Bias Against Glocks or Is It Just Me?

[FEG]

I was determined to NOT participate in this thread, but I couldn't resist.

One of my favorite internet forums is Glock Strike Force. It is a very small community of shooters who have existed on the net in some form or another for over five years. I don't own a Glock, I wouldn't own a Glock, and I have never owned a Glock. My point is that it is possible for us to get along. Why? My best guess is the median age is something like 35-40, and most of us have been shooting for at least 15 years. A lot of the members are in law enforcement or what have you; the Glock is their duty weapon (i.e. they didn't necessarily choose it). Their interest in firearms tends to be wider-ranging.

Here in no particular order are my various beefs against Glock extremists:

1. The "Bandwagon" Mentality. Lots of law enforcement agencies use Glock; therefore Glock is the best!

This completely ignores the realities of procurement, institutional memory, and institutional apathy. In other words, what basis does anyone have to believe that an organization always picks the "best" equipment? Similarly, I suppose that when the majority of LEOs carried S&W Model 10s up into the 1980s, then the S&W Model 10 was clearly the superior handgun out of all possible alternatives, right? Lastly, who believes that the average county Sherriff's department actually conducts clinical testing? Heck, who even believes they do extensive documentary research? If so, I have a bridge in Brooklyn we need to discuss...

2. Glock "Perfection."

Nothing made by human beings is perfect. Nothing is perfect for everyone from Linda Hunt to Yao Ming. The slogan is ridiculous and offensive on its face.

3. I don't like subsidizing other people/groups with my hard-earned money.

Ever wonder why a pistol that was supposed to revolutionize the industry with more economical and efficient design still costs so much? It's because you, the civilian, are subsidizing below cost sales to law enforcement. Hey, just maybe, this has something to do with their popularity within U.S. law enforcement circles, ya think?

4. The "Don't Whizz All Over Me and Tell Me It's Raining Factor"

Despite several critical recalls, Glock has never had a recall. Despite numerous critical failures attributed to unsupported chambers, every Glock that ever KBd was operator error. Glock polygonal rifling is more accurate, despite the fact this remains completely unproven. (Ironically, if lead bullets are more accurate, but you can't shoot them in a polygonal barrel, how is that more accurate again?)



I don't like Glocks much. I have smaller hands for my height, and I hate the trigger. That said, the sheer arrogance of Glock (the company itself) and its many extreme advocates (I prefer "shill" to "fanboy") completely turned me off to Glock years ago.

 

[shadowalker]

Glocks are an OK product at an OK price point with generally good reliablity and somewhat acceptable ergonomics with good ease of use which is why a police departments adopted them, others adopted them because everyone else was doing it and it was "well known." If Glocks are pefect because the police force picked them then we should also all be driving Crown Victorias.

The user should not be asked to adapt to the tool. If a large number of people need to adapt to a tool it is a solid indication the tool is poorly designed, it doesn't matter if it is a screw driver or a firearm.

While I'm not a fan of M&P pistols I do think the adjustable grip was a great idea and an instance of a manufacturer listening to the customer instead of telling them to get used to it. I'm not a fan of manual safeties but Springfield adding a manual safety option to the XD line of pistols is another example of market share Glock has ignored. You can only tell the customer how to think for so long before they go somewhere else, something Microsoft is starting to figure out.

At one time Glock had many advatanges they no longer have, the introduction of the XD and M&P pistols have changed the game in the favor of the consumer.

I've found most people that talk about how reliable they are don't shoot enough to have many malfunctions to begin with or if they do use extremely cheap ammunition that is likely to malfunction.

Just like any other tool the key to reliability is selecting a quality product and then maintaining it.

I am very cautious of anything that is "well known" typically that means the person quoting can't provide the evidence for the argument, the fact that they are well known is why so many gun myths are still going strong.

At one time it was well known the Earth was flat, and was the center of our solar system, and any number of other things.

 

[ArmedBear]

If Glocks are pefect because the police force picked them then we should also all be driving Crown Victorias.

We should wear "scritchy" polyester shirts, too.

 

[JohnBT]

"The "over 70% of police departments in the U.S. use Glocks" point is very important. If the Glock grip was that bad, as to what you're trying to make it seem like, then... again: They'd drop the Glock for something that "points more naturally" wouldn't they? Sure! But they don't."

That's the most useless bit of debating info and logic. It really is. Do I have to explain to you how pointless it is that any group of people, police, military, etc. use a particular gun, knife, boot or even motor pool car? The stuff is bought on contract by people who typically don't have to use them in the field.

Feel is important to experienced shooters. The facts back it up, just ask around. It's not that we can't use something we really don't like, it's that we don't have to compromise if we don't want to - unlike those police officers who are given the gun the chief signed off on whether they like it or not.

Yes, like the man said, I'll pick up one gun after another until I find one I like. It has to be one of the major brands with proven reliability, but I'm looking for that one gun that's well finished, with a better-than-average trigger, no burrs, well, just a well finished gun. That's why I don't mail order guns, I have to handle them. When I'm buying the sales guys know to pull a few NIB ones out the warehouse so I can sort through them and pick the one I like. Looking tells a lot, but experienced hands can tell more by working the action, trying the trigger etc.

If a Glock is your favorite, more power to you, but please stop telling me that I'm an idiot because your logic/line of reasoning is infallible. The real art is in learning to listen.

John

 

[Ltlabner]

The slogan is ridiculous and offensive on its face.

Offensive? Serriously? Sorry man, but if a marketing slogan "offends" you, I'd suggest a hefty dose of Prozac because you woln't be able to read your mail, or watch TV without being "offended".

That said, I work for a German company so I know all about German/Austrian arrogence. While I'm a big fan of Glocks, and feal the whole "feel" and trigger thing is way overblown, I do have very, very small hands.

As such, even the Glock 23 is too big for me (it's off for a grip reduction as we speak). So the S&W replaceable grip pannels idea is a prefect example where the market spoke, the Germans/Austrians ignored them, and a different company is making big $$$ because of it.

I can definatley imagine an Austrian sitting back and arrogently spouting off various handsize data from all sorts of studies. No matter how many times someone physcially shows them that their hand doesn't fit the weapon they will stubornly explain that it's the most universal grip on the planet and dismiss them as yet another dumb American.

I can definatley understand why that sort of arrogence would turn people off.

But Glocks biggest sin, IMO, is their success which leads to obnoxious Glock owners. Couple that with "if it isn't steel, it's not the real deal" neaderthals and you get internet fireworks.

 

[JohnBT]

"I mean, seriously, if Glocks were crap and there were simply "blind, dumb, kool aid drinking" morons spreading garbage, then Glock wouldn't be so popular today, would they?"

Okay, I was going to let this pass, but I won't. What kind of silliness is this. Nobody is saying Glocks are crap or that anybody is a moron. (Not yet anyway, I'm trying to be kind.) Is it necessary to make up stuff and put words in peoples' mouths in order to debate your case?

Glocks are popular because a lot of people like them. A lot of people don't. Why does that bother you? The question in the thread title invited discussion, why get so defensive?

John

 

[shadowalker]

I agree, if you like a Glock that is great, just don't force other people into using it, let them make their own decision and respect it.

A contributing factor is post purchase rationalization, the need to continue to justify a purchase after it was made as being the best one possible. That leads to the need to convince others to make the same decision they did and to dismiss information that disagrees with their own belief.

 

[JohnBT]

"Couple that with "if it isn't steel, it's not the real deal" neaderthals"

Does that mean I have to get rid of my P-32 and my Rohrbaugh if I want to maintain my traditional-guy image?

Ha, like Glocks don't have metal slides too.

John

 

[ArmedBear]

That's ridiculous, Ltlabner.

I mean "German/Austrian." These are two distinct ethnicities, with different histories, and, believe it or not, different cultures. Well, if you can call marching around a lot "culture," then there are two cultures. Otherwise, the Germans just bought what culture they could, from Vienna.

There's a huge difference between German arrogance and Austrian arrogance: German arrogance is unjustified.

 

[Ltlabner]

Does that mean I have to get rid of my P-32 and my Rohrbaugh if I want to maintain my traditional-guy image?

Ha, like Glocks don't have metal slides too.

Serriously, there are plenty of folks who look down their noses at any weapon that isn't made with steel and has lots of walnut on it. They see "plastic" and think it's crap. Then you get the tupperwear jokes. The same folks generally (note the generally please) also slam AR-15's because they aren't steel/walnut (well, and not .308, which as we all know is a Man's round).

I say "neaderthals" because prefering steel/walnut over plastic is one thing. We all have preferences which is how it should be. Heck, I have a Beretta 85 and Remington 870 Wingmaster that I love mostly because of how nice/classy they look. But thinking that steel is better simply because it's steel (because.....that's what your granddaddy had so bygum it's better) or that plastic sucks because all plastic sucks is about as narrow minded as you can get IMO. That's when I say neanderthals.

If you don't like Glocks because of your prefernce that's one thing and I can respect your opinion. If you don't like Glocks simply because they were invented after the Korean war, or they don't fit your image of what a "real man" would shoot.....well....then....can't say I find that very reasonable.

 

[ArmedBear]

Ltlabner, that's a straw man. At least 90% straw.

When damn near every company that makes pistols sells a polymer-frame gun, or many models of them, some quite expensive, how could that objection apply to Glocks, specifically?

This isn't 1988, it's 2008. I don't see people seriously down on Glocks because they have composite frames. I do see people who don't like Glocks, specifically, for one or more reasons, and prefer something else -- often something else with similar construction but different features, ergonomics, balance, etc.

It's also not surprising that people like some other guns better. The newer polymer-frame designs are intended to grab market share back from Glock. Therefore, they're designed specifically to appeal to people who don't like Glock's one-size-fits-all design, so they have different grip angles, different balance, different safeties, etc. The more the merrier, I say.

Furthermore, Beretta made the 92 with different grip sizes and angles, to fit different people and preferences. Glock could do the same. If they don't, they're just leaving an easy opening for competitors. It's no surprise that some have jumped in.

 

[Ltlabner]

Ltlabner, that's a straw man. At least 90% straw.

When damn near every company that makes pistols sells a polymer-frame gun, or many models of them, some quite expensive, how could that objection apply to Glocks, specifically?

Because it doesn't.

The kind of folks who look down on anything plastic look down on all plastic framed guns...but since we are talking Glocks I only said Glock. Not to mention, until reciently Glock held the vast marketshare of "plastic guns".

Strawman...I think not.

My favorite gunshop is focused on black rifles and tactical stuff. I see the dyed in the wool traditionalists come in, walk around the shop once, turn up their nose and walk right out the door on a regular basis.

Not all of those folks walked out because they were part of the "steel & walnut" club certinally, but based on the questions and comments of some of them, a certian percentage were definatley turned off by a store chocked full of plastic guns and black rifles.

I don't see people seriously down on Glocks because they have composite frames.

So therefore it doesn't happen? Riiiiiiigggggghhhhttttt.

Try reading over this very website. There's all sorts of folks who look down on plastic framed weapons. All people have a bias of one degree or another. Hard for some people to swallow, I know. But those of you saying "I don't know anybody like that"....think about what you are saying for just a second. You *really* want to make the argument that there isn't a single person on this earth who isn't biased towards anything not along the tradional lines?

 

[FEG]

Offensive? Serriously? Sorry man, but if a marketing slogan "offends" you, I'd suggest a hefty dose of Prozac because you woln't be able to read your mail, or watch TV without being "offended".

Clearly, you need some help from a dictionary.

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=offensive

If I find X offensive, it does not necessarily follow that X offends me. See the latter definitions, particularly the synonym "unsavory."

Specifically, I would further say that the term "Glock Perfection" offends the intellect of the consumer. FWIW, most of the programming on television and most junk mail advertisements also offend the intellect of anyone who is not developmentally disabled, so I'm not really sure you even have a point. Moral indignation has nothing to do with it...

P.S. Nice ad hominem attack, by the way. I'm still waiting for one of the Glock shills to address my four points in any substantive way.

 

[Ltlabner]

Specifically, I would further say that the term "Glock Perfection" offends the intellect of the consumer. FWIW, most of the programming on television and most junk mail advertisements also offend the intellect of anyone who is not developmentally disabled, so I'm not really sure you even have a point.

Nice. Very high road.

Yea, it's the fans of Glock who are unreasonable and unable to engage in reasoned discource.

Another THR thread led down into the toilet by those who pretend to be so intellectually a cut above.

 

[JohnBT]

"Serriously, there are plenty of folks who look down their noses at any weapon that isn't made with steel and has lots of walnut on it."

I've been around guns and gunowners for more than 50 years and I don't know any snobs. (Yes, I know folks who are proud of what they bought, but who isn't.) I know folks who prefer a heavy fullsized handgun to a light fullsized one, but they aren't snobs, they simply know what works for them.

But then again, maybe there are a lot of new gunowners who are caught up in some sort of status thing and defending their personal choices... like anybody with any sense really gives a rip what anybody chooses to drive or shoot.

Of course, someone here at the office just bought their high school senior a red Mustang convertible with a stick shift. Now that's insane and a ticket magnet.

John

 

[FEG]

Strawman...I think not.

My favorite gunshop is focused on black rifles and tactical stuff. I see the dyed in the wool traditionalists come in, walk around the shop once, turn up their nose and walk right out the door on a regular basis.

1. How do you know that these people were "dyed in the wool traditionalists?" Were they wearing wool shirts dyed with the logo "I Grok Rocks?"

2. What is the "tactical stuff" to which you refer? If I walked into a place with a life-size target of Jane Fonda, I might walk out in disgust, too. (No sympathy for Hanoi Jane, but not really my kind of joint, can you dig it?)

3. I can think of literally 1,000 things that would make me walk around a gunshop once and turn and leave in disgust. Just to name a few:

a) Discourteous staff trying to force-feed a particular make/model down my throat;

b) Retail prices at or near MSRP;

c) Too much B.O. emananting from customers clad in black trenchcoats, etc.

This is the worst type of strawman argument in that suspect observations are transformed into alleged empirical facts.

 

[FEG]

Nice. Very high road.

Nice. Another ad hominem attack.

I'm not claiming any moral high ground pal. We can call each other pot and kettle all day.

Yea, it's the fans of Glock who are unreasonable and unable to engage in reasoned discource.

Way to backpedal after your initial post told me to increase my dosage of Prozac. Keep digging that hole.


P.S. If this is "bannable," then please go ahead and ban me. High Road or not, I'm not going to take being insulted first, out of the blue, lying down.

 

[Hawk]

A contributing factor is post purchase rationalization, the need to continue to justify a purchase after it was made as being the best one possible. That leads to the need to convince others to make the same decision they did and to dismiss information that disagrees with their own belief.

Confirmation Bias / Cognitive Dissonance is a fascinating study. Every now and again, when I'm amply supplied with tinfoil, I wonder if someone isn't using online firearms forums for data sets for a thesis. I know at least one individual who would cheerfully roll a "glock v 1911" grenade into a forum except for university prohibitions against using unknowing human subjects.

From a 1998 paper by Nickerson on the subject:

But can we assess the merits of our own opinions impartially? Is it possible to put a belief that one holds in the balance with an opposing belief that one does not hold and give them a fair weighing? I doubt that it is. But that is not to say that we cannot hope to learn to do better than we typically do in this regard

IMHO its most obvious manifestation in this thread concerns simply taking one's own reasons as "valid" while dismissing other's as "petty". Some people simply won't acknowledge "capacity" or "early to market" as anything other than "petty". Personally, "early to market" doesn't even hit my "petty radar"; it doesn't even count as a reason. To others, these same reasons will have profound importance.

The internet rule that threads aren't read past 5 pages doesn't seem to be holding true in this case and the thread generally seems to be getting close to a lock, so I'd best slide the above in while the sliding is good.

But now you've got me digging up all my old confirmation bias stuff - maybe I'll trundle on over to APS with a theory...

 

[ArmedBear]

Ltlabner, the title of this thread is "Bias Against Glocks...", nothing about other polymer framed guns.

My favorite gunshop is focused on black rifles and tactical stuff. I see the dyed in the wool traditionalists come in, walk around the shop once, turn up their nose and walk right out the door on a regular basis.

If someone wants to buy a Jeep and mistakenly walks into a Porsche dealer, turns around and walks out, that says nothing about him at all. He might have a warehouse full of sports cars.

Why is someone obligated to like black plastic, anyway? Some people aren't interested in it, for one reason or another.

Right now my safe has tacticool rifles sandwiched between O/U and SxS shotguns, lever guns, etc. But, especially when I'm looking for a hunting gun, I've walked out of a tactical-style shop, too, because I wasn't looking for what they were selling, at the time. So what?

I think that there's more bias against 'net Glock fans than against Glocks, and it seems it's not unjustified, either.

 

[Ltlabner]

1. How do you know that these people were "dyed in the wool traditionalists?" Were they wearing wool shirts dyed with the logo "I Grok Rocks?"

Did you read my post at all?

Not all of those folks walked out because they were part of the "steel & walnut" club certinally, but based on the questions and comments of some of them, a certian percentage were definatley turned off by a store chocked full of plastic guns and black rifles

.

They made it pretty clear their stance on products.

If someone wants to buy a Jeep and mistakenly walks into a Porsche dealer, turns around and walks out, that says nothing about him at all. He might have a warehouse full of sports cars.

Sigh....

What part of this is so hard for people to understand? There's a bazillion reasons to not like a product that are completley reasonable and understandable. Not once have I said anything to the contrary. But, believe it or not, there are some folks out there who make it clear they don't like a particular product for what are basically irrational and unfounded reasons. Continue to argue that that isn't a possiblity at all if you wish, but you look pretty silly doing so.

 

[Fishman777]

I don't think that there is a bias against glocks...

I think that everyone that knows guns respects glocks for what they are: very, very good guns. If you are looking for an accurate, reliable, durable gun, I don't think that you'd find too many pistols that are better than a good Glock.

I do, however, think that glock fans can be pretty obnoxious. That is the major issue that you see on different gun forums. I am all for someone liking their handguns, but just don't force your enthusiasm down everyone elses throats.

In spite of the marketing campaign, glocks aren't perfect: there have been a lot of KBs over the years, the grips don't fit everyone, and a lot of new shooters limp wrist these guns. You can blame limp-wristing on the shooter all you want, but when the same person fails to limp wrist a Sig or a Beretta, it seems clear to me that the glock at least contributed to the malfunction. Glocks also seem to have contributed to an lot of negligent discharges over the years, as well.

In spite of these problems, based on history, I'd consider 9mm glocks to be among the best autoloading handgun designs, ever. So no, I don't think that there is an anti-glock bias. I'd argue that there is more of an anti-Beretta bias on gun boards than an anti-glock bias.

 

[TAB]

Its funny you bring up limp wristing...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BsktLC-hzx4


If glock were perfect, you could fire them any way you wanted and they would not jamb... Seems other designs don't have any probs with limp wristing.

 

[ArmedBear]

What part of this is so hard for people to understand?

Ltlabner, you are not communicating clearly. If you actually read your post, it seems you have a problem with guys who walk out of a "tactical" store when they don't want to buy what is for sale, because for some reason, in your world, they should want to. If that's not what you meant, you sure didn't express it well.

Continue to argue that that isn't a possiblity at all if you wish, but you look pretty silly doing so.

Can you cite where I argued that it "isn't a possibility"? I think you're looking pretty silly, claiming I did.

Seems other designs don't have any probs with limp wristing.

Sure they do. I can demonstrate with a gun I have. But it's true that Glocks aren't perfect. Nothing is.

 

[kentucky_smith]

I just want to say hi before this thread gets locked.

Oh, and GLOCK's don't fit me. I can get a shotgun or rifle to fit me with a bit of work, no matter what I do to a GLOCK, it's still angled wrong.

 

[camslam]

Time for a dumb question...

Before this gets locked, can someone please educate me as to how the grip angle of a Glock doesn't fit you?

Granted I am 6'7'', with hands that match and for me the feel of my Glock 21 and Glock 30 is wonderful. But I have shot numerous other handguns; not limited to, but including: Beretta, Springfield, Kahr, S&W, HK, Desert Eagle, Kimber, and a few that I don't remember the names of, and I have NEVER had a problem with the grip of a gun.

The caliber I was shooting as well as the material the grips were made of has made a difference, but I have NEVER had a problem with the angle of the grip of a gun.

Am I just lucky or do I not know enough about guns and shooting to be more picky about the freaking "grip angle" of said guns.

In all seriousness, I am hoping someone will help me see the light here. When I read articles about competitive shooters, every single one of them shoots a different model and make of gun, but somehow, some way, they are still successful at what they do.

Any help would be appreciated.:banghead: