. And I do mean VERY used. It had more ammo through it than most people have ever seen in one place at one time. A wonderful testament to durability.

Glocks are good platforms to customize and can be made to fit every need in every way. The modular design lends itself to adding custom parts with a minimal degree of fuss. They are WELL supported by the aftermarket, equal to or exceeding the 10/22 rifle.

Glocks shoot well. They are accurate, reliable, long lived and dependable tools. It has been my experience that of all the guns I see at police ranges during training shoots and competitions, Glocks and Sigs fail the least. There are a number of OTHER brands that fail a LOT.

Regarding the firing mechanism: The in ability for a second striker hit is in no way a detractor to the Glock design. The striker hits with authority. Glocks reliability to fire is VERY good. Should you have a dud primer then a tap rack should be used. Shuck the dead round and load another. I cannot imagine that a person would ever sit there and repeatedly pull the trigger on a hammer fired gun trying to make a dead round pop. It didn't fire...get it out and move on. Use the same response to every fail to fire regardless if striker or hammer fired. Do you (during a gun fight) open your revolver and rotate the cylinder back to a dead round to hit it a dead primer again? No...of course not.

Do I own Glocks? Yes. I have owned many, customized them and sold many customs to drooling shooters that had to have them. I will own more in the future.

The local gun shop manager and I were having a discussion about manufacture quality. I posed the question to him: "IF you had to take any gun from your pistol case and step out in the street and get involved in a gun fight.....what would you choose?" Keep in mind you have never fired any of the guns in your case. You don't get to test fire it. You don't get to inspect it or clean / lube it. It just MUST run, feed perfectly and save your life. You don't know that they will or will not work. "What would you bet your butt on?" What gun would you bet that you can load from ammo on the shelf...and bet that it will run without fail? We talked about all the brands there...Which one's we have seen fail..based on what I have fixed in NEW guns...what NEW guns have issues right out of the box.... Which brands are consistently aces. After about an hour discussion it boiled down to Glock and SIG.

I will buy a new Glock in the future....and it will be .357 SIG caliber....a Model 32. It will be fit with a NY1 trigger, Ghost Rocket 3.5 connector, Stainless guide rod, Seattle slug, and Trijicon night sights.

Many purists have an issue with the poly frame, the wierd trigger that goes sproink, the NON 1911 frame angle, the NON hammer fired mechanism and the lack of "pretty" that the 1911 and other guns have. The cosmetic aspect of the Glock isn't an issue. The striker fired aspect isn't an issue. The trigger feel isn't an issue. The frame angle is less of an issue than most folks make it. If you are a skilled shooter and you shoot a LOT....you can make any pistol run and run well. The ergonomics of the Glock isn't a downfall of the design...it is often an excuse for someone to buy another gun they think they like better :D.

In the end they are a good tool and are on a plain above much of it's competition. They are on a par with SIG. They are a far better design than the 1911 in MANY ways and fail far less often. That is a bitter pill for many to swallow....including me. I like the 1911 design and cosmetics but an equally priced 1911 just won't run as well or as long as a Glock from that same price point.

Cheers
Mac.
Your presentation is far more elegant that my brutal honesty. I am also a gunsmith but have lost my love for the customer requesting fully automatic Glock Pistols and AR 15 etc. Yes, I do know how to make them fully automatic but I won't do it for you and your question and then insistence is insulting to my intelligence and respect for the laws of our country that I and my son fought for.

meadmkr
October 13, 2010, 06:47 PM
I own a Glock22 (gen3) and gave my G19 (gen3) to the daughter as a gift. Both are dependable and fit the requirements I have/had. I can't vocalize it but the Glock just 'feels right' in my hand. Ergonomics is my primary criteria followed very closely by reliability and then by caliber/capacity.

I shooting single-action revolvers at age 5 and carried a Dan Wesson for several years as a sidearm. Still like revolvers but they don't meet most of the requirements I have for a daily carry. I spent well over a decade in the military and got to shoot both the 1911 and M9. Didn't like the 1911 due to the grip/wornout/inaccuracy and only felt so-so about the first generation Berettas. The M9 had better accuracy than the service .45s but never really liked the 'feel'.

Then again I picked up a Ruger N.Vaquero in 45LC mostly based on nostagalia (and am growing to really like that pistol over the old Dan Wesson .357!)

Oh, and the 'unsupported chamber' should be submitted to MythBusters as neither of my .40 or 9mm factor barrels are any less supported than the typical equivelant.

REAPER4206969
October 13, 2010, 06:54 PM
respect for the laws of our country that I and my son fought for.

Those laws are not respectable, and directly violate the Constitution that you were fighting for.

DenaliPark
October 13, 2010, 06:57 PM
The BATFE also called a 14-inch shoelace a machine gun.

And are you debating whether it is a striker fired handgun? Because it obviously is...
No, I'm debating whether you actually understand the mechanism, if you go and post at Glocktalk that it's striker fired they will laugh you off forum! The Glock is DAO, thats a simple fact! Unconventional, yes, but DAO nonetheless, unlike the Springfield XD's which BATFE didn't hesitate to label SAO.

DonRon
October 13, 2010, 07:02 PM
Those laws are not respectable, and directly violate the Constitution that you were fighting for.
Another matter of opinion sir. I sleep well at night knowing that I never willingly violated the law of the land

Mac's Precision
October 13, 2010, 08:57 PM
The discussion of the matter of ignition mechanism design is a bit off topic but I'll address it since this thread has wandered way outside the lines several times already.

The Glock and Springfield XD are BOTH striker fired so that term is correct for both pistols. Now that being said the difference comes in HOW the striker is manipulated PRIOR to firing.

The Glock catches the striker lug when the slide closes while locking the barrel into battery. The striker is not cocked at this point only resting the lug on the cruciform sear plate with the striker spring in a relaxed condition. When the trigger is pressed to the rear the trigger bar moves the cruciform striker plate to the rear and raises the firing pin block to the disengaged position. This motion cocks the striker back. As the radius on the trigger bar encounters the tab on the trigger connector bar it forces the striker plate down. It is timed such that the striker is at it's rearward most travel when the sear plate disengages the striker lug. The striker then travels forward under spring tension and impacts the firing pin. This system does by design qualify as "double action only" as the striker is subjected to 2 actions by the trigger. Cocked and fired.

The surfaces on the sear plate and striker lug are engineered to be neutral or slightly positive. Not negative. That is to say that the lug is such that the striker will not be forced off the striker lug by spring tension but must be shoved off the striker lug by the angle on the connector bar. If the shooter partially pulls the trigger back and decides NOT to shoot the sear plate will positively fully re-engage the striker lug and resume a safe condition. The angle on the striker lug should NOT be altered to be greater than 90 degrees as it may become unsafe.

The XD is single action by definition. Again it IS striker fired but the striker is cocked to the rear as the slide is closed and the barrel locks. The Striker is held under tension by the sear at all times up to the point of firing. when the trigger is pressed the sear is lowered in a SLIGHTLY rotational manner. The positive angle on the sear combined with slightly positive angle on the striker lug induces a little bit of further rearward travel to the striker prior to firing.

The XD has a firing pin indicator and a person can observe the indicator protrude a bit farther prior to it disengaging the striker and being propelled forward to impact the primer. So since this striker is automatically cocked on closing of the slide it is only one action, dropping the sear, that induces firing. Therefore it is single action by design. The engineering in the sear angles, striker lug angle and depth of lug engagement must be such that it is safe to carry and not risk jarring off. The XD does incorporate a firing pin block in it's design so if it was to jar off it wouldn't fire as the pin would be blocked from impacting the primer.

Modifications to the sear / striker lug angles OR the striker lug / sear engagement depth should be addressed with extreme caution. The potential for creating a negative angle engagement or too shallow a depth of engagement can result in failure to maintain cocked or prematurely discharging due to unsafe light trigger pull.. It is my opinion that modifications to depth of engagement on the XD should not be done. Trigger pull improvements can be obtained without reducing the safe depth of engagement from the factory.



The term striker would be defined by a pin that is under spring tension and once released is allowed to travel forward to impact the primer.

Firing pin would be defined as a floating pin, or spring dampened pin that is impacted by a hammer (rotational or linear by design).

