Why Glock?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why the Glock pistol? I believe it is due to the proven reliability track record.

Yeah because the M9 was so unreliable, and the P226, and the P320, and every other pistol?

There are more pistols with exemplary reliability track records than ones without. There is nothing exceptional about Glock reliability by comparison. It is certainly not so much more reliable than all other pistols that it warrants 65% of the market share for that reason.

I'm not a Glock-hater. I'm kind of a revolver guy, but among autos, the Glock is fine with me. But this is just myth. Glock leads the market for business reasons and it doesn't have anything to do with the product. The most we can say about the product is that it doesn't have any downfall that ruins the business case. It's not unreliable. It's not too expensive. It's not too hard to use. It's not anything so bad that people have a good reason to deselect it. After that, it's all business and market perception.
 
Also that Glock trigger,.....ugghhh, yuk.
Give me that SIG Str trigger any day, or the HK, LEM trigger.
Those are great triggers.
 
As I have posted earlier....it's their reliability record AND more importantly (for me) (and also perhaps to many others) their simple design makes them easier to work on. Thus making them more desirable than other brands.

I did not mean to imply that Glocks were more reliable than other brands. My M9 has not had one failure in over 3000 rounds. Then I discovered Glocks and switched. Carried Glocks for over 10 years...at least...

Recently bought a CZ.

I like my new CZ better than my Glock 19. But...I trust the 19 more so than my CZ... simply because I understand how the inner part s of the Glock more so than the CZ.

I don't think that it's simple marketing on Glock's part. The simple design makes the brand more appealing to mechanically challenged people like myself.

I'm a Glock fan. But...am open to other brands. Still a newbie when it comes to 1911 and CZ. Still learning... I have a feeling that I may switch over to CZs soon.
 
Last edited:
It's not simpler than competitive designs. It may be simpler than a DA/SA hammer-fired auto like a CZ-75, but it's not simpler than a CZ P10, or a Sig P320 or a half-dozen other pistols that compete in the same market space. Simplicity may be important to price and profitability. It may have an effect on reliability, though we've already conceded that it's not distinguished in that area. Simplicity may give you peace of mind, but most people don't need to or care whether they understand how it works. Most people have no clue how their phone works and their phone is so vastly more sophisticated and complex than any handgun. I don't see how simplicity would sell more phones, or guns. Indeed, the HK VP was just exactly as simple, it was polymer, and it had an 18-round capacity. It pre-dated the Glock by 12 years, but it didn't sell a lot. So it does not appear that either reliability or simplicity distinguish the Glock. I maintain that the product has no distinguishing qualities whatsoever. But again, I'm not a hater. I do kind of like them, I'm just not infatuated with them.
 
It's not simpler than competitive designs. It may be simpler than a DA/SA hammer-fired auto like a CZ-75, but it's not simpler than a CZ P10, or a Sig P320 or a half-dozen other pistols that compete in the same market space. Simplicity may be important to price and profitability. It may have an effect on reliability, though we've already conceded that it's not distinguished in that area. Simplicity may give you peace of mind, but most people don't need to or care whether they understand how it works. Most people have no clue how their phone works and their phone is so vastly more sophisticated and complex than any handgun. I don't see how simplicity would sell more phones, or guns. Indeed, the HK VP was just exactly as simple, it was polymer, and it had an 18-round capacity. It pre-dated the Glock by 12 years, but it didn't sell a lot. So it does not appear that either reliability or simplicity distinguish the Glock. I maintain that the product has no distinguishing qualities whatsoever. But again, I'm not a hater. I do kind of like them, I'm just not infatuated with them.
Glock are carried by more police officers then any other handgun. Most police departments that have switched to Glocks have stayed with Glocks. The men and women in uniform trust their lives with the guns they carry. This say a lot for Glock.
There are a lot of people that buy Glocks because, they want a gun that has been proven to be reliable. What better choice for the gun buyers that are not gun people then the gun the most popular gun in law enforcement.

