Weapon Of Choice

You have to do something special to convince people that they NEED to buy your inferior product. The striker "safe action" charade is the biggest smoke and mirrors parlor trick ever pulled on the shooting community.

Good Ol' Boy said:

This was a newer documentary on Netflix released recently.

It seems anti gun in certain parts but what I'm more interested in is the parts mentioning Gaston and his dealings.

For those that dont know the movie deals with different aspects of the brand Glock in various facets.

Does anyone know, who has seen the movie, if the alleged facts about Glock are true?

If you have seen the film already does it change your perception on Glock one way or the other?


To be clear, I'm not asking about how guns play a role in inner city gang banging or other already illegal activities, as the film suggests in certain parts.

This is strictly about Gaston and his dealings and how that might affect consumers of his product, which is today firearms.

Click to expand...

I had several and sold them. Moved on w/o regrets. I bet the main reason so many units use them is they're cheap for governments to but them. Wasn't cost to FBI including several magazines plus night sights about $350 per unit?

.455_Hunter said:

You have to do something special to convince people that they NEED to buy your inferior product. The striker "safe action" charade is the biggest smoke and mirrors parlor trick ever pulled on the shooting community.

Click to expand...

Yeah, press too hard on the "safety" and the gun fires. I could hit any safety on any gun I own with a brick, the gun absotively, posolutely won't fire. You can't de-cock a glock without completely unloading it, and then dry firing it.
But millions of folks out there are just eating them up with a spoon...

Dibbs said:

Yeah, press too hard on the "safety" and the gun fires. I could hit any safety on any gun I own with a brick, the gun absotively, posolutely won't fire. You can't de-cock a glock without completely unloading it, and then dry firing it.
But millions of folks out there are just eating them up with a spoon...

Click to expand...

Well, when it comes to police/military applications the simpler the better.

For a product to be successful - and the definition of “successful” takes many forms - you have to have appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Good Ol' Boy said:

This was a newer documentary on Netflix released recently.

Click to expand...

Thanks for posting, I'll watch it.
Unfortunately this thread is going downhill quickly.

From what reviews I’ve read of this “documentary”, they didn’t interview Glock, but interviewed his enemies. Glock apparently doesn’t do interviews on the gun business, only his philanthropic efforts.

I wouldn’t believe anything anyone says about another without rebuttal.

As for the Glock bashers...bless their hearts.

When I was still in the army and told my cousin about how most of the teams who could choose were choosing Glock 19‘s… He said he would choose his Ruger Vaquero in 45 Colt. Delusional.

.455_Hunter said:

You have to do something special to convince people that they NEED to buy your inferior product. The striker "safe action" charade is the biggest smoke and mirrors parlor trick ever pulled on the shooting community.

Click to expand...

I read once on another forum that a bolt action rifle could be operated just as fast as a semi auto. This statement is about on par with that on the believability scale. I'd love to see what sort of evidence you have to back up what you're saying.

Good grief. You'd think we were talking about high points with all the bashing.

Dibbs said:

But millions of folks out there are just eating them up with a spoon...

Click to expand...

That’s probably because, more often than not, and similar to all the other high-quality striker-fired options (S&W, Walther, Sig, etc), they work right out of the box and do so for thousands of rounds, often without any maintenance, and at a modest price point.

The holster is the safety. Don’t want to shoot? Don’t draw the gun and press the trigger. Easy.

My agency switched directly from revolvers to Glocks. Not too expensive, easy to train on, accurate, and they all worked out of the box.

No 500 round break in period necessary. Say what you want about the man, but his guns work. Now long retired, I could have any gun, but still retain my G26.

Never seen it but I've found too many inconsistencies in Netflix "documentaries" to trust what's presented as Gospel.

It's also amazing on how just the mention of Glock brings the haters out in droves

The first "documentary" I ever saw on hunting and gun owners was the Dan Rather trashing of the sport called The Guns Of Autumn. I can't remember seeing a more one sided piece of journalism before or since.
Reporting on guns in general or any one specific area of shooting hasn't gotten more open and honest.

I have no idea what Gaston Glock's faults are, but I admire him because he beat the crap out of a professional wrestler who attacked him with a hammer. He was an old man at the time!

I have owned 4 Glocks. I carry one. They are ugly and unsatisfying, but they work very well. My only complaint about their functionality is that the guide rods tend to disintegrate, rendering the guns useless. Happened to me.

Read the book mentioned above.

Not seen the documentary so I cannot comment on it.

I, for one, do not care what a documentary has to say about the inventor of Glock handguns, just as I do not care what many people here and elsewhere think of my choice in handguns.
If you don’t like them. Don’t buy them.
I do like them and will continue to buy them.
If you want to carry and shoot another firearm then please do so. Just don’t pee all over my choice because it doesn’t meet your standards or what someone else told you that your standards should be.

Read the book years ago. The one thing that I found interesting is how the Government bid process actually works. Glocks, Smocks. It was never about the product. Glocks are as good or bad as most products in the same class. And this was not just not from this book alone. There are many sources out there. One, I remember was "Buying a President" which dealt with GOV. bids. Also found it interesting that a lot of bid winning went to Glocks because of their lack of a safety. To train masses of new shooters, it was just to expensive and time consuming to train them with a safety.
Glock used that to his advantage.
What I take away from Glock, was nothing about the firearm, the quality etc. But how he mastered the Bid. In that respect, he knew how to be successful.Good or Bad, honest, dishonest. If theGOV now have more watch dog groups on bids I could not tell you.
I laugh when folks are so naive to believe that just because a branch of service or Police in any country,city etc carry brand X, means anything more than that agency just found a low bid or bought a bid.

Ole Gaston knew how to play the bid game. And he won. You have to give him points for that. I sure many other companies learned the game along the way, gun products to every product made.

Good Ol' Boy said:

This is strictly about Gaston and his dealings and how that might affect consumers of his product, which is today firearms.

Click to expand...

Not at all. That's like asking how Elon Musk's Tweetering affects the people who drive a Tesla; not at all.

Good Ol' Boy said:

. . . on Netflix. . .

Click to expand...

and there's the problem. This is sort of like depending on Universal Studios for caliber selection.

Saw the pic, napped a few times. I shot my Gen2 Glock 17 yesterday. I hate it: 150 flawless rds/ no malf, chewed the center out of bullseyes, perfect ergonomics, adequate mag capacity, simple clean up. If it had an exposed hammer that I could "thumb" while reholstering I'd carry it everyday. But then it wouldn't be a Glock. Joe

pharmer said:

Saw the pic, napped a few times. I shot my Gen2 Glock 17 yesterday. I hate it: 150 flawless rds/ no malf, chewed the center out of bullseyes, perfect ergonomics, adequate mag capacity, simple clean up. If it had an exposed hammer that I could "thumb" while reholstering I'd carry it everyday. But then it wouldn't be a Glock. Joe

Click to expand...

We are talking about Gaston Glock the man not the gun other than winning a bid. Not what is a persons preference. This is not about Glock the gun, bashing or Praising.
What I also found about Gaston that was interesting was the fact that he was a Plastic guy, not a gun guy and introduced the world of polymer into the gun world.

.455_Hunter said:

You have to do something special to convince people that they NEED to buy your inferior product. The striker "safe action" charade is the biggest smoke and mirrors parlor trick ever pulled on the shooting community.

Click to expand...

Thank you for speaking the truth.

JohnKSa said:

Yup, no one who has access to other higher quality guns and who knows anything about firearms would ever be taken in.

That's why elite organizations like the following would never use them:

• Austria's GEK Cobra and Jagdkommando
• Greek Special Ops Units using them as early as 2004
• Russia's elite counterterror units FSB Alpha and FSB Vympel
• Germany's GSG-9
• France's GIGN CT and GSPR Presidential Protection Unit
• French Army Special Forces. Members of the Division Action (paramilitary arm of France's DGSE Intelligence agency
• FBI Hostage Rescue Team.
• Israel's Yamam CT
• Some British troops in Afghanistan.
• Delta
• SEALs
• USMC MARSOC operators
• Brazillian Special Operations Brigade
• Greek EKAM CT Unit
• Norwegian FSK
• Icelandic Viking Group
• Indian National Security Guards
• MARCOS and Para Commandos
• Pakistani SSG
• Spanish UEI
• Swiss AAD10 & FSK-17.
• Denmark's Sirius Unit who patrols Greenland

Oh wait--all of those organizations have used Glocks--sort of makes a person wonder if maybe it wasn't just a "charade" after all...

Source:
December 2017 SWAT Magazine
Leroy Thompson
Top Choice of Elite Military UnitsDon't like some of the things Bill Ruger Sr. did and advocated. I'm not a fan of some of S&W decisions. Can't say I care much for some of the affiliations of Kahr's founder. I hear that the guy who used to run Robinson Armament was a real jerk and there was some similar scuttlebutt about the guy who invented the Boberg pistols. I think Remington has made some very poor and questionable decisions in the past. Springfield Armory's and Armalite's trafficking on venerable names that have nothing to do with the current companies is hard for me to swallow sometimes.

I feel pretty fortunate to be able to, in many cases, separate the product from the company and/or the company owner. I've owned and enjoyed many firearms that would have been off limits to me otherwise.

Click to expand...

It wouldn’t be a great trick if there weren’t a lot of folks using the guns. The long list of users is the point...how many have been taken in.