Double action would be defined as a mechanism that loads the mainspring or striker spring PRIOR to release and firing.

Single action would be defined as a mechanism that is cocked automatically or by the user and the only action required to initiate the firing sequence is simply releasing the sear with on action of pressing the trigger.

Hope that helps to clarify the differences. Hopefully the folks at GlockTalk aren't offended but the Glock IS striker fired....AND DAO. :D

Cheers
Mac.

PR-NJ
October 13, 2010, 10:12 PM
Mac -

An excellent post. I liked it so much I saved you website address in my Favorites.

SpodWo
October 13, 2010, 11:17 PM
own two Glocks, but I didn't drink the KoolAid. I do like the grip angle on the ones that work for me (the 17/22 and the 26/27 fit my hands, but the 19/23 just feels wrong

I own two also - it took me awhile but I did get a G19 and a G22 - both Gen 3s. And I agree - the 19 is not comfortable to shoot. Finger grooves are just not right on the smaller Glock as they compress my middle finger too much and then there is the Grip angle....

Trigger IS better than I thought. It breaks clean.

So the G22 feels much better.

Both reliable and I will keep them but I prefer a couple other 9mms over the G19. I know others that feel the same way - the Gen 3 G19 is not one size fits all. I probably should have looked into getting a Gen 2 instead on the G19....

daorhgih
October 13, 2010, 11:21 PM
Your levels of heroism and valor are hard to measure. Semper Fi

DonRon
October 14, 2010, 12:19 AM
The discussion of the matter of ignition mechanism design is a bit off topic but I'll address it since this thread has wandered way outside the lines several times already.

The Glock and Springfield XD are BOTH striker fired so that term is correct for both pistols. Now that being said the difference comes in HOW the striker is manipulated PRIOR to firing.

The Glock catches the striker lug when the slide closes while locking the barrel into battery. The striker is not cocked at this point only resting the lug on the cruciform sear plate with the striker spring in a relaxed condition. When the trigger is pressed to the rear the trigger bar moves the cruciform striker plate to the rear and raises the firing pin block to the disengaged position. This motion cocks the striker back. As the radius on the trigger bar encounters the tab on the trigger connector bar it forces the striker plate down. It is timed such that the striker is at it's rearward most travel when the sear plate disengages the striker lug. The striker then travels forward under spring tension and impacts the firing pin. This system does by design qualify as "double action only" as the striker is subjected to 2 actions by the trigger. Cocked and fired.

The surfaces on the sear plate and striker lug are engineered to be neutral or slightly positive. Not negative. That is to say that the lug is such that the striker will not be forced off the striker lug by spring tension but must be shoved off the striker lug by the angle on the connector bar. If the shooter partially pulls the trigger back and decides NOT to shoot the sear plate will positively fully re-engage the striker lug and resume a safe condition. The angle on the striker lug should NOT be altered to be greater than 90 degrees as it may become unsafe.

The XD is single action by definition. Again it IS striker fired but the striker is cocked to the rear as the slide is closed and the barrel locks. The Striker is held under tension by the sear at all times up to the point of firing. when the trigger is pressed the sear is lowered in a SLIGHTLY rotational manner. The positive angle on the sear combined with slightly positive angle on the striker lug induces a little bit of further rearward travel to the striker prior to firing.

The XD has a firing pin indicator and a person can observe the indicator protrude a bit farther prior to it disengaging the striker and being propelled forward to impact the primer. So since this striker is automatically cocked on closing of the slide it is only one action, dropping the sear, that induces firing. Therefore it is single action by design. The engineering in the sear angles, striker lug angle and depth of lug engagement must be such that it is safe to carry and not risk jarring off. The XD does incorporate a firing pin block in it's design so if it was to jar off it wouldn't fire as the pin would be blocked from impacting the primer.

Modifications to the sear / striker lug angles OR the striker lug / sear engagement depth should be addressed with extreme caution. The potential for creating a negative angle engagement or too shallow a depth of engagement can result in failure to maintain cocked or prematurely discharging due to unsafe light trigger pull.. It is my opinion that modifications to depth of engagement on the XD should not be done. Trigger pull improvements can be obtained without reducing the safe depth of engagement from the factory.



The term striker would be defined by a pin that is under spring tension and once released is allowed to travel forward to impact the primer.

Firing pin would be defined as a floating pin, or spring dampened pin that is impacted by a hammer (rotational or linear by design).

Double action would be defined as a mechanism that loads the mainspring or striker spring PRIOR to release and firing.

Single action would be defined as a mechanism that is cocked automatically or by the user and the only action required to initiate the firing sequence is simply releasing the sear with on action of pressing the trigger.

Hope that helps to clarify the differences. Hopefully the folks at GlockTalk aren't offended but the Glock IS striker fired....AND DAO. :D

Cheers
Mac.
There is intelligent life on this forum....thank God!

yeti
October 14, 2010, 12:27 AM
There really is no need to quote entire posts in your replies, especially long posts, we are capable of reading the original. Thank you.

monet61
October 14, 2010, 12:28 AM
I own a G32 .357 Sig. I converted it to 40 and 9, but went back to what it was built for.
As far as grip angle, it just doesn't bother me. I mean, when I shoot my XD or my SAA or a cartridge converted 1858 Remington or an old Mod 39, all the grip angles are different. To me, thats the fun of shooting.
I like my Glock because I can shoot it and I trust it.
Same reason I like SAA's.
It's all personal.
Good shooting all.

Marshall
October 14, 2010, 01:16 AM
Mac, thank you for your in depth response and detail.

I still do not see how the gun can be a TRUE DAO gun without the trigger pull alone being able to accommodate the full cocking and firing of the striker and relying on the slide action to perform this, or half of this.

To me and many others, regardless of what goes on inside the pistol, if slide racking must take place to cock or partially cock the firearm and a trigger pull by itself cannot accomplish the full cocking and firing of the gun, then it's not a TRUE DAO handgun.

I see exactly how the gun is being considered DA (technically) but do not understand how DAO can be a correct label when the gun cannot be fired by that action alone. The slide must be racked.

And from a user standpoint, it operates more like SAO firearms than it does DA or DAO. A slide must rack first, manually or by ignition and when you perform the "single action" of pulling the trigger, it fires, regardless of whether the gun does five things or one thing via that trigger pull. Which actually may be more realistic to a lot of folks.

Thanks again for your response. Hopefully you can help me to understand this?

Ragnar Danneskjold
October 14, 2010, 05:17 AM
I'm with Marshall. A Glock cannot fire through the trigger pull alone, as a DAO revolver can. The trigger cannot perform the first action by itself. It requires the user to cock the firing pin manually, through working the slide, for the trigger to be capable of handling it the rest of the way. The trigger cannot pull the firing pin back on it's own. And for something to be a true Double Action, it has to be able to do that.

If I had a revolver where I had to thumb the hammer back half-way in order for the trigger pull to be able to pull it the rest of the way and release it, would we call that a Double Action revolver?

REAPER4206969
October 14, 2010, 05:27 AM
Your levels of heroism and valor are hard to measure.
I am not a hero Sir. I am but one man in the arduous, unending fight in the glorious defense of GLOCK Perfection. It's a strenuous fight; but it's a fight worthy of being fought.

GLOOB
October 14, 2010, 05:56 AM
If I had a revolver where I had to thumb the hammer back half-way in order for the trigger pull to be able to pull it the rest of the way and release it, would we call that a Double Action revolver?
Not analogous. What you're sorta saying in regards to a Glock is:
So if I had a gun I had to load in order for it to fire.... Yeah, so what?

The difference is that there's no way (that's not ill-advised) to get a bullet into the chamber of a Glock without cocking it. And once it's in there, there's no way to decock the striker from it's half-cock position. And once it's fired, it re-half-cocks, automatically. So for the aspect of not having enough internal energy to fire a round, it's a DA. For the aspect of second strike capability, it's a SA. So it's not a true DA, but it sure is close. And you'll never have to "thumb the hammer back" on a Glock, because that automatically happens when you load it.

TexasGunbie
October 14, 2010, 11:44 AM
Dear Sir Mac's Precision,

GLOCK has been waiting for a hero like you all along.

benzy2
October 14, 2010, 11:54 AM
The glock is DAO. It only fires in a double action mannor. The striker is moved rearward to its fully cocked position and the the sear releases the striker, two actions, and it only works this way. DAO means just that, it can only operate by performing both actions. It isn't sa/da and it isn't sao. It performs two actions and always two, DAO. The fact it doesn't have multistrike capability has nothing to do with it being DAO. Sure, it isn't the same as many other DAO triggers, but that doesn't change the operations the trigger makes, being both cocking and releasing the striker.

Marshall
October 14, 2010, 02:34 PM
The fact it doesn't have multistrike capability has nothing to do with it being DAO. Sure, it isn't the same as many other DAO triggers, but that doesn't change the operations the trigger makes, being both cocking and releasing the striker.

Actually it has everything to do with it. Since the trigger cannot accomplish the task of fully cocking and firing the weapon and relies on a slide rack to do so, its not a TRUE DAO firearm. The end result to the USER being, the gun actually performs as a striker fired SAO firearm.

That said, I see both sides. IMO they need a new term for this class of operation. Maybe Assisted-DAO or some such thing.

REAPER4206969
October 14, 2010, 02:43 PM
IMO they need a new term for this class of operation.
One more time.

Pre-set DAO

Marshall
October 14, 2010, 03:35 PM
Pre-set DAO

If that accurately described it I would go for it. But if the round doesn't fire after a trigger pull, it's not pre-set and not DAO. It must be assisted by a firing of the gun or by the user manually. Which brings us back to stricker fired SAO or maybe Assisted DAO. That's just reality.

DenaliPark
October 14, 2010, 03:38 PM
I'm with Marshall. A Glock cannot fire through the trigger pull alone, as a DAO revolver can. The trigger cannot perform the first action by itself. It requires the user to cock the firing pin manually, through working the slide, for the trigger to be capable of handling it the rest of the way. The trigger cannot pull the firing pin back on it's own. And for something to be a true Double Action, it has to be able to do that.

If I had a revolver where I had to thumb the hammer back half-way in order for the trigger pull to be able to pull it the rest of the way and release it, would we call that a Double Action revolver?
Perhaps a better analogy for you, would be to liken the action of racking the slide to closing the cylinder of a revolver! Neither can be fired until having done so....

CoRoMo
October 14, 2010, 03:45 PM
Don't mind me, I'm just adding a page here. :o

Still don't own a Glock. Would like to, but... eh.

JohnBT
October 14, 2010, 04:37 PM
"Glocks are good platforms to customize and can be made to fit every need in every way. "

I want a customized Glock with an engraved and nickel plated frame and slide. Oh yeah. :p

They are surely some sensitive, touchy, defensive Glock lovers out there.

My 9mm progression has been from CZ-75B, to BHP to Sig X-5. And I don't even like the snappy 'lil 9mm, I prefer to shoot .45 because it's big and slow like me.

bri
October 14, 2010, 06:30 PM
I appreciate Glocks for what they are, simple and reliable handguns. I have a G21 and a G26, and I've kept them both because they've had very, very few failures and I'm more accurate shooting them than anything else.

Is that the case for everyone else? Or course not. Are Glocks as elegant, design wise, as a 1911 or BHP, hell no.

DawgFvr
October 14, 2010, 08:55 PM
I used to be neutral...then I bought a G26 and it has become my CCW of choice. What can I say? It is reliable, concealable and I shoot it well.

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e61/DawgFvr/Glock/G26.jpg

IWB MTAC is oh-so-comfortable.

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e61/DawgFvr/Glock/MTAC.jpg

Longer slide vs short grip works extremely well in a Rusty Sherrick High Ride too:

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e61/DawgFvr/Glock/HighRide4.jpg

benzy2
October 14, 2010, 09:36 PM
Actually it has everything to do with it. Since the trigger cannot accomplish the task of fully cocking and firing the weapon and relies on a slide rack to do so, its not a TRUE DAO firearm. The end result to the USER being, the gun actually performs as a striker fired SAO firearm.

That said, I see both sides. IMO they need a new term for this class of operation. Maybe Assisted-DAO or some such thing.

Do you agree that two actions, and only two actions, occur to the striker when the trigger is pulled? I guess I don't see how it could be any technically more correct. It cocks the striker (though only finishes cocking it) and it releases the sear. Two actions, and only two action, hence double action only. It can't be fired without cocking the striker during the trigger pull. DAO. I get the point that it isn't like other DOA type pistols with double strike capability, but it still clearly performs the action of cocking(at least the final cocking) and dropping the sear. Three categories to pick from, Single action only (only the release of the sear), SA/DA (can be set to only drop the sear, or can cock the hammer/striker and drop the sear), or DAO (always cocks the the hammer/striker and releases the sear). To me, its clearly DAO. Not double strike capable DAO, but DAO none the less.

230therapy
October 14, 2010, 09:55 PM
The good:

Ready to go out of the box
Lightweight
Reliable
No sharp edges
Maintenance is easy
Parts are low cost and available
Accurate enough for most shooting activities
Very short trigger reset
3.5# connector from Glock makes for a very smooth 5 pound trigger
High capacity

The bad:

Fantastic plastic!
Magazine prices have increased dramatically
Some people think they are ugly
Glock STILL cannot figure out 45 ACP
Some people dislike the grips
No grip panels to change (though new versions can change the grip)
Cheesy plastic sights on most models
It's not a 1911
Rifling in barrel is not conductive to lead bullets
Guns firing higher pressure rounds seem to have a slightly higher rate of failure
It's really a design for 9x19mm (if you don't like 9x19mm)
I want an 8 shot single stack Glock chambered in 45 ACP in a Glock 19 package!!! DANGIT.

All that said, I choose Glock over other guns because of how it shoots. My hands don't bleed after two days of training. I can do all the maintenance on the gun without a gunsmith and with only a few low cost parts. While I do have a 21 that sits in the safe, I generally use only their 9x19mm models.

I still like my 1911 and my other guns.

Skip_a_roo
October 14, 2010, 09:56 PM
I'm Glock positive!

Our youngest son got a job right out of high school as a Corrections Officer with the local County Sheriff's office. I was one of those folks that "didn't want a toy gun" or "any piece of plastic" to protect my life. That was until son #2 came home and said he had shot one of the county's Glocks and I just had to shoot one!

Now, I had spent a lot of time indoctrinating this kid to my way of thinking and how dare he come home with such a challenge! ;)

Well, our local range had a rental gun, a Glock 22, 40S&W, so I asked to shoot it once and fell in love! (Well, kinda, strong like, maybe!)

Since then I have bought several. One was the new RTF version Glock 22. That thing would stay in your hand no matter how sweaty it got! Not in mine though. I left it at my daughter and son in law's the last time we were there. Now he carries it everywhere!

Then, just the other day I was at our local outdoor gun club range. I heard an oversized fellow telling this slender little woman all about the gun she "ought to buy". "You should get a Taurus like mine." Only he went on to tell how his had been back to the factory several times. The M85 he had needed to be played with to get the thing to work after you closed the cylinder! What did she need something like that for. And then came the coups de gra. "You don't want one of them plastic guns, not like those Glocks, I hate them."

I listened to it about as long as I could. I picked up my Smith and Wesson revolvers, let her shoot the M14 with a 6" barrel just for laughs and headed to the truck. As I was putting my stuff in, I thought about how I was won over, simply shooting one. I reached in the glove box for my truck gun, a Glock 26 and headed back to the range.

Of course, the pontificate was still going on about Glocks and yada, yada, yada, until I pulled it out of the small of my back. I carefully held it downrange and unloaded it and asked if he had any ammo she could shoot out of it. After all, she would probably turn her nose up at it seeing he had given her such good advice! :rolleyes:

He gave her 5 rounds and she shot it. I asked her if she liked it and she said YES, that is just what I am looking for! :D

After a few more words were exchanged and Mr. Expert was sufficiently quieted, I gave her some pointers and my name to throw around at the local gun store, and left. As I was closing the gate and locking it, I turned to wave and found her looking after me. All I could think was, gotcha!

If you ever shoot one and know how to shoot, you will be hooked too.

Sure they are ugly. I never knew anyone that was looking at the business end of one notice that though! ;) Carry it concealed and no one will know you carry an ugly gun! The thing about it, when you do need to use it, it will work, period.

FWIW

Tactical Tupperware!

1858
October 14, 2010, 10:27 PM
If you ever shoot one and know how to shoot, you will be hooked too.

I've shot a bunch, I definitely know how to shoot but I'm not hooked. Glocks simply don't feel as good in my hand as a SIG or a 1911 ... there, I said it. Eventually I'll get around to buying a 27 or two, but I'm in no hurry. There are too many other firearms that I REALLY want to buy first.

This has been a very interesting thread though.

:)

ScratchnDent
October 14, 2010, 10:30 PM
99.95% of my pistol shooting is with lead bullets. If Glock offered a conventionally rifled barrel as a factory option, I might consider one. Until then, there are plenty of other handguns that meet my needs.

DCB
October 14, 2010, 11:07 PM
I have owned 8 different Glock's... not for me. It's a grip thing.

Peace

Glockdaddy
October 15, 2010, 12:28 AM
First off, this is the most civil thread I have ever read on the "Glock Debate"

Well done members of THR!:)

I have had several Glocks, 26, 19, 36 and traded them all. I appreciated all of the features mentioned by so many of you....but I lived with the same challenges of the grip angle as well as the sights. Tried lots of different sights and just couldn't get as consistent a sight picture...nor accuracy results..as with a 1911.

Recently I decided to get a full size 9mm for a range gun. Have had quite a few different full size 9's but a friend offered me a ridiculous deal on his G34 and I took it. I find the full size 17-34 platform more comfortable to shoot and the grip angle is actually easier to adjust to in the larger frame. It is smooth and accurate.....and I realize the biggest problem with the sights on all of my hand guns was my 55year old eyes...:banghead:

So.....I added a JPoint to the G34 and it is like an entirely new weapon for me.

The Glock has its place......and it fits there well. But thankfully there are plenty of alternatives for those who don't like the Glock feel. For fun go to GlockTalk and look at the threads of those who have multiple Glocks....of the same model!!

ET
October 15, 2010, 12:40 AM
I like Glocks and carry a Glock 27 every day. I like them because they are 100% reliable and I trust my life to them every day. My 21sf is also 100% and I use it for HD. I keep it in my nightstand for that reason.

That being said, when my next door neighbor goes shooting with me he likes shooting my Taurus pt111 mil pro or my SW40VE better than the Glocks because he says that he shoots them better and they are more comfortable for him to grip. I find just the opposite. To each their own. I just don't see why some people feel they have to bash a gun just because they don't care for it. I've been defending my Judge on several sites. It seems that many posters hate this gun & most of them have never fired one...go figure.

Marshall
October 15, 2010, 01:53 AM
Do you agree that two actions, and only two actions, occur to the striker when the trigger is pulled? I guess I don't see how it could be any technically more correct. It cocks the striker (though only finishes cocking it) and it releases the sear. Two actions, and only two action, hence double action only. It can't be fired without cocking the striker during the trigger pull. DAO. I get the point that it isn't like other DOA type pistols with double strike capability, but it still clearly performs the action of cocking(at least the final cocking) and dropping the sear. Three categories to pick from, Single action only (only the release of the sear), SA/DA (can be set to only drop the sear, or can cock the hammer/striker and drop the sear), or DAO (always cocks the the hammer/striker and releases the sear). To me, its clearly DAO. Not double strike capable DAO, but DAO none the less.

Are you suggesting it's Triple Action? 1) Slide racking in order to 1/2 cock, this has to be done and counted. Trigger pulling to 2) finish cocking and 3) releasing the sear. If we are counting actions for determination of definition, we have to include that first one. Triple Action.

Now if we're counting USER actions after a round is fired, we... 1) pull the trigger, Boom. One action by the user, a trigger pull. Single Action Only because there is no other way to fire the weapon.

And again, if we go back to a misfire, that trigger is dead. Without that third (first) internal action of pre-cocking, half cocking, pre-setting or whatever you want to call it, that Not-So-DAO gun is going to do nothing without assistance from the user. After that assistance is performed, the user simply makes a single action of pulling the trigger to fire the gun. Just like any other SF SAO firearm.

Not-So-DAO

Triple Action

Single Action Only and 1/2

Assisted DAO

SF SAO (The one I think most realistically describes it as it functions to the user. Rack, pull = Boom)


Well, I don't want to beat a dead horse too much so I'll let this be my last post on the matter of Glocks action label. Good discussion you guys, thanks for the informative comments and interesting information. And if a Glock fit my hand better I would own one, good guns, no doubt! A 19 or 26 still may be in the cards. Maybe.

kulprit
October 15, 2010, 03:01 AM
First off, this is the most civil thread I have ever read on the "Glock Debate"

Well done members of THR!:)

I have had several Glocks, 26, 19, 36 and traded them all. I appreciated all of the features mentioned by so many of you....but I lived with the same challenges of the grip angle as well as the sights. Tried lots of different sights and just couldn't get as consistent a sight picture...nor accuracy results..as with a 1911.

Recently I decided to get a full size 9mm for a range gun. Have had quite a few different full size 9's but a friend offered me a ridiculous deal on his G34 and I took it. I find the full size 17-34 platform more comfortable to shoot and the grip angle is actually easier to adjust to in the larger frame. It is smooth and accurate.....and I realize the biggest problem with the sights on all of my hand guns was my 55year old eyes...:banghead:

So.....I added a JPoint to the G34 and it is like an entirely new weapon for me.

The Glock has its place......and it fits there well. But thankfully there are plenty of alternatives for those who don't like the Glock feel. For fun go to GlockTalk and look at the threads of those who have multiple Glocks....of the same model!!
How would you compare the 26 and 36 from a concelability standpoint? I've found the 27 to be too fat for CC and I'm hoping the single stack 36 will be easier to conceal - true or false?

DawgFvr
October 15, 2010, 06:41 PM
The 36 is only slightly thinner than the 26. Honestly, both are a snap to conceal in a MTAC holster.

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e61/DawgFvr/Glock/MTAC2.jpg

With the 26, I almost forget I'm carrying with 10 + 1 capability. I am small stature: 5' 8" at 170lb.

I have to laugh at so many calling weapons ugly or good looking...really?

I also get a chuckle out of the "grip" gang. Know and apply the basic fundamentals and all weapons do their job. I don't care if it is a revolver, rilfe, shotty, or auto...I mould myself to the weapon for positive affect...not the opposite.

Kymasabe
October 15, 2010, 06:51 PM
Easy. Glocks, they suck. Conversation over. Now, lets have cake ! :neener:
Stopping back in to ammend my earlier post. I wish I could like Glocks, I've tried, I just can't. Personally, I think they're ugly. I could get past that IF they fit my hand, they just don't. They feel wrong, they don't point naturally for me.
Are they the most popular handgun in the world? Probably.
Awesome aftermarket support - check.
Reliable as all hell? Well, almost as reliable as a SIG !

mustang_steve
October 15, 2010, 07:01 PM
My take on Glocks in a nutshell: reliable, quality, but I think "safe-action" is a horrible design and would gladly buy a Glock if it also came in DAO. I actually bought my SCCY after shooting a Glock26 and saying "I love this size firearm, but the trigger is not my cup of tea"

Glock26 vs my SCCY:

accuracy: I group better initially with the SCCY, as the ergonomics fit me better, the glock consistently fired down and to the right....however the lighter weight of the sccy made the final shots out of a 50rd session fly everywhere as my hand was now bleeding from safety bite (correctable through technique).

quality: They are a tie for fit/finish honestly. Quality over time is part of durability.

Durability: The Glock wins out here....part of a cheap handgun is compromise somewhere, in the case of my sccy, it's short recoil spring life and the like. It'll save your hide, but maintenance is higher.

Ergonomics: The Glock is harder to point, but more comfortable to shoot as it has no hard edges that dig into your hand. The sccy on the other hand, has hard edges that will dig into meatier hands and using less than ideal firing techniques.

Recoil: Glock wins hands out, the sccy recoils very aggresively....I know a few magnum shooters that refuse to touch my pistol anymore due to it's very fast and aggresive nature to it's recoil.

Concealment: sccy wins hands down, softer edges and thinner body make it far more concealable.

Safety: Both guns are equally safe in a pocket, provided nothing gets into the triggerguard of the Glock, as it has a far lighter trigger pull. The takedown requiring a triggerpull was the deal-breaker for me. To me a trigger should have ONE function, to fire the weapon, not as a takedown mechanism.

That's my whole nine yards on Glocks, compared to what I bought in place of it.

daorhgih
October 15, 2010, 09:41 PM
(Drum-roll, please) SAFE ACTION ! ! ! ! ! !
MUSTANG STEVE, your "PROBLEM": "the glock consistently fired down and to the right" is merely the result of your "PULLING" the trigger instead of squeezing it. Practice, practice practice.

Old Scratch
October 15, 2010, 09:58 PM
Glocks are great. Like anything else, however, only within reasonable limits. You must have read recent articles about .40 cal and .45 cal Glocks going kaboom on the range. Think about it...the .40 was deleloped by boring the 9mm out to .40, and the .45 was developed by boring the larger 10mm out to .45. I have not seen reports of either the 9's or 10's blowing up.

The Glock chamber is square, which means it is much thinner on the sides than at the corners...this equals weaker. Making any chamber too thin can make it dangerous.

Also, the chamber is unramped, which means that more or less of the case is unsupported. This is another possible source of mischief.

I think my Glock 19 is great. Great handling, comfortable, wouldn't rust if it were dumped into the Pacific...but I would never try to turn it into a super-pressure hog. Too many guys have done so with torqued-up 38 Super 1911's and ended up with injuries sadly referred to as "super-face."

Here's a badly hackneyed old chestnut for the record: Want a magnum? Buy a magnum.

420Stainless
October 15, 2010, 10:37 PM
I don't like the way they look and mostly load with lead bullets.

I have been tempted lately because I like the idea of the cool aftermarket rear-sight laser for them. Although I see that it is now available for XD's and M&P's now too.

bds
October 15, 2010, 11:00 PM
I too, am a Glock convert. I started out with 1911/Sig226/CZ75 and I hated Glocks when they came out. I recall handling my first Glock 17 and said, "Who the heck in their right mind would make a pistol out of plastic!?."

We had the same debate for years at matches and we decided to do comparison shoots. At the next range sessions, we brought our various pistols and setup the usual USPSA stages.

Even though I was well versed with my Sig226, I could not believe my eyes when I got faster stage times with the Glock 17 I was not familiar with! :eek: Just to make sure, I ran the stage two more times. Same results - faster time than my Sig226 shooting nice tight double-taps. I was shocked and wasn't the only one. Many "metal pistol" fans also got faster stage times with the Glock 17. How could this "cheap" plastic pistol out shoot my German Sig226! Oh no! :fire:

It wasn't long before I was competing with the Glock 17 and eventually bought two Glock 22's for match shooting.

Instead of tossing subjective opinions, if you can, do a comparison shoot and let your shot groups and stage times be the judge.

Peace.

1858
October 15, 2010, 11:04 PM
Instead of tossing subjective opinions, if you can, do a comparison shoot and let your shot groups and stage times be the judge.

Wouldn't that also be subjective? :confused:

:)

bds
October 15, 2010, 11:10 PM
Shot groups and stage times would be "objective" which are measurable and observable, especially if they were repeatable - I almost cried when I was done with three stage runs. "How could this be true!"

mustang_steve
October 16, 2010, 12:38 AM
daorhgih, it wasn't a matter of form as it was something else, The Glock with a 30% lighter trigger pull was giving consistant off-groups....typically a higher trigger pull gives a less accurate result, not a more accurate one. I actually had problems feeling the trigger at all.

Perhaps if the pull was increased I'd like it better.

benzy2
October 16, 2010, 01:06 AM
Are you suggesting it's Triple Action? 1) Slide racking in order to 1/2 cock, this has to be done and counted. Trigger pulling to 2) finish cocking and 3) releasing the sear. If we are counting actions for determination of definition, we have to include that first one. Triple Action.

Now if we're counting USER actions after a round is fired, we... 1) pull the trigger, Boom. One action by the user, a trigger pull. Single Action Only because there is no other way to fire the weapon.

And again, if we go back to a misfire, that trigger is dead. Without that third (first) internal action of pre-cocking, half cocking, pre-setting or whatever you want to call it, that Not-So-DAO gun is going to do nothing without assistance from the user. After that assistance is performed, the user simply makes a single action of pulling the trigger to fire the gun. Just like any other SF SAO firearm.

Not-So-DAO

Triple Action

Single Action Only and 1/2

Assisted DAO

SF SAO (The one I think most realistically describes it as it functions to the user. Rack, pull = Boom)


Well, I don't want to beat a dead horse too much so I'll let this be my last post on the matter of Glocks action label. Good discussion you guys, thanks for the informative comments and interesting information. And if a Glock fit my hand better I would own one, good guns, no doubt! A 19 or 26 still may be in the cards. Maybe.
No, not triple action, DOUBLE ACTION ONLY. The TRIGGER performs TWO ACTIONS. Double action or single action refers to what pulling the trigger accomplishes. Nothing more, nothing less. In the case of the Glock it cocks the striker to the full cock position and releases the sear.

It doesn't matter what the slide accomplishes.

It doesn't matter what the user does. If you count what the user does, then a single action revolver would be double action only as he cocks the hammer manually and then pulls the trigger to release the sear. But we don't call those handguns DAO. We call them SAO because the TRIGGER only performs one action, releasing the sear.

You keep going back to double strike capability. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because we aren't talking about a second shot. If the system were used in a bolt rifle it would be classified the same way. It has nothing to do with follow up shots, just what actions the trigger perform in the firing of a round.

You want to talk about misfires. Fine, lets go there. What if you have a fail to feed and are dropping the firing pin/striker on an empty chamber? Does the Double strike capability make the pistol fire? No. Does not having double strike capability make the pistol fire? No. It doesn't matter, because this isn't what qualifies a pistol as being DAO, SAO, or SA/DA. What qualifies the pistol as DAO, SAO, or SA/DA is the operation of the trigger in the firing cycle. The trigger either releases the sear/striker only, cocks the hammer/striker and releases the sear/striker, or can do both. It has nothing more to do with anything else. To fire a Glock, a trigger pull will cock the striker to the full cock position and then release the firing pin. Maybe Pre-set DAO is a better term, but none the less, the trigger pull performs two actions making it DAO.

It only has to do with the functions the pulling of the trigger performs. That is what defines if a given pistol/trigger is SAO, DAO, or SA/DA. Don't make it more or less. It has nothing to do with anything more or less. If you study the design of the glock trigger system you will see that pulling the trigger will cock the striker to the fuller cocked position and then release the sear. Two actions making it DAO. Plain and simple.

wvshooter
October 16, 2010, 01:25 AM
All of the above reasons.

They have zero appeal for me. Ditto for M&P's and XD's. When there are so many nice looking guns that function just as well why carry something ugly.

okespe04
October 16, 2010, 01:38 AM
What?

Yeah Glocks are good guns, I have one. They are made of plastic, or at least partly, trigger pull is so so, I would trust my life with it. I also like my revolvers and 1911A1 too, I would trust my life with them as well. I will probably always have at least one glock around. Probably the Glock 19 I Have right now, I kinda went to town on the grip with a dremel to make it fit just right which probably did not help the resale/trade in value.....

Marshall
October 16, 2010, 04:18 AM
mustang_steve

My take on Glocks in a nutshell: reliable, quality, but I think "safe-action" is a horrible design and would gladly buy a Glock if it also came in DAO. I actually bought my SCCY after shooting a Glock26 and saying "I love this size firearm, but the trigger is not my cup of tea"

benzy2,

You wanna reconsider that part about a single trigger pull that FULLY cocks the weapon and fires it, EVEN in misfire situations, having no bearing on it being TRUE DAO. Mustang Steve would gladly buy one if it was DAO and not operate as SAO. He knows what's up. :p

I believe that is one of the large reasons DAO is argued so adamantly, in order to overcome the objection by many to buying SAO operated pistols for defensive purposes and carry. And I won't even get into the government contracts specifying DAO.

Sorry, I said that was my last post but I couldn't let this go. It was just sitting there begging to be posted about. :o

killchain
October 16, 2010, 07:45 AM
Honestly?

Because people who own Glocks won't shut up about them, and keep goading people into fighting with them about their Glock.

And when someone says GLOCK instead of Glock.

You don't see anyone else saying SIG SAUER, BERETTA, COLT, FABRIQUE NATIONALE, WALTHER, SMITH AND WESSON, etc.

:neener:

benzy2
October 16, 2010, 11:46 AM
benzy2,

You wanna reconsider that part about a single trigger pull that FULLY cocks the weapon and fires it, EVEN in misfire situations, having no bearing on it being TRUE DAO. Mustang Steve would gladly buy one if it was DAO and not operate as SAO. He knows what's up.

I believe that is one of the large reasons DAO is argued so adamantly, in order to overcome the objection by many to buying SAO operated pistols for defensive purposes and carry. And I won't even get into the government contracts specifying DAO.

Sorry, I said that was my last post but I couldn't let this go. It was just sitting there begging to be posted about. Well, I never said it fully cocks the striker, but that it cocks it to its full cock position(aka finishes cocking). Sure, the slide cocks the striker a bit. But it doesn't matter because the trigger operation is all that matters when classifying these. You keep going back to double strike capability. I won't disagree with the merits of double strike capability. But it has nothing to do with the classification of the actions of the trigger. I guess look at it this way. If the trigger only dropped the striker from the at rest position on a glock, the gun wouldn't fire as the striker wasn't cocked enough to light a primer. That means not SAO. Since the striker is cocked by the trigger motion (even if only the final amount) the trigger is performing 2 actions. By definition, that is DAO.

mustang_steve
October 16, 2010, 11:58 AM
The Glock system is not a true DAO, as the hammer is not at rest when it's got a round in the chamber, it's in a half-cock state.

Provided the advantage of this as far as leeway in designing the trigger travel and pull weight are huge, however some of us simply do not like the weird not-quite SA, not quite DA trigger pull.

It's the same reason I'm not a fan of the Sigma or XD, while the XD trigger is ages better, it still doesn't feel "right" to me. I know I can feel a 5-6lb trigger well (the sa release on my astra cub, and can even feel the 3lb sa release on my k22 revolver), but I really don't feel the trigger's resistance on the Glocks I've tried...it's just way too light IMO.

GLOOB
October 17, 2010, 01:44 AM
Can't feel the trigger? Which Glock was that? 8lb disconnector is only 5 dollars if you care.

The feel of the trigger is one of the things I like about Glock. I can feel exactly when it's about to break. It actually goes past a point of no return a hair before the sear releases. At first, this led me to a lot of pushed, low shots. But with practice, this makes for accurate shooting and really fast followups.

PR-NJ
October 17, 2010, 08:42 PM
No, not triple action, DOUBLE ACTION ONLY. The TRIGGER performs TWO ACTIONS. Double action or single action refers to what pulling the trigger accomplishes. Nothing more, nothing less. In the case of the Glock it cocks the striker to the full cock position and releases the sear.

It doesn't matter what the slide accomplishes.

It doesn't matter what the user does. If you count what the user does, then a single action revolver would be double action only as he cocks the hammer manually and then pulls the trigger to release the sear. But we don't call those handguns DAO. We call them SAO because the TRIGGER only performs one action, releasing the sear.

You keep going back to double strike capability. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because we aren't talking about a second shot. If the system were used in a bolt rifle it would be classified the same way. It has nothing to do with follow up shots, just what actions the trigger perform in the firing of a round.

You want to talk about misfires. Fine, lets go there. What if you have a fail to feed and are dropping the firing pin/striker on an empty chamber? Does the Double strike capability make the pistol fire? No. Does not having double strike capability make the pistol fire? No. It doesn't matter, because this isn't what qualifies a pistol as being DAO, SAO, or SA/DA. What qualifies the pistol as DAO, SAO, or SA/DA is the operation of the trigger in the firing cycle. The trigger either releases the sear/striker only, cocks the hammer/striker and releases the sear/striker, or can do both. It has nothing more to do with anything else. To fire a Glock, a trigger pull will cock the striker to the full cock position and then release the firing pin. Maybe Pre-set DAO is a better term, but none the less, the trigger pull performs two actions making it DAO.

It only has to do with the functions the pulling of the trigger performs. That is what defines if a given pistol/trigger is SAO, DAO, or SA/DA. Don't make it more or less. It has nothing to do with anything more or less. If you study the design of the glock trigger system you will see that pulling the trigger will cock the striker to the fuller cocked position and then release the sear. Two actions making it DAO. Plain and simple.
Now this makes sense to someone who's not well-versed in the internal workings of the Glock.

PR-NJ
October 17, 2010, 08:45 PM
The Glock system is not a true DAO, as the hammer is not at rest when it's got a round in the chamber, it's in a half-cock state.

Provided the advantage of this as far as leeway in designing the trigger travel and pull weight are huge, however some of us simply do not like the weird not-quite SA, not quite DA trigger pull.

It's the same reason I'm not a fan of the Sigma or XD, while the XD trigger is ages better, it still doesn't feel "right" to me. I know I can feel a 5-6lb trigger well (the sa release on my astra cub, and can even feel the 3lb sa release on my k22 revolver), but I really don't feel the trigger's resistance on the Glocks I've tried...it's just way too light IMO.
OK. This makes sense, too!

PabloJ
October 17, 2010, 10:51 PM
They are far too expensive in relation to costs encountered in their manufacture. Other then that I have nothing against them.

GLOOB
October 18, 2010, 07:40 AM
Because people who own Glocks won't shut up about them, and keep goading people into fighting with them about their Glock.
This is not true. People are just biased for what they know and like. It's not that Glock owners won't shut up about them. It's that there are more of them. Even after one shuts up, the next happy Glock owner will be along in about 30 seconds.

Glocked N Loaded
October 18, 2010, 08:17 AM
Well, 30 seconds is up.:D

I have owned a Gen 3 19C, which did the slide hangup thing that they seem to be notorious for, didn't trust it even though it never failed to fire and/or cycle the action.

Just bought a Gen 4 19, had a FTF on the third round through the gun:what:
Scary at first, but have since cleaned/lubed and have had 450 flawless rounds.

One would think that after my previous experiences I would be hesitant in jumping into another glock. Am currently looking for a 27.

This affliction that I, and many people like me, have acquired is hard to explain.

DaFadda Mike
October 18, 2010, 09:10 AM
I have a G19 (Gen 1) and a 21SF. Carried the 19 for YEARS. Like above, no rust, no bust, don't collect dust. Now I take them out when I'm teaching, but.... (and I can hear the arrows whizzing by)... I've always been far more comfortable knowing that I have a 1911 with me. The daily carry has become a Springfield Loaded-Micro-Compact 1911.

daorhgih
October 18, 2010, 11:50 AM
7,000,000 Glocksters can't ALL be wrong!! "Nothing said in this comment should be construed as bashing Mr. Jno. Browning, nor his invention, nor its clones, nor their owners."

daorhgih
October 18, 2010, 11:56 AM
PabloJ. Posts: 2. "They are far too expensive." With a member date of two days ago, you need to be brought up to date of the fact that CITATIONS are needed for posts such as your "too expensive" post, or else you have simply made an imprudent comment, opinion, and snipe. Thanks. Welcome.

Steelshooter101
October 19, 2010, 10:00 AM
Glocks are good only for people they fit. Nothing wrong with them but I cannot shoot them very well. like the XDM's and CZ75's better.

wh!plash
October 19, 2010, 10:17 AM
7,000,000 Glocksters can't ALL be wrong!!

Not all 7m Glocks in circulation are each owned by a rabid fan with tunnel vision either.

I own a 3rd-gen G19. Reliable sure, but then again so are many others that I have. And most of those others shoot far better.

racine
October 19, 2010, 03:10 PM
I've never liked the looks of the Glock, kinda like saying I'd learned to tolerate driving the Volvo 240 series cars for 17 years. They worked, all the time. I even got my last one flooded to the above the rearview mirrors and 5 days later I was driving it again-for another 7 years! That Glock runs and runs and if you can get past it's spartan looks it is just reliable. My only complaint are the magazines. Yes, they're reliable also but they just don't drop free like metal mags do. That's it. I'm working on over 100K rounds on my last G35. I'm hoping it'll do 500K.

SonofGilnockie89
October 19, 2010, 03:15 PM
I planned to buy a G23 for my first handgun, I liked the .40 and the design was very simple. However I have always found that the Glock grips are too fat for my small hands....feels a bit like a bar of soap. I also determined that they were simply too wide to easily conceal on my smallish frame. Other than that I had no complaints whatsoever except that I feel they are a bit over priced for what they are. They seem to be the AK of pistols in a number of ways both good and not so good. Happy shooting.

Ben86
October 19, 2010, 03:35 PM
However I have always found that the Glock grips are too fat for my small hands....feels a bit like a bar of soap.

You might want to check out the Gen 4 glocks, the frame has been a little skinnier.

ForumSurfer
October 19, 2010, 03:36 PM
The glock shoots great and is just as accurate as my favorite, a 1911. They are very easy to learn and shoot well with.

That being said, migrating from a 1911 was horrible for me. I pushed the trigger to the low and left when shooting and was all over (sometimes off) the paper. I compensated by thinking my weak hand was too weak or my strong hand was too strong and made matters worse. The big "u" messed with me badly and distracted my front sight picture, causing me to inadvertently focus on it and make matters worse still. I dry fired it several hundred times and finally addressed my trigger issue after I discovered my issue. Painting the rear "u" with a sharpie helped, but replacing the sights helped even more. I finally had to quit shooting my 1911's or revolvers until shooting with the glock became second nature (took more than 1k rounds for me).

It just seems to me that shooting a 1911 is easier to pick up, despite having a sefty to worry about. When I picked up a glock and shot it (seriously shooting it, not just trying someone's glock at the range), it took much work and practice and $$$$. It even took the fun out of shooting for awhile, honestly. But now that I'm almost as good with it as I am with my 1911's...I almost hate to get rid of it.

Oh, and while we're at it...an xd was much easier for me to transition to. Whenever I test drove an XD, I could draw and fire it just as well as my 1911, maybe even better. I don't know what the difference is, but I just shot it better. The grip angle didn't seem all that different (with a 19/23), so I'm not blaming the Glock grip angle anymore. The trigger was my biggest issue. I corrected it, then added a smooth faced trigger and a lighter spring (trigger pull is still over 4lbs) and improved that much more.

So why did I buy the Glock? Simple, I wanted one. I also figured with all the Glock love/bashing threads...it had to be a pretty great weapon if so many people loved and so many people hated it. Turned out that way with my Kimber. For every person that praises it, there's another person that bashes it. But it's given me 3500+ trouble free rounds thanks to wilson combat mags and wolf recoil spring changes on a regular basis.

Long and short...Glocks are great to learn on. Transitioning from a glock to another platform isn't hard from what I've noticed. Switching from a 1911 to a Glock? For me it was almost impossible and took a lot of hard work, asking questions and practice (and more practice, and more practice, and more practice). Now I have a buddy who shot all big bore, and strictly big bore handguns before. He became a deputy and had to learn to shoot a g17, and we shot a lot together. He picked it up with very little trouble...trigger reset being his biggest issue as he wanted to let the trigger all the way back out.

It boils down to this, most major manufacturers produce fine firearms capable of 10's of thousands of rounds with minimal maintenance. The shooter however, takes huge amounts of maintenance and an open mind to be able to shoot the weapon properly.

Shoot what you want, and learn to shoot it well. Just don't bash anyone else choice or preference cause we all enjoy the right to keep and bear arms. :)

ForumSurfer
October 19, 2010, 03:39 PM
However I have always found that the Glock grips are too fat for my small hands....feels a bit like a bar of soap.

I can't argue that, it's true for me.

You might want to check out the Gen 4 glocks, the frame has been a little skinnier.

Can't argue that easier because it seemed true to me, despite measuring the dang things.

I owned a trouble free, gen 4 g17 and I regret selling it. It felt better in my hands than my gen3 g19. I thought I would adjust to the 19 and that the difference was just in my head. The difference is felt in hand for me, and the 19 is not that much easier to carry IWB on a good belt.

herkyguy
October 19, 2010, 05:33 PM
Glocks are good guns. My first purchase was a Glock 23 and I have since put 2500+ rounds through it. I've had a stovepipe or two and a few failures to feed. Each time it was an easily recognizable failure and I corrected it in seconds. I've replaced the recoil spring after a series of failures to feed and this has corrected the problem so far. What I mean by all of this is that the Glock is a relatively simple gun to operate and understand. While it has it flaws and may not be the smoothest shooter, it consistently shoots accurately and reliably. Glocks have really fought a tough battle to be accepted in the higher echelons of the shooting world (meaning not just stupid gangsta thug types) but I do believe they'll be around for a long long time. And I have no plans of getting rid of mine.

DenaliPark
October 19, 2010, 05:46 PM
Honestly?

Because people who own Glocks won't shut up about them, and keep goading people into fighting with them about their Glock.

And when someone says GLOCK instead of Glock.

You don't see anyone else saying SIG SAUER, BERETTA, COLT, FABRIQUE NATIONALE, WALTHER, SMITH AND WESSON, etc.

:neener:
Nonsense, you get that all the time from the "double digit fringe" ownership, of any particular firearm, designed around the concept and necessity of self-defense. Many Glock owners(myself included)own multiple pistols from multiple manufacturers, most of those offerings are just fine, only a fool would say otherwise, however you're always going to hear from the adolescents, and adolescent-minded, piping in with the testosterone laced invective.....

ForumSurfer
October 19, 2010, 06:48 PM
Glocks have really fought a tough battle to be accepted in the higher echelons of the shooting world

I honestly think that's because "the upper echelon" was shooting 1911's when glocks came out. The steep transitioning curve (for some) probably had something to do with it. In my younger years, I wouldn't have had the patience to learn to shoot the glock like I did recently if I had bought one when they were first released...I would have just given up, sold it, called it trash (or the latest new passing fad) because I was too impatient to commit and learn and moved on.

OmutaX
October 20, 2010, 03:29 AM
I was a die-hard Glock hater my whole life. Everything about it on paper enraged me, the way it looked, the polymer bits, the striker fire, etc.

But then I shot my first Glock, a 21, as a range rental. It was an abused and filthy range slut but it just hit the paper targets like clockwork and didn't jam at all through several hundred overpriced, crap reload range rounds. All perceived flaws and notions I had of it disappeared, and i was in rruuuuv.

Now I own a Glock 21SF that's my primary HD gun and I love it to death. Even after experimenting with lighter springs and disconnector I shot close to a thousand rounds through it with ZERO problem and has impressed me further. I own several makes and models that I all entrust my life to, but am I fanboy now for thinking there isn't a single flaw with my Glock? Even the "ugliness" I had harbored previously disappeared, kinda like a homely girl who grows to be beautiful just to you because she's just a pleaser through and through.

I will be collecting a 19 in the future. :D

GLOCKS FTW!

bds
October 20, 2010, 03:52 AM
With so many gun manufacturers offering 1911 lines, what if Glock started making 1911s with black tennifer finish, fully supported chamber, crisp trigger, accessory rail, and ~$700 price tag? :eek:

I wonder what kind of discussions we would have then. :rolleyes:

Probably, "Hate the finish" :D

bds
October 20, 2010, 03:54 AM
ooops, duplicate.

Ragnar Danneskjold
October 20, 2010, 04:24 AM
They could do it for $500, or less. The only real reason why 1911 cost what they do is because people will pay it while telling themselves they are getting "the best". The guns don't actually cost $1,000 to make or sell, even with a reasonable profit. And if Glock made one with a polymer frame, they would cut down on weight, increase the longevity of the firearm, and reduce costs even more.


I would prefer to see a single stack 9mm compact from Glock. And a Glock carbine. Leave the 1911s guys to their $1,000+ safe queens.

bds
October 20, 2010, 04:51 AM
So then, if Glock sold 1911 models, how many of you would buy one for around $500-$700?

All metal 1911?

Polymer 1911?

Double stack 1911?

2ndamd
October 20, 2010, 01:04 PM
http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k49/2ndamd/deadhorse.gif

I like what one poster put here back on page 1 or 2 :)

230therapy
October 20, 2010, 01:18 PM
With so many gun manufacturers offering 1911 lines, what if Glock started making 1911s with black tennifer finish, fully supported chamber, crisp trigger, accessory rail, and ~$700 price tag?

I'd get a few.

Wispa
October 20, 2010, 01:59 PM
With so many gun manufacturers offering 1911 lines, what if Glock started making 1911s with black tennifer finish, fully supported chamber, crisp trigger, accessory rail, and ~$700 price tag? :eek:

I wonder what kind of discussions we would have then. :rolleyes:

Probably, "Hate the finish" :D

On top of that, imagine if it were 1911 on the outside but with current Glock internals. Sort of like an Austrian in American clothing. :what: :D

As a disclaimer I do like both 1911 style guns and Glocks. :)

JoelSteinbach
October 20, 2010, 03:08 PM
I own 4 Glocks, because I guess I'm suopposed too. They are reliable shooters, and realatively only moderately expensive. I own the 20, 29, 21, 30. I have probably shot about 300 rounds thru each, The sit in my safe and I do clean and oil them ocasionaly

doc2rn
October 20, 2010, 04:38 PM
I think they are functional but I am anti-Glock.
The reasons are self described had a 32 in .357 almost blow up in my face on a double tap where the first didnt make it out of the tube fast enuff (spear denied my claim as did Glock and I was using factory ammo), numerous AD due to having to pull the trigger to separate slide and grip frame (not by me), and last no external safety.
I think the FNP 9 is a far superior design and thats what works best for me.

ChCx2744
October 20, 2010, 07:47 PM
I'm not a fan of GLOCKs in anything chambered .357sig and above (I.E. .40, .45 and .45 GAP). I do, however, LOVE GLOCKs in 9mm! They are great and reliable guns.

Air,Land&Sea
October 20, 2010, 09:29 PM
I've had'em all and avoided Glocks. Sold my $2500 1911's because, I don't know... In my attempt at consolidating/simplifying I got a Glock 17 and took it right to the range (last week). LOVED it. Shot really nice. It's all good.
Just ordered a nice IWB holster and we'll see how carrying goes.
I guess there's a reason why they're so popular. I tend to try to not go with the crowd, but on a rare occassion they're right.

GLOOB
October 20, 2010, 09:43 PM
I'm not a fan of GLOCKs in anything chambered .357sig and above (I.E. .40, .45 and .45 GAP). I do, however, LOVE GLOCKs in 9mm! They are great and reliable guns.
I hear this a lot. I don't know why there's supposed to be something magical about the 9mm Glocks. Anyway, the .357 and .40 are completley different from the .45 and 10mm. The doublestack 10mm and .45 ACP Glocks are probably the most reliable and accurate of the bunch, and among the most durable. Not that there's anything to really dislike about Glocks in .357 or .40. Those are good guns, too!

DenaliPark
October 20, 2010, 09:54 PM
I think they are functional but I am anti-Glock.
The reasons are self described had a 32 in .357 almost blow up in my face on a double tap where the first didnt make it out of the tube fast enuff (spear denied my claim as did Glock and I was using factory ammo), numerous AD due to having to pull the trigger to separate slide and grip frame (not by me), and last no external safety.
I think the FNP 9 is a far superior design and thats what works best for me.
Come again, are you claiming that you fired off two rounds so fast that they didn't clear the barrel, or what are you claiming?

mikecu
October 20, 2010, 09:55 PM
I like my Glocks.

One thing that others have expressed a concern about is the fact that you have to pull the trigger to field strip.

TexasGunbie
October 20, 2010, 10:26 PM
if Glock will make a couple 1911 for 500-700, that will probably put some company out of business.

KBintheSLC
October 21, 2010, 04:28 PM
It's all just a matter of personal opinion. Some folks possess the same disdain for Glock as others do for the 1911. Just get what you like and what you shoot well with. The Glock works for me because I like the simplicity, but would never expect everyone to agree with me.

wojownik
October 21, 2010, 05:13 PM
I've just never had a feel for Glocks. Literally - never felt right for me. But a good friend has several, carrys on daily, and it works for him. I'm the Sig guy, he's the Glock guy, and neither has a comment about which brand is better.

Other than that....

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_35kDzNt-gTQ/RpmeXjcag9I/AAAAAAAAACE/Bpo04QrGBvc/s320/dead+horse.gif

Silvanus
October 21, 2010, 05:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by doc2rn
I think they are functional but I am anti-Glock.
The reasons are self described had a 32 in .357 almost blow up in my face on a double tap where the first didnt make it out of the tube fast enuff (spear denied my claim as did Glock and I was using factory ammo),

Come again, are you claiming that you fired off two rounds so fast that they didn't clear the barrel, or what are you claiming?

Or weak ammo that managed to cycle the gun but still have the bullet stick in the barrel? I don't see how you can fault any pistol for that?

numerous AD due to having to pull the trigger to separate slide and grip frame (not by me), and last no external safety.
I think the FNP 9 is a far superior design and thats what works best for me.


So you blame a loaded pistol for firing a round when some idiot pulls the trigger :eek:

Ben86
October 21, 2010, 05:38 PM
So you blame a loaded pistol for firing a round when some idiot pulls the trigger

For some it is just not idiot proof enough.

Goga
February 9, 2011, 04:57 PM
I have a Gen4 G19 that functions flawlessly. I also have Sig P220 that works equally well (so far). I love the Sig. I mean LOVE the Sig. I shoot better with due to its trigger, I feel it's safer because of the double action, it feels better. I love my sig.

That said, as a former Active Duty Marine, if I need to choose one to take with me into a "no Rule of Law" situation or combat, I would grab a Glock hands down. Even if my Sig is just as reliable, the glock requires less maint. Compared to other handguns it requires next to no lube, which means lest dust and dirt accumulation. More rust resistant. Just a tuff ass gun.

If Sig would get a finish as good as Glock's Tenifer on their newer models, I would say Sig.

Sniper X
February 9, 2011, 05:05 PM
I love the way they shoot and hate everything else about them.

Sulaco
February 9, 2011, 05:52 PM
I think it depends a lot on the person's age to be honest. It seems like most older folks who are shooters, got used to the grip angles similar to the 1911. The Glock grip angle is different and so it points differently for a lot of people. That, coupled with the fact that they aren't as nice to look at as a 1911, makes them a major turn-off for a lot of people.

Me personally (I am 33 years old), I like them. I've owned a dozen or so over the years and will always have one or 12. ;)

fmcdave
February 9, 2011, 11:00 PM
What a thread! I have to weigh in.

I own 12 pistols and three of them are Glocks (23C, 26, 36). I carried a .45ACP LW Colt Combat Commander for years and loved it. Then I had a gunsmith ruin it for me with a 3 lb trigger pull. I had shot a G22 and liked it, but bought the S&W SW40 Sigma because I wanted to buy from an American manufacturer. I shot it a lot, but never warmed up to the trigger. So I bought a G23C and loved it. I gave my oldest daughter the Sigma for a college graduation present. She thought that was great until I gave my younger daughter a G23 for her graduation...that pissed off the older daughter.

I've fired 1000s of rounds through the G23 and have found it to be incredibly reliable. It is light to carry. I personally don't like guns which have a double-action first trigger pull then single action...I worry about an AD on the second shot.

That said, I also carry a Kimber .45ACP 1911 and a S&W 325pd revolver depending on where I'm going and what I am wearing. I practice with all of my pistols.

Bottom line is that no matter what people say, you should carry a gun that you feel comfortable with and can shoot well. Shooting well means practicing a lot. If a Glock doesn't feel right...don't buy it.

GLOOB
February 10, 2011, 03:29 AM
Glocks are my only pistols that I can field strip (heck, detail strip), and put back together without getting any grease on my hands and still be confident that they are properly lubed! And I shoot 'em well. So I like them. I'd be quite reluctant to replace my Glocks with something else. With the foreseeable parts availability and Glock's rebuild service, I don't see that ever happening.

If you enjoyed reading about "Let's have a candid conversation about GLOCKs." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!