I never owned a Glock until I carried one for a few years. My first Glock was my G22 Gen3 that I carried on duty. I bought it from my department when we switched to the Gen4 Glocks. I own a few more now, and not because I’m a fanboy. It’s because I know they are reliable and hold up better then other popular guns. I have trusted my life with a Glock pistol for almost 17 years.
Most of the people that don’t like Glocks don’t know much about them and couldn’t tell what Gen a Glock is and what is different about them.
But Glocks are not for everyone, just the same as other guns are not for everyone. Myself, I don’t care for the Springfield XD, but other people love them. I have no problem with that.
There’s nothing wrong with finding the gun that fills your needs and likes. What I do find wrong are the people that feel the need to openly disliked a gun to make them feel better about what they like.
 
Glock are carried by more police officers then any other handgun. Most police departments that have switched to Glocks have stayed with Glocks. The men and women in uniform trust their lives with the guns they carry. This say a lot for Glock.

I agree with everything you wrote above but there is some question as to exactly what is says for Glock. I assert that the product is not distinguished from several competitive alternatives, and the only rational reasons for selecting, and trusting Glock by the overwhelming preference that we observe has nothing to do with product differences.


There are a lot of people that buy Glocks because, they want a gun that has been proven to be reliable.

There aren't many people who want an unreliable gun. There is also nothing distinguished about Glock's reliability by comparison to several of the best alternatives. For example, I have not seen data that suggests Glock is more reliable than a P320. Is it even more reliable than the M9 that predates it? There's no question that it is pretty darn reliable, but much more so than the best competitors?


What better choice for the gun buyers that are not gun people then the gun the most popular gun in law enforcement.

I think this is terrible reasoning. They don't have the same purpose, why would this inform a good choice? I'm not arguing that Glock is or isn't a good choice, just that this isn't why. Will the non-gun person think they're going to be like a cop too? That sounds awful. The Belgian Malinois is the most popular dog with law enforcement. What better choice for non-dog people than the most popular dog in law enforcement? Should they select their car that way too? Law enforcement are not even very good authorities on guns, dogs, or vehicles. Most of them just follow a bigger agency that has more resources and make the same choices because they really don't have any expertise in guns, dogs or vehicles that also has decision-making power. So the decision makers just follow someone else, and it usually goes up to a bigger agency or an outside consultant.

... Myself, I don’t care for the Springfield XD, but other people love them. I have no problem with that.
There’s nothing wrong with finding the gun that fills your needs and likes. What I do find wrong are the people that feel the need to openly disliked a gun to make them feel better about what they like.
[/QUOTE]

I don't care for the Springfield either. I admired HK and was prepared to like the trigger of the VP9 because of what's been written about it. I thought it was the worst mush. I like Glock triggers better. I like them best of the striker-fired triggers. Other types are not really an apples to apples comparison. So I find nothing wrong with Glock. It's a great gun and I don't dislike anything about it. It's hard to get really excited about it, but it works well. I still don't see anything about it that justifies it as the overwhelmingly most popular choice. So I have to believe it is due to factors outside the product entirely.
 
I agree with everything you wrote above but there is some question as to exactly what is says for Glock. I assert that the product is not distinguished from several competitive alternatives, and the only rational reasons for selecting, and trusting Glock by the overwhelming preference that we observe has nothing to do with product differences.

I think Gunny forgets about the legendary Cheetah Club parties with whores and strippers, models etc. that first got Glock into those Holsters. Does it still happen today? Gunny would have to tell us if his Departments decision maker makes routine trips to ATL and comes back with a huge smile.:D

Glock is my poly weapon of choice in a full size gun.. Its not because of what agency, department or SF unit carries them.
It's because they work for me, I have owned most of the competition. (Sig, M&P, HK, etc) so it was a concerted choice.
 
There aren't many people who want an unreliable gun. There is also nothing distinguished about Glock's reliability by comparison to several of the best alternatives. For example, I have not seen data that suggests Glock is more reliable than a P320. Is it even more reliable than the M9 that predates it? There's no question that it is pretty darn reliable, but much more so than the best competitors?
Let’s see. Glock has never had a problem with their guns going off when dropped or their triggers breaking. I guess you missed all of that about the Sig P320. Not saying the Sig is a bad gun, I own a P320 M17. But they did have issues.
The Beretta 92 has been around since the mid 50’s. A lot of shooters find the grip to big. When it came to the military HMS pistol test the Government didn’t even allow the latest update in the testing.
I do know a little about the Beretta M9. I carried one for a few years in the Corps. I never really cared for it.

I think this is terrible reasoning. They don't have the same purpose, why would this inform a good choice? I'm not arguing that Glock is or isn't a good choice, just that this isn't why. Will the non-gun person think they're going to be like a cop too? That sounds awful. The Belgian Malinois is the most popular dog with law enforcement. What better choice for non-dog people than the most popular dog in law enforcement? Should they select their car that way too? Law enforcement are not even very good authorities on guns, dogs, or vehicles. Most of them just follow a bigger agency that has more resources and make the same choices because they really don't have any expertise in guns, dogs or vehicles that also has decision-making power. So the decision makers just follow someone else, and it usually goes up to a bigger agency or an outside consultant.
I think you missed the point.
Back in the day when police officers carried revolvers, S&W and Colt were the two top revolvers carried by officers. This was great for the sales for both companies. People were not buying S&W and Colt revolvers to be like the police. They were buying them because of the reputation they got for being dependable.
Back when police department started going to autos S&W was one of the front runners. I carried a S&W 4046 for two years before my department switched to Glocks.
Many departments started off with one of the popular brands of autos, but as the Glocks were proven to be reliable and easier to train officers on, many departments switched to Glocks.
The Louisiana State Police stayed away from Glocks for a while. Not because they thought they were bad, but because the main person that decided what gun they carried was a Glock hater. Once he retired they went to Glocks.
So people are not buying Glocks to be like the police. They just want a gun made by a company that makes good quality firearms that are carried by people that use them ever day.

I don't care for the Springfield either. I admired HK and was prepared to like the trigger of the VP9 because of what's been written about it. I thought it was the worst mush. I like Glock triggers better. I like them best of the striker-fired triggers. Other types are not really an apples to apples comparison. So I find nothing wrong with Glock. It's a great gun and I don't dislike anything about it. It's hard to get really excited about it, but it works well. I still don't see anything about it that justifies it as the overwhelmingly most popular choice. So I have to believe it is due to factors outside the product entirely.
It has been said that the Glock 19 is the most popular handgun in the world. I’m not sure if that is true but it is the most popular handgun in the US. Is it due to advertising? Or pricing and promotions? These things may have something to do with it, but if the product did not stand the test of time, it would not keep selling.
Look at how many different polymer frame guns have been put on the market to compete with Glocks. And look how many have fallen short.
Now I’m a big fan of the S&W M&P pistols. I don’t understand how they don’t sell as good as Glocks.
I own an M&P45 and a M&P9, l like the more then my Glocks and plan to buy a M&P9 2.0 soon.

How long will Glock remain at the top of the food chain? I don’t know, but it will be as soon as someone comes out with something better and in the same price range.
 
Yeah because the M9 was so unreliable, and the P226, and the P320, and every other pistol?
I have or have had Glocks, SIG's (220's, 225's, 226's, 228's, 229's etc), Beretta's (92, 92FS, and M9), 1911's, and a bunch of others. I cant say that any are or were any more reliable than another.

The one thing that does stand out, is shooting them. The Glock is definitely easier to shoot, and shoot more quickly with. For me anyway. Its just faster on, and back on target, and easier to keep on target in rapid fire.

I dont have a SIG 320, but just looked at, and almost bought one yesterday. Just didnt see the point. Its basically a Glock wanna be, and it would be just more different, and more expensive mags Id need to buy, and they only work in it.

Im also not yet convinced that they got all the bugs worked out. I like SIG's, but they got a bit crazy there for awhile, and have always been real proud of thier stuff when it comes to charging you for them. Which is the main reason I got out of them. I get more for my money wth the Glocks, and have come to find I shoot better with them too.

Also that Glock trigger,.....ugghhh, yuk.
Give me that SIG Str trigger any day, or the HK, LEM trigger.
Those are great triggers.
Ive shot pretty much all of them and dont really see any difference. Then again, I just shoot the gun and dont worry on the triggers. The important bits are up on top. ;)
 
I have or have had Glocks, SIG's (220's, 225's, 226's, 228's, 229's etc), Beretta's (92, 92FS, and M9), 1911's, and a bunch of others. I cant say that any are or were any more reliable than another.

Mostly similar results but I will say that the only guns I have that have NEVER had a single malfunction are my current Sig P226 and a P229 I used to own.

All the rest (Glocks, Sigs, 1911, Browning, Ruger, S&W, XD and more I'm sure I've forgotten) have choked at least once, usually on my handloads. My Glocks in particular didn't love a batch of flat point 147 grain RMR FMJ that I had. The 226 ate most of the 2000 I bought like a champ.
 
.... Look at how many different polymer frame guns have been put on the market to compete with Glocks. And look how many have fallen short.
Now I’m a big fan of the S&W M&P pistols. I don’t understand how they don’t sell as good as Glocks.
I own an M&P45 and a M&P9, l like the more then my Glocks and plan to buy a M&P9 2.0 soon.

I don't think so many have fallen short of the Glock as they have fallen short of being so much better than the Glock as to overcome inertia. The M&P is a good example. I really don't think there's anything inferior about it to Glock. Maybe in individual personal preferences, but nobody can point to some specific thing and say it clearly falls short. But it's clearly not so far ahead of Glock that it would compel a lot of people to switch. So these "me too" products like the M&P 2.0, the P10, the XD, the APX, the 509 languish in terms of market share because while they're very good products, they not compelling enough to shift market share figures. All they can do is maintain status-quo and status quo is 65% Glock.

From a business perspective, this won't change until Glock falters, a disruptive product comes along, or one of the competitors gets really aggressive in an unprecedented way. That latter scenario seems unlikely because it would be capital intensive and there's too much regulatory risk in semi-automatic handguns for that kind of aggressive long-term investment to be palatable. Glock could falter. Its owners and directors are not known for their rationality or sanity. It's been plagued by scandals and some key figures continue to be. The safest course for a customer wishing to continue to see "Glock" on their future purchases would be if they went public and took on a responsibly-acting board of directors. But I think most people expect Glock to continue to lead market share until some disruptive technology is introduced.

Sig did really well to win the MH trials and those federal contracts. They had to be pretty aggressive to do that in a field of me-too products, but I don't think they're positioned to take on Glock in the Law Enforcement market. The one who could is Axon.
 
Mostly similar results but I will say that the only guns I have that have NEVER had a single malfunction are my current Sig P226 and a P229 I used to own.

All the rest (Glocks, Sigs, 1911, Browning, Ruger, S&W, XD and more I'm sure I've forgotten) have choked at least once, usually on my handloads. My Glocks in particular didn't love a batch of flat point 147 grain RMR FMJ that I had. The 226 ate most of the 2000 I bought like a champ.
With factory ammo, with the exception of the 1911's, I cant really ever remember having a problem with reliability with any of them.

With my reloads, I get malfunctions and stoppages on a somewhat regular basis, depending on where I am in the reload queue, and how worn that lot of brass is. I load my brass to failure, and the more its shot and loaded, the more the rims get tore up and start to give some random issues with extraction/ejection. Seem to get a bit of everything too.

It might seem like a bad thing at first blush, but its actually been a great help in working on malfunction drills, as they occur randomly and unexpectedly, and theres no need to set them up. Its a lot more realistic.

Im to the point now, I dont even think about doing it, I just automatically clear the gun and quickly have it back up and running.

I think if youre buying good guns of known quality and reliabilty, that part of things is probably going to be a non issue. Some of the other aspects, I guess depends on the shooter.

Mostly, I think the complaints tend to be more from lack of experience than anything else. If you put in some quality time with most of them, I think youll find they all do OK. Beyond that, its more just personal prefence and what you do, or think you do best with.

Complaints with grip angles, triggers, things like that, tend to go away once you learn the gun, and that doesnt usually take to much effort, but you do have to put it in to know.

Putting that time and effort in across the different types, will make you a better and more versitile shooter too, I think anyway.

Personally, I wouldnt be upset if I had to pick up someone elses SIG, Beretta, or HK, auto, revolver, ect, whatever, and put it to work. Ive shot most of the different types enough to know what to expect, and they really arent all that different across the board. As long as they go bang when I want and hit where Im looking, works for me.

We all have our favorites too, and right now, in the moment, Glocks are the sweet spot for me. If I come across something that I feel is better, Ill be all over it.

Right now though, whatever that is, is really going to have to impress me, and do something that the Glocks wont. The last time I made that switch, I was using SIG's. :)
 
Let’s see. Glock has never had a problem with their guns going off when dropped or their triggers breaking. I guess you missed all of that about the Sig P320.

Selective memory? The new FBI contract guns were recalled due to slides flying off.
 
What Axon needs is a compelling way to integrate the firearm into their hardware-SaaS ecosystem for evidentiary data. Holster switches that activate the body cam won't do it, but accelerometers and gyroscope sensors on the gun would be part of an electronic evidence recording feature that could be integrated into the gun. It's not yet practical to stream data like video at high bandwidth from a gun camera, but we're already seeing RuBee "chips" from Visible Assets on guns like those from Lewis Machine & Tool that help track assets and record things like round-count. That kind of asset-tracking and asset condition monitoring is useful for law enforcement, but not compelling enough to switch vendors much less choose sole-source procurement. So it's got to be a modest amount of data but it's also got to go beyond assets to evidence. Accelerometer data and biometrics might be the best sensors to integrate that could trigger and feed via IEEE 1902.1 the body-worn data logger most officers are already wearing, and it would also produce the kind of electronic evidence that could tie the gun itself into Axon's ecosystem. So rather than being dependent on a vendor-neutral holster switch, integrated accelerometers could not only activate the body cam independent of the holster, but also keep a record of gun position and orientation and whenever it is fired. The safe bet for biometrics is accounting. We know we can do AAA (authentication, authorization, accounting) but accounting gets the foot in the electronic evidence door without anyone worrying about guns being disabled at the wrong time -- although stopping officers from being shot with their own gun is attractive once it's proven trustworthy. To make the case for integrating their guns even more compelling, Axon could afford to get very aggressive on price in the law enforcement market. None of this would be appealing to consumers, but it could end Glock dominance in the law enforcement market.
 
What Axon needs is a compelling way to integrate the firearm into their hardware-SaaS ecosystem for evidentiary data. Holster switches that activate the body cam won't do it, but accelerometers and gyroscope sensors on the gun would be part of an electronic evidence recording feature that could be integrated into the gun. It's not yet practical to stream data like video at high bandwidth from a gun camera, but we're already seeing RuBee "chips" from Visible Assets on guns like those from Lewis Machine & Tool that help track assets and record things like round-count. That kind of asset-tracking and asset condition monitoring is useful for law enforcement, but not compelling enough to switch vendors much less choose sole-source procurement. So it's got to be a modest amount of data but it's also got to go beyond assets to evidence. Accelerometer data and biometrics might be the best sensors to integrate that could trigger and feed via IEEE 1902.1 the body-worn data logger most officers are already wearing, and it would also produce the kind of electronic evidence that could tie the gun itself into Axon's ecosystem. So rather than being dependent on a vendor-neutral holster switch, integrated accelerometers could not only activate the body cam independent of the holster, but also keep a record of gun position and orientation and whenever it is fired. The safe bet for biometrics is accounting. We know we can do AAA (authentication, authorization, accounting) but accounting gets the foot in the electronic evidence door without anyone worrying about guns being disabled at the wrong time -- although stopping officers from being shot with their own gun is attractive once it's proven trustworthy. To make the case for integrating their guns even more compelling, Axon could afford to get very aggressive on price in the law enforcement market. None of this would be appealing to consumers, but it could end Glock dominance in the law enforcement market.
Now if the topic was How can someone end Glocks dominance in the Law Enforcement market, this post would fit great. But it pretty much out of place in a topic that’s about why Glocks are so popular. o_O
 
Selective memory? The new FBI contract guns were recalled due to slides flying off.
It was not the FBI that had issues with the slides coming off. In fact the FBIs new pistol the G19M out preformed the Sig P320 in reliability.

I just read an article by Bob Pilgrim on the G9M that stated.
“Some early teething problems have been reported by a mid-western police department, and their G17Ms had to be recalled. It was reported that during dry firing, some of the pistols’ slides separated from the receiver. It is not uncommon for new pistols to exhibit “birthing” problems in the hands of end users after they live with the firearm for a while. Glock, like other major manufacturers, usually corrects the problem quickly. “

If you would like to read the article it can be found here.
https://www.swatmag.com/article/fbi-issues-new-pistol-glock-19m/
 
Two years ago my duty pistol was a G17.Curently I carry a PAMAS G1 (french licensed made Beretta 92F), but in one month I will find with pleasure my loved G17.
in terms of overall performance the glock is far superior.
:))and it's not because I privately own a G21)
 
Now if the topic was How can someone end Glocks dominance in the Law Enforcement market, this post would fit great. But it pretty much out of place in a topic that’s about why Glocks are so popular. o_O

My answer is "Glock is popular because Axon hasn't done that." Another way of looking at it is Glock is popular because of the mistakes the traditional competitors made which not only cost them dominant market share, but propelled Glock to its current position. Many people have looked back and seen S&W's mistakes and the failures of others to take the opportunities Glock took. There's whole books on the subject. But I'm saying Glock is vulnerable. They have an irrational director plagued by scandals, and they have no capability to provide a whole ecosystem for electronic evidence. Glock missed it. Ten years ago, Taser was in no better position to do this than Glock was, but Taser did it and Glock failed. Glock is a sitting duck as far as the law enforcement market is concerned, and when they're displaced from that market by technology that isn't appealing to civilians, their market share will similarly shrink in that segment because as you pointed out, there is a portion of civilians who look to law enforcement as consumer guides because there's a perception that unlike dogs or cars, cops have more experience with firearms than other consumers. I think that perception is mistaken, but enough people have justified their handgun choice with it that I don't doubt it exists.
 
I stand corrected..
If we all knew everything, what the hell would we have to talk about.:) I don’t know everything and have never claimed to. I hope that I am able to learn something every day.
After I saw your post, I remembered something about some slide trouble, but I had to do a little search to find it.

There are a lot of nice guns on the market, and I own a few of them, but that’s because I like guns and have money to buy them. But when it comes to Glocks, they are one of the tools that keep me safe in my job.
They are not pretty or elegant. But for what they do, they don’t have to be.
 
After I saw your post, I remembered something about some slide trouble, but I had to do a little search to find it.

See I was going by my swiss cheese memory too. Just recalled the M guns having a recall. Since the M guns were specifically built for the FBI. My 1+1 math didn't work out.. :)
 
See I was going by my swiss cheese memory too. Just recalled the M guns having a recall. Since the M guns were specifically built for the FBI. My 1+1 math didn't work out.. :)
Not many people know much about the M guns. They are not sold to the public. Maybe one day they will cone up on the surplus market. It they do and I'm still able to afford to buy guns, I'll get me one.
 
Why Glocks?

After reading the above posts... Maybe it the the correct answer is "all of the above":

reliability, simple to work on, great after market support, clever marketing, popular with law enforcement, used in some military forces, the lucky timing when hasit was introduced, the cool factor...seen in many movies,. Rust resistant, low bore axis, lightweight, durable even in adverse conditions, the polymer more forgiving of scratches than a nice blued all metal gun.

While Glocks may not be the best in one category, it scores high enough in all of the above. That unique combination of traits may be that elusive Glock magic that makes it so popular.

I just wish my Glock 19 Iooked like my CZ 75 compact on the outside..
